‎ uman interaction in complex involving

h
‎intentions and motivations

‎ iddle ground between naive realism and

m ‎use the same method as natural science
‎ o straightforward link between teaching
n
‎extreme relativism
‎anti-naturalism ‎and learning
‎no possible to have science in social world
‎less extreme realism ‎Pring (false dualism ) ‎3 responses
‎ o stable over time and context, no
n
‎social science is different to natural science ‎universal law to predict or control
‎legitimacy of one not means rejecting others

‎ eople not predictable as mechanical

p
‎ideas only have meaning in interaction ‎main resources of objection ‎objects
‎interpretivist
‎knowledge constructed in transaction ‎Individual meaning making make sense

‎underpins mixed method research

‎pragmatism ‎critical theorist ‎power relationship linking wider society
‎development of social science (Gage, 1989)
‎focus on practical application of ideas

‎combine qual and quant data ‎paradigm war

‎resolve paradigmatic tensions ‎Bryman (2008) ‎domination of positivist approaches ‎19th century
‎same ontological and epistemological view

‎3 solutions
‎knowledge involve judgement in social action ‎ reat debate about methods on social and
g
‎natural science
‎episteme: know how ‎early 20th century
‎draw local understanding, contextualised ‎Weber: father of interpretivism
‎techne: abstract, universal ‎form of knowledge l‎essening hostilities around quant-qual
‎approach involving qualitative data ‎divide
‎phronetic knowledge
‎urban sociology ‎1920s ‎the rise of mixed-method research
‎self-interpretation not stable
‎development of different approaches ‎intra-paradigmatic difference
‎the end of paradigm war (Bryman, 2008)
‎no context-free concept
‎Flyvbjerg (2001):no universal theory
‎emergence of postmodernism ‎ ifferent stances on mixed methods
d
‎cannot both be subject and object of study ‎continue existence of paradigm disputes ‎research
‎mid 20th century
‎phronesis (practical wisdom) ‎knowledge as exercise of power
‎behaviour are concept dependent ‎ he signs of paradigm wars in applied field
t
‎that are adjacent to social research
‎positivism: generalisation ‎a proliferation of approaches
‎social science
‎a different approach ‎latter 20th century ‎political intervention
‎interpretivism: particular, subject meaning ‎no domination
‎demand for "evidence-based policy"
‎pre-paradigmatic state ‎by 1996 ‎deviation, hoax
‎the "mess" ‎looking for "science" of education
‎produce knowledge people can use
‎systematic review for "best evidence"
‎where are we going ‎positivism
‎global standard of quality inclusion criteria
‎is this desirable
‎questions natural science cannot adress ‎large scale quantitative studies ‎fail to capture nuance of complex situations
‎emphasis in value and power
‎a particular way of seeing the world derives
‎what should be done
‎from the work of the philosopher of science ‎ ell-suited at different stages of the
w
‎who gains and who losses ‎push-back ‎process
‎"wordwide" ‎education research VS policy
‎should be used into inform policy
‎a set of assumptions about how things work ‎narrative research
‎definition
‎focus on whether some thing works
‎ontology ‎challenge of the small scale
‎rather than from who and why
‎epistemology ‎3 ologies
‎draw on partitioner knowledge
‎methodology ‎policy making process
‎little evidence of research
‎quantitative/positivist
‎standard two-paradigm
‎qualitative/interpretive/constructivist ‎critical
‎social behaviour
‎major paradigms ‎deliberate activity
‎quantitative/positivist ‎systematic
‎typology (Coe,2012) ‎help develop understanding and skills
‎qualitative/interpretive/constructivist ‎three-paradigm ‎transparent ‎defination of education
‎characteristic ‎teachers
‎critical/emancipatory ‎evidential
‎students
‎multiple paradigms ‎theoretical ‎interactions between elements
‎content
‎5 paradigms in research ‎original
‎environments
‎reflected in ‎a part of ‎applied vs. basic
‎ontology ‎epistemology ‎purpose ‎approach ‎education research (Coe,2012)
‎scientific
‎predict ‎experiment ‎empirical vs. theoretical
‎classification ‎political ‎superstition
‎nomothetic vs. idiographic ‎aims
‎positivism ‎naive realism ‎objectivist ‎describe ‎survey
‎therapeutic
‎intuition
‎intervention vs. descriptive
‎generalise ‎verfiction
‎aesthetic
‎authority
‎predict ‎experiment
‎includes ‎tradition
‎post-positivism ‎cautious realism ‎objectivist ‎describe ‎survey
‎tenacity
‎generalization ‎falsification

