Choosing a paradigm, where should I start?

In previous posts I have talked about the importance of paradigms in different aspects of the research. In this post I will discuss what a research paradigm is and my experience of choosing one.

When thinking about the research many researchers start with identifying the methods, which is mainly the tools they want to use for data gathering. However not so many consider the reasons behind their choices or what is called the underpinning theory and the research paradigm.

Like many novice researchers, I started my research with a research problem and chose research methods. I chose to use qualitative research methods for the right reasons as identified in the research methods books (exploring participants' views and in depth understanding of the context).  However, at that time I lacked an understanding of the meaning of research paradigms and how my understanding of reality is affecting my choices. While developing my research plan, this lack of understanding affected the shape of my objectives, the choice of the appropriate methods including data collection and analysis, the research quality criteria and the language used in writing. Discussing my work with my supervisors and other academics, I realised that unlike bachelor and master dissertations, a PhD thesis should state the researcher's philosophical position and a PhD graduate should have a deep understanding of the research methodology. Trying to understand the research paradigms and the related concepts was not an easy process at the beginning. I started reading about the topic and I could not easily absorb what is written as it was all very theoretical for me, and I could not easily link it to my research.  I have attended a number of qualitative research methods courses and workshops on the hope that I can have two way discussions and understand the relation of philosophy to research. Unfortunately, most of these courses focused on the practical aspect (methods), the paradigms topic was not covered and I was told in many instances that it was not the focus of these courses. During that time I met Dr. Alison Ledger (who later joined my supervisory team) who kindly shared her PhD thesis with me. In her thesis she covered the philosophical background in a very clear way that helped me to understand how to put these theoretical concepts in a practical way. In addition I have attended a presentation titled "Challenging dominant paradigms in medical education research" by Dr. Lynn Monrouxe who described her journey between different paradigms. What has been written about research paradigms started to make more sense to me and I was able to understand the practicality of it. I would consider understanding the research paradigms the most important skill I have learned during my PhD journey and I think it is what turned me into a real researcher.

So what is research paradigm and why is it important?

Paradigm is defined by Guba and Lincoln (1994) as a "basic set of beliefs that guide actions". This simple definition indicates the importance of realising our beliefs (ontology and epistemology) before deciding our actions (methodology).  This set of beliefs are our philosophical understanding of the world and knowledge and based on these beliefs we conduct our researches. Using the research philosophy language these beliefs are called Ontology and Epistemology. Guba and Lincoln (1994) use Ontology to describe how we understand reality and Epistemology to define how we come to this knowledge about reality. Once a researcher gets a clear view about their personal ontological and epistemological views about a phenomenon, they can choose the most suitable methodology to explore that phenomenon.

When I started to think about my paradigm I started with the wrong questions, I had decided my objectives and methods and wanted to figure out in which paradigm they fit. This never worked out because the way I formulated my objectives and methodology did not fit perfectly within one paradigm.  I therefore stepped away from my objectives and methods and got back to my topic and the research problem. The area I was researching was learning during transition from university to workplace. To decide the appropriate paradigm for my research I had to think about my ontological and epistemological positions. This meant thinking whether there was an absolute truth that can be isolated or not and to consider the nature of knowledge I am seeking. For me I did not see learning as a "thing" that could be isolated from learners. Instead I believed it is bound up with the learner and is influenced by interactions, the context and experiences. As a result I believed that multiple realities can exist and the most appropriate way to explore that topic was through investigating the experiences and perceptions of the participants, what influences these perceptions and the meanings they assign to their experience. Once I realised my philosophical position in my study I chose to adopt a constructivist paradigm. In this paradigm people develop a unique view of the world around them according to the interactions and the context and experience in which they are situated. This viewpoint therefore rejects the notion of absolute truth, and acknowledge that multiple realities are possible (Guba and Lincoln 1994).

By being a constructivist I understood that my research did not seek generalisation but to provide in-depth description of the context and highlight the uniqueness of the case under study. In addition I did not seek objectivity and I understood that my previous experience as a patient educator -like my participants- was inseparable from the research, and therefore should be utilised in reflecting on the  findings.

