Methods and Perspectives of Scholars - Essay Example

? Research methods Introduction In recent years, there have been an increasing number of debates amongst scholars, especially amongst those in the study of social and natural sciences, as regards the comparative advantages of qualitative and quantitative strategies for any undertaken research work. The different perspectives of each individual researcher scholar vary to a large degree, ranging from those who view the two research strategies as separate processes, to those that are ready to mix the two approaches within their projects. As for example, we find that Bryman (1988) in his paper contended that the best process for completing one’s research work is using best of both the processes, or in other words, a combination of the qualitative and quantitative approaches should be adopted. Hughes (1997) on the other hand warned against such mixed methods, and suggested that quantitative approaches are scientific and hence more objective in nature (413-420). While exploring the subject of quantitative and qualitative researches, this paper is primarily based on epistemological notions presented within the query, `what is research and what are the research techniques?’ Eileen Kane, in the book Doing your own research (1985, gives an interesting perspective to the entire debate on the research processes, where she comments, “research techniques are a bit like fishing flies: you choose the right one for fish you want to catch. No fisherman would use the same kind of fly for twenty different varieties of fish” (51). Keeping this viewpoint in mind, we will explore the two research strategies, through the epistemology and research philosophy, arguments for and against triangulation, and study the various examples of deductive and inductive research. Discussion The Research process: Any research project comprises of a series of procedures based on systematic enquiries on the chosen topic, which finally helps the researcher to gain new knowledge on that particular issue. Research conducted, are generally four types, these are Descriptive (who, when, where, what); Exploratory (relationships, patterns); Explanatory (testing, model development); and Evaluative (results, cause/effect). The choice of the research methodologies or the way a researcher wishes to use in his/her research work depends, as suggested by Kane (1985), on the researcher’s wish, which he must decide as per his requirement and subject. Data Input data output analysis knowledge William M.K. Trochim depicted the methods followed in any research project, in Knowledge based research (fig 1). Fig 1: The Yin and the Yang of Research (Trochim, 1999, 8). The figure represents the framing of the studied material using the Knowledge Base. Left side of figure depicts the research theory, while the right part depicts the research practice, and the theoretical introduction of any research project and the practical aspect on how to formulate the undertaken research project are linked. The left arrows delineate the validity types that must be accounted in any research paper, which is actually concept of providing the reader with a unifying theory for understanding the entire project. The right arrows point to the research practice areas that match the validity types in order to prove the research problem (Trochim, 1999). While conducting a research a researcher may adopt various techniques as per his subject requirements. The various research techniques that one may adopt are conducting interviews, questionnaires, participant observation, and studying written sources (Kane, 1985, 51). Each technique gives a certain form of information and not any other type; however, the techniques can complement each other within one research paper (fig 2). Fig 2: The figure (Kane, 1985, 52) shows the various ‘petal-like’ research techniques that are combined together within a single project. In the figure we find petals representing research techniques, they overlap at the centre, while each overlaps with its neighbour at the sides. The areas that do not overlap anywhere are specialised areas covered by each technique, while the shaded portions represent areas that can be reviewed by either or both techniques, while the central part represents areas that have information obtained by using all techniques. The central area forms to be strongest within any research process, as it has information obtained through interviews, questionnaires, reinforced by observations and later checked by documentary analysis (Kane, 1985, 51-52). There are two types of researches: deductive and inductive forms. Deductive research: establishment of law like hypothesis from a general theory. Inductive research: distinguishing of examples leading to long-term theory building. Example of inductive research work: The research question: What artificial light sustains best development in plants: red, green, blue, or the normal white light? Observations: observations reveal that plants growing in the sunlight appear green, and healthy, yet indoor plants growing under artificial white light develop poor health when compared to those growing in natural sunlight. On studying the composition of natural sunlight, it was found that sunlight possesses high percentage of red light. Hypothesis formation: From previous observations, the predictions would be that plant under the red light would be better developed, as red light is more like natural sunlight in composition. Experiment: few plants, right from seedling stage are grown under different lights: blue, red, green, and white light. They receive the same amount of water, soil, and have the same growing environment. Analysis: The plants that developed the best were the ones growing under red light, followed by the plants under white light, then blue light, and the least developed plants were seen growing under green light. Deriving conclusions: from the experimental results and observations, it can be concluded that, plants that grow under red light show the highest level of growth and development (Burns, 2000). Example of deductive research work: Theory developed: terrorism and the necessity of harsh anti-terror laws in UK Hypothesis: anti-terror laws, however draconian they may appear, are a necessity Observations made: under this the researchers studies various governmental publications, reviews scholarly notes and other