Research Methods Overview - Term Paper Example

Research Methods For many years two research methods prevailed and researchers could choose between a quantitative or a qualitative approach to their study, but today there is a third choice wherein they are able to combine the two in a variety of mixed methods. This paper provides an overview of all three research paradigms by firstly presenting the different contexts from which they were derived in terms of philosophical assumptions, followed with a synopsis, illustrating the similarities and differences between each and the applicability of each to my topic of research which focuses on the connection between materialism and self-esteem. Paramount to understanding the three approaches to research it is important to understand that the real divide is centered on the way in which each paradigm and its advocates view the world in terms of different “ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p.268). Quantitative research is founded on positivism wherein science prevails and belief is on there being only one singular reality or truth (Cresswell, 1998; Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002) that can be assessed with validity and reliability; whereas qualitative research is founded on constructivism and interpretivism (Sale et al, 2002) wherein behavior prevails and belief is on multiple realities or truths that are formed by societies, are dynamic (Sale et al, 2002) and thus assessment is open to interpretation. Epistemological differences are to do with the relationship between the researcher and the researched or study objectives (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005); positivists believe the two are separate and objective and that the researcher is capable of undertaking a study without affecting or manipulating the results; whereas interpretivists and constructivists take the opposite view that both are dependent on each other and so findings or results are founded from the perspective of both the researcher and the researched (Sale et al, 2002). Axiological assumptions are to do with research values and while positivists purport that because epistemologically the researcher is independent of the study the research is value-free; interpretivists and constructivists however, believe that because the researcher is not isolated from the study their values significantly impact on the research (Sale et al, 2002). Apart from distinguishing one research approach from another by the underlying paradigm, philosophical or world outlooks they can also be differentiated and thus defined by the logic and the kind of investigation and data used, together with the way data is analyzed and explained (Bazeley, 2004). Purists of both qualitative and quantitative paradigms remain steadfast in their beliefs that the two methods cannot be combined and are at opposite ends of the pole but a new paradigm has emerged founded on pragmatism; pragmatists contest the notion of the two methods being incompatible and claim that because both subjective and objective studies are based on theory the two approaches can be mixed in a number of different ways within the research method (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Quantitative research as the name implies, is predominately concerned with measuring and assessing, with numbers and statistics, how one thing affects another and proposes hypotheses or hypothetical statements and questions involving specific variables; it tests theories through experiments, case-study or surveys wherein data is collected and measured in accordance with fixed and already determined instruments that provide statistical information. Researchers using quantitative methods usually use logic of deduction; they are able to research, gain knowledge and become familiar with an idea, issue or quandary and then formulate a hypothesis or hypotheses to be tested that is deducted from theory; the focus is on results that can be quantified and summarized; in other words objective and deductive data (Woodley, 2004; Spratt, Walker & Robinson, 2004; Bazeley, 2002; Sale et al, 2002). Surveys are the predominant means of collecting data for the quantitative researcher and are particularly useful for data in relation to attitudes, trends or opinions (Creswell, 2002). Experiments are primarily conducted to find evidence for “cause-and-effect relationships” (Belli,2000, p.60) by revealing how one variable, called the independent variable, can bring about differing effects in another variable, the dependent variable, through its manipulation. Other variables may include mediating or intervening variables that transpire in the causal process, or moderator variables that illustrate how the relationship between one variable and another changes under different situations (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Variables are also categorical or qualitative; qualitative variables differ in scale or number of an occurrence, whereas categorical variables vary in kind (Belli, 2000). At least one independent variable is necessary for any experiment, as also is a control group that can be compared to the research group, both of which must be randomly selected to control for validity (Belli, 2000; Foreit, 2006). Methods of measurement are predetermined in order for variables and responses to fit into a specific amount of categories or scales (Patton, 2001), so the procedures as well as the instrument for measurement are standardized and predetermined; it is important that the procedures and test instrument/s can be used again and replicated in further studies (Woodley, 2004). It is also imperative that methods of measurement are both reliable and valid. Research on the differences between true experiments, non-experiments and quasi-experiments proves confusing in that different authors provide differing views on what constitutes each but in summary a true experiment requires a cause and effect hypothesis, a randomized control and research group, variables and manipulation of the independent variable; if the independent variable cannot be manipulated by the researcher then the study