E-journal of All India Association for Educational Research (EJAIAER)
VOL.20 Nos: 3
& 4 September
& December, 2008
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND ENSURING QUALITY STANDARDS
Rekha B Koul
INTRODUCTION
Educational
research plays an important role in exploring problems associated with
education and as a consequence it improves Teaching and Learning. According to
Gay and Airasian (2000), educational research is conducted to provide
trustworthy information regarding educational problems and their solutions.
There are many approaches to educational research shaped by different research
paradigms. The various research paradigms have different criteria for ontology
and epistemology to maintain quality standards. The ontology and epistemology
of a research paradigm influence researchers applying the quality standards,
methodology and methods.
Guba
and
The
Nature and Characteristics of Educational Research
The
nature of educational research is analogous with the nature of research itself,
which is expected to be systematic, reliable and valid to investigate knowledge
and solve problems (Wiersma 1991). However, different from scientific research,
educational research is more complex because it not only involves human
behaviour and social interaction, but it can also use various approaches and
strategies to solve problems in educational settings. Educational research
initiates from practical problems in education and returns to solve those
problems. It can also incorporate various disciplines such as anthropology,
sociology, behaviour, and history (Anderson & Arsenault 1998). Educational
research is important because it contributes to knowledge development,
practical improvement, policy information, and students’ research skills
development (Creswell 2005). Therefore, educators are able to use those
research findings to improve their competences in the teaching and learning
process.
The
characteristics of educational research are part of its nature. According to
Research
Paradigms
There
are four main research paradigms in educational research: post-positivism; interpretivism; criticalism;
postmodernism. Each of these research paradigms has its own epistemological and
ontological characteristics to maintain quality standards. According to Bryman
(2001), epistemology refers to the ways knowledge is acquired. In other words,
epistemology concerns what we can know and how we can know the reality of the
research subject (Willis 2007). Ontological assumptions refer to the nature of
the world and the human being in social contexts (Bryman 2001; Willis 2007)
These involve the inclusion of assumptions of seeing the world as the outside
of individual.
Post/positivism Paradigm
The
post/positivist paradigm contains two main themes; controlling the research
condition such as human behaviour and investigating those trough scientific
methods (Douglas 1973 as cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2000). Because
it is controlled, the post/positivist paradigm tends to generalise findings
with one truth. As it is very structured and clear, it is easy to be objective
in this paradigm. However, an inherent weakness of the paradigm is that it
cannot investigate all phenomena in education particularly regarding
motivation, values and “intentions and feelings” (Anderson & Arsenault
1998, p.5). The post/positivist paradigm seeks to find the truth within
controlled conditions that are scientifically observable. Even so, it is
problematic to find the “one truth” in some specific social context such as
education. For example, students’ achievement is not strictly limited in
influence by one specific factor. It is difficult to isolate people and control
the results in natural phenomena. Epistemological research in the
post/positivist paradigm is how the social world can be investigated as natural
science. Hypotheses have to be tested by empirical approaches. In
post/positivism, the objective results through scientific method ontology which
emphasises that social phenomena are independent from other factors. In
addition, data analysis uses logical reasoning (a thinking process) and
provides explanations with certain generalisations. These generalisations have
however, become a challenge in educational research. Due to the sheer
complexity of educational phenomena, any generalissation is often difficult to
construct.
Interpretivism Paradigm
Interpretivist
paradigms study individuals with their many characteristics, different human
behaviours, opinions, and attitudes (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2001). The
interpretive paradigm helps the researcher acquire knowledge by investigating
the phenomena of the world and human in many ways. Therefore, its advantage is
in finding a meaningful observation of objects. It gives opportunities to seek
understanding and make sense of others’ perspectives which are shaped by the
philosophy of social constructions (Taylor 2008). Through this paradigm, we can
gain a fuller understanding of meanings, reasons, and insight human action
(Bryman 2001). It must be noted however that this subjectivity leads to results
that are relatively complex to analyse and interpret objectively. Nevertheless,
it is generally acknowledged that it is more difficult to be objective in human
research than in scientific settings. Therefore, subjectivity is an integral
aspect of such research. Through the interpretive paradigm, a researcher can
observe a situation with different approaches to solving problems. A multiple
number of possible solutions and interpretations also emanate. Consequently,
the function of epistemology in an interpretive paradigm is to acquire
knowledge by investigating the phenomena in many ways, as the social context is
different from natural science. The interpretive paradigm emphasises that the
world in social phenomena has different meanings. A single factor influences
the change in social context. As a result, different researches can reach
different conclusions for the same observation.
