� Explain how the approach led to the specific strategies of the research
� Outline and explain the techniques that were used to gather and analyse the data. The section on “Approach to the research” addresses the first objective, “Research Strategy” addresses the second objective and that on “Empirical Stage” addresses the third objective.
APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH
Having identified the research question it was then necessary to develop a framework for conducting the study. In designing the framework the researcher contended with seemingly opposing approaches as e.g. typified by Creswell (2003) and Punch (2000). Creswell (2003) believes that before a framework can be drawn the researcher has to consider the knowledge claim that is being brought to the study, the strategy of inquiry to be used, and the specific methods of collecting and analysing the data. Such considerations, he contends, would enable the researcher to identify whether to use quantitative, qualitative or mixed method approaches in the inquiry. Figure 3.1 illustrates Creswell’s view.
Punch on the other hand, does not believe that all social research has to begin from the theoretical perspective and epistemology. Research may proceed from the more pragmatic approach of questions that need answers, or problems that need solutions (Punch, 1998 and 2000). Figure 3.2 illustrates Punch’s process.
Figure 3.1: Knowledge Claims, Strategies of Inquiry, and Methods Leading to Approaches and Elements of Inquiry Alternative knowledge claim Strategies of inquiry Methods Approaches to Research Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Method Design Processes of Research Questions Theoretical lens Data collection Data analysis Write up Validation
Conceptualised by Translated into
the researcher practice
Figure 3.2: Punch (2000) Simplified Model of Research (Without hypotheses) What data are
required to answer Literature
Research Data Data Answer
Research Problem Design
Question Question
Analysis
Pre-empirical Empirical Stage
Stage
The foundation of Creswell’s view was Crotty (1998) who posited four questions in the designing of a research proposal. These are:
1. What methods do we propose to use?
2. What methodology governs our choice and use of methods?
3. What theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology in question? 4. What epistemology informs this theoretical perspective?
Crotty defines the terms used as follows:
Methods: The techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some research question or hypothesis.
Methodology: The strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes.
Theoretical perspective: The philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus providing a context for the process and grounding its logic and criteria.
Epistemology: The theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby in the methodology.
Creswell combines epistemology and theoretical perspective and argues that by stating a knowledge claim a researcher starts a project with certain assumptions about how he would learn and what he would learn during the inquiry. He further categorises the four schools of thought about knowledge claims, which are summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Creswell (2003, p 6) Alternative Knowledge Claim Positions
Postpositivism Determination Reductionism
Empirical observation and measurement Theory verification
Constructivism Understanding
Multiple participant meanings Social and historical construction Theory generation Advocacy/Participatory Political Empowerment issue-oriented Collaborative Change-oriented Pragmatism Consequences of actions Problem-centred Pluralistic
Real-world practice oriented
Each knowledge claim and its link with a choice of research approach are hereunder explained. According to Cresswell (2003), the key assumptions of the post-positivists are that knowledge is conjectural and absolute truth can never be found; research is the process of making claims and then refining or abandoning some of them for other claims more strongly warranted; data, evidence and rational considerations shape knowledge; research seeks to develop relevant true statements that can serve to explain the situation that is of concern or that describes the causal relationships of interest; and being objective is an essential aspect of competent inquiry. Consequently Creswell concludes that the post-
positivist’s perspective leads to quantitative research methodology, hence its reliance on experiments and surveys.
Constructivism is described as the belief that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality, is contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context (Crotty, 1998). From this perspective, the goal of research would be to rely as far as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied (Creswell, 2003). This perspective and knowledge primarily leads to a qualitative research methodology because of its reliance on the views of the participants. Included would be ethnographies, grounded theory, case studies, phenomenological research and narrative research.
Creswell’s third alternate knowledge claim is called an advocacy or participatory form of inquiry, based on the belief that participatory action is recursive or dialectical and is focused on bringing about change in practice; is focused on helping individuals to free themselves from constraints such as those found in media, language, work procedures and relationships of power in educational settlings; is emancipatory as it helps to free people from the constraints of irrational and unjust structures that hinder self-development and determination; and is practical and collaborative because it is completed with others rather than “on” or “to” others. Methodologies associated with the advocacy view of knowledge claims are feminists’ perspectives, racialized discourse, critical theory (empowering human beings to transcend the constraints of race, class and gender), queer theory (advocating sexual preference) and disability inquiry (concerned with equal opportunities for the disabled).
