Research Methods: Literature review and qualitative analyses - Essay Example

Research Methods: Literature review and qualitative analyses Literature review When doing my project, I will first have to gather information about the chosen topic from different resources. Books, articles, periodic literature, Internet, university publications will all together define my knowledge about the topic and give an idea of the previous research that has been done and new areas that have not been investigated yet. Through the literature review, I will be able to incorporate the knowledge of an existing research and to develop the idea of my own topic. This method of research will not contribute to a new knowledge about my topic, but is the beginning of research that helps to shape the measures of the existing research and think of ideas and possible solutions that will be anticipated in my further investigation. Generally, literature review can be defined as "the systematic process of collecting and analyzing information (data) in order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon about which we are concerned or interested."1 The result of this research is twofold. First of all I will become more informed about my research topic; secondly, I will put myself into position to inform other people, the readers, by means of literature review presented in my project document. Advantages of literature review method of research is that it: Combines different kinds of evidence that are needed to provide a firm basis for action - in particular surveys and case studies of the processes and interactions Brings together the range of available options for change; setting out what is known about the consequences of adopting each of the options Presents findings of research on the effect of actions taken in different situations and of different actions in similar situations Distinguishes the relevant studies from the less relevant, the good quality research from the poor quality Provides guidance as to how dependable the available evidence is in relation to the area of proposed change.2 Anther advantage of literature review is that by investigating the similarities and differences between groups of studies it is possible to see inconsistencies in different studies, see varying results and as a result to get an insight into the reasons for inconsistencies. These might then be controlled in a new study, or be taken into account in interpreting the findings. Literature review is more than just a description. It is original, significant, and interesting research and not just a description. It is a critical analysis of what other authors have said on material relating to my topic. It is usual to subdivide this material into different subjects, starting with more general statements of broad scope, and going on to consider the different subject in more detail, so that to end up narrowing to a consideration of small number of authors whose ideas and results are directly relevant to the precise subject matter of my topic. I will come back to the description of literature review structure later in this paper. When performing the review, I will start reading articles from professional articles so that it would be easier to differentiate true research from a paper that represent opinions of original authors and does not present a true value. Reading most recent articles will let me catch up with the latest research and to avoid repeating the topic that has previous been investigated. I will start by sourcing the library and associated libraries, using a computer to help in my search, but not substituting it completely for looking around the shelves in the area where to find a useful book. There are often other related texts in close proximity. I will look in the reference section of key books and articles you are using and look in the reference section of other's theses on similar topics. Here there might be minor references for others' work but possibly either background or really key references for your own, depending on the different slants and lines of argument taken in these sources. I will then identify the key theorists and key theories as well as the most up to date developments in your field. The key theories and theorists will drive my own investigations, and the up to date work will show how relevant and in touch, how 'cutting edge' your own work is. It is possible that when reviewing the literature, I will see that my topic has already been researched. That will only mean that I am on the right way and that during my further research I will come out with new issues about my particular topic. On the other hand, if the literature review turns up nothing, then additional research activities are justified. As Clifford Geertz , a great anthropologist, wrote, the movement is not from already proven theorems to newly proven ones, it is from an awkward fumbling for the most elementary understanding to a supported claim that one has achieved that and surpassed it.A study is an advance if it is more incisive than those that preceded it; but it stands less on their shoulders than, challenged and challenging, runs by their side.3 During research of the literature, I will absorb myself into the field of study in order to gauge where my own ideas fit, what can inform them, what others think and have discovered, and to define where/in what ways my area of questioning, my research and findings could contribute to existing knowledge while identifying a 'gap' in knowledge which my work can fill. I realize that I might not be able to read everything that has been written about my field of study, nor everything about my particular area. For this reason, again, review of the mot recent literature and recommended by my supervisor sources are essential to my research. By searching out the literature to which my own work will contribute I will not try to cover and summarise everything. This would be an endless, daunting and ultimately pointless task. My role is not of a summariser of everyone else's thoughts and discoveries, but an engagement in dialogue with what has been written and what is to be written and discovered by