‎rationalism
‎realism ‎depth realism ‎constructionist ‎explain ‎wide range and mixed method ‎sources of knoeledge

‎depend on five senses

‎phenomenology ‎generate/discover

‎derived and accumulated through experience

‎case study ‎propositional ‎nature
‎interpretivism ‎strong or weak relativism ‎constructionist or subjectivist ‎understand ‎ eople can only know what the world tells
p
‎ethnography
‎social science ‎procedural ‎kinds
‎empiricism (Howell, 2013)
‎them

‎grounded theory ‎research ‎personal ‎procedure of generating knowledge

‎belief
‎action research
‎definition ‎ arry out controlled experiments and make
c
‎justified ‎material world ‎Science as the source of knowledge
‎critical ‎relativism (one privileged) ‎constructionist ‎emancipate power ‎critical ethnography ‎measured observations
‎truth
‎social world
‎feminist
f‎ indings are recorded and reliable data
‎accumulated
‎describe and explain
‎ontology
‎pure research
‎the study of being ‎no direct benefits
‎ eneral elements emerge and hypotheses
g ‎trustworthiness
‎are formulated
‎nature of reality ‎categories ‎seek answer to specific question
‎assumption and beliefs about reality
‎strategy ‎reality exists independent of knowledge ‎contribution to knowledge
‎applied research
‎paradigm A ‎objective reality ‎naive realism
‎purpose: improve things
‎nothing lies behind observed ‎hypothesis are tested ‎epistemic ‎explicitness ‎scientific robustness
‎plan or action
‎behind the choice and use of method
‎reality exists independently ‎propriety
‎process or design ‎assessment
‎ erification or proof formulates a scientific
v
‎methodology ‎different interpretation of reality ‎subtle or cautious realism ‎law ‎paradigm-dependent criteria
‎involved in everyday statements

‎same reality to everyone ‎explicit ‎purposively

‎in research design
‎experimental research r‎ eality exist independently even being ‎Comparison ‎theoretical perspective ‎salience/ timeliness
‎awared

‎applicability in constructing situations ‎technological ‎specificity and accessibility

‎survey research
‎empirical level ‎critical realism
‎generate objective knowledge
‎Dichotomy? (Pring, 2000)
‎foundation (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2006) ‎concern for enabling impact
‎generate and refine theories
‎ethnography ‎actual level ‎iceberg: 3 levels of reality

‎be confident in the findings ‎flexibility and operationalisability

‎real level
‎phenomenological research ‎ -dimension quality for applied research (
4 ‎social robustness
‎control
‎design ‎Furlong & Oancea, 2008) ‎plausibility
‎people make realities ‎epistemology ‎a good research ‎different ways at each stages
‎ground research ‎paradigm B ‎relativism
‎analysis ‎partnership, collaboration and engagement
‎multi realities
‎begin with a problem
‎heuristic inquiry ‎criteria for ‎capacity development and value for people ‎reflexivity, deliberation and criticism
‎the world and belifes as a whole ‎correspondence theory ‎objectvism/dual ‎not manipulation but awareness

