Researchers bring to their studies their particular way of understanding how things work in our world, and the way knowledge is constructed. The worldview of the researcher as well as his/her adscription to a particular Interpretive Community (if so) is going to have a deep impact in the decisions and inquiry procedures he/she will put in practice.

Guba (1990) describes a paradigm or worldview as "a basic set of beliefs that guide action.” That basic set of beliefs of the researcher is based on his ontological (What is the nature of reality?) and epistemological assumptions (What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the would-be known?). Therefore, how one views the constructs of social reality and knowledge affects how they will go about uncovering knowledge of relationships among phenomena and social behavior. Your ontological assumptions inform your epistemological assumptions which inform your methodology and these all give rise to your methods employed to collect data.

From an ontological point of view, post-positivism understands that there is one reality which is knowable within a specific level of probability, while constructivism understands that the nature of reality is multiple and socially constructed. Pragmatism asserts that there is a single reality and that all individuals have their own unique interpretation of reality. Finally, those following a transformative worldview reject cultural relativism and recognize that various versions of reality are based on social positioning.

From an epistemological point of view, post-positivists believe that objectivity is key and than the researcher manipulates and observes in a dispassionate objective manner. Constructivists on the contrary, believe that there should be an interactive link between researcher and participants, and that since knowledge is socially and historically situated, it needs to address issues of power and trust. Pragmatism on its side, understands that relationships in research are determined by what the researcher deems as appropriate to a particular given study. Finally, a transformative worldview acknowledges that since there is an interactive link between researcher and participants, and knowledge is socially and historically situated, there is a clear need to address issues of power and trust.

These ontological and epistemological assumptions have a direct impact in the methodology used in a given study. Post-positivism calls for interventionist quantitative studies, while constructivism prefers qualitative hermeneutical studies, and pragmatists matches methods to specific questions and purposes of research by using mixed methods. In the case of researchers following a transformative worldview, qualitative methods deeply grounded in critical theories, are the most common ones.

The main Worldviews (Creswell, 2013) are:

POST-POSITIVISM

• This tradition comes from 19th-century (Comte, Mill, Durkheim, Newton, and Locke).
• It represents the traditional form of research (scientific method).
• Called post-positivism since it represents the thinking after positivism, challenging the traditional notion of the absolute truth of knowledge (Phillips & Burbules, 2000).
• Postpositivists hold a deterministic philosophy in which causes (probably) determine effects or outcomes.
• It is reductionistic in that the intent is to reduce the ideas into a small, discrete set to test, such as the variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions. To test theories.
• The knowledge that develops through a postpositivist lens is based on empirical observation and measurement of the objective reality that exists “out there” in the world.

CONSTRUCTIVISM

• Based on the ideas of Mannheim and from works such as Berger and Luekmann’s (1967). The Social Construction of Reality and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry.
• There is not one objective truth. Truth is socially constructed.
• Social constructivists believe that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work, developing subjective meanings of their experiences.
• These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas.
• The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied..
• The researcher’s intent is to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have about the world.
• Rather than starting with a theory (as in postpositivism), inquirers inductively develop a theory.

TRANSFORMATIVE

• This position arose during the 1980´s and 1990´s.
• It came from individuals who felt postpositivist assumptions imposed structural laws and theories that did not fit marginalized individuals.
•  In the main, these inquirers felt that the constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an action agenda to help marginalized peoples.
• It focuses on the needs of groups and individuals in our society that may be marginalized.
• Historically, the transformative writers have drawn on the works of Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Freire (Neuman, 2009).
• No uniform body of literature characterizing this worldview: Includes groups of researchers that are critical theorists; participatory action researchers; Marxists; feminists; racial and ethnic minorities; persons with disabilities; indigenous and postcolonial peoples; and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-sexual, and queer communities.
• This worldview holds that research inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political change agenda to confront social oppression at whatever levels it occurs (Mertens, 2010).

PRAGMATISM

• Pragmatism derives from the work of Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey (Cherryholmes,1992).
• There are many forms of this philosophy, but for many, pragmatism as a worldview arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in postpositivism).
• Instead of focusing on methods, researchers emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available to understand the problem (Rossman & Wilson, 1985).
• Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. In this way, researchers are free to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes.
• As a philosophical underpinning for mixed methods studies, Morgan (2007), Patton (1990), and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) convey its importance for focusing attention on the research problem in social science research and then using pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge about the problem.

