The relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among postgraduate students in Tanzania

The relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among postgraduate students in Tanzania | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among postgraduate students in Tanzania Maximillian Mgeni, Afrael Sarakikya, Harun Magosho This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined the relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among 479 postgraduate students at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A cross-sectional survey design was employed; using stratified random sampling across fields of study. Data were collected through a validated questionnaire measuring four epistemic belief dimensions: certainty, simplicity, sources, and justification of knowledge as well as preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research approaches. Descriptive statistics summarized students' epistemic orientations; Spearman's rank correlations assessed associations between epistemic beliefs and research preferences, and multiple linear regression analyses evaluated their predictive influence amongst the postgraduate students. Findings reveal that students demonstrated moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs, with the strongest emphasis on justification of knowledge. Of the four dimensions, only Simplicity of Knowledge significantly predicted research approach preference positively for quantitative and negatively for qualitative methods. Preferences for mixed-methods were not significantly explained by epistemic beliefs, suggesting the role of contextual and disciplinary influences. These results underscore the importance of integrating explicit epistemological reflection into postgraduate research training to strengthen methodological awareness, critical reasoning, and coherence between philosophical assumptions and research design. Educational Philosophy and Theory Personal epistemology epistemic beliefs research approaches postgraduate students Tanzania Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Research is a core function of higher education institutions (HEIs) and a key indicator of academic quality, institutional reputation, and knowledge production capacity (Hazelkorn, 2009 ; Kadikilo, et al., 2024 ). At the postgraduate level, particularly at the master's and doctoral programmes, research serves a core component, is the advancement of knowledge through original research. (European University Association, 2005 ; Buckley, et al., 2009 ). Through theses and dissertations, postgraduate students are expected to demonstrate independent thinking, methodological rigour, and the ability to justify knowledge claims. However, producing high-quality research requires more than mastery of research methods; it also demands a clear understanding of the epistemological assumptions that underpin methodological decisions. Research is inherently philosophical, as the formulation of research problems, selection of designs, and interpretation of findings are shaped by individual’s epistemic beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired (Crotty, 1998 ; Chakravartty, 2021 ). Epistemic beliefs shape how researchers conceptualize problems, evaluate evidence, and justify conclusions, thereby influencing the coherence and credibility of research outcomes (Carter & Little, 2007 ; Salmento & Murtonen, 2019 ). Without explicit awareness of these beliefs, methodological decisions may be technically appropriate yet philosophically inconsistent, limiting the interpretability and scholarly contribution of research findings. Personal epistemological beliefs internal cognitive frameworks concerning the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing have been shown to affect learning, critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving (Bromme et al., 2010; Hofer & Bendixen 2012 ). Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ) conceptualize personal epistemology as a multidimensional construct comprising beliefs about the nature of knowledge (certainty and simplicity) and the process of knowing (source and justification). These dimensions operate along a continuum from naïve to sophisticated and are theorized to shape individuals' preferences for particular research paradigms and methodological approaches. Empirical evidence indicates that epistemological beliefs vary across disciplines and educational contexts. For example, students in the natural science often perceive knowledge as objective and certain, whereas those in social science and humanities are more likely to regard knowledge as contextual, interpretive, and evolving (Jehng et al., 1993; Paulsen & Wells, 1998; Aditomo, 2017 ). Such disciplinary differences shape students’ confidence in and preference for particular research approaches, including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches (Vakkari et al., 2022 ). Despite the central role of epistemology in research, explicit engagement with epistemological foundations remains limited in many postgraduate programmes (Darlaston-Jones, 2007 ). As a result, students may exhibit procedural competence in research methods without fully understanding the philosophical assumptions underpinning their methodological choices. This disconnect can lead to conceptual misalignment and ultimately weaken the coherence and quality of research outcomes (Kincheloe, 2012 ). Evidence from Tanzanian HEIs indicates that postgraduate research displays uneven methodological patterns, including a predominance of qualitative approaches in the social sciences and humanities (Kinyota & Kavenuke, 2022 ) and a stronger inclination toward mixed-methods designs in information studies (Ndenje-Sichalwe & Elia, 2021 ). Although these trends may reflect disciplinary traditions, they may also signal constrained methodological reasoning shaped by unexamined epistemological beliefs. While theoretical scholarship consistently links epistemology to research methodology, empirical evidence in the Tanzanian context remains limited regarding how specific epistemic dimensions influence postgraduate students' research approach preferences. This gap restricts efforts to enhance postgraduate research training and risks perpetuating philosophically misaligned research practices. Understanding the epistemological foundations underlying methodological decision-making is therefore critical for strengthening the coherence, quality, and diversity of postgraduate research outputs. Guided by Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework, this study examines how postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs relate to their preferred research approaches. Specifically, it identifies dominant epistemic belief dimensions among students and assesses the extent to which these beliefs are associated with and predict preferences for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research approaches. By empirically linking epistemic dimensions to methodological choices, the study contributes to the broader literature on epistemology in higher education. It offers evidence-based insights for improving postgraduate research training in Tanzania and comparable contexts. 2. Research questions This study aimed to examine the relationship of postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs on their research approach preferences by addressing the following research questions: What epistemic belief dimensions are most strongly endorsed among postgraduate students? What relationships exist between postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs and their preference for research approaches? To what extent do postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their preferences for different research approaches? 3. Theoretical Framework This study was guided by Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework of personal epistemologies, which defines epistemological beliefs as individuals' views about the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. This framework was preferred over earlier models, such as Schommer's (1990) multidimensional model, because it distinguishes more clearly between beliefs about knowledge and beliefs about knowing and aligns closely with educational research and methodological decision-making in postgraduate contexts. Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ) theorised personal epistemology as a structured, progressively developing cognitive system. They identified two overarching aspects nature of knowledge and the process of knowing operationalised through four interrelated dimensions: certainty of knowledge, simplicity of Knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification of knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Baytelman et al., 2016a, 2020 ). Each dimension functions along a continuum from naïve to sophisticated epistemological understanding. The nature of knowledge pertains to individuals’ beliefs about what knowledge is, ranging from fixed, simple, and certain knowledge to complex, tentative, and contextual Knowledge (Hofer, 2001 ; Rott 2021 ). The process of knowing concerns how individuals believe knowledge is acquired and justified, shaping their engagement in inquiry, learning, and research practices. Together, these dimensions offer a comprehensive framework for examining how postgraduate students interpret knowledge claims and make methodological decisions in academic and research contexts. 4. Context of the Study 4.1. Conceptualising and developing personal epistemological beliefs models Epistemology, a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, explores the nature, sources, and limits of human understanding (Steup & Neta, 2020 ; Potter, 2017 ). It investigates how knowledge is acquired, validated, and used to interpret reality. Personal epistemology applies these philosophical ideas at the individual level, encompassing a person's beliefs about what knowledge is and how it is acquired (Perry, 1970; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ). These beliefs influence cognitive processes such as reasoning, justification, and decision-making, particularly within academic and research contexts (Hofer, 2004). In educational research, epistemological beliefs are central because they shape how postgraduate students perceive, interpret, and construct Knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Muis et al., 2018 ). They have been linked to critical thinking, conceptual change, scientific reasoning, and argumentation skills (Hofer, 2016 ; Nussbaum etal, 2008). Moreover, epistemic understanding develops with age and formal education, making university students an appropriate population for examining how personal epistemology influences research engagement and methodological choices (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002). Epistemic beliefs directly shape researchers' methodological orientations. Individuals with objectivist epistemologies often favour empirical, analytical approaches grounded in positivist assumptions, whereas those with constructivist epistemologies are more likely to adopt interpretive or qualitative methodologies that emphasise context-dependent meaning-making (Moon & Blackman, 2014; Hofer & Pintrich, 2004). Therefore, examining the development and structure of personal epistemological belief models is essential for understanding and explaining postgraduate students' choices of research approaches. Research on personal epistemology has evolved along two main trajectories: developmental stage models and multidimensional belief models (Conley et al., 2004 ; Kaya, 2017 ). Early studies emphasised stage-based growth, portraying epistemological development as a progression through qualitatively distinct levels. Perry's (1970) seminal model described a shift dualistic thinking to relativism and finally to commitment within relativism. King and Kitchener's (1994) Reflective Judgment Model similarly traced a trajectory from pre-reflective to quasi-reflective and reflective reasoning. Expanding on Perry (1970), Baxter Magolda (1992) proposed stages absolute knowing, transitional knowing, independent knowing, and contextual knowing illustrating the movement from authority-dependent to self-authored knowledge. Similarly, Kuhn et al. (2000) proposed a seven-stages reflective judgement model, organised into three broader levels: pre-reflective, quasi-reflective, and reflective thinking. Across these frameworks, epistemic sophistication increases as individuals recognise knowledge as tentative, interpretive, and open to critical evaluation (Hofer, 2001 ). While developmental models offer valuable insights into epistemic maturation, they have been critiqued for assuming linear progression and insufficiently considering contextual variability. Greene et al. ( 2008 ) argue that epistemological development may not follow strict sequential stages but can fluctuate across) domains and tasks. This limitation underscores that individuals may simultaneously hold both sophisticated and naïve beliefs depending on disciplinary or situational contexts. In response to the limitations of stage models, multidimensional models of epistemic beliefs emerged. Schommer (1990, 1993) challenged the unidimensional perspective, proposing that epistemic beliefs develop along multiple, relatively independent dimensions. Her model identified five dimensions: stability of knowledge (tentative vs. unchanging), structure of knowledge (isolated vs. integrated), source of knowledge (authority vs. observation), speed of acquisition (quick vs. gradual), and control of acquisition (fixed vs. improvable). This approach highlighted that individuals can hold sophisticated beliefs in some domains while retaining naïve beliefs in others, reflecting the complexity and multidimensionality of epistemic development. Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ) extended Schommer's multidimensional model, refining it into a more streamlined, educational-focused framework comprising four dimensions within two overarching aspects: the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. The dimensions include: Certainty of Knowledge (viewing knowledge as fixed or evolving); Simplicity of Knowledge (seeing knowledge as discrete facts versus interconnected ideas); Source of Knowledge (originating externally from authority or internally through personal construction); and Justification of Knowledge (based on evidence, reasoning or authority). Each dimension spans a continuum from objectivist/dualist orientations (absolute, certain, authority-based) to constructivist/relativist perspectives (contextual, tentative, interpretive). This framework captures both the cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in how individuals conceptualise, construct, and evaluate knowledge. Compared to developmental models, which emphasize structural shift in reasoning, Hofer and Pintrich’s approach highlights the nuanced, multidimensional nature of epistemic beliefs and their implications for learning and methodological decision-making. In contrast, multidimensional models view epistemology as a system of coexisting beliefs that may develop unevenly across domains. Muis et al. ( 2006 ) argues that such models better account for domain-specific epistemic variation, providing theoretical flexibility for examining methodological preferences shaped by disciplinary training and epistemic assumptions. For postgraduate students, these epistemic dimensions are particularly influential, as guiding both research reasoning and approach selection. Thus, Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) model offers a robust lens for understanding how epistemological beliefs predict approach choices. By linking philosophical assumptions to methodological decisions, this multidimensional framework aligns closely with the objectives of the present study, providing a theoretically grounded basis for examining the interplay between epistemic beliefs and research preferences. 4.2. Research approaches among postgraduate students in higher education. Postgraduate research typically employs quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches, each grounded in distinct epistemological assumptions. Quantitative research reflects objectivist or post-positivist epistemologies, emphasizing structured designs, measurement, and generalisability, while qualitative research aligns with constructivist epistemologies, prioritising meaning-making, context, and interpretation. Mixed-methods integrate both approaches, enabling triangulation and comprehensive understanding (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ; Saunders et al., 2009 ). Aligning research approaches with epistemological beliefs enhances study coherence, validity, and credibility (Cohen et al., 2018 ). Yet, postgraduate students frequently struggle to articulate and justify the philosophical foundations of their methods. Crotty's (1998) framework highlights that a coherent research design requires consistency across epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods. Empirical evidence suggests that despite its importance, such alignment is often missing; potentially undermining methodological rigour and the interpretive strength of postgraduate research. Elia et al. (2025), using a bibliometric approach, examined postgraduate research from 2012 to 2022 and found that while students were familiar with research methods, many lacked understanding of the epistemological and theoretical assumptions guiding their methodological choices. Contextual variations were evident: in some South African universities, postgraduate studies predominantly employed empirical-analytical approaches (Singh, 2017 ). Similarly, Ndenje-Sichalwe and Elia ( 2021 ) reported that postgraduate research relied heavily on survey designs and non-probability sampling methods, such as purposive and convenience sampling. Although probability sampling methods, particularly simple random and stratified sampling, with limited use of advanced qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques. These methodological limitations constrained the quality of postgraduate. Kinyota and Kavenuke ( 2022 ) further highlighted misalignment across epistemology, theory, methodology, and methods in 154 postgraduate dissertations. Coherence was often restricted to methodology and methods sections, while epistemological and theoretical perspectives were frequently implicit. Their analysis showed an overreliance on qualitative (65.6%) and mixed-methods (24.7%) approaches, predominantly case studies, suggesting that underlying epistemic assumptions about knowledge certainty and authority shape methodological choices and limit knowledge diversity. 