Theoretical Perspectives and Research Paradigm - Literature review Example

Theoretical perspectives and research paradigm In today’s modern world of running organizations, many leaders prefer to utilize the “top-down” approach to instigate change. Ideally, anyone’s approach to change should be personal. Top managers have to try persuading team members to buy into the idea of change, own it, and implement it by rewarding them for their work relationships. The more interactive “bottom up” approach of implementing any warranted and needed change makes it easier for management to accomplish their goal of ensuring minimal resistance to change. However, today we more often than not, sadly experience many leaders using the “top down” change as the default approach without considering the impact on productive relationships within the organization, in this case, an educational institution. When trying to optimize performance by initiating any type of change, a quote was put across that, “performance is personal before it is organizational”. Improved performance in the workplace or educational institutions requires productive relationships between peers, employers, subordinates, customers, clients, vendors, suppliers, and the community in, which the organization/institution operates. A top-down approach to change performance implies that imposed change is paramount as the initiative comes from the management level (top). Creation of resolutions is consolidated at the management level of the institution. This means that that there will be exclusion of lower-level employees or the affected students learning in the organization during the change process, despite the change directly affecting them. Top-down change entails effecting changes hastily whereby presenting challenges are addressed as they surface. The main problem with this is that top-down approaches to change performance and efficiency increases resistance to the proposed change. This situation thus brings about the four categories of somewhat liberal minded individuals. The positivist, who lives by the philosophical structure, which holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be methodically and scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and thus usually rejects metaphysics and theism. On the other hand, there is the interpretist, whose philosophy negates that of the positivist, a paradigm that persisted through the decades. This philosophy asserts that it is incumbent upon individuals to adopt a strategy, which respects the differences between people and the animate and inanimate objects of the natural disciplines. According to interpretists, it requires a social expert to grasp the subjective meaning of social action (Peshkin 2000, p. 7-8). Conversely, the constructivist abides by the philosophy based on systematic, scientific study through the observation of how people are able to acquire needed information. This paradigm’s basic presumption holds that people construct their personal, unique understanding of the world and consolidate knowledge of the happenings of the world itself, through experiencing phenomena and internalizing those experiences. Constructivists claim that when one encounters a foreign or new situation, cognitive schemas automatically attempt to reconcile the new information with our pre-existing knowledge. As a result, we might change what we accept as true, or discard it as immaterial to our course. Whatever the situation, each person is an active architect of their own knowledge. Insight is achievable through asking questions, assessing or exploring known phenomena (Von Glasersfeld 1992, p. 375). Conversely, there exists the critical researcher, whose philosophy is not grounded on a single, clearly defined category of research but on a combination of different types of research. Generally, ‘critical’, tantamount to its Marxist roots, is a term used to categorize approaches that challenge norms, which are more often than not, taken for granted and, which seek to expose structures of command and power. Therefore, the underlying assumption is that there exists ‘dominated’ or ‘marginalized’ groups, which existing societal structures discriminate against by denying them what they deserve. When attempting to instil a top down approach at improving the efficiency and performance of any institution; for example, in a college where the students will be the affected in bulk, one has to perform the research bearing in mind the different perspectives of individuals (Thomas 2009, p. 34). Each of the four positions will draw out important research questions about the top-down, nationally imposed non-negotiable change that plans to be implemented. For the positivist, acknowledging the non-negotiable change resulting from the top down criteria would obviously raise the following questions. Why does the change only involve the management section of the institution? Can this change be justified scientifically or with mathematical evidence, that indeed the change will bring forward the expected improvement of efficiency and performance of the students in the college? The theory infers that laws are to be regarded as social rules because they are sanctioned by the managing national authority or logically derived from existing conclusions, and derived from ideal or moral considerations, for example in the unfortunate occurrence that a rule is unjust does not impede its scope or operation. Positivism originated with its philosopher, Auguste Comte, who sought to replace the approach of brainpower, or critical thinking/rationalism, by leveraging the principles of the natural expertise such as the three main pure sciences (physics, biology and chemistry). Conforming to a baseless decision with no provision of a scientific background and research will bring instigate resistance or a rebellious conclusion from those who attempt to pursue a shift in paradigm. The basic principle of positivism is that all realistic knowledge is based on the positive information gained from distinguishable experience, and that any ideals beyond this