Designing Questions for Research Design and Design Research in e-

Learning

Johannes C. Cronje
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa
Johannes.cronje@gmail.com
DOI: 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.1.002

Abstract: This paper presents a model for developing research questions that are aligned to research aims for research
design in e-learning. The model is proposed as a solution to the on-going problem of heterogeneity of research problems.
The model is based on Burrell and Morgan’s four social paradigms, and integrates four research aims, namely, explore,
explain, develop and describe; four design positions, namely, formalist, populist, functionalist and conventionist; and four
pursuits of (hu)mankind, namely, virtue, value, power and knowledge. Four of Roode’s (1993) research questions are
mapped onto each of the consolidated paradigms. The feasibility of the model was tested against eight papers in previous
issues of this journal. Two questions drove the study: what are the paradigms in which the selected articles can be
classified, and how are these paradigms aligned to the research aims and research questions? The model was found to be
useful in aligning the implied research aims and research questions of the selected papers. The model is proposed as a
useful tool for supervisors and novice researchers to assist with the development of integrated research aims and research
questions. Further research will include the development of generic question stems that can be used as the first few words
of the questions that correspond to each aim.

Keywords: Research paradigm, research aims, research questions, design research

1. Introduction
In a recent volume of this journal two authors call for a “critical reflective approach to researching technology
use” (Charbonneau-Gowdy, 2017, p.59) and propose “first steps that facilitate to overcome the heterogeneity
of e-learning projects in favor of a better comparability and generalizability being necessary preconditions for
theory development” (Rüth and Kaspar, 2017, p.94). There seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of what is
being researched, as well as in how it is being researched. Somehow the stated aim of a research project does
not match the eventual outcome. A key reason for this may be a mis-alignment of research aims and research
questions. This article argues that the paradigm of educational design research (McKenney and Reeves, 2018)
is a useful starting point for socially responsible research. The paper presents a framework for developing
research questions that aligns research aims, research questions and the underlying beliefs of researchers
regarding their research. The model is presented and tested against a number of articles in this journal to
gauge its feasibility towards providing such improved “comparability and generalizability” (Rüth and Kaspar,
2017, p.94).

The call for (socially) responsible research in educational technology is not new and a notable contribution has
been made over the years by Tom Reeves and others. (Reeves, 1995, 2000, 2006; McKenney and Reeves,
2018; Reeves, Herrington and Oliver, 2005; Oliver, Herrington and McKenney, 2011). They take as their point
of departure research that is both grounded in theory and aimed at practical usefulness, thus fitting into what
Stokes (1997, p.73) calls “Pasteur’s quadrant” (Figure 1.). The figure shows that research can be high in
considerations of use, or in considerations of fundamental understanding, or high in both, but the forth
quadrant remains empty such as no research can be low in both use and understanding.

Figure 1: Pasteur's quadrant (Stokes, 1997, p.73)

ISSN 1479-4403 13 ©ACPIL

Reference this paper: Cronje, J. C., 2020. Designing Questions for Research Design and Design Research in e-Learning. The
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), pp. 13-24, available online at www.ejel.org
 Johannes C. Cronje

The challenge now, though, is to determine what type of research would fit into Pasteur’s quadrant and to
develop a framework for generating questions within that quadrant. This article will present a model that
considers four research paradigms and will link those paradigms to a set of research questions where there are
two questions to each research aim. The feasibility of the model will then be tested against purposively
selected articles from past volumes of this journal. The aim of the research is to explore the extent to which
the selected articles can be classified into research paradigms, and to propose linked research questions for
each article. Two questions drive the study:

1. What are the paradigms in which the articles can be classified? and
2. How are these paradigms aligned to the research aims and research questions?

The problem that is addressed by this model lies in the alignment of research aims and research questions.
Novice researchers in particular often state a research aim and then mention a number of questions, but there
is no clear link showing how answering those questions will lead to achieving the aim.

