Capacidades del lactante: un panorama general

Unlike theory, there is little need to explain the role of research design and methods in empirical research as it is, by and large, self-evident. Unfortunately, this does not mean that a simple framing exists for dis- cussing research design and methods (Schwandt 1997; Blaikie 2000). If anything, the complexities are large, although less involved with phi- losophical issues than with the sheer difficulty of defining research de- sign and methods in a pluralistic world that defies simplifying. Many of the common words used, such as survey research, ethnography, case studies, etc., to help aggregate types of research design and methods are quite unhelpful in coming to grips with how research is done.

Chapter 3: Epistemic analysis

In order to minimise this problem, the analysis of how research was done is carried out here through a three step process. The research is first classified as extensive and/or intensive, based on looking for a par- ticular set of patterns in the 32 cases (drawn from Sayer 2000). Then the method of data collection/selection and analysis/synthesis is de- fined, drawing on the terms used by the authors involved in each case. Finally, some elements of the reported practice are drawn out and put in context to the extensive/intensive research classification. This classi- fication is, in one way, an axiological system and has resonance with the next sub-section on normative commitments.

The classification system of intensive and extensive research (de- sign) is drawn from Sayer (2000) and is depicted in Table 3.7 (on p. 78). Intensive and extensive are broad generalisations (which are set in contradistinction to each other) which can, by and large, capture the explanatory strategy of any one piece of research. They are explained by Sayer (2000) as follows:

[e]xtensive research, informed by a successonist theory of cau- sation and hence aiming to find regularities among atomistic events or variables, seeks out mainly formal similarities and dif- ferences rather than substantial connections. Intensive research seeks out substantial relations of connection and situates prac- tices within wider contexts, thereby illuminating part-whole rela- tionships (p. 22).

Extensive research can be roughly associated with a research strategy such as the social survey (see as exemplar de Vaus 2002: 3-7), while intensive research can, for instance, be roughly associated with a re- search strategy such as an ethnography (see as exemplar Hammersley 1990: 2) or a holistic case study (see as exemplar Verschuren 2003: 132), but this is definitely not a fixed rule (Sayer 2000).

Sometimes, a mix of intensive and extensive research occurs within any one study, and this tendency has become more pronounced in recent years with the rise in mixed method or methodology (model) studies (Tashakori and Teddlie 1998). Where such designs appear to have been applied in the reviewed literature, they have been noted in this analysis. These mixed studies are, as a generalisation, more

demanding and complex than those studies that focus on one explanatory strategy, and are in the minority here.

Intensive Extensive Research

question

How does a process work in a particular case or small number of cases? What produces a certain change? What did the agents actually do?

What are the regularities, common patterns, distinguishing features of a population? How widely are certain characteristics or processes distributed or represented? Relations Substantial relations of connection. Formal relations of similarity. Type of

groups studied

Causal groups. Taxonomic groups.

Type of account produced

Causal explanation of the production of certain objects or events, though not necessary representative ones.

Descriptive ‘representative’

generalizations, lacking in explanatory penetration.

Typical methods

Study of individual agents in their causal contexts, interactive

interviews, ethnography, qualitative analysis.

Large-scale survey of population or representative sample, formal questionnaires, standardized interviews. Statistical analysis. Limitations Actual concrete patterns and

contingent relations are unlikely to be ‘representative’, ‘average’ or

generalizable. Necessary relations discovered will exist wherever their relata are present, for example, causal powers of objects are generalizable to other contexts as they are necessary features of these objects.

Although representative of a whole population, they are unlikely to be generalizable to other populations at different times and places. Problem of ecological fallacy in making

inferences about individuals. Limited explanatory power.

Appropriate tests

Corroboration Replication

Table 3.7: Differences between intensive and extensive research (from Sayer 2000: 21)

A method is: “a procedure or process for obtaining an object” (Ency- clopædia Britannica 1976: 1422). The two points which distinguish method in research are: (1) collecting (common in extensive research) and selecting (common in intensive research) data; and, (2) analysing (common in extensive research) and synthesising (common in intensive research) data. These two points were assessed in the reviewed litera- ture using, initially, Babbie (1992); Dey (1993); Leedy (1997); Tashak- kori and Teddlie (1998); then later using Flick (2002); Creswell (2003). Results are also analysed within a broader category that depicts four

Chapter 3: Epistemic analysis

differing forms in which they are presented: ranking, associational, ty- pological and thematic. This is a simple and arbitrary system. Ranking means that results are presented as a numerical ranking or frequency (e.g., 10% of respondents harvested timber; 30% carried out fire pre- vention activities, etc); associational means that results depict a rela- tionship between two or more entities/variables (e.g., managers

strongly aim to obtain income from their forests); typological means that a classificatory system has been developed (e.g., landowners can be divided into the four categories of: (1) timber agriculturalist; (2) range pragmatist; (3) timber conservationalist; and (4) mixed); and, thematic means that word-language is used to shape a story of some kind (predicated on themes and/or content emerging and imposed on or as data) (e.g., “Bill Smith spoke for several [forest] managers when giving his central reason for devoting so much time and effort to forest man- agement: I hate to golf!” (Bliss and Martin 1989: 614 – italics are in original text)). By and large, ranking and associational are related to numerical results, thematic to word-language results and typological (in a certain way) to both.

A final piece of analysis is that of chronology or temporal scope. These are complex terms that also suffer from some conceptual diffi- culty in the general methodological literature, especially as the two most common terms of cross-sectional and longitudinal are also re- search designs as much as depictions of the chronological frame in which research is conducted. For the sake of expediency, the terms synchronic and diachronic are used here (after Gerring 2001), although implicitly they link to cross-sectional and longitudinal design issues. Synchronic essentially means occurring at one time. Diachronic essen- tially means occurring over time (Mautner 1996; Gerring 2001). Al- though the terms have a root in linguistics (relating to evolution and the structure of language), they are used here in place of cross-sectional and longitudinal, respectively. Synchronic studies rely on differences in existence at the time of the research, while diachronic studies operate across at least two time periods and so can assess change over time. Diachronic designs can allow certain approaches to research questions

and building knowledge (in a discipline or milieu) that synchronic de- signs can not, especially questions of change and assessing temporal order (de Vaus 2001).

A final point is that five of the pieces of literature are studies that to some extent amalgamate other studies (essentially multiple surveys). This means that their reporting on technique is at a lower level of (po- tential) complexity than all the rest (as they have to compress more in- formation in roughly the same amount of space). This should be kept in mind in the analysis to come. These studies are:

1) Birch, Hodge and Thompson (1998): amalgam of 3 research studies reporting on two surveys.

2) Brooks and Birch (1986): reports on 14 surveys. 3) Brunson, et al., (1996): reports on 11 surveys.

4) Kuhns, Brunson and Roberts (1998): reports on 2 surveys.

5) Marty, Kurtz and Gramman (1988): extends and draws on earlier work by Kurtz and Lewis (1981).

The designs, methods, temporal scope and