Research Methodology Paper

Introduction

For educational research, it is evident that the encounter is exhausting and discouraging. The challenge of conducting research that seeks to solve an existing issue either socially or economically is not derived by the uncertainty of the study but the ability to select the most efficient models and well-suited research models and methodologies that are mostly provided as the competing exemplars against one another. The success of any given research is dependent on the adopted strategies by the study and thus, selecting the most suitable models is the primary driver of success. In often basis research is about gathering information regarding issues and uncovering the underlying concepts to answer the research queries. It means that the well-designed approaches should be applied for a solution to be acquired. This report attempts to discuss and compare the most commonly used research paradigms and methodologies that are relevant to the proposed research. The suitability of the methods to the study will be examined alongside their strengths and faults through a concrete analysis. The findings will be useful in assisting researchers to select the most appropriate research approaches and methods that are harmonious with critical, interpretive and positivist research models.

According to Slevitch (2011), investigative research is the systematic operation that is aimed at offering knowledge or enhancing the already existing familiarity that is relevant for improving the efficiency in the society as a whole. Research paradigm refers to a set of shared principles and treaties held by researchers about the manner in which research should be addressed. The constitution of research paradigms includes ontology which seeks to understand what is real as the start point of the study. On the other hand, an epistemology which is the means to be used to understand the issue, this is the knowledge which differentiates between what is already known and what has not. The association amid epistemology and ontology is essential because they are the primary requirement that leads to the development of research. In that, if the existence of an issue is known, then the features seeks to understand the source and practical solutions. It is the norms that are developed to the point that assists the researcher to settle for the most paying methodology and approaches. The methodology which is the approaches followed in establishing the actual truth of something (Zhang, 2002). Methods refer to the variety of strategies that are used in investigative studies to collect information which is then to be utilized as the ground for suggestion and interpretation. In other words, the methodology is the strategic plan that supports the utilization and selection of some approaches. Thus, the inquiry approaches are reflections of the expectations about the knowledge and reality. In most cases, the conventions are not obvious a notion that forces the investigators to uncover the responsibility of the study.

Every research must follow a given methodology and approach to fulfill its role. In that, the paradigms mainly differ on the ground of the underlying issue that must be handled by the set expectation. In this case, the suitability of such methods is essential as it determines the success of the study and the fulfillment of the set goals. It is then incorporated into a research design, which refers to a structurally developed plan that is to be applied with the objective of thoroughly answering the research queries. The description makes that methodology to be a plan that seeks to ensure that the aim has been achieved. Three of the most commonly applied research paradigms will be analyzed below.

Positivist Paradigm

Positivist’s researchers highly trust that, there is one single reality that is to be satisfied which can be assessed and understood. Therefore, in most instances, they seek to utilize quantitative approaches to examine the truth. In this context, the researchers do not doubt that the application of natural science approaches in solving social issues is suitable. They positivist social researchers attempt to replicate processes that seek to monitor and understand the natural setting (Maroun, 2011). They are fully committed to value impartiality that can be observed and tested to establish the existing association amid the causes and implication. Positivism is committed to developing the association amid the association amid sources and effects. It means that the paradigms are mainly sought to determine the uniformities and social policies to evaluate the social setting. As neutralism in such an approach is highly encouraged positivists holds that the responsibility of the researcher is to offer an objective justification of the issues of the existing problems and make assumptions (Maroun, 2011). Based on the above provisions the ontology and epistemological composition of the positivist theory can be established.

Positivists have a pragmatist ontology. In that, the approach assumes that a capture-able reality exists immutable natural policies and mechanisms influence that. For the kind of research, cultural authenticity is peripheral to individuals. It means that objects exist autonomously and are not dependent on the existing knowledge. Realism, as asserted by the paradigm, is the perspective that there is the truth (Maroun, 2011). Such world exists self-reliant and thus an investigation must be conducted by the researcher to establish the fact. Epistemological positivists assert on a dualist and objective perspective. Having an accurate view is an essential feature of any given knowledgeable investigation. The knower, as well as the subject that has to be established, are distinct, and there is no influence amid the two given that they are independent. In other words, it is clear that positivists are mainly objected to the given facts and thus asserts that every researcher should be free from any charge. Preventive processes mainly drive rationality intimidations. Causal associations are mostly developed which enables the occurrence of simplification.

On the other hand, the positivist methodology seeks to justify relationships. The source and the implication relationship is investigated thoroughly. Through the paradigm, the experimental research designed appears to be offering a cover that describes the relationship in general. In that, the set questions are mainly examined and verified through the use of experimental studies. The researcher must investigate on the cause-effect association amid all the independent and dependent variables respectively to recommend the most viable remedy. However, because the association must be manipulated for the reality to be established the validity of the findings is threatened (Maroun, 2011). Further, a deductive strategy is usually respected. Consequently, several concepts such as solutions and treatment typically become the necessary foundation of scientific research. Based on the realism approach, is the source of transformation of different behaviors that are experienced socially. Such changes are sourced from the independent variables, and thus the needed protections are utilized to eliminate validity risks.

