All 18 entries tagged Design

Change, uncertainty, and doubt: opportunities or challenges?

Change, uncertainty and doubt are three concepts that define the dynamics and intricacy of post graduate research. Change occurs as time progresses and can manifest itself in many different ways such as a change to research question, a change to the philosophical perspective, a change to methodology, and a change to research methods. The extent to which a design changes over time depends on the open mindedness, awareness, knowledge and skills that a researcher possesses, which entails realisation of any faults of their research design in relation to the context of the research.

I have experienced change to my research design from the research question all the way to the research methods, as I have been documenting on this blog for quite a while.

But does change entail uncertainty? Should change entail uncertainty? In what way should change be observed? In what way can we observe and deal with uncertainty? In what way should we manage change and uncertainty so that they can lead to opportunities and not difficulties? In what way can we manage doubt?

These are complex questions that provoke different answers. Different researchers will have different ideas about the certainty, or uncertainty, of their design based on their open mindedness, awareness, knowledge, and skills. Uncertainty could come about through a change in the initial selection of design components, which could cause the researcher to think immediately about the validity and relevance of the design to the context. In this context, change causes uncertainty particularly to the validity and relevance of research design. Alternatively, uncertainty could have caused that change to take place: comprehensive reading and thinking could lead the researcher to feel uncertain to the extent that changing a component eases this uncertainty. In this context, uncertainty causes change. When I mention uncertainty I’m talking about reasonable uncertainty and not emotional uncertainty; that uncertainty is born from reason and logically thinking about the design and relevant literature, and not some emotional connection with a particular component.

There is a third scenario: this uncertainty, whether occurring before or after a change in design components, might be found to be built on contestable foundations therefore further thinking and reading could actually render this uncertainty as invalid therefore no changes to research components would be required. In these cases, uncertainty and doubt might not come from this awareness and open mindedness but from other domains or dimensions of the self: confidence levels, self esteem, and so on.

In my opinion based on my own experiences, change can lead to uncertainty but that does not mean that it shall occur every time, and it should be embraced more as an opportunity to improve the design rather than opening the door to being defeated and consigning the design to the bin. During the past year or so I have continuously changed certain aspects of my design. A couple of main examples I have talked about on here is a change from pure qualitative methodology to a mixed methods methodology, and a change from constructivist grounded theory method proposed by Charmaz to a version of the grounded theory method developed by Strauss and Corbin. Additionally, the identification of critical realism as being the most appropriate philosophical guide of exploring the context and phenomena of interest.

These changes have introduced a mixture of uncertainty and certainty, and this still continues. I feel more certain that the research design is the correct way of exploring the phenomena of interest within the defined context as a result of all the literature that I am continuing to explore and question, as well as the critiques and arguments that are developing. But there is a continued sense of uncertainty because of the apparent uniqueness of the design within the context of the research, and therefore is in a sense unproven, and additionally few relevant theoretical and conceptual papers actually exist regarding the design specific to the context. This shall make the research itself a challenge in the sense that whilst certainty in the validity and feasibility of the design shall improve in the future, certainty in its verifiability and applicability cannot be reasonably determined until the research has been completed, although the trial study shall certainly help in this aspect. Even following the trail period I shall never reach absolute certainty about the research design: this is impossible without actually applying the design, reflecting upon the design, and critiquing it.

Change, uncertainty and doubt can bring about feelings of being overwhelmed (although that itself can cause uncertainty) and probably an element of self doubt. Whilst this is understandable (been there, done that, and shall no doubt go through such feelings again particularly of being overwhelmed), change and uncertainty need to be embraced as providing excellent opportunities for development. Embracing them as such opportunities shall lead to creative thinking and of developing unique solutions to existing problems, and therefore provide interesting opportunities to further the platform of debate and discussion about such solutions and problems. In my opinion, uncertainty about research design should be celebrated and embraced, because uncertainty can lead to a researcher’s most prosperous, creative, and inspiring design choices and insights into the phenomena.

‘till next time: keep calm!

Alex Darracott : 10 Jul 2016 20:09 |  Tags: Design Methodology Philosophy Reflection |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Progress On Grounded Theory

During the past week I have been reading about Strauss and Corbin’s version of Grounded Theory from philosophical and methodological perspectives in a continuous attempt to fit the method within the context of a critical realist led mixed methods design. As I have previously stated a little while ago I was a little overwhelmed as I came to realise the unsuitability of Constructivist Grounded Theory along with realising the extent and intensity of debates and discussions about Grounded Theory in general, and the implications this might have on the research design. Thankfully, it is all becoming clearer bit by bit!