2. Literature survey
For Reeves, Herrington and Oliver “...at some level, all instructional technology research can be said to focus
on questions of how people learn and perform, especially with respect to how learning and performance are
influenced, supported, or perhaps even caused by technology” (Reeves, Herrington and Oliver, 2005, pp.100–
101). They identify the following six characteristics of design research:

1. a focus on broad-based, complex problems critical to higher education, focus on broad-based,

complex problems critical to higher education;
2. the integration of known and hypothetical design principles with technological affordances to
render plausible solutions to these complex problems;
3. rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning environments as well as to
reveal new design principles;
4. long-term engagement involving continual refinement of protocols and questions;
5. intensive collaboration among researchers and practitioners; and
6. a commitment to theory construction and explanation while solving real-world problems.
(Reeves, Herrington and Oliver, 2005, p.103)

In framing socially responsible research in educational technology it may be useful to draw from one of the key
works underpinning the closely aligned field of information systems, which also studies the relationships
between technology and society. For many years the work of Burrell and Morgan on social paradigms and
organisational analysis has underpinned much of the philosophical approaches to research in information
systems. Burrell & Morgan (1979) identify two dimensions along which social science research is conducted.
The dimensions are developed from our beliefs about the nature of social science and the epistemological and
ontological nature of society. The epistemological and ontological nature of social science research varies
between positivist and anti-positivist. The nature of society varies from a society of regulation to a society of
radical change. Burrell and Morgan place these two dimensions at right angles and thus create a two-by-two
matrix of four paradigms, namely, Radical humanist, Interpretive, Functionalist, and Radical structuralist
(Figure 2).

Given that one cannot be subjective and objective at the same time, nor support radical change and regulation
simultaneously, "the four paradigms are mutually exclusive. They offer alternative views of social reality, and
to understand the nature of all four is to understand four different views of society. They offer different ways
of seeing. A synthesis is not possible, since in their pure forms they are contradictory, being based on at least
one set of opposing meta-theoretical assumptions. They are alternatives, in the sense that one can operate in
different paradigms sequentially over time, but mutually exclusive, in the sense that one cannot operate in
more than one paradigm at any given point in time, since in accepting the assumptions of one, we defy the
assumptions of all the others" (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p.25).

I argue that researchers should select a particular paradigm within which to work depending upon the
subjective or objective aim of their research (Figure 3). Radical humanists are interested in the subjective
world, but feel the need to transcend or even overthrow current societal arrangements.

www.ejel.org 14 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

Figure 2: Four quadrants of sociological and organizational research (Burrell and Morgan, 1997, p. 25)
Their aim is to uncover hidden patterns and to explore alternatives. Interpretive researchers believe that the
human experience of the world is subjective, and they have a concern to understand it as it is. Their aim is to
understand given phenomena. However the word understand is not demonstrable. A researcher cannot stand
up and understand something for the audience (or the reader) to see. It is therefore better to use the word
explain as the keyword for this paradigm. Functionalists believe that the world is objectively discoverable, and
that things can be improved by ‘tightening up’ the rules. Their aim is to develop solutions. Radical structuralism
takes an objective world view. They concentrate on structural relationships, believing that radical change is
built into the very nature of society. Their aim is to describe the position as it is.

Figure 3: The aim of each paradigm

The work of Burrell and Morgan has not been without criticism, notably from critical realists (Modell, 2015)
who argue against the hegemonic dominance of the model, particularly with its emphasis on the exclusivity of
the paradigms, and from pragmatists (Goldkuhl, 2012) who argue for more nuanced approaches to the study
of complexity. On the other hand Garbutt (2016) sees the different paradigms as different routes on a map.
The map provides information rather than judgement and it is for the traveller who has selected a particular
route on the map to follow the instructions that go with that route.

Garbutt (2016) adds an axiological dimension of what I shall call concern to the use of the four quadrants. He
maps them onto Ackoff’s (1976) four pursuits of humankind, viz. the scientific – the pursuit of (scientific) truth;
the political-economic – the pursuit of power and plenty; the ethical-moral – the pursuit of goodness and
virtue; and the aesthetic – the pursuit of beauty (as a value) (Ackoff, 1978, p.14). Garbutt’s resultant mapping
sees four pursuits of researchers (figure 4) – Radical structuralism, he argues, is in pursuit of objectively
measurable power while the functionalists look for objective, scientifically measurable knowledge. Interpretive
researchers are in search of subjective, concrete value, and radical humanists seek an abstract, subjective
virtue (Garbutt, 2016, p.5).

