Methods of Research - Essay Example

Without a doubt, applied research is one of the most vital parts of healthcare administration. It serves as a basis on which a relationship between theory and the solution to the most pressing medical, social, psychological and other problems is built. In conducting applied research, the researcher has to adhere to several guidelines. These guidelines include specific rules and regulations for the ethical treatment of research subjects as well as the governance of informed consent. These guidelines transcend all methodological specifications. In conducting research, the researcher has to consider the nature of the study he/she intends to conduct, the ethical ways in which data can be gathered, the benefits/risk ratio as well the level of evidence available for the research study. In examining the level of evidence, there is a hierarchical structure in place. This hierarchical structure is such that the highest level of evidence can be arrived at through the utility of randomized control trial (RCT). At the second level are Quasi-experiments whereby there is no random assignment of participants to treatment groups, however, treatment and the causal relationship is determined utilizing the same standards as RCTs (Penrod & Morrison, 2004). This is followed by case control studies, case series studies and expert opinion (Slade, Kuipers, & Priebe, 2002). RCT and phenomenological approaches defined An examination of the implications of the research methodology utilized begs a closer look at RCTs and the Phenomenological approach to research. First and foremost, randomized control trials are defined as study designs where treatments, interventions, or enrollment into different study groups are assigned by random allocation rather than by conscious decisions of clinicians or patients. The goal of RCTs is to ensure that the results obtained from a study are strictly based on the treatment administered and not a direct result of bias or other confounding variables (Philadelphia Panel, 2001). The Phenomenological approach to research, on the other hand, is one that dates back further than the advent of the experimental approach which utilizes RCTs. It is an approach that inextricably links people and the environments of which they are an integral part. Furthermore, it operates from the vantage point which dictates that by virtue of being human, we are dynamic in nature and the determinants of health, behavior and other attributes can be described and summarized utilizing clear and concise qualitative methods. These methods as delineated in the phenomenological approach to research offers a vehicle for exploring as well as explaining the experiences of the individuals being studied. In so doing, the data is captured utilizing phenomenological methods and are reported utilizing statistical methods designed for categorical data (Sandelowski, 1986). Qualitative and quantitative research methodology In order to fully explore the similarities and differences between RCTs and the phenomenological approach to research, it is prudent that we first make a distinction between quantitative and qualitative data. First and foremost, quantitative data can be utilized to articulate some notions that may be true when applied generally, they cannot be applied to any specific cases. For example, quantitative methods can be utilized to gather data on the number of patients who respond positively to a certain level of radiation delivered to the tumor and how those numbers compare to similar data collected over the course of several years. In so doing, the data cannot explain why the patients respond to the treatment in a positive manner or what may influence the way in which they respond. Essentially, quantitative methods are limited. As a direct result, quantitative methods prove inadequate when the nature of the research dictates that an explanation of behaviors is needed and qualitative methods are called to task (Sandelowski, 1986). In connecting RCTs and phenomenological research methods, with the notion of qualitative and quantitative research methods, it is prudent to state that it is standard practice for RCTs to utilize both qualitative and quantitative data while phenomenological research methods utilize qualitative data as phenomenological research emphasizes the significance of individuals experience and is concerned with gaining an understanding of subjective experiences (Hycner, 1985). Exemplary Integrity In the course of conducting both RCTs and research which utilizes phenomenological research methods, the principle of exemplary integrity must be strictly adhered to. Exemplary integrity speaks to the notion that the researcher must be consistent in his/her research philosophical orientation, the way in which the research question is posed, the methodological framework on which the research is built and the method utilized for data collection. In so doing, the researcher(s) need to present a strong argument which connects the choice and standard industry practice of the scientific methodology being utilized. This is best done by examining the prior body of research conducted in the area of investigation (Schratz & Walker, 1995). Essentially, it is prudent for the research to show that there is a consistency in the knowledge that a research problem exists, the nature, origin and scope of the knowledge gained, the methods utilized to obtain and assess data with regards to the research problem and the value as well as the quality of the data collected. Thorne, Kirkham & Henderson (1999) purport that in order for research findings to be credible, the process of conducting the research must show a research question that is consistent with the nature, origin and scope of the research problem along with an interpretation of the sources from which the data comes as well as the strategies utilized in the interpretation of the data. In so doing, they must be a logical extension of the research question (p. 120). Finally, the logic and rationale for the decisions made in the course of examining the research question and conducting the research must be explicitly stated in order for the readers of the research findings to be able to follow and possibly replicate the study. This is true for both RCTs and phenomenological research methods. Ethics Another important consideration for both RCTs and phenomenological research methods is that of the