jurisdiction of demonstrable facts are metaphysical. Only analytical declarations and situations are permissible to be known as realistic through reason alone (Atkinson & Coffey 2002). The six tenets of positivism can be used to collect data to aid in the understanding of the top down change approach include the following. Naturalism holds that the principles of the natural sciences should be used for social sciences alone whereas phenomenalism infers that only observable phenomena provide valid information; for example, observable phenomena aid the institution in providing a credible direction even when it comes to the top down approach of implementing change. Conversely, the principle of nominalism presumes that words of scientific value either have fixed or single meanings. Thus, the existence of one word does not point toward the actuality of what it describes. In addition, atomism holds that changes can be studied by reducing them to their smallest parts, and that the whole is the sum of the parts. Scientific laws hold that the ultimate objective of science entails creating generalized laws, which are useful for in creating incidences such as prediction. Finally, the last of the tenets includes facts and values, where facts are sought whereas values held to heart have absolutely no meaning in the scientific world. Although positivism has since been shown to be inadequate to study the full range of human experience, it has been hugely influential and significant in analysing experiments and statistics in social research. Therefore, a positivist parent would highly not prefer the top down approach as it would definitely bring out questionable effects in the parent’s child, who will be directly affected by the non-participative top down approach (Cooper 2011). For the interpretist, different views originate from various places in differing disciplines. This paradigm was developed as a negation of positivism. As a result, it has a more welcoming attitude towards the top-down approach when implementing change in the educational institution. In a broad-spectrum, interpretists have consensus with regard to the nature of reality and knowing. First, relativist ontology presumes that reality is inter-subjectively constructed from socially and experientially developed tolerances and meanings. Second, a transactional or subjectivist epistemology postulates that individuals cannot separate themselves from what they know.  There is a link between object under investigation and investigator whereby how an individual understands the world is central to their perspective of others and themselves. By postulating a reality that is inseperable from our knowledge of it, the interpretivist paradigm theorizes that researchers values are essential throughout the research.  The truth about a situation more often than not is conveyed through dialogue. Their pre-existing knowledge claims surface as an investigation unravels.  Meaning, verdicts materialize through dialogue in which contradictory interpretations are negotiated among community members, in this case, all the stakeholders of the educational institution planning to undergo the paradigm shift (Cooper 2011). Pragmatic and ethical concerns are pivotal considerations when evaluating interpretive science.  Fostering discourse between researchers and their subjects is pertinent.  It is through this dialectical process that a more knowledgeable and urbane comprehension of the social world that one achieves enlightenment. All interpretations are based on a particular context.  They are open to re-interpretation and compromise through discussion. This mind set would most probably be the reason that the middle managers would more often than not be interpretists. The justifying role of tenets is pivotal. For all legal privileges and responsibilities presented by any type of change, some ethical principles at the end of the day explain reasons for bequeathing institutions the role of distinguishing between morality and one’s right and/or responsibility. Morality is paramount when it comes to the order of explanation. This stand and approach of philosophy separates the metaphysical investigation of grounds from the moral investigative force. Considered from this perspective, an ethical explanation of how established practice determines privileges and responsibilities such as that offered by interpretivism may seem to have its place in a very dissimilar part of implementation of change by using the top down approach (Moss et al. 2009, p. 518). The instantaneous source of difficulties for those that attempt to implement the paradigm usually lies in the amalgamated character of the ideal of principled uniformity deployed by a somewhat hybrid type of interpretivism. This entails the practicing philosopher of this ideology must simultaneously focus and aim at consistency and merit, understood as separate targets, which do not need to coincide. It is unclear that interpretation could secure comprehensiveness, understood as power to resolve all possible disagreements. The composite commencement of a principled consistency is forced upon the hybrid interpretivist by his fundamental commitment, to, which the difficulties towards conforming to the infamous top down approach while attempting to instil a paradigm are ultimately traced. The starting point of interpretivism must be some norms constituted by the contingencies of institutional communication, and that interpretation’s purpose is to compare and somewhat try to reconcile with the norms and ideals of the agents of the top-down change. The third category, which comprises of the constructivists, abides by a theory based on scientific study and observation. They hold a different opinionated attitude towards the proposed non-negotiable change that is breathing down the normal functionality of the educational institution. The constructivist in the case provided in this situation would most likely be a teacher, technician or lecturer. In a classroom setting, the constructivist’s perspective of learning can pinpoint different schooling practices. For