4.3. Relationship between epistemic dimensions, epistemologies, and research approaches Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ) define epistemological beliefs as individuals' conceptions of the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. These beliefs form a coherent cognitive system that develops progressively from naïve to sophisticated, directly influencing how individuals engage in inquiry (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Hofer, 2001 ). In postgraduate research, such beliefs translate into concrete epistemological orientations objectivist, subjectivist, and pragmatist which, in turn, shape students' research approach choices (Crotty, 1998 ; Carter & Little, 2007 ). Thus, epistemic dimensions function as the cognitive mechanisms through which epistemology informs methodological decisions. Hofer and Pintrich's four epistemic dimensions certainty of knowledge, simplicity of Knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification of knowing collectively explain how postgraduate students determine what counts as valid knowledge and how it should be produced (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Bråten et al., 2008). When oriented toward the naïve end of the continuum, these dimensions foster an objectivist epistemology. Students who perceive knowledge as certain and unchanging (certainty), composed of discrete facts (simplicity), derived from external authorities or objective reality (source), and justified through empirical verification (Justification) tend to adopt positivist or post-positivist assumptions (Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2007 ; King & Kitchener, 1994). These beliefs align with quantitative research approaches, which emphasise measurement, objectivity, reliability, and generalisability (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017 ; Park et al., 2020). Consequently, methodological preference for structured instruments such as surveys and experiments emerge directly from epistemic assumptions viewing knowledge as stable, discoverable, and independent of the knower (Cohen et al., 2018 ; Hiller, 2016 ). As students' epistemic beliefs shift toward the sophisticated end of the continuum, they increasingly reflect a subjectivist epistemology. In this configuration, knowledge is seen as tentative and evolving (certainty), complex and interconnected (simplicity), actively constructed through experience and interaction (source), and justified through interpretive reasoning, reflexivity, and contextual evidence (Justification) (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Kuhn, 1991). These beliefs align with constructivist and interpretivist paradigms, which posit multiple, socially constructed realities (Crotty, 1998 ; Saunders et al., 2009 ). Postgraduate students holding such epistemic beliefs therefore tend to prefer qualitative research approaches that prioritise depth, meaning, and contextual understanding. Methodological choices such as phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and case studies naturally follow from the view that knowledge is co-constructed and that understanding social phenomena requires close engagement with participants' lived experiences (Gray, 2014 ; Diaz Andrade, 2009 ). At the most integrative level, epistemic beliefs may not conform strictly to naïve or sophisticated poles but instead exhibit epistemological flexibility, forming a pragmatist (relational) epistemology. In this orientation, students viewed knowledge as provisional and purpose-dependent (certainty), relational and contextual (simplicity), derived from multiple sources, including empirical evidence and human experience (source), and justified through both empirical adequacy and practical relevance (Justification) (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Rather than privileging a single way of knowing, pragmatist epistemology evaluates knowledge claims based on their capacity to address real-world problems (Leggy & Hookway, 2021). This orientation predicts a preference for mixed-methods research or other forms of methodological pluralism, where quantitative and qualitative approaches are integrated coherently (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ; Savin-Baden & Major, 2023 ). Here, method selection is driven by the research problem rather than allegiance to a single epistemological tradition (Saunders et al., 2009 ). Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) epistemic dimensions offer a clear explanatory link between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences. Naïve epistemic orientations correspond to objectivist epistemology and quantitative methods; sophisticated orientations correspond to subjectivist epistemology and qualitative methods; and integrative orientations correspond to pragmatist epistemology and mixed-methods approaches (Crotty, 1998 ; Carter & Little, 2007 ). This framework illustrates that research methodology is not merely a technical choice but a reflection of how postgraduate students conceptualise knowledge and knowing. Accordingly, personal epistemology serves as a foundational determinant of methodological reasoning, providing a coherent and empirically testable basis for predicting research approach preferences in postgraduate education. 5. Methods 5.1. Research design This study used a cross-sectional survey design to examine the relationships between postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences. Data were collected at a single point in time using a structured, validated questionnaire adapted from the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI) and related instruments (Baytelman & Constantinou, 2015 ; Baytelman et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2020 ; Celik, 2020 ). This design enabled the identification of patterns, associations, and predictive influence of epistemic beliefs on methodological preferences. 5.2. Sampling strategy A stratified random sampling approach was employed, with academic field of study serving as the basis for stratification. The postgraduate population was divided into disciplinary strata, and participants were randomly selected from each stratum. A total of 479 postgraduate students were included in the sample, corresponding to a 95% confidence level and a ± 5% margin of error. Stratification by field ensured adequate representation of disciplinary groups and enabled meaningful comparisons of epistemic orientations across academic domains. 5.3. Data collection instruments Data were collected using a structured, closed-ended questionnaire comprising three sections. Section A captured demographic information, including age, sex, level and year of study, and field of study. Section B measured epistemic beliefs using Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) four-dimensional model: Certainty of Knowledge (9 items), Simplicity of Knowledge (10 items), Source of Knowledge (8 items), and Justification of Knowing (12 items), rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Items were adapted from validated instruments and reviewed by experts for content validity and contextual relevance. Section C assessed preferences for research approaches using three items targeting quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research orientations. 5.4. Validity and reliability of instruments Content validity was ensured by adapting items from empirically validated instruments that aligned with the study's objectives and theoretical framework. Construct validity was established through expert review by the supervisors and peers. Reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha yielded a coefficient of 0.79, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the instrument. 5.5. Data analysis procedures Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20, incorporating descriptive, correlational, and predictive techniques. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) summarized students' epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences. Spearman's rank-order correlation assessed associations between epistemic belief dimensions and research preferences, suitable for ordinal Likert-scale data. Multiple linear regression examined the predictive influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach selection. Composite Likert scores were treated as approximately continuous, a standard practice for large samples (Carifio & Perla, 2008; Norman, 2010). Regression assumptions, including normality and linearity, were adequately met given the sample size (Field, 2018). 5.6. Ethical considerations Ethical integrity was maintained through formal research clearance, informed consent, confidentiality, and adherence to academic honesty. Participants were fully informed of the study's purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time (Bordens & Abbott, 2022; Rana et al., 2021). No personally identifying information was collected, all data were anonymized and coded for analysis. Academic integrity was ensured through accurate citation of sources and avoidance of plagiarism. 6. Results 6.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the 479 postgraduate students who participated in the study. The variables summarized include sex, age, field of study, level of education, and year of study. Frequencies and percentages are reported to provide an overview of the sample composition and to contextualize subsequent analyses. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents by Sex, Age, Field of Study, Level of Education, and Year of Study (N = 479) Characteristic Category n % Sex Male 312 65 Female 167 35 Age (years) 20–29 113 24 30–39 259 54 40–49 101 21 50–59 5 1 Field of Study Education Studies 199 42 Mathematics 12 3 Engineering Science 83 17 Statistics 13 3 Environmental Science 47 10 Language Studies 23 5 Business Studies 44 9 Economics 58 12 Level of Education Master’s 368 77 PhD 111 23 Year of Study 1 171 36 2 219 46 3 39 8 4 28 6 5+ 21 4 Table 1 summarizes the demographic profile of the 479 postgraduate students included in the study. The sample was predominantly male (65%), with females comprising 35%. Participants were largely within the 30–39 age range (54%), followed by those aged 20–29 (24%) and 40–49 (21%), indicating that the cohort primarily consisted of early- to mid-career adults. In terms of disciplinary representation, Education Studies accounted for the largest proportion of respondents (42%), followed by Engineering Science (17%) and Economics (12%), with smaller proportions distributed across Environmental Science, Business Studies, Language Studies, Mathematics, and Statistics. Most participants were enrolled at the Master’s level (77%), while 23% were doctoral candidates. Regarding academic progression, the majority were in the first (36%) and second year (46%) of study. The sample reflects a predominantly Master’s-level, early-stage postgraduate population, with substantial representation from education-related disciplines. These characteristics provided essential context for interpreting subsequent analyses in evaluating the generalizability of the study findings. 6.2. Postgraduate students epistemic beliefs To characterise the overall epistemic belief orientations of the postgraduate students, descriptive statistics were calculated for the four dimensions of personal epistemology: Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge. Table 2 presents the minimum and maximum scores, means, and standard deviations for each dimension, providing a summary of students’ epistemic orientations. Table 2 Postgraduate Students’ Epistemic Beliefs Epistemic Dimension Min Max Mean SD Simplicity of Knowledge 1.20 3.80 2.8692 .36354 Certainty of Knowledge 1.11 4.00 2.9188 .37838 Sources of Knowledge 1.25 4.00 2.8789 .39981 Justification of Knowledge 1.00 3.82 3.0360 .39086 The descriptive statistics for postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs were calculated across the four dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge using composite mean scores from participants' responses. All 479 valid responses were included, ensuring consistency across dimensions. Table 2 shows moderate representation across all four dimensions, with mean scores ranging from 2.8692 to 3.0360, indicating similar epistemic orientations among students. Specifically, simplicity of Knowledge had a mean score of 2.8692 (SD = 0.36354), suggesting that students generally perceived knowledge as moderately complex rather than as simple, discrete facts. The relatively low standard deviation indicates limited variability in responses, suggesting a common tendency among participants toward nuanced understandings of knowledge. Certainty of Knowledge had a mean of 2.9188 (SD = 0.37838), reflecting moderately balanced beliefs about the stability versus tentativeness of knowledge. This suggests that postgraduate students generally perceive knowledge as neither strictly fixed nor entirely fluid, but occupy an intermediate position—likely influenced by exposure to advanced academic discourse, where knowledge is presented as evolving yet evidence-based. Sources of knowledge showed a mean score of 2.8789 (SD = 0.39981), indicating that students moderately recognise multiple sources of knowledge, balancing authority-based perspectives with independent evaluation. The slightly higher standard deviation compared to simplicity suggests greater diversity in how students conceptualise knowledge sources. The highest mean score was observed for Justification of Knowledge (M = 3.0360, SD = 0.39086), indicating that students place strong emphasis on evidence, reasoning, and critical evaluation when validating knowledge claims. This prominence aligns with expectations for postgraduate students, who are routinely engaged in research requiring methodological rigour and critical analysis. Overall, the findings indicate that postgraduate students in this sample exhibit moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs, with particular strength in the justification of knowledge dimension. The relatively balanced scores across all dimensions indicate that students do not predominantly hold naïve epistemological views, such as perceiving knowledge as simple or absolutely certain). Instead, they demonstrate evaluative and critical orientations, theoretically linked to greater openness to diverse research approaches. The heightened emphasis on justification implies a predisposition toward research designs that prioritise evidence, systematic inquiry, and methodological rigor, providing a meaningful context for understanding the influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preferences. Similarly, the moderate positions on certainty and the simplicity of knowledge suggest openness to interpretivist or mixed-methods paradigms, where knowledge is seen as constructed, contextual, and revisable. However, the relatively narrow range of mean scores indicates limited variability, which may affect the strength of predictive relationships in inferential analyses. Subsequent correlation and regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which these epistemic dimensions were significantly associated with, and predictive of, postgraduate students’ preferences for specific research approaches. 6.3. Spearman correlations between personal epistemology and research approach preference To examine the relationship between postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs and their research approach preferences, Spearman's rank-order correlation analyses were conducted. Spearman's rho was selected due to the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale composite scores. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, sources of knowledge, and justification of knowledge were correlated with preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research approaches. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Spearman Rank-Order Correlations between Epistemic Beliefs and Research Approach Preferences (N = 479) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Simplicity of Knowledge — Certainty of Knowledge .458** — Sources of Knowledge .333** .561** — Justification of Knowledge .288** .455** .518** — Quantitative Preference .139** .043 .051 .043 — Qualitative Preference −.137** .003 −.011 .041 −.644** — Mixed-Methods Preference −.004 .019 .087 .066 −.138** .302** — Spearman's rho coefficients are reported (two-tailed). p < .01. The findings indicate that the four epistemic belief dimensions were positively and significantly intercorrelated, with coefficients ranging from ρ = .288 to ρ = .561 ( p < .01). The strongest association was observed between Certainty of Knowledge and Sources of Knowledge (ρ = .561, p < .01), suggesting conceptual relatedness among the dimensions while maintaining distinct constructs. These moderate correlations indicate internal coherence within the epistemic belief framework. Regarding research approach preferences, Simplicity of Knowledge showed small but statistically significant associations with methodological orientation. It was positively correlated with a preference for quantitative research (ρ = .139, p = .001), indicating that students who perceive knowledge as structured and discrete tend to prefer quantitative methods. Conversely, Simplicity of Knowledge was negatively correlated with a preference for qualitative research (ρ = −.137, p = .001), suggesting that students who view knowledge as complex and interconnected are more inclined toward qualitative research. Certainty of knowledge and justification of knowledge were not significantly associated with any research approach preference ( p > .05). Sources of Knowledge showed a weak positive correlation with mixed-methods preference (ρ = .087, p = .029), indicating only a minimal relationship. A strong negative correlation was observed between quantitative and qualitative research preferences (ρ = −.644, p < .01), indicating that students who strongly prefer one paradigm tend to reject the other. Preference for mixed methods was positively associated with qualitative preference (ρ = .302, p < .01) and negatively associated with quantitative preference (ρ = −.138, p = .001), suggesting that mixed-methods orientation aligns more closely with qualitative methodological inclinations in this sample. Overall, among the epistemic belief dimensions, only the Simplicity of Knowledge demonstrated consistent associations with research approach preferences, and these relationships were small in magnitude. This pattern provides preliminary evidence that students' beliefs about the structure and complexity of knowledge may shape their methodological orientations. However, the modest effect sizes indicate that epistemological beliefs alone are insufficient to fully explain research approach preferences, pointing to the likely influence of additional contextual and disciplinary factors. 6.4. Influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preference To assess the extent to which postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their research approach preferences, three separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge were entered simultaneously as predictors of preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Regression coefficients, standard errors, standardized beta weights, and significance levels are presented in Table 4 . Table 4 Multiple Linear Regression Predicting Postgraduate Students' Preference for Research Approaches from Epistemic Beliefs (N = 479) Research approach Predictor B SE B β t p Quantitative Constant 1.148 .551 — 2.086 .038* Simplicity of Knowledge .448 .169 .139 2.651 .008* Certainty of Knowledge −.064 .175 −.021 −.365 .715 Sources of Knowledge .007 .165 .002 .043 .966 Justification of Knowledge .096 .158 .032 .603 .547 Qualitative Constant 2.924 .598 — 4.889 .000* Simplicity of Knowledge −.528 .184 −.151 −2.877 .004* Certainty of Knowledge .176 .190 .052 .928 .354 Sources of Knowledge −.014 .180 −.004 −.079 .937 Justification of Knowledge .121 .172 .037 .704 .482 Mixed-Methods Constant 1.464 .414 — 3.540 .000* Simplicity of Knowledge −.039 .127 −.016 −.304 .761 Certainty of Knowledge −.091 .131 −.040 −.696 .487 Sources of Knowledge .123 .124 .056 .988 .324 Justification of Knowledge .112 .119 .050 .938 .349 Note. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient. Significant values may be marked with p < .05 To assess the extent to which postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their research approach preferences, separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods orientations. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge served a predictor. The model for quantitative research preference was statistically significant, F (4, 474) = 2.516, p = .041, but accounted for a small proportion of variance (R² = .021). Among the predictors, only Simplicity of Knowledge was significant (β = .139, p = .008), indicating that students who perceive knowledge as simple and structured are more likely to prefer quantitative research approaches. Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge did not significantly predict quantitative research preference (Table 4 ). For qualitative research, the regression model was not statistically significant overall (F (4, 474) = 2.128, p = .076; R² = .018). Nevertheless, Simplicity of Knowledge emerged as a significant negative predictor (β = −.151, p = .004), suggesting that students who perceive knowledge as simple are less likely to prefer qualitative research approaches, whereas those who view knowledge as complex and interconnected are more inclined toward qualitative approaches. The other epistemic belief dimensions did not significantly predict qualitative research preference (Table 4 ). The regression model for mixed-methods preference was also not significant, F (4, 474) = .695, p = .596, explaining minimal variance (R² = .006). None of the epistemic belief dimensions significantly predicted preference for mixed-methods research, indicating that factors beyond epistemic beliefs influence students' inclination toward integrative research approaches (Table 4 ). Overall, the regression analyses demonstrate a theoretically consistent pattern: Simplicity of Knowledge predicts a preference for single-paradigm approaches positively for quantitative research and negatively for qualitative research while epistemic beliefs do not significantly explain mixed-methods preferences. The other epistemic belief dimensions Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowing did not significantly predict research approach preferences. Epistemic beliefs also had minimal influence on mixed-methods preference, suggesting that factors such as disciplinary training, methodological exposure, and contextual influences play a larger role in shaping students’ methodological choices. Although some statistically significant relationships were observed, the effect sizes were small (R² = .006–.021), indicating that epistemic beliefs account for only a modest proportion of the variance in research approach preferences. These findings support the theoretical proposition that postgraduate students' epistemological orientations, particularly their perceptions of knowledge as simple or complex, influence methodological choices in predictable ways. Students who perceived knowledge as simple tend to favour-structured, quantitative paradigms, whereas those who see knowledge as complex are inclined toward interpretive, qualitative approaches. In contrast, preference for mixed-methods research appears less dependent on epistemic beliefs, highlighting the importance of practical skills, methodological training, and exposure in shaping integrative research choices. 7. Discussion In this study, we examined the influence of postgraduate students' (Master's and PhD) EBs on their research approach preferences. To this end, a questionnaire was developed based on the instruments by Baytelman and Constantinou ( 2015 ), Baytelman et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2020 ), and Celik ( 2020 ). The findings are discussed in relation to the research questions, focusing on students' dominant epistemic beliefs (RQ1), the relationship between epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences (RQ2), and the extent to which epistemic beliefs predict their preferences for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches (RQ3). 7.1. Dominant epistemic beliefs (RQ1) Descriptive analyses revealed that postgraduate students in this sample held moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs across the all four dimensions. The mean scores ranged from 2.869 to 3.036, with the highest emphasis on justification of knowledge, suggesting that students place strong importance on evidence, reasoning, and critical evaluation when validating knowledge claims. Moderate scores on certainty and simplicity of knowledge indicate that students perceive knowledge as neither entirely fixed nor completely fluid, and as somewhat complex rather than purely discrete. Sources of knowledge were also moderately endorsed, reflecting a balance between authority-based perspectives and independent evaluation. Overall, these findings suggest that students demonstrate evaluative and reflective epistemic orientations, consistent with expectations for postgraduate learners engaged in research-intensive programmes. These results are consistent with Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) multidimensional framework, which conceptualizes epistemic beliefs as comprising the nature of knowledge (simplicity and certainty) and the process of knowing (source and justification). The moderate positive intercorrelations observed among the dimensions support the theoretical proposition that epistemic beliefs are related yet distinct constructs. Comparable patterns of moderate sophistication have been reported among graduate-level students in prior research (Bendixen & Rule, 2004 ; Schommer-Aikins, 2004 ), suggesting that advanced academic engagement fosters more evaluative epistemic orientations. 7.2. Relationship between epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences (RQ2) The correlation analysis revealed that among the four epistemic belief dimensions, only simplicity of knowledge was consistently related to research approach preferences. Students who perceived knowledge as simple and structured were more likely to favour quantitative research, whereas those who viewed knowledge as complex and interconnected were more inclined toward qualitative approaches. Although these associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were small. Nevertheless, these findings are theoretically coherent, as beliefs about the structure of knowledge are closely linked to assumptions about appropriate research methodologies, reflecting the alignment between epistemological orientation and methodological preference. Quantitative approaches are often grounded in post-positivist assumptions that emphasize objectivity, measurement, and structured inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). Postgraduate students who conceptualize knowledge as discrete and structured may therefore find quantitative methods epistemologically consistent. Conversely, qualitative approaches are typically associated with constructivist assumptions, which recognise knowledge as contextual, interpretive, and socially constructed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Students who perceive knowledge as complex, interconnected, and evolving are more likely to gravitate toward qualitative methodologies that align with these epistemic perspectives. The lack of significant associations between other epistemic dimensions certainty, sources, justification and research approach preference suggests that not all aspects of epistemic belief equally influence methodological orientation. This dimension-specific pattern supports Hofer's (2001) argument that epistemic beliefs operate differentially across contexts rather than uniformly shaping academic decisions. It also reinforces prior research suggesting that beliefs about knowledge structure (simplicity vs. complexity) are particularly salient in guiding learning strategies and academic choices (Schommer-Aikins, 2004 ). The strong negative correlation between quantitative and qualitative preferences indicates a perceived methodological dichotomy among students, reflecting internalization of paradigmatic distinctions emphasised in research training (Biesta, 2010). Interestingly, the association between mixed-methods preference and qualitative orientation suggests that students may view mixed methods primarily as an extension of interpretive approaches rather than as a fully integrative approach. 7.3. Influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preference (RQ3) Regression analyses indicated that epistemic beliefs accounted for only a small proportion of variance in research approach preferences (R² = .006–.021). Among four dimensions, only Simplicity of Knowledge emerged as significant predictor, positively influencing preference for quantitative research and negatively influencing preference for qualitative research. Epistemic beliefs did not significantly predict mixed-methods preference. These results suggest that while epistemic beliefs particularly perceptions of knowledge structure affect methodological orientation, their influence is modest. This finding is consistent with theoretical perspectives proposing suggesting that epistemic beliefs interact with contextual, disciplinary, and instructional factors, rather than acting as sole determinants of academic behaviour (Muis et al., 2006 ). Postgraduate students' methodological preferences are also likely influenced by supervisory guidance, disciplinary norms, and prior research experience (Madikizela-Madiya et al., 2013 ; Omodan, 2025 ; Wu et al., 2024 ). The small effect sizes observed in this study align with previous research indicating that epistemic beliefs typically exert indirect or modest effects on academic outcomes (Bendixen & Rule, 2004 ; Greene et al., 2008 ). Epistemic beliefs may shape research preferences indirectly through mediating factors such as research self-efficacy, epistemic curiosity, or disciplinary identity. The lack of predictive power for mixed-methods preference suggests that integrative methodological orientations are more strongly determined by pragmatic considerations, methodological training, and exposure to pluralistic approaches than by underlying epistemological assumptions alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Overall, the findings support Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) theoretical proposition that epistemic beliefs operate both dimensionally and contextually. Among the dimensions, beliefs about the Simplicity of Knowledge appear particularly influential in shaping alignment with single-paradigm research approaches, whereas other epistemic dimensions and broader contextual factors exert a more limited or indirect effect. 8. Implications for practice The findings have important implications for postgraduate research education. First, explicitly addressing epistemological foundations in research methodology courses can help students align methodological choices with their epistemic beliefs. Encouraging reflection on knowledge structure, certainty, sources, and justification may promote more coherent and philosophically informed research decisions. Second, supervisors should incorporate discussions of epistemic beliefs into research guidance, assisting students in critically evaluating how their cognitive frameworks shape methodological choices. Third, curricula should integrate epistemology-focused modules alongside practical methodological training to strengthen epistemic awareness, critical thinking, and methodological flexibility. Finally, the limited influence of epistemic beliefs on mixed-methods preference suggests that the importance of experiential training, exposure to diverse research designs and disciplinary norms in fostering integrative research practices. 9. Limitations of the Study While this study provides empirical insight into the relationship between postgraduate students’ epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed a cross-sectional survey design, capturing data at a single point in time. As such, causal inferences cannot be established. Although regression analyses identified predictive relationships between epistemic dimensions and methodological preferences, the findings reflect associations rather than developmental or causal effects. Epistemological beliefs are theorised to evolve over time through academic exposure and research experience; therefore, longitudinal designs would provide stronger evidence regarding the directionality and stability of these relationships across postgraduate progression. Second, research approach preference was measured through self-reported responses rather than analysis of actual dissertation designs and completed theses. Students stated methodological preferences may not fully correspond to the approaches ultimately adopted in their research projects. Methodological choices in postgraduate research are often influenced by supervisory guidance, disciplinary norms, institutional requirements, and resource constraints. Future studies could triangulate survey data with document analysis of theses and dissertations to examine alignment between epistemic beliefs and enacted methodological practice. Third, the sample was drawn from a single public university in Tanzania. Although stratified random sampling enhanced internal representativeness across fields of study within the institution, the findings may not be generalisable to postgraduate populations in other Tanzanian universities or different higher education systems. Institutional cultures, supervisory practices, and curriculum structures vary across contexts and may moderate the relationship between epistemic beliefs and methodological orientation. Fourth, the predictive models yielded relatively small effect sizes (R² ranging from .006 to .021), indicating that epistemic beliefs explain only a modest proportion of variance in research approach preferences. While statistically significant relationships were observed for the simplicity of knowledge dimension, the limited explanatory power suggests that other factors, such as disciplinary training, research self-efficacy, prior methodological exposure, and academic socialisation, likely play more substantial roles in shaping methodological preferences. Despite these limitations, the study contributes meaningful empirical evidence on the role of personal epistemology in postgraduate methodological reasoning and provides a foundation for further research in diverse higher education contexts 10. Conclusion This study demonstrates that postgraduate students' perceptions of knowledge