Figure 4: Adding the four pursuits of human kind

Anchoring Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) four paradigms in some form of scientific pursuit or another allows one
to see the extent to which research in any one of them might be considered socially responsible. What remains
now is to consider the relationship between these research paradigms and the process of design. In his
seminal work on Design Thinking Peter Rowe (1987) presents a framework of four design positions that

www.ejel.org 15 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

architects take in their design of spaces. “First there is a functionalist position, distinguished by an emphasis
on the accommodation of activities and the influence of building technology. The second is a populist position,
which acknowledges and interprets contemporary commonplace building practices and user preferences.
Third, there is a conventionist position, that uses a primarily historical reference; and finally, a formalist
position that considers elements of form for their own sake” (Rowe, 1987, p.124). Although Rowe’s work uses
architecture as its primary reference it can be argued that it is applicable to all design, including instructional
design.

I argue that Rowe’s four positions map directly onto Burrell and Moran’s (1979) paradigms (Figure 5). The
horizontal dimension relates to the existence or absence of a “best solution”. At the one extreme of the
dimension is the conventional belief that there is one implied best solution to a problem and that regardless of
whether or not that solution can be achieved, reaching it remains the ultimate functional goal. At the other
extreme is the belief that there may be an infinite number of solutions and that these solutions are dependent
on an infinite number of contexts. These contexts could relate to people (populist) or to form (formalist).

The vertical dimension relates to the abstract or concrete nature of the design problem or message. At the
abstract extreme lies the formalist desire to follow the possibilities that the form presents, and the
conventionist practice of using a set of abstractions that have developed over time. At the concrete extreme
lies the practical reality of popular acceptance or functional use.

Figure 5: Adding the four design positions – developed from Rowe, 1978

3. The conceptual model – adding the questions

Having now developed a conceptual model to integrate aims I move towards presenting a set of research
questions that relate to each paradigm (Figure 6). For this I draw from Roode (1993), who argues that research
questions and methods can be developed for each of the paradigms. He identifies four research questions that
could be asked: ‘What is; how does; why is; and how should?’ Although Roode does not say so himself I believe
that his questions map directly onto Burrell & Morgan’s (1979) model. ‘How should?’ is an essentially positivist
question that calls for an objective, prescriptive answer, while ‘How does?’ resonates with the subjectively
descriptive, interpretive nature of the anti-positivist. ‘What is?’ relates to a society of radical change as it tries
to uncover or take an abstract stance to a situation, while ‘Why is?’ tries to understand what the rules are
trying to achieve in a society of regulation. The problem with a question such as ‘How should?’ is that it may
lead to spectulation, and specifically in an objective environment one would prefer to have a question of a
more strongly binary nature. I therefore propose that the question ‘How should?’ be replaced by ‘When does?’
To clarify, an example. The question ‘How should A be aligned with B?’ is more difficult to answer than ‘When
does A align with B?’ The second question is clearly a research question, while the first may be regarded as
speculative. For the purposes of this article therefore the question ‘When…?’ refers to some kind of
measurement, and could be replaced with “To what extent…?’ So the question could also be ‘To what extent
does A align with B?’.

www.ejel.org 16 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

Figure 6: Four research questions aligned to the research aims, paradigms, human pursuits and design
perspectives
3.1 A worked example
The purpose of the model presented above is to align research aims, paradigms, pursuits and design positions
with research questions. In the following section I shall use the recurring theme of technology acceptance in
e-learning to show how this model might be used to generate research questions for each paradigm. The key
to this method is to use two research questions to arrive at a given aim. So if the aim is to explore, the
questions will be: ‘What is (or are)?’ and ‘How does (or do)?’ Likewise if the aim is to explain the questions
would be ‘How does (or do)?’ and ‘Why is (or do)?’ To develop one needs to ask ‘Why is (or why is this not…)?’
and ‘When does (or when will)?’ Finally to describe one needs to ask ‘What is?’ and ‘When does (or when do)?’

A researcher working in the Radical Humanist quadrant may wish to explore the patterns of adoption that have
emerged in a given area or field. The two questions that drive the research could then be something like:
‘What are the affordances of the technology that is currently infused into the system,’ and ‘how do teachers
apply these affordances in their practice?’ On the other hand someone working in the interpretive quadrant
wants to understand why certain patterns of adoption emerge. The aim of such research is to explain the
patterns of adoption of the affordances of technology in a given area or field. The two questions would be
‘How does this technology get adopted in the field, and why does it get adopted in this way?’ The implementer
tasked with user adoption may want to develop an implementation plan and would ask ‘Why do some teachers
adopt this technology faster than others and when do the slow adopters also start using the solution?’ Finally,
as is the case in evaluation studies, the aim of research would be to describe the state of the implementation
of a given technology. The questions would be “what is the state of adoption in this area and when is this state
reached?’