example, it usually means encouraging students to use active performances (experimentations, real-world problem disentangling) to generate more insight. The lecturer makes sure she/he understands the students pre-existing commencements, and guides towards self-realization (Eisner 1992, p. 8). Constructivism philosophy practitioners encourage students to constantly measure how the activity is facilitating their insatiable gain of an understanding. By interrogating themselves and their approaches, students guided by fundamental tenets of constructivism ideally become "expert learners." Within a detailed-oriented, well-organized lecture theatre environment, the students inadvertently develop competency in learning. For example, in a physics classroom comprising of students discussing an analytical problem in the subject, the supervisor assists the students to explore different perspectives in order to arrive at the correct answer despite their prior knowledge of the correct answer. The educator prompts each learner to recall and scrutinize his or her current understanding. Immediately one of the students develops a relevant concept, the instructor seizes the opportunity to indicate to the assemblage that that approach might be a productive avenue for each of them to be able to explore. As a result, the other students design and implement relevant experimentations. Afterward, the students and instructor discuss procedures that facilitated their understanding of the problematic concept (Eisner 2006, p. 12). Thus the introduction of a top-down, non-negotiable change to the educational facility would either favor or not favor the development of the students’ capabilities by first influencing the attitude of the constructivist lecturer. If the student is allowed or not allowed a sufficient quota to have a liberal mind on a problematic concept, the attitude in which the constructivist will engage the student will be affected. This can be either positive or negative depending on the policies of the implemented change. Contrary to conservative critics who infer that constructivism discharges the lively role of instructors, it is apparent that the paradigm does the reverse and further lobbies for well-informed knowledge. Constructivism transforms that role, so that professors help students to construct understanding rather than mechanically reproduce findings. The constructivist professor provides tools such as inquiry-based learning activities and problem-solving activities, which prove useful to students, as they test their philosophies; therefore, aid to draw conclusions and extrapolations, and pool and transport their understanding in a cooperative learning atmosphere. Constructivism transmutes the student from an unreceptive beneficiary of information to a lively contributor in the learning progression. Always mostly guided by the lecturer, students construct their responsiveness actively rather than just unconsciously ingesting knowledge from the lecturer or the course book (Von Glasersfeld 1989, p. 125). Constructivism triggers students’ innate curiosity with regard to understanding the science behind how things work. It is also frequently miscomprehended as a learning philosophy that compels one to “reinvent the wheel”. This is not the case, as students attempt to understand functionality. Their heightened interest in a particular subject enables them to apply their existing knowledge derived from experiences to testing hypotheses; hence, draw conclusions. Thus a system that serves to strong arm the students away from a constructivism way of thinking through the top-down approach leave the students no room for participatory learning to facilitate in the advancement of analytical understanding. This will also be evidenced by the manner in which the lecturer conveys the information relevant to the advancement of the students’ mental growth. It will be a very non-participatory lecturing session. The fourth and final category is the philosophy that entails a critical research. Mertens (2005) prefers to use the term ‘transformative’ research, which she sees as encompassing a wide range of approaches including critical theory, neo-Marxist and feminist perspectives, critical race theory, disability and gender issues, participatory and emancipatory approaches (Hammersley 2006, p. 9). They indicate that critical perspectives seek to not only research the historical origins of ‘taken for granted’ social and political structures but also seek ‘to understand how victims of such social arrangements come to accept and even collaborate in maintaining oppressive aspects of the system’. They identify four further key aspects of critical researchers. First, they pursue to ‘irradiate the hidden structures of power deployed in the construction of its own power, and the disempowerment of others’. (In the context of early 21st century, they refer to late capitalism, neoliberalism and hyperactive capitalism). Second, they inquire ‘deeply into the usages of language and the circulation of discourses that shape social life’. Third, they are ‘profoundly engaged with issues of race, gender and socioeconomic level’ as separate issues but increasingly where they intersect. Finally, they explore ‘indigenous scholars approach relations between themselves and imperialist forms of power from the perspective of colonialism, neo-colonialism and post colonialism’ (Hammersley 2006, p. 12). Therefore, in this entity, critical research is engaged to mean research, which aims at understanding, uncovering, enlightening, and/or transforming how educational purposes, dilemmas, tensions and expectations are associated to social divisions and power differentials. As an example, this is often considered in terms of how the conservatory system, both at national and indigenous levels, its structures, curriculum, training and assessment methods, reproduces gender, race and socio-economic dissimilarities, and how, instead, it might function to underwrite to a more even-handed civilization. A nonspecific term usually applied to any research that challenges