A recipe for research
Cooking is not something that comes naturally to me. While my husband is quite happy freestyling in the kitchen, I require the instructional comfort of a recipe. Sometimes however, even my painstaking adherence to a recipe doesn’t produce the desired result. If a recipe is too elaborate, technical or time consuming, my chances of success decline rapidly. Curnonsky, the celebrated food critic, once said “in cooking, as in all the arts, simplicity is the sign of perfection.” In order for me to score a culinary win, I have found this advice to hold true.
Applied to my study, this analogy reminds me of the importance of having a clearly defined recipe for research. In this respect, Cresswell’s (2014) framework provides an uncomplicated and methodical structure. The overall research approach (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods) is informed by the researcher’s worldview, a research design which is consistent with this worldview and methods which correspond to the research design.
Top of the ingredient list in Cresswell’s framework is worldview. Of the four worldviews advanced (postpositivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatism), the latter instinctively appeals. Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) define pragmatism as an approach to research which is both practical and pluralistic. Pragmatism draws from both qualitative and quantitative approaches and is not restricted to any one system of philosophy or reality. Its objective is to “shed light on the actual behaviour of participants, the beliefs that stand behind those behaviours and the consequences that are likely to follow from different behaviours” (Kivunja & Kuyini, p.35). As such, pragmatism involves the relentless pursuit of a workable and contextual solution. It is a worldview that reflects my own identity as a scholar practitioner.
If the first ingredient appears relatively self-evident, it’s the choice of a research design which has resulted in some confusion. Over the past few months, various terms including case studies, mixed methods and design based research (DBR) have all presented themselves as possibilities. In Cresswell’s (2014) framework for research, research design is defined as “procedures of inquiry” (Cresswell, 2014, p.3). Described as “interactive, collaborative, iterative and flexible” (Jones, 2008), DBR is a recent research design which aims to bridge the gap between educational theory and practice. A typical DBR cycle comprises of at least three phases: a) preparation & design b) teaching experiment c) retrospective analysis (Bakker & Van Eerde, 2015). DBR’s real life application and focus on theory generation seem a natural fit with my pragmatist worldview.
Having aligned myself with a pragmatic worldview and a DBR design, it’s the choice of specific methods which has proven the most challenging. The extent to which these methods are quantitative, qualitative or both is an aspect which I have not fully decided. Currently, I am considering investigating the relevance of LA in informing teachers’ planning for and delivery of the Key Competencies as outlined in the New Zealand Curriculum. In the initial preparation and design phase, I envisage a combination of surveys and interviews to answer the questions: “In what ways do teachers assess the Key Competencies? How do these results inform their planning?” I will also analyse LA data from an online course for evidence of the Key Competencies in student work. Following an analysis of the results, I aim to collaboratively design a reflective LA tool for teachers. Teachers will then use this tool to plan a subsequent unit of work. Following this intervention, the success of the tool will be evaluated in teacher interviews as well as analysis of student online data. Depending on time constraints, this cycle will ideally be repeated twice or three times over the course of a school year. As these specific methods become clearer, so too will the overall flavour (quantitative or mixed methods) of my study.
References
Bakker, A., & Van Eerde, D. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Doing qualitative research: methodology and methods in mathematics education (pp. 429–466). doi:10.1007/978–94–017–9181–6_16
Creswell, J. (2014). Selecting a Research Approach. In Cresswell, J (Ed.) Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed., International student ed., pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Jones, D. (2008). Design based research vs mixed methods: The differences and commonalities. Retrieved from https://djon.es/blog/2008/10/22/design-based-research-vs-mixed-methods-the-differences-and-commonalities/
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of HIgher Education, 6(5), 26–41. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
