Introduction to in Education - Research Paper Example

Qualitative Research Introduction Qualitative research is method of investigation that is employed in numerous different educational disciplines, conventionally in the social sciences, however, it is also employed in market research by the corporate sector and additional contexts comprising service demonstrations and research by non-profit sectors. There are numerous methods that can be selected so as to conduct a qualitative research; however, there are some methodological and theoretical issues involved in selecting the techniques. Moreover, it is important to be aware of the backgrounds of qualitative research before beginning to discuss on how to carry it. First of all, it is significant to understand that there is no particular accepted way of conducting qualitative research. Certainly, how scholars proceed relies on a range of factors, comprising of their philosophies on the nature of the social biosphere (Ontology), the nature of awareness and how it can be learnt (epistemology), the goals and purpose of the research, the characteristics of the participants of the study, the funders, the research audience, and the positions and surroundings of the scholars themselves. Secondly, the opinions on whether and how superiority in qualitative research should or can be measured are determined in part by the positions that individuals hold on important areas of philosophical debate. In other words the level to which an investigation study is acknowledged and by who partially depends on the specific stances that those who are involved partake. Several authors claim that dissimilar methodological methods are underpinned by specific theoretical or philosophical assumptions and that the scholars or researchers must uphold evenness between the techniques they adopt and their philosophical beginning points. Undeniably, maintaining evenness is viewed as one technique of generating findings that are more valid. Contrarily, others consider that each technique linked with a collection of philosophical positions has something to offer. Therefore, they claim the production of better quality work depends if a range of methods and approaches are considered and if selections are made according to the context and the aims of the research. Whichever way there is a universal agreement that understanding the background from which the dissimilar methods arise from will contribute to a superior research exercise. Finally, the approaches and practices to qualitative research depend on the research environment reflecting a specific mix of philosophy, audiences, funders, participants, and the research objectives. Therefore, this essay is going to consider the methodological and theoretical issues involved in selecting and using a variety of qualitative research methods. It will focus on interviewing and observation methods so as to exhibit knowledge of philosophical underpinnings, major debates in qualitative methodology, suitability of specific approaches for different research conditions and lastly, the practical concerns raised in qualitative research. Philosophical Underpinnings of Qualitative Research The philosophical underpinning of qualitative research are debated in fluctuating detail by a number of general practice researchers and academics and can be summarized concisely as follows. First, the aims of the qualitative research are the typical point of retreat from outdated quantitative techniques. Whereas quantitative research discovers the affiliation between restrained outcomes and values, it is used to discover patterns and meanings, contradictions and conflicts in the behavior’s and thoughts of individuals (Jost, Nilakanta & Willis 2002). Additionally, the scholar is placed centrally in qualitative research. This positioning needs a higher level of reflexivity on the part of the scholar. They require to be conscious of the manner that their individual position and how their prior assumptions and knowledge have an effect on all the aspects of the study. Finally, the interactive and interpretive excellence of qualitative research is a replication of epistemological and ontological assumptions that frequently vary from those of outdated quantitative research. Numerous qualitative and certain qualitative research are underpinned by positivist and post-positivist understandings on the nature of the globe and its facts, which it exists a priori and is quantifiable. Nevertheless, plentiful qualitative research is up-to-date by constructivist models that observe the globe and its facts as primarily interpreted and created by individuals in social groups. Additionally, there is an increasing recognition in general practice that the usefulness of qualitative methods must go along with some level of engagement and reflection on methodological issues. Merriam (2009), for instance, is obstinate that evidence of replication upon the theoretical and preconception frames of reference that structure the process of research should be accounted for in qualitative research. The value of engagement and reflexivity is concrete in that the standard of qualitative research carried out in general practice is augmented. It changes to being justifiable and defensible in terms of meeting the aims of the research from being narrow and following a “cookbook” method. Additionally, it also turns to be an initiative in imaginative problem solving that nurture methodological innovation. It is apparent that much qualitative research is definitely carried out within the theoretical and philosophical assumptions and foundations that underpin outdated quantitative research through its positivist orientation. The implementation of qualitative research methods is no assurance of researcher engagement or reflexivity with the methodological concern of qualitative research. Numerous questions answered using the qualitative methods do not require theoretical and paradigmatic reflection. Munhall and Chenail (2008) claim that the choice of qualitative techniques is virtuously a practical matter though they qualify this by stating that understanding the epistemological and philosophical aspects of the methodology facilitates an informed choice to be made. Key debates in qualitative methodology 1. Epistemological debates in social research So as to be aware of the dissimilar methods that are embraced by qualitative researchers, it is good to have some awareness of the philosophical discussion underpinning the progress of social research generally. Several major issues dictate