Our preference for what we want to know is influenced by our view of the world. Our worldview also determines how we choose to understand the world around us (Cohen et al 2001, 3; Strauss & Corbin 1998, 28). Kuhn (1977) states that views about social reality are constructed around a dominant paradigm. In scientific research, a paradigm provides epistemological foundations for the research question and influences the choices of research methods (Guba 1990). The aim of this paper is to surface these foundations, to justify the choice of research methods used to explore how active, moderate and silent online discussion participants engaged and constructed meaning in online and blended formal education courses. The research presented was conceptualised in the constructivist worldview.Situated in the constructivist paradigm the presentation justifies use of the Personal Construct Theory by Kelly (1970) and the Repertory Grid Method as the main technique to address the research questions. The research also used the grounded theory approach for ongoing comparative analysis and theoretical sampling, to gain an in-depth understanding of the themes of knowledge construction. The discussion includes a brief overview of the Personal Construct Theory. It takes the audience through the qualitative and quantitative approaches used in the Repertory Grid Method. It includes discussion of the sampling criteria, strengths and limitations of the chosen method, the two repertory method-guided open interviews, development of a repertory grid matrix, factor analysis of the matrix and development of metaphorical representations of participants' learning worlds.It is shown that although the Repertory Grid Matrix and the factor analysis were objective methods that gave concrete values as outputs, the constructivist paradigm meant that the research did not assume these methods would lead to absolute objective truths. If the numerical outputs were used as definite ways of pigeonholing the participants into neat categories, then the results would be invalid on statistical and philosophical grounds (Pope and Keen 1981, 55). The presentation shows how the factor analysis results were valuable in constructing multidimensional graphical representation of participants' learning dimensions. The latter were used in the feedback interviews and helped to qualitatively deconstruct participants of their ways of knowing. Before this research the Repertory Grid researchers have used two-dimensional graphs to interpret factor analysis results with the participants. The presentation will show why I developed this part of the method to allow a more visual way of interpreting factor analysis results using multi-dimensional graphs. The qualitative-to-quantitative-to-qualitative switch of methodologies guided by the Repertory Grid Method and visual representations of learning had important strengths. It actively involved participants throughout the data collection, and in the initial analysis of results. It enabled ongoing interaction with the participants to confirm their learning constructions and to ensure a higher degree of empirical rigor. The different representations of the data enabled me to remain as true as possible to the chosen paradigm, the subject matter, and the participants.The Repertory Grid Method (Pope and Keen 1981, 118) and the grounded theory approach provide theoretical frameworks that embrace diverse perspectives. According to constructivism alternativism philosophy, the personal constructs are not permanent representations and may change over time as one encounters new experiences (Kelly 1991). Those looking for absolute answers about how individuals construct meaning in online and blended courses may find flaws with this outlook. This research methodology challenged the absolutist learning designs that assume all learners engage in a defined and logical manner. It helped to voice and reveal the learning processes of silent online learners who were assumed not to be learning. Thus it helped to challenge the popular online pedagogy that regards participation in online discussion as the main evidence for learning engagement.Cohen, L. M., L and Morrison, K. (2001). Research Methods in Education. London, Routledge/ Falmer. Guba, E.G. (ed.) (1990) The Paradigm Dialogue. London. Sage publications.Gulati, S. (2004b) Constructivism in online pedagogy and informal learning: a discussion for formal to acknowledge the informal. Paper presented at Universities Association for Continuing Education at University of Glamorgan, Wales. 6th April 2004, Available online http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003562.htm Gulati, S. (2005) How do international students engage in blended and online learning? Chapter 14. In Garg, S. Panda, S. Murthy, C.R.K. and Mishra, S. (eds) (2005) Open and Distance Education in Global Environment: Opportunities for Collaboration. New Delhi. Viva Books Private Limited. Gulati, S. (accepted for publication in 2007) Compulsory participation in online discussions….Is this constructivist or normalisation of learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International. RoutledgeFalmer (Volume and Issue to be confirmed). Kelly, G. A. (1970) A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. Chapter 1, pp.1-29. (published posthumously). In Bannister, D (ed.) Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press. Kelly, G. (1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Volume 1: Theory of Personality. New York. Norton. (published posthumously)Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago Press. Pope, M. and Keen, T.R. (1981). Personal Construct Psychology and Education. London, Academic PressStrauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures fro Developing Grounded Theory. London, Sage Publications. British Education Research Journal Shalni Gulati University of Oxford, UK Our preference for what we want to know is influenced by our view of the world. Our worldview also determines how we choose to understand the world around us (Cohen et al 2001, 3; Strauss & Corbin 1998, 28). Kuhn (1977) states that views about social reality are constructed around a dominant paradigm. In scientific research, a paradigm provides epistemological foundations for the research question and influences the choices of research methods (Guba 1990). The aim of this paper is to surface these foundations, to justify the choice of research methods used to explore how active, moderate and silent online discussion participants engaged and constructed meaning in online and blended formal education courses. The research presented was conceptualised in the constructivist worldview.Situated in the constructivist paradigm the presentation justifies use of the Personal Construct Theory by Kelly (1970) and the Repertory Grid Method as the main technique to address the research questions. The research also used the grounded theory approach for ongoing comparative analysis and theoretical sampling, to gain an in-depth understanding of the themes of knowledge construction. The discussion includes a brief overview of the Personal Construct Theory. It takes the audience through the qualitative and quantitative approaches used in the Repertory Grid Method. It includes discussion of the sampling criteria, strengths and limitations of the chosen method, the two repertory method-guided open interviews, development of a repertory grid matrix, factor analysis of the matrix and development of metaphorical representations of participants' learning worlds.It is shown that although the Repertory Grid Matrix and the factor analysis were objective methods that gave concrete values as outputs, the constructivist paradigm meant that the research did not assume these methods would lead to absolute objective truths. If the numerical outputs were used as definite ways of pigeonholing the participants into neat categories, then the results would be invalid on statistical and philosophical grounds (Pope and Keen 1981, 55). The presentation shows how the factor analysis results were valuable in constructing multidimensional graphical representation of participants' learning dimensions. The latter were used in the feedback interviews and helped to qualitatively deconstruct participants of their ways of knowing. Before this research the Repertory Grid researchers have used two-dimensional graphs to interpret factor analysis results with the participants. The presentation will show why I developed this part of the method to allow a more visual way of interpreting factor analysis results using multi-dimensional graphs. The qualitative-to-quantitative-to-qualitative switch of methodologies guided by the Repertory Grid Method and visual representations of learning had important strengths. It actively involved participants throughout the data collection, and in the initial analysis of results. It enabled ongoing interaction with the participants to confirm their learning constructions and to ensure a higher degree of empirical rigor. The different representations of the data enabled me to remain as true as possible to the chosen paradigm, the subject matter, and the participants.The Repertory Grid Method (Pope and Keen 1981, 118) and the grounded theory approach provide theoretical frameworks that embrace diverse perspectives. According to constructivism alternativism philosophy, the personal constructs are not permanent representations and may change over time as one encounters new experiences (Kelly 1991). Those looking for absolute answers about how individuals construct meaning in online and blended courses may find flaws with this outlook. This research methodology challenged the absolutist learning designs that assume all learners engage in a defined and logical manner. It helped to voice and reveal the learning processes of silent online learners who were assumed not to be learning. Thus it helped to challenge the popular online pedagogy that regards participation in online discussion as the main evidence for learning engagement. References Cohen, L. M., L and Morrison, K. (2001). Research Methods in Education. London, Routledge/ Falmer. Guba, E.G. (ed.) (1990) The Paradigm Dialogue. London. Sage publications.Gulati, S. (2004b) Constructivism in online pedagogy and informal learning: a discussion for formal to acknowledge the informal. Paper presented at Universities Association for Continuing Education at University of Glamorgan, Wales. 6th April 2004, Available online http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003562.htm Gulati, S. (2005) How do international students engage in blended and online learning? Chapter 14. In Garg, S. Panda, S. Murthy, C.R.K. and Mishra, S. (eds) (2005) Open and Distance Education in Global Environment: Opportunities for Collaboration. New Delhi. Viva Books Private Limited. Gulati, S. (accepted for publication in 2007) Compulsory participation in online discussions….Is this constructivist or normalisation of learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International. RoutledgeFalmer (Volume and Issue to be confirmed). Kelly, G. A. (1970) A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. Chapter 1, pp.1-29. (published posthumously). In Bannister, D (ed.) Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press. Kelly, G. (1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Volume 1: Theory of Personality. New York. Norton. (published posthumously)Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago Press. Pope, M. and Keen, T.R. (1981). Personal Construct Psychology and Education. London, Academic PressStrauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures fro Developing Grounded Theory. London, Sage Publications.