Questions of epistemology

Week six, term three is exam time for our senior students. The chance to show what they know, reveal what they don’t and get in some practice for their final external examinations before the end of the year. On this occasion, the typically mind numbing experience of exam invigilation took on a new light for me; faced with this very tangible example of so-called knowledge assessment, my thoughts were consumed by questions of epistemology. Broadly defined as a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge (Nodding, 2015), the study of epistemology raises questions such as what counts as knowledge? Can knowledge be acquired? How can knowledge be communicated? (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).

As a novice researcher coming to grips with the ologies (ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology), two key themes have emerged from the readings I have been doing. Firstly, a decision on one ology has an effect on all other ologies. The choice of epistemology therefore, can not be made in isolation. MacIntosh (2017) refers to the ologies as a series of “interlocking choices”, deriving from “distinct traditions, each of which tends to operate with its own, internally consistent, set of choices”. Together, these form a research paradigm, which determine “what should be studied, how it should be studied, and how the results of the study should be interpreted” (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).

My second observation is that to choose a research paradigm means to position yourself along a philosophical continuum. At either end of this continuum are the opposing traditions of positivism (or objectivism) and interpretivism (also known as subjectivism). The extreme positivist position maintains the following; social science research should be conducted in the scientific tradition; the researcher must endeavour to eliminate bias; time-free and context-free generalisations as not only achievable but desirable. At the other end of the spectrum, an extreme interpretivist asserts multiple constructed realities; research as value-laden and context-free generalisations as being impossible (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In staking one’s position, the extent to which the researcher should interact with participants, a focus on qualitative vs quantitative methods as well as the value attributed to context are additional important considerations (Holden & Lynch, 2004).

Given a choice between these extremes, my tendency would be to lean towards an interpretivist perspective. More than a decade of teaching experience has convinced me that when it comes to the messy reality of education, context is a major consideration. Nonetheless, the generalisability and quantifiable rigour of the positivist approach hold some appeal. Nestled amicably in between these polar opposites, is the pragmatist paradigm. This paradigm posits that elements of both positivist and interpretivist approaches are useful and that by “taking a non-purist or compatibilist or mixed position, researchers (can) mix and match design components that offer the best chance of answering their specific research questions” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.15). The pragmatist paradigm not only caters for studies that don’t fit “neatly” into one philosophical category (Hopwood, 2013), but by triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, brings a greater degree of accountability to educational research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

The choice to situate my research within a pragmatic paradigm necessarily entails some ological implications:

• A relational epistemology
• A non-singular ontology
• A mixed methods methodology
• A value-laden axiology (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017)

Paired with the relatively new field of Learning Analytics (LA), a pragmatist approach appears to be a complementary approach. LA involves the use of data to generate knowledge about student/teacher interactions with each other and/or content. Its success is “in use”, generating knowledge through interaction, sense-making and co-construction of meaning with others (Knight & Buckingham Shum, 2014, p.31). It is in this way that I envisage my study taking shape; collaborating and sense-making with colleagues in order to design an analytics cycle which produces a quantitative improvement in student achievement.

References

Holden, M.T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: understanding research philosophy. Retrieved from https://repository.wit.ie/1466/1/Choosing_the_Appropriate_Methodology_Understanding_Research_Philosophy_(RIKON_Group).pdf

Hopwood, N. (2013). Why the idea of research perspectives is brilliant and annoying at the same time. Retrieved from https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/why-the-idea-of-research-perspectives-is-brilliant-and-annoying-at-the-same-time/

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

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

Knight, S. & Buckingham Shum, S. (2014). Epistemology, assessment, pedagogy: where learning meets analytics in the middle space. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 23–47. Doi: 10.18608/jla.2014.12.3

MacIntosh, R. (2017). Top 10 hints for understanding your ontology, epistemology and methodology. Retrieved from http://doctoralstudy.blogspot.com/2017/01/top-10-hints-for-understanding-your.html

Noddings, N. (2015). Philosophy of education (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com