underlying ethics involved in conducting research with both animal and human subjects. The utility and adherence to ethical principles provide the researchers with moral values, ideology and standards which serve as the guiding force of decision making. This force serves to assure that the principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance are strictly adhered to. In so doing, the researcher is duty-bound to inform the study participants of the nature and purpose of the body of research, the way in which the results will be utilized and how the study data will be maintained, managed and finally disposed of. Essentially, the researchers are bounded to adhere to three principles-anonymity of the research subjects, the notion that research participation is solely voluntary and the identity of the research subjects is kept confidential. It is prudent that these principles as well as their scope and ramifications be explained and described to the participants prior to the commencement of research. The participants, on the other hand, acknowledge the receipt of this information by signing an informed consent. Additionally, the research reporting should include the method in which the informed consent was obtained and utilize a standard wherein the benefits of conducting the research outweigh it risks (Thorne, Kirkham & Henderson, 1999, 126-128). The Research Question One of the fundamental ways in which RCTs and phenomenological research methods differ is the sample size. This has implications for whether the study findings are generalizable. This relates directly to the way in which the research question is posed as well as other inherent characteristics of the research question. In conducting phenomenological research, the fundamental concern is the underlying perception of the experiences of the human subjects. In so doing, the subjects are asked to describe how and why certain incidents occur and the focal point of data collection involves ideas, perceptions, beliefs and intentions. In phenomenological research, the research question serves to guide the course of research while in RCTs the research hypotheses serve as the guiding force of the research. In making this distinction, the appropriate research methodology, methods and data analysis procedures are ascertained. van Manen (1990) maintains that an interesting paradoxical relationship exists between the researcher question and the researcher(s). This paradox is one which purports that the way in which the researcher chooses to frame the question influences the course of investigation. This is perfectly logical in that researchers may be biased and as such, this bias may be evident in the way in which the research question is posed. Keeping this notion in mind, it is prudent that the researcher be explicit in making his/her bias known and the notion of experimenter bias be made salient. Sampling Sampling serves as a fundamental means of distinguishing between RCTs and phenomenological research methods. In phenomenological research, the underlying rationale is to gain an intimate understanding of the experiences of the study subjects as they relate to social issues while in RCTs the goal of the sampling techniques is to obtain results that are utilized in order to make generalizations. Essentially, RCTs are concerned with making inferences with regards to the population and utilizing the data collected from a sample as a means of making those inferences. The implications of this are such that the sample size proves crucial. In phenomenological research the sample size has to be kept relatively small in that the data collected is precise and involves perception and very specific interpretations. In RCTs, however, the sample size has to be relatively large and varies depending on the size of the population. The fundamental concern with regards to sample for RCTs is the notion that the data obtained has to be generalizable and valid for the purposes of making inferences. Additionally, it is prudent for researchers to report on the sampling procedure utilized as it holds implications for the replicability of the study. The criterion utilized to gage the appropriateness of the sampling technique is one that can be extrapolated through logical thinking (Richy, Ethgen, Bruyere, Deceulaer & Reginster, 2004). Methodology Historically, the underlying methodological inflexibility of phenomenological research techniques has been called to task. There is an ongoing debate as to the methodological inflexibility of these approaches. This debate is one that involves a conceptualization of the validity, reliability and generalizability of phenomenological research when compared to RCTs. Kvale (1996) purport that the varying standards by which phenomenological research and RCTs are judged does not bode well for the validity of phenomenological research methods as being scientifically sound. Although many researchers have attempted to make a strong argument with regards to the validity of phenomenological research as sound science, the trend has been to establish a different set of criteria on which the precision and rigor of phenomenological research will be judged. In so doing, those researchers argue that we should not abandon the notion of "validity" in phenomenological research (Heron, 1988; Heron, 1996). In an attempt to compensate for the perceived compromised validity in phenomenological research, other researchers have attempted to translate the notions of validity, reliability and generalizability to the notion of credibility, applicability, consistency, and neutrality as a means of accommodating the underlying nature of the data collected in phenomenological research (Kvale, 1996, 9-11). Additionally, the debate with regards to the criteria utilized for phenomenological research is one that still rages on. Guba & Lincoln (1994) offered the most staunch criticism to the creation of parallel standards which are closely aligned with those of RCTs in that they purport the underlying implications of this practice is that RCTs prove to be "better" and "sounder" methodology. Despite this objection, the concepts of credibility, applicability, consistency and objectivity help to clarify the adherence to rigidity in research involving human participants. Credibility Lincoln & Guba (1994) recommend that credibility be utilized as the standard for evaluating research involving human subjects in lieu of internal