is considered non-experimental, if however the groups are not randomized it is classified as a quasi-experiment. Johnson & Christensen (2007, Chapter 10) suggest that “much stronger evidence for causality” can be obtained “from experimental research than from nonexperimental” and that “you cannot conclude that a relationship is causal when you only have one IV and one DV in nonexperimental research (without controls)”. They also claim that quasi-experiments can be considered to be “in the center of a continuum with weak experimental designs on the far left side and strong experimental designs on the far right side” (Chapter 10). Qualitative research tries “to capture life as it is lived” (Boeree, n.d. Searching for definition 5) and places emphasis on process and meanings (Sale et al, 2002, p.45); wherein the researchers make claims from their perspective and using strategies of investigation such as phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded theory or case studies, collect data from which ideas, trends, themes or premises are developed (Walker, R. 2004; Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Phenomenological studies, as the term implies, are concerned with the study of phenomena such as specific experiences or events and their existence; in other words they attempt to describe, explain and ascertain the impact of a particular phenomena (Hancock, 2002), usually by means of in-depth interviews. Researchers using phenomenological methods are not usually interested on the experiences of one person but are more concerned with shared or similar experiences among individuals. Findings are presented by way of a very descriptive report intended to provide an experience of actually encountering the phenomena for its reader (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Ethnographical studies are concerned with describing the values, customs, attitudes, linguistics and substance of a particular group of people; in other words ethnographic researchers are focused on understanding and describing the culture of a specific group whose shared parameters are either geographical, religious, experiential or tribal (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Ethnographic researchers need to spend much time in the field collecting their data by means of observation and interviews (Hancock, 2002). Data is analyzed based on the researcher’s interpretation from the group’s perspective that is being studied, so the researcher must be familiar with the local language, customs and shared views if the data is to be free of distortion and presented without confusion (Hancock, 2002). Ethnological findings are presented in the same way as the phenomenological findings. Qualitative researchers focused on grounded theory create and enlarge on a theory (how and why something occurs) based on the data they collect (Hancock 2002); in other words they use a bottom-up inductive theory that is grounded in the data they collect (Johnson & Christensen 2007). They can also use grounded theory to test or extend on prior grounded theories. Essential traits of grounded theory studies include the fact that it should mirror what is evident in reality and that the theory is unambiguous and transparent and can replicate results that are evident in reality (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Data collection is continuous and includes a variety of methods such as observation and interviews, as well as literature reviews and document analyses (Hancock 2002). An important element of grounded theory research is the fact that analysis of data occurs simultaneously with its collection; data analysis usually includes open, axial and selective coding (Johnson & Christensen, 2007) and is finished when new perceptions stop materializing from the data and the theory is clearly validated (Johnson & Chrostensen, 2007); so as the researcher realizes new concepts or premises materializing the data is examined and evaluated and hypotheses are generated and tested and theories are developed; thus the “theory is grounded in the data” (Hancock, 2002, p.6). The report provides an itemized and detailed description of the grounded theory.   Case studies are similar to surveys in that they can be used within a quantitative or a qualitative approach to research (Hancock, 2002), and within case studies there is a variety of methods available for data collection, such as observations, questionnaires, literature and documents, and interviews (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). Cases, according to Walker (2004) include, individuals, groups, events, organizations, networks, or localities, and each is unique in its own way; accounting for the “similarities and differences” is a major component of the research (Walker, 2004, p.25). The difficult concept to comprehend in case studies is the notion of being ‘bound’; Johnson & Christensen (2007) explain that “a case is a bounded system (e.g., a person, a group, an activity, a process)” and Walker (2004) explains that cases are regarded as bounded because “each case is to some degree defined by a sense of boundary between what lies within the case and what lies outside. In some sense this boundary is ‘natural’ though often less clearly defined than we might assume” (p.25). Case study research varies in simplicity from a description of a solitary experience or incidence to an investigation that map out occurrences that occur with the same subject over a prolonged period of time and making findings illustrate modifications and amendments (Hancock, 2002). Johnson & Christensen (2007) tell us that Stakes (2005) purports three different kinds of case study research: intrinsic, instrumental and collective; intrinsic studies pertain to the comprehension of case specifics; instrumental studies are concerned with more than the generalities of the case, and collective studies aim to research and compare a number of cases within one study. Mixed methods researchers combine both quantitative and qualitative methods in some way and “draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, p.15) research shows however, that there is