Based on choosing a constructivist paradigm and understanding the philosophy underpinning it, I was able to get back to phrasing accurate objectives that fit with that paradigm (i.e. explore experiences, ascertain views), choose the appropriate research methods that help to achieve these objectives (i.e. qualitative methods; interviews, narrative analysis) and even write my research using the most appropriate language the fit with my paradigm. 

 

Adopting a paradigm is crucial for research. In my experience understanding and choosing a paradigm was not an easy process. Reading about research philosophy and different paradigms is crucial to develop an understanding, however I did not find reading books enough on its own. Reading other peoples' work and theses which has clear description of their paradigms help to link the theoretical understanding with the practical use of it. To be able to choose the appropriate paradigm a researcher need to consider his/her own beliefs about the phenomenon under study and their ontological and epistemological position from it. Once a researcher adopt a paradigm everything else in the research fall in place (research questions, objectives, methods, quality criteria etc.)

References and further reading:

CRESWELL, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: Sage Publications.

GUBA, E. and Y. LINCOLN. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. K. DENZIN and Y. S. LINCOLN, eds. The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London: Sage.

PATTON, M. Q. 2015.Variety of qualitative inquiry frameworks: paradigmatic, philosophical and theoretical orientations In:  Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 4th ed. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: Sage.

Waring, M. 2012 Finding your theoretical position. In: Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R. and Hedges, L.V. eds. Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. SAGE. 

Finding a research question

In the last few months I have been involved in multiple research communities. I have noticed that many researchers ask about a good research question and/or title for their studies. Most of the time these questions remain unanswered and they do not find the help they are hoping for. This is not surprising as only by extensive reading in the field one can decide what is worth researching. Finalising a research question is not a straight forward step and a researcher needs to take a sufficient time to narrow it. According to Bryman (2008) a researcher should have very clear research question as it influences many aspects of the research including; literature search, type of data, analysis approach and writing up.

During my PhD, I have changed my research plan and objectives several times before settling on what I wanted to do. In my experience focusing the research question depends on two things which are; reading previous literature and adopting a research paradigm.

When writing a research proposal a researcher is expected to have an idea about the area of the study and how they are going to approach it. At that stage a researcher can describe the area of interest identify a research problem and bring evidence of why researching that area is important.  However, when writing a thesis, a researcher is required to show a more focused research problem presented as clear aim and objectives or research questions and to provide a strong justification of choosing that area.

An extensive reading of previous studies and looking at what has been written around the topic is the way to identify the gap in the knowledge, the originality of the research and it may draw the researcher attention to some aspects that are more important to what he/she initially planned to research.

As previous literature is key to identify an area to research, it is not enough on its own and one needs to adopt a specific research paradigm to be able to formulate the appropriate research question. Researchers who adopt a positivist paradigm and believe in ultimate truth will be looking for prediction or control and as a result their research questions will include terms like; what, cause, relationship, and may often include a hypothesis. On the other hand researchers who adopt a  constructivist/interpretivist view and believe in multiple realities will be looking for interpretations, understandings and exploring views and their research questions will include terms such as why, how, perceptions and views.

In my PhD research I explored patient educator interns' experience of learning during internship. My initial interest in the topic stemmed from my previous experience as a patient educator. By reading about the topic I decided to focus on the period of internship which represents the transition to work place. Deciding on what to study specifically was greatly influenced by choosing a constructivist paradigm. This choice led to study the participants' experience by exploring their views. I therefore excluded many research ideas which I had considered at early stages but did not fit with the constructivist paradigm, such as exploring the effectiveness of the internship training programme.

It may be tempting for researchers to be advised exactly on what to do so they can start their research. However narrowing the research question is the responsibility of the researcher as it is not merely choosing a topic but it includes a deep understanding of previous literature and awareness of personal perspectives.

Further reading 

BRYMAN, A. 2008. Planning a research project and formulating research questions In: Social research methods. 3rd ed. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SILVERMAN, D. 2010. Selecting a topic In: Doing qualitative research : a practical handbook. 3rd ed. ed. London: SAGE.

How my PhD thesis made an original contribution to knowledge

To write a thesis which is worth a PhD, it must have an original contribution to knowledge.