epistemological arguments in social research. The foremost is how information is best learned. One opinion holds that information is based on induction, which is a bottom-up procedure in which patterns are got from observations of the globe (Hartas 2010). In contrast, others view that information is acquired by means of deduction, which is a top-down procedure, whereby rationally deprived hypotheses or prepositions are tested alongside observations. In other words, the inductive procedure comprises of using proof as the genesis of an assumption, the proof is gathered first, and then theories and knowledge are fabricated from this. Deductive procedure use proof in support of an assumption - a hypothesis is first created and then the proof is collected to reject or confirm it. Therefore, it is a misleading simplification to say that qualitative research is often described as an inductive process. Bryman (2012), argues that there is nothing like pure deduction and pure induction. For instance, when the alleged inductive researchers create and interpret their information, they do not approach this with a blank mind. Even though they are not analyzing a hypothesis, the kind of information they have come up with, the queries they have questioned and the logical categories they have used will definitely have to be influenced by previous studies in their field. This also applies to the deductive researchers as they also come up with assumptions derived from previous observations. An additional key to epistemological issue in social research is on the affiliation between the researched and the researcher and how this inspires the association between values and facts. A single model states that the phenomenon being investigated can be regarded as value free. While other scholars believe this model, others do not and they believe that in the social biosphere individuals are affected by the procedure of being researched and that the affiliation between the social phenomena and the researcher is interactive (Ritchie et al. 2014). Therefore, the scholar cannot be unbiased and at the same time he or she cannot produce a privileged or objective account. Therefore findings are either facilitated through the investigator or are discussed and decided between the research participants and the researcher. The third traditional of epistemological issues concerning social research concentrate on what it means to admit particular claims as true or accurate. In natural sciences, the leading theory of reality is that there is a contest amongst readings or observations of the natural biosphere and a self-governing reality. However, an alternate opinion that is known as coherence or inter-subjective theory of reality suggests that this self-governing reality can only be evaluated in a consensual way instead of an absolute way. If numerous reports ascertain a statement, then it is said to be a true illustration of a socially fabricated reality. This is determined as the most suitable view for the study of the social biosphere (Salkind 2010). Furthermore, Validity and Reliability debates also exist and will be discussed below. 2. Validity in qualitative research Most contemporary debates have been positioned on the hardness of creating validity criteria in qualitative research. Coming up with validity standards in qualitative research is quite a challenge due to the requirement to incorporate subjectivity and rigor along with creativity into the scientific process. However, in recent days concerns on the validity in qualitative research has augmented. There are two common approaches to validity that are the transformational and transactional validity (Klenke 2008). In qualitative research, transactional validity is termed as the interactive procedure between the researched, the researcher, and the collected data that is intended for achieving a moderately greater level of consensus and accuracy by means of reconsidering experiences, feelings, facts, and beliefs and values collected and interpreted. On the other hand, transformational validity is the broadminded, emancipatory procedure leading in the direction of social change that is to be attained by the study endeavor itself. Validity as a transactional process comprises of methods and techniques through which misunderstandings might be adjusted and therefore fixed. In numerous cases, informers are busy making sure that their realities match with the explanations that are brought forth by the scholars. In this approach, the primary importance is the validity of account/text. Nevertheless, certain aspects remain unsettled. For instance, Baumgarten (2013), approach to validity as transactional amongst realities and techniques are not the ones that spontaneously assure knowledge assertions simply because the scholar uses those techniques. The quest for actuality necessitates the scholar’s construction of actualities to be unavoidably interpretations, reconstructions. By doing so, the scholar seeks to create what these behaviors, events, and object mean to the individuals betrothed in and with them. The notion of validity as transformation starts with an issue of authentication that plagues certain qualitative researchers concerned about making clear the value-laden nature of political, cultural, and social meanings in micro and macro contexts. This approach is consistent with what is referred to as the crisis of representation. Validity cannot be attained exclusively through certain techniques. Lodico, Spaulding & Voegtle (2010), assert that since positivist or traditional inquiry is no longer viewed as a complete means to actuality in the jurisdiction of human science, alternate philosophies of validity must be considered so as to attain broader visions, deeper understanding, social justice, and other genuine purposes of qualitative research. Methodologically, Holloway (2005), proposes a transgressed approach to validity that stresses a higher grade of self-reflexivity. For instance, qualitative researchers are fortified to examine values that are taken for granted and establish analytic practices where meanings are both reconstructed and deconstructed in a manner that makes initial suggestions more productive. 