The worked example has shown how four discrete research projects could be undertaken, from four different
design perspectives, in four different research paradigms, around the same theme and potentially using the
same population and data set. It is simply the questions that change as the research aim changes. The
following section will show how these questions can be used to drive design research in our field.
3.2 Application of the model to design research
Roode (1993) argues that research could take place sequentially through each paradigm to form a framework
for what he calls process-based research. One form of process-based research that has gained some traction in
the field of educational technology has been that of design research (Reeves, Herrington and Oliver, 2005;
Oliver, Herrington and McKenney, 2011; McKenney and Reeves, 2018). Design research follows a cyclical
approach (McKenney, 2011) in which a problem is analysed, a solution designed, implemented and tested, and
the results used to inform a second, third and even fourth cycle of design and development (figure 7).

www.ejel.org 17 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

Figure 7: A typical design research cycle (McKenny, 2001)

Van den Akker (2007, pp.45–46) presents a staged model of design research: Preliminary investigation,
Theoretical embedding, Empirical testing; and Documentation, analysis and reflection on process and
outcomes, which elaborates on what happens during each cycle. Preliminary investigation amounts to an
exploration of terrain, and would therefore map onto the Radical humanist Explore paradigm. Since a theory is
meant to explain, the Theoretical embedding phase would map onto the interpretive Explain paradigm, while
Empirical testing amounts to development. Finally the Documentation, analysis and reflection on processes
and outcome, maps directly onto the Radical structuralist Describe quadrant.

Test
Learn
Documentation,
Preliminary
analysis and
Investigation
reflection
Explore
Describe

Explain
Develop
Theoretical
Empirical testing
embedding
Design
Apply

Figure 8: One iteration of the design research cycle

I propose a simplified version of this model to include four stages called, Design, Test, Learn and Apply. A
design cycle comprises a single anti-clockwise rotation through the four paradigms as shown in Figure 8. A
couple of turns of the wheel will result in a design project. The model Figutr 9. shows how design research is a
combination of designing and researching. The outcome of the design process is usually some physical, digital
or intellectual product, while the outcome of the resultant learning is a set of principles that would lead to a
research outcome such as a thesis or a paper.

www.ejel.org 18 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

Figure 9: Design, Test, Learn, Apply - the design research process

4. Method
In the following section I will test the model against a number of selected papers published in earlier issues of
this journal. The aim of this research was to explore the extent to which selected articles in this journal
conform to the model. Two questions drive the study: What are the paradigms in which the articles can be
classified, and how are these paradigms aligned to the research aims and research questions? In this desk
study the articles were selected by way of a type of purposive sampling, known as Typical Case Sampling,
which “is useful when a researcher is dealing with large programs, it helps set the bar of what is standard or
‘typical’” (Etikan, Musa and Alkassim, 2016, p.4).The sampling was done by performing a close reading of the
titles in the tables of contents of all the volumes of the journal. The criterion for including a paper in the
research was that the title of the article had to provide an indication of the paradigm in which the research
took place. For instance the title: “Familiarity with technology among first-year students in Rwandan tertiary
education” (Byungura et al., 2018) suggests that the article would Describe the familiarity of the students and
thus fall in the Radical Structuralist/Describe quadrant. On that basis the article was selected. Once the articles
were selected their abstracts were considered to confirm if a paradigm may be clearly derived from these.

Articles whose abstracts were acceptable were then read and analysed to extract the aim and research
questions. In some cases the aims and questions were explicitly stated, and in other cases they had to be
derived from the context. In some cases the authors may have used the word ‘understand’ when, in the
context of this paper the word ‘explore’ may have been more appropriate. Likewise authors may have used
‘explore’ to mean ‘describe’ in such cases the words were changed and the changes indicated in the
discussion. The research aim and research questions may be my own paraphrase of the stated or implied aims
and questions of the relevant paper. The next section will first discuss papers that work in a single paradigm.
Thereafter will follow a paper in which the entire design
research sequence was followed.