The positivist paradigm mainly relies on quantitative methods in research since generalization of findings is common this implies that, in other words, random sampling is highly built upon to develop such results (Slevitch, 2011). The quality of the research that is conducted via the approach can be determined by examining the validity and dependability of the findings. Validity is the general capability of the research tools to assess the issue as expected. Validity can best be considered from the study’s assumption and interpretations. If any of the variables appear to be altering the results of the survey, then it means that the validity is one that cannot be relied upon on the generation of accurate results. On the other hand, reliability is the consistency of research where all the given procedures are respected. In the study, these tools become reliable if they are constant, stable, foreseeable and precise.

Interpretive Paradigm

According to Zhang (2002), interpretive approach holds that reality is one that is dominated by complexity with numerous layers. Therefore unlike the positivist view, the method maintains that there is no single reality. The approach is guided by the notion that individuals are innovators and they consistently develop their social settings. Also, the theory also notes that the social environment should be assessed within the natural context through the direct observation of the members and therefore the interference of the researcher is not needed.

The ontology of the interpretive approach is one that does not believe in a single reality. The doctrine in this regard is that fact is usually different from an individual to the other. Interpretive investigators are guided by the existence of many truths which are built within the social setting. The epistemological assertion is governed by the subjective perspective in that the meanings and interpretations hold great significance (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). In this case, the existing object might not be substantially explained with exclusion from the matter. In other words, both the subject and the object in this perspective are related. It means that they do not act as independent things as they can easily influence each other. The relationship that is to be examined is mainly to be acquired from an interactive association.

Based on interpretivism approach, the world is made via individuals social interactions. The investigators are a part of the social realism and cannot, therefore, be separated from the subject under investigation. The reality within this paradigm is typically created within the developed groups, and thus, the truth should be understood in analyzing the actual existence of operations and things. The interpretive study applies some methodological approaches like case studies, ethnography, and phenomenology (Maroun, 2011). The most suitable research method for the paradigm is qualitative research that seeks to enhance the understanding of the social worlds. The primary objective of the interpretive methodology is to examine and comprehend the occurrence inductively. In this, the investigators believe that understanding the experiences can best be acquired from the observation point of those who are incorporated in the investigations. Based on this notion, interpretive investigators usually begin with studying the identified populace to gain a more reliable interpretation of the world. The approach holds that research is an interactive procedure that is designed by individuals personal experiences, gender, race and so on. Unlike in the positivist theory, the concept is acquired from the collected data. This means that it should follow the information rather than preceding it. Also, the researchers are not separated from the study setting as they perceive themselves as part of the respondents in the subject being examined. Based on interpretivism, the interaction amid the researcher and the question is what enables the investigation to develop an adequate description of the whole situation.

Dissimilar to positivist’s theory which is dependent on randomization, this approach mainly applies determined sampling and selects typically the people and the setting that holds more information that can support the hypothesis of the study. The researchers are dependent on different approaches for gathering qualitative data (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). The qualitative data that is used for the procedure is classified in different ranges such as questionnaires, observation, and interviews. These methods are highly preferred because they are convenient, able to gather maximized information as for cost friendly. The collected data allows the researcher to support the hypothesis in general without fail which leads to efficiency. Regarding the most preferred and importance, interviews represent one of the most dominant data collection tool that seeks to provide primary data. One of the leading rationales for this benefit is that discussions are very flexible. In that, the researcher has the freedom to select on whether to use structured, semi or zero structured interview tools. A combination of all the designs can also be applied which leads to efficiency and also works to ensure that the researcher does not deviate from the primary objective of the study. The methodologies of data gathering that are utilized by interpretive investigators usually assist in the creation of a more stable association in general. The researchers will obtain reliable information given that their interactions with the participants build not only trusts but also lasting connections (Maroun, 2011). For instance, the participating researcher who chooses for the long run association within a given setting is bound to create authoritative associations. Introspective approaches might be applied which offers them with a higher understanding of the issue that is being investigated. As they have invested their emotions in the question, the acquired experiences lead to a thorough investigation and careful interpretation of a personalized approach.

Due to the intensive information range that is acquired from the process, qualitative researchers utilize typically distinct data collection approaches. It means that the received information must be reduced in size while developing specific details about the subject (Maroun, 2011). Data reduction refers to the procedural selection of data based on the most essential and universal themes. The objective is usually achieved through a descriptive organization of data. Verification helps in establishing the actual truth regarding the acquired concepts. The approach is beneficial because it develops positive findings in general since the researcher has the opportunity to observe and learn the experience similar to that of the study’s subject. However, the approach tends to rely more on individual social injustices issues since they are the most common that have a wide range of data (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). On the other hand, the approach consumes more time because the researchers have to observe within an extended period. It, therefore, means that it becomes expensive as the researcher has to be involved practically. Also creating strong relationships is not usually easy because people are bound to react differently, and some people might prove to be hostile which necessitates more connection time. The approach is also prone to bias because the researchers tend to be overwhelmed by their feelings regarding the issue rather than trying to establish the actual truth of a matter. The credibility of results cannot be authenticated which develops unreliable conclusions that are not justified by facts and evidence.

