3.3 Methodological approaches used in designing the research strategy
Approaches to research design are often categorised as qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. These approaches are not, however, mutually exclusive; Newman and Benz, (1998) suggest that qualitative and quantitative should not be viewed as dichotomies but either end of a continuum, with different forms of research tending to be closer to one end or the other. One distinction is that ‘measurement’ is a key feature of quantitative research that is not used in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012). Another is that words tend to be predominant in qualitative research and numbers in quantitative. Closed-ended questions are more common in quantitative hypotheses and open-ended questions in qualitative interviews (Creswell, 2009).
3.3.1 Quantitative research
Quantitative research usually involves taking a deductive approach that starts with a theory or hypothesis with the research designed to test that theory (Bryman, 2012). Quantitative research is favoured by positivistic researchers and follows the model of the natural sciences; ‘objectively’ testing theories by assessing the relationships between variables, attempting to reduce bias by controlling variables and designing research in an attempt to generalise from research outcomes (Creswell, 2009).
3.3.2 Qualitative research
Qualitative approaches tend to favour an inductive approach where theories are generated from data rather than prior to their collection, and so the generation of hypotheses is not typically associated with qualitative studies (Bryman,
2012). Qualitative methodology is typically used to seek meaning and explanation from a social issue and explore this in much greater detail than would be typical in quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative researchers tend to work with relatively small numbers of subjects, sacrificing scope for detail (Silverman, 2013). The qualitative researcher will seek to explain how subjects interpret their experiences and, because they are involved in the research themselves, will frame this through their own reflexive interpretation. Denzin and Lincoln (2011, pp. 3) describe qualitative research as locating the observer in the world, as opposed to an external observer of the world. They go on to argue that:
‘qualitative researchers study things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them.’
The researcher is fully involved in the research and collects the data themselves using instruments they have designed. (Creswell, 2013)
In this research I will interpret the experiences of teachers and students transitioning to a pharmacy curricula delivered predominantly by team-based learning and will bring in my own experiences in a reflexive way.
3.3.3 Role of the researcher
My role as a qualitative researcher in this study differs to the role in previous quantitative research studies. My undergraduate education was, and my current academic position is, situated with a faculty of life sciences. Most research with which I have been involved has therefore been positivist in nature. My role and that of the students I have supervised was that of an ‘objective’ observer, attempting to control the variables and to impart minimal influence on the research process. Of course, I understand this approach is suitable if research is, for example, designed to evaluate the effect of a new drug in a randomized controlled trial. My discipline is pharmacy and essentially positivist, objective measuring is the research with which I was familiar and, if I’m honest, the only type I believe really took place. Naively, I thought these methods applied equally to educational and other social research and I was unaware of
alternative approaches. I’m sure this is typical in science faculties. Whilst I was studying my EdD taught modules I borrowed a book on qualitative research methods from the University library. On the way back to my office, I was ‘caught’ by a senior researcher in my faculty who asked me why I was reading “such rubbish?”
As I studied the taught modules, my thinking changed considerably. I was also involved in the implementation of team-based learning in my department. I have therefore developed my own views about TBL as a learning and teaching strategy, so felt that I couldn’t remain completely impartial. I learned that, as an interpretivist researcher, I didn’t have to be; indeed I shouldn’t be. Reflexivity is an important part of interpretivist research and I should embrace that rather than control for it inasmuch as reflexivity recognises that researchers are inextricably part of the world they are researching, and are themselves the research instrument (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
Interpretivist researchers, because of their relativist ontological position, take the view that the relationship between the researched and the researcher is intertwined, the outcomes of the research being influenced by this relationship. Denzin and Lincoln, (2011, p8) explain that:
‘Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning.’
The interpretivist researcher often then adopts a reflexive approach, setting out how they might have influenced the study and how the outcome of their research might have changed their own beliefs, thinking and personal position. This introspective approach is, for some qualitative researchers, as important as the writing about the research subjects themselves. Taking a reflexive approach to writing may also help the reader interpret the research. As Payne and Payne, (2004, p191) state
‘Researchers being self-aware of their own beliefs, values and attitudes, and their personal effects on the setting they have studied, and self- critical about their research methods and how they have been applied, so that the evaluation and understanding of their research findings, both by themselves and their audience, may be facilitated and understood.’ 3.3.4 Use of Language
Another difference I have encountered in interpretivist research is the use of language. As a science researcher I had learned to write in the third person; using an impersonal, detached approach to convey a neutral and unbiased representation of the data is normal practice in positivistic scientific writing. In scientific writing the author must be ‘physically, psychologically and ideologically absent from the text’ in order to ‘evoke an authoritative voice’ (Foley, 1998, p110). In contrast, writing in the first person is common practice for an interpretivist researcher, partly to demonstrate to their audience that they are fully involved in and are themselves an important part of their research, and partly to be ‘out and proud’ with the first person to avoid ‘feigned objectivity’ (Cousin, 2009 p10). I am comfortable that my interpretation of the empirical data is likely to differ from that of another researcher. I have been involved in introducing and using team-based learning myself and I feel it would be wrong not to write about my own experiences and interpret that of others in the context of my own. I will of course attempt to represent the data and the opinions of my research participants in a mindful and ethical manner, staying true to the data and re-presenting it within my own interpretivist framework.
3.4 Validity
Hammersley, (1987, p69) argues that: ‘An account is valid or true if it represents accurately those features of the phenomena that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise’. Quantitative data validity is based on positivist principles and enhanced by careful sampling, controlling of variables, appropriate instrumentation and statistical treatment of the data. Replicability, controllability and predictability are important factors alongside objectivity and neutrality. Samples are often randomised to prevent bias and maintain validity (Cohen et
Qualitative researchers argue that validity in qualitative research is based on different principles. As qualitative research is about meanings, experiences and subjective interpretation of observations and interactions then to be valid the research need not be replicable, controllable and predicable but should be valid, truthful, honest, and representative of the sample. Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue that validity, by its very definition, is based on positivist assumptions and should be replaced in qualitative research by the concepts of ‘credibility’ and ‘authenticity’. Maxwell (1992) argues that ‘understanding’ is more important in qualitative research than validity. Winter (2000) adds other terms used by researchers when explaining validity in qualitative research, including ‘trustworthiness’, ‘worthy’, relevant’, ‘plausible’, ‘confirmable’, ‘credible’, and ‘representative’.
In my analysis and discussion of the data I have tried to differentiate between my own reflexive views and when I represented the views of others.