5. Discussion of results
In this section I will discuss a number of papers in this journal and show how their aims and research questions
may be aligned to fit into each paradigm of the model described above. Finally a paper will be discussed that
shows how its authors moved through all four paradigms in a typical design research cycle.
5.1 Explore
In the abstract of her article about “seeking solutions to challenges in online and blended learning programs”
Paula Charbonneau-Gowdy states her work to be “directed at uncovering challenges in Virtual Learning
Environments” (Charbonneau-Gowdy, 2018, p.56 - My emphasis). The aim of uncovering underlying patterns
places the work in the Radical humanist quadrant with the aim to explore. Charbonneau-Gowdy’s own
explicitly stated research questions resonate with that aim. She presents three questions:

1. What tools are available that could help evaluate our online programs?
2. In what ways, if at all, do our research findings align with the framework of such a tool?
3. What solutions, if any, can this framework offer for moving forward in order to respond to the
tensions we have uncovered in the online programs? (Charbonneau-Gowdy, 2018, p.57).

Charbonneau-Gowdy provides two ‘What are…?’ questions, while her second question, “In what ways…” (p.57)
can be paraphrased as “How, if at all…”. Thus we see that in this case the aim of the article – to uncover, or to
explore, is supported by two what questions and a how.

www.ejel.org 19 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

One of the stated aims of Knight and Barbera is to “explore how learners are navigating with current and
emerging technologies in language learning tasks” (Knight and Barbera, 2018, p.67). They complement this
with a two-fold research question: “Is there evidence of directional agency manifesting in other recent or
emerging task-based language learning CALL scenarios that involve talk, and if so how?” (Knight and Barbera,
2018, p.72). Given that if the answer of the first part of the question is ‘no’, then there would be no second
part, a better formulation of the question would be ‘What evidence is there…’ If such a change is made then
the research aim, to explore, is well aligned with the research questions ‘What is… and how do…?”

Sánchez-Mena, Martí-Parreño and Aldás-Manzano state that “the main goal of this research is to explore
teachers’ intention to use EVGs using the technological approach proposed by the Technology Acceptance
Model” (2017, p.356). In their research the authors test seven hypotheses to explore the relationship between
age, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and attitude towards and intention to use educational
video games. Although they present their hypotheses they do not formulate explicit research questions,
although these can be extrapolated from the research to have been ‘What are the relationships between age,
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and how do these affect attitude towards and intention to use
educational video games. Once again an article with the aim to explore, that answers ‘What is, and how
does...?’ types of questions.
5.2 Explain
Costley and Lange did their research because “it is useful to understand the reasons why students decide to
continue using MOOCs in the future” (2017, p.174). Instead of research questions they test four hypotheses:
H1. Levels of instructional design are positively correlated with future behavioral intentions.
H2. Levels of instructional design are positively correlated with germane load.
H3. Levels of germane load are positively correlated with levels of future behavioral intentions.
H4. The effect of instructional design on future behavioral intentions is mediated by germane load. (Costley and
Lange, 2017, p.175).

From these hypotheses I extrapolate a number of research questions:

1. What is the relationship between levels of instructional design and future behavioural intentions?
2. What is the relationship between levels of instructional design and germane load?
3. What is the relationship between levels of germane load and levels of future behavioural
intentions? and
4. Why does instructional design affect future behavioural intentions?

It can be seen, then, that the aim to understand or explain in this instance, is refined, as the model proposes,
by ‘What…?’ and ‘Why…?’ questions. However, it is necessary to replace the words “What is the relationship,
with “How are these elements related”, so that the questions are aligned with the “How?” and “Why”
questions that are appropriate for this paradigm.
5.3 Develop
Lawless and Allen’s paper “investigates methods of reducing stress on-line and proposes some principles for
constructing on-line collaborative events to ensure that stress is eliminated or at least minimised” (2004,
p.121). The aim of the research, therefore was to develop a set of guidelines, thus putting it in a functionalist
paradigm. The resultant paper is clearly structured to answer two implied research questions, which are (my
formulation) ‘why do students in an online course experience stress and under what circumstances (when) will
this stress be reduced?’ They answer the first question through an extensive literature survey coupled with
some interaction with students. The second question is answered through a case study in which they construct
some stress-reducing exercises for their students and test the efficacy of these on the students. The end
product is a set of guidelines for reducing stress in on-line learning.
5.4 Describe
The following paper aims to describe the perspectives of an instructor and students on the use of the
Blackboard platform for delivering an engineering course over a period of nine years. Although the aim is
never explicitly stated it can be derived from the sentence: “The results presented show students and
instructor perspective towards use of LMS as a technology enhancing learning and teaching tool” (Uziak et al.,

