RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

12.01.2015 Views

PLANNING NATURALISTIC RESEARCH 183 and fitness for purpose. It is not to say that ‘anything goes’ but ‘use what is appropriate’ is sound advice. Mason (2002: 33–4) advocates the integration of methods, for several reasons: to explore different elements or parts of a phenomenon, ensuring that the researcher knows how they interrelate to answer different research questions to answer the same research question but in different ways and from different perspectives to give greater or lesser depth and breadth to analysis to triangulate (corroborate) by seeking different data about the same phenomenon. Mason (2002: 35) argues that integration can take many forms. She suggests that it is necessary for researchers to consider whether the data are to complement each other, to be combined, grouped and aggregated, and to contribute to an overall picture. She also argues that it is important for the data to complement each other ontologically, to be ontologically consistent, i.e. whether they are ‘based on similar, complementary or comparable assumptions about the nature of social entities and phenomena’. Added to this Mason (2002: 36) suggests that integration must be in an epistemological sense, i.e. where the data emanate from the same, or at least complementary, epistemologies, whether they are based on ‘similar, complementary or comparable assumptions about what can legitimately constitute knowledge of evidence’. Finally Mason (2002: 36) argues that integration must occur at the level of explanation. By this she means that the data from different courses and methods must be able to be combined into a coherent, convincing and relevant explanation and argument. Stage 8: Data collection outside the field In order to make comparisons and to suggest explanations for phenomena, researchers might find it useful to go beyond the confines of the groups in which they occur. That this is a thorny issue is indicated in the following example. Two students are arguing very violently and physically in a school. At one level it is simply a fight between two people. However, this is a common occurrence between these two students as they are neighbours outside school and they don’t enjoy positive amicable relations as their families are frequently feuding. The two households have been placed next door to each other by the local authority because if has taken a decision to keep together families who are very poor at paying for local housing rent (i.e. a ‘sink’ estate). The local authority has taken this decision because of a government policy to keep together disadvantaged groups so that targeted action and interventions can be more effective, thus meeting the needs of whole communities as well as individuals. The issue here is: how far out of a micro-situation does the researcher need to go to understand that micro-situation This is an imprecise matter but it is not insignificant in educational research: for example, it underpinned: (a) the celebrated work by Bowles and Gintis (1976) on schooling in capitalist America, in which the authors suggested that the hidden curricula of schools were preparing students for differential occupational futures that perpetuated an inegalitarian capitalist system, (b) research on the self-fulfilling prophecy (Hurn 1978), (c) work by Pollard (1985: 110) on the social world of the primary school, where everyday interactions in school were preparing students for the individualism, competition, achievement orientation, hierarchies and self-reliance that characterize mass private consumption in wider society, (d) Delamont’s (1981) advocacy that educationists should study similar but different institutions to schools (e.g. hospitals and other ‘total’ institutions) in order to make the familiar strange (see also Erickson 1973). Stage 9: Data analysis Although we devote two chapters specifically to qualitative data analysis later in this book (Chapters 22 and 23), there are some preliminary remarks that we make here, by way of fidelity to the eleven-stage process of qualitative research outlined earlier in the chapter. Data analysis involves organizing, accounting for, and Chapter 7

184 NATURALISTIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH explaining the data; in short, making sense of data in terms of participants’ definitions of the situation, noting patterns, themes, categories and regularities. Typically in qualitative research, data analysis commences during the data collection process. There are several reasons for this, and these are discussed below. At a practical level, qualitative research rapidly amasses huge amounts of data, and early analysis reduces the problem of data overload by selecting out significant features for future focus. Miles and Huberman (1984) suggest that careful data display is an important element of data reduction and selection. ‘Progressive focusing’, according to Parlett and Hamilton (1976), starts with the researcher taking a wide-angle lens to gather data, and then, by sifting, sorting, reviewing and reflecting on them, the salient features of the situation emerge. These are then used as the agenda for subsequent focusing. The process is like funnelling from the wide to the narrow. At a theoretical level a major feature of qualitative research is that analysis commences early on in the data collection process so that theory generation can be undertaken (LeCompte and Preissle 1993: 238). LeCompte and Preissle (1993: 237–53) advise that researchers should set out the main outlines of the phenomena that are under investigation. They then should assemble chunks or groups of data, putting them together to make a coherent whole (e.g. through writing summaries of what has been found). Then they should painstakingly take apart their field notes, matching, contrasting, aggregating, comparing and ordering notes made. The intention is to move from description to explanation and theory generation. For clarity, the process of data analysis can be portrayed in a sequence of seven steps which are set out here and addressed in subsequent pages. Step 1: Establish units of analysis of the data, indicating how these units are similar to and different from each other Step 2: Create a ‘domain analysis’ Step 3: Establish relationships and linkages between the domains Step 4: Making speculative inferences Step 5: Summarizing Step 6: Seeking negative and discrepant cases Step 7: Theory generation Step 1: Establish units of analysis of the data, indicating how these units are similar to and different from each other. The criterion here is that each unit of analysis (category – conceptual, actual, classification element, cluster, issue) should be as discrete as possible while retaining fidelity to the integrity of the whole, i.e. that each unit must be a fair rather than a distorted representation of the context and other data. The creation of units of analysis can be done by ascribing codes to the data (Miles and Huberman 1984). This is akin to the process of ‘unitizing’ (Lincoln and Guba 1985: 203). Step 2: Create a ‘domain analysis’. A domain analysis involves grouping together items and units into related clusters, themes and patterns, a domain being a category which contains several other categories. We address domain analysis in more detail in Chapter 23. Step 3: Establish relationships and linkages between the domains. This process ensures that the data, their richness and ‘contextgroundedness’ are retained. Linkages can be found by identifying confirming cases, by seeking ‘underlying associations’ (LeCompte and Preissle 1993: 246) and connections between data subsets. Step 4: Making speculative inferences. This is an important stage, for it moves the research from description to inference. It requires the researcher, on the basis of the evidence, to posit some explanations for the situation, some key elements and possibly even their causes. It is the process of hypothesis generation or the setting of working hypotheses that feeds into theory generation. Step 5: Summarizing. This involves the researcher in writing a preliminary summary of the main features, key issues, key concepts, constructs and ideas encountered so far in the

