Types of Research: Some Useful Definitions [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Types of Research Some useful definitions If you take a quick look at some of the more popular textbooks on how to do research, particularly research in the human sciences, you will usually find an attempt to categorise research into different broad types and groupings. Martyn Denscombe, in his introduction to the basics of social research, The Good Research Guide, classifies research according to its appropriateness (a) for particular kinds of investigation and (b) for addressing particular kinds of theoretical or practical problem. He describes good research in terms of 'fitness for purpose'. He then outlines the following types of strategic approach to research: Surveys Surveys are also known as mapping exercises which provide an empirical snapshot of how things are at the specific time at which the data were collected. The emphasis is on breadth of coverage and representativeness of the population being studied in order to give credibility to any generalisations made on the basis of the research Case studies Case-studies focus on one or a very limited number of instances or examples of a particular phenomenon in order to construct an in-depth account of what happens or happened during that instance. The emphasis here is on depth rather than breadth of study. But there is also an emphasis on studying things as they naturally occur rather than manipulating the situation by introducing specific changes and controlling certain variables, as in an experiment. Internet research Internet research is used by some social researchers because it is a fast and relatively inexpensive way of gaining access to a wider range of sources of data than most conventional research approaches could manage. This can include not only internet searches for existing databases and sources but also using the internet to collect new data through e-mail and web-based enquiries and questionnaires. The potential advantages have to be weighed against the potential problems: biased samples, lack of quality control, difficulties in checking the provenance and trustworthiness of some of the data available on the net, ethical issues associated with plagiarism, guaranteeing confidentiality to providers of data, ensuring that those who contribute data have a clear understanding of what your research is about, etc Experiments Experiments are where an artificial situation is created so that the multiple causes of a particular phenomenon can be controlled by excluding some potential influences, standardising others and allowing others to vary in order to identify the causes of an observed change. The emphasis here is on observation and measurement of changes and effects, identifying the causal factors and controlling the factors which might otherwise interfere in the identification of the cause and effect chain. Action research

Action research is where practitioners in their workplace, whether they be teachers, lecturers, social workers, nurses, doctors, public health staff, managers, etc., engage in research in order (a) to improve their understanding of their practice and (b) to change or improve their practice in a systematic way. The key elements here are practitioners as researchers, researching their own practice and introducing and evaluating changes in that practice in a cyclical process of intervention (or action), evaluation of its impact, revisions to the intervention, further evaluation, further revisions, and so on until the practitioner is satisfied with the improvements that have been introduced. Ethnography Ethnography is an approach to research which was developed initially by anthropologists but is also increasingly used by other social researchers as well. It relies heavily on participant observation by researchers who are seeking to be partially or wholly integrated into the group, community or social situation which they are observing. The emphasis here is on trying to understand why people do what they do or perceive things and situations in the ways that they do through sharing their experiences to some extent. Phenomenology Phenomenology focuses on how people experience facets of their everyday lives and try to make sense of them. It requires detailed description of these experiences from the point of view of those who are living through them; it is less concerned with collecting data to enable the researcher to interpret what is happening and more concerned with describing how the events get interpreted by those who are directly involved. To do this the researcher needs to approach the situation they are researching without predispositions based on their own experience and on existing theories about the phenomenon being studied. As an approach it can be particularly useful in trying to understand how people cope with particular kinds of life experience: being a patient, being a student teacher, being a parent caring for a child on the autistic spectrum, being a trainee, being a student, etc. Grounded theory Rather than do research to 'test' existing theories the researcher here starts out with an open (but informed) mind. This is akin to what is sometimes called exploratory research. But the main aim of grounded theory is to analyse the data in order to generate theories where the hypotheses, research questions and key concepts emerge from the analysis of the data not the other way round. It shares some common ground with ethnography and phenomenology in that it tends to be used in small-scale social settings such as institutions, classrooms, workplaces, offices, etc. in order to describe and understand how people perceive and interpret the situation they find themselves in and act within it. A number of other textbooks on research design have come up with similar typologies. For example, compare Denscombe's list with the classification proposed by Judith Bell, who omits phenomenology and grounded theory but adds narrative inquiry, which involves the researcher in collecting people's stories about particular experiences and concerns through conversations in which these people (the subjects of the research) take the lead in the structuring of those conversations. Robson's classification (1997) is shorter than those proposed by Denscombe and Bell but does include evaluation, research which assesses the impact and effectiveness of an innovation, intervention, policy, practice or service. The point that these authors stress is that these approaches to research are strategic. They are not research methods. A survey is a strategy for investigating some aspect of social behaviour or living. It could use a number of different research methods such as postal questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and observations. Research paradigms

