Social Research

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research, Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK

p.29 The foundations of research

• Ontology
• Epistemology
• Methodology
• Designs
• Instruments

p. 30 Ontology - the nature of reality ; What is the nature of reality? Is it objective (out there) constructed, subjective? What does research focus on?

Epistemology - The nature of knowledge. How do we know what we know? What is the way in which reality is known to us? What kind of knowledge is research looking for?

Methodology - the nature of research design and methods. How do we gain knowledge about the world? How is research constructed and conducted?

Research - the execution of research designs.

p. 31 Methodology - quantitative qualitative

Steps of the research design p. 105

• Topic and methodology
• Methodological construction of the topic
• sampling procedures
• data collection
• data analysis and interpretation
• reporting

Flexible qualitative designs p. 113

Uses the six steps above but allows freedom of unlimited movement between the steps of data collection and data analysis in both directions, using new information to fine-tune concepts, sampling and analysis. Qualitative inquiry does not employ a one-way research process. Is not based on objectivity; it follows strictly professional standards.

p. 117-119 Grounded theory is sued as an example of flexible qualitative design

PART IV DATA ANALYSIS

15 Qualitative Analysis

p. 346 the main types of qualitative analysis:

• iterative qualitative analysis (Grounded Theory and Analytic Induction)
• Fixed qualitative analysis
• Subjectivist qualitative analysis

Resarch Design in Social Research

de Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research, Sage Publication's: London, UK.

p. 1 Social researchers ask two fundamental types of research questions:

1. What is going on (descriptive research)?
2. Why its is going on (explanatory research)?

Theory building

p. 5 attempts to answer the 'why' questions in social science are theories. Theory building is a process in which research begins with observations and uses inductive reasoning to derive a theory from these observations.

Theory testing

p.6 theory testing begins with a theory and uses theory to guide which observations to make

Research design

p.10 looks at four research design types:

• experiment
• case study
• longitudinal study
• cross-sectional design

Methods of data collection (p.10)

• questionnaire
• interview (structured or loose)
• observation
• analysis of documents
• unobtrusive methods

p.10 case studies (qualitative research) adopt an interpretive approach to data, studies 'things' within their context and considers the subjective meanings that people bring to their situation.

PART V - CASE STUDY DESIGNS

Case studies and theory: explanatory or descriptive

p. 220 holistic and embedded units of analysis

e.g school = holistic. The school comprises a range of constituent elements ( embedded units) such as executive, teachers, students, parents etc.

p. 221 explanatory case studies

p. 223 Theory building case studies

using a theory building approach to case studies we select cases to help develop and refine the propositions and develop a theory that fists the cases we study.

In the theory building approaches we begin only with a question and perhaps a basic proposition, look at real cases, and end up with a more specific theory or set of propositions as a result of examining actual cases.

p. 226 Single or multiple cases?

a single case design will normally be less compelling than multiple case designs.

p. 227 Parallel or sequential?

parallel - case studies done at once

p. 227 retrospective or prospective

p. 228 Types of case study designs

The elements are:

• descriptive or explanatory
• theory testing or theory building
• single or multiple case
• holistic or embedded units of analysis
• parallel or sequential case studies
• retrospective or prospective

15 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS (pp. 249-266)

p. 249 Methods for analysing case studies are less systematically developed (than for) other types of research design.

Statistical analysis

Meaning and context p. 250

Build subjective data about subjective meaning if behaviour for participants into the analysis of the case.

Analysis in descriptive case studies

Explanatory case studies p. 253

Theory testing analysis

• pattern matching
• time series analysis

Analysis for theory building: analytic induction p. 263

A strategy of analysis that directs the investigator to formulate generalisations that apply to all instances of the problem (generalisations that apply to all cases)

The Research Process

Bouma, G.D and Ling, R. (2004). The Research Process (5th Ed.), Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK

p.5 discusses research as 'a way of knowing'

p.8 Outlines the research process in three steps:

1. Essential first steps
2. Data collection
3. Analysis and interpretation

Phase 1: essential first steps p.9

1. Select, narrow, and formulate the question to be studied
2. Select research design
3. Design and devise measures for variables
4. Set up tables for analysis
5. Select a sample

Theory and Data p.18

Theory - a guess about the way things are (p.19)

Data - facts produced by research (p. 20)

(NOTE: I find the presentation quite 'quantitative' in nature (even though a qualitative example is used).

Selecting a research design (Ch 6 pp. 86-111)

Describes:

• Case study
• longitudinal study
• comparison study
• longitudinal comparison study
• experiment

Case study (p.89)

Can answer the question "what is going on"? (or "what is happening"? P. 109). Focus on a single case or entity (such as a group).

Chapter 10: Doing Qualitative Research pp. 165-187)

p. 167 "provides impressions and feelings about a particular situation".

