Different Methodological Approaches Applied in Academic Journal Articles - Research Paper Example

Different rеsеаrсh mеthоdоlоgiсаl аррrоасhеs аррliеd in асаdеmiс journal аrtiсlеs Name Course Institution Date Executive summary Academic Journal articles majorly uses two approaches, which are quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative approach implicates mathematical analysis of quantifiable data in a formal process. The approach utilizes the inferential, simulation and experimental methods in the process of finding data to draw valid conclusions. Qualitative approach on the other hand utilizes and assesses the attitudes, behaviors and opinions on the subject matter. This approach, therefore, depends on the researchers understanding and point of view on the subject matter. The data in such a case will not be quantifiable and hence no quantitative measures can be applied. The approach depends on project techniques, different forms of interviews, and expert judgments. Nevertheless, the combination of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches has been in debate in the recent decades. The combination produces an approach named mixed approach. The combination of both qualitative and quantitative is tailored to the research itself. The three approaches have been seen to gain popularity among the academic journals. Table of Contents Executive summary 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Literature review of research methodologies 4 Discussion, analysis, and evaluation 8 Findings and lessons 9 References 10 Introduction Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies are the main approaches that researchers and philosophers, as well as scholars use to write academic journal articles. The two approaches have gained popularity among the scholars depending on the research topics, as well as the hypothesis to be tested. A researcher in the quantitative method begins with topic selection in an area of interest, then forms the research question, which is used to develop a hypothesis majorly from a social theory (Neuman, 2006: 14). The data is later on collected in a systematically and written in a computable form. Analysis and interpretation of the data are carried out in order for a valid conclusion to be drawn (Neuman, 2006: 14). When using the qualitative approach, the researcher uses the theoretical paradigm (Neuman, 2006: 15). The method used to collect data is basically purposive sampling, open-ended, as well as semi-structured interviews (Dudwick, Kuehnast, Jones and Woolcock, 2006: 3). The data is analyzed and sampled from the findings in order to draw valid conclusions. Nevertheless, over the years theorists and research have found the two methods rather vague when used singly hence coming up the mixed approach which combines both approaches to give more detailed and substantial information (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Literature review of research methodologies The academic journal article is popularly written by scholars mainly covering a certain academic discipline for publishing. It introduces and presents scrutiny for new research topics and the criticism of the existing research. Previous philosophers and researchers have discussed the methodological approaches that are mainly used in the academic journal articles, their relevance, weaknesses, as well as strengths. According to Hiatt (1986), qualitative research methods majorly emphasis on discerning and appreciating the participants’ experiences, thoughts, and perspectives. It reconnoiters the reality meaning and purpose of the study according to the persons involved in the research. It shows the point of view of the researchers, as well as where they stand in the world, in terms of reality. The study shows the world to be a platform of representations in the sectors, such as interviews, photography, field works, and recordings (Rickinson, & May, 2009: 9). The qualitative method gives a representation of the real world, images, phenomena, activities and people in their natural settings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 3). Different conclusions can be drawn from the same study depending on the researchers. This is mainly because different people have different perspectives on the same aspect, according to their orientation, experience and environment (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thus, qualitative research is basically never replicated or generalized due to their nature. When writing an academic journal using the qualitative approach, the researcher has to self-assess their stand in the study. The researcher uses every idea and opinion according to their understanding of the study (Choy, 2014: 99). The approach does not specifically rely on a specific topic of study rather it focuses on the theoretical paradigm, especially where the social study is concerned in an inquisitive manner (Neuman, 2006: 15). The method used to collect data is basically purposive sampling, open-ended, as well as semi-structured interviews (Dudwick, Kuehnast, Jones and Woolcock, 2006: 3). The data is analyzed and sampled from the findings in order to draw valid conclusions. New theoretical interpretations and concepts are usually created from the results of the study (Neuman, 2006: 15). Therefore, the academic journal is usually concluded with the information gathered from the study. From the details, given by a researcher or a research participant, hypothesis, conceptualization and explanations are drawn in an academic journal hence the method being termed as inductive. The method has revolutionized over the centuries affecting the research in areas, such as the editorial practices, evidence standards, as well as the funding issues (Harwell, 148). Therefore, the whole approach of giving inferences to a qualitative academic journal has evolved over the years (Denzin, 2006). As opposed to the qualitative methodological approach, quantitative research maximizes the objectivity, generalizability, and replicability of the findings. A researcher in the quantitative method begins with topic selection in an area of interest. From the topic, the researcher narrows down to the specific research question of the study. Thereafter, the hypothesis is developed, majorly from a social theory (Neuman, 2006: 14). The study design is then