Philosophy Of Grounded Theory

Reading through the materials so far again emphasises the importance of Ph.D. candidates engaging with their research at the Philosophical level as this shall enable them to fully understand the context and purposes of not only Grounded Theory in general but the different flavours of the method.

In general, Grounded Theory is automatically assumed to align with relativist or interpretivist philosophy and I suppose in a general sense this is true because all flavours of grounded theory involves an element of researcher interpretation of the data ranging from being guided by some sort of presupposed base of knowledge or theory to adopting a complete open mind. But each flavour of grounded theory has a different philosophical and logical approach to dealing with reality, and it was this understanding of Philosophy following adoption of critical realism that made me realise that constructivist grounded theory is inappropriate.

Variants of Grounded Theory subscribe to different assumptions about reality, although these assumptions have been and some continue to be debated in literature. Glaser and Strauss’ version of Grounded Theory aims to disconnect researcher from participants (value-free) therefore subscribing to a Postivist or Post Positivist approach to analysing qualitative data whilst Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory assumes a strong connection between researcher and participants (value-laden), therefore theory is a construction grounded in the involvement and interaction between researcher and participants. Whilst the position of both approaches are more or less generally agreed upon, the philosophical positioning of Strauss and Corbin’s approach has been and continues to be subject to debate and uncertainty. Charmaz claims that Strauss and Corbin’s approach to analysing data is positivism, but other researchers suggest that it adopts a more pragmatic approach to research. I’m beginning to develop the perspective that this version of grounded theory can be aligned with the principles of critical realism and other middle ground Philosophies. I have not fully worked it out, it is a complex process, but it is all starting to click into place and therefore I am beginning to understand it!

Method Of Grounded Theory

The aim of grounded theory is to produce a theory that is, you guessed it, grounded in the data, but the terminology used to describe the way that this theory or theorising is produced differs among different versions of grounded theory. Regardless, coding is used to produce this theory or theorising, beginning with the researcher reading through qualitative data (for example, an interview transcript) and breaking down the data into little blocks that represent some sort of action, event, and so on, gives it a label or a name and is therefore converted into an object, which is further defined through properties and dimensions, and are then classified into different classes or categories based on similarities of characteristics between objects, a process known as open coding.
Following this, identified classes are further defined through attributes and dimensions and subcategories are created from these categories as necessary through a process known as axial coding, and then the theory emerges through a process known as selective coding.

Regarding the logical engine behind Strauss and Corbin’s version of grounded theory this has been subject to debate: some authors suggest that it subscribes to an abductive logical reason whilst others suggest that it subscribes to induction, and again other authors suggest there is a mixture of logical engines. There is a potential incompatibility problem here because critical realism subscribes to a retroduction logic, which is different from the theory testing of deduction and the pure theory productive of induction as retroduction deals with the explanations of circumstances and is much more of a creative, abstract approach to explaining observations. There is a research paper that I have found that contributes to discussion of making critical realism and grounded theory’s logical engines compatible with each other so this shall be dealt with in time.

What’s next?

The next immediate task is to develop a more practical understanding of grounded theory and develop my grounded theory method through analysing the trial data. The trial data will be able to guide further development of the method and to really find out if Strauss and Corbin’s approach really best fits the context of research.

From a research design perspective I will have to do more work into figuring out the way that critical realism and grounded theory are compatible and can work with each other. Understanding of this is progressing but there is much yet to learn and discover, and to argue and to try to think about areas that have not really been thought about. But understanding is growing, slowly but surely. This is not to mention however the mixed methods context, so that adds a layer of complexity to the situation. Basically, I have to ensure that Strauss and Corbin’s grounded theory is not only compatible with critical realism but also compatible with other methods in a mixed methods environment, and if proven to be so draw a diagram that illustrates the way that critical realism, mixed methods, and all the methods interact and intersect each other.

Among the chaos and challenges, there is a sense of clarity beginning to form!

Alex Darracott : 05 Jun 2016 23:41 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

What Is Reality? A Middle Ground Philosophical View

In an attempt to understand the way in which a middle ground Philosophy views reality, think about a cake. A two dimensional cake is observable: you can view the top layer and you can deconstruct this top layer into components, or in an academic sense its variables, which would be the cream, the topping, the chocolate sprinkles, decorations, and anything else that belongs to the top level. Further understanding of this top layer would come about through identifying and exploring relationships between these variables. The three dimensional cake contains a series of layers with no variables and therefore no exploration of relationships between these variables. There are layers and within these layers are different structures, mechanisms, processes and configurations that provide a deeper understanding of the structure and complexity of that cake.