Criticalism/Critical Theory Paradigm
Critical
theory paradigm is “explicitly prescriptive and post/positivist, entailing a
view of what behaviour in a social democracy should entail” (Fay 2000 as cited
in Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2001, p. 28). The critical paradigm promotes
the notion of social justice in order to create the world which is “fairer,
more equitable, more inclusive and more harmonious” (Taylor, 2008). In
addition, according to Kincheloe and McLaren (2002), critical theory is
concerned with the power and justice of several issues in society such as
economy, race, gender and education. It considers the power of social politics
and ideology which influence educational research. This paradigm relates to
“political agenda and that the task of the researchers is not to be
dispassionate, disinterested, and objective” (Morisson 1995 as cited in Cohen,
Manion & Morrison 2001, p. 28) which involves self-criticisms and
consciousness of “oneself as a product of power-driven sociohistorical process”
(Kincheloe & McLauren 2002,
p.100). Therefore, it considers the
power of social politics and ideology, which influence educational research.In
critical theory, finding the issues is important and subjective. Its main
objective is to improve existing situations which can be achieved through
action research. The action can be continually changed to improve the quality
of existing educational practices. This action shall then change and solve the
problems. Therefore, the solutions are constructed by the reality. The
predominant weakness of this paradigm is the difficulty surfaced when trying to
conclude many interpretations. It also requires observational skills regarding
the changes impacting subsequent actions.
In
critical theory, practical issues can construct knowledge. The theory tends to
change certain conditions through criticising practical, political and social
issues. Therefore, the results are often subjective. The critical theory
paradigm tends to see the world as something that has to change. It criticises
social phenomena and changes them based on the interrogations of the phenomena
involving both social and individual interactions.
Postmodernism Paradigm
The
paradigm of postmodernism focuses on seeking subject understanding through
textual “reconstruction, without trapping on the certainty of objectivity”
(Polkinghorne, 1992). Moreover, according to Taylor (2008), “postmodernism
elicits both fear and favour via its basic principle: be suspicious of all
grand narratives (including that of postmodernism, respond its critics, not
without irony)”. Research under the postmodern paradigm focuses on the
importance of self reflections, envisioning, and lived experiences through
impressionistic writing which stimulates researchers to express their
emotionality in an engaging manner. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2000), the
postmodern paradigm allows individuals to include their personal
responsibility, emotionality, ethics of care, multivoiced texts, and dialogues
to know something without claiming to know everything. Therefore, the
postmodern paradigm will be powerful in facilitating research that is
reflective, voicing and multi-perspective thinking.
Quality Standards
Quality
standards represent the nature of each paradigm with respect to judging the
quality of research. It is different on holding the existence of the truth and
the role of researchers. For example, in post/positivism, it represents the
world with observed truth and objectivity through systematical procedures. On
the other hand, interpretivism describes the meaning of the world with different
facets of truth which involves the subjectivity of the researchers. However, within its nature, each paradigm is
unique, having its limitations and advantages.