structure , particularly the simplicity of knowledge, modestly predict their research approach preferences. Students who perceive knowledge as simple tend to favour quantitative research, whereas those who view knowledge as complex are inclined toward qualitative approaches. Other epistemic dimensions—certainty, sources, and justification exerted minimal influence, and preferences for mixed-methods research were not significantly explained by epistemic beliefs, underscoring the importance of contextual, disciplinary, and instructional factors in shaping methodological choices. These findings reinforce Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework, highlighting that epistemic beliefs operate dimensionally and interact with academic and contextual factors to shape research behaviour. Practically, this underscores the need for explicit epistemological reflection in postgraduate research training to foster methodological coherence, critical reasoning, and informed decision-making. Future research should investigate how disciplinary culture, supervisory guidance, and research experience moderate the influence of epistemic beliefs. Longitudinal studies could further clarify the development of epistemic sophistication and its impact on research practice throughout postgraduate programmes. Declarations This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and approved by the postgraduate committee. Participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous, and that the information collected would be used solely for academic research purposes. References Aditomo A (2017) Epistemic beliefs and academic performance across soft and hard disciplines in the first year of college. J Furth High Educ 42(4):482–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1281892 Andrade AD (2009) Interpretive research aiming at theory building: Adopting and adapting the case study design. qualitative Rep 14(1):42 Baytelman A, Constantinou C (2015) Development and validation of an instrument to measure epistemological beliefs for science. Part 11 Strand 11 Evaluation and assessment of student learning and development , 1672 Baytelman A, Constantinou CP (2016b) Development and validation of an instrument to measure student beliefs on the nature of knowledge and learning (in Greek). Themes Sci Technol Educ 9(3):151–172 Baytelman A, Iordanou K, Constantinou CP (2020) Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. J Res Sci Teach 57(8):1199–1227. ttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627 Bendixen LD, Rule DC (2004) An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychol 39(1):69–80 Bordens KS, Abbott BB (2002) Research design and methods: A process approach. McGraw-Hill Buckley F, Brogan J, Flynn J, Monks K, Hogan T, Alexopoulos A (2009) Doctoral competencies and graduate research education: focus and fit with the knowledge economy? Carter SM, Little M (2007) Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res 17:1316. 1 0.1177/104973230730692 Celik I (2020) Social media-specific epistemological beliefs: a scale development study. J Educational Comput Res 58(2):478–501. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119850708 Chakravartty A (2021) Philosophical foundations of research, and the case of the epistemic well, in a least developed nation. J Edu Psyc Res 3(2):2–6 Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2018) Research methods in education, 8th edn. Routledge Conley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D (2004) Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Educ Psychol 29:186–204 Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approach. Sage Creswell JW, Clark P, V.L (2017) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edn. Sage Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE Publications Inc. Darlaston-Jones D (2007) Making connections: The relationship between epistemology and research methods. Australian Community Psychol 19(1):19–27 European University Association (2005) Report on the Bologna seminar: doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society , Salzburg, 3–5 February 2005, p. 2 Golde CM, Dore TM (2001) At cross purposes. What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education Gray DE (2014) Doing research in the real world, 3rd edn. Sage Greene JA, Azevedo R, Torney-Purta J (2008) Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychol 43(3):142–160 Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Inc. 105 117 Hazelkorn E (2009) Impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge Hiller J (2016) Epistemological foundations of objectivist and interpretivist research Hofer BK (2000) Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(4):378–405 Hofer B (2016) Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In: Greene J, Sandoval W, Bråten I (eds) Handbook of epistemic cognition. Routledge, pp 19–38 Hofer BK (2000) Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(4):378–405. ttps://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1026 Hofer BK (2001) Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychol Rev 13(4):353–383. ttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686 Hofer BK, Bendixen LD (2012) Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res 67(1):88–140. ttps://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088 Kadikilo AC, Nayak P, Sahay A (2024) Barriers to research productivity of academics in Tanzania higher education institutions: the need for policy interventions. Cogent Educ 11(1). ttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2351285 Kaya GI (2017) The relations between scientific epistemological beliefs and goal orientations of pre-service teachers. J Educ Train Stud 5(10):33–42 Kincheloe J (2012) Teachers as researchers (classic edition): Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. Routledge Kinyota M, Kavenuke PS (2022) Exploring consistency and diversity in research designs: a case of one university in Tanzania. Afr Educ Rev 19(4–6):16–33. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2024.2313621 Kitchener RF (2002) Folk epistemology: an introduction [Editorial]. New Ideas Psychol 20(2–3):89–105. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X Kivunja C, Kuyini AB (2017) Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. Int J High Educ 6(5):26–41. ttps://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26 Legg C, Hookway C (2021) Pragmatism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.). Stanford University Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 289–331. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Madikizela-Madiya N, Goba BB, Nkambule T (2013) Developing a researcher identity: A reflective narration of postgraduate students' supervision experiences in a research project. South Afr J High Educ 27(4):941–952 Muis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC (2006) Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychol Rev 18(1):3–54 Muis K, Chevrier R, Singh A (2018) The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol 53(3):165–184. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465 Muis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC (2006) Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educ Psychol Rev 18:3–54. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6 Ndenje-Sichalwe E, Elia EF (2021) Research methodology practices among postgraduate Information Studies students in Tanzania. IFLA J 47(2):129–141. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/0340035220965986 Omodan BI (2025) Redefining the role of supervisors in the era of artificial intelligence: implications for hybrid postgraduate research governance. Cogent Educ 12(1). ttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2536534 Potter WJ (2017) Epistemology. The international encyclopaedia of communication research methods , 1–14 Rott B (2021) Inductive and deductive justification of knowledge: epistemological beliefs and critical thinking at the beginning of studying mathematics. Educ Stud Math 106:117–132. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10004-1 Salmento H, Murtonen M (2019) The roles of epistemic understanding and research skills in students’ views of scientific thinking. Redefining scientific thinking for higher education: Higher-order thinking, evidence-based reasoning and research skills. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 31–57 Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2009) Research methods for business students. Pearson Education Savin-Baden M, Major CH (2023) Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge Schommer-Aikins M (2004) Explaining the epistemological belief system: introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychol 39(1):19–29. ttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3 Singh V (2017) Influence of person epistemology on research design: implications for research education. J Res Pract 13(12):M2. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/rt/printerFriendly/570/474http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/570/474 Steup M, Neta R (2020) Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/epistemology/ Trautwein U, Lüdtke O (2007) Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: a large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemp Educ Psychol 32(3):348–366. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.003 Vakkari P, Chang YW, Järvelin K (2022) Disciplinary contributions to research topics and methodology in Library and Information Science leading to fragmentation? J Association Inform Sci Technol 73(12):1706–1722. ttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24690 Wu S, Oubibi M, Bao K (2024) How supervisors affect students' academic gains and research ability: An investigation through a qualitative study. Heliyon, 10 (10) Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9091154","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":604248276,"identity":"c5694e6d-5f27-436d-bdaf-b20c98e32a41","order_by":0,"name":"Maximillian Mgeni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Dar es Salaam","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maximillian","middleName":"","lastName":"Mgeni","suffix":""},{"id":604248612,"identity":"51d36b73-41a3-4af4-a3a6-fa0203ba4f25","order_by":1,"name":"Afrael Sarakikya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Dar es Salaam","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Afrael","middleName":"","lastName":"Sarakikya","suffix":""},{"id":604248721,"identity":"e3e4c76d-aa1b-4c68-95f1-c0bb8f422ee3","order_by":2,"name":"Harun Magosho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Dar es Salaam","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Harun","middleName":"","lastName":"Magosho","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-11 07:19:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104770103,"identity":"a738851f-dbcb-477c-8701-92adcac10144","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 05:05:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1402272,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Developed from a review of different documents (2026\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9091154/v1/0a4d90364697d41a2f9c0dbd.png"},{"id":104770121,"identity":"ec8a44c7-e79e-4535-a1ad-a83d9a1b0104","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 05:05:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2379665,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9091154/v1/e49b0aa8-e175-4b27-9ef1-a2de3b4726ab.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among postgraduate students in Tanzania\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch is a core function of higher education institutions (HEIs) and a key indicator of academic quality, institutional reputation, and knowledge production capacity (Hazelkorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kadikilo, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). At the postgraduate level, particularly at the master's and doctoral programmes, research serves a core component, is the advancement of knowledge through original research. (European University Association, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Buckley, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Through theses and dissertations, postgraduate students are expected to demonstrate independent thinking, methodological rigour, and the ability to justify knowledge claims. However, producing high-quality research requires more than mastery of research methods; it also demands a clear understanding of the epistemological assumptions that underpin methodological decisions. Research is inherently philosophical, as the formulation of research problems, selection of designs, and interpretation of findings are shaped by individual\u0026rsquo;s epistemic beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired (Crotty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Chakravartty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemic beliefs shape how researchers conceptualize problems, evaluate evidence, and justify conclusions, thereby influencing the coherence and credibility of research outcomes (Carter \u0026amp; Little, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Salmento \u0026amp; Murtonen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Without explicit awareness of these beliefs, methodological decisions may be technically appropriate yet philosophically inconsistent, limiting the interpretability and scholarly contribution of research findings. Personal epistemological beliefs internal cognitive frameworks concerning the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing have been shown to affect learning, critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving (Bromme et al., 2010; Hofer \u0026amp; Bendixen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Hofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualize personal epistemology as a multidimensional construct comprising beliefs about the nature of knowledge (certainty and simplicity) and the process of knowing (source and justification). These dimensions operate along a continuum from na\u0026iuml;ve to sophisticated and are theorized to shape individuals' preferences for particular research paradigms and methodological approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence indicates that epistemological beliefs vary across disciplines and educational contexts. For example, students in the natural science often perceive knowledge as objective and certain, whereas those in social science and humanities are more likely to regard knowledge as contextual, interpretive, and evolving (Jehng et al., 1993; Paulsen \u0026amp; Wells, 1998; Aditomo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Such disciplinary differences shape students\u0026rsquo; confidence in and preference for particular research approaches, including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches (Vakkari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the central role of epistemology in research, explicit engagement with epistemological foundations remains limited in many postgraduate programmes (Darlaston-Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, students may exhibit procedural competence in research methods without fully understanding the philosophical assumptions underpinning their methodological choices. This disconnect can lead to conceptual misalignment and ultimately weaken the coherence and quality of research outcomes (Kincheloe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence from Tanzanian HEIs indicates that postgraduate research displays uneven methodological patterns, including a predominance of qualitative approaches in the social sciences and humanities (Kinyota \u0026amp; Kavenuke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and a stronger inclination toward mixed-methods designs in information studies (Ndenje-Sichalwe \u0026amp; Elia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Although these trends may reflect disciplinary traditions, they may also signal constrained methodological reasoning shaped by unexamined epistemological beliefs. While theoretical scholarship consistently links epistemology to research methodology, empirical evidence in the Tanzanian context remains limited regarding how specific epistemic dimensions influence postgraduate students' research approach preferences. This gap restricts efforts to enhance postgraduate research training and risks perpetuating philosophically misaligned research practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the epistemological foundations underlying methodological decision-making is therefore critical for strengthening the coherence, quality, and diversity of postgraduate research outputs. Guided by Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework, this study examines how postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs relate to their preferred research approaches. Specifically, it identifies dominant epistemic belief dimensions among students and assesses the extent to which these beliefs are associated with and predict preferences for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research approaches. By empirically linking epistemic dimensions to methodological choices, the study contributes to the broader literature on epistemology in higher education. It offers evidence-based insights for improving postgraduate research training in Tanzania and comparable contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Research questions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to examine the relationship of postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs on their research approach preferences by addressing the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman;\"\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat epistemic belief dimensions are most strongly endorsed among postgraduate students?