Data collection (pp. 172 - 181)

• observation
• Data recording
• In-depth interviewing
• Life narratives
• Focus groups
• Textual material

Assignment 1

Ideas about paradigms for your proposal

Due: 27 April, 20%, 2,500 words
.........................................................................................................................

How do paradigms influence design?

There used to be an old saying: 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. The new turn is 'Beauty is in the eye of the computer'. According to Dasey (2006:3) two Sydney researchers have created computer software that can distinguish a beautiful female face from a less attractive one.

I wonder what research paradigm these researchers espouse?

What is a paradigm?
According to Tsamis (1997-2004) the word 'paradigm' derives from the Greek word 'paradhma' (paradigma) meaning a predominant worldview. 'Paradigm' was introduced into science and philosophy by Thomas Kuhn in his landmark book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962). Essentially, in Tsamis' view, a paradigm is simply the predominant worldview in the realm of human thought.

There are many other definitions of the word paradigm. Some other definitions I find helpful are:

• a model of a reality from a specific collective awareness' viewpoint, including all root assumption parameters which define that reality


• coherent set of beliefs about cause-effect relationships within a given class of context


• an inter-related set of assumptions, values and practices that defines an organisations view of itself and the environment in which it operates.


• a conceptual model that is used to communicate descriptions of the component parts of a theory, a policy, a belief system or a worldview and how they interact and are interrelated


• model that links the elements of a theory together and shows, where possible, the nature of the relationships.

Inquiry paradigms

For the context of a research project there is a myriad of recognised inquiry (research) paradigms that have favour within the research community. Guba and Lincoln (2005:191-215) provide a useful consideration of the controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences relating to research paradigms. This paper builds on their earlier paper (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. They identified three main influences that paradigms have on design:

• Ontology


• Epistemology, and


• Methodology

In addition, they identified ten practical influences of paradigms: aim; nature of knowledge; knowledge accumulation; goodness or quality criteria; values; ethics; voice; training; accommodation and hegemony.

Originally, Guba and Lincoln (2005:193) identified four discernible paradigms. They termed these:

• Positivism


• PostPositivism


• Critical Theory et al., and


• Constructivism

Herron and Reason (1997), critique Guba and Lincoln's (1994) outline of competing paradigms and argue for a participatory worldview that extends beyond constructivism to account for experiential knowing. Subsequently, Guba and Lincoln (2005) have accepted the validity of the participatory paradigm. They also constricted the issues that influence (or are influenced) by particular paradigms to seven (dropping aim; voice, accommodation and hegemony from their original list - but adding 'inquirer posture'). In addition, in their 2005 version, Guba and Lincoln include a new table 'Critical Issues of Time' that includes:

• Axiology


• Accommodation and commensurability


• Action


• Control


• Relationship to foundation of truth and knowledge.


• Extended consideration of validity (goodness criteria)


• Voice, reflexivity, postmodern textual representations, and


• (Un-named) comment that 'textual representation practices may be problematic - i.e., "fiction formulas" or unexamined "regimes of truth".

Guba and Lincoln (2005:197) suggest that they now believe that 'axiology' should be grouped with 'basic beliefs'. I feel that they are correct, and that in fact the values, value judgement, ethics and aesthetics we, as researchers, bring to the table underpin teh ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies we are most comfortable with. I would go so far as to suggest the primacy of axiology on research design.

Where am I coming from (and going to)?

The research paradigm I most strongly identify with is Herron and Reason's (1997) Participatory Inquiry. The underlying 'value proposition' that a practical knowing about how to flourish with a balance of autonomy, cooperation, and hierarchy within a school culture is an intrinsically valuable end in itself (and one that I aspire to).

The knowledge domain (ontology) involved in a particiaptory paradigm is c0-created: in my case between myself and my co-creators (school colleagues) is likley to be dialectical in nature, coursing between collaborative subjective-objective realities.

The epistemology behind my research endeavours will be based on critical subjectivity and anchored in four ways of knowing (experiential, presentational, propositional and practical) with primacy of the practical.

The methodoloy employed will be based on political participation in a collaborative action inquiry using language grounded in shared experiential context.

Design and methodology

Design is generally considered to be an overall plan, scheme or outline . It is typically a 'simplistic' (lacking fine detail) statement, picture or plan of a desired outcome.

In many human endeavours, there are specific approaches to design. In architecture, plans and perspectives can be used; for a movie you use a storyboard; for a novel; chapter outlines and storyline; for production items, prototypes or visual schematics can be utilised.

What is the appropriate form of design for an EdD? What design elements should be considered?

One design element of Action Research (as well as Particiaptory Action Research) is the concept of the 'Action Research Cycle' (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000:596)

The 'planning' involved in ititiating the research cycle could consist (for instance) of a review of Mode 1 literature dealing with the topic cast for consideration. In its purest form, a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project could be initiated with a single question (with app;ropriate sub-questions) for consideration by the 'action circle' (a group of collaboratively-minded workplace-based practitioners). In the spirit of co-created political participation the members of the 'action circle' may see fit to progress and develop the inquiry. Alternatively, a PAR project may, by negotiation and agreement amongst the co-researchers move in a different direction.