carried out to determine the techniques to be used in the research, such as the experiment, survey or questionnaires to be fostered; sample selection, hence being able to decide on relevant factors measurement (Neuman, 2006: 14). The data is later on collected in a systematic, and careful manner, where the data collected is used to gather information. The data is always in a computable form, which can be read by the computer (Neuman, 2006: 14). The data collected can be used to form correlations between outcomes and variables (Dudwick, Kuehnast, Jones and Woolcock, 2006: 3). Analysis and interpretation of the data are carried out in order for a valid conclusion to be drawn. Finally, the final findings are given to conclude the academic article in a specific format (Neuman, 2006: 14). The results of the research do not depend on the researcher’s perception, experiences, or biases because the data must be quantifiable hence computations are done to draw conclusions. The tests and surveys carried out in the data collection process form the key basis of the study. The hypothesis is tested using the probability methods in accordance to the research question. Generalization of the population’s characteristics is given after the statistical hypothesis is tested. As a result, the method is said to be deductive in nature for it does not rely on the human perception (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Trochim and Land (1982), quantitative research methodology is viewed as the glue that keeps the research project intact. The research design specifically structures the whole process to include all parts of the making of the whole assignment, from the sampling of population, treatment, as well as the methods involved The quantifiable investigation design similarly consists of parts that are sketchily alike what Crotty (1998) and Creswell (2003) offered for qualitative research, however, they are completely different in execution and purpose: (1) the introductory part of the study inclusive of the purpose of the study and research questions; (2) theoretical perceptions or models; (3) approach that involves sampling, study design, data collection, and analysis of data, which comprises of statistical conclusion validity evaluation; (4) recording the findings and results; and finally (5) the conclusions and inferences to the study (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991; Shadish et al., 2002). The development of the mixed approach, which comprises both the approaches, crops up during the debate over the effectiveness of the quantitative and qualitative methods. Campell and Fiske (1959) are cited in by Teddlie & Tashakkori, (2009) to be the fathers of the mixed approach, which was initially the multi-method approach. The approach has been evolving since the 1990s hence making it a favourable method of writing an academic journal article. Data collection methods are seen to not satisfactorily give answers when they are singly qualitative or quantitative (Johnson, Turner, & Onwuegbuzie, 2007: 114). As a result, the mixing of the two brought about a good combination, which was undeniably conclusive and inclusive in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the study. The mixture approach is ideally a good method where biasness of using one approach is eliminated (Greene, 2007). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004: 14), argue that the mixed approach draws strength from both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and validation. The method uses multiple approaches, and hence the results are more detailed and of value to the researcher because the inferences drawn are of a wider scope and rather comprehensive (Terrell, 2012: 255). The creativity level is expanded, and the writer of the academic journal article opens up the mind of the reader in the course of reading the research article (Harwell, 152). According to Caracelli and Greene (1997), they came up with three major uses of the mixed approach study, namely: (1) analysis of the comprehensive findings acquired through the diverse instruments of assessment, (2) expounding and further building on the outcomes of either method to the other, as well as (3) validation of the effects of one method of the inferences of the other method’s results. As a result, the mixed method seems to be applied in most fields of research where an academic journal article is written. However, the method has not yet developed to a point where its constitution is made to govern the researchers interested in using this approach. It combines both the quantitative and qualitative methods uniquely according to the research topic and the area of the topic (Morse, 2010). The two methods can be mixed up at any point from the data collection to the analysis to the inferences, as well as when drawing the conclusions from the findings. However, the method has had critics from researchers, such as Denzin (2006) in the different stances. The perspective of the researchers shows that the mixed approach is also not satisfactorily meeting the requirements of the researchers themselves in different fields where different phenomenon are involved. Discussion, analysis, and evaluation A qualitative case study carried out where the journal utilizes majorly the qualitative analysis. A sample size is a small number of persons who are engaged in an in-depth interview, observation and presenting their views, as well as longitude studies to give their perspective on the research topic of the study. The data collected is rather specific on the case study topic and the organization or area of research in particular. This is majorly because the participants give their standing point in relation to a specific field and a specific organization hence generalization is rare (Gable, 1994: 2). Physical sciences give major critics while the social sciences crop up objective criticism of the area of study. According to Kerlinger, there are three major flaws in qualitative research methodology, namely; the incapability to deploy independent variables, the risk involved in the improper interpretation of the topic of research, as well as the inability to randomly infer. Lee, on the other hand, categorizes four conforming evils involved in the case study research. These include the inability to control, repeat, generalize, as well