Review of Epistemological and Methodological Debates of Educational Research and Its Links to Theoretical Perspectives in Education

Research activities are based up on research paradigms such as positivism, interpretivism, critical paradigm and pragmatism. The paradigm is based on the four components of research paradigms: such as ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology. The research paradigms suggest different research methodologies on how to approach reality, create knowledge, and values. Epistemological questions were also forwarded from investigator that direct to contestation on the option and appeal of objectivity, subjectivity, causality, validity and generalization of research findings. Educational activities are based on distinct theoretical viewpoints that have strong linkage with the epistemological and methodological research paradigms. Therefore, this study is intended to review the epistemological and methodological debates in educational research and its links to theoretical dimensions of educational theories. The study employed qualitative research approach in reviewing the existing research paradigms, and components of research paradigms, educational theory perspectives and continuous debates existing among these divergent philosophical thoughts. However, reality, knowledge and values are perceived to be contextual rather than universally agreed particularly in the contemporary global academic scenario. The study implies that though there are persistent debates concerning research paradigms; intermingling different research paradigms are vital to suggest solutions for social researches such as in educational problems. Keywords: Epistemology, interpretivism, methodology, ontology, positivism, pragmatism, research paradigm. DOI: 10.7176/JEP/13-28-01 Publication date:October 31st 202

An Example of Relevant IS Research for Top Managers on IT Project Failure

This paper attempts to progress the development of a more relevant IS research tradition. It describes an application of Benbassat & Zmud’s (1999) recommendations for conducting relevant research to explain how top managers influence IT projects to succeed. The findings challenged the main emphasis of the common IT prescriptions and explained why the success rates of IT projects has been so inconsistent. The research provides a example of how to overcome the fragmentation in the field and if it achieves its goal of influencing management and IT audiences, it will serve as an exemplar of relevant research. It is notable for its use of the pragmatic paradigm and collaboration leading its publication by Standards Australia

Grounded Theory in Information Systems Research – from Themes in IS Discourse to Possible Developments

The grounded theory approach (GT) has been applied in qualitative research in information systems for a long time. Besides many papers that report results from such applications, there exist also many papers that discuss research-methodological issues concerning GT. This paper investigates the literature on GT-methodological issues in IS. The presentation is structured in six themes of the IS/GT discourse. These are: 1) GT variants, 2) GT and research paradigms, 3) GT and guidance, 4) usefulness of GT in IS studies, 5) the influence and use of pre-understandings in the GT research process, 6) the character of a grounded theory or other GT research outcomes. Conclusions are drawn from this review and based on these conclusions two suggestions are given for further development of a grounded theory approach in IS research. These suggestions are: 1) an enhanced action perspective with adapted conceptualizations for the IS research context to be used as support for analysis of data, 2) a clarification of a balanced interaction between inductive data analysis and use of extant theories in theory formation. These suggestions are grounded in pragmatist foundations that are apparent in original and evolved Straussian GT

The Historical Research Method and Information Systems Research

In this paper, we review the premises and practice of the historical method in order to understand how it can be applied to studying information systems (IS) related phenomena. We first examine the philosophical and methodological foundations of the method. For this purpose, we introduce a four-tiered research framework, which consists of (1) the paradigmatic or meta-theoretic assumptions that guide historical research, (2) pragmatism as an overarching approach or a way of doing historical research, (3) the historical method as the guiding principles for producing history, and (4) a review of some central techniques IS historians have applied in historical research. For point four, we review how McKenney et al. (1997) and Porra et al. (2005, 2006) applied Mason et al.’s (1997ab) seven steps of doing IS history. Finally, we compare the historical method with other methods applied in the IS field today: We compare the historical method with the longitudinal case study, case study, field study, and ethnography

Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

The expanding popularity of qualitative research, and more particularly case study re- search, in the field of Information Systems, Organization and Management research, seems to have been accompanied by an increasing divergence in the forms that this re- search takes, and by recurrent criticisms concerning its rigor. This paper develops a heuris- tic framework for guiding the design of a rigorous case study depending on the research’s goal and epistemological framework, as well as for guiding its evaluation. It also highlights the fundamental reasons – namely the epistemological ones – for differences in the guide- lines offered in the literature for conducting high quality case studies. In agreement with numerous authors, we argue for contingent evaluation criteria. We supplement these authors’ works in two ways: (1) we consider various epistemological frameworks that do not appear in the classifications that they use, especially including crit- ical realism and pragmatic constructivism; (2) we propose a set of contingent criteria to be used as a heuristic device for critically and knowledgeably building rigorous case studies within different epistemological traditions

Chapter 16: Paradigmatic Perspectives for Social Justice Research: Method, Paradigm, and Design for Dissertation Research

This chapter presents a conceptual analysis of the current trends for research paradigmatic perspectives used in doctoral social justice research approaches. The chapter offers a concise resource for doctoral scholars and their research supervisors to establish and illustrate a relevant paradigmatic perspective aligned with the research method and design choice to view the dissertation research problem in doctoral social justice research. Paradigmatic perspectives from feminist, critical theoretical perspectives, and grounded theory are also included as examples of specific approaches

Criticality, epistemology and behaviour vs. Design –information systems research across different sets of paradigms