www.ejel.org 20 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

2018, p.3 - My emphasis). The word show is sufficiently close to describe to infer such an aim. Similarly there
are no explicitly stated research questions, but again they can be deduced from the results as being: ‘What are
the affordances of the Blackboard platform used by the instructor and students?’ and ‘When do the students
and instructor find these tools satisfactory?’ At this stage it needs to be pointed out that the word when is a
statement of condition, not of time - it could also be paraphrased as ‘under what circumstances?’

As I pointed out earlier in this paper the aim: ‘to explain’ is used as an indicator for understand in the
interpretive paradigm. Therefore a paper that “aims to understand the degree of familiarity with technology
for first-year students at the University of Rwanda” (Byungura et al., 2018) is likely to fall into this paradigm.
They state their research questions explicitly as: “(1) To what extent do first-year university students owned,
accessed and used a range of digital tools? (2) What activities do these students perform with these digital
tools? (3) Did these students get any previous computer-based training? (4) What is their level of confidence in
using a range of digital tools?” (Byungura et al., 2018, p.32). As can be seen there are no ‘How…?’ or ‘Why…?’
questions here. Thus one questions the interpretive nature of the research. Furthermore a careful further
reading of the research methods shows that a questionnaire, rather than interviews of focus groups, was used
to gather data. The method thus suggests a descriptive, rather than an interpretive study. A full reading of the
paper confirms this. The findings amount to descriptive statistics of ownership and use. It is clear that the
authors of this paper substituted the word “understand” for the more correct “determine” and the aim of the
paper is to describe, rather than to understand or explain. It will only be once researchers have interrogated
these results further and augmented them by other interpretive methods that they would arrive at a true
understanding.
5.5 One full research cycle
The aim of a paper by Věra Ferdiánová is “to introduce interactive materials for Monge projection, which are
implemented into LMS Moodle, as well as show results of pilot research of influence of using these materials
on students” (Ferdiánová, 2017, p.259). In her paper she refers to previous work (Ferdiánová and Poruba,
2016) in which a paper-based version was demonstrated, and at the end of the paper she discusses future
development. It is clear, therefore, that the article under discussion is the description of one cycle in a design
research process. The paper actually passes through five stages, Describe, Explore, Explain, Develop, and
Describe again.

In the introductory sections of her paper she describes what some current problems are with three-
dimensional visualisation and when (or under what circumstances) these problems are addressed by other
researchers. She then goes on to explore what some current solutions are, and how they are being used,
before coming to the conclusion that “All these approaches seem to be very enriching. Unfortunately, they
have not been statistically tested yet – it cannot be statistically confirmed, which of these methods is more
effective or brings more benefits” (Ferdiánová, 2017, p.260). Once she has identified a possible solution she
continues to develop an understanding of how anaglyphic stereograms work, and why they might hold the key
to developing a solution for students to practice three-dimensional visualisations in a digital, rather than
physical analogue environment (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Orthoscopic (left) and pseudoscopic (right) anaglyphic views (Ferdiánová, 2017, p.260)
After the discussion of the potential solution she goes on to develop and implement digital alternatives using
GeoGebra. The first phase of the development is to ascertain why GeoGebra is an appropriate platform. She
does so by discussing the advantageous features of the program and also by listing some of the prestigious
awards it received. Following this she develops a set of interventions for when these may be appropriate
(Figure 11).

www.ejel.org 21 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

Figure 11: An anaglyph created by GeoGebra during the development phase (Ferdiánová, 2017, p.264)
The penultimate section of the article is where she describes the results of a pilot test of the intervention,
where, with the aid of graphs and tables, she indicates what the results were of the students’ learning, and
when these results showed an improvement over previous iterations.