Please watch the following clip to clarify the previous concepts:

The second step in the generation of your research design implies the definition of your research topic and the goals that will drive the study. Watch the following clip in order to understand the key aspects in defining a good research topic.

Maxwell (2008) states that goals include motives, desires, and purposes—anything that leads you to do the study or that you hope to accomplish by doing it.)  

Some questions that could help us to better define the goals of our study are:

• • Why is your study worth doing?
  • What issues do you want it to clarify, and what practices and policies do you want it to influence?
  • Why do you want to conduct this study, and why should we care about the results?

According to (Maxwell, 2008), goals serve two main functions for your research:

• • They help guide your other design decisions to ensure that your study is worth doing.
  • They are essential to justifying your study, a key task of a funding or dissertation proposal.

There are three kinds of goals for doing a study (Maxwell, 2008):

• • Personal goals: those that motivate you to do this study; they can include a desire to change some existing situation, a curiosity about a specific phenomenon or event, or simply the need to advance your career.
  • Practical goals: are focused on accomplishing something—meeting some need, changing some situation, or achieving some goal.
  • Intellectual goals: re focused on understanding something, gaining some insight into what is going on and why this is happening.

Watch the following clip to better understand how to define the goals of your study:

The conceptual framework of your study is the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research. It is a formulation of what you think is going on with what you are studying—a tentative theory of what is happening and why.

Theory provides a model or map of why the world is the way it is (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) The function of theory in your design is to inform the rest of the design. The “research problem” is a part of your conceptual framework, and formulating the research problem is often seen as a key task in designing your study. Ravitch & Riggan (2016) define a conceptual framework as an argument about why the topic one wishes to study matters, and why the means proposed to study it are appropriate and rigorous. By argument, they mean that a conceptual framework is a series of sequenced, logical propositions the purpose of which is to ground the study and convince readers of the study’s importance and rigor. Arguments for why a study “matters” vary greatly in scale, depending on the audience. In some scholarly work, the study may only matter to a small, esoteric community, but that does not change the fact that its conceptual framework should argue for its relevance within that community. By appropriate and rigorous, they mean that a conceptual framework should argue convincingly that: (a) the research questions are an outgrowth of the argument for relevance; (b) the research design maps onto the study goals, questions, and context(s); (c) the data to be collected provide the researcher with the raw material needed to explore the research questions; and (d) the analytic approach allows the researcher(s) to effectively address (if not always answer) those questions. In order to start building the conceptual framework for your research project we truly recommend the following book: Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor : how conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications. The following figure represents and briefly explains the main components a conceptual framework should have.  Steps and Resources to start building  your conceptual framework

Resource to generate a visual representation of your Literature review

This form will help you build a visual representation of the topics emerging from 10 key readings that are deeply related with your research topic. The generated visual will also help you differentiate between the topical research and theoretical frameworks that will serve you to start building the conceptual framework for your research project. After filling out the form you will receive an email including a pdf document with a visual representation of the work done, as well as a link for you to modify your answers as many times as needed. In the following link you can see an example of the type of document you will get after filling out the form: goo.gl/TL9hsg The visual representation generated will help you build the literature review for your research project. To identify the 10 articles which are most related to your research topic, or that inform your conceptual framework, you will have to read many more than 10. All articles must be primary sources and from peer-reviewed/refereed journals. To do so you can use any of the resources that we have included in the tables below (Resource to identify key topics in your field of research: Open Knowledge Map; Resource to graphically build your conceptual framework; Research guides; Science of Science (Sci2)). You don´t have to use all of the resources provided, just the ones you believe could help you the most based on your previous knowledge. For instance, if you already know how to conduct a literature review, or how to identify scholarly articles, you might not have to use the "Research Guides." On the contrary, if you want to identify existing publications regarding your research topic, you might want to use the "Databases in Education," and "Open Knowledge Maps." The following figure shows an example of the type of visual representation you will get after filling out the form.

Resource to identify key topics in your field of research: Open Knowledge Map

With "Open Knowledge Maps" you will be able to search for key concepts related to your research topic in order to generate a visual representation that will help you identify publications addressing that particular key concept.

Resource to identify key literature in your field of research: Science of Science (Sci2)

The Science of Science (Sci2) Tool is a modular toolset specifically designed for the study of science. It supports the temporal, geospatial, topical, and network analysis and visualization of scholarly datasets at the micro (individual), meso (local), and macro (global) levels. This tool can be used to conduct thorough literature reviews.

