Choice of Methodology: Quantitative or Qualitative - Research Proposal Example

Choice of Methodology: Quantitative or Qualitative? 1. Introduction This paper is a preliminary document about a research project based on gender and leadership in education management. The domain of interest is Catholic educational organisations in the United Kingdom, and the specific areas of enquiry are senior management roles and the impact and nature of gender issues within these roles. Two possible methodologies which are appropriate for this type of research are both broadly classified as surveys, since they both include interfacing with a number of research participants (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; Reinharz, 1992b). Beyond this the two methodologies differ widely, with one being quantitative while the second is qualitative. The focus of this paper is to clarify those differences and identify which of the two methodologies would be the most appropriate for the proposed research, or whether a mixture of both may perhaps be the most useful or feasible. An examination of qualitative versus quantitative research is followed by a discussion of feminist research and methodology. The latter is important to consider given that the proposed research will focus specifically on gender issues. An attempt is then made to synthesise all three approaches, namely quantitative, qualitative and feminist methodology, so as to identify which is most suitable for the proposed research. Relatively more attention is given in this paper to the methodology which is deemed to be the most appropriate, namely qualitative research within a feminist framework. 2. Research methodologies 2.1 Quantitative research The word ‘quantitative’ indicates the quantity-based or statistical (mathematical) nature of this approach. Large sample groups of research participants must be used in any given study (e.g. at least fifty individuals but preferably more than a hundred) in order to meet the rigorous scientific standards of the quantitative method (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). Other requirements include random sampling or matched sample groups. Random sampling ensures that every potential participant has an equal chance of being selected, while matched sampling ensures that the research groups which are being compared each contain individuals with roughly equivalent characteristics (e.g. socio-economic status, gender, age or educational level). Matching enables the researcher to rule out the influence of background variables and focus on the variable of interest (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). Quantitative research is based on highly statistical concepts such as the spread of characteristics in a population (e.g. normal or non-normal distribution), and the calculation of averages (mathematical means) and the distance of each score in the group from the group’s average (standard deviation). It is also concerned with the nature of probabilities and predictability, since these are a reflection of the extent to which the research has been able to accurately assess the phenomenon under study. Correlations and co-variances of one variable with another or several others are also studied extensively (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). 2.1.1 Advantages and disadvantages Quantitative research is very useful for gaining an understanding of trends which affect large numbers of people, and for checking whether these patterns are consistent over time and across different contexts or settings (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). It is not good for accessing and describing the in-depth, subjective experiences of individuals. The idiosyncrasies and inner experience of people are downplayed in favour of gaining a broader spread of information about many individuals, who are all similarly involved in the situation or phenomenon of interest. (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986). In terms of the current proposed research, a possible quantitative method to be used is the survey questionnaire. In this method a large number of willing participants are given a preset questionnaire to fill out, usually with forced choices and a limited number of responses, which are quantified (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). This type of prompt does evoke the individual’s subjective feelings, but it flattens that response into a standardised, preset category or rating. There is no scope for participants to describe their own subjective experiences in any depth, which may lead to a sense of frustration that they are not able to share with the researcher their deepest or most important concerns about the research topic (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; Reinharz 1992 a&b; Hammersley, 1995; Berg, 1995). A further requirement for doing a quantitative survey is that it must be administered to all research participants at once, in the same setting. This would rule out the influence of variables such as changes in the weather or time of day, or the possibility that a participant who has completed the questionnaire may discuss it with someone who is still due to do so. This requirement makes such research particularly difficult to carry out in real-life settings, except when large groups of people are already assembled together in one place such as in undergraduate classrooms. This explains the over-representation of such sample groups in many quantitative social sciences studies (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986). One of the main disadvantages of quantitative research is that it must be carried out by people with a solid understanding of statistical techniques. By the same token the results of such studies are not easily understood by most lay readers or even by some post-graduate academics and students, unless they have a good grasp of the mathematical side of things (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Reinharz 1992b ; Hammersley, 1995; Bland, 2003). In addition, the fixed nature of quantitative measuring instruments makes it virtually impossible to revise one’s data-gathering or go back to the conceptual stage once the initial study has been done. Instead, an entire second project would need to be carried out which may prove too cumbersome or expensive to do in reality (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Neuman, 1984). 2.2 Qualitative research Qualitative research allows one to investigate the feelings, ideas and knowledge of people through interviews, discussions and observation. Qualitative methods study human phenomena intensively and it is the inner quality of human experience that matters, rather than statistical or externally observable ‘facts’ (Eisner, 1991; Hammersley, 1995; Kerlinger, 1986; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Neuman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Qualitative research recognises that the knowledge gained in social science can only ever be incomplete, and is situational or context-bound. Social constructions, representations and performances are seen as fluid and ongoing (Eisner, 1991; Hammersley, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Reinharz 1992a; Bland, 2003). The meanings and values held by researcher and participants must be acknowledged and articulated. Qualitative researchers need to locate and record their own presence within the research context and become reflexive researchers. This requires asking oneself questions about the effect of one’s own ethics, values and subjectivity on the construction of knowledge (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Schön, 1983; Ackerly & True, 2010; Haggis, 1990; Harding, 1987; Habermas, 1988; Reinharz, 1992b; Bland, 2003). Through this type of intensive enquiry, meanings are clarified and interpreted through the research process. The result is a rich source of data that is detailed enough to support an academic analysis and can lead to an improved understanding of the research topic (Berg, 1995; Eisner, 1991; Hardman, 1994; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Mason, 1996). 2.2.1 Grounded theory The qualitative researcher usually develops a working hypothesis before beginning to gather the data. This hypothesis suggests connections between one factor or set of variables and another, and guides the researcher when drawing up a list of questions to be asked during the interviews. The interviews are therefore guided by central themes and are semi-structured (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Neuman, 1994; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). As in all qualitative research, there is no operationalisation of the hypothesis or its variables (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Mason, 1996; Neuman, 1994). Thus the researcher does not, for example, try to impose a rating scale of 1 to 10 onto the participants’ reported experiences; nor does the researcher observe the participants’ behaviour and then try to quantify it mathematically. This lack of operationalisation or quantification is one of the main features that distinguish qualitative from quantitative research (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986). While the qualitative researcher does start out with a basic working hypothesis, he or she needs to remain open to new viewpoints and ideas which will emerge as the research unfolds. This is known as the grounded theory model, developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) (see also Glaser, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; McLeod, 2001). Grounded theory treats any hypotheses as ‘emergent’; only as the data is collected can one really begin to formulate a clear and detailed theory (Glaser, 1998). Review of existing literature is downplayed and is regarded as simply another source of data, one of many. Perhaps the most important contribution of grounded theory has been the development of using categories and codes (Glaser, 1998; McLeod, 2001). The researcher first notes the most important themes which emerge from the first interview and then checks to see if the same themes arise in subsequent interviews. New categories are added as one proceeds with the data collection. Most qualitative researchers still use this method, with the identification of major themes and additional sub-themes. According to Glaser and Strauss, grounded theory involves identifying a core variable that can broadly explain the main concern or behaviour of the participants across contexts and time. This core variable is identified early on, but may be modified as the research progresses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Theoretical sampling is used, which requires choosing the research participants carefully based on the type of data needed and often guided by data that emerges in the first interview; thus one research participant may help to identify another (Strauss, 1967; Legewie & Schervier-Legewie, 2004; McLeod, 2001). McLeod (2001) states that data collection is complete once a category system or theory becomes ‘saturated’; that is, no more relevant information can be extracted and further interviews do not yield new categories or themes. At this point the coding process is begun, with each category being given its own code. Categories are compared and contrasted rigorously and every possible theoretical explanation is considered. This procedure is a comprehensive and systematic way of interpreting qualitative material (McLeod, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). 2.2.2 Advantages and disadvantages Qualitative studies usually involve only a few participants (e.g. between three and twenty individuals) who are either interviewed individually or in focus groups, or both (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). This face-to-face conversation lets the interviewer probe the participants’ perceptions deeply and broadly. The flexibility and open-endedness of this approach stand in contradistinction to the fixed or closed nature of quantitative research methods. The obvious advantage is that qualitative data is far richer on the phenomenological or subjective level (Eisner, 1991; Hammersley, 1995; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Neuman, 1994; Reinharz, 1992a; Bland, 2003; Rallis & Rossman, 2001). The fact that participants are usually interviewed alone or in small groups means that the research can be structured far more flexibly and can fit in with real-life demands. This is often a far more realistic option than, for example, trying to assemble together fifty or more female executives in order to give them all the same questionnaire at the same time and place. It is also much easier to review qualitative data collection and analysis than is the case with large quantitative samples; for example, one might request a second interview with a particular participant to clarify something. For this reason the grounded theory approach works very well as a qualitative research model in almost any setting, such as schools, companies or even hospitals (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1998; Rallis & Rossman, 2001). Another advantage of qualitative research is that it is easily understood by a wide range of people, not all of whom have the statistical background necessary for making sense of quantitative research. In general there is a more user-friendly and common-sense appeal about qualitative research in comparison with quantitative. The disadvantage of qualitative studies is that they may tend to become overly abstract or ‘fuzzy’, with a lot of theorising and quoting, but few facts and figures to substantiate their findings (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Bland, 2003; Reinharz, 1992 a&b; Neuman, 1994; Hammersley, 1995). They lack the ability to summarise large amounts of information in succinct yet meaningful ways, as is the case with simple descriptive quantitative reporting. However, given the fluid nature of human consciousness, this inability to rigidify and quantify data is not necessarily a flaw of the methodology, but may rather been seen as being congruent with the phenomenon under study (Reinharz, 1992b; Bland, 2003; Rallis & Rossman, 2001). 2.3 Feminist research Although much has been written about feminist methodology, in fact this does not differ from the usual qualitative and quantitative techniques. What makes feminist research unique is not its choice of methods for data gathering and analysis, but rather its philosophical standpoint. This philosophical stance is reflected in the research question itself, and in the researcher’s commitment to transform problematic social relations rather than merely to study and report on them. Qualitative methodology is often preferred by feminist researchers, partly because of its ability to give a voice to the oppressed and partly because of its recursive and non-linear nature (Ackerly & True, 2010; Brayton, 1997; Maguire, 1987; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; Ragin, 1994; Reinharz, 1992 a&b; Bland, 2003; DeVault, 1990 & 1999; Ehrlich, 1995). Feminist research is concerned with examining and understanding the impact of power relations on human dynamics, with particular regard to power differentials between the genders. The usual methodologies can and must be used when carrying out feminist research, but in addition there must be a strong awareness and analysis of gender issues (Ackerly & True, 2010; Brayton, 1997; Maguire, 1987; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; Ragin, 1994; Reinharz, 1992 a&b; Bland, 2003; DeVault, 1990 & 1999; Ehrlich, 1995). When working with female research participants in particular, the researcher must be acutely sensitive towards issues which affect women (Ackerly & True, 2010; Brayton, 1997; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; DeVault, 1990 & 1999). In the current proposed research this is a crucial point, since the focus will be on gender and senior management roles in Catholic education. Much research has been done into gender differences, for example in management style, aggression, nurturance, social bonding and competition, and cultural factors that inhibit or accelerate the progress of women into senior roles (e.g. Bland, 2003; Iwanaga, 2005; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Plomin & Foch, 1981; International Labour Organisation, 1998; US General Accounting Office, 2001; Ehrlich, 1995). While some of these studies may link into the current proposed research via a literature review, they also serve to inform and sensitize the researcher about items to be included in the interview questionnaire. Another key aspect of feminist research is that it is recursive. Traditional research, especially of the quantitative type, is carried out in a linear progression from the stage of conceptualisation to that of data gathering and then data analysis, and finally the production of a research report. In feminist research the process is more likely to be recursive (i.e. to refer back to itself at intervals) and to cycle repeatedly through the various stages, so that the researcher may move from conceptualisation into data gathering and then back to conceptualisation, before moving into yet another round of interviews. Even while she is busy writing up the final report, the feminist researcher must remain open to the possibility that aspects of the theory or findings need to be reviewed (Ackerly & True, 2010; Brayton, 1997; Maguire, 1987; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; Harding, 1987; Reinharz, 1992 a&b, Bland, 2003; Lather, 1988; Oakley, 1981; DeVault, 1990 & 1999; Ehrlich, 1995). Feminist research also highlights the need for the researcher to reflect on the possible influences which she (or he) brings to bear on the research process (Ackerly & True, 2010; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; Harding, 1987; Reinharz, 1992 a&b; DeVault, 1990 & 1999; Ehrlich, 1995). Schön (1983) and Habermas (1988) also emphasise the importance of this type of self-reflection. It is not possible to eliminate this influence entirely and nor is this even desirable, since the creation of knowledge and meaning is a socially shared activity. But it is important for the researcher simply to be aware and to reflect on her work in this way. Schön (1983, p. 165) states that as researchers ‘frame the problem of the situation, they determine the features to which they will attend, the order they will attempt to impose on the situation, the directions in which they will try to change it.’ For example, the use of a semi-structured interview (interview questionnaire) means that the participants will be asked about issues which particularly interest the researcher. This will clearly affect the themes and categories which emerge in the final data analysis. 3. Methodology for the current research Although both of the qualitative and quantitative methods described in this paper rely on a survey with the use of a questionnaire, the two types are not mutually compatible or exchangeable (Eisner, 1991; Hammersley, 1995; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Ragin, 1994; Bland, 2003; Reinharz, 1992a). In other words the same questionnaire cannot be used in either a quantitative or qualitative way. Each questionnaire has to be designed with a specific methodology in mind and according to the principles of that methodology. If the methodology is quantitative, the questionnaire will usually be presented to participants as a self-report measure, with many items all of which will have preset answers to choose from. For example, an item might begin ‘How much do you agree with the following statement, on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)?’ The answers cannot be further elaborated on, and so the results are standardised rather than personalised (Kerlinger, 1986; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). In contrast, if the research is qualitative, the questionnaire usually remains with the interviewer and consists of a list of open-ended questions. An example might be ‘What do you perceive as some of the challenges of being a woman in a senior management role in this organisation?’ These questions are not answered by a standardised rating scale or by a yes/no answer, but will elicit in-depth and personalised responses (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; DeVault, 1990; Ehrlich, 1995; Bland, 2003). In conversation with colleagues, it has been suggested to the current author that the two approaches may be combined by devising a self-report questionnaire with numerous question items, each followed by a blank space into which a short prose answer can be written. These questionnaires would be filled in by participants in their own time, and collected by the researcher; the responses would then be scrutinised and coded into categories and sub-themes. However, this mixed method would not achieve the full potential of either the quantitative or the qualitative approach. It lacks statistical rigour, but also would not facilitate as much in-depth subjective data as can be gained in a face-to-face encounter. There seems to be no advantage in using a mixed methodology, and it is dismissed as an option for the proposed research. 3.1 Justifications for a qualitative approach The proposed research will investigate the question of gender and leadership in Catholic education. A qualitative research design appears to be the most appropriate choice for this type of study, as well as the most conventional. Practical justifications for this decision include the fact that it would be almost impossible to obtain the sheer numbers of research participants required for a quantitative study, or to give them all the same questionnaire at the same time (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; Habermas, 1988). The theoretical justification is that the research question calls for an open-ended enquiry, which is suited to grounded theory. The research design would therefore be exploratory and descriptive, rather than experimental or correlational as would be the case with a quantitative design. The time frame would be ongoing for the duration of the research process, instead of having a cross-sectional or longitudinal design as is the case with quantitative research (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994; Habermas, 1988). As with all grounded theory, new hypotheses may emerge as the study progresses and data is gathered. This also influences the choice of participants and types of questions asked. Such flexibility and recursiveness is lacking in quantitative methodology, but is necessary to meet the requirements of feminist research; this is important given the nature of the current proposed study (Ackerly & True, 2010; Brayton, 1997; Maguire, 1987; Hesse-Biber, 2007; Haggis, 1990; Ragin, 1994; Reinharz, 1992 a&b, Bland, 2003; DeVault, 1990; Ehrlich, 1995). The choice of methodology is also guided by the type (rather than number) of participants who may be asked to engage in the study. The participants need to be able to provide detailed data at deep levels of academic enquiry. This type of sample is referred to as purposive, which stands in contradistinction to the random or matched sampling of quantitative designs. In purposive sampling each participant is hand-picked for his or her ability to provide relevant data, whereas random sampling ensures that precisely this does not happen (Bland, 2003; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Habermas, 1988; Kerlinger, 1986; Neuman, 1994). The proposed study must include people in various positions in Catholic education; this calls for not only purposive sampling but also judgment sampling. That is, the researcher’s own judgment needs to be used when choosing the participants. As mentioned earlier, one participant may also identify other possible participants. These sample selection techniques are appropriate when the research aims not at exploring the representativeness or breadth of the sample (as is the case in quantitative research), but rather at exploring the depth and details of respondents’ insights (Ackerly & True, 2010; Reinharz, 1992a; Harding, 1987; Oakley, 1981; DeVault, 1990; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Strauss, 1967; Legewie & Schervier-Legewie, 2004; McLeod, 2001). In summary, a qualitative methodology will best enable the collection and analysis of data about women in senior leadership roles within Catholic education. It will also allow for the collection and analysis of contextual information, such as that obtained from reviewing policy instruments and illustrations of dynamics, or from observing shifts in policy direction and specific events (Mason, 1996; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Strauss, 1967; McLeod, 2001).. 3.2 Additional qualitative techniques Having decided that the qualitative methodology is most appropriate for use in the proposed research, there are additional techniques for data gathering which may be used. Three such techniques are vignettes, dialogism, and thick description (Bakhtin, 1981; Benson, Hinn & Lloyd, 2001; Klein & Doty, 1994; Rallis & Rothman, 2001). The possible use of such additional techniques should be explored, but the primary means of gathering data would remain the structured (survey) interview. 4. Ethical considerations Whether a quantitative or qualitative methodology is used in the proposed research, ethical considerations are not likely to be a barrier. The participants are adults capable of making their own decisions and they are free to choose whether or not to participate. They must be informed of this right and told that there are no rewards or punishments for either participating or not. The sensitive handling of any potentially traumatic material which may emerge during the interviews is a further responsibility for the researcher to consider. This is usually covered by giving the participant referral to a counsellor if at all necessary. In quantitative research it is possible to ensure both the confidentiality and anonymity of participants due to the standardised nature of the data and the fact that no one individual is reported on (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Neuman, 1994; Hammersley, 1995). But even with a qualitative design it is possible to ensure the confidentiality of participants by, for example, using fictitious names and not reporting any identifying characteristics such as the name of their organisation or the person’s age or job title. Any instances which are in question must be checked with the participant before being quoted in the final research; it may be the case that a participant feels comfortable about being publicly recognisable. At the end of the research, any promises which were made to participants in terms of showing them the final results must be fulfilled. 5. Conclusion This paper has examined the methods and methodological requirements of two types of survey research. The first is the quantitative questionnaire with forced-choice responses, which flattens people’s subjective experience into numerical values or categories and analyses these using statistical techniques. The second is the qualitative interview and/or focus group method, whereby in-depth subjective data is gained and later scrutinised for emergent themes and categories. The advantages and disadvantages of each methodology have been discussed with specific reference to the current proposed research. It was shown that for several reasons, ranging from practical feasibility to conceptual matters—including the need to honour the principles of feminist research when working with female participants—the qualitative approach will be more appropriate for the proposed study. It was also shown that a combination of the two approaches would not yield any especially useful or meaningful data but would actually compromise the quality of the data obtained, whether qualitative or quantitative. Therefore the choice should rather be to employ a strictly qualitative methodology. The final section of this paper dealt with additional points of interest and relevance to the planning of a qualitative study, such as the use of the vignette, dialogism and thick description in addition to the survey questionnaire. Nonetheless the questionnaire is the primary tool in this type of research. The questions put to participants during their interviews should be consistent with the researcher’s theoretical understanding of the most important issues to be addressed by the research question. References Ackerly B. & True, J. (2010) Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Benson, A.P., Hinn, D.M., & Lloyd, C. (volume eds.) (2001) In S. Kushner, R. Stake (series eds.) Vision of Quality: How Evaluators Define, Understand and Represent Program Quality (Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 7), Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bland, J., (2003) About Gender: Differences http://www.gender.org.uk/about/00_diffs.htm Accessed September 2010 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Brayton, J. (1997) ‘What makes Feminist Research Feminist? The Structure of Feminist Research within the Social Sciences.’ http://www.unb.ca/PAR-L/win/feminmethod.htm Accessed August 2010 DeVault, M. (1990). "Talking and Listening from Women's Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis". Social Problems. 37 (1): 96-116. DeVault, M.L. 1999. Liberating Method: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ehrlich, S. (1995). "Critical Linguistics as Feminist Methodology". In Changing Methods: Feminists Transforming Practice, edited by Sandra Burt and Lorraine Code, 45-73. Ontario: Broadview Press. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Habermas, J. (1988). On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans. S.W. Nicholsen and J.A. UK: Stark, Polity Press Haggis, J. (1990). "The Feminist Research Process". In Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, edited by Liz Stanley, 67-79. London: Routledge. Hammersley, M. (1995). The Politics of Social Research. London: Sage Harding, S. (1987). ‘Is there a Feminist Method?’ In Feminism and Methodology, ed. S. Harding, 1-14. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hardman, J. (1994). ‘Analysing and presenting qualitative data’ in N. Bennett; R. Glatter & R. Levacic (eds.) Improving Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman / Open University Hesse-Biber, S.N. (ed) (2007). Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. International Labour Organisation. Will the glass ceiling ever be broken? Women in Management: It’s still lonely at the top. World of Work No. 23, February 1998. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/23/glass.htm Accessed August 2010 Iwanaga, K. (2005). Women in Politics in Thailand. Working Paper No 14. Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies Lund University, Sweden. http://www.ace.lu.se/images/Syd_och_sydostasienstudier/working_papers/Iwanaga.pdf Accessed August 2010 Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed). USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers Kreeger, K.Y., (2002) Yes, Biologically Speaking, Sex Does Matter, The Scientist 16[1]:35, Jan. 7, 2002 (http://www.the-scientist.com Klein, J. T. & Doty, W. (1994) (Eds.). Interdisciplinary Studies Today. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Lather, P. (1988). "Feminist Perspective on Empowering Research Methodologies". Women’s Studies International Forum, 11 (6): 569-581. Lomax, P. (1994). ‘Action research for managing change’ in N. Bennett; R. Glatter and R. Levacic (eds.) Improving Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman / Open University Maccoby. E.E, Jacklin. C.N, (1974) The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B (1989) Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage McCall, R. (1990). Fundamental Statistics for Behavioral Sciences (5th ed). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage Miller, C. & Treitel, C. (1991). Feminist Research Methods: An annotated bibliography. New York: Greenwood Press Neuman, W.L. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing Women: a contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (ed.) Doing Feminist Research London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Plomin, R. & Foch, T.T (1981) ‘Sex Differences and Individual Differences’ Child Development 52(1) p. 383-385 Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. California: Pine Forge Press. Rallis, G.B. & Rossman, S.F. (2001), ‘Communicating quality and qualities: The role of the evaluator as critical friend’ In S. Kushner, R. Stake (series eds.) Vision of Quality: How Evaluators Define, Understand and Represent Program Quality (Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 7), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.107-120 Reinharz, S. (1992a). Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Reinharz, S. (1992b) Social Research Methods: Feminist Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioral Research (2nd ed). New York: McGraw Hill Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action, London: Temple Smith. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. US General Accounting Office: Report to Congressional Requesters. Women in Management; an analysis of selected data from the current population survey. October 2001. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02156.pdf Accessed September 2010 Whitehead, J. (1993) The Growth of Educational Knowledge. Bournemouth: Hyde Publications Wolf, D.L. (1996). ‘Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork’. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, ed. D.L. Wolf, 1-55. Colorado: Westview Press. Wragg, E.C. (1994). ‘Conducting ad analysing interviews’ In N. Bennett; R. Glatter and R. Levacic (eds.) Improving Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman / Open University Read More