Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写

  • 100%原创包过,高质代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信:120591129
  • Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写

     
    Research Design
    MGMT801
    Assessment 1: Aligning your ontology, epistemology and methodology
    Word count  1624
    In this essay I will define the terms ontology, epistemology and research paradigms and describe the
    dominant aspects of each.  Using these I will articulate my ontological and epistemological position
    and justify the research paradigm that aligns most closely with my potential research question.  I am
    interested in the subjective experiences and interpretations of New Zealand’s refugees from Syria as
    they attempt to rebuild their lives and resume their careers.   My research question is “What is the
    experience of Syrian refugees as they resume their working lives in New Zealand? “. 
    Ontology
    Ontology is the philosophic study of the nature of reality (Grant & Giddings, 2002).  According to Gray
    (2014, p.687) it is the study of “the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence”, whose
    chief concern is “what is?” (Crotty, 1998).  It is fundamental to what we consider true or real
    (NurseKillam, 2013).   Gray describes two opposing ontological beliefs: one in an unchanging, fixed
    world and one in a changing, evolving world.  He designates these differing beliefs as an ontology of
    “being” versus an ontology of “becoming” (Gray, 2014, p. 20).  According to NurseKillam (2013) these
    differing beliefs then determine what we can know about existence and what counts as knowledge.  
    My personal ontological position is that the world and reality are constantly changing or “becoming”. 
    I see the world as socially constructed and reject that there is just one world view or a single
    unchanging world waiting to be discovered.
    Epistemology
    Epistemology seeks to define what is “knowledge” (Crotty, 1998; Grant & Giddings, 2002).  Gray
    defines epistemology as “a branch of philosophy that considers criteria for determining what
    constitutes and does not constitute valid knowledge” (Gray, 2014, p. 682).   According to Grant and
    Giddings  (2002) the ontological position we hold  either constrains or logically dictates
    epistemological perspective.  There are at least three epistemological positions; objectivism,
    constructivism and subjectivism.
    Objectivism
    2
    The objectivist view is that things exist independently of consciousness and experience (Crotty, 1998;
    Gray, 2014) and that through careful research, truth and meaning can be discovered and understood
    (Crotty, 1998).  It believes there is an objective reality waiting to be discovered (Crotty, 1998; Gray,
    2014).  This view is particularly prevalent in the natural sciences (Bryman & Bell, 2015).
    Constructivism 
    In contrast, constructivism rejects the idea of an objective reality waiting to be discovered and argues
    that truth and meaning are constructed through our interactions with the world (Gray, 2014).  
    Subjectivism
    Similar to constructivism, subjectivism rejects the notion of an objective reality.  However it differs
    from constructivism in that it argues meaning is not attributed through an interplay with the social
    world but rather from within the subject (Gray, 2014) and is imposed on the object of study by the
    subject from, for example, from collective consciousness, archetypes and religious beliefs (Crotty,
    1998). 
    Because I see the world as socially constructed, a constructivist epistemology best describes my view
    of knowledge.  Although subjectivism also views the world as socially contracted, I reject it as an
    epistemology  because it draws on understandings that I have no background in and am not drawn to.
    Research paradigms
    According  to the Merriam‐Webster dictionary a paradigm is  a “philosophical and theoretical
    framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
    experiments performed in support of them are formulated (paradigm, n.d.).    Bryman and Bell (2015)
    provides a simpler definition and describe a paradigm as a collection of beliefs and precepts in a
    particular discipline.  According to Kuhn (Kuhn, cited in AUT 2016, p.2), the research paradigm
    influences what should be studied, how this should be done and how the researcher should make
    sense of findings.  
    The key research paradigms include positivism, post‐positivism, interpretivism, radical/critical
    inquiry, postmodernism/poststructuralism (Gray, 2014) but also include emerging paradigms
    such as Kaupapa Māori research (Smith, 1999).
    Positivism 
    3
    Positivism has been dominant in Western thinking for over 2000 years (Grant & Giddings, 2002).  In
    the positivist paradigm everything that exists is based on objective facts and is fixed.  It assumes that
    truth and knowledge are there just waiting to be discovered.  As such it has obvious roots in objectivist
    epistemology and an ontology of “being”.  It assumes a value‐free,  objective observer who looks for
    facts and causality between variables (Gray, 2014).  It assumes that over time, facts will be carefully
    built up to reveal a full picture. 
    Postpositivism
    The 1960s challenge to  the dominance of positivism in Western thought gave rise to postpositivism
    (Grant & Giddings, 2002), the view that there are multiple and often competing views of truth and
    reality.  While postpositivism acknowledges that reality is socially and culturally constructed (AUT,
    2016), it posits that this can still be objectively described and measured.
    Interpretivism 
    Interpretivism  draws on the idea that rather than a single objective truth, there are multiple
    realities and that interpretations of the world are culturally derived and historically situated (Gray,
    2014).  Interpretivism attempts to understand what meaning people attach to experiences and
    events in their lives.  The researcher attempts to understand the experiences of the researched
    and the meaning they ascribe to them and then to interpret those experiences and meanings
    (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Grant & Giddings, 2002).  As such it has roots in constructivist epistemology
    and an ontology of being.  
    While sharing assumptions about truth and human experience, there are different theoretical
    lenses that interpretivist researchers might use (Grant & Giddings, 2002).  These include symbolic
    interactionism,  phenomenology and hermeneutics (Gray, 2014).  Briefly defined symbolic
    interactionism is the belief that people develop a sense of identity through social interactions and