those conventional knowledge bases and methodologies whether quantitative or qualitative, that make claims of methodical impartiality. Rather, critical social research attempts to reveal the socio-historical specificity of understanding and to shed light on how particular familiarity reproduces organizational relations of inequality and oppression. Critical social research, in the sense of proposing appraisals of social directive, has a long history incorporating the likes of Aristotle, Socrates, Hobbes and Marx. It is currently evident in the work of a wide variety of social critics, including Marxists, feminists and poststructuralists and is often ‘hailed’ through attributing the adjective of ‘critical’ to any number of existing disciplines or methodologies, as in ‘critical sociology’, ‘critical discourse analysis’, ‘critical anthropology’, ‘critical psychiatry’, ‘critical criminology’, ‘critical ethnography’ and so on. Yet, unlike other methodological civilizations, the describing physiognomies of a critical approach have rarely been presaged. Quite similar to interpretists, critical researchers recognize the cost of value, and that it is most certainly not free. According to their ideals, the goal of research is to proactively challenge interpretations and personal values in order to bring about the much needed change, whether top-down or bottom up, the latter being more of a preference. Proponents argue that politics and inquiry are intertwined, thus, inseparable making it a necessary consequence. By having an agenda of reform, or change, all the participants’ lives in the educational institution undergo the much-needed transformation. This explains why critical research’s alias is the transformative paradigm. Action research best exemplifies the critical research methodology. Research methods used in critical research are group discussions and interviews among others, which encompasses methods that allow for partnership. In addition, they can be meticulously discharged in a manner that avoids prejudice that might mirror major top-down, nationally imposed, non-negotiable change being implemented in the curriculum of an educational institute (Brydon-Miller et al. 2003, p. 13-17). These different paradigm positions may or may not have some major distinctions from each other when compared. Even though they revolve around a similar ideology, there may be some, to the less knowledgeable about the positions, very minute differences. For starters, social constructivism holds that certainty is constructed by social developments, is historically and traditionally specific, and is in part fashioned through the supremacy skirmishes within a society. Constructivism views all knowledge as "assembled," as it does not mirror any peripheral "transcendent" authenticities, as a pure correspondence philosophy might embrace. Rather, perceptions of actuality are regarded as dependent on human perception, convention, social understanding and experience. Constructivists infer that demonstrations of physical and biological reality, including gender, race and sexuality among others are socially constructed. The fathering philosopher of constructivism, Giambattista Vico was among the first scholars to postulate that history and culture were creations of man (Edwards 2000, p. 198). Vicos epistemological positioning gathers the most miscellaneous rays and discloses in one saying, verum ipsum factum, which translated non-vaguely means, “truth itself is constructed" (Edwards 2000, p. 198). Other early protagonists supporting Vico’s presumption included Marx and Hegel. Marx did not reject the existence of dispassionate truth; however, he sought to distinguish between factual knowledge and understanding distorted through the power of philosophy. A distinction emerges when one makes a comparison to positivism, which hinges on information derived from mathematical, logical and sensory information. Positivists negate knowledge uncovered through intuition and contemplation, as they presume enlightenment results from scientific knowledge. Similar to the physical world, positivists also believe that general laws predispose societies’ functioning. Unlike the critical research paradigm, positivism negates critical thinking because of its subjective nature (Hammersley 2006, p. 14). Jurgen Habermas was the main protagonist of critical research paradigm. While working at the Frankfurt School located in Germany, he developed a methodology of investigation useful in the social sciences. The methodology sought to describe historical forces that restricted human freedom, and the ideologies used to justify these forces. Habermas theorized that knowledge was a derivative of three types of interests, which included technical interest, unshackling interest, and practical interest. Technical interest generates analytical and empirical knowledge, as it is concerned with controlling the physical environment. Conversely, unshackling interest generates crucial knowledge, as it centres on exposing conditions of domination and constraints. Finally, practical interest generates chronological and hermeneutic awareness, as it explores a situation’s in depth meaning (Brydon-Miller 2003, p. 16). Like his fellow critical theorists, Habermas was critical of previous paradigms, which they inferred failed to question existing circumstances. Critical theorists suggest action research and ideology critique as the major types of research methodologies. Habermas’ interests of exploring knowledge and the two types of research methodologies remain issues of contention for scholars ascribed to other paradigms. Despite their differences, each paradigm proves useful in enhancing scientific exploration. Positivism is integral to research methods, which focus on surveys, experiments, and quantitative research, as it places great emphasis on objectivity in studying social phenomena (Eisner 1992, p. 12). Conversely, anti-positivist approaches, which stress on subjectivity, are pivotal to research techniques focusing on qualitative analysis; for example, participant observation, personal