no regularity in the application or definition of the term and may include a number of different designs. This third approach to research remains controversial and there appear to be differing accountings of what it actually means; Cresswell and Plano Clark (2007) presented four types of design types for mixed method research that included triangulation (concurrent use of qualitative and quantitative methods), embedded (concurrent or sequential use of qualitative and quantitative methods), explanatory ( quantitative before qualitative) and exploratory (qualitative before quantitative. Evaluation of mixed methods, as well as qualitative and quantitative research has similar objectives; all strive to demonstrate that their findings or results answer the research question (Borrego, Douglas & Amelink, 2009). Evaluation of research in terms of reliability and validity is paramount no matter which research paradigm is chosen. Reliable measures within quantitative research are those that are consistent when used repeatedly with the same input; whereas valid measures are those that are measuring what they are supposed to measure; reliability is defined by Joppe (2000) cited in Golafshani (2003) as …the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable. (p. 1) According to Golafsani (003) three kinds of reliability have been noted by Joppe (2000) in relation to quantitative research that pertain to the level a measurement is replicated after repeated administration, the constancy of measurement in the short and long term, and the resemblance of measurements within a specific time frame. It needs to be pointed out however, that an instrument of measurement may be proved reliable in its consistency and repetition but it may still be invalid. Joppe (2000) cited in Golafshani (2003) claims that Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit "the bull’s eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others (p. 1). In terms of qualitative research reliability and validity terms such trustworthiness, quality and thoroughness are used, as too is the need of assurance that the research is not affected by any bias on the part of the researcher and that the researcher is truthful in all accountings. Validity can be attained through triangulation wherein themes are formed from many and different sources of data (Golafshani, 2003). In terms of my research which References Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, in Butler, R., Gadner, J. & Richards, L. (eds), Applying Qualitative Methods to Marketing Management Research, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 141-156. Retrieved from http://www.researchsupport.com.au/MMIssues.pdf Belli, G. (2008). Nonexperimental quantitative research, Chapter 4, 59-77. Retrieved from http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/95/04701810/0470181095-1.pdf Borrego, M., Douglas, E. & Amelink, C. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methods in engineering education, Journal of Engineering Education, January, 53-66. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&hid=2&sid=53d23402-d354-4f15-ad78-8508e1ea882f%40sessionmgr12 Bryman, A., Becker, S. & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: a view from social policy, International Journal of Social Research in Methodology, vol. 11 (4) 261-276. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=2&sid=88dae884-45f0-46a4-8731-4a075b19089f%40sessionmgr13 Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Creswell, J.W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. New York: Sage Publications Foreit, J.R. (2006). Quasi and non-experimental designs, paper presented at Operations Research Proposal Developmen Workshop, US AID. Retrieved from www.flexfund.org/workshops/OR_Workshop/day3no2.ppt Golafshani, Nahid (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research, The Quarterly Report, vol.8 (4) 597-607. Retrieved from http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/MEdHOME/QUALITATIVE/Reliab.VALIDITY.pdf Hancock, B. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research, Trent focus for research and development in primary health care, Trent Focus Group. Retrieved from http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/pmacintyre/course_pages/MBA603/MBA603_files/IntroQualitativeResearch.pdf Johnson, B. & Christensen, B. (2007). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, Sage Publications. Retreived from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson Leech, N.L. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs, Quality and Quantity, vol. 43, 265-278. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=2&sid=6a178ebd-a028-4850-b3b8-1a772a9963a4%40sessionmgr11 Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Leech, N.L. (2005). Taking the ‘Q’ out of research: teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, Quality and Quantity, vol.39, 267-296. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=2&sid=6a178ebd-a028-4850-b3b8-1a772a9963a4%40sessionmgr11 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methodsThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sale, J.E., Lohfeld, L.H. & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitive-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research, Quality and Quantity, vol.36, 43-53. Retreived from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&hid=2&sid=53d23402-d354-4f15-ad78-8508e1ea882f%40sessionmgr12 Spratt, C., Walker, R. & Robinson, B. (2004). Mixed research methods, module 5, Practitioner Research and Evaluation Skills Training in open and distance learning (PREST), Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec5.pdf Walker, R. (2004). Getting and analyzing qualitative data, Handbook A4, , Practitioner Research and Evaluation Skills Training in open and distance learning (PREST), Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec4.pdf Woodley, A. (2004). Getting and analyzing quantitative data, Handbook 3, Practitioner Research and Evaluation Skills Training in open and distance learning (PREST), Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec3.pdf Read More