This section thus shows how, in one article, Ferdiánová has taken us through the ‘Design, Test, Learn, Apply’
cycle, working sequentially through each of Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms of social science, and
asking and answering Roode’s (1993) questions as appropriate for each paradigm. Finally, in the last section of
her article she states categorically that “These results are motivation for us for our future work, because we
would like to test the biggest group and would like to extend materials” (Ferdiánová, 2017, p.267), thus
indicating that she and her fellow researchers are about to embark upon another design research cycle as
described by McKenney (2011).

6. Conclusions and recommendations

In this paper I have proposed a model that aligns research aims with research questions for research in e-
learning. The model is based on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) four social paradigms, and integrates my own
four research aims, namely, explore, explain, develop and describe, Peter Rowe’s (1987) four design positions,
namely, formalist, populist, functionalist and conventionist, Ackoff’s (1978, 1976) four pursuits of (hu)mankind
as refined by Garbutt (2016) as virtue, value, power and knowledge. To this synthesis I added a modification
of four of Roode’s (1993) questions for research in information systems, and argued that, a selection of two
specific questions were appropriate for each of the consolidated paradigms, as described in Table 1.
Table 1: Consolidation of the model
Burrell and Morgan Cronje Rowe Ackoff/Garbutt Roode
What is…?
Radical Humanist explore formalist Virtue
How does…?
How does…?
Interpretive explain populist Value
Why does…?
Why does…?
Functionalist develop functionalist Power
When does…?
When does…?
Radical structuralist describe conventionist knowledge
What is…?

The model was tested against eight Typical Case Sampled articles from this journal and it was found that it was
possible to classify the articles into each of the four paradigms respectively, and that the articles answered
research questions that corresponded to the mapping of Roode’s (1993) questions onto the model. It was
found, however, that authors use the terms understand, explore, interpret etc. rather loosely and it was
necessary to re-interpret those terms and substitute them with the words explore, explain, develop and
describe. Such an interpretation was quite possible through a close reading of the article itself. It was also
found that few authors provide clear, answerable research questions, some providing only hypotheses, and
others simply hinting at what they were trying to find. Once again, though, through close reading it was
possible to generate questions that conform to Roode’s (1993) question stems. I contend that, should authors

www.ejel.org 22 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

be more careful in their selection of aims and research questions, the resultant higher level of standardisation
will reach to easier comparisons across articles.

Along with Roode (1993) I argued further that, in the context of design research, it was possible to work
through the four paradigms sequentially, following a cyclic path as proposed by McKenney (2011) that
amounted to a sequence of design, test, learn and apply. Once again this model was tested against an article in
a volume of this journal (Ferdiánová, 2017) and it was seen that, although she did not explicitly use the
research aims or questions, these could be derived from a close reading of the article itself.

To conclude then, the model seems to work well in making explicit the relationship between research aims and
research questions and could be useful in describing socially responsible research. A number of
recommendations follow. These recommendations are aimed at supervisors and novice researchers who wish
to speed up the proposal writing process.

Firstly in order to make research aims explicit and easy to comprehend researchers are encouraged, at
proposal stage, to use one of four words to describe the aim of their research, viz. explore, explain, develop or
describe. It is always possible later in the research process to substitute these verbs for more nuanced words
such as ascertain, understand, design, or evaluate, but to develop a crisp research proposal it helps to use
simple words at the start.

Secondly two research questions should be developed that match the relevant paradigm as shown in Error!
Reference source not found.. Once again, as the research progresses these question stems could be refined
and replaced, but for an initial crisp proposal it helps to use the most basic form of the question stem. It is
hoped that, should there be a greater standardisation of the terminology of paradigms, aims and objectives
the much needed “comparability and generalizability” (Rüth and Kaspar, 2017) will be improved.

Finally, in the case of a design research project where a certain solution is both developed and tested it is
useful to follow a cyclic path though all four paradigms, in which the problem is described, possible solutions
explored, the most feasible route understood and a solution developed, after which the test results are once
again described, thus forming both the conclusion of the first cycle and the point of departure of the next.

7. Limitations and further work

With only eight articles sampled this study amounts to a “proof of concept” rather than a large-scale
interpretive study. Empirical verification of the model could be done by training a number of critical readers to
scrutinise a particular canon and classify the texts accordingly. One could then determine the level of inter-
rater validity to see the extent to which the model is transferrable between readers.