Post/positivism
Since
the focus of the post/positivist paradigm is to discover the ‘truth’ through
empirical investigation, the quality standards under this paradigm are validity
and reliability. Anderson and Arsenault (1998, p.257) write that “validity
refers to the extent to which what we measure reflects what we expected to
measure [which] has two forms: internal and external. Therefore, “an experiment
is valid if results obtained are due only to the manipulated independent
variable and if they are generalizable to individuals or contexts beyond the
experimental setting” (Gay & Airasian 2000, p. 371). Related to the research, internal validity
refers to what extent the findings meet expected results. Meanwhile, external
validity refers to the ability of findings to be generalised to other situations
and contexts. In order to fulfill these standards, objectivity is important to
minimise researcher bias. The analysis of validity is conducted through
statistical analysis. “Reliability refers to the extent that an
instrument will yield the same results each time it is administered”(Anderson
and Arsenault 1998, p.256). Under this paradigm, reliability is an important
indicator for the consistency of research findings which can then be
replicated. Through statistical analysis, reliability can be estimated by
internal consistency based on the correlation among the variables by using
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (Brown, 2007; Newby & Fisher,
1997). The size of the data source is directly linked to quality standards. The
larger the source of the data, the greater the reliability of the results
(Babbie 1990). According to Guba and
Lincoln (1989, p.235), “objectivity responds to the positivist demand
for neutrality and requires a demonstration that a given inquiry is free of
bias, values, and/or prejudice”. Therefore, each step of research, especially
methods which are applied in this research paradigm, should minimise researcher
bias. During the research process, data is triangulated to reach one conclusion
from different methods and data sources. The triangulation is “an attempt to secure
in depth understanding of the phenomenon in question..[ensuring that]…the
objectivity can never be captured” (Denzin & Lincoln 2000, p.5). Therefore,
every step of the research process should achieve this objectivity.
Interpretivism
The
interpretivist paradigm seeks the understanding and meaning of people and
situations which involve the subjectivity of the researchers. Therefore, the
quality standards in this research paradigm are trustworthiness and
authenticity.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness
is the foundational criteria because it is a deliberated parallel to the
positivist criteria that are internal validity, external validity, reliability,
and objectivity (Guba & Lincoln 1989). The trustworthiness criteria
comprise four quality standards: the credibility (via member checking),
transferability (via thick description), dependability (via outside reviewer),
and conformability (conformability data audit).
Credibility
Credibility
is parallel to internal validity. In credibility, the idea of similarities
between constructed realities of respondents and the reconstructions attributed
to them are measured (Guba & Lincoln 1989, p. 237). In interpretive
research, different methods are applied to assess the credibility of the
findings. According to Merriam (1989) (as cited in Howitt 2007), multiple
methods and perspectives, and member checking are applied for improving
credibility.
Transferability
Guba
and Lincoln (1989) describe transferability as a term that refers to the
generalisation of research findings which can be applicable in different
contexts. In this quality standard, the readers may attempt to find similarity
between the researcher’s personal experiences and their own. This is
illustrated in a parallel drawn by Ellis and Bochner (2000, p.744):
“generalization is constantly tested by readers as they determine if it speaks
to them about their experiences or about the lives of other they know”. It is
synonymous to external validity and demonstrates a tendency to employ the
findings for general purposes (Bryman 2008). Researchers can provide rich data
and thick descriptions to achieve the transferability standard.
Dependability
The
standard which parallels reliability in a post/positivism paradigm is
dependability which concerns the stability of data over time (Guba &
Lincoln 1989). In interpretive research, data should be trackable and results
should be consistent. Therefore, a detailed audit trail should be given (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989; Howitt 2007).
Conformability
Conformability
is the standard which parallel to objectivity criteria in post/positivist
paradigm. The process of assuring data, interpretation and outcomes are rooted
from the contexts and persons (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). According to Howitt
(2007), conformability can be established by giving the readers clear track of
data and interpretations. The subjectivity of researcher is evaluated in the
interpretive research.
Authenticity
Authenticity
criterion is about relationships between others and researcher. Educative
authenticity helps researchers to understand their role as educators as well as
others who influence their professional practices. This criterion exposes the
conversation between researchers and participants, and the situations and
emotional compassion that arise during the study (Ellis & Bochner 2000).
Various viewpoints for measuring authenticity criteria as mention by Bryman
(2008) are: ontological authenticity which helps members to understand their
social milieu. Educative authenticity helps members to appreciate others’
perspectives. Catalytic authenticity applies to provoke members to engage in
action for circumstances change. Lastly, it is tactical authenticity which
empowers members to take necessary steps for engaging in action. Natural
personal and social setting will help to establish the authenticity.
Criticalism
Criticalism
provides the opportunity to think critically and change the situations,
especially issues in society; such as political, social, economic, education,
etc. In the context of educational research, this paradigm puts emphasis on
criticizing the problems and makes the changes. Therefore, the quality standard
in this paradigm focuses on critical reflectivity, empowerment, and
envisioning.