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat relationships exist between postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs and their preference for research approaches?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent do postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their preferences for different research approaches?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Theoretical Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was guided by Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework of personal epistemologies, which defines epistemological beliefs as individuals' views about the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. This framework was preferred over earlier models, such as Schommer's (1990) multidimensional model, because it distinguishes more clearly between beliefs about knowledge and beliefs about knowing and aligns closely with educational research and methodological decision-making in postgraduate contexts. Hofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) theorised personal epistemology as a structured, progressively developing cognitive system. They identified two overarching aspects nature of knowledge and the process of knowing operationalised through four interrelated dimensions: certainty of knowledge, simplicity of Knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification of knowing (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Baytelman et al., 2016a, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach dimension functions along a continuum from na\u0026iuml;ve to sophisticated epistemological understanding. The nature of knowledge pertains to individuals\u0026rsquo; beliefs about what knowledge is, ranging from fixed, simple, and certain knowledge to complex, tentative, and contextual Knowledge (Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Rott \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The process of knowing concerns how individuals believe knowledge is acquired and justified, shaping their engagement in inquiry, learning, and research practices. Together, these dimensions offer a comprehensive framework for examining how postgraduate students interpret knowledge claims and make methodological decisions in academic and research contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Context of the Study","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Conceptualising and developing personal epistemological beliefs models\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemology, a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, explores the nature, sources, and limits of human understanding (Steup \u0026amp; Neta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Potter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It investigates how knowledge is acquired, validated, and used to interpret reality. Personal epistemology applies these philosophical ideas at the individual level, encompassing a person's beliefs about what knowledge is and how it is acquired (Perry, 1970; Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). These beliefs influence cognitive processes such as reasoning, justification, and decision-making, particularly within academic and research contexts (Hofer, 2004). In educational research, epistemological beliefs are central because they shape how postgraduate students perceive, interpret, and construct Knowledge (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). They have been linked to critical thinking, conceptual change, scientific reasoning, and argumentation skills (Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nussbaum etal, 2008). Moreover, epistemic understanding develops with age and formal education, making university students an appropriate population for examining how personal epistemology influences research engagement and methodological choices (Kuhn \u0026amp; Weinstock, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemic beliefs directly shape researchers' methodological orientations. Individuals with objectivist epistemologies often favour empirical, analytical approaches grounded in positivist assumptions, whereas those with constructivist epistemologies are more likely to adopt interpretive or qualitative methodologies that emphasise context-dependent meaning-making (Moon \u0026amp; Blackman, 2014; Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, 2004). Therefore, examining the development and structure of personal epistemological belief models is essential for understanding and explaining postgraduate students' choices of research approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on personal epistemology has evolved along two main trajectories: developmental stage models and multidimensional belief models (Conley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Kaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Early studies emphasised stage-based growth, portraying epistemological development as a progression through qualitatively distinct levels. Perry's (1970) seminal model described a shift dualistic thinking to relativism and finally to commitment within relativism. King and Kitchener's (1994) Reflective Judgment Model similarly traced a trajectory from pre-reflective to quasi-reflective and reflective reasoning. Expanding on Perry (1970), Baxter Magolda (1992) proposed stages absolute knowing, transitional knowing, independent knowing, and contextual knowing illustrating the movement from authority-dependent to self-authored knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Kuhn et al. (2000) proposed a seven-stages reflective judgement model, organised into three broader levels: pre-reflective, quasi-reflective, and reflective thinking. Across these frameworks, epistemic sophistication increases as individuals recognise knowledge as tentative, interpretive, and open to critical evaluation (Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). While developmental models offer valuable insights into epistemic maturation, they have been critiqued for assuming linear progression and insufficiently considering contextual variability. Greene et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) argue that epistemological development may not follow strict sequential stages but can fluctuate across) domains and tasks. This limitation underscores that individuals may simultaneously hold both sophisticated and na\u0026iuml;ve beliefs depending on disciplinary or situational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to the limitations of stage models, multidimensional models of epistemic beliefs emerged. Schommer (1990, 1993) challenged the unidimensional perspective, proposing that epistemic beliefs develop along multiple, relatively independent dimensions. Her model identified five dimensions: stability of knowledge (tentative vs. unchanging), structure of knowledge (isolated vs. integrated), source of knowledge (authority vs. observation), speed of acquisition (quick vs. gradual), and control of acquisition (fixed vs. improvable). This approach highlighted that individuals can hold sophisticated beliefs in some domains while retaining na\u0026iuml;ve beliefs in others, reflecting the complexity and multidimensionality of epistemic development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) extended Schommer's multidimensional model, refining it into a more streamlined, educational-focused framework comprising four dimensions within two overarching aspects: the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. The dimensions include: Certainty of Knowledge (viewing knowledge as fixed or evolving); Simplicity of Knowledge (seeing knowledge as discrete facts versus interconnected ideas); Source of Knowledge (originating externally from authority or internally through personal construction); and Justification of Knowledge (based on evidence, reasoning or authority). Each dimension spans a continuum from objectivist/dualist orientations (absolute, certain, authority-based) to constructivist/relativist perspectives (contextual, tentative, interpretive). This framework captures both the cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in how individuals conceptualise, construct, and evaluate knowledge. Compared to developmental models, which emphasize structural shift in reasoning, Hofer and Pintrich\u0026rsquo;s approach highlights the nuanced, multidimensional nature of epistemic beliefs and their implications for learning and methodological decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, multidimensional models view epistemology as a system of coexisting beliefs that may develop unevenly across domains. Muis et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) argues that such models better account for domain-specific epistemic variation, providing theoretical flexibility for examining methodological preferences shaped by disciplinary training and epistemic assumptions. For postgraduate students, these epistemic dimensions are particularly influential, as guiding both research reasoning and approach selection. Thus, Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) model offers a robust lens for understanding how epistemological beliefs predict approach choices. By linking philosophical assumptions to methodological decisions, this multidimensional framework aligns closely with the objectives of the present study, providing a theoretically grounded basis for examining the interplay between epistemic beliefs and research preferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Research approaches among postgraduate students in higher education.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate research typically employs quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches, each grounded in distinct epistemological assumptions. Quantitative research reflects objectivist or post-positivist epistemologies, emphasizing structured designs, measurement, and generalisability, while qualitative research aligns with constructivist epistemologies, prioritising meaning-making, context, and interpretation. Mixed-methods integrate both approaches, enabling triangulation and comprehensive understanding (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Aligning research approaches with epistemological beliefs enhances study coherence, validity, and credibility (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, postgraduate students frequently struggle to articulate and justify the philosophical foundations of their methods. Crotty's (1998) framework highlights that a coherent research design requires consistency across epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods. Empirical evidence suggests that despite its importance, such alignment is often missing; potentially undermining methodological rigour and the interpretive strength of postgraduate research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElia et al. (2025), using a bibliometric approach, examined postgraduate research from 2012 to 2022 and found that while students were familiar with research methods, many lacked understanding of the epistemological and theoretical assumptions guiding their methodological choices. Contextual variations were evident: in some South African universities, postgraduate studies predominantly employed empirical-analytical approaches (Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Ndenje-Sichalwe and Elia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) reported that postgraduate research relied heavily on survey designs and non-probability sampling methods, such as purposive and convenience sampling. Although probability sampling methods, particularly simple random and stratified sampling, with limited use of advanced qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques. These methodological limitations constrained the quality of postgraduate. Kinyota and Kavenuke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) further highlighted misalignment across epistemology, theory, methodology, and methods in 154 postgraduate dissertations. Coherence was often restricted to methodology and methods sections, while epistemological and theoretical perspectives were frequently implicit. Their analysis showed an overreliance on qualitative (65.6%) and mixed-methods (24.7%) approaches, predominantly case studies, suggesting that underlying epistemic assumptions about knowledge certainty and authority shape methodological choices and limit knowledge diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Relationship between epistemic dimensions, epistemologies, and research approaches\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) define epistemological beliefs as individuals' conceptions of the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. These beliefs form a coherent cognitive system that develops progressively from na\u0026iuml;ve to sophisticated, directly influencing how individuals engage in inquiry (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). In postgraduate research, such beliefs translate into concrete epistemological orientations objectivist, subjectivist, and pragmatist which, in turn, shape students' research approach choices (Crotty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Carter \u0026amp; Little, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, epistemic dimensions function as the cognitive mechanisms through which epistemology informs methodological decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHofer and Pintrich's four epistemic dimensions certainty of knowledge, simplicity of Knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification of knowing collectively explain how postgraduate students determine what counts as valid knowledge and how it should be produced (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Br\u0026aring;ten et al., 2008). When oriented toward the na\u0026iuml;ve end of the continuum, these dimensions foster an objectivist epistemology. Students who perceive knowledge as certain and unchanging (certainty), composed of discrete facts (simplicity), derived from external authorities or objective reality (source), and justified through empirical verification (Justification) tend to adopt positivist or post-positivist assumptions (Trautwein \u0026amp; L\u0026uuml;dtke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; King \u0026amp; Kitchener, 1994). These beliefs align with quantitative research approaches, which emphasise measurement, objectivity, reliability, and generalisability (Kivunja \u0026amp; Kuyini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Park et al., 2020). Consequently, methodological preference for structured instruments such as surveys and experiments emerge directly from epistemic assumptions viewing knowledge as stable, discoverable, and independent of the knower (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Hiller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). As students' epistemic beliefs shift toward the sophisticated end of the continuum, they increasingly reflect a subjectivist epistemology. In this configuration, knowledge is seen as tentative and evolving (certainty), complex and interconnected (simplicity), actively constructed through experience and interaction (source), and justified through interpretive reasoning, reflexivity, and contextual evidence (Justification) (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Kuhn, 1991). These beliefs align with constructivist and interpretivist paradigms, which posit multiple, socially constructed realities (Crotty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Postgraduate students holding such epistemic beliefs therefore tend to prefer qualitative research approaches that prioritise depth, meaning, and contextual understanding. Methodological choices such as phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and case studies naturally follow from the view that knowledge is co-constructed and that understanding social phenomena requires close engagement with participants' lived experiences (Gray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Diaz Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the most integrative level, epistemic beliefs may not conform strictly to na\u0026iuml;ve or sophisticated poles but instead exhibit epistemological flexibility, forming a pragmatist (relational) epistemology. In this orientation, students viewed knowledge as provisional and purpose-dependent (certainty), relational and contextual (simplicity), derived from multiple sources, including empirical evidence and human experience (source), and justified through both empirical adequacy and practical relevance (Justification) (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Kaushik \u0026amp; Walsh, 2019). Rather than privileging a single way of knowing, pragmatist epistemology evaluates knowledge claims based on their capacity to address real-world problems (Leggy \u0026amp; Hookway, 2021). This orientation predicts a preference for mixed-methods research or other forms of methodological pluralism, where quantitative and qualitative approaches are integrated coherently (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Savin-Baden \u0026amp; Major, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Here, method selection is driven by the research problem rather than allegiance to a single epistemological tradition (Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) epistemic dimensions offer a clear explanatory link between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences. Na\u0026iuml;ve epistemic orientations correspond to objectivist epistemology and quantitative methods; sophisticated orientations correspond to subjectivist