‎the cognition of knowledge ‎receptiveness

‎action research
‎constructionism/modified dual
‎epistemology concept ‎adoption of appropriate method
‎ hat relevance do
W ‎transformation and personal growth
‎discourse anaylsis ‎the results have ‎ oes the evidence
D
‎subjective through experience ‎ evelop familiarity with culture of
d
‎beyond the situation ‎reflect the reality ‎marketability and competitiveness
‎multiple reality ‎social construction ‎subjectivism/mono ‎investigated? ‎under investigation ‎participating organisations
‎validity
‎feminist standpoint research ‎different individually
‎cost-effectiveness
‎random sampling of individual
‎ caffolding of research
s ‎economic ‎auditability ‎economic bobustness
‎framework ( Crotty, 1998) ‎tactics to help ensure honesty in informants
‎4 key questions (Shipman, 1998, pp.ix- x))
I‎s there sufficient detail on the i‎f the investigation had been carried ‎feasibility
‎participant ‎postmodernism ‎way the evidence was ‎out again, by different researchers ‎ riangulation with different method,
t
‎observation ‎produced for the credibility of ‎using the same methods, Would the ‎informants and sites ‎originality
‎non-participant ‎the research to be assessed? ‎same results have been obtained?
‎symbolic
‎reliability ‎iterative questioning in data collection

‎comparative analysis ‎phenomenology ‎critical inquiry

‎truth value/ credibility ‎negative case analysis
‎predict in advance ‎predictive validity
‎(internal) validity
‎hermeneutics ‎exploration or description rest on its setting
‎content analysis
‎debriefing sessions
‎similar to previous findings ‎concurrent validity ‎ ctually measure what we think it is
a
‎possible tests (Payne & Payne, 2004) ‎measuring
‎multiple reality ‎how congruent are the findings with reality
‎measuring and scaling ‎peer scrutiny of project
‎interpretivism ‎the procedure contain on error ‎practical/pragmatic validity
‎reality exist inside minds of individuals ‎generalisability (external validity)
‎transferability/applicability ‎reflective commentary
‎questionnaire
‎ ypical that can go from group to a wider
t
‎one reality ‎finidings are useful in similiar situations
‎population ‎ ackground, qualification and experience of
b
‎interview ‎(post) positivism ‎history threat
‎investigator
‎reality independent of human mind ‎the concept of crystallisation
‎testing effect ‎reliability
‎case study ‎member check
‎researcher's provisions (Shenton, 2004)
‎consistent result across time ‎consistence/replicability/ dependability
‎instrumental problems ‎ ‎ hink description of phenomenon under
t
‎sampling ‎theoritical perspectives ‎quantitive research
‎replications ‎repeated studies by others ‎changing conditions in the phenomenon ‎scrutiny
‎ uba's trustworthiness for qualtitative
G
‎regression effect
‎research ( Marshall & Rossman, 1995)
‎technique or precedure ‎representative reliability ‎finding of other similar samples are same ‎changes caused by refined understandings ‎examination of previous research findings
‎compensatory equalisation ‎main kinds
‎method
‎temporal reliability ‎get same answer at different time point ‎ he result of the work can be applied to a
t
‎compensatory rivalry ‎wider population ‎ rovide background data to allow
p
‎philosophy stance ‎comparison
‎objectivity
‎neutrality/ confirmability
‎selection problem (specific to group) ‎make sense and nothing dodgy
‎threats (Cook & Campbell, 1979) ‎employment of overlapping methods
‎difficult to avoid bias
‎specific to setting ‎split halves method
‎in-depth methodological description
‎ he finding are not character of the
t
‎history (specific past experience) ‎test/ retest
‎researchers
‎checking (Payne & Payne, 2004)

‎construct effect ‎inter-item checking ‎triangulation to reduce investigator bias

‎ dmission of researcher's belief and

a
‎subject error ‎assumptions

‎subject bias r‎ ecognition the shortcomings and their

‎potential effects

‎observer bias
i‎n-depth methodological description to
‎allow integrity of result to be scrutinised

‎use diagrams to demonstrate "audit trail"