Comparing and Contrasting Research Approaches and Methods - Coursework Example

Comparing and contrasting Research Approaches and methods Comparing and contrasting Research Approaches and methods The paper will discuss how Historical methods compare with five other methodologies, that is; case studies, experimental research methods, qualitative research methods, action research, and questionnaire-based surveys. Qualitative research will be distinct as an approach to data gathering, analysis, and wring a report and how this differs from the Historical method. The other four methodologies in the business field can gain from joining grounded theorizing with contemporary historical methods. By comparing and contrasting historical methods with other methodologies, a substantive theory can be developed to form a conceptual framework. Such a framework can create a significant bridge between records characteristically produced by historians and the statistical and experimental models typically brought forward by high theorists. Historical research method versus other approaches Historical research can mean collecting information from conditions that have already taken place and carrying out statistical analysis on this information. One major difference between a historical research and other methodologies is majorly on the manipulation of data. Given that historical method depends on data from the past, it cannot be manipulated in any way. For example, studying older students’ data and those of younger ones may give some insight into the dissimilarities between the varying research methods, but it is impossible to manipulate the work experience. Therefore, historical research may often result in current experiments that try to look at what happened in the past. Apart from the variations, historical research method shares some similarities with other methods, most specifically utilized in business research. Historical Research versus Qualitative Methods Although there are differences between these two approaches, there are similarities as well. Historical research focuses on the narration and interpretation of past events. On the other hand, qualitative studies are focused on ongoing or current events. In historical research method, data sources are similar to those utilized in a number of qualitative studies. They include records, oral histories, documentaries, and eyewitnesses. History links a profession with its legacy and offers a sense of identity, both professionally and personally. However, it does not generally center on identifying social values. For instance, although nursing’s relationship to the whole world is described by history, it accomplishes this in an overall sense instead of ascertaining the meaning of the world for an individual (Clarke & Harsh, 2009). The neo-positivistic or positivistic discipline of historical research attempts to trim down history to universal laws. Innovation, verification, and classification of data are used to analyze information as well as an attempt to show cause-effect relations. Researchers in this historical research discipline though they use similar forms of analyzing data like those of the qualitative researchers, come out with very different conclusions (Harris & Brown, 2010). Some statistical analyses and survey methods may also be utilized to improve presentation of objective proof and in this sense too, historical work deviates from pure qualitative methods. The idealist school entirely uses experience and intuition as elements for interpretation. From this point of view, historical researchers perceive it is essential to get the occurrence and reorganize the thought of the inventor relating to the time in context and conditions to make sufficient historical interpretations. In a comparative point of view, one can consider that historical research interprets events in the past while qualitative research examines current events, putting in mind the impacts of history on the context. The interpretations of history and its impacts by the participants such as focus groups, however, are essential to the analysis instead of the inferences of the effects of past events (Griffith et al, 2008). Frameworks are widely used in the historical research method for analysis. Historians may study a “great person” or use an economical/political, sociological, deterministic, or psychological framework (Carrie, 2007). Here, qualitative researchers also approach their study with a certain focus; sociological frameworks may be used to support emerging results. However, the framework is determined after the analysis. In conclusion, it is evident that historical research is a chronological method that presents events over a given time; data interpretation makes it exclusive. Therefore, even though historical research and qualitative research share common areas of data analysis and sources, their objectives differ and they are varying approaches that need different mentoring and training. Method Historical Research Qualitative Research Method Differences focuses on the narration and interpretation of past events Framework determined before analysis (Clarke & Harsh, 2009). focuses on ongoing or current events Framework determined after analysis Similarities Data sources include records, oral histories, documentaries, and eyewitnesses. statistical analyses and survey methods utilized to improve presentation Data sources include records, oral histories, documentaries, and eyewitnesses. Statistical analyses and survey methods utilized to improve presentation (Griffith et al, 2008). Application Used in informative research to get knowledge about a specific past event. Used in formative research as a basis for later hypothesis in quantitative research (Carrie, 2007). Historical research versus Case Studies A case study is anticipated to confine the intricacy of a single case. A methodology is not only applied to social sciences but also to economics and business studies. The relationship of how case studies compare or contrast with historical research requires a unique attention. While a requirement of the development of the case study method focuses on contemporary events, characterized by social sciences, historical research focuses on earlier happenings. However, the context of the event and its use may be separated in time though are usually equally significant to the understanding of the study at hand. Business enterprises can employ checklists, questionnaires, and survey methods in their historical research when they need to quickly access many related data from individuals and interpreting that data in the best interest of their business. These methods are often cheap to administer, interpret, and analyze. Organizations can also reach masses of people within a short time, and there are several tools, which can be availed when they are ready to use. On the other hand, Case Study methodology is extensive and is drawn from numerous sources such as participant and direct observation, archival documents or records, interviews, physical artifacts, and audiovisual elements. The researcher has to spend time on-site to interact with the individuals being studied. The final report would involve patterns found or lessons learned that link to the theories. Conclusively, the most vital dissimilarity between historical research and case studies is that in case study, a researcher is not concerned with the subject’s earlier reviews and goes straight to the business matters. In contrast, for historical method, one does not only handle the earlier reviews, but he also presents his own views about a topic at hand in the end of it all. In the business context of a case study, the whole focus is on the firm or company that is being studied, while historical research generalizes the undertaking. For example, if a study is about gender inequality in relation to salaries, a lot of research needs to be done in several industries when performing a historical research, but if a specific company is studied, it becomes a case study. Method Historical Research Case Studies Differences focuses on earlier