Critical Paradigm

Based on Maroun (2011) the critical perspective, realities are built socially due to the constant influence that originates internally. Both the truth of the subject and knowledge are created within the social setting and are usually driven by the power of relationships within the social context. In this approach, the reality is mainly described from the cultural, economic and political backgrounds. The transformative ontology claims that there are perspectives views concerning most of the existing social facts but for the situations to be understood fully, then the lights have to be placed within the distinct contexts. With this view, epistemologically, within the critical approach, the researchers assert on the essence of interactive association amid the researcher and the subjects and the influence of the forces in general (Zhang, 2002). The social interaction is essential given that for the researcher to develop reliable findings the highest level of trust must be created. It makes it easy to present more general views of the concepts being acquired.

In this theory, the objective of the critical methodology is to increase awareness among the respondents while investigating on the existing injustices and discernment (Zhang, 2002). The approach is more focused on the operations rather than the findings of the real oppression. Critical researchers have an objective to achieve which refers to transforming the existing situation of those that have been affected. Both the subjects and the investigators are fully involved in the investigation process, and thus the issues might play a part in the development of data collection tools alongside providing the necessary information (Maroun, 2011). It is worth noting that individual’s knowledge is comprised of practical and technical awareness and the freedom that is offered to the participants enhances their role. Reflection is also needed since the acquired data must be analyzed to fit within the design of the study. Ideological critique is mainly relied upon in such investigations which helps in freeing individuals from their illusions by asserting on the need to be realistic for the issues to be addressed adequately.

Critical researchers have the autonomy to utilize some approaches ranging from qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. However, all the existing norms in the context of investigation should be examined thoroughly not to affect the results of the study. Since much data is needed in a critical study, the use of the mixed methodology is useful in generating extensive information (Zhang, 2002). The methods that are used help in critically evaluating the existing scenario from a broad perspective. These methods serve best the objective of the investigations. The technique is one that is usually detailed which provides valid and rigid conclusions from the studies. The approach is useful in revealing the existing injustices which help in asserting for changes to occur in the current situation which informs the audience of the needed change. The application of the mixed methodology ensures that all the aspects of research are considered.

Research Methodologies Critical Review

Concerning the current research on ‘’The Correlation amid Technology Embracing and Approach in E-commerce,’’ I believe that the critical approach is the most suitable paradigm alongside the mixed methodology method. Based on the context of the research it is evident that more experimental study is required. It means that even though gathering qualitative data from interviews and questionnaires will play a part, quantitative data from the existing literature to justify the acquired claims is also essential (Slevitch, 2011). Quantitative data is necessary for gathering information that can be utilized to make business decisions (Duffy & Chenail, 2008). On the other hand valuable details regarding the behaviors and applicability in the market can be identified through qualitative research.

Qualitative method is important because it offers data that can be articulated statistically. The descriptive information is essential in proving the validity of the research (Slevitch, 2011). It means that quantitative data enables the measurement and interpretation of data more accurately and the study is more objective which assists in examining the study’s hypothesis. However, the method ignores the experimental details of the investigation. Besides, it requires the study of an extensive population. On the other hand, the qualitative way is useful in uncovering the uncertainty of research and creating a more objective focus (Slevitch, 2011). Through the qualitative approach, the researcher can gather maximum data in the context of comprehensive descriptions. However, the method is time-consuming and mainly utilizes the personal approach.

In summing up, the study will apply the critical approach since it seeks to create awareness and a platform for addressing the issue. Some careful considerations will be used to ensure that the cons of the mixed methodology are avoided. It means that in general, valuable information that best services the objective of the research will be acquired from the paradigms and methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Duffy, M., & Chenail, R. J. (2008). Values in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Counseling & Values, 53(1), 22-38. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=514af5ce-899e-4e02-8081-70f53df7b399%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

Maroun, W. (2011). Interpretive and Critical Research: Methodological Blasphemy. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(1), pp. 1-6, 11 January, 2012 DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.1031. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380538075_Maroun.pdf

Nguyen C. Thanh & Tran T.L Thanh. (2015). the Interconnection between Interpretivist Paradigm and Qualitative Methods in Education. American Journal of Educational Science Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 24-27. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/79e6/888e672cf2acf8afe2ec21fd42a29b2cbd90.pdf

Slevitch, L. (2011). Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies Compared: Ontological and Epistemological Perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), 73-81. doi:10.1080/1528008X.2011.541810 Retrieved from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0db6204e-bcad-44da-9e40-f19e64d851ca%40sessionmgr101

Zhang, X. (2002). 3. Interpretivist Research, Positivist Research, and Field Research. Chinese Education & Society, 35(2), 39. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=45ee5351-b1f6-4cf6-9e36-f12d45dcf124%40sessionmgr103