epistemology and qualitative methods; and integrative orientations correspond to pragmatist epistemology and mixed-methods approaches (Crotty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Carter \u0026amp; Little, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This framework illustrates that research methodology is not merely a technical choice but a reflection of how postgraduate students conceptualise knowledge and knowing. Accordingly, personal epistemology serves as a foundational determinant of methodological reasoning, providing a coherent and empirically testable basis for predicting research approach preferences in postgraduate education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Research design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study used a cross-sectional survey design to examine the relationships between postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences. Data were collected at a single point in time using a structured, validated questionnaire adapted from the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI) and related instruments (Baytelman \u0026amp; Constantinou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Baytelman et al., 2016a, 2016b, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Celik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This design enabled the identification of patterns, associations, and predictive influence of epistemic beliefs on methodological preferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Sampling strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA stratified random sampling approach was employed, with academic field of study serving as the basis for stratification. The postgraduate population was divided into disciplinary strata, and participants were randomly selected from each stratum. A total of 479 postgraduate students were included in the sample, corresponding to a 95% confidence level and a\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5% margin of error. Stratification by field ensured adequate representation of disciplinary groups and enabled meaningful comparisons of epistemic orientations across academic domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Data collection instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using a structured, closed-ended questionnaire comprising three sections. Section A captured demographic information, including age, sex, level and year of study, and field of study. Section B measured epistemic beliefs using Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) four-dimensional model: Certainty of Knowledge (9 items), Simplicity of Knowledge (10 items), Source of Knowledge (8 items), and Justification of Knowing (12 items), rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Items were adapted from validated instruments and reviewed by experts for content validity and contextual relevance. Section C assessed preferences for research approaches using three items targeting quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research orientations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4. Validity and reliability of instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent validity was ensured by adapting items from empirically validated instruments that aligned with the study's objectives and theoretical framework. Construct validity was established through expert review by the supervisors and peers. Reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha yielded a coefficient of 0.79, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the instrument.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.5. Data analysis procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using SPSS version 20, incorporating descriptive, correlational, and predictive techniques. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) summarized students' epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences. Spearman's rank-order correlation assessed associations between epistemic belief dimensions and research preferences, suitable for ordinal Likert-scale data. Multiple linear regression examined the predictive influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach selection. Composite Likert scores were treated as approximately continuous, a standard practice for large samples (Carifio \u0026amp; Perla, 2008; Norman, 2010). Regression assumptions, including normality and linearity, were adequately met given the sample size (Field, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.6. Ethical considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Ethical integrity was maintained through formal research clearance, informed consent, confidentiality, and adherence to academic honesty. Participants were fully informed of the study's purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time (Bordens \u0026amp; Abbott, 2022; Rana et al., 2021). No personally identifying information was collected, all data were anonymized and coded for analysis. Academic integrity was ensured through accurate citation of sources and avoidance of plagiarism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Demographic characteristics of respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the demographic characteristics of the 479 postgraduate students who participated in the study. The variables summarized include sex, age, field of study, level of education, and year of study. Frequencies and percentages are reported to provide an overview of the sample composition and to contextualize subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic Characteristics of Respondents by Sex, Age, Field of Study, Level of Education, and Year of Study (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;479)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e312\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e259\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u0026ndash;49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u0026ndash;59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eField of Study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e199\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMathematics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBusiness Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel of Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e368\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear of Study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e219\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5+\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the demographic profile of the 479 postgraduate students included in the study. The sample was predominantly male (65%), with females comprising 35%. Participants were largely within the 30\u0026ndash;39 age range (54%), followed by those aged 20\u0026ndash;29 (24%) and 40\u0026ndash;49 (21%), indicating that the cohort primarily consisted of early- to mid-career adults. In terms of disciplinary representation, Education Studies accounted for the largest proportion of respondents (42%), followed by Engineering Science (17%) and Economics (12%), with smaller proportions distributed across Environmental Science, Business Studies, Language Studies, Mathematics, and Statistics. Most participants were enrolled at the Master\u0026rsquo;s level (77%), while 23% were doctoral candidates. Regarding academic progression, the majority were in the first (36%) and second year (46%) of study. The sample reflects a predominantly Master\u0026rsquo;s-level, early-stage postgraduate population, with substantial representation from education-related disciplines. These characteristics provided essential context for interpreting subsequent analyses in evaluating the generalizability of the study findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Postgraduate students epistemic beliefs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo characterise the overall epistemic belief orientations of the postgraduate students, descriptive statistics were calculated for the four dimensions of personal epistemology: Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the minimum and maximum scores, means, and standard deviations for each dimension, providing a summary of students\u0026rsquo; epistemic orientations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePostgraduate Students\u0026rsquo; Epistemic Beliefs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEpistemic Dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplicity of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8692\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.36354\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertainty of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9188\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.37838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8789\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.39981\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustification of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0360\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.39086\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe descriptive statistics for postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs were calculated across the four dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge using composite mean scores from participants' responses. All 479 valid responses were included, ensuring consistency across dimensions. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows moderate representation across all four dimensions, with mean scores ranging from 2.8692 to 3.0360, indicating similar epistemic orientations among students. Specifically, simplicity of Knowledge had a mean score of 2.8692\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36354), suggesting that students generally perceived knowledge as moderately complex rather than as simple, discrete facts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relatively low standard deviation indicates limited variability in responses, suggesting a common tendency among participants toward nuanced understandings of knowledge. Certainty of Knowledge had a mean of 2.9188 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37838), reflecting moderately balanced beliefs about the stability versus tentativeness of knowledge. This suggests that postgraduate students generally perceive knowledge as neither strictly fixed nor entirely fluid, but occupy an intermediate position\u0026mdash;likely influenced by exposure to advanced academic discourse, where knowledge is presented as evolving yet evidence-based.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of knowledge showed a mean score of 2.8789 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39981), indicating that students moderately recognise multiple sources of knowledge, balancing authority-based perspectives with independent evaluation. The slightly higher standard deviation compared to simplicity suggests greater diversity in how students conceptualise knowledge sources. The highest mean score was observed for Justification of Knowledge (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.0360, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39086), indicating that students place strong emphasis on evidence, reasoning, and critical evaluation when validating knowledge claims. This prominence aligns with expectations for postgraduate students, who are routinely engaged in research requiring methodological rigour and critical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings indicate that postgraduate students in this sample exhibit moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs, with particular strength in the justification of knowledge dimension. The relatively balanced scores across all dimensions indicate that students do not predominantly hold na\u0026iuml;ve epistemological views, such as perceiving knowledge as simple or absolutely certain). Instead, they demonstrate evaluative and critical orientations, theoretically linked to greater openness to diverse research approaches. The heightened emphasis on justification implies a predisposition toward research designs that prioritise evidence, systematic inquiry, and methodological rigor, providing a meaningful context for understanding the influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the moderate positions on certainty and the simplicity of knowledge suggest openness to interpretivist or mixed-methods paradigms, where knowledge is seen as constructed, contextual, and revisable. However, the relatively narrow range of mean scores indicates limited variability, which may affect the strength of predictive relationships in inferential analyses. Subsequent correlation and regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which these epistemic dimensions were significantly associated with, and predictive of, postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; preferences for specific research approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Spearman correlations between personal epistemology and research approach preference\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the relationship between postgraduate students' personal epistemological beliefs and their research approach preferences, Spearman's rank-order correlation analyses were conducted. Spearman's rho was selected due to the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale composite scores. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, sources of knowledge, and justification of knowledge were correlated with preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research approaches. The results of these analyses are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpearman Rank-Order Correlations between Epistemic Beliefs and Research Approach Preferences (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;479)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplicity of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertainty of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.458**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.333**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.561**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustification of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.288**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.455**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.518**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative Preference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.139**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative Preference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.137**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.644**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed-Methods Preference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.138**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.302**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpearman's rho coefficients are reported (two-tailed). \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that the four epistemic belief dimensions were positively and significantly intercorrelated, with coefficients ranging from ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.288 to ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.561 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). The strongest association was observed between Certainty of Knowledge and Sources of Knowledge (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.561, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), suggesting conceptual relatedness among the dimensions while maintaining distinct constructs. These moderate correlations indicate internal coherence within the epistemic belief framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding research approach preferences, Simplicity of Knowledge showed small but statistically significant associations with methodological orientation. It was positively correlated with a preference for quantitative research (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.139, p = .001), indicating that students who perceive knowledge as structured and discrete tend to prefer quantitative methods. Conversely, Simplicity of Knowledge was negatively correlated with a preference for qualitative research (ρ = \u0026minus;.137, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001), suggesting that students who view knowledge as complex and interconnected are more inclined toward qualitative research. Certainty of knowledge and justification of knowledge were not significantly associated with any research approach preference (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .05). Sources of Knowledge showed a weak positive correlation with mixed-methods preference (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.087, p = .029), indicating only a minimal relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA strong negative correlation was observed between quantitative and qualitative research preferences (ρ = \u0026minus;.644, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), indicating that students who strongly prefer one paradigm tend to reject the other. Preference for mixed methods was positively associated with qualitative preference (ρ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.302, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01) and negatively associated with quantitative preference (ρ = \u0026minus;.138, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001), suggesting that mixed-methods orientation aligns more closely with qualitative methodological inclinations in this sample. Overall, among the epistemic belief dimensions, only the Simplicity of Knowledge demonstrated consistent associations with research approach preferences, and these