3. Reliability in qualitative research Furthermore, the use of reliability is common in quantitative research and currently it is reexamined in the qualitative research model. According to Kirk & Miller (1990), the level to which findings are consistent over a period of time and a correct representation of the whole population under investigation is termed as reliability and if the findings of an investigation can be replicated under the same methodology, then the investigation instrument is deliberated to be reliable. To ensure there is reliability in qualitative research, investigation of honesty is crucial. Rubin & Babbie (2010) argue that honesty of an investigation report is reliant on the conservatively discussed subjects of reliability and validity. When judging qualitative research, Rothe (2000), asserts that the normal standards of good science need requisition so as to fit the realism of qualitative research. Contrary, Boeije (2009), states that because the issue of reliability concerns measurements, therefore it does not have significance in qualitative research. He adds that it is irrelevant to use reliability when judging the excellence of qualitative research. However, Whittemore et al. (2001) adds that since validity cannot exist without reliability, and then the demonstration of the former is enough to justify the latter. As viewed, validity and reliability are conceptualized as honesty, quality, and rigor in the qualitative paradigm. Therefore, so as to turn them out to being relevant research concepts, especially from a qualitative point of view, they have to be redefined so as to reflect the numerous ways of finding the truth (Flick, 2009). Furthermore, the reliability and validity of a qualitative research depend on the data collection tool he or she uses as techniques like focus groups interviews are not good when a researcher wants to collect quality information. The best interview method is in-depth interviews as this involves questioning one individual at a time and validity, actuality and also the information given is reliable. Observations should also be systematic. This will be discussed below. Data Collection Tools 1. Observation and in-depth interviewing When collecting data in a qualitative research, the most common data collection tools are participant observation and interview. The type of method used depends on the surrounding and also the suitability of the technique to that study. Interviewing and observation can be of different types depending on the quality of information needed in the research. However in qualitative research where quality is considered, in depth interviews and participant observation are recommended. Observation in qualitative research In quest of exploring the natural scene, the qualitative researcher intends to be as un-obstructive as possible, with the aim that neither the research method nor presence disturbs the situation. This is the reason behind why Participant observation is one of the preferred methods. In observation method, the researcher embraces a familiar role within the group or institution (Guest, Namey & Mitchell 2013). The researcher turns out to be a gang member, teacher, hippies, nudists, medical students, and bread salesmen, among others depending on the background. The advantages of observation method is that it offers personal first-hand knowledge of the role and, therefore, intensifies understanding of it. In addition, it enables the application of mechanical aids, like cameras and tape recorders. Also, the observer gets access to documents that are related to the role, comprising confidential records and reports. The observer also has the opportunity to access to similar events, people, and places as their subjects. However, there are some disadvantages, for instance; it supplements to the demands on the scholar (Speziale & Carpenter 2011). Qualitative research in any form is challenging, usually presenting a mass of intricate and confusing data. Participation complements to this, taking up valued time and increases one’s responsibilities. Additionally, there are possibilities of conflict amongst an individual’s role as a researcher and the other one as a participant. Therefore, some prefer systematic observation as compared to participant observation. In this observation, the researcher plays only the role of an observer, and he or she witnesses the conditions of interests. The observer embraces the technique “fly on the wall” to view things as uninterrupted by his or her existence as possible (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011). This technique is less demanding and is a shield against going native, however, it does not possess the advantages of participation. There are also ethical and practical issues about just being on the sidelines as an observer. This technique offers a structure for the study, and it is precise and free of observer bias. Additionally, reliability is strong with the majority of researchers indicating its 80% reliable, and once a researcher has devised their instruments, enormous samples might be covered. However, there is a measure of unreliability. Qualitative material can be misinterpreted by the use of measurement methods. Besides the pros and cons of the participant and systematic observations, the systematic observation is a valuable method, and might be particularly robust when used together with more virtuously qualitative methods (Schwester 2015). In-depth interviewing in qualitative research An in-depth interview is an open-ended, discovery-angled technique that is well-matched for describing both program outcomes and processes from the perception of the key stakeholder or target audience (Seidman 2006). It is a conversation with a person and is carried out by a trained staff. The purpose of the interview is to discover intensely the respondent’s perspectives, the point of views, and feelings. Basically, in-depth interviews include not only asking queries, but the systematic documenting and recording of responses combined with extreme examining for deeper understanding and meaning of the responses. Therefore, it often necessitates recurrent interview sessions with the targeted audience that is under investigation. To provide a more involving experience, in-depth interviews happen with a single person at a time, unlike focus group interviews where groups are interviewed (Wells 2002). In-depth, qualitative research interview should comprise of the following: Open-ended queries, it should have a semi-structured format, seek interpretation and understanding, recording responses, recording reflections, recording observations, and conversational. The queries must be worded such that they answer cannot just be a yes or no. Unlike observation and other techniques of data collection, the flow of questions should flow naturally based on the information given out by the respondent, and the