others. It is needed to read the background literature to contextualise and underpin my own work rather than substitute for it. "This indicates to readers and examiners that you know the field and know also that you have something to contribute to it. "4 My literature review will therefore have the following characteristics: Convey clearly and concisely the value of a published body of knowledge to a reader who may not be familiar with the topic in question. Summary, classification , contrast , comparison , critical assessment of the research quality of the articles being reviewed. Describe the hypotheses proposed and the evidence presented in favour of their hypotheses, Critically evaluate whether that evidence is convincing Speculate about possible further applications of the research described5 Now I would like to review the parts of the literature review that effectively represent coherent and understandable review of the chosen topic. Introduction: Tells what this story is going to be about This part of the literature review should identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thereby providing an appropriate context for the review. it should point out overall trends in the prior research, as well as the major conflicts, and gaps in research. It might also establish the writer's reason for reviewing this particular body of work. Body: Main text Tells a the story The body of the review should summarise the individual pieces of work, and compare and contrast the approaches where it is merited. I will tell a story about the development of the field, explaining how everything fits together. This part of the review should include a critical assessment as to whether the hypotheses were clearly stated, and whether the research methodologies were well designed (for investigating those hypotheses), whether the evidence for or against a hypothesis was convincing, whether there were important gaps in the investigation and so on Illustrate the similarities and differences among the different models or theories by seeing how they apply to a simple, representative, concrete example. Overall, concrete examples should be used to illustrate how the theory works whenever appropriate. Conclusion: Sums it up The conclusion should summarise the major contributions of the prior research, maintaining the focus that was established in the introduction. It should evaluate the current "state of the art", pointing out again any major methodological flaws that were described in the body of the review. It should also provide some insight into what the writer thinks would be fruitful future avenues of research in the area. It is important not to overdo this part of research by giving recommendations that are not fully supported by the research you have done Qualitative research In their Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) acknowledge that qualitative research means different things to different people. They offer what they call a "generic definition": Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials--case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactions, and visual texts --the described routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives."6 Qualitative approaches to research demand different sampling techniques from those commonly used in quantitative studies. Rarely are they probabilistic or random. Instead they are purposeful, based on the purpose of the investigation. In my research I am planning to use qualitative methods presented in this section. Interviewing Within qualitative approaches to public relations and marketing communications research, interviews are a useful form of data collection because they allow you to explore the perspectives and perceptions of various stakeholders and publics. Bingham and Moore (1959) use the term 'conversation with a purpose' for the qualitative interview where researcher and informant become 'conversational partners'. Interviewing is more than just conversation, however. There is always a purpose and usually some form of structure. The purpose and the degree of structure are conceived by one person, the researcher, who organizes the interview talk in such a way as to cover the topics of interest to him or her and who moves the discussion in a desired direction by asking most of the questions (Lindlof 1995). However, to think of interviews merely as 'a pipeline for transmitting knowledge from informant to interviewer'7 is to limit their potential. At their best, they should be conducted in a collaborative fashion so that interviewees are able to articulate the topics and experiences that are of interest to them. Many novice qualitative researchers assume that qualitative research interviews are easy to carry out, but interviewing is a complex process and not as simple as it seems. Key features of interviews are that they are flexible and allow you to understand the perspectives of interviewees. As a researcher, I have the freedom to prompt for more information if something interesting or novel emerges because you are not restricted to a pre-planned, rigid list of questions, as with the use of the quantitative questionnaire method. Similarly, because the ideas of interviewees have priority, participants are able to explore their own thoughts more deeply or exert more control over the interview if they prefer. This means they may either react spontaneously and honestly to your questions or they may spend time reflecting on their answers, and articulating their ideas slowly. I will also follow up and clarify the meanings of words and phrases immediately, or you can proceed more slowly in order to allow trust to develop. Another benefit of interviews is that the data you collect are situated within their own social context. That is, the responses you derive from interviews are the subjective views of your interviewees. My evidence, therefore, is based on participants' interpretations of their experiences and is expressed in their own words, using the jargon and speech styles that are meaningful to them. This contrasts with quantitative surveys where responses are treated as if they are independent of the contexts that produce them. Different types of interview exist. The one-to-one interview consisting of questions and answers is the most common form. Focus groups, however, are used widely. They are groups of people interviewed by one or more researchers. For instance, you might interview a group of people who have shared the experience of buying a new brand, or who share a professional specialism, such as direct marketers. Less common as an interview method is narrative inquiry where 'long stretches of talk', or partici-pants' narratives, are analysed8. Few questions are asked in research of this type, because you are keen to encourage participants to talk at length about the story of their situation or experience. An example might be the narrative of how a publicist was involved in raising international awareness of a particular issue and getting it onto the international news agenda. In qualitative student projects, dissertations and theses, the one-to-one interview is prevalent, either in a single encounter or in several meetings with individual participants. This may be conducted face-to-face, by telephone or, more recently, online. Online interviews take place by email or by chatting using real-time software. Although we focus on one-to-one interviews in this paper, many of the features of this form are common to other interview types. Unstructured, non-standardized interviews In unstructured interviews, there are no predetermined questions except at the very beginning when you start with a general question in the broad area of study. An aide mmoire, an agenda or a list of topics helps you to keep your focus through the course of the interview. Unstructured interviews generate the richest data and often uncover surprising evidence, but they also have the highest 'dross rate' (the amount of material that is of no particular use for your study), particularly if you are inexperienced at interviewing. Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured or focused interviews are often used in qualitative research. The questions are contained in an interview guide (not 'an interview schedule' as in quantitative research!) with a focus on the issues or topic areas to be covered and the lines of inquiry to be followed. The sequencing of questions is not the same for every participant as it depends on the process of each interview and the responses of each individual. The interview guide, however, ensures that you collect similar types of data from all informants. In this way, you save time and the 'dross rate' is lower than for unstructured interviews. The interview guide allows you to develop questions prior to interviewing and then decide for yourself which issues to pursue. Focus groups Focus group research generally aids public relations and marketing communications researchers to gain substantial insights on a variety of issues and strategies, from the macro (such as the influence of national cultures on strategies or strategic decision making) to the very detailed (such as consumer responses to advertisements). The focus group approach does not rely merely on the ideas of the researcher and a single participant; instead, questions and answers are produced by members of the group themselves. The key features of focus groups are: they provide evidence from many voices on the same topic. they are interactive. they provide a supportive forum for expressing suppressed views. they allow you to collect a large amount of data fairly quickly.9 It appears that people like the safety and anonymity that is offered by the computer screen.Focus group discussions allow you to collect a large amount of data in a relatively short space of time. They are quicker and cheaper to conduct than individual interviews with the same number of participants. By bringing together between six and ten people for a specific period, you benefit from a range of insights which can be transcribed and analysed more quickly than if you were conducting a number of one-to-one interviews. These advantages apply equally to online group research. In addition, they can be put together more quickly and easily than face-to-face focus groups because it is possible to recruit, confirm and conduct within the space of only a few days. They also have the potential for quicker analysis because group discussions can be immediately recorded into a file and printed out, producing an instant transcript, or loaded directly into a content analysis programme10.In many cases, focus groups are used together with quantitative methods. For example, they are capable of generating findings that are then applied to the construction of a questionnaire. They also have the potential to obtain in-depth data at the end of a survey. Whether focus groups are used alone or together with other methods, the evidence gained is normally analysed by qualitative methods. References: 1. Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1994) 'Observational Techniques', in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 377-92. 2. Alvesson, M. and Skldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage. 3. Bingham, W.V.D. and Moore, B.V. (1959) How to Interview, 4th edn. New York: Harper and Row. 4. Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (2001) 'Participant Observation and Field-notes', in P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage, pp. 352-67. 6. Fink Arlene: Conducting research literature reviews: from paper to the internet: Sage:1998: ISBN 0 7619 0905 2 7. Gaddis, S.E. (2001) 'On-Line Research Techniques for the Public Relations Practitioner', in R.L. Heath (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 8. Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (1997) 'Active interviewing', in D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 113-19. 9. Lindlof, T.R. (1995) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10. Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. London: Sage. 11. Riessman, C.K. (1993) Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 12. Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (2004), 'Conducting a Literature Review', Management Research News 27(4), pp. 31-39 Read More