Hi all,

So I'm still here, battling on with the PhD beast! I'm still having doubts about it though and here is why. I am a pragmatic person. I was even given the slogan in one of my jobs "just do it" due to my "just get on with it" attitude. I am doing a mixed methods study which leans towards an ethnographic approach BUT I don't consider myself to be either QUAN or QUAL - I just want to get on with my research! I have selected my methods pragmatically based on my objectives, not an overall methodological approach. However, my supervisors (and the staff on my review panel) seem to want me to pigeonhole myself into "I'm an ethnographer/positivist/social constructionist" etc. Am I being really thick here? Can't I just be pragmatic? Isn't that the whole point of mixed methods? I'm finding the whole philosophical thing incredibly frustrating which I am aware suggests I shouldn't be looking to be a "Doctor of Philosophy"!!! Help!

I should be working on something, but wanted to procrastinate, so this will be short. Even if you do just get on with it, you have to leave some sort of trail for others to follow. Also, reviewing other potential methods can help you go 'oh, I didn't realize I could do it for this or in that way'. This way, there is less trial and error as the method is fitted to what is going on. I didn't write up the -ology stuff until after it was done, but the actual method, I have kept meticulous notes on. The catch is that you will find that you have to start using some methods from the start of the data collection, they are very difficult to incorporate mid-stream.
Now, I dash back to work before I am found to be 'goofing off'.

I think its heartening to see a student being asked to define their methods and the reasons for it inside of a "paradigm" in the early going! I think too often this gets left late or does not happen at all, to the detriment of the work of the student. You certainly can be both pragmatic and define which "paradigm" you belong to--even if, or especially if, you are using mixed methods. Methodology is one of three "legs" if you will of your research design, the other being ontology and the third epistimology. The three combine to form a research "paradigm". This is the overall stance from which your research is being done--and yes, at this level, that matters.

I strongly recommend the Sage Handbook on Qualitative Research and its handy charts that outline in a very succint way the various paradigms and their methods, epistimology and ontology. It makes it all very easy to digest, and you can quickly locate which one or ones your research falls under.

(up) to your sups and review panel for wanting to know about this! You are getting top notch supervision and reviews!

Hi there like-minded soul!!

I'm in the social sciences; my approach is wholly qualitative though I did mixed methods for my masters.

My overall PhD conceptual framework is the philosophy of classical pragmatism, a philosophy pioneered by lumanaries such as John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. Dewey wrote not just about change, but for change. Hildebrand (2008) wrote about Dewey's touchstone as being "the need for philosophy to move beyond a priori postulation and engage with “the problems of men”. I could go on but better not!! Not to be confused with the pragmatism of everyday parlance, classical pragmatism speaks directly to those concerned with the issue of 'relevance in social research'. Oh Dear, I'm going on :-(

Olivia's recommendation of The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Reserach is a really good one, particularly the introduction. There is literature on mixed methods and pragmatism - could be worth a look??

Yes, yes, keep it real is my motto though prepared to fight for that at conferences etc

(up)

thank you everyone for your replies - I guess I do just need to expand my reading and be prepared to defend my stance - I know I am getting some good supervision, I just don't know if this is what I really want from life...! Back to the books then!

I think sometimes its helpful to think of WHY methodology and all this related stuff is important to research. It comes down to making evaluations on the soundness of research--the devil is in the details of the methodology. Not only is it worth considering whether the methodology was appropriate to the goals of the research ( as an aside, I strongly recommend Creswell's book on mixed methods and the development of a research question and purpose statement as he outlines...) but whether the methodology was used correctly/appropriately.

Thus--all the details.

I know it can seem like a lot of fuss over nothing, but really, having sound methodology and using it appropriately is the heart and soul of good research--not matter what you are doing. Understanding the big frame in which it all fits ( the paradigm) is helpful--and it can be an invaluable tool for defending your chosen method and research ( as in the viva!).

Being clear about your "paradigm" and the way your research ( the three strands of it, including methodology) fit into that gives you a rock solid foundation from which to defend your work. People then have to deal with attacking your paradigm vs. attacking your work and the paradigm gives you a very solid place to position your work.

Ok my two cents ( and spare change) worth over! :$

Thanks Olivia, I really do appreciate your reply. My main issue is that I don't think at this level and I find it a bit frustrating - I can see how the soundness of my research is brought into question based on my methodology. I hadn't really thought about it until you pointed it out which just goes to show how far along I am in my thinking (not very far!!!) I find this quite amusing as I spend a lot of time laughing at adverts on TV based on small sample sizes or scaremongering in the press based on statistics or statements from "sources" (perhaps a positivist at heart?!)

I guess what it comes down to is that deep down I'm questioning whether this really is for me and I think it's time to have the difficult conversation with my supervisory team!