interviewer must not insist on asking queries in a particular order. The interviewers must show compassion for the individuals they are interviewing so as to earn their confidence (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh 2009). In addition, being un-obstructive is also essential so as not to impose your personal effect on the interviewee. And concisely every reflections, observations, and responses must be recorded including the non-verbal behaviors and also you should record your feelings and views immediately the interview ends. Therefore, the in-depth interviews are the most preferred interviews when carrying out qualitative researches (King & Horrocks 2010). When conducting a research using the data collection tools there are practical issues that should be considered. Practical Issues Raised in Qualitative Research The practical issues raised in qualitative research are things such as selecting the setting for interviews, recording the life stories, considering the ethical issues and undertaking the analysis (Jones 2004). 1. Participants Participants are main players in a qualitative research as their stories are mainly the primary data. Therefore, there are numerous considerations when selecting and recruiting participants for your research. First of all, the participants need to be willing and able to devote their time to the long interviews. Secondly, the participants must have their long term and short term memories intact so that they can be able to think tangentially when explaining their life histories or any issue (Im & Chee 2006). Thirdly, the participants need to be strong psychologically as they are likely to come across negative and also positive memories during the interviews. 2. The researcher In addition, the researchers also need to be conscious of numerous issues that might relate to them. They must be aware that the stories of the participants might also have an impact on them as they may arouse memories. Patient-researcher relationship Finally, the patient-researcher relationship is also another practical issue to consider. To be given an opportunity to listen to an individual’s life history is a privilege and deserves special considerations as the participant and the researcher are now part of each other’s narratives and are unavoidably transmuted by the life history quantitative research (Frost 2011). Conclusion Concisely, the qualitative research covers a wide range of techniques that are connected to dissimilar beliefs on what there is to know concerning the social world and ways on how to discover about it. The conflicting debates on the physiological underpinnings need to understand and redefine qualitative research so that they may fit in with the different approaches. Though, the definitions differ, the goals of qualitative research are normally directed towards providing interpreted and in-depth understanding of the social biosphere, by learning about individuals material and social circumstances, their histories, perspectives, and experiences. Referencing list Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Ary, D. 2009. Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth. Baumgarten, M. 2013. Paradigm wars - validity and reliability in qualitative research. [S.l.], Grin Verlag. Boeije, H. R. 2009. Analysis in Qualitative Research. London, Sage Publications.. Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. Los Angeles, Sage Publications. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/271774639.html. Frost, N. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods In Psychology Combining Core Approaches. Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd. Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. 2013. Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications. Hartas, D. 2010. Educational research and inquiry: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, Continuum. Hennink, M. M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative research methods. London, SAGE. Holloway, I. 2005. Qualitative research in health care. Maidenhead, Open Univ. Press. Im, E.-O. & Chee, W., 2006. An online forum as a qualitative research method: practical issues. Nursing Research, 55(4), pp.267–273. Jones, M.L., 2004. Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: Practical issues. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(3), pp.271–278. Jost, M., Nilakanta, R., & Willis, J. 2002. Qualitative research methods for education and instructional technology. Greenwich, Conn, Information Age. King, N. & Horrocks, C., 2010. Interviews in qualitative research, Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=iOsnITKC48gC&pgis=1. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. 1990. Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Klenke, K. 2008. Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Bingley, UK, Emerald Group Pub. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. 2010. Methods in educational research from theory to practice. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & Dejong, C. R. 1990. Applied social research: tool for the human services. Fort Worth, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Munhall, P. L., & Chenail, R. J. 2008. Qualitative research proposals and reports: a guide. Sudbury, Mass, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Mcnaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. 2014. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Rothe, J. P., & Rothe, J. P. 2000. Undertaking qualitative research: concepts and cases in injury, health and social life. Edmonton, University of Alberta Press. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. 2010. Essential research methods for social work. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Salkind, N. J. 2010. Encyclopedia of research design. London, SAGE. Schwester, R. W. 2015. Teaching research methods in public administration. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=961639. Seidman, I., 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. PsycCRITIQUES, 37(7), p.162. Available at: http://content.apa.org/reviews/032390. Speziale, H. S., & Carpenter, D. R. 2011. Qualitative research in nursing: advancing the humanistic imperative. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Wells, K., 2002. Interviewing in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work, 1(4), pp.489–489. Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K. & Mandle, C.L., 2001. Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), pp.522–537. Read More