journal. Hypothesis tested on data: here the researcher may conduct some interviews taking expert views on the issue or may even interact with some of the people detained wrongly as terrorists and later released, to comprehend the trauma (psychological and physical) people went through. Interviews and questionnaires are important as they help one to understand what people think on the issue (Kane, 1985, 51-52). Theory revised: from the reviewed literature, and the conducted interviews and questionnaires, the researcher may change his views on the subject or he may stick to his own theory (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2009). Epistemology and research philosophy: Epistemology is derived from a Greek word, episteme, which means knowledge, thus one can say epistemology is the philosophical aspect of human knowledge, or the process that shows how we learn/gain knowledge (Trochim, 1999). Epistemology is closely linked to methodology and ontology; where we find ontology highlighting reality philosophy, epistemology dealing with the aspect of researches that tell us how we learned about reality and methodology involving the very processes used for attaining knowledge of reality. Epistemology, thus, asks about the connection that exists between the known and the knower; how one knows what he/she knows? What defines knowledge? Within the realms of a positivist framework epistemology, the issue chosen remains free of the researchers, and the knowledge is imbibed via tests and numerical measurements of the events while facts are derived by breaking down a phenomenon and the examining its components. The naturalists or constructivists view the gaining of knowledge from an opposing viewpoint, where they believe that knowledge is established through various meanings associated with the subject studied and the researchers must interact with various subjects to obtain valid data and while conducting the inquiry the researcher and the subject may change as a part of the research process. Even though there are many suggested variations between the epistemologies of quantitative and qualitative research strategies, the basic debate is more philosophical than methodological. A hypothesis that is philosophical in nature (theoretical paradigm/framework) on the issue of reality is important to comprehend the entire viewpoint for the created research design. Thus, here one can define theoretical paradigm, as a “loose collection of logically held together assumptions, concepts, and propositions that orientates thinking and research” (Bogdan & Biklan, 1982, 30), and paradigm can aptly said to be a “basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 105). The researchers choosing a qualitative strategy function under epistemological postulations very different from those following a quantitative research strategy. Qualitative researchers generally ted to believe to best comprehend a situation, one must see it in its framework or circumstances (Veal, 1997). They view quantification as being limited in its ability and nature, which allows one to see only a fraction of the actual reality, as it is almost impossible to divide or integrate without fear of losing the actual significance of the entire incidence. Qualitative researchers also do not believe in assuming a ‘unitary’ reality, other than human perceptions. Owing to varying human experiences, there are “multiple realities,” with scope for bias from the researcher’s own perceptions, and while conducting the research a qualitative researcher must consider each of these experiences as separate and unique entities, thus opposing the statistical methods that try to add-up across many people, thus doing away with the norms for ‘validity’ (Trochim 1999). Qualitative research, thus, is based on constructivist and relativistic ontologies that believe in the lack of any objective form of reality, while taking into consideration the multiple realities formed through varying human experiences. Quantitative researchers mostly believe in positivism, which is more scientific in form and they consider that science uses quantitative measures, which remain independent of the facts pertaining to one apparent reality in the research (Healy & Perry, 2000). Thus, here the data and the subsequent analysis of the data remain free of any value, while and data remain unchanged while being under observation, which makes them use a “one-way mirror” while viewing the world (ibid). Positivism rejects metaphysics, and holds that aims of knowledge are to merely delineate the phenomenal experience of an individual during the research conducted, and the basic objective of science is merely to stick evidences that have been derived through observation and measurement, and so quantitative researchers/positivists disconnect themselves from the surrounding reality that they study. The positivist epistemology or quantitative researcher views science as the only route to arrive at the truth, and comprehend the surrounding world so well that it can be effectively controlled and even incidences predicted. Thus, we find that through deductive or qualitative reasoning one can postulate theories that can be tested and later changed, to predict reality. The quantitative researcher or a positivist puts faith his/her in empiricism, and believes that only through observation and measurement can one reach the heart of any scientific enterprise (Bryman and Bell, 2003). Therefore, we find the entire research process is like one large onion, with various layers or peels inside it (fig 3). Besides these methods, some researchers also believe in combining the best from the two processes (qualitative and quantitative) while conducting researches, which is known triangulation. Thus, we find researchers have the choice, depending on their subjects and perspectives, to choose from the varying layers, peels, or ‘flies’ to conduct their researches. This is significant as allowing a researcher to choose his own methods to operate, keeps his interest sustained for a long period (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2009). Fig 3: The Research Onion (Source: Pearson, Research methods for business students – Mark Saunders, Phillip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill) Triangulation: a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods The triangulation process in a research strategy adapts two or more