Praxis
According
to Taylor and Wallace (1996, p.1) “Praxis concerns the way in which the
researcher attempts to stimulate the reader to take deliberate action towards
changing practice.” The reflection on researchers’ practices, not as merely a
self-evaluation, can be a learning process for the readers. According to Bain,
Ballantyne, Mills, and Lester (2002, p.10), “reflection is an intrinsically
good and desirable aspect of professional development.” This paradigm employs
writing as the process of inquiry for exploring individuals’ own voices
(Richardson, 2000). Therefore, it also can help researchers to understand and
affect themselves emotionally and intellectually within their pedagogical
practices.
Pedagogical
Thoughtfulness
Pedagogical
Thoughtfulness is a quality of research writing that engages the reader (and
also the writer) in thinking about educational issues, especially teaching and
learning (Ellis & Bochner 2000; Howitt 2008). Through writing readers may
be able to reflect on their own teaching practice and share with researchers
working ins the same context. Researchers may also reflect on their own
pedagogical practices.
Critical
Reflexivity
Researchers’
subjectivity could lead to overestimating their judgment on the phenomenon
through the process of inquiry. The critical reflexivity helps the readers’ to
judge researchers’ subjectivity, awareness and self exposure (Richardson 2000).
According to Johnson (as cited in Afonso 2007),“reflexivity involves self
awareness and ‘critical self reflection’ by the researcher on his or her
potential biase and predispositions as these may affect the research process
and conclusions” (p. 47). As a result,
this criterion is powerful for envisioning the future and for empowering notion
of educational process, not only to criticise, but also to act for the better future
world.
Re-envisioning
Re-envisioning
is important paradigm, as the nature of the criticalism is creating the
changes. Imaginative thinking and envisioning can help to solve problems in
life and think critically. According to Robertson & Gerber (2001), it is
important for constructing the positive image of the future which could affect
the future of society. Therefore, the envisioning is one of quality standards
in the criticalist paradigm
Postmodernism
Postmodernism
employs the art based research to empower and engage the readers. Through its
impressionistic writing, it is “intuitive and subjective” which involve
personal voice and emotions (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p.354). It includes
a process of self-monitoring, and disciplined subjectivity, that exposes all
phases of the research activity to continual questioning and re-evaluation
(Burns, 1996). According to Ellis and Bochner (2000), the idea of validity in
the narrative research related to the researchers’ work to engage the readers
that the researcher experiences are lifelike and believable and help the
readers to communicate with others different perspective and their personal
experiences. Therefore, the quality standards in this paradigm is related to
representation and engagement.Taylor & Wallace (1996, p.1) state that,
“representation concerns the challenge of representing others without reducing
them to objects of researcher’s gaze”. This standard will judge representing of
others voices during the inquiry process. Therefore, in this quality standard,
how the researchers represent the reality and other voices become important.
The other concept which is important for representation criteria is
crystallisation. The crystallization recognizes the different views of
interpretations. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2000), within crystallisation
process, the researchers could present the same tale in many different
perspectives. The idea of crystallization not only gives the space to recognise
the different views, but also contributes the powerful interpretation for the
research. According to Richardson (2000, p. 934), within the postmodernism
paradigm, “we do not triangulate; we crystallize. We recognise that there are a
far more than “three sides” from which to approach the world”. Therefore, this
paradigm emphasizes the plurality of the truth. Polyvocality employs different
genres on writing to create meaning and emotion. It is because there are
alternative options to deliver information and feeling between researcher and
readers’ consciousness (Richardson, 2000). Thus, readers can gain emotional
appreciation from the writing. The verisimilitude is the standard
to judge either the idea or writing is similar with the reality and truth. According to Ellis and Bochner (2000),
verisimilitude is presentation feeling of truthlikeness upon the reader who
reads the narrative inquiry writing. Therefore, through this standard,
researchers need to represent their writing in an engaging manner. Although the
writing can be fictitious, the important point is truthlikeness.
Criteria
of Writing/Literary Criteria (Orientation, Strength, Richness, and Depth)
Impressionistic
writing becomes the way to represent the data in this paradigm. According to
Richardson (2000), writing as a method of inquiry helps researchers to find out
how the world, we, and others are constructing within our perspectives.