Research that explores only the top layer of reality (think about the top layer of the cake) perceives reality as two dimensional, independent of the activities of the mind, therefore nothing is constructed therefore everything about that reality is true. In order to understand this reality it is a case of deconstructing this reality into a series of variables and to identify and explore relationships between these variables. The Philosophies that guide this type of research are of the Absolutist, Objectivist variety. Research that explores the multiple layers of reality (think of the multiple layers on a cake) perceives reality as three dimensional and is dependent on the activities of the mind therefore nothing in reality is actually an objective truth but is a construction of the mind. Reality is therefore constructed based on our own experiences and perceptions of our own experiences therefore in order to better understand this reality the structures, mechanisms, and so on, need to be explored. The Philosophies that guide this type of exploration of reality are based on the Relativist, Subjectivist varieties.

In the middle of the continuum between Absolutism and Relativism perspectives are the Middle Ground perspectives, which recognises the importance of both the top layer of the cake and the multiple layers of the cake to gain a complete understanding of that particular cake. In other words, the middle ground Philosophies perceive reality as having a top layer that can be deconstructed to a set of variables and relationships between variables, but also perceive the behaviours of these variables and relationships to be influenced by the structures, mechanisms, processes and configurations of the underlying layers. Therefore when adopting a middle ground Philosophy you are effectively exploring what occurs on the top level (variables, relationships) and the way in which the top level is affected by the underlying layers (structures, mechanisms, etc), and therefore recognise the complexity of the phenomenon you are exploring.

I admit that these definitions and explanations might not be that sophisticated but in the meantime whilst my knowledge and understanding of these Philosophies continue to grow and mature, these definitions work. I have collected a huge amount of literature that shall enable me to take my understanding to the next level, which shall hopefully enable me to decide which of the main Philosophies or combination of these Philosophies shall work best with the context of my Mixed Methods research.

Alex Darracott : 09 Mar 2016 20:06 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Ontology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Paradigms and Philosophies of Mixed Methods research: a whistle stop tour!

Those who have been following my blog during the past few months shall have noticed that Mixed Methods has been selected as the most appropriate methodology, that the Convergent Parallel design has been selected as the most appropriate variety of Mixed Methods, and that the methods of data collection have been decided upon along with most of the data analysis methods. What hasn’t been thought about till recently is the Philosophy of Mixed Methods.

Mixed Methods methodology developed as a result of the paradigmatic wars between quantitative and qualitative approaches: authors back in the 1960s and 1970s were adamant that both entail differing Philosophical and Paradigmatic assumptions and therefore frame the research in ways that were not compatible with each other. However, reconciliation between differing paradigms began and accelerated during the 1980s where writers opposed this methodological dualism.

Paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions and perspectives are extensive and the debates of suitability have been ongoing since reconciliation attempts began, so they are complex fields (seriously I am not kidden here: I’ve been thinking about this for years and I still don’t know everything and never will) where there isn’t a right or wrong answer. All that can be achieved is a researcher understanding their own views of reality and work towards developing arguments as to why their research contains particular paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions and perspectives. Do bear with me as I continue to learn and develop paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions about my research relative to a Mixed Methods methodology and also relative to the selected methods. This has to be a careful, thoughtful process: I cannot just select things at random. These assumptions are important to consider because they provide the basis or framework for a mixed methods project, or any research project.

There are certain paradigms (frameworks of research) that I can safely discard and suggest that they are not relevant to my research. This includes the feminism paradigm, which focuses research around women’s rights and whilst I have a lot of respect for women and their rights, feminism is not a part of my research so shall no longer be considered. The other paradigm is the Transformative-Emancipatory developed by Mertens (2003), which focuses on the intersection between Mixed Methods methodology and social justice although there is an observation that this has overlapped somewhat with the feminism paradigm. When you think about what feminism really means (not the extremists who perceive feminism as a male hating agenda) and its relationship with social justice, this makes sense. However whilst I have an increasing interest in social justice and this might be considered in future research projects it is not a part of my research currently therefore shall not be considered any further.

