Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between what may
be classified under ‘research methodology’ and ‘research methods’
Denscombe (2003) uses the terms ‘strategies’ for
methodologies and lists, under these, the following:
Methodologies
•
Surveys
•
Case studies
•
Internet research
•
Experiments
•
Action research
•
Ethnography
•
Phenomenology
•
Grounded theory
NB: some of the above may be classified as research methods
as well
Source: Denscombe, M., (2003), The good research guide,
Open University Press
Research methods
•
Under research methods the following are listed:
•
Questionnaires
•
Interviews
•
Observation and
•
documents
Case Studies
•
A case study is a very detailed research enquiry
into a single example (of a social process, organisation or collectivity) seen
in its own right and as a holistic entity.
•
The single social unit under study in a case
study is likely to be located in a particular geographical location at a
particular time.
•
The unit would normally have clear,
distinguishable boundaries.
•
A case study typically focuses on one
unit/organisation, etc. and does not
compare more than one unit. That is, it throws a spotlight on one specific
instance.
•
Although case studies focus on examples that are
typical of a particular category of entity exhibiting certain attributes, the
aim of the study is not to generalise from the particular to the general.
•
Case studies are usually used to make a specific
point or to give an in-depth account of a particular case example
•
Other characteristics of case studies are:
•
Limited in scope
•
Short in duration
•
Focused
•
Useful for exploring theories and concepts in
their infancy – i.e. fresh insights
•
Although a case study cannot prove a theory, it
can disprove one
•
Usually focuses on relationships and processes
•
Occur in the natural settings of the issue being
studied
•
Lends itself to the use multiple methods and
multiple sources
•
Yin (1991) identifies 3 types of case study.
These are:
•
The ‘critical case’ – aimed at challenging a
hypothesis or theory
•
The unique case – either typical or atypical
•
The revelatory case – gives fresh access to a
phenomenon, or generates new ideas. Although traditionally associated with
qualitative research approaches, case studies could be done using quantitative
approaches, too
Selecting a case to study
The case may be based on:
•
A typical instance
•
Extreme instance
•
Test-site for theory
•
Least likely instance
•
Pragmatism – convenience
•
Intrinsically interesting
•
Commissioned study
•
Unique opportunity
In reporting the results of a case study the researcher
needs to give adequate information about the rest of the class of cases to
which the researched case belongs. This will aid the reader in interpreting the
results, especially with respect to the degree to which they may be generalised.
Advantages of Case study approach
•
Due to the focused nature of this approach the
researcher can delve into the subtleties and intricacies of the case
•
Allows for multiple methods to be used to
capture the complexity of issues under study
•
Allows uses of multiple sources of data
•
Particularly useful where the researcher is not
controlling events
•
Fits small scale research (cost)
•
Both theory-generating and theory-testing
approaches may use the case study approach
Disadvantages
•
Challenged as to the credibility of
generalisations made from findings
•
(Unwarranted) accusation that it produces ‘soft
data’ and descriptive accounts
•
Difficult to pin down the boundaries of the
case, hence resources needed
•
Negotiating access to sites, documents, people
etc could be problematic
•
The problem of reflexivity – it is hard for the
researcher not to affect the very case under study by his or her presence on
the case
Focus Group Research
•
Focus groups are a form of group interview in
which the researcher (usually called the Facilitator or the Moderator) guides
the research group through semi-structured and in-depth interviews/discussion
•
Some researchers use the terms group interviews,
group discussion and focus groups interchangeably
•
Usually, the discussion centres around (is
focused on) a selected item
•
This could be a product, a particular pattern of
work, a new policy, intended structural changes to work etc
•
Selection of participants (i.e. group members)
should be done carefully to include a broad range of individuals who have
something to contribute, and if possible have a balance of power
•
The size of the group matters but may usually
fall between 6 and 12, with 8 being an average figure
•
This is one method of research in which the
facilitator’s skills of group interviewing is of utmost importance. This is
reflected in…
- The way the topic
of discussion is introduced
- How powerful
individuals are prevented from dominating the discussion
- How quieter
individuals are encouraged to voice their views
- When breaks (if
any) are taken
- Playing the
‘devil’s advocate’ when required
- Keeping the
discussion to time
- Ensuring that all
predetermined items are covered while allowing scope for new ones to emerge
•
Focus groups can be conducted within a
deductive (quantitative) paradigm and
methodology, but is usually used in inductivist (Qualitative research) – e.g. participants' feelings,
opinions etc are of importance here
•
There may be issues on how data is recorded
(audio, video, etc). This must be determined before the start of the research
and agreed with participants
•
Coding of responses may be a problem
•
Care must be taken to ensure that as far as
possible, participants take part of their own volition
•
Some authors advise that participants should not
know each other but in an organisational setting, this may prove difficult, if
not impossible
•
Location and timing of the focus group
meeting(s) should be selected carefully
•
Issues of trust are of great importance in focus
group research. As opinions are voiced in the presence of others the
facilitator must obtain agreement from participants not to discuss others’
contributions outside the group – except where participants indicate that they
would not mind if this was done
Grounded Theory
•
Linked with the work of Glaser, Strauss and
Corbyn
•
The ethos of grounded theory may be summarised
by the following quotation by Strauss and Corbyn (1998.12)):
“The researcher
begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data.
Theory derived from putting together a series of concepts based on experience
or solely through speculation (how one thinks things ought to work). Grounded
theories , because they are meaningful, guide to action” (Strauss and Corbyn
Source: Strauss, A., and Corbyn, J (1998) Basics of
Qualitative Research (2rd Ed.) London, Sage
•
Grounded Theory uses both inductive and
deductive approaches
•
It is the deductive aspects of the method that
differentiates it from other inductive methods
-Emerging
theories are identified,
categorised and coded
-These are then tested for pattern
consistency, towards either verification or falsification
- The researcher then repeats the
validation process until they are satisfied that a
theoretical statement reflecting the evidence, can be
made
The emphasis in grounded theory is on building theory rather
than testing pre-conceived theories
•
Researchers using grounded theory need to undergo
training in the method – especially with respect to sampling (of people and
events) and coding of data
•
Some
specific techniques in grounded theory are:
i)
Open sampling
ii)
Relational and variational sampling
iii)
Discriminate sampling …linked with
a) Open
coding
b)
Axial coding and
c)
Selective coding
No comments:
Post a Comment