A major difference between a PAR project and tradition Mode 1 research is that validation and 'truthing' is integral, ongoing and cyclical (unlike Mode 1 where truthing typically only starts when a proposition is propounded in the form of a reserach report).

References

Participatory Action Research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000)

I feel that these authors start with a possible critical perspective that the only valid research is research that is about 'social improvement' (although they may only raise this issues to explore and confront it - time will tell). They identify a number of AR traditions:

• Participatory Research
• Critical Action Research
• Classroom Action Research
• Action Learning
• Action Science
• Soft Systems Approaches
• Industrial Action Research

I note however that they do not mention 'Collaborative Action Research' (CAR) as a separate tradition (although they do refer to CAR later (p.272).

K&T argue that PAR and CAR are emancipatory, responding to traditional research practices taht were seen as normalising or domesticating (representing 'central agency' and often removed from local concerns and interests). As such, PAR & CAR can be deemed 'political'.

K&T provide insight into five tradtions of 'practice':

1. individual behaviour
2. social behavior
3. intentions, meanings and values
4. language, discourse and tradions,
5. change and evolution

K&T poist that a dialectical appraoch is one where opposing dichotomies are blended and transcended: individual-social and objective-subjective :- does this imply some form of blended epistemology?

I feel that K&T Reflexive-dialetical position (5): practice as Reflexive, to be studies dialectically clearly positions PAR & CAR:

The fifth view of practice understands that it is "political". It understands that to study practice is to change it, that the process of studying it is also "political," and that its own standpoint is liable to change through the process of action-that it is a process of enlightenment about the standpoint from which one studies practice as well as about the practice itself.

This view of practice challenges the dichotomies or dualisms that separate the first four views from one another: the dualisms df the individual versus the social and the objective versus the subjective. It attempts to see each of these dimensions not in tetms of polar opposites, but in terms of the mutuality and relationship between these different aspects of things. Thus it sees the individual and the social, and the objective and the subjective.

The significance of the word 'connections' deserves special notice:

The study of a practice as complex as the practice of education is a study of connections-of many different kinds of communicative, productive, and organizational relationships among people in socially, historically, and discursively constituted media of language (discourse), work, . and power-all of which must be understood dynamically and relationally. And we should recognize that there are research approaches that aim to explore these connections and relationships by participating in them and, through changing the forms in which people participate in them, to change the practice, the way it is understood, and the situations in which the practice is conducted. At its best, such a research tradition aims to help people understand themselves both as "objective" forces impinging on others and as subjects who have intentions and commitments they share with others, and both as people who act in ways framed by discourses formed beyond anyone of us individually and as people who make meaning for ourselves in communication with the others alongside whom we stand, and whose fates-one way or another-we share.

Methods and Techniques

Knowledge-Constitutive Interests

The Action Research Spiral

Participatory action research is:

1. a social process
2. participatory
3. practical and collaborative
4. emancipatory
5. critical
6. recursive (reflexive, dialetical)
7. transcends both theory and practice

Grundy (1987)

Amongst other things, Grundy introduces Habermas' three cognitive INTERESTS:

1. Technical
2. Practical, and
3. Emancipatory

This is reminiscent, to me at least of Flyvbjerg’s (2001) taxonomy of knowledge (PDED791 Assignment 2) as comprising:

1. Techne (pragmatic knowledge),
2. Episteme (theoretical knowledge), and
3. Phronesis (practical and context-dependent deliberation about values).

It is also reminiscent of the often cited three 'learning domains' of:

1. Psychomotor,
2. Cognitive, and
3. Affective (including the axiological) domains )

Gundy (1987) equates Habermas' interests to:

1. Empirical-analytic
2. Historical-hermeneutic (interpretive), and
3. Critical

I find Habermas' concept of 'Emancipatory Interest' quite intriguing. At first glance it appears self-serving as 'pure-interest'. For Habermas emancipation meant 'independence from all that is outside the individual" a state of autonomy rather than libertinism. However, Grundy argues (as I suspect Foucault might agree) that whilst emancipation must ultimately be an individual experience, if it is to have any reality, it is not simply an individual matter because of the interactive nature of human society. This seems to be arguing for a co-created reality as the appropriate setting for knowledge.

When I read that emancipatory cognitive interest could be defined as "a fundamental interest in emancipation and empowerment to engage in autonomous action arising out of authentic, critical insights into the social construction of human society" I feel I am dealing with a cosnturctivist realoity. I owuld be more comfortable with a definition along the lines "a fundamental interest in emancipation and empowerment to engage in collaborative action arising out of authentic, critical insights into the social construction of human society" that to me is the essence of a participatory worldview.

Young (2000)

More Type 1 discourse. As he says "it is legitimate to ask whether all this esoteric disucssion about knowledge matters".