Experimenting with Different Epistemologies…

When discussing the nature of my theoretical framework, or my research paradigm, I would claim that my epistemological views fit comfortably within the interpretive paradigm (Shah & Al-Bargi, 2013). From my interpretivist world-view I tend to believe that knowledge is socially constructed and that the concept of truth is generally interpretive, not limited to a single, objective definition. Social constructivism matches my world view well enough that, for the time being, I approach issues of learning from that perspective. However, I do not presume to believe that my understanding of the world and of learning in general is infallible. 

In the same way that learning something new is an internal process where a learner observes something that does not fit with their current understanding of a thing, and then seeks to adapt their understanding in order to accommodate their observation, I might, as a researcher, have to confront dissonant elements of my own epistemological view and adapt my understanding to accommodate the new elements. That’s a very long and unpublishable way of saying that I might learn something new that causes me to change how I view learning in general.

From a research perspective, I’m still very young and impressionable. I do not believe that being compelled to adopt a research methodology based on a different epistemological paradigm, such as positivism, would cause me any great concern. In fact, I would likely view the situation as an opportunity to learn something new. 

As I think about it now, I’m actually wondering if my own theoretical framework, my epistemological paradigm, isn’t a bit fluid. Perhaps, as a novice in my field, I do not so deeply believe in a single perspective that I do not feel challenged by an opportunity to explore other perspectives. Maybe, in this case, lack of experience is a good thing because it allows for a broader view of the world and less contention between paradigms.

I think my attitude is a benefit in research, especially in researching learning systems. As much as instructional designers and other developers of learning systems and content like to debate learning theories and frameworks, the truth is that much of what we see out consists of a mélange of learning theories and frameworks. Learning activities are not always grounded in the same theoretical framework, especially when it comes to technology-based learning (Hannafin et al., 2004). Having worked as an instructional designer I can attest to the need to develop content quickly or under customer-driven constraints that result in learning products that are not “socially constructivist” in nature, despite my preference for that learning theory. In fact, looking back, most of the learning content I’ve been responsible for involves simple stimulus-response interactions and an assumption that there is only one truth, the customer’s truth. Very behaviorist/positivist…

Perhaps the best way to approach a situation where the research constraints require me to employ a theoretical framework that seems to be contrary to my own would be to mix theoretical approaches. I know that some researchers do not believe that mixing theoretical frameworks is possible because, they say epistemologies have rigid boundaries (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). I think it could be done, however. Flagging the potential conflict up front and adjusting the research methodology to acknowledge the difference would be necessary so that the methodology could be adjusted to accommodate the different viewpoints. Then, if the difference between the competing theoretical frameworks ultimately appears to affect the research, then the issue would be identified in the limitations of the study. 

Ultimately, I’m game to try a different world view. I’m not sure I could approach it without bias, and so my recommendation would be to partner with another researcher who does hold the alternate world view as true and accurate. At the very least, the methodology should include reviews by people who accept the competing world view and can accurately identify epistemological bias. I don’t think I could trust myself, alone, to conduct research following a theoretical framework I don’t naturally ascribe to without introducing bias. I would definitely need partners. But I think I’d be up for the challenge!

References

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigm in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (PP.99-136). Sage Publications.

Hannafin, M. J., Kim, M. C., & Kim, H. (2004). Reconciling research, theory, and practice in web-based teaching and learning: The case for grounded design. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940927

Shah, S. R., & Al-Bargi, A. (2013). Research Paradigms: Researchers’ Worldviews, Theoretical Frameworks and Study Designs. Arab World English Journal, 4(4), 14.