From the moment a research proposal is designed, PhD students are asked to show the originality of the research and present what their studies will add to existing knowledge. However, it is not always easy to understand what an original contribution means and the term seems to have many interpretations.

Authors have discussed many different ways in which an original contribution can be achieved. In this post, I will focus on three types, which are; methodological, contextual and conceptual/theoretical contribution.

A methodological contribution is where a researcher uses a new method which has not been used before, uses methods which have been used before in a new way, combines more than one method or uses a method which has been suggested but not applied before.

Making a contextual contribution and exploring unexplored contexts is a very common way to approach originality among PhD students. When considering the originality of a context, it is important to think of the context as an example and to consider how it would interest a wider community. That is to say that a contribution to the policy and practice of a specific context is not enough, and it should also have value to wider audience. Therefore, if you start your studies focusing on a specific context, it is important to identify what is special about it, what makes it different from studies that have been done on other places and how your findings would add to that.

A conceptual contribution is achieved when the findings of the research provide a new concept or theory. Not every researcher can predict whether or not the research will have this kind of contribution and it can take the researcher a while to become familiar with their own data and the surrounding literature before finding out the contribution they make. Grounded theorists however start their research with a plan to develop a theory, and therefore are able to include this from the early stages of the research. However, even if you did not plan\expect to come up with something new, that does not mean that you won't, and the more understanding you develop along the way, the more likely this becomes.

In my experience, identifying the contribution of my research was a long process which started with writing the proposal and ended with writing the discussion. My PhD research looked at the experience of transition from university to the workplace. I was interested in particular in the experience of patient educators. In the early stages of my research, I stated that the contribution of my research was in studying a group of professionals who had not been studied before. In reading about transition for health professionals, I noticed that most studies were focused on doctors and nurses and I only found a few studies focused on other health professionals. I therefore found this a could give my work a stronger claim to originality, and I wrote about the limited literature in different health professions. Through the further reading I did about patient educators and other health professionals, I was finally able to identify what was so special about my study. Patient education was a newly emerging profession and this would make this group’s experience different to what had been published before on well-established ones.

This was a good statement of contribution and I was able to highlight in my findings how being from a new profession could magnify the difficulties of transition. These findings showed that although my research was about patient educators, the findings could also be of value to any new profession.

While this would have been a reasonable contribution, getting immersed in the data and reading more in the field helped me to identify further issues in my data and develop a new concept that counted as a theoretical contribution.

In my PhD study, methodological contribution was not an aim which I considered at the beginning of my studies. The period of the PhD was a time to learn methodology and develop as a researcher, and as a result I did not think that I could add anything to the methods. During the research, I tried several analytical approaches, and when I finally decided to use narrative analysis, I developed a tool which suited the purpose of my analysis. Using this tool was considered a strength in my study and I have recommended it for future researchers.

As much as it is important to make an original contribution in your research, it is important not to rush it. Identifying the research contribution is a long process which takes a lot of reading and deep understanding of the data. It is important to think about it from the moment you decide to start a PhD, but it is also important to keep improving it all along the process. Your research contribution must be clear and written under a separate heading. Finally, before claiming that your thesis has made an original contribution, make sure that you have done a good search of the literature as the last thing you want your examiners to say is that your claims are false and what you say is original has actually been done/said before.

For Further Reading 

Clarke, G. and Lunt, I., 2014. The concept of ‘originality’in the Ph. D.: how is it interpreted by examiners?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), pp.803-820.

Gill, P. and Dolan, G., 2015. Originality and the PhD: what is it and how can it be demonstrated?. Nurse researcher, 22(6), pp.11-15.

MURRAY, R. 2011. How to write a thesis, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

PHILLIPS, E. & PUGH, D. S. 2000. How to get a PhD : a handbook for students and their supervisors, Buckingham, Open University Press.

https://supervisorsfriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/how-can-you-tell-when-there-has-been-a-contribution-to-knowledge-in-a-doctoral-research-study/

Writing the thesis: Reflexivity and finding my voice in the research

In this blog I am sharing some of my PhD journey and how I developed as a researcher during that period. My experience will never be identical to others and people may have different ways of learning. Nevertheless I am hoping that some aspects of my experience can be helpful to someone here or there. In this post I will talk about the thesis writing.