For the pragmatist, knowledge claims arise out of action, situations and consequences rather than antecedent conditions. Rossman and Wilson (1985) (cited by Cresswell 2003) are pragmatists who believe that the research problems take precedence over methods in terms of importance. Creswell’s (2003) interpretation of Murphy (1990) about the pragmatists’ knowledge claims and their links with research methods are that there is no single system of philosophy and reality as researchers can draw liberally from all methodological assumptions; and researchers have freedom of choice, hence they can draw from the various methods, techniques and procedures of research that best meet their needs
and purposes; the world is not an absolute unity, therefore an inquirer can use many approaches to collect and analyse data; and truth is regarded as what works at a particular time and not based on a strict dualism between the mind and a reality completely independent of the mind. The pragmatic investigators can for these reasons, he opines, use both qualitative and quantitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of the research problem. Creswell therefore concludes that pragmatism opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as to different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study. Consequently the dependence is on mixed methods research which utilises both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in one study.
Punch (2000), in refuting the role that perspectives play in informing research, makes the points that adopting a particular perspective could possibly influence the discourse and methods of the research and the way the research questions are asked. The issue of perspectives he further argues is applied unevenly across the social sciences and the role and importance of perspective are interpreted differently because at the doctoral level it is of more concern than at the master’s level. Also when it comes to assumptions about the social world, and what constitutes proper techniques and topics for inquiring into that world (i.e., paradigm), some areas of social research are heterogeneous and pluralistic while others are homogeneous. Punch further points out that some areas of research are subject to paradigm disputes more than others. Educational research, he states, is heterogeneous and contested while psychological experiments are homogenous and relatively free of debates. As a consequence of this, Punch (1998) concludes that research should begin from the more pragmatic approach of questions that need answers and problems needing solutions. He further makes the point that some research may proceed from some particular perspective (e.g. feminist studies, critical theory studies or a particular post-positivist study). However, when that is the case, the researcher should identify the perspective early and clearly in order to avoid mistaken expectations on the part of the reader.
This author concurs with Punch for the following reasons:
1. Though Creswell used the pragmatic knowledge claim to justify the use of mixed approaches to research, he did not establish that there is a necessary link between a
particular knowledge claim and the choice of methodology. Punch’s view that the research question leads the researcher to the choice of a strategy is – in the author’s view – more convincing.
2. The unresolved debates between the post-positivists and the constructivists show that there are considerable problems if researchers decide on an epistemology before structuring their study.
3. Allowing the research question to determine the methodology provides a better basis for the claim of objectivity in the research process.
The agreement with Punch was a main reason for the design of the research project as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The first tasks in the pre-empirical stage were to clarify the problem and define the research questions. It was then decided that the type of answer for the questions being asked could best be determined from a qualitative research strategy. The strategies of data collection and analyses were thereafter determined.
It can be seen that the framework used (Figure 3.3) differed from Punch’s model (Figure 3.2) in two ways. First, the literature review was not done at the beginning forming a part of defining the problem. Second, the activities in the empirical stage followed a circular rather than a linear pattern. The reasons for these differences will be addressed in the section on the strategy of the research. Figure 3.3 shows that there were eight main tasks to the research. They were:
1. Assessing the research problem 2. Defining the research question
3. Determining the strategies for data collection and analysis 4. Collecting the data
5. Coding the data
6. Developing the tools for the analysis 7. Doing the analysis
8. Formation of theories: answering the question
The figure illustrates that at the analytical stage there were unresolved issues, hence there was a need for further data collection, codification and analysis. In some cases the additional process necessitated the development of new analytical tools and in others there was no such need, hence the path from data codification to analysis on the diagram.
Defining the question
Developing the analytical tools
Deciding on the strategies for the research
Data collection
Data Analysis Data codification Assessing the problems
Answering the questions
P re -E m p iri ca l W o rk Literature Review Figure 3.3: The Framework of the Research Project