PARADIGM WAR: NUMBERS, FACTS AND PERSPECTIVES

Ms. Sujeeva Sebastian Pereira

Senior Lecturer

Department of English

University of Sri Jayewardenapura, Sri Lanka

As researchers in Humanities and Social Sciences, we have often faced the dilemma of research methods – the never ending debate, whether to use qualitative methods or quantitative methods or an amalgam of both methods for data analysis. Of course, the choice of research methods depends on the type of research - the nature of the research problem and the kind of data gathered. However, despite the research method that the research demands, researchers do worry about the acceptability (how well the research would be received by the academia) of the methods that they employ.

At some point in our lives, as researchers, we have all been part of this ‘paradigm war’, which emerged in the 1980s, demanding that quantification be applied and used for all research. On the one hand, anything not quantified and not presented in numbers in a table, a graph or a chart or any other such object, is not accepted as proper scientific evidence and any research which is not shaped by the positivist or post-positivist traditions are cast away as mere fiction and argued that truth is what is presented in numbers, therefore, opinions and critical evaluation cannot transcend truth. On the other hand, qualitative methods are criticized as too subjective and ethnocentric, therefore, do not reflect and depict the objective reality.

Of course, we have come a long way from the 1980s and by 2016, qualitative research is the catchword. Being a qualitative researcher is seen as being a bricoleur and a quilt-maker, who pieces together different representations of a complex situation or a phenomenon and the result is a construction. ‘The researcher as bricoleur theorists works between and within competing and overlapping perspectives and paradigms’ ((Denzin and Lincoln 2011, p. 5) and I do agree. As I ventured into studying some of the emotional factors related to learning English as a Second Language in Sri Lanka, I was faced with the challenge of quantifying and measuring human emotions. In order to investigate the causal relationship between some emotional factors and achievement in Second Language, it was necessary for me to measure emotions of learners through a validated scale and run a statistical analysis on the scores. The results showed that there is a significant negative correlation between the variables. However, the work still felt incomplete, it was devoid of the researcher’s perspective and voices of the participants and needed triangulation, which is where qualitative analysis came into play.

Semi-structured interviews I conducted with some of the participants was a journey of revelation, of discovery and most of all, of understanding. These interviews, challenged my perspective of learners as a teacher and as a researcher. Each story that the participants shared with me, regarding their own journey of learning English, was a learning experience for me. Some of the challenges and hardships they have faced are truly beyond any statistical analysis and no numbers will ever depict the breadth and value of their experience. I could only be speechless on the story of a boy from Killinochi who was internally displaced for more than three years because of the war and did not have a school to go to. He had to depend entirely on the teachers who visited their camp occasionally for any lessons, but yet managed to enter university on his second attempt, ranking third in the district. Another boy from Godakawela, who had no teacher for English until the last three months of his Advanced Level studies yet managed to acquire a Simple Pass for General English, reflects courage and commitment. Except these economic and other physical hardships learners encounter, the interviews also brought into light, the socio-cultural and psychological issues, that the learners face regarding learning English. Some of the challenges that learners have, using English in their villages, highlight the issues of identity associated with learning English as a Second Language in Sri Lanka. They explained how their identities would be damaged even if they used a few words in English, that it would be interpreted as being ‘educated’ or ‘high class’ (showing off) and therefore, would not be a part of their own community identity. Hence, these learners are caught between two different cultures and societies (Colombo and their villages) which have two different systems of values regarding English. While they are at the university, they are too anxious to speak because their peers would brand them as incompetent in English and in their villages they are afraid to speak because they would be alienated from their own communities.

Finally, in my point of view, quantitative analysis often proves inadequate, in capturing the complexities and intricacies of human experience in depth.  Of course, this does not mean that it is not useful or not valid, but if you believe, as a researcher, a qualitative analysis would render more room, more validity, more depth and diverse perspectives, go for it.