research strategies to “verify and strengthen the validity of the research results” (Kane, 1985, 52), as shown in fig 2. Triangulation as viewed by the modern researchers as a process that combines within one project, multiple data sources, researchers, research methodology strategies, and more than one theoretical/analytical viewpoints and methods (Kimchi, Polivka, & Stevenson,1991). These combinations have led to various triangulation types (Patton, 1990), like the: researcher triangulation, methodological triangulation and theoretical triangulation (Denzin, 1970; Kane, 1995). Researcher or investigator triangulation: this process involves multiple researchers in the form of interviewers, data analysts, observers, or coder, within the realms of a single study. Extensive collaboration and data confirmation among the various investigators at various levels of the research project gives higher validity and credibility to the results (Denzin, 1970, 339-342). Methodological triangulation: this is the mixed-method, multi-method, or variable methods triangulation (Polit & Hungler, 1995). Methodological triangulation refers to the use of the various methods as shown in fig 2, along with a use of the different versions of the same techniques, like using multiple forms of questionnaire for getting the same data (Kane, 1985). Methodological triangulation aims at alleviating the “deficiencies and biases that stem from any single method” (Mitchell, 1986, 19) and creating “the potential for counterbalancing the flaws or the weaknesses of one method with the strengths of another” (21). Theoretical triangulation: this process makes use of more than one theory while trying to explore a subject (Denzin, 1970). The basic aim of this type of research is to conduct the research from varying perspectives keeping in mind different questions that would either support or contradict the results (ibid). The advantages of using triangulation may include finding various innovative ways of comprehending an event, finding unique research results, elevating the level of confidence within research data, finding theories that integrate existing ones or challenge the present ones, while also giving a clear view of the problem (Kane, 1995). As Lincoln & Guba opines, “Triangulation of data is crucially important in naturalistic studies.... No single item of information (unless coming from an elite and unimpeachable source) should ever be given serious consideration unless it can be triangulated” (1985, 283). The problems that one may face from triangulation strategy include: the long time period that is necessary in this process, for comparing between strategies, theories, researches, results; This process involves a large amount of data, which may be difficult to handle; Disharmony amongst the researchers; Conflicts within the theoretical structures; and A failure to understand on the part of the researchers as to why triangulation was used (Fielding & Fielding, 1986). Despite the disadvantages, if we follow the theories established by Kane (1985), we will that an appropriate use of the triangulation method produces best results for a research project as it involves the judicious use of all the research techniques giving the researcher and the reader an overall perspective of the entire issue (fig 2). Conclusion From the above discourse, it is quite clear that choosing a correct research methodology is often more dependent on the researcher’s philosophical beliefs than the subject he has chosen. However, one must understand the compatibility of the method chosen with the undertaken issue and synchronise the ‘flies with the fish’ to achieve optimum results (Kane, 1985). The beliefs on the part of the researcher must be firm for him/ her to continue with the work, which are often tedious and long-term projects. Scientific projects (and hence business studies) tend to be generally quantitative in nature involving empiricism, owing to the researcher’s scientific bend of mind. References Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.,1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Bryman, A., 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge. Bryman, A., and Bell, E., 2003. Business Research Methods. Oxford: OUP. Burns, R., 2000. Introduction to Research Methods. London:Sage. Denzin, N., 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine. Fielding, N.. & Fielding, J., 1986. Linking data (Vol. 4). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Finn, M., Elliott-White, M., and Walton, M., 2000. Tourism & Leisure Research Methods. Harlow: Longman. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y., 1994. “Competing paradigms in qualitative research.” In, N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105- 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Healy, M., & Perry, C., 2000. Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research – An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126. Hughes, C., 1997. “Mystifying through coalescence: The underlying politics of methodological choices.” In, K Watson, C Modgil and S Modgil (Eds), Educational Dilemmas: Debate and Diversity, Quality in Education. London: Cassell. Kane, E. 1985. Doing Your Own Research: How to Do. London: Marion Boyars. Kimchi, J., Polivka, B., & Stevenson, J.,1991. Triangulation: Operational definitions. Nursing Research, 40(6), 364-366. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.,1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Mitchell, E., 1986. Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18-26. Patton, M.,1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Polit, D., & Hungler, B., 1995. Nursing research: Principles and methods (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2009. Research Methods for Business Students, fifth edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Trochim, W., 1999. The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. Veal, A., 1997. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide, 2/e, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Pearson, ‘The Research Onion’ (chapter 4), Research methods for business students – Mark Saunders, Phillip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill, retrieved from http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_saunders_resmethbus_5/111/28551/7309154.cw/index.html [accessed 7th December 2011] Read More