interviews, personal constructs and account of individuals. In addition, critical theory validates action research and ideology critique as credible research methods (Edwards 2000, p. 196). Therefore, the presenting problems entails selecting a research paradigm that best suits the nature of research study one intends to undertake. One ought to take into consideration the following queries. What is the quintessence (nature) of the social phenomenon under investigation? Does the social phenomenon result from human imagination or from objective, innate origins? Such questions guide the researcher to distinguish between the different paradigms, which as suitable to specific research situations. To understand my stand on the paradigm philosophies, which is the constructivism paradigm of research, it is vital to understand a brief history of Constructivism. Jean Paiget’s theory of genetic epistemology laid the foundation for constructivism’s psychosomatic roots. Through his contributions, Piaget highlighted cognition’s adaptive function and analogized the mind’s development. He theorized that there were four stages of cognitive development, which included sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete and formal operational stages. According to him, human intellect resulted from continuous organization and adaptation (encompasses accommodation and assimilation). Assimilation entails merging new information with pre-existing information whereas accommodation entails altering pre-existing information with incoming unfamiliar information. Countless studies have demonstrated–or tried to discredit–Piagets theory. For example, it is apparent that formal operations are useful for adults in the few domains they are competent or specialists. However, Piaget’s presumption that learning does not result from a snowballing process but is transformative remains integral. Learning in children occurs after the merging of different bits of information whereby, they attempt to make sense of their surroundings by building on pre-existing knowledge. Through organization and adaptation, knowledge is organized and re-organized to boost cognition. Neo-Piagetian research continues to build on Piaget’s work in order to reinforce his premise that learning is transformative (Thomas 2009). Lev Vygotskys (1896–1934) a Russian psychologist built on Piaget’s work by exploring concepts such as thought and language in relation to the society. According to Vygotsky, competent external parties contribute to a child’s internalization of social and external activities such as language. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was a concept developed when he found a fundamental difference in children’s reasoning between those working independently and those working with more proficient people. His findings posit that learning environments ought to incorporate guided interactions, which create a platform for children to reflect in inconsistencies and in turn change their conceptualizations via communication. Vygotsky’s advancements prove useful in the situated approach to learning (Vygotsky 1979, p. 6). Scholars often contrast Vygotsky and Piagets philosophies. They distinguish between Vygotsky’s social constructivism and Piaget’s individual cognitive constructivism. Some tried to synthesize these approaches whereas other argued against it claiming they are discrete; for example, James Wertsch and Michael Cole. According to them, the fundamental difference rests on the dissimilarity between cultural artifacts’ roles. Vygotsky places great importance on such relics, which is not the case for Piaget (Vygotsky 1979, p. 15). For the American philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952), education hinges on action–knowledge and ideas emerge only from contexts, which learners have to draw on personal, meaningful experiences. Dewey upheld that human thought centers on practical problem solving, which surfaces from testing testing rival hypotheses. The problem-solving experiences ensue in social contexts, such as a classroom, where students link up in manipulating constituents and observing aftermaths. Dewey conceived the method of progressive education in North America. Joseph Campione and Ann Lesley Brown devised the Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL) program, which endeavors to put Dewey’s theory assertions into practice. Generally, epistemology refers to the study of knowledge and justifiable beliefs. This is exemplified in the four different values that each paradigm holds significant. Ontology refers to a discipline preoccupied with the nature of being, becoming, actuality, or reality. Conventionally listed as a portion of the foremost subdivision of philosophy referred to as metaphysics, ontology explores questions relating to what units exist or can be alleged to exist, and how such entities can be congregated, and subdivided according to resemblances and metamorphoses (Small 2009, p. 35). The Methodology represents the overall research strategy. It gives a framework for the research denoting procedures to be undertaken; for example, it outlines methods to be used in the research. A methodology is the design procedure for carrying out investigation or the improvement of a procedure and is not in itself an implement, or method, or procedure for doing things. In recent years, more people use both terms (methodology and method) interchangeably despite their difference in meaning. Using methodology while referring to a set of methods, leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, which devaluates the appropriate analysis that should go into the designing of the research process (Tobin 2009). The impression behind reliability is that any momentous results must be more than a one-off conclusion and be fundamentally repeatable. Other researchers affiliated to different categories of paradigms must be able to get similar results when they replicate the experiment (Teddlie et al 2009). This will reinforce the discoveries and warrant that the wider scientific community will accept