Moving toward discussions of paradigms that are more relevant, there is a selection of paradigms in relation to Mixed Methods that are most relevant for my Ph.D. The first is the PostPositivism paradigm, developed out of criticism of Positivism and therefore views reality as probabilistically true where Positivism (the paradigm of Science) views reality as really true and fully independent of the mind. Whilst PostPositivism works with quantitative methods and methodologies it also works with qualitative approaches and many who identify themselves as PostPositivists do utilise Mixed Methods. Another paradigm that is well acquainted with Mixed Methods is Pragmatism. Key differences between this and PostPositivism can be found at the Epistemological level in that PostPositivism understands reality as a single reality that is probabilistically true and independent of the mind whilst Pragmatists view reality as containing elements that are accessible and independent of the mind as well as elements that are constructed and therefore dependent on the mind. From an epistemological perspective, Pragmatism already leans more towards Mixed Methods than PostPositivism. However, Pragmatism is not without its problems therefore the third paradigm that is being considered is Critical Realism where apparently it can reconcile Absolutism and Relativism perspectives at the ontological level, whereas Pragmatism reconciles at the epistemological level from what I can currently understand but this does not appear to be reported much in the literature from what I have read so far. According to Creswell and Clark (2011) Critical Realism adopts and supports characteristics from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, although the use of Critical Realism is not as common as Pragmatism. But it has to be remembered that just because Pragmatism might be used more than PostPositivism and Critical Realism it doesn’t mean that it’s any more relevant to my research and the context of my research.

Additionally there are Mixed Methods projects that use multiple world views or paradigms, referenced as a dialectical paradigm, instead of a single paradigm, and have been based on the way that a researcher views social reality. Further, there are approaches that involving using multiple paradigms not in relation to the way that the researcher views reality, but of the type of Mixed Methods being used. For more information on this, read Greene (2007) and Creswell and Clark (2011)

As a side note, this whole linking between Philosophy and Methodology has been experienced in my research so far. Previously I had chosen to adopt a Constructivist Grounded Theory as the methodology and this entailed Relativist ontology and a Constructivist epistemology. Switching the methodology to a Mixed Methods approach entails a Philosophical view that in some way combines or reconciles Absolutism and Relativism ontologies and therefore Positivism (or PostPositivism in Social Sciences) and Constructivism epistemologies. It would not have been acceptable to have continued with a Relativist paradigm given that my research contains methods that include the collection and analysis of quantitative data, which aligns with a different paradigm. This would have been identified and critiqued in the Upgrade Paper and especially in the thesis and the Vivo examination.

So, gosh that was a long post! In brief, the paradigms that are of most relevance to this research are: PostPositivism, Pragmatism and Critical Realism. These shall be discussed more as I explore them in relation to Mixed Methods and in the context of my own research!

References:

Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L (2011): Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2^nd Ed). SAGE: America

Greene, J.C (2007): Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Boss: San Francisco

Mertens, D.M (2009): Transformative Research And Evaluations, Guilford Press: New York

Alex Darracott : 22 Feb 2016 14:23 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Paradigm Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Conflicting Issues In Literature: Design And Methodology

Another issue that new researchers and Ph.D. candidates shall have to deal with is the conflicting terminology within literature. Terminology is conflicting because writers use different terms interchangeably to mean the same thing but the meanings behind the terms differ significantly. In the case of this blog post, the terms “design” and “methodology” have been and continue to be used in literature to mean the blueprint of a research project but they are terms that carry different meanings and I shall use this blog post to present my own definitions (and add to the already confused mess of terminological definitions), which are probably likely to change in the future!

A research design is the blueprint of a research project: a logically designed or constructed document that defines the layout of the research project, illustrating through narrative and diagrams (usually the case for the thesis) the methods used to collect and analyse the data in a way that provides answers for a hypothesis or research questions. A research design illustrates the relationship between the defined research problem, the defined research question, the methodologies and methods, the underlying Philosophical assumptions of these methodologies and methods, and the way in which data shall be collected and used to answer the research questions. Research design should be considered and developed following the identification of a research problem and the construction of the research questions. The different research designs within Educational Research include Experiment based, Observation based, Longitudinal based, Case Study, Ethnography, Grounded Theory, and Phenomenology, among others, all of which define that previously mentioned relationship and characteristics of that relationship in different ways.

Methodology is part of a research design that provides a framework for the data collection and data analysis. A methodology defines the methods that are to be used, the approach or model used to implement the methods, the timing of implementing these methods, the importance of these methods, and therefore the way in which assigned questions shall be addressed and the data that is to be expected. The key difference between methodology and design therefore is that methodology does not explain the overall research problem or research questions, but is associated with a particular research question or questions to address a particular aspect of the research problem. A design does illustrate the overall research problem and questions and the relationship between the research problem, the research questions, the methodology, methods, and expected data in answering aspects of the problems and the questions. A research methodology can be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.