Another point which also needs to be stressed here is that the different research traditions listed above reflect different ways of looking at social reality: the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms or frameworks. Positivism assumes that the world 'out there' can be apprehended directly through the systematic application of scientific methods based on controlled, replicable and objective observation and experiment. It is recognised that the subjectivity of the researcher and of their human subjects (their personal concerns and values, etc) can interfere and threaten the objectivity of the observations but positivists believe (a) that human behaviour is characterized by underlying regularities and (b) that research methods can be designed to limit the effects of both the subjectivity of the researcher and his or her research subjects. Interpretivism, by contrast, argues that instead of seeing people's personal perceptions, interpretations, judgements and values as potential forms of contamination in the research, and therefore something to be controlled, this subjectivity should be seen as the starting point for the research. In terms of research in education, social care and health care the interpretivist argues that you cannot just judge the effectiveness of an intervention or change in terms of its outcomes, you also need to examine what those outcomes mean to the people involved. That is, the interpretivist argues that you need to understand why the intervention or policy may work as intended for some but not for others and why some people would reject the policy or intervention on grounds other than effectiveness (i.e. rejecting it instead on the basis of their personal values, their past experience, and so forth). For a more detailed discussion of these two positions see Cohen, Mannion and Morrison (2002 Ch.1) or Brechin & Siddell in Gomm & Davies (2000 Ch. 1). Other authors and agencies have proposed quite different kinds of research classification to the approach adopted by Denscombe. In particular they have tended to focus on the nature of the research rather than its purpose, although in practice the boundary line between the two seems to be blurred. This is apparent in the classification adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC). Every four to five years the HEFC considers how research funding should be distributed among the Universities and this is based on the research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in which panels of senior academics drawn from different universities assess the quality of the research output from each institution of higher education. At the last RAE, carried out in 2001, they classified academic research according to whether it was: 

Basic research: making an original contribution to knowledge and/or making a contribution to the development of theory.



Strategic research: tests the generalisations and theories emerging from basic research to see if they have any potential applications for policy or practice and to see if findings emerging in one context might be transferable to another. This kind of research will still be of interest to the academic community but it may also be perceived as relevant to government, professionals working in public services, commerce and industry.



Applied research: research which is carried out with a specific practical objective in mind such as the development of a new process, testing a solution to a specific practical problem, improving one's own or others' practice, etc.

In some fields and disciplines the boundary lines between these three categories have become quite blurred. This is particularly the case in those disciplines which are also professions, such as teaching, medicine, nursing and social work. It is also the case in those disciplines which are closely linked to industry and commerce.

For useful discussions of these kinds of classifications, which basically emerge from perspectives on the nature of research see HEFCE (2001) and Sharp, Peters & Howard (2002). Do you need to be aware of these typologies in order to undertake a research project for undergraduate and taught Masters courses. Sharp, Peters & Howard suggest that most students at these levels give very little thought to how their research might be classified or categorised by the research community in their discipline or field of study. They choose a topic or focus for their research; do some background reading; think of appropriate research methodologies and then get on with it. As Judith Bell points out in her guide for first-time researchers in education and the social sciences: It is perfectly possible to carry out a worthwhile investigation without having detailed knowledge of the various approaches to or styles of [educational or social scientific] research. [Bell, 2001, p.7] However, you should check the module descriptor for your dissertation to see whether or not you are required to demonstrate knowledge of research traditions or approaches in your research report. If after that you are still not clear about this talk to the module leader or your supervisor and get more details about the criteria specified in the marking scheme for assessing your dissertation. But, as Bell goes on to point out, whilst it is possible to do worthwhile research without it, some knowledge of different research approaches and paradigms can give useful insights into different ways of planning an investigation, enhance your understanding of the literature and help to clarify the use of key terms and concepts. In particular it is useful to recognise that the way in which you set about your research will owe something to a specific research tradition which: 

has evolved over time;



may dominate research in a particular discipline or field of study or may still be seen by many in that discipline to be controversial;



has its own internal logic and rationale;



has its own strengths and weaknesses; and



may well have developed in the way that it has because of perceived weaknesses in other research traditions.

We will assume at this point that your course tutor or project supervisor has already presented you with a reading list which identifies key texts on the main research approaches and paradigms in your particular discipline or field of study; and that during the taught element of your course you will have looked at some studies which have employed these approaches. Our concern here, following Bell, is with how thinking about different types of research might help you with the planning of your own project. It is not enough simply to adopt an approach because it is widely used in your academic discipline. You also have to ask yourself why is it so widely used? Why have so many researchers opted for this approach and the research methods which may be associated with it? Why is the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), regarded as the 'gold standard' in bio-medical research? (e.g. Lawrence et al 1989) Why, for example, is it regarded as the best means of testing new drugs? But why do some researchers also use RCTs as a means of obtaining evidence about the effectiveness of health and social care interventions (e.g. Shepperd et al, 1997) and why have some researchers found that it is difficult to generalise from an RCT carried out in one context to other similar contexts?