Resource: Research Guides

The following  guides that have been generated by Dr. Olga Koz, Graduate Librarian at the Bagwell College of Education (Kennesaw State University) could be a great resource when working in the topical research and theoretical frameworks you will use to justify the relevance of your research topic and the need for the study you are proposing:   Literature Review for a Dissertation: a step-by-step guide Databases in education How to identify scholarly articles  Searching for education literature Finding Sources

Resource to graphically build your conceptual framework

You can use this template to create a visual representation of the main components that should be included in the conceptual framework of your research project. In order to be able to use the template, you will have to log in your Google account so the system can ask you to make a copy of it.

The following clip summarizes the main types of mixed-methods designs

Resources to help you develop Research Questions in Mixed-methods  Studies

• Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (n.d.). Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research. JOURNAL OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH, 1(3), 207–211. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1177/1558689807302814

• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking Research Questions to Mixed Methods Data Analysis Procedures 1. The Qualitative Report,11(3), 474-498. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol11/iss3/3

Research questions in qualitative studies

Research questions in quantitative studies

The data collection methods used in a mixed-methods study will depend on the specific mixed-methods design chosen for your study.

The following documents might of help to get a better idea of the main data collection procedures in mixed-methods studies in education:

• An overview of Quantitative and Qualitative data collection methods
• Tips for quantitative analysis of data
• Tips for qualitative analysis of data
• Tools to analyze quantitative data
• Tools to analyze qualitative data

Data gathering in qualitative studies

Data gathering in quantitative studies

Data analysis in mixed methods studies involves the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (watch the clips above).

The following resources might be of help to better understand the way data analysis work in mixed methods research studies:

• Analyzing mixed methods data (Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching)
• Tips for quantitative analysis of data
• Tips for qualitative analysis of data
• Tools to analyze quantitative data
• Tools to analyze qualitative data

Qualitative Data Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis

When using a mixed methods approach, the researcher should consider the control of validity and reliability in the quantitative portion of the study, as well as trustworthiness strategies for the qualitative portion of the study.

Resources: 

• This article by (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006) might be of help to know more about the Validity Issue in Mixed Research 

Resources:

• The following article addresses these issues really well: Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education For Information, 22(2), 63-75.
• And here it is  the reference to Guba´s work: E.G. Guba, Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29 (1981), 75–91.

In quantitative educational research we usually consider two general dimensions in evaluating a measurement method: reliability and validity.

Reliability is defined as the consistency of the measurements. To what level will the instrument produce the same results under the same conditions every time it is used? Reliability adds to the trustworthiness of the results because it is a testament to the methodology if the results are reproducible. The reliability is often examined by using a test and retest method where the measurement are taken twice at two different times. The reliability is critical for being able to reproduce the results, however, the validity must be confirmed first to ensure that the measurements are accurate. Consistent measurements will only be useful if they are accurate and valid.

The term validity refers to the strength of the conclusions that are drawn from the results. In other words, how accurate are the results? Do the results actually measure what was intended to be measured? There are several types of validity that are commonly examined and they are as follows: 

• Conclusion validity looks at whether or not there is a relationship between the variable and the observed outcome. 
• Internal validity considers whether or not that relationship may be causal in nature.
• Construct validity refers to whether or not the operational definition of a variable actually reflects the meaning of the concept. In other words, it is an attempt to generalize the treatment and outcomes to a broader concept.
• External validity is the ability to generalize the results to another setting. There are multiple factors that can threaten the validity in a study. They can be divided into single group threats, multiple group threats, and social interaction threats.

For more information regarding the control of the validity of a quantitative study please read chapter 6 in (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015)

Resources: 

• Validity and Reliability Issues in Educational Research
• Quantitative Research: Reliability and Validity

The term “ethics”  derives from the Greek word “ethos” which means character. To engage with the ethical dimension of your research requires asking yourself several important questions:

-What moral principles guide your research?

-How do ethical issues enter into your selection of a research problem?

-How do ethical issues affect how you conduct your research—the design of your study, your sampling procedure, etc.?

-What responsibility do you have toward your research subjects? For example, do you have their informed consent to participate in your project? 

-What ethical issues/dilemmas might come into play in deciding what research findings you publish? 

-Will your research directly benefit those who participated in the study?

