Coe’s explanation of Pragmatism is one way of ‘reconciling’ these two paradigms - whereby the reasons for research are ‘likely to be influenced by the values and beliefs of the researchers (including their, perhaps implicit, metaphysical beliefs); [and] the particular questions or aims they select will also influence the research methods they use’ (2012, p.8).

​

But which is the best?

​

‘Good’ research is not the domain of a particular paradigm; basic principles underpin ‘good’ research regardless of the paradigm (Rolfe and Naughton, 2010, pp.9-10).

 

From Coe’s (2012) questions to ask, to Rolfe and Naughton’s (2010) list of principles, all research can be tested and evaluated despite the varied researchers’ philosophies, aims, and methodologies.

 

Rolfe and Naughton’s discussion of ‘amateur’ researchers (2010, pp. 6-7), can help to protect against jumping into new teaching strategies or systems without critical evaluation of the research itself.

 

While research can be powerful for challenging embedded or unquestioned perspectives or processes and providing the justification and impetus for change, educators and administrators also need to be ‘informed consumers of the research of others’ (Rolfe and Naughton, 2010, p.7).

​

​

Resources for evaluating research​

Some useful questions to go through when critiquing research papers: 

​

• Assessing Research Quality - https://www.researchconnections.org/content/childcare/understand/research-quality.html

"The quality of social science and policy research can vary considerably. It is important that consumers of research keep this in mind when reading the findings from a research study or when considering whether or not to use data from a research study for secondary analysis. This section includes information and tools to help evaluate the quality of a research study. It also includes information on the ethics of research.

• Key Questions to Ask

• Research Assessment Tools

• Ethics of Research "

​

• Critiquing Research Articles - https://students.flinders.edu.au/content/dam/student/slc/critiquing-research-articles.pdf

A how-to document by Flinders University to assist university students in critiquing published research.

​

​

​

Ethical responsibility when researching with human beings

​

This is a broad topic that can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, including the responsibilities of the researcher(s) and the research ethics board to protect their participants, their families and communities, themselves, and the reputation of the field of research. Martin (2010) makes the point that “[r]esearch can help understand problems, or it can perpetuate problems” (p.86) but I would go even further to say it can, even with the best and most honorable of intentions, create new problems.

 

The Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) is the Canadian guideline how to ethically conduct research involving humans or human biological material. The TCPS 2: CORE online research ethics training emphasises the importance of being aware and cautious of any power dynamics involved between researcher and participants, particularly when gaining consent. It also discusses the importance for the sake of justice and fairness that no people groups be excluded from the benefits of being involved in research, even if they are more vulnerable; instead, extra precaution with explanations and consent and research structures should be in place. However, Martin goes on to say that research is a tool of colonialism because of the multiple power dynamics that exist which almost always benefit the researcher and thus it has the power to “erase, erode, silence or marginalise Aboriginal people” and that “[u]nless these power dynamics are first made conscious, then made explicit and then addressed, research will never deliver on the promise of equity and equality” (2010, p. 86). While research ethics boards attempt to protect both the researcher and the researched and to promote justice and fairness, perhaps the power dynamics are so inherent and ingrained that they are not even noticed when research proposals are being evaluated.

​

The problem goes deeper than this, back to differing paradigms, and here is where the differences can become significantly problematic: how do we even define “truth”  and “justice”? Is it possible? Is it inherently political, or is it possible for researchers to side only with the “truth”. As Davies and Peterson (2012) explain, “[t]here exists, then, fundamental philosophical disagreement about what researchers can and should do in regard to truth, and at times these differences lead to a great deal of contestation between researchers as to what constitutes ‘legitimate’ research in education” (pp. 108-109). 

 

Researchers need a humble willingness and an open mind to pay careful attention to what various people groups have to say and then respond accordingly. This is very complex when working with a variety of people groups, but the first step is at least to acknowledge power imbalances and attempt to address them together. Martin states with regards to Aboriginal research, “postcolonialism requires the researcher to know about, and make decisions not to perpetuate, the types of power differentials that have been identified within the assumptions, positioning and research relationships’ of past and relatively current perspectives and approaches” (2010, p. 95).

​

​