Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写
100%原创包过,高质代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：120591129
Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写
Research Design
MGMT801
Assessment 1: Aligning your ontology, epistemology and methodology
Word count 1624
In this essay I will define the terms ontology, epistemology and research paradigms and describe the
dominant aspects of each. Using these I will articulate my ontological and epistemological position
and justify the research paradigm that aligns most closely with my potential research question. I am
interested in the subjective experiences and interpretations of New Zealand’s refugees from Syria as
they attempt to rebuild their lives and resume their careers. My research question is “What is the
experience of Syrian refugees as they resume their working lives in New Zealand? “.
Ontology
Ontology is the philosophic study of the nature of reality (Grant & Giddings, 2002). According to Gray
(2014, p.687) it is the study of “the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence”, whose
chief concern is “what is?” (Crotty, 1998). It is fundamental to what we consider true or real
(NurseKillam, 2013). Gray describes two opposing ontological beliefs: one in an unchanging, fixed
world and one in a changing, evolving world. He designates these differing beliefs as an ontology of
“being” versus an ontology of “becoming” (Gray, 2014, p. 20). According to NurseKillam (2013) these
differing beliefs then determine what we can know about existence and what counts as knowledge.
My personal ontological position is that the world and reality are constantly changing or “becoming”.
I see the world as socially constructed and reject that there is just one world view or a single
unchanging world waiting to be discovered.
Epistemology
Epistemology seeks to define what is “knowledge” (Crotty, 1998; Grant & Giddings, 2002). Gray
defines epistemology as “a branch of philosophy that considers criteria for determining what
constitutes and does not constitute valid knowledge” (Gray, 2014, p. 682). According to Grant and
Giddings (2002) the ontological position we hold either constrains or logically dictates
epistemological perspective. There are at least three epistemological positions; objectivism,
constructivism and subjectivism.
Objectivism
2
The objectivist view is that things exist independently of consciousness and experience (Crotty, 1998;
Gray, 2014) and that through careful research, truth and meaning can be discovered and understood
(Crotty, 1998). It believes there is an objective reality waiting to be discovered (Crotty, 1998; Gray,
2014). This view is particularly prevalent in the natural sciences (Bryman & Bell, 2015).
Constructivism
In contrast, constructivism rejects the idea of an objective reality waiting to be discovered and argues
that truth and meaning are constructed through our interactions with the world (Gray, 2014).
Subjectivism
Similar to constructivism, subjectivism rejects the notion of an objective reality. However it differs
from constructivism in that it argues meaning is not attributed through an interplay with the social
world but rather from within the subject (Gray, 2014) and is imposed on the object of study by the
subject from, for example, from collective consciousness, archetypes and religious beliefs (Crotty,
1998).
Because I see the world as socially constructed, a constructivist epistemology best describes my view
of knowledge. Although subjectivism also views the world as socially contracted, I reject it as an
epistemology because it draws on understandings that I have no background in and am not drawn to.
Research paradigms
According to the Merriam‐Webster dictionary a paradigm is a “philosophical and theoretical
framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated (paradigm, n.d.). Bryman and Bell (2015)
provides a simpler definition and describe a paradigm as a collection of beliefs and precepts in a
particular discipline. According to Kuhn (Kuhn, cited in AUT 2016, p.2), the research paradigm
influences what should be studied, how this should be done and how the researcher should make
sense of findings.
The key research paradigms include positivism, post‐positivism, interpretivism, radical/critical
inquiry, postmodernism/poststructuralism (Gray, 2014) but also include emerging paradigms
such as Kaupapa Māori research (Smith, 1999).
Positivism
3
Positivism has been dominant in Western thinking for over 2000 years (Grant & Giddings, 2002). In
the positivist paradigm everything that exists is based on objective facts and is fixed. It assumes that
truth and knowledge are there just waiting to be discovered. As such it has obvious roots in objectivist
epistemology and an ontology of “being”. It assumes a value‐free, objective observer who looks for
facts and causality between variables (Gray, 2014). It assumes that over time, facts will be carefully
built up to reveal a full picture.
Postpositivism
The 1960s challenge to the dominance of positivism in Western thought gave rise to postpositivism
(Grant & Giddings, 2002), the view that there are multiple and often competing views of truth and
reality. While postpositivism acknowledges that reality is socially and culturally constructed (AUT,
2016), it posits that this can still be objectively described and measured.
Interpretivism
Interpretivism draws on the idea that rather than a single objective truth, there are multiple
realities and that interpretations of the world are culturally derived and historically situated (Gray,
2014). Interpretivism attempts to understand what meaning people attach to experiences and
events in their lives. The researcher attempts to understand the experiences of the researched
and the meaning they ascribe to them and then to interpret those experiences and meanings
(Bryman & Bell, 2015; Grant & Giddings, 2002). As such it has roots in constructivist epistemology
and an ontology of being.
While sharing assumptions about truth and human experience, there are different theoretical
lenses that interpretivist researchers might use (Grant & Giddings, 2002). These include symbolic
interactionism, phenomenology and hermeneutics (Gray, 2014). Briefly defined symbolic
interactionism is the belief that people develop a sense of identity through social interactions and
the meanings they attribute to them (Gray, 2014, p. 691). Phenomenology explores subjective
experience, how participants experience and give meaning to an event, concept or phenomenon
(Gray, 2014). The researcher then tries to understand what is happening and to construct theories
or models from the data. Phenomenology tends to use interviews to capture the essence of the
experience of the interviewee (Grant & Giddings, 2002). Similarly, hermeneutics is concerned
with a socially constructed reality (Gray, 2014) but instead of the researcher interpreting what is
said, the research participant interprets or explores what lies behind what is said (Grant &
Giddings, 2002).
4
Radical/Critical/Feminist paradigms
The focus of radical paradigms is social change and emancipation. Grant and Giddings (2002)
argue that both the researcher and the participants are socially positioned and that “truth” may
be confounded through ideological mechanisms such as hegemony that favours the interests of
the powerful in society. The aim of radical or critical research then is to address injustice and
empower those being researched through conscientisation (Freire, 1972) and to engage them in
social action to create change (Grant & Giddings, 2002). Radical paradigms have their origins in
an ontology of “becoming” and subjectivist epistemology.
Postmodernism
According to Gray (2014) post modernism arose as a response to the disillusion with positivism
and modernist thought. It argues that objective truth is unattainable and that claims of truth are
biased and incomplete. Postmodernism emphasises “multiplicity, ambiguity, ambivalence and
fragmentation (Gray, 2014, p. 28). It links to a “becoming” ontology and a subjectivist
epistemology.
Kaupapa Māori
One emerging research paradigm that is particularly relevant to New Zealand is Kaupapa Māori
research. It is emancipatory in nature and therefore fits with a critical approach. Pringle et al cite
Smith (1999) and Wolfgramm (2007) to describe this research paradigm as “that which is done for,
with and by Māori; that which validates and legitimises Māori language and culture; that which
empowers Māori, as whanau, hapu and iwi” and which takes for granted the validity and legitimacy
of Māori(Pringle, Wolfgramm, & Henry, 2010, p. 132).
Because I ascribe to an ontology of “becoming” and a constructivist epistemology, a research
paradigm that logically follows is interpretivism, a belief that interpretations of the world are
culturally derived and historically situated. Of the different theoretical approaches to
interpretivism, phenomenology best describes my preferred framework. Interpreting how people
make sense of their world allows patterns and understanding to emerge, something that cannot
be measured using quantitative approaches. Additionally constructivism and phenomenology are
a good fit with my personal theory of professional practice in the field of career development
(constructivist).
Methodologies
5
Methodology is to do with the philosophy and theoretical assumptions on which a particular
research approach is built (Grant & Giddings, 2002). They add that “for the most part ontology
and epistemology constrain choices of methodology while the methodology expresses ontology
and epistemology in terms of modes of inquiry” (Grant & Giddings, 2002, p. 12). They say the
methodology guides how the researcher structures the research question and the process and
methods they use.
Methodologies might include experiments, phenomenological research, analytical surveys, action
research and heuristic inquiry (Gray, 2014), each of which suggests a range of appropriate
methods, depending on the research question. Of these, phenomenological research, which
explores the way individuals construct their world (Gray, 2014) seems an appropriate
methodology to explore my research question. A common method is using in‐depth, unstructured
interviews, although focus groups might be another or additional way of capturing meaningful
data. It allows the researcher to hear perspectives, themes and ideas they may not have
considered and allows the data to emerge (Gray, 2014).
Conclusion
To reiterate, I ascribe to an ontology of “becoming”, a constructivist epistemology, an interpretivist
research paradigm and a preference for phenomenology and phenomenological research.
Potential research methods are a combination of in‐depth interviews and focus groups. These
methods allow access to the subjective meanings that participants attribute to their experiences
and enable patterns to emerge. Other research methods would not be able to answer my
particular research question. In this essay I have described the meanings of ontology, epistemology,
research paradigm and methodology and drawn on these to articulate my own position and to justify
their appropriateness to my research interest.
Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写
References
AUT. (2016). MGMT801: Week 2, Sesion 1 Applying Research Paradigms; researcher in the research.
Auckland, NZ: AUT.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crotty, M. (1998). Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the reserach process.
St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grant, B. M., & Giddings, L. S. (2002). Making sense of methodologies: A paradigm framework for the
novice researcher. Contemporary Nurse : a Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession,
13(1), 10‐28.
Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing Research in the Real World (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
NurseKillam (Producer). (2013, 24 Sep 2013). Complex Research Terminology Simplified: Paradigms,
Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology. [Video file] Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xvpxBVCo0c
paradigm. (n.d.). . Merriam‐Webster. from http://www.merriam‐webster.com/dictionary/paradigm
Pringle, J. K., Wolfgramm, R., & Henry, E. (2010). Extending cross‐ethnic research partnerships:
researching wih respect. In S. Katila, S. Meriläinen & J. Tienari (Eds.), Making Inclusion Work:
Experiences from Academia aound the World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Smith, T. L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. Dunedin: Otago
University Press: Zed Books.
Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写