The major principles associated with ethical conduct  are (Litchman, 2011):

1-    Do No Harm: 

-It is the cornerstone of ethical conduct

-There should be a reasonable expectation by those participating in a research study that they will not be involved in any situation in which they might be harmed.

-Often applied to studies involving drugs or a treatment that might be harmful to participants

-The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, in which students played the role of guards and prisoners, is one example. When it was found that the guards became increasingly sadistic, the study was terminated.

-Recommendation: It is best to safeguard against doing anything that will harm the participants in your study. If you begin a study and you find that some of your participants seem to have adverse reactions, it is best to discontinue the study, even if it means foregoing your research plan.

2-    Privacy and Anonymity:

-Any individual participating in a research study has a reasonable expectation that privacy will be guaranteed. Consequently, no identifying information about the individual should be revealed in written or other communication. Further, any group or organization participating in a research study has a reasonable expectation that its identity will not be revealed.

-Recommendation: Remove identifying information from your records. Seek permission from the participants if you wish to make public information that might reveal who they are or who the organization is. Use caution in publishing long verbatim quotes, especially if they are damaging to the organization or people in it. Often, these quotes can be located on the Internet and traced to the speaker or author.

3-    Confidentiality: 

-Any individual participating in a research study has a reasonable expectation that information provided to the researcher will be treated in a confidential manner. Consequently, the participant is entitled to expect that such information will not be given to anyone else.

-Recommendation: It is our responsibility to keep the information you learn confidential. If you sense that an individual is in an emergency situation, you might decide that you can waive your promise for the good of the individual or of others. You need to be much more sensitive to information that you obtain from minors and others who might be in a vulnerable position.

4-    Informed Consent: 

-Individuals participating in a research study have a reasonable expectation that they will be informed of the nature of the study and may choose whether or not to participate. They also have a reasonable expectation that they will not be coerced into participation.

-Recommendation: Our responsibility is to make sure that participants are informed, to the extent possible, about the nature of your study. Even though it is not always possible to describe the direction your study might take, it is your responsibility to do the best you can to provide complete information. If participants decide to withdraw from the study, they should not feel penalized for so doing. You need to be aware of special problems when you study people online. For example, one concern might be vulnerability of group participants. Another is the level of intrusiveness of the researcher.

5-    Rapport and Friendship: 

-Once participants agree to be part of a study, the researcher develops rapport in order to get them to disclose information.

-Recommendation: Researchers should make sure that they provide an environment that is trustworthy. At the same time, they need to be sensitive to the power that they hold over participants. Researchers need to avoid setting up a situation in which participants think they are friends with the researcher.

6-    Intrusiveness:

-Individuals participating in a research study have a reasonable expectation that the conduct of the researcher will not be excessively intrusive. Intrusiveness can mean intruding on their time, intruding on their space, and intruding on their personal lives. As you design a research study, you ought to be able to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of time participation will take.

-Recommendation: Experience and caution are the watchwords. You might find it difficult to shift roles to neutral researcher, especially if your field is counseling or a related helping profession.

7-    Inappropriate Behavior:

-Individuals participating in a research study have a reasonable expectation that the researcher will not engage in conduct of a personal or sexual nature.

-Here, researchers might find themselves getting too close to the participants and blurring boundaries between themselves and others. We probably all know what we mean by inappropriate behavior. We know it should be avoided

-Recommendation: If you think you are getting too close to those you are studying, you probably are. Back off and remember that you are a researcher and bound by your code of conduct to treat those you study with respect.

8-    Data Interpretation:

-A researcher is expected to analyze data in a manner that avoids misstatements, misinterpretations, or fraudulent analysis. The other principles discussed involve your interaction with individuals in your study. This principle represents something different. It guides you to use your data to fairly represent what you see and hear. Of course, your own lens will influence you.

-Recommendation: You have a responsibility to interpret your data and present evidence so that others can decide to what extent your interpretation is believable.

9-    Data Ownership and Rewards:

-In general, the researcher owns the work generated. Some researchers choose to archive data and make them available through databanks. Questions have been raised as to who actually owns such data. Some have questioned whether the participants should share in the financial rewards of publishing. Several ethnographers have shared a portion of their royalties with participants.

-Recommendation: In fact, most researchers do not benefit financially from their writing. It is rare that your work will turn into a bestseller or even be published outside your university. But, if you have a winner on hand, you might think about sharing some of the financial benefits with others.