At the early stages of my PhD I was not clear about the value of my previous experience. I had tried to avoid bias, maintain objectivity and as a result tried to separate myself from the research, using a passive tone of writing and when needed I referred to myself as “the researcher, the author… etc.”.  As my research progressed, it became apparent to me how important my position from the research was and how separating myself from it was not possible. It appeared that claiming objectivity is not realistic, and does not really strengthen my research. Instead, my previous experience could be a valuable contribution. My role as a researcher was emphasised by my readings of the different research paradigms which led me to adopt a constructivist paradigm.

Once I settled on a paradigm and realised the importance of my role in the research. I was not worried about showing my position from the research and discussing my experience and opinions. Looking at other PhD theses which adopted the same paradigm and reading about the role of the insider researcher, helped me to realise that discussing and reflecting on my own experience is not only acceptable, but it actually adds depths and richness and raise the awareness to my own role.
To embrace myself in the research, I have decided to take a reflexive approach as a way to highlight my own perspective and show my awareness of the context, participants and audience.
Unlike most of PhD theses I wrote mine in an active first person voice, using the terms “I” and “my”. Of course writing with an active voice is not always the appropriate way in research writing and it depends on the type of the research, adopted paradigm and the researcher position from the research. For my thesis it was an appropriate way to show my position and to help me reflect on my previous experience and show my own views.

My voice in the research was shown from the first chapter where I included an autobiographical account of my personal experiences to introduce the research problem; showing how the research idea was initially driven by my previous experience.
During the period of the research and particularly during the stages of data collection and analysis, I kept a reflective diary and shared a weekly journal with my supervisors. The diary and journal included my thoughts about the research process and they were very helpful in understanding my influence on the research; starting from originating the research question. They also drew my attention to how my identity influenced the interaction with my participants during the data collection and how it influenced my interpretation of the data.  When I came to the point of writing, I was able to document and communicate the research process and explain how I made different judgments and decisions.

The use of reflexivity and showing my position from the research has significantly increased its quality. This is because it showed how the research design, process and findings were influenced by my personal background and experience, giving the reader the chance to understand my angle instead of falsely claiming objectivity.

For further reading on reflexivity: 

GALLAIS, T. L. 2008. Wherever I go there I am: reflections on reflexivity and the research stance. CREP, 9(2), pp.145-155.

PATTON, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London: Sage.

MAXWELL, J. A. 2013. Qualitative research design : an interactive approach. Applied social research methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London: SAGE Publications.

WATT, D. 2007. On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: The Value of Reflexivity. Qualitative Report, 12(1), pp.82-101.

Passing a PhD viva

The biggest concern for every PhD student is passing the viva. The thing about the viva is that every experience is unique and each student have a different experience. I was told once, that the viva is like a child birth you never know how long it is going to be and what is going to happen during it. For myself I found it useful to read other people's stories and tips, and learn from different experiences. My story was one of the good ones, so if you are looking for horror and drama you will not find it. However if you are looking for some useful tips, you may find some here.

The most valuable advice I would give if you really want to pass your viva is to WRITE A GOOD THESIS. This may sound cliché and one would say that this is what every PhD student is trying to do, but it is really what it is all about. When I was writing my research, I was told over and over how important it is to be able to justify my work and to defend every step I take. As a result I have explained every step I have taken and justified every decision I have made during the research. This was extremely helpful during the viva.

I have learned from "Preparing for your Viva" workshop that the examiners are expected to answer three questions to justify awarding a student a PhD degree:

1- Does the student show critical ability?

The critical ability should be shown in the thesis and articulated in the viva. Showing an understanding of different research options (philosophical, theoretical, methodological) and the reason of making choices is the way to show the critical ability in the thesis. During the viva examiners may ask different questions to examine the student's understanding of his/her choices and to make sure that the work was actually done by the student. These questions can include but not limited to; inquiries about the development of literature, the adoption of a certain theory and the choices of the research methods.

2- Does the research contribute to knowledge?