as deduct the inferences majorly caused by the inability to randomize the research (Gable, 1994: 2). These critics show that the research is not satisfying when the quantitative approach is utilized. There are strengths, however, such as the research gives the participants a deeper insight and understanding regarding the case, as well as ensuring that its objectives are met. An academic journal about a qualitative survey in Pakistan shows to choose a site where the sample size is a representation of all the sites affected by the large scale of the displaced persons after the 2008 conflict. Questions about the number of children affected were posed. The different groupings gave different figures hence making the whole process rather difficult. A large sample size comprehensively gives an additional advantage to the statistical results where more information is given (ACAPS, 2012: 7). A qualitative research seems to be necessary to match as a complement to the quantitative research, due to the different perceptions between individual groupings. The results could not be generalized in terms of the number of children displaced (ACAPS, 2012: 7). Mixing up the two, qualitative and quantitative rendered comprehensive information in both case studies where each method gave its strengths while eliminating the weaknesses of the other. The two case studies, once they utilized both procedure, the data collected, the inferences, results and conclusions drawn seemed rather more encompassing, giving validated information, which was a success (Currall, Hammer, Baggett, & Doniger, 1999). Findings and lessons The specialists have not yet established the comprehensive or the suitable process to be used in the articles. There have been ongoing critics, comments and debates between the experts where either of the methods be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed approaches are used. In that note, the researchers prove that there is no perfect methodological approach that can be termed better than the other, bearing in mind that they all have their different strengths and weaknesses when the academic journal article is concerned. Due to the extensive debate, there is further research about the three types of the research methodologies namely, mixed, qualitative and quantitative methods. Further research is to prove that the article journal is best suited by which specific methodology. However, the above research tends to show that when both the qualitative and quantitative methodologies are mixed up, they tend to overwrite on the weaknesses of both and hence to strengthen the strengths of both. Therefore, both methodologies could be used to validate and give quality and comprehensive results according to how they are utilized. Mixing them up is the best idea when writing an academic journal article although there is a debate about the mixed method, as well which is not a well-developed method of research. References ACAPS 2012, Qualitative and Quantitative Research Techniques for Humanitarian Needs Assessment. Retrieved from: www.acaps.org/img/documents/q-qualitative-and- quantitative-research.pdf Choy, L.T 2014, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Research Methodology: Comparison and Complimentary between Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 19 (4), PP 99-104. Creswell, J. W 2003, Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from: www.ucalgary.ca/paed/files/paed/2003_creswell_a-framework-for-design.pdf Crotty, M 1998, The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. Currall, C. S., Hammer, H. T., Baggett, L. S. & Doniger, M. G 1999, Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies to Study Group Processes: An Illustrative Study of a Corporate Board of Directors. Organizational Research Methods. 2(1), pp 5-36. Denzin, N. K 2006, The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9, 139–160. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S 2005, Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., and Woolcock, M 2006, Analyzing Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods and Data, World Bank Institute, Washington. Retrieved from: www.siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/Analyzing_Social_Capital_in_Cotext- FINAL.pdf Gable, G. G 1994, Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), pp.112-126 Greene, J. C 2007, Mixed methods in social inquiry. New York: Wiley. Retrieved from: www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2212555/mixed_methods_in_social_inquiry- research_methods.pdf Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J 1997, Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harwell, M. R n.d, Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods. Retrieved from www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/41165_10.pdf Hiatt, J. F 1986, Spirituality, medicine, and healing. Southern Medical Journal, 79, 736–743. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J 2004, Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26. Johnson, R. B., Turner, L. A. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J 2007, Towards a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1, pp 112-133 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G 1985, Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morse, J. M 2010, Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 483–491. Neuman, W. L 2006, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 6th Edition, Pearson International Edition, USA. Retrieved from www.csun.edu/~hbsoc126/soc4/Chapter%2006%20ppt.pdf Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P 1991, Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from: www.spardatumot.com/qozuhe.pdf Rickinson, M. & May, H 2009, A comparative study of methodological approaches to reviewing literature. The Higher Learning Academy. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/comparativestudy.pdf Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C 2003, Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Terrell, S. R 2012, Mixed-Methods Research Methodologies. The Qualitative Report. Retrieved from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-1/terrell.pdf Trochim, W. M. K 2006, Research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Available at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ Read More