Moreover, narrative inquiry engages the readers with the orientated, strong,
rich, and deep textual representation. In addition, oriented text means, “the text
should be oriented to answering the question of how the researcher as educator
stands in relation to life” (Taylor, Gilmer & Tobin 2002, p.31). This can
be represented through involving value and teaching experiences in relation to
the pedagogical context into research. In educational research, writing should represent “strong pedagogical
perspective” (Taylor, Gilmer & Tobin, 2002, p.32) to interpret the
phenomenon. The varied and meaningful description of phenomenon should be
applied to create the rich text. Finally, the rich text should shape the
writing to encourage the readers to think reflectively within their pedagogical
experiences.
CONCLUSION
Educational
research with its characteristics is influenced by four major paradigms. Each
paradigm has its own epistemology, ontology, and quality standards which
influence the researchers to find the truth and see the reality. The important
point is that knowing the nature of each paradigm which can help the
researchers to conduct their research process. Quality standards represent the
nature of each research paradigm which can be parallel. Researchers can conduct
the research within and across paradigms which is called multi-paradigmatic
research paradigms (Taylor, 2008)
REFERENCES
Anderson,
G. & Arsenault, N. (1998) Fundamental of Educational Research.
Taylor & Francis, London and New York.
Babbie,
E. (1990) Survey Research Methods
(2nd ed.). Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Bain,
J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., Lester, N.C. (2002) Reflecting on Practice:
Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Post
Presses, Flaxton.
Bryman,
A. (2001) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, London.
Bryman,
A. (2008) Social Research Method (3rd Ed.). Oxford University Press, New
York.
Brown, J. D. (2007) Statistics corner. JALT Testing & Evaluation
SIG Newsletter 11, 2 retrieved from http://jalt.org/test/bro_12.htm
Burns,
R. B. (1996) Introduction to Research Methods. Longman, Melbourne.
Cohen,
L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. Taylor
& Francis, London and New York.
Creswell,
J. (2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Denzin,
N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage,
London.
Ellis,
C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000) Autoethnography, personal narrative,
reflexivity-Researcher as subject. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research,
733-761. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gay,
L.R. & Airasian, P. (2000) Educational Research: Competencies for
Analysis and Application. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Guba,
E. G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Howitt,
C. (2007) Quality Standards Associated with the Post-positivist and
Interpretive Research Paradigms. SMEC, Curtin Universty of Technology,
Howitt,
C. (2008) Quality Standards.
SMEC, Curtin Universty of Technology,
Kincheloe & McLauren (2002) Rethinking critical
theory and qualitative research. In Zou, Y. & Trueba, E. T. Ethnography and Schools:
Qualitative Approaches to The Study of Education, 87-125.Rowman &
Littlefild Publishers,
LeCompte,
D.M. & Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational
Research. Academic Press,
Newby,
M., & Fisher, D.L. (1997) An instrument for assessing the learning
environment of a computer laboratory. Journal of Educational Computing
Research 16, 179-190.
Polkinghorne,
D.E. (1992) A postmodernism epistemology of practice. In Kvale, S. (Ed.) Psychology
and Postmodernism, 146-165. Sage,
Richarson,
L. (2000) Writing: a method of inquiry. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. Handbook
of Qualitative Research. Sage,
Robertson,
M. & Gerber, R. (2001) Children’s Way
of Knowing: Learning through
Experience. ACER Press.
Taylor,
P.C. & Wallace, J. (1996) Doing Qualitative Research in Science and
Mathematic Education. Sage,
Taylor,P.C.(2006)
Major Research Paradigms for Science and Mathematics Educators (Lecture
notes). SMEC, Curtin Universty of Technology,
Taylor,
P.C., Gilmer, P.J. & Tobin, K. (Eds.) (2002) Transforming Undergraduate
sSience Teaching: Social Constructivist Perspective. Peter
Wiersma,
W. (1991) Research Methods in Education. Allyn and Bacon,
Willis,
J. W. (2007) World views, paradigms and the practice of social science
research. In Mukta, J. & Rema,
N. (Eds.) Foundations of Qualitative
Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches, 1-26. Sage,