A further limitation of the model lies in the fact that the terms are so open to interpretation. As was shown in
the case of Costley and Lange (2017) it was necessary to change the words What is the relationship between x
and y to How are x and y related. To clarify these it would be useful to develop a number of typical What
question stems, typical How question stems, etc. Novice researchers could then be encoutage to use such
question stems in the development of their initial proposals. Obviously as students’ proficiency in
understanding the relationships between research aims and questions develop they could use a completely
different phrasing. In this way, for instance, the question When does? could be replace by Under what
circumstanses does?

Finally it must be remembered that this model is designed to be an initial tool to assist researchers to develop
a clear relationship between their research aims and questions – it is not to be seen either as a recipe or a rigid
rule for the development of research questions.

www.ejel.org 23 ISSN 1479-4403

 Johannes C. Cronje

References
Ackoff, R.L., 1976. Does quality of life have to be quantified. Operational Research Quarterly, 27(2), pp.289–303.
Ackoff, R.L., 1978. The art of problem solving: ccompanied by Ackoff’s Fables. New York, NY : Wiley.
Van den Akker, J., 2007. Curriculum design research. In: T. Plomp and N. Niveen, eds., An introduction to educational
design research. Amsterdam: SLO.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Byungura, J.C., Hansson, H., Muparasi, M. and Ruhinda, B., 2018. Familiarity with technology among first-year students in
Rwandan tertiary education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), pp.30–45.
Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., 2017. Moving outside the box: researching e-learning in disruptive times. Electronic Journal of e-
Learning, 15(1), pp.59–69.
Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., 2018. Beyond stalemate : seeking solutions to challenges in online and blended learning
programs. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), pp.56–66.
Costley, J. and Lange, C., 2017. The mediating effects of germane cognitive load on the relationship between instructional
design and students’ future behavioral intention. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), pp.174–187.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American
ournal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), pp.1–4.
Ferdiánová, V., 2017. GeoGebra materials for LMS moodle focused Monge on projection. Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
15(3), pp.259–268.
Ferdiánová, V. and Poruba, J., 2016. Special 3D models for Monge Projection. In: 15th Conference on Applied Mathematics,
Proceedings,. Bratislava: Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava.
Garbutt, M., 2016. Disciplinary kingdoms and the pursuit of pragmatism in research: a student perspective. Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 77(1), pp.1–10.
Goldkuhl, G., 2012. Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of
Information Systems, 21(2), pp.135–146.
Knight, J. and Barbera, E., 2018. Navigational acts and discourse : fostering learner agency in computer-assisted language
learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), pp.67–76.
Lawless, N. and Allen, J., 2004. Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-Learning. Electronic Journal of e-
Learning, 2(1), pp.121–128.
McKenney, S., 2011. Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: exploring potentials.
Enschede: University of Twente.
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T.C., 2018. Conducting educational design research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Modell, S., 2015. Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(7), pp.1138–1150.
Oliver, R., Herrington, J. and McKenney, S., 2011. Design-based research and doctoral students : Guidelines for preparing a
dissertation proposal. Perth: Edith Cowan University.
Reeves, T.C., 1995. Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. In: Proceedings of the 1995 Annual
National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), (17th, Anaheim, CA,
1995); see IR 017 139. ERIC.
Reeves, T.C., 2000. Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), pp.19–28.
Reeves, T.C., 2006. Design research from a technology perspective. In: Educational design research. New York, NY:
Routledge, pp.64–78.
Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J. and Oliver, R., 2005. Design research: a socially responsible approach to instructional
technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), pp.97–116.
Roode, J.D., 1993. Implications for teaching of a process-based research framework for information systems. In: L. Smith,
ed., Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management. Orlando,
Florida.
Rowe, P., 1987. Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rüth, M. and Kaspar, K., 2017. The e-learning setting circle: first steps toward theory development in e-learning research.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(1), pp.94–103.
Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J. and Aldás-Manzano, J., 2017. The effect of age on teachers’ intention to use
educational video games: A TAM approach. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(4), pp.355–366..
Stokes, D.E., 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution
Press.
Uziak, J., Oladiran, M.T., Lorencowicz, E. and Becker, K., 2018. Students’ and instructor’s perspective on the use of
blackboard platform for delivering an engineering course. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), pp.1–15.

www.ejel.org 24 ISSN 1479-4403