    the meanings they attribute to them (Gray, 2014, p. 691).  Phenomenology explores subjective
    experience, how participants experience and give meaning to an event, concept or phenomenon
    (Gray, 2014).  The researcher then tries to understand what is happening and to construct theories
    or models from the data.  Phenomenology tends to use interviews to capture the essence of the
    experience of the interviewee (Grant & Giddings, 2002).  Similarly, hermeneutics is concerned
    with a socially constructed reality (Gray, 2014) but instead of the researcher interpreting what is
    said, the research participant interprets or explores what lies behind what is said (Grant &
    Giddings, 2002).
    4
    Radical/Critical/Feminist paradigms
    The focus of  radical paradigms is social change and emancipation.  Grant and Giddings (2002)
    argue that both the researcher and the participants are socially positioned and that “truth” may
    be confounded through ideological mechanisms such as hegemony that favours the interests of
    the powerful in society.  The aim of radical or critical research then is to address injustice and
    empower those being researched through conscientisation (Freire, 1972) and to engage them in
    social action to create change (Grant & Giddings, 2002). Radical paradigms have their origins in
    an ontology of “becoming” and subjectivist epistemology.
    Postmodernism
    According  to Gray (2014) post modernism arose as a response to the disillusion with positivism
    and modernist thought.  It argues that objective truth is unattainable and that claims of truth are
    biased and incomplete.  Postmodernism emphasises “multiplicity, ambiguity, ambivalence and
    fragmentation (Gray, 2014, p. 28).  It links to a “becoming” ontology and a subjectivist
    epistemology.
    Kaupapa Māori
    One emerging research paradigm that is particularly relevant to New Zealand is Kaupapa Māori
    research.  It is emancipatory in nature and therefore fits with a critical approach.   Pringle et al  cite
    Smith (1999) and Wolfgramm (2007) to describe  this research paradigm as “that which is done for,
    with and by Māori; that which validates and legitimises Māori language and culture; that which
    empowers Māori, as whanau, hapu and iwi” and which takes for granted the validity and legitimacy
    of Māori(Pringle, Wolfgramm, & Henry, 2010, p. 132).
    Because I ascribe to an ontology of “becoming” and a constructivist epistemology, a research
    paradigm that logically follows is interpretivism, a belief that  interpretations of the world are
    culturally derived and historically situated.  Of the different theoretical approaches to
    interpretivism, phenomenology best describes my preferred framework.  Interpreting how people
    make sense of their world allows patterns and understanding to emerge, something that cannot
    be measured using quantitative approaches.  Additionally constructivism and phenomenology are
    a good fit with my personal theory of professional practice in the field of career development
    (constructivist). 
    Methodologies
    5
    Methodology  is to do with the philosophy and theoretical assumptions on which a particular
    research approach is built (Grant & Giddings, 2002).  They add that “for the most part ontology
    and epistemology constrain choices of methodology while the methodology expresses ontology
    and epistemology in terms of modes of inquiry” (Grant & Giddings, 2002, p. 12).  They say the
    methodology guides how the researcher structures the research question and the process and
    methods they use.  
    Methodologies might include experiments, phenomenological research, analytical surveys, action
    research and heuristic inquiry (Gray, 2014), each of which suggests a range of appropriate
    methods, depending on the research question.  Of these, phenomenological research, which
    explores the way individuals construct their world (Gray, 2014) seems an appropriate
    methodology to explore my research question. A common method is using in‐depth, unstructured
    interviews, although focus groups might be another or additional way of capturing meaningful
    data.  It allows the researcher to hear perspectives, themes and ideas they may not have
    considered  and allows the data to emerge (Gray, 2014).  
    Conclusion
    To reiterate, I ascribe to an ontology of “becoming”, a constructivist epistemology, an interpretivist
    research paradigm and a preference for  phenomenology and phenomenological research. 
    Potential research methods are a combination of in‐depth interviews and focus groups. These
    methods allow access to the subjective meanings that participants attribute to their experiences
    and enable patterns to emerge.  Other research methods would not be able to answer my
    particular research question.   In this essay I have described the meanings of ontology, epistemology,
    research paradigm and methodology and drawn on these to articulate my own position and to justify
    their appropriateness to my research interest.   
      
    Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写
    References
    AUT. (2016). MGMT801: Week 2, Sesion 1 Applying Research Paradigms; researcher in the research.
    Auckland, NZ: AUT.
    Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Crotty, M. (1998). Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the reserach process.
    St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
    Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Grant, B. M., & Giddings, L. S. (2002). Making sense of methodologies: A paradigm framework for the
    novice researcher. Contemporary Nurse : a Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession,
    13(1), 10‐28. 
    Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing Research in the Real World (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
    NurseKillam (Producer). (2013, 24 Sep 2013). Complex Research Terminology Simplified: Paradigms,
    Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology. [Video file] Retrieved from
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xvpxBVCo0c
    paradigm. (n.d.).   . Merriam‐Webster. from http://www.merriam‐webster.com/dictionary/paradigm
    Pringle, J. K., Wolfgramm, R., & Henry, E. (2010). Extending cross‐ethnic research partnerships:
    researching wih respect. In S. Katila, S. Meriläinen & J. Tienari (Eds.), Making Inclusion Work:
    Experiences from Academia aound the World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
    Smith, T. L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. Dunedin: Otago
    University Press: Zed Books.
    Research Design MGMT801 methodology 代写