the supposition. Without this reproduction of statistically momentous results, the experiment and research will have not satisfied all of the requirements of testability. This precondition is indispensable to a hypothesis establishing itself as an acknowledged scientific certainty. Generally, it is judicious to assume that the instruments are reliable and will keep true and accurate record of events soon after the change is in effect. However, meticulous scientists take measurements many times, to minimize the chances of malfunction and maintain validity and reliability. In extreme situations, any experimentation that uses humanoid judgment will always undergo scrutiny. For example, if observers rate specific aspects, like in the non-negotiable top down approach of change implementation, then the investigation’s reliability is compromised. Human judgment can vary enthusiastically between observers, whereby the same person may rate effects differently depending upon the current time of day at the time and his or her current mood. This implies that such experiments are often problematic to repeat and are characteristically less consistent. Reliability is a necessary component for shaping the overall validity of an experiment and augmenting the metier of the results. Deliberation between pure and social scientists, concerning reliability, is prevalent and continuous (Von Glasersfeld 1992, p. 381). Validity encompasses the entire experimental perception and inaugurates whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method. Internal validity dictates the structure of the experimental design, and further encompasses the scientific research methods’ steps in their entirety. It does not really matter whether the results are great or disordered, an inconsistent design will compromise the veracity of the process in the eyes of the methodical community. Internal validity and reliability are at the core of any experimental design. External validity is the process of scrutinizing the results and enquiring whether other conceivable causal associations exist. Control groups and randomization will lessen peripheral validity difficulties, as no method is infallible. The fact that the top down approach offers no room for control group experimentation does not help its case against the four paradigm categories (Von Glasersfeld 1989, p. 123). This is explains why the statistical corroborations of a hypothesis is called significant, and not the absolute truth. Each scientific research design only puts forward a conceivable foundation for the premeditated consequence. There is always the possibility that another unknown factor will undoubtedly contribute to the consequences and conclusions. This inessential causal association may become clearer, as techniques are honed and refined. If the managing authority of the educational institution practicing the top down approach would have constructed the change experiment to contain validity and reliability then the four categories of the philosophical practitioners would have been more likely to accept the management’s findings. By using duplicate samples and controls, one is able to eradicate other potential causal relationships; therefore, ensure results weather rigorous questioning (Wiggins 2011, p. 45-47). References Atkinson, P. and Coffey, A. (2002) ‘Revisiting the relationship between participant observation and interviewing’ in Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Interview Research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D. and Maguire, P. (2003) ‘Why action research?’, Editorial, Action Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–28. Cooper, V.L. and Ellis, C. (2011) ‘Ethnographic practitioner research’ in Callan, S. and Reed, M. (eds) Work-based Research in the Early Years, London, Sage. Edwards, A. (2000) ‘Looking at action research through the lenses of sociocultural psychology and activity theory’, Educational Action Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 195–204. Eisner, E. (1992) ‘Objectivity in educational research’, Curriculum Inquiry, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 9–15. Hammersley, M. (2006) ‘Ethnography: problems and prospects’, Ethnography and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–14. Moss, P.A., Phillips, D.C., Erickson, F.D, Floden, R.E., Lather, P.A. and Schneider, B.L. (2009) ‘Learning from our differences: a dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research’, Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 501–17. Peshkin, A. (2000) ‘The nature of interpretation in qualitative research’, Educational Researcher, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 5–10. Roth, W-M. (eds) Generalizing from Educational Research: Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization, London, Routledge. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (eds) (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Thomas, G. (2009) How to do Your Research Project: A Guide for Students in Education & Applied Social Sciences, London, Sage. Small, M.L. (2009) ‘“How many cases do I need?”: on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research’,Ethnography, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 5–38. Tobin, K. (2009) ‘Repetition, difference and rising up with research in education’ in Ercikan, K and Roth W-M. (eds) Generalizing from Educational Research Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization, London, Routledge. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989) ‘Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching’, Synthese, vol. 80, pp. 121–40. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1992) ‘Constructivism Reconstructed: a Reply to Suchting’, Science and Education, vol. 1, pp. 379–84. Vygotsky, L.S. (1979) ‘Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour’, Soviet Psychology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 3–35. Wiggins, B. (2011) ‘Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods’, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 44–60. Read More