relationships were small in magnitude. This pattern provides preliminary evidence that students' beliefs about the structure and complexity of knowledge may shape their methodological orientations. However, the modest effect sizes indicate that epistemological beliefs alone are insufficient to fully explain research approach preferences, pointing to the likely influence of additional contextual and disciplinary factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4. Influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preference\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the extent to which postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their research approach preferences, three separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge were entered simultaneously as predictors of preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Regression coefficients, standard errors, standardized beta weights, and significance levels are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple Linear Regression Predicting Postgraduate Students' Preference for Research Approaches from Epistemic Beliefs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;479)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.551\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.086\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.038*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplicity of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.448\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.169\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.651\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.008*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertainty of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.175\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.365\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.715\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.966\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustification of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.096\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.158\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.603\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.547\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.924\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.598\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.889\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplicity of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.528\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.151\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;2.877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertainty of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.190\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.928\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.354\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.937\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustification of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.704\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.482\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed-Methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.464\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.414\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimplicity of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.039\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.127\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertainty of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.091\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.131\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;.696\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.487\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.124\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.324\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustification of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.050\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.938\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.349\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;unstandardized coefficient; \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standard error; \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardized coefficient. Significant values may be marked with \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the extent to which postgraduate students' epistemic beliefs predict their research approach preferences, separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods orientations. The four epistemic belief dimensions Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge served a predictor. The model for quantitative research preference was statistically significant, F (4, 474)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.516, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .041, but accounted for a small proportion of variance (R\u0026sup2; = .021). Among the predictors, only Simplicity of Knowledge was significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.139, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .008), indicating that students who perceive knowledge as simple and structured are more likely to prefer quantitative research approaches. Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowledge did not significantly predict quantitative research preference (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor qualitative research, the regression model was not statistically significant overall (F (4, 474)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.128, p = .076; R\u0026sup2; = .018). Nevertheless, Simplicity of Knowledge emerged as a significant negative predictor (β = \u0026minus;.151, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .004), suggesting that students who perceive knowledge as simple are less likely to prefer qualitative research approaches, whereas those who view knowledge as complex and interconnected are more inclined toward qualitative approaches. The other epistemic belief dimensions did not significantly predict qualitative research preference (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe regression model for mixed-methods preference was also not significant, F (4, 474) = .695, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .596, explaining minimal variance (R\u0026sup2; = .006). None of the epistemic belief dimensions significantly predicted preference for mixed-methods research, indicating that factors beyond epistemic beliefs influence students' inclination toward integrative research approaches (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, the regression analyses demonstrate a theoretically consistent pattern: Simplicity of Knowledge predicts a preference for single-paradigm approaches positively for quantitative research and negatively for qualitative research while epistemic beliefs do not significantly explain mixed-methods preferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe other epistemic belief dimensions Certainty of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, and Justification of Knowing did not significantly predict research approach preferences. Epistemic beliefs also had minimal influence on mixed-methods preference, suggesting that factors such as disciplinary training, methodological exposure, and contextual influences play a larger role in shaping students\u0026rsquo; methodological choices. Although some statistically significant relationships were observed, the effect sizes were small (R\u0026sup2; = .006\u0026ndash;.021), indicating that epistemic beliefs account for only a modest proportion of the variance in research approach preferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings support the theoretical proposition that postgraduate students' epistemological orientations, particularly their perceptions of knowledge as simple or complex, influence methodological choices in predictable ways. Students who perceived knowledge as simple tend to favour-structured, quantitative paradigms, whereas those who see knowledge as complex are inclined toward interpretive, qualitative approaches. In contrast, preference for mixed-methods research appears less dependent on epistemic beliefs, highlighting the importance of practical skills, methodological training, and exposure in shaping integrative research choices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we examined the influence of postgraduate students' (Master's and PhD) EBs on their research approach preferences. To this end, a questionnaire was developed based on the instruments by Baytelman and Constantinou (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), Baytelman et al. (2016a, 2016b, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and Celik (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The findings are discussed in relation to the research questions, focusing on students' dominant epistemic beliefs (RQ1), the relationship between epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences (RQ2), and the extent to which epistemic beliefs predict their preferences for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches (RQ3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.1. Dominant epistemic beliefs (RQ1)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive analyses revealed that postgraduate students in this sample held moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs across the all four dimensions. The mean scores ranged from 2.869 to 3.036, with the highest emphasis on justification of knowledge, suggesting that students place strong importance on evidence, reasoning, and critical evaluation when validating knowledge claims. Moderate scores on certainty and simplicity of knowledge indicate that students perceive knowledge as neither entirely fixed nor completely fluid, and as somewhat complex rather than purely discrete. Sources of knowledge were also moderately endorsed, reflecting a balance between authority-based perspectives and independent evaluation. Overall, these findings suggest that students demonstrate evaluative and reflective epistemic orientations, consistent with expectations for postgraduate learners engaged in research-intensive programmes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results are consistent with Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) multidimensional framework, which conceptualizes epistemic beliefs as comprising the nature of knowledge (simplicity and certainty) and the process of knowing (source and justification). The moderate positive intercorrelations observed among the dimensions support the theoretical proposition that epistemic beliefs are related yet distinct constructs. Comparable patterns of moderate sophistication have been reported among graduate-level students in prior research (Bendixen \u0026amp; Rule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Schommer-Aikins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that advanced academic engagement fosters more evaluative epistemic orientations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.2. Relationship between epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences (RQ2)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe correlation analysis revealed that among the four epistemic belief dimensions, only simplicity of knowledge was consistently related to research approach preferences. Students who perceived knowledge as simple and structured were more likely to favour quantitative research, whereas those who viewed knowledge as complex and interconnected were more inclined toward qualitative approaches. Although these associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were small. Nevertheless, these findings are theoretically coherent, as beliefs about the structure of knowledge are closely linked to assumptions about appropriate research methodologies, reflecting the alignment between epistemological orientation and methodological preference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative approaches are often grounded in post-positivist assumptions that emphasize objectivity, measurement, and structured inquiry (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Postgraduate students who conceptualize knowledge as discrete and structured may therefore find quantitative methods epistemologically consistent. Conversely, qualitative approaches are typically associated with constructivist assumptions, which recognise knowledge as contextual, interpretive, and socially constructed (Lincoln \u0026amp; Guba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Students who perceive knowledge as complex, interconnected, and evolving are more likely to gravitate toward qualitative methodologies that align with these epistemic perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lack of significant associations between other epistemic dimensions certainty, sources, justification and research approach preference suggests that not all aspects of epistemic belief equally influence methodological orientation. This dimension-specific pattern supports Hofer's (2001) argument that epistemic beliefs operate differentially across contexts rather than uniformly shaping academic decisions. It also reinforces prior research suggesting that beliefs about knowledge structure (simplicity vs. complexity) are particularly salient in guiding learning strategies and academic choices (Schommer-Aikins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The strong negative correlation between quantitative and qualitative preferences indicates a perceived methodological dichotomy among students, reflecting internalization of paradigmatic distinctions emphasised in research training (Biesta, 2010). Interestingly, the association between mixed-methods preference and qualitative orientation suggests that students may view mixed methods primarily as an extension of interpretive approaches rather than as a fully integrative approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3. Influence of epistemic beliefs on research approach preference (RQ3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression analyses indicated that epistemic beliefs accounted for only a small proportion of variance in research approach preferences (R\u0026sup2; = .006\u0026ndash;.021). Among four dimensions, only Simplicity of Knowledge emerged as significant predictor, positively influencing preference for quantitative research and negatively influencing preference for qualitative research. Epistemic beliefs did not significantly predict mixed-methods preference. These results suggest that while epistemic beliefs particularly perceptions of knowledge structure affect methodological orientation, their influence is modest. This finding is consistent with theoretical perspectives proposing suggesting that epistemic beliefs interact with contextual, disciplinary, and instructional factors, rather than acting as sole determinants of academic behaviour (Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate students' methodological preferences are also likely influenced by supervisory guidance, disciplinary norms, and prior research experience (Madikizela-Madiya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Omodan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The small effect sizes observed in this study align with previous research indicating that epistemic beliefs typically exert indirect or modest effects on academic outcomes (Bendixen \u0026amp; Rule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Greene et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Epistemic beliefs may shape research preferences indirectly through mediating factors such as research self-efficacy, epistemic curiosity, or disciplinary identity. The lack of predictive power for mixed-methods preference suggests that integrative methodological orientations are more strongly determined by pragmatic considerations, methodological training, and exposure to pluralistic approaches than by underlying epistemological assumptions alone (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings support Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) theoretical proposition that epistemic beliefs operate both dimensionally and contextually. Among the dimensions, beliefs about the Simplicity of Knowledge appear particularly influential in shaping alignment with single-paradigm research approaches, whereas other epistemic dimensions and broader contextual factors exert a more limited or indirect effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"8. Implications for practice","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings have important implications for postgraduate research education. First, explicitly addressing epistemological foundations in research methodology courses can help students align methodological choices with their epistemic beliefs. Encouraging reflection on knowledge structure, certainty, sources, and justification may promote more coherent and philosophically informed research decisions. Second, supervisors should incorporate discussions of epistemic beliefs into research guidance, assisting students in critically evaluating how their cognitive frameworks shape methodological choices. Third, curricula should integrate epistemology-focused modules alongside practical methodological training to strengthen epistemic awareness, critical thinking, and methodological flexibility. Finally, the limited influence of epistemic beliefs on mixed-methods preference suggests that the importance of experiential training, exposure to diverse research designs and disciplinary norms in fostering integrative research practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"9. Limitations of the Study","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides empirical insight into the relationship between postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; epistemic beliefs and research approach preferences, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed a cross-sectional survey design, capturing data at a single point in time. As such, causal inferences cannot be established. Although regression analyses identified predictive relationships between epistemic dimensions and methodological preferences, the findings reflect associations rather than developmental or causal effects. Epistemological beliefs are theorised to evolve over time through academic exposure and research experience; therefore, longitudinal designs would provide stronger evidence regarding the directionality and stability of these relationships across postgraduate progression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, research approach preference was measured through self-reported responses rather than analysis of actual dissertation designs and completed theses. Students stated methodological preferences may not fully correspond to the approaches ultimately adopted in their research projects. Methodological choices in postgraduate research are often influenced by supervisory guidance, disciplinary norms, institutional requirements, and resource constraints. Future studies could triangulate survey data with document analysis of theses and dissertations to examine alignment between epistemic beliefs and enacted methodological practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the sample was drawn from a single public university in Tanzania. Although stratified random sampling enhanced internal representativeness across fields of study within the institution, the findings may not be generalisable to postgraduate populations in other Tanzanian universities or different higher education systems. Institutional cultures, supervisory practices, and curriculum structures vary across contexts and may moderate the relationship between epistemic beliefs and methodological orientation. Fourth, the predictive models yielded relatively small effect sizes (R\u0026sup2; ranging from .006 to .021), indicating that epistemic beliefs explain only a modest proportion of variance in research approach preferences. While statistically significant relationships were observed for the simplicity of knowledge dimension, the limited explanatory power suggests that other factors, such as disciplinary training, research self-efficacy, prior methodological exposure, and academic socialisation, likely play more substantial roles in shaping methodological preferences. Despite these limitations, the study contributes meaningful empirical evidence on the role of personal epistemology in postgraduate methodological reasoning and provides a foundation for further research in diverse higher education contexts\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"10. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that postgraduate students' perceptions of knowledge \u003cb\u003estructure\u003c/b\u003e, particularly the simplicity of knowledge, modestly predict their research approach preferences. Students who perceive knowledge as simple tend to favour quantitative research, whereas those who view knowledge as complex are inclined toward qualitative approaches. Other epistemic dimensions\u0026mdash;certainty, sources, and justification exerted minimal influence, and preferences for mixed-methods research were not significantly explained by epistemic beliefs, underscoring the importance of \u003cb\u003econtextual, disciplinary, and instructional factors\u003c/b\u003e in shaping methodological choices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings reinforce Hofer and Pintrich's (1997) framework, highlighting that epistemic beliefs operate \u003cb\u003edimensionally\u003c/b\u003e and interact with academic and contextual factors to shape research behaviour. Practically, this underscores the need for explicit epistemological reflection in postgraduate research training to foster methodological coherence, critical reasoning, and informed decision-making. Future research should investigate how disciplinary culture, supervisory guidance, and research experience moderate the influence of epistemic beliefs. Longitudinal studies could further clarify the development of epistemic sophistication and its impact on research practice throughout postgraduate programmes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and approved by the postgraduate committee. Participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous, and that the information collected would be used solely for academic research purposes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAditomo A (2017) Epistemic beliefs and academic performance across soft and hard disciplines in the first year of college. J Furth High Educ 42(4):482\u0026ndash;496. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1281892\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1281892\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrade AD (2009) Interpretive research aiming at theory building: Adopting and adapting the case study design. qualitative Rep 14(1):42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaytelman A, Constantinou C (2015) Development and validation of an instrument to measure epistemological beliefs for science. \u003cem\u003ePart 11 Strand 11 Evaluation and assessment of student learning and development\u003c/em\u003e, 1672\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaytelman A, Constantinou CP (2016b) Development and validation of an instrument to measure student beliefs on the nature of knowledge and learning (in Greek). Themes Sci Technol Educ 9(3):151\u0026ndash;172\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaytelman A, Iordanou K, Constantinou CP (2020) Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. J Res Sci Teach 57(8):1199\u0026ndash;1227. ttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBendixen LD, Rule DC (2004) An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychol 39(1):69\u0026ndash;80\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBordens KS, Abbott BB (2002) Research design and methods: A process approach. McGraw-Hill\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuckley F, Brogan J, Flynn J, Monks K, Hogan T, Alexopoulos A (2009) Doctoral competencies and graduate research education: focus and fit with the knowledge economy?\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarter SM, Little M (2007) Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res 17:1316. \u003cdiv class=\"ExternalRefDOI\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e0.1177/104973230730692\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCelik I (2020) Social media-specific epistemological beliefs: a scale development study. J Educational Comput Res 58(2):478\u0026ndash;501. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119850708\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChakravartty A (2021) Philosophical foundations of research, and the case of the epistemic well, in a least developed nation. J Edu Psyc Res 3(2):2\u0026ndash;6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2018) Research methods in education, 8th edn. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D (2004) Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Educ Psychol 29:186\u0026ndash;204\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approach. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Clark P, V.L (2017) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrotty M (1998) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE Publications Inc.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarlaston-Jones D (2007) Making connections: The relationship between epistemology and research methods. Australian Community Psychol 19(1):19\u0026ndash;27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean University Association (2005) \u003cem\u003eReport on the Bologna seminar: doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society\u003c/em\u003e, Salzburg, 3\u0026ndash;5 February 2005, p. 2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolde CM, Dore TM (2001) At cross purposes. What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGray DE (2014) Doing research in the real world, 3rd edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreene JA, Azevedo R, Torney-Purta J (2008) Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychol 43(3):142\u0026ndash;160\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Inc. 105 117\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHazelkorn E (2009) Impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiller J (2016) Epistemological foundations of objectivist and interpretivist research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK (2000) Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(4):378\u0026ndash;405\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer B (2016) Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In: Greene J, Sandoval W, Br\u0026aring;ten I (eds) Handbook of epistemic cognition. Routledge, pp 19\u0026ndash;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK (2000) Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(4):378\u0026ndash;405. ttps://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK (2001) Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychol Rev 13(4):353\u0026ndash;383. ttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK, Bendixen LD (2012) Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK, Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res 67(1):88\u0026ndash;140. ttps://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKadikilo AC, Nayak P, Sahay A (2024) Barriers to research productivity of academics in Tanzania higher education institutions: the need for policy interventions. Cogent Educ 11(1). ttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2351285\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaya GI (2017) The relations between scientific epistemological beliefs and goal orientations of pre-service teachers. J Educ Train Stud 5(10):33\u0026ndash;42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKincheloe J (2012) Teachers as researchers (classic edition): Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKinyota M, Kavenuke PS (2022) Exploring consistency and diversity in research designs: a case of one university in Tanzania. Afr Educ Rev 19(4\u0026ndash;6):16\u0026ndash;33. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2024.2313621\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKitchener RF (2002) Folk epistemology: an introduction [Editorial]. New Ideas Psychol 20(2\u0026ndash;3):89\u0026ndash;105. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKivunja C, Kuyini AB (2017) Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. Int J High Educ 6(5):26\u0026ndash;41. ttps://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLegg C, Hookway C (2021) Pragmatism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy\u003c/em\u003e (Fall 2021 ed.). Stanford University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 289\u0026ndash;331. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadikizela-Madiya N, Goba BB, Nkambule T (2013) Developing a researcher identity: A reflective narration of postgraduate students' supervision experiences in a research project. South Afr J High Educ 27(4):941\u0026ndash;952\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC (2006) Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychol Rev 18(1):3\u0026ndash;54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis K, Chevrier R, Singh A (2018) The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol 53(3):165\u0026ndash;184. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC (2006) Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educ Psychol Rev 18:3\u0026ndash;54. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNdenje-Sichalwe E, Elia EF (2021) Research methodology practices among postgraduate Information Studies students in Tanzania. IFLA J 47(2):129\u0026ndash;141. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/0340035220965986\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOmodan BI (2025) Redefining the role of supervisors in the era of artificial intelligence: implications for hybrid postgraduate research governance. Cogent Educ 12(1). ttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2536534\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePotter WJ (2017) Epistemology. \u003cem\u003eThe international encyclopaedia of communication research methods\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRott B (2021) Inductive and deductive justification of knowledge: epistemological beliefs and critical thinking at the beginning of studying mathematics. Educ Stud Math 106:117\u0026ndash;132. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10004-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalmento H, Murtonen M (2019) The roles of epistemic understanding and research skills in students\u0026rsquo; views of scientific thinking. Redefining scientific thinking for higher education: Higher-order thinking, evidence-based reasoning and research skills. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 31\u0026ndash;57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2009) Research methods for business students. Pearson Education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavin-Baden M, Major CH (2023) Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchommer-Aikins M (2004) Explaining the epistemological belief system: introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychol 39(1):19\u0026ndash;29. ttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh V (2017) Influence of person epistemology on research design: implications for research education. J Res Pract 13(12):M2. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/rt/printerFriendly/570/474http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/570/474\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/rt/printerFriendly/570/474http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/570/474\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteup M, Neta R (2020) Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy\u003c/em\u003e (Summer 2020 ed.). Stanford University. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/epistemology/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/epistemology/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrautwein U, L\u0026uuml;dtke O (2007) Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: a large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemp Educ Psychol 32(3):348\u0026ndash;366. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVakkari P, Chang YW, J\u0026auml;rvelin K (2022) Disciplinary contributions to research topics and methodology in Library and Information Science leading to fragmentation? J Association Inform Sci Technol 73(12):1706\u0026ndash;1722. ttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24690\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu S, Oubibi M, Bao K (2024) How supervisors affect students' academic gains and research ability: An investigation through a qualitative study. Heliyon, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(10)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Dar es Salaam","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Personal epistemology, epistemic beliefs, research approaches, postgraduate students, Tanzania","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among 479 postgraduate students at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A cross-sectional survey design was employed; using stratified random sampling across fields of study. Data were collected through a validated questionnaire measuring four epistemic belief dimensions: certainty, simplicity, sources, and justification of knowledge as well as preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research approaches. Descriptive statistics summarized students' epistemic orientations; Spearman's rank correlations assessed associations between epistemic beliefs and research preferences, and multiple linear regression analyses evaluated their predictive influence amongst the postgraduate students. Findings reveal that students demonstrated moderately sophisticated epistemic beliefs, with the strongest emphasis on justification of knowledge. Of the four dimensions, only Simplicity of Knowledge significantly predicted research approach preference positively for quantitative and negatively for qualitative methods. Preferences for mixed-methods were not significantly explained by epistemic beliefs, suggesting the role of contextual and disciplinary influences. These results underscore the importance of integrating explicit epistemological reflection into postgraduate research training to strengthen methodological awareness, critical reasoning, and coherence between philosophical assumptions and research design.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The relationship between personal epistemological beliefs and research approach preferences among postgraduate students in Tanzania","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-17 05:05:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9091154/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"70034bba-5ffb-46cd-97c7-3a9cd9b33533","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64299182,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-17T05:05:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-17 05:05:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9091154","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9091154","identity":"rs-9091154","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}