I mentioned that Grounded Theory can be an overall design but it can also be a methodology within a design and, in the case of my research, a method within a methodology. Constructivist Grounded Theory was originally going to be a methodology within an explanatory research design, but this was dropped because Constructivist Grounded Theory as a methodology works exclusively with qualitative data. There was no way I could use quantitative data with the Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology therefore switched the methodology to Mixed Methods, and repurposed Constructivist Grounded Theory as a method within a Mixed Methods methodology. As I began to elaborate on my methodology in the Upgrade Paper I did come across a stumbling block: the literature and its conflicting approach to defining methodology and design, and authors were referring to Mixed Methods as both a design and a methodology.

What did I do to overcome this barrier? I thought carefully about the different types of Mixed Method methodologies and their suitability for the context of my research. The type of Mixed Methods that has been selected as suitable is convergent parallel and this has been referred to in the literature as a convergent parallel design although some authors have called it a convergent parallel model, but that’s just going beyond the point of driving a person insane.

I think therefore considering that the methodology defines the way that research questions are addressed, and that the design acts as the blueprint or illustration of the way in which the research shall proceed, it’s safe to say that the methodology is definitely Mixed Methods whilst the design of the research can be defined as a Convergent Parallel design.

This post is attempting to highlight the difficulty that some researchers might come across when dealing with terminology use in the research literature, and that it is so easy to be thrown off course initially as you try to develop a more substantial understanding of these terminologies. Developing that substantial understanding and a detailed, careful consideration of the terms “design” and “methodology” is the only way you are going to be able to properly define them.

Till next time: don’t accept a definition in the first resource you come across! Question and explore!

Alex Darracott : 10 Feb 2016 18:01 |  Tags: Design Dissertation Methodology Thesis Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Thoughts On The Research Design

The previous week I had mentioned that the decisions made at a certain level of the research design can influence other decisions at other levels, so now I shall explain more about what I mean by that, with future blog posts delving into this further.

The research design is the description and documentation of the processes, and their interrelations, involved with the collection, analysis and use of data within a particular study. The design of a study is determined by the research problem that has been identified and the research questions that have been developed.

The first level that needs to be engaged with is the Philosophical level, and by this I mean the researcher, including the Ph.D. candidate, needs to establish their perspectives of reality (ontology) and the way that knowledge of this reality should be attained (epistemology). There is a large variety of different Philosophical perspectives from Absolutism to Relativist therefore it can take a while to establish understanding and even then this might actually change. As has been documented throughout previous blog posts, I had considered myself an Interpretivist and a Constructivist therefore holding a Relativist Philosophical position of reality and therefore of research. However as I further critically analysed the methodology that I had selected at the time the more I subconsciously began to align with a Pragmatist perspective of research. Subconsciously because I was developing a methodology that I thought aligned more with a Relativist position; briefly, I was trying to be a Pragmatist within a Qualitative methodology, and for this research that simply was not working. I realised that my research design was following a Pragmatist route when I discovered that a particular model of Mixed Methods methodology suited the problem and the questions. Everything then started to make more sense.

Have I always been a Pragmatist when it comes to research? Perhaps I always have and never really realised it till I had the opportunity to really think about my own views about reality, to select initially what I thought was the appropriate methodology and then to critically analyse this methodology within the context of research. What’s interesting about Pragmatism is that whilst some authors suggest that Pragmatism attempts to locate the middle ground between Absolutism and Relativism, it can be argued that being pragmatic about research can lead to a person being a relativist about research. This is because since Pragmatism allows the researcher to select the methodologies and methods that work best, those methodologies and methods would be selected relative to the research problem and research questions.

So after all that Philosophical thinking, is the rest of the research design easier? In theory yes; in practice, sort of! It is important to remember that a methodology and the subsequent methods cannot be selected without careful thought and consideration of not only the context of the research but also in the context of other methodologies and methods and their appropriateness. Remember as a Ph.D. candidate it is important to be able to learn about a variety of methodologies and methods so that it is possible to justify why certain methodological and method selections have been made, and to explain the inappropriateness of others. This is something that is ongoing with my own work, and I need to decide to what extent do I really engage with methodological debates and discussions and contribute to them.

There is a wide variety of different methodologies, methods, and approaches to using these methods, available to select and integrate into the research design but again what is selected must be the most appropriate to deal with the research problems and handle the research questions. A methodology therefore describes and analyses a variety of characteristics of the design including the general approach used to handle the problems and the questions, along with the methods used, the order in which they are used, and the importance of each method in providing the required data.

My methodology of my Ph.D. is Mixed Methods, with the specific model of the methodology being Convergent and Triangulated, referred also as the Convergent Parallel model, and the selection was determined