It involves two paradigms, rationalistic and naturalistic, in which the reflections of student teachers are compared through the Utrecht study and Trondheim study.
Interactions between communicating persons – student teacher, teacher educator, and researcher -are the one creating “voices”. The researchers are part of the story they are telling. The researchers’ interpretation is the true voice of the refection in the study. The shift from a rationalistic perspective towards a more naturalistic one is mirrored in the Trondheim study.
The direction of Admiraal and Wubbels’ (2012) study to take on a storytelling method from the traditional research methods is congruent to its purpose and nature, being focused on comparing two research approaches of reflective practice of two different modes of tele-guidance. This comparison is seen herein as an essential stance in order for the study to provide a clear view of the methodologies and approaches used. The position of the study is highlighted in the fact that it resulted in two different reports on student teachers’ reflective stances despite the fact that they share some perspectives on educational practices and reflections. Admiraal and Wubbels have emphasised that the different analyses and results are where the differences in beliefs in the Utrecht and Trondheim studies lie, apparently to see any alternatives to viewing the same phenomenon through two different lenses. One may infer that this direction of the studies seeks to adopt replicability and does so by employing mixed methods and qualitative method respectively, called ‘convergence’ by Gorard and Taylor (2004, p. 45). However, the production of two substantially different results in the Utrecht and Trondheim studies may surmise not having to produce such replication, as pointed out by Gorard and Taylor.
It is clear that the Utrecht and Trondheim studies are in fact focused on adopting two different paradigms to seeing the two student