When looking at human interactions and communications, such as between teachers and pupils or doctors and patients or social workers and their clients, why are researchers increasingly turning to more naturalistic and qualitative forms of research rather than the experimental paradigm or the survey? Why are more and more professionals, particularly in the caring and teaching professions, turning to various forms of practitioner research, such as action research, rather than the experimental paradigm or the large-scale survey in order to find out how various practices and processes impact on their students, patients or clients? There are a number of answers to these questions. Firstly, people trained in particular research traditions have a preference for using the approaches and methods that are most commonly used in their profession. Secondly, every research approach has its weaknesses as well as it strengths. Some of the large-scale research methods are sometimes thought to ignore or gloss over important differences in diverse populations. The RCT may be the ideal way of trialling a new drug or identifying the causal factors and the effects of a particular treatment or intervention but in highly complex social settings it is not always possible to isolate, control and manipulate each variable and factor. Thirdly, people who use research evidence to inform their practice sometimes become disillusioned with the value of a particular approach. The interest in practitioner research, for example, reflects a growing feeling that research carried out by people who are outside the profession or have become distanced from it is not always as useful to the practitioner as it might be. Finally, we also need to keep in mind what Denscombe called 'fitness for purpose'. In the end your decision about which research approach or paradigm to adopt will depend to a large degree on whether or not it is appropriate for what you want to do. A lot depends on the kinds of questions for which you want to get answers. We will come on to the issue of designing research questions and hypotheses later in the Handbook. At this point it is sufficient to note, as David de Vaus points out, that researchers working in the human sciences tend to be concerned with two fundamental types of question: 

What is going on? (description)



Why is it going on? (explanation).

Some types of research tend to focus more on explanation than description and others tend to focus more on description than explanation. As noted earlier, the experimental tradition is primarily concerned with measuring cause and effect, whilst the survey is mainly concerned with mapping what is going on. But the former is not exclusively concerned with explanation and the later is not simply descriptive. The experiment is also concerned with accurate description and measurement of effects (i.e. what is happening) and the social researchers undertaking a survey will usually also collect data that might help them to explain why some people are different form others in their behaviour, opinions and views. Also, as De Vaus says, "Good description also provokes the 'why questions'". So, for instance, research designed to find out whether the crime rate is rising, falling or remaining stable will beg the question 'Why is it rising, falling or remaining stable?' So the first task for a researcher once she or he has selected a topic, theme or focus for the research is to decide whether the questions they will be seeking answers to will require description, explanation or both. It is important to be clear about this before you make decisions about the specific research methods you are going to use!

The next thing you need to decide is whether you can do this most effectively through direct observation and measurement of what people do or say they do or indirectly by trying to understand and interpret how they perceive themselves and their lifer experiences. Third, you need to ask yourself what your role as a researcher is going to be. Will you be the detached observer or the participant observer, and, if you opt to be the latter, will you also be the subject of your research as well as the researcher? Fourth, you also need to ask yourself whether you want to learn a little about a lot or a lot about a little. In other words, what is going to be most useful in answering the questions that interest you: a study that provides you with a breadth of information and evidence or a study in depth. But above all remember that you can also opt for a research design which mixes research methods from different research traditions. That is why you are recommended to think about your research design before you choose your specific research methods. References

.



BELL, J. (2001), Doing your Research Project, Buckingham, Open University Press



BRECHIN, A. & SIDDELL, M. 'Ways of Knowing' in GOMM & DAVIES (2000).



DENSCOMBE, M. (2003), The Good Research Guide, Maidenhead, Open University Press.



DeVAUS, D. (2001), Research Design and Social Research, London, Sage.



GOMM, R. & DAVIES, C. (2000) Using Evidence in Health and Social Care, London, Sage.



HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL for ENGLAND, (1999) Assessment Panels: criteria and working methods, RAE Circular 5/99, Bristol.



LAWRENCE, R., FRIEDMAN, G. & DeFRIESE, G. (1989) Guide to Clinical Preventative Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169 Interventions, Maryland, Williams & Wilkins.



ROBSON, C. (1993), Real World Research, Oxford, Blackwell.



SHARP, J.A., PETERS, J. & HOWARD, K. (2002), The Management of a Student Research Project, Aldershot, Gower.



SHEPPERD, S., DOLL, H. & JENKINSON, C. (1997), 'Randomized controlled trials' in Jenkinson, C. (ed) Assessment and Evaluation of Health and Medical Care: A Methods Text, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp.6-30.