Due to its dynamic and rapid development and due to a variety of academic disciplines and research communities contributing to information systems (IS) research, a broad variety of research approaches can be found. These approaches are often discussed as contrasting “paradigms”. Positivism and interpretivism are frequently accepted to be the most relevant paradigms (cf., for instance, Klein & Myers 1999; Lee 1991; Walsham 1995; Weber 2004). A further set of paradigms consists of behavioural science research (‘problem understanding paradigm’) and design science research (‘problem understanding paradigm’) which has been introduced in the IS literature and heavily adopted since (cf., for instance, Hevner et al. 2004; Jani 2001; March & Smith 1995). On top of this distinction, the critical research paradigm, including its logical complement, the non-critical paradigm, shaped the discussion of IS research philosophy for more than two decades (cf., for instance, Brooke 2002; Klein & Huynh 2004; Landry & Banville 1992; Mumford et al. 1985). Though it is essential to research theory and practice in the IS discipline to discuss the interconnections between these different sets of paradigms, such endeavour has not yet been undertaken. Some approaches address the interdependency between interpretivism and critical research. However, a holistic framework, also taking into account also behavioural and design science is still missing. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide an integrated discussion of these different sets of paradigms and to provide novel perspectives for IS research on how to deal with the apparent diversity of approaches. We will furthermore point out why this discussion is of great importance to IS research especially in Europe

Misunderstandings of Capability Approach: Towards Paradigm Pluralism

 Capability approach figures among the most prominent approaches of social science disciplines. One reason for this is that in a world plagued by daunting inequalities and repressions the term capability presents a whole host of potentials. Another reason is that the failures or shortcomings encountered in development studies the last several decades have created something of a vogue for capability approach both in academia and industry. In the meantime, however, capability approach represents one of the most misunderstood and misused approaches of modern day times. One most pervasive misunderstanding or misuse comes with the idea that capability approach is unable to provide a definite, exhaustive list of capabilities nor to achieve measurable units of development. This idea is further compounded by the fact that Sen (1999, 2009) himself the originator of capability approach has invariably dismissed the discussions concerned with list and measurability. The present paper aimed to highlight the core nature of capability approach, while dispelling the misunderstandings surrounding it. Content analysis was conducted to appraise how capability approach was presented. Sen works were thus perused in light of a wider social science literature, with a focus on methodology. This is mainly because development studies are an interdisciplinary field. In so doing the paper was able to reposition capability approach as an interpretive, qualitative approach. It was thus found that authors continue to misuse and view capability approach through the lens of quantitative research. It was also found that interpretivism is by no means defined or evaluated based on the ability to supply a list of specific items and the measurability thereof. The paper suggested some paths for future research. &nbsp

Mobile apps usage and dynamic capabilities: A structural equation model of SMEs in Lagos, Nigeria.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Significant knowledge exists regarding the application of dynamic capability (DC) frameworks in large firms, but their impact on smaller organisations is yet to be fully researched. This study surveyed 1162 small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Lagos in an effort to understand how SMEs in developing country contexts use mobile apps to enhance their businesses through DCs. Through the use of the covariance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) technique, the study explored the fitness of a conceptual formative model for SMEs. The model assembled 7 latent variables namely: mobile app usage, adaptive capability, absorptive capability, innovative capability, opportunity sensing ability, opportunity shaping ability and opportunity seizing ability. Subsequently, 15 hypotheses aimed at testing the relationships between the latent variables were developed and tested. The findings revealed that mobile app usage increases the adaptive, absorptive and innovative capabilities of SMEs. Absorptive capabilities help SMEs to maximise opportunities, while innovative capabilities negatively influence SMEs’ tendency to maximise opportunities. The results failed to establish a direct relationship between mobile app usage and SMEs’ ability to maximise opportunities. The research outcomes indicate that SMEs in Lagos respond to opportunities innovatively but they seldom exhibit innovation in order to create opportunities. The heterogeneous nature of SMEs complicates any clear-cut narrative as to how SMEs in Lagos should employ mobile apps to create and maximise opportunities. However, mobile apps could induce innovation and, as such, impact significantly when developed and applied to the contextual requirements of SMEs. The research revealed the untapped potential of SMEs’ mobile app usage in Lagos

Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: potential contributions of a critical realist perspective

Notwithstanding diverse opinions and debates about mixing methods, mixed methods research (MMR) is increasingly being used in sport and exercise psychology. In this paper, we describe MMR trends within leading sport and exercise psychology journals and explore critical realism as a possible underpinning framework for conducting MMR. Our meta-study of recent empirical mixed methods studies published in 2017–2019 indicates that eight (36%) of the 22 MMR studies explicitly stated a paradigmatic position (five drew on pragmatism, two switched paradigms between qualitative and quantitative elements of the study, and one was situated in relativist-interpretivism). The remaining 14 (64%) studies did not report their underpinning research philosophical assumptions. Evaluating the merits and limitations of these positions against critical realist assumptions suggests that several paradigmatic disagreements are potentially reconcilable. These include (a) maintaining that ontological and epistemological concerns are important for methodological integrity of a mixed methods study; (b) switching between paradigms in the same study is problematic; and (c) refuting the qualitative-quantitative incommensurability thesis, therefore allowing mixed methods research without compromising philosophical coherence. From a critical realist position, we suggest that both quantitative and qualitative designs are justifiable in a mixed methods study because (1) they help corroborate, refine, or refute plausible explanations of phenomena (epistemological), but (2) with different methodologies utilised to perform different tasks in the same research design related to different psycho-social system features (ontological). We call for a collaborative engagement by researchers across paradigmatic positions to work towards the advancement of methodological pluralism in our research community