Contribution to the wider knowledge is a very crucial issue and it may be even considered the most important question of all. This is because it is what distinguish a PhD from other pieces of research. In your text it is important to have a clear statement of your research contribution preferably under a separate heading. This will make it easy for you to defend the importance of your thesis during the viva and make it easy for the examiner to find your contribution within the text.

3- Is the research publishable?

Although publishing is not a requirement for passing a viva, having a publishable piece of work is. Therefore if you manage to get to your viva with published work, then you manged to fulfil this requirement. If you did not publish anything before the viva then have a clear publishing plan, be ready to talk about whether you thesis will be published as a book, or a number of papers (it all depends on your field). 

To pass my viva I had to make sure that the examiners can actually answer the three questions. When writing my thesis, I was very explicit about the choices I made during the research and everything was written in details in my chapters. I then just had to make sure that I have the ability to further discuss these choices. I went through many common viva questions and answered them loudly to make sure that I can actually vocalise them. As I did all the work by myself and thought about all my steps carefully, I did not find any problems with answering and elaborating in any of the potential questions. 

In regard to the research contribution it was discussed in two different chapters of my thesis. In the background chapter I have indicated the gap in the literature and what this research will add. After my discussion I wrote about the contribution of the research in a separate section and I clearly stated how my research added to the gap identified in the literature in addition to the theoretical contribution of it. I therefore was confident about the research contribution and was actually looking forward discussing it. 

In regard to having publishable piece of work, I was not one of the people who have published during the research. However, once I submitted my thesis for examination, I focused on writing papers. By the time of the viva I had three papers to talk about one under review by a journal, one ready to submit and I was writing the third and had a plan for it. By writing papers -although not published yet- and having a publishing plan, I felt that I ticked the third box on the examiners' list and I knew I am prepared for the viva. 

Two weeks before the viva I had a mock viva with my supervisors which was a good preparation. It helped me to answer all the questions in details get a constructive feedback and it increased my self-confidence. 

While I felt ready to discuss my work, there was part of me that was still worried. My main worry was not about the things I wrote, instead it was about things that I have not written about. There was this fear of being asked about theories that I have not read, or getting into deep discussions about things that I had mentioned briefly. Of course no one can cover all topics in one PhD and it is understandable that your research focused on a certain area. What is important is to explain why you chose to focus on that area and that you understand where your work fit within the wider literature. Keeping that in mind, I looked at my examiners' research interests and some of their papers that are related to my work. I did that not necessarily to adopt their views, but to understand them and be able to defend my work if it does not fit with theirs. This brought me some ease but at the end of the day it was a viva and I was allowed to be a bit worried. 

Answering the common questions was not enough, as I had a number of questions in mind that I was worried of being asked. The questions were mainly about the examiners' work and why I have not adopted their views. Two days before the viva I thought that it was time to face my fears, so I wrote the questions down and wrote how I would answer them, by doing that I realised that they are not as scary as I thought and that I had answers for them.  

Being ready with my thesis and answers, I was not very tense on the day of the viva. I actually felt it would be a good chance to discuss my work and ideas with experts who took time to read it. The viva itself took an hour and a half and to me it felt like a discussion more than an examination. I was asked some of the expected questions such as how my ideas developed over time. I was also asked some questions that I did not expect or prepare for, however as long as it was my work which I knew inside out, it was not an issue, I took few seconds every now and then to think but managed to answer the examiners' inquiries. 

Being very explicit and transparent in my methodology chapter was really helpful and I was told that I have left them with no questions to ask as it was a "solid production". 

I have eventually passed my viva and had a great discussion about my research with experts. 

Looking back at that experience I would say you should be thinking about the viva all through your PhD journey, be aware of the decisions you make, know why you made these choices, be ready to justify them and be explicit and transparent in your writing. After the submission, prepare yourself to answer the common viva questions because you will be asked some of them -maybe in other words- and if possible have a mock viva. If you have done the work, relax and enjoy the experience. 

Common viva questions: 

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/training/eresources/study-guides/viva/prepare/questions

http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/graduateschool/PostgraduateResearchFundamentals/LateStage/SurvivingtheLateStage-PGStudentsHaveTheirSay/PreparingfortheViva/