validity. In cases when quantitative methods are utilized as in phenomenological research, there is a perception that some truth value is attached when one can be reasonably assured that the variables being measured are indeed the ones that are meant to be measured. Essentially, when the researchers are able to demonstrate that the study findings are inextricably linked to the variables being measured and not some confounding variable, integrity is established. This integrity can be equated to the presence of internal validity (Sandelowski, 1986). More importantly, substantiation of the research findings becomes an issue of choosing among competing and falsifiable interpretations as well as examining the arguments with regards to the credibility of other knowledge claims (Kvale, 1996, 12). Fundamentally, phenomenological research methods are presumed to be credible and have some truth value when the descriptions and interpretations of study subjects collaborate and substantiate each other. The notion of credibility is one that proves to be null in RCTs in that validity can be easily established and is facilitated based on the nature of the data being collected and the implications of generalizability. Applicability Applicability calls to task the notion that the ability to generalize the results from an experiment to a larger population has to be managed. It can be practically conceived as a measure of whether the findings from one study are able to be applied to similar circumstances with similar results. Essentially, it moves from a point in which generalizability is ascertained to one in which the notion of transferability is questioned. The underlying question here is one which asks: Can the findings from one study be useful to a different study undertaken at a later date In RCTs, generalizations are made based on the presumption that the sample taken is representative of the population at large and is determined as valid based on the sample size when compared to that of the population. Guba & Lincoln (1994) suggest that, when using phenomenological research methods, transferability inferences cannot be made solely based on the knowledge of the contextual elements of the cases being studied. They purport that if there is to be transferability, the burden of proof lies less with the original investigator than with the person seeking to make an application elsewhere (p. 298). Some phenomenological researchers argue that the findings from such methods are unable to be generalized beyond the research subjects and the context of a given study. van Manen (1990) cautions against the inclination to generalize based on the results of phenomenological research and simply states "Don't generalize!" (p. 10) as the results will be deceptive at best and fallacious at worst. Thusly, the notion of applicability is one that is effectively seen as unlikely in phenomenological research while it is a criterion in RCTs. Conclusion Phenomenological research holds the potential to make a significant contribution to the applied sciences and clinical practice. It supplements the findings of RCTs by providing new practical as well as theoretical framework with regards to people and their health experiences. This is most vital in the treatment of individuals with cancer as there are inextricable links between the physical, social and psychological aspects of coping with and eventually triumphing over cancer. These methods enable us to gain a more concrete understand of a topic that is somewhat esoteric when examined utilizing the tenets of RCTs. In so doing, it provides us with an understanding of the contextual and social determinants of the health and well-being of cancer patients. Additionally, it provides an understanding of the underlying factors that influence change. Essentially, the point being made is that despite the fact that the level of evidence of phenomenological research proves to be inferior when compared to that of RCTs, the findings of phenomenological studies prove to be valuable. They supplement the findings of RCTs and offer a much needed explanation when dealing with the dynamics of human thoughts, feelings and emotions. Furthermore, when undertaking any research [be it phenomenological or RCTs] the research must be conducted in an ethical manner while adhering to meticulous research standards and sound principles which speak directly to the quality of the research being conducted. As advancements in the field of oncology become evident, it is vital that researchers continue to improve the standards of documentation for both RCTs and phenomenological research. In so doing, the validity and reliability of the studies stand to improve. This improvement is inextricably linked to the perception of excellence for research involving human subjects. This speaks to the heart and fundamental aim of applied research. References Guba, E.G. & Lincoln Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.(Eds.), Handbook on Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 105-17. Heron J. (1996). Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition. London: Sage Publications. Heron J. (1988). Validity in co-operative inquiry. In: Reason, P. (Ed.), Human Inquiry in Action. London: Sage Publications, 40-59. Hycner, R.H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8, 279-303. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Penrod, J.D. & Morrison, R.S. (2004). Challenges for Palliative Care Research. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 7(3), 398-402. Philadelphia Panel. (2001). Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions: Overview and Methodology. Physical Therapy, 81(10), 1629-1640. Richy, F., Ethgen, O., Bruyere, O., Deceulaer, F. & Reginster, J. (2004). From Sample Size to Effect-Size: Small Study Effect Investigation (SSEi). Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 1(2), 12-16. Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27-37. Schratz, M. & Walker, R. (1995). Research as Social Change: New Opportunities for Qualitative Research. London: Routledge. Slade, M., Kuipers, E. & Priebe, S. (2002). Mental health services research methodology. International Review of Psychiatry, 14, 12-18. Thorne, S., Kirkham S. & Henderson, A. (1999). Ideological implications of paradigm discourse. Nursing Inquiry, 6(2),123-31. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. London, ON: Althouse Press. Read More