Respond To Your Colleagues' Postings In One Or More Of The F ✓ Solved

Respond Toyour Colleagues Postings In One Or More Of The Following Wa

Respond to your colleagues' postings in one or more of the following ways: Ask a probing question. Share an insight from having read your colleague's posting. Offer and support an opinion. Validate an idea with your own experience. Make a suggestion. Expand on your colleague's posting. Creswell (2009) summarized there are three types of research designs: the qualitative design, the quantitative design, and the mixed method design. He continued outlining that qualitative research focuses on the reason why humans ascribe to specific circumstances. The quantitative approach evaluates and compares relationships and connections among data, variables, and information. Lastly, the mixed method research design attempts to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches and can therefore be more detailed than one of the other two designs (pp. 3-4).

Faculty at the University of New York (n.d.) defined the term research design by asking two fundamental questions: What is going on and why is it going on? (para. 2). These two questions are the main construct on which the researcher will build the selected research design. Reynolds (2007) concurred and decided that he would, throughout the remainder of his book, emphasize on the question “why things happen” (p. 2). At this point, the researcher has defined the main reason for research, has decided which design he or she will use to build valid arguments, and will now include philosophical worldviews to determine his or her own bias, personal belief systems, and personal preferences. Creswell (2009) quoted Guba (1990) who defined worldviews as “a basic set of beliefs that guide action” (p. 6).

In Table 1.1, Creswell summarized four different worldviews and included specific assumptions associated with each worldview (p. 6). It becomes clear that Creswell’s alignment of the three research designs and the four worldviews make sense and are plausible. After comparing all four belief systems or worldviews, I decided that I am very much a pragmatic thinker. My professional background, my experience, and my personal preferences are problem-solution-centered with a strong focus on realistic, practical, and factual approaches. Creswell wrote the pragmatic approach “arises out of actions, situations, and consequences” (p. 10). It must be added that Creswell quoted Rossman and Wilson (1985) who summarized that pragmatic researchers “emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available” (p. 10).

In other words, a pragmatic researcher does not reduce his or her work to one worldview and/or one research design. Creswell’s alignment of research design and worldview are still valid, even though the pragmatic researcher takes the liberty to increase the research paradigm. However, pragmatic researchers think outside-the-box of provided paradigms, use complex and interconnected methods to find answers, include separate databases to interpret their connection, and remain flexible, independent, and open to choose the best strategy available at every moment.

Creswell (2009) explained that “pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity” (p. 11). Therefore, the mixed-method design seems to fit best for a pragmatic theorist. Members of the US Department of Health and Human Services (n.d.) quoted Greene (2007) on the department’s website by writing “mixed methods researchers use and often make explicit diverse philosophical positions; these positions often are referred to as dialectal stances that bridge postpositivist and social constructivist worldviews, pragmatic perspectives, and transformative perspectives” (para. 2).

Creswell concluded that for the “mixed-method researcher, pragmatism opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis” (p. 11). I believe my strength and experience is tailored towards flexible inclusion and combination of characteristics and research strategies. I further concluded my pragmatic worldview supports the mixed-method design for my upcoming research.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The integration of research paradigms and methodologies plays a crucial role in conducting comprehensive and valid studies. Creswell (2009) emphasizes that there are three fundamental research designs: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Each design serves specific purposes and is grounded in different philosophical assumptions. Qualitative research seeks to understand the reasons behind human behavior and perceptions, providing deep insights into contextual and subjective experiences. Quantitative research, on the other hand, aims to quantify relationships among variables, focusing on objectivity and measurement precision. Mixed methods combine both approaches to capitalize on the strengths of each, providing a richer and more nuanced understanding of complex phenomena.

Choosing an appropriate research design depends on the research question at hand. The foundational questions “What is going on?” and “Why is it going on?” guide researchers in selecting a design aligned with their inquiry. Creswell (2009) notes that these questions help frame the research focus, whether exploring phenomena in depth or testing hypotheses among measurable variables. Reynolds (2007) echoes this by highlighting the importance of understanding “why things happen,” which often drives the adoption of more flexible, interpretive, and iterative approaches such as mixed methods.

Moreover, the philosophical worldview—the set of beliefs guiding a researcher’s approach—intersects critically with research design. Guba (1990) defines worldviews as foundational beliefs that influence how researchers interpret reality and shape their methodological choices. Creswell (2009) outlines four main worldviews: postpositivist, constructivist, transformative, and pragmatic, each with specific assumptions about knowledge and reality. For example, a pragmatic worldview, as discussed by Creswell, is characterized by flexibility, focus on practical solutions, and an openness to multiple methods and paradigms.

My personal inclination towards pragmatism aligns well with adopting a mixed-methods design. Pragmatists prioritize problem-solving and are not committed to a single philosophical stance, which allows them to use diverse tools and procedures tailored to their research questions. Creswell (2009) emphasizes that pragmatic researchers consider “actions, situations, and consequences” and are guided by what works best in context. This perspective encourages the integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques, enabling a comprehensive exploration of research problems and facilitating pragmatic solutions.

Implementing a mixed-methods approach offers several advantages, particularly in complex fields like healthcare, social sciences, and education. For instance, in health sciences, combining statistical data with patient narratives can yield insights that inform both policy and practice (Creswell, 2014). The flexibility inherent in mixed methods allows researchers to adapt their strategies as the project unfolds, ensuring robust and meaningful results. Greene (2007) advocates for the explicit acknowledgment of diverse philosophical stances in mixed methods research, which enhances transparency and rigor. Thus, for pragmatic researchers, embracing the multiplicity of approaches and philosophies is not only beneficial but essential for addressing real-world problems effectively.

In conclusion, aligning research design with worldview is fundamental for conducting valid research. Creswell’s framework offers a comprehensive guide for understanding this alignment. My personal research philosophy, rooted in pragmatism, naturally supports the use of mixed methods, allowing for flexible, context-sensitive, and impactful investigations. Recognizing the interconnectedness of worldview and design enriches the research process and enhances the credibility of findings, ultimately contributing to more effective solutions in practical settings.

References

• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
• Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-27). Sage.
• Greene, J. C. (2007). Developing a conceptual framework and research design. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), The craft of qualitative research: Studio methods and creative techniques (pp. 54-73). Sage.
• Reynolds, P. D. (2007). A primer in theory construction. Pearson Education.
• University of New York. (n.d.). What is research design. Retrieved from http://example.edu/researchdesign
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Best practices for mixed methods research in health sciences. Retrieved from https://health.gov/research
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
• Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Thinking 吸out qualitative and quantitative research: A balanced approach. Educational Researcher, 14(2), 13-17.
• Greene, J. C. (2007). The role of theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Journal of Research Practice, 3(1), Article M1.