happenings, characterized by historical records use of checklists, questionnaires, and surveys one does not only handle the earlier reviews, but he also presents his own views about a topic at hand focuses on contemporary events, characterized by social sciences Use participant and direct observation, archival documents or records, interviews, physical artifacts, and audiovisual elements. A researcher is not concerned with the subject’s earlier reviews and goes straight to the business matters. Similarities Context of the event and its use may be separated (Harris & Brown, 2010). context of the event and its use may be separated Application Used in Business enterprises where historians study the growth of private firms or group of firms in the context of institutional and entrepreneurial contexts. This is for the purpose of generating knowledge about how firms interact. Used in Economics in cases such as risk management, and how market institutions are developed and maintained. Historical research method and Experimental research method Experimental research method is often held up as the model of “good” science, with its hypothesis controlled by laboratory settings. On the other hand, historical methods include mostly of archeology, and may be inferior with its hypothesis not possibly controlled by laboratory experiments. The design of experimental method always depends on feasibility. Although there is an overlap, basic methodological differences exist between experimental and historical techniques. These dissimilarities in methodology mirror the fact that historians and experimentalists normally find themselves in extremely varying epistemic circumstances. Experimentalists are typically concerned with assessing repeatable generalizations. They focus their research on making predictions from one or complex hypothesis and influencing repeatable analysis in a lab while manipulating extraneous factors that might generate false negatives or positives. On the other hand, scientists in historical research work are typically concerned with assessing hypothesis regarding specific past events, which cannot be reproduced in a laboratory (Noffke, 2008). They can however search for current traces of such events and look for evidence among the present-day available explanations for the observed traces. Generally, even though historical researchers and experimentalists both eventually infer causes from impacts, the evidential connections that they exploit vary and this variation reflects the concept that events are causally linked to time in an asymmetrical way. Method Historical Research Experimental Research Method Differences Not possibly controlled by laboratory experiments (Noffke, 2008). held up as the model of “good” science, with its hypothesis controlled by laboratory settings Similarities Events are causally linked to time in an asymmetrical way. Events are causally linked to time in an asymmetrical way. Historical research methods versus Action research Action research is a model of inquiry in which the researcher’s basic aim is to improve the ability and consequent practices instead of producing theoretical knowledge. Advancing practices means that the value of the results of the procedure and products together are improved (Harris &Brown, 2010). A defining characteristic of this methodology is that the researcher commences change basing on a feeling that change must be made, such as in a business to create a better working condition. The researcher in this method may act as a single person or with a group of contemporaries as the facilitator of clients, where he enhances skills and co-learns with participants during the process. From the above illustration, it is quite clear that Action research resembles the historical research method in some concepts. The basic similarity is that, in both methods, the end objective is not directly stated at the start and thus the procedure results in solving actual problems in firms (Golder, 2011). The researchers in both methods resemble in the high level of involvement and commitment needed by the researcher himself and by the business about the importance of the issue at hand. While comparing the two, Action research centers on the principle that enhancing the procedure improves the company. Its fundamental objective is to improve practice and not to generate knowledge (Carrie, 2007). On the other hand, historical research method does not involve a mere accumulation of dates and facts or even a depiction of past occurrences, but rather, a flowing, lively account of events in the past that requires an interpretation in an effort to capture the personalities, ideas and nuances that influenced these events. Its major goal is to communicate and understand past events in a chosen field of study. Method Historical Research Action Research Method Differences The objective goal is to communicate and understand past events in a chosen field of study. The objective is to improve practice and not to generate knowledge (Harris &Brown, 2010). Similarities the end objective is not directly stated at the start high level of involvement and commitment needed by the researcher the end objective is not directly stated at the start high level of involvement and commitment needed by the researcher Historical Research method and Questionnaire-based surveys As a research method, this includes collecting information from subjects who answer questions about opinions and behaviors usually in the form of questions. It can be applicable in a marketing poll to help organizations improve marketing strategies and goals. Survey-based questioners come in various forms from opinion-based to factual based data, text responses, and tick boxes. As compared to historical research method, questioners are quick and easily done. More data can be collected about a specified study than in historical, where only a few individuals may be aware of the past event. In both methods, the questionnaires and the interviews respectively, occur after the event, and thus participants may forget the key issues and give the less vital ones (Wade & Demuth, 2009). The methods can also take long to apply and to analyze the data in relevance to the topic of study. Method Historical Research Questionnaire-based surveys Differences Collect data from already existing records (Wade & Demuth, 2009). Takes time and no ease of collecting information Less data collected Use of questions to collect data Quick and easily done More data collected Similarities Data collected after the event May take long to analyze information Data collected after the event May take long to analyze information References Alexander, L & Richman, K. (2011). Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community based research. Journal of empirical on human resource, 6(2)1- 101. Askins, K. (2008). In and beyond classroom: Research ethics and participatory pedagogies. Educational researcher, 40(4), 500-509. Carrie, W. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 5 (3) 65- 150. Colyar, J & Karri, H. (2009). Rethinking Texts: Narrative and the Construction of Qualitative Research. Educational researcher, 38(9), 680-686. Clarke, D & Harsh, S. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a Methodologically inclusive perspective. Journal of American educational research Association, 79(1), 541-546. Doz, Y. (2011). Qualitative research for international business. Journal of international business, 42(5), 582-590. Golder, P. (2011). Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long-term share stability. Journal of marketing research, 37 (1), 156-172 Griffith, D., Cavusgil, S.T., & Xu, S. (2008). Emerging themes in international business research. Journal of international business studies, 39(7) 1095-1238. Harris, L, & Brown G. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 15 (1) 312-356. Noffke, S.(2008). Research relevancy or research for change? Educational researcher, 37(7) 397-464. Wade, J.M & Demuth, J. P. (2009). Experimental methods for measuring gene interactions. Annual review of ecology, evolution and systematic, 42(1), 489-512. Read More