PLANNING NATURALISTIC <strong>RESEARCH</strong> 183<br />

and fitness for purpose. It is not to say that<br />

‘anything goes’ but ‘use what is appropriate’ is<br />

sound advice. Mason (2002: 33–4) advocates the<br />

integration of methods, for several reasons:<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

to explore different elements or parts of a<br />

phenomenon, ensuring that the researcher<br />

knows how they interrelate<br />

to answer different research questions<br />

to answer the same research question but in<br />

different ways and from different perspectives<br />

to give greater or lesser depth and breadth to<br />

analysis<br />

to triangulate (corroborate) by seeking<br />

different data about the same phenomenon.<br />

Mason (2002: 35) argues that integration can<br />

take many forms. She suggests that it is necessary<br />

for researchers to consider whether the data are<br />

to complement each other, to be combined,<br />

grouped and aggregated, and to contribute to<br />

an overall picture. She also argues that it is<br />

important for the data to complement each other<br />

ontologically, to be ontologically consistent, i.e.<br />

whether they are ‘based on similar, complementary<br />

or comparable assumptions about the nature of<br />

social entities and phenomena’. Added to this<br />

Mason (2002: 36) suggests that integration must<br />

be in an epistemological sense, i.e. where the data<br />

emanate from the same, or at least complementary,<br />

epistemologies, whether they are based on ‘similar,<br />

complementary or comparable assumptions about<br />

what can legitimately constitute knowledge of<br />

evidence’. Finally Mason (2002: 36) argues<br />

that integration must occur at the level of<br />

explanation. By this she means that the data from<br />

different courses and methods must be able to<br />

be combined into a coherent, convincing and<br />

relevant explanation and argument.<br />

Stage 8: Data collection outside the field<br />

In order to make comparisons and to suggest<br />

explanations for phenomena, researchers might<br />

find it useful to go beyond the confines of the<br />

groups in which they occur. That this is a thorny<br />

issue is indicated in the following example. Two<br />

students are arguing very violently and physically<br />

in a school. At one level it is simply a fight<br />

between two people. However, this is a common<br />

occurrence between these two students as they<br />

are neighbours outside school and they don’t<br />

enjoy positive amicable relations as their families<br />

are frequently feuding. The two households have<br />

been placed next door to each other by the local<br />

authority because if has taken a decision to keep<br />

together families who are very poor at paying<br />

for local housing rent (i.e. a ‘sink’ estate). The<br />

local authority has taken this decision because of a<br />

government policy to keep together disadvantaged<br />

groups so that targeted action and interventions<br />

can be more effective, thus meeting the needs of<br />

whole communities as well as individuals.<br />

The issue here is: how far out of a micro-situation<br />

does the researcher need to go to understand<br />

that micro-situation This is an imprecise matter<br />

but it is not insignificant in educational research:<br />

for example, it underpinned: (a) the celebrated<br />

work by Bowles and Gintis (1976) on schooling in<br />

capitalist America, in which the authors suggested<br />

that the hidden curricula of schools were preparing<br />

students for differential occupational futures that<br />

perpetuated an inegalitarian capitalist system,<br />

(b) research on the self-fulfilling prophecy (Hurn<br />

1978), (c) work by Pollard (1985: 110) on the<br />

social world of the primary school, where everyday<br />

interactions in school were preparing students<br />

for the individualism, competition, achievement<br />

orientation, hierarchies and self-reliance that<br />

characterize mass private consumption in wider<br />

society, (d) Delamont’s (1981) advocacy that<br />

educationists should study similar but different<br />

institutions to schools (e.g. hospitals and other<br />

‘total’ institutions) in order to make the familiar<br />

strange (see also Erickson 1973).<br />

Stage 9: Data analysis<br />

Although we devote two chapters specifically<br />

to qualitative data analysis later in this bo<strong>ok</strong><br />

(Chapters 22 and 23), there are some preliminary<br />

remarks that we make here, by way of<br />

fidelity to the eleven-stage process of qualitative<br />

research outlined earlier in the chapter. Data<br />

analysis involves organizing, accounting for, and<br />

Chapter 7

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!