I am primarily a methodologist in which I can employ either quantitative or qualitative approaches. I am also a critical scholar. I employ a metatheodel (multiple theories and models) as a primer for my critical scholarship to interrogate systems of racism, oppression, and power. I am also competent in quantitative between-groups survey design using stratified and chain-referral sampling methods.
My approach to critical scholarship interrogates issues of higher education grounded in the critical perspectives (Apple, 1998; DeVitis & Yu, 2011; Leonardo, 2009; Sullivan, 2006). If we are unable to facilitate critical perspectives in our masters and doctoral graduates as outcomes for our educational systems, we will continue to facilitate social reproduction of inequities. However, I perceive higher education as an opportunity for social mobility. Higher education may also be viewed, at times, as a more ideal laboratory for society’s higher hopes and aspirations, for example, impactful research, a more informed and critical citizenry, and moral development. Shapiro (2005) furthers this notion by stating, “[Colleges and universities] serve society as both a responsive servant and a thoughtful critic. … [They] must also raise questions that society does not want to ask and generate new ideas that help invent the future.” (p. 4).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research is often compartmentalized into different paradigms (positivist, postpositivism, constructivism, pragmatism, etc.). Each one helps to organize and are philosophical approaches to research which Patton (2002) describes as “a way of thinking about and making sense of the complexities of the real world” p. 69). Each paradigm holds common elements which include axiology (role of values and morals), epistemology (how we know the world), ontology (assumptions of reality), and methodology (gathering knowledge), and rhetoric (language of research) (Creswell 2009; Lincoln et al. 2011). However, as a researcher I approach quantitative research within the pragmatist paradigm because it provides voice to student and the marginalized populations I explore through my research.
Morgan (2007) suggested that there is an emphasis in social science research on ontological approaches with a strong bias towards epistemology. Morgan (2007) also concluded that these limitations further inhibit or obscure a focus on methodology. Regardless if these paradigms hold merit for social science, their limitation exists because they are connected to specific methodologies. However, pragmatism holds that any connects abstract concepts or issues to “mechanical methods.” Methodology is the tool which connects our thoughts to the “nature of knowledge.” In our efforts to produce it, we separate philosophical paradigms from research design (Morgan, 2007).
Kaushik and Walsh (2019) described pragmatism as, “…pragmatism is a paradigm that claims to bridge the gap between the scientific method and structuralist orientation of older approaches and the naturalistic methods and freewheeling orientation of newer approaches” (p. 2). The etiology of pragmatism as a paradigm is rooted in the work of John Dewey who focused on the nature of the experience, rather than the nature of reality. Therefore, all problems of inquiry should be “socially situated” as they all have a specific in context and position in time. This situation and temporal context cannot be separated from the own perspectives of the research
Dewey (1933) and other suggested that beliefs are provisional as it is not possible to experience the same situation twice in the same way because the context shifts with different extraneous variables. This concept is central to Dewey’s theory of social inquiry and to pragmatism. Dewey’s theory of inquiry influenced pragmatism as problems should be investigated as part of social situations. According to Dewey, any inquiry is only legitimate if it is socially situated, rather than selecting the methodology without more clearly understanding the problem. Dewey and pragmatism suggests that the problem should be clearly defined and then investigated depending on the purpose (Dillon
Pragmatism, according to Morgan (2014), has three tenets of belief. The first is that behavior or thoughts cannot be separate from their context or situation in which they occur. The college environment and engagement programs shape student development and learning. Behavior is contextual for college students with consistent fluid identity and so if their environment shifts, even if their actions change as well. This is the second tent which suggests that “actions are linked to consequences in ways that are open to change” (Morgan, 2014, p. 26). The third tenet is that no two people have exactly similar experiences and therefore, their worldviews will also not be indistinguishable. Pragmatists recognize there are shared experiences, but suggest that these lead to shared beliefs with different levels. College students can have similar identities or experiences with a shared understanding, but still have distinctive individual experiences which they independently experience in a different way which led to that shared worldview.
Pragmatism considers the influence of the researcher and shapes the way a study is conducted. In pragmatism, the approach to research is shaped by the worldview of the researcher and their previous experiences as well as those shared by the larger research community (Morgan, 2014). Pragmatism holds that research is influenced by sociopolitical location of the research, their personal history, and personal belief system (Morgan, 2007). Thus, when designing a research project or supervising graduate student research I attempt to consider the various differences based on my own worldview in relation to those of my co-researchers.
The choice of methodology is fluid, because it can only be selected in relation to the research question(s) and the purpose of the study (Goles and Hirschheim 2000; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2008). Pragmatism focuses on “what works” or “appropriateness” based on the socially situated context in which the research study is occurring. In pragmatism, the research question(s) hold primacy over the concepts of Kuhn’s paradigms (1962, 1970; Morgan, 2014). Using this approach towards research, the researcher has opportunity to select the more appropriate design and this also allow the research to generate data or theories through this abductive reasoning which shifts between deduction and induction (Goldkuhl 2012; Morgan 2007).
In selecting research design using the pragmatic paradigm, I utilize the five-stage model for understanding problem solving originally conceptualized by Dewey (1933) and revised by Morgan (2014). Step one is recognizing a situation as a research problem. The second step is to reflect about personal beliefs about the research problem. The third step is to consider the research question(s) and design. The fourth step is to reconsider the research question(s) and design through reflection. The final step is to conduct the research. This is an overall process of abduction in which reflection leads to a focus on the nature of the problem.
Pragmatism is applied to all of my own quantitative research because it often is employed in social justice oriented research or when exploring marginalized populations (Morgan, 2014). It has the potential to “engage and empower marginalized and oppressed communities” according to Kaushik and Walsh (2019, p. 1). Pragmatism can be used to interrogate contemporary social issues and themes of power, politics, and equity (Collins, 2017). Dewey (1954) advocated for inquiry in which persons are able to identify issues which matter most o them and pursue them in the most meaningful way which promotes capacity for growth. Other researchers have used pragmatism to explore social issues or as activist research to improve social problems (Biesta, 2010; Seigfried, 1996). Pragmatism has historical roots as conceptualized by John Dewey in participatory democracy which inherently has organic connections to social justice-based research on issues related to the equity within the college experience for our students.
Pragmatism is also often used to explore efficacy of interventions and for assessment to drive continuous program improvement in higher education which are competencies I developed working in institutional research and coordinating various assessment projects. As a pragmatic quantitative researcher, I am competent across a number of different domains which includes research design, sampling, analysis, and survey design. I have published more than 5 quantitative publications from different individual research studies. As a pragmatic researcher, I understand various advanced types of research design. I am aware of culturally sensitive sampling procedures, particularly chain-referral and systems-level concepts such as stratified or cluster sampling. I also understand appropriateness of various statistical tests which include descriptive and inferential analyses. I have also assisted in the validation and development of two survey instruments.
Qualitative Methods
Drawing from the interpretivist and existentialist paradigms, my qualitative research uses the descriptive phenomenological psychological method rooted in Husserlian philosophical foundations (Giorgi, 2009; Husserl, 2008). Scheler described phenomenology as “…the name of an attitude of spiritual seeing in which one can see or experience something which otherwise remains hidden” (1973, p. 137). Giorgi (2009) described his phenomenological psychological method as, “more appropriate for psychological analyses of human beings since the purpose of psychology as a human science is precisely the clarification of the meanings of phenomena experienced by human persons” (Giorgi, 2009, p. 98).
While controversial, Husserl claimed to generate the concept of phenomenology across several texts: Logical Investigations (1900); Ideas (1913); Formal and Transcendental Logic (1929); Cartesian Meditations (1931); The Crisis of the European Sciences (1937). Husserl (1977) suggested that consciousness synthesizes experience which is both sensory and mental. These are “image consciousness” and are influenced by time, space, and causality which are termed “real.” What is “irreal” are those experiences which are imagined or anticipated because as construct; they are not physically manifested (Husserl, 1977; Zahavi, 2003). Therefore, Husserl’s (1931, 2008) developed an initial method by which to explore the “irreal” objects in analyses. Giorgi (2003, 2009) furthered a method into the exploration of the necessary and universal structures of experience which can also be considered transcendental analysis as a research approach. This became descriptive psychology or phenomenological psychology.
As a qualitative researcher I approach my own research using the Husserlian method in which Giorgi (2009) outlined a multiple stage process which includes: (1) all previous knowledge is bracketed so no previous theories or findings can be included so no to influenced the researcher so that is “described as it presents itself;” (2) use reduction to see and experience what only is given; all results come up through the data; (3) look for meaning units; when there is a break in the meaning, then there is a new unit; (4) to analyze to assign psychological description to units to generate “psychologically sensitive statements of their lived-meanings;” and (5) apply the process of imaginative variation to determine significance and power of meaning units to synthesize a general psychological structure of the experience (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003). Giorgi suggested that his descriptive phenomenological psychological method is limited as it does not account for an understanding of a cognitional structure universally that is generalizable to the human condition, but rather is simply situational or contextual. It only transferable specific to the context in which the meaning making occurs. This is because, within this research approach, the “voice” of the participant is sacrosanct in that their viewpoint should not be abstracted because their lived experiences is their own. The reactions of the participant are included as well as their impressions, feelings, interpretations, and understanding (meaning making) of their own experiences.
Thus, the descriptive phenomenological psychological method is a first-person perspective which seeks an empathetic position that can be adopted by the consumer of the research. I believe this to be an existential and reciprocal process in which I listen with empathy and the participant may find their sharing and meaning-making to be therapeutic. Through this ontology, there is a phenomenological reduction in which the participant may experience a “transcendental attitude” with their own lived experience. The participant increases their own consciousness through a shared co-construction or meaning making process which is a “clearing of the mind” (Heidegger, 1962).
I employ culturally sensitive sampling procedures using maximum variation grounded by the methods outlined by Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014) for historically marginalized and underrepresented populations for the recruitment of participants. I also use chain-referral (snowball) sampling as defined by Patton (2012). I generate themes through three levels of coding using interpretative phenomenological analysis in which, “one is trying to get close to the participant’s personal world” (Smith & Osborn, 2003, p. 51). Thus, initial coding begins with open coding with a reading of all transcripts and coding on a line-by- line basis staying rooted in the data. My second coding process is grounded in either axial coding in which open codes are grouped into more abstract and complex categories. I also use selective coding to collapse themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) in which bracketing is utilized as a heuristic to structure coding (Patton, 2012). My use of trustworthiness strategies is guided by Cresswell and Miller (2000) to inform validity, analysis, and interpretations of transcript data.