This year’s Doctoral Colloquium (a posh word for an academic conference or seminar) for post grad students provided me an opportunity to peer once again down the rabbit hole.

A requirement for attendance is the preparation of a short paper which each post grad student is required to present and receive feedback on.

My short paper was an excerpt from Chaspter Three of my thesis – Research Methodology . I used the paper to get feedback on how I was approaching my research. Specifically my research method.

My paper glossed over my research paradigm because every time I start to think about the research paradigm I quickly descend down a rabbit hole.

Through my Honours research and then early in my Post Grad study, everytime I started reading about research paradigms, ontology and epistemology I would just get confused and I’d feel my brain explode.

It was reassuring that my “study buddies” were also struggling with these concepts.

It has however reached that point where I need to resolve the issue.

To do so requires the big questions to be resolved or perhaps only considered.
– What is reality or the truth and how can it be known?
– How do I relate to that truth?
These are the ontological and epistemlogical questions.

Sure as my supervisors have told me, examiners gloss over this chapter but they are the foundations of the research project. Sure as eggs not determining a research paradigm or having determined one and not following it logically will lead to inconsistencies in the research method and with it questions and concerns from the examiners.

So to my paper and the colloquium.

My presentation led with the chin
”I thought I was a constructivist but now I’m not so sure?”

To reach this point I’d descended down a rabbit hole many times, only to hit dead ends and occasionally entering a passageway that brought my to the surface.

In my earlier thinking I’d reached a view that reality was just waiting to be discovered – the positivist paradigm. As I had read more I’d settled for the constructivist position, that the world was socially constructed. However, as I thought about what that meant I kept pondering why would the world I socially construct be more real than someone else’s? I know a constructivist would say so long as the socially constructed world was determined using resarch rigor, then it doesn’t matter what someone else sees., its what you the researcher sees that matters. I just knew that critical theory and its power dynamic that sees the researcher seeking to bring their values to the research with a view to active change wasn’t me.

After all that I was left with critical realism. There is a world out there. One I can discover and observe, albeit that I might observe it imperfectly.

(As I re-read this my head is exploding again!)

So I dutifully presented and received feedback. I was thrilled to have a number of our senior academics in the room. They each said it was OK to be confused and questioning. That it was fine not to be fixed in a position and that the confusion and uncertainty I was feeling was not uncommon.

At one level I felt comfort and at another I felt panic. It was good to know that I am not alone but I still need to work out a position for this research.

So with the presentation and feedback behind me it was down the rabbit hole again. I have been reading further about research paradigms and specifically critical realism. Is it right for me and does it fit my research project?

Each article seems to confirm yes but with it more questions and down a different rabbit hole. Three weeks on from my presentation I’m still reading but at least now I’m back working on my Research Methodology Chapter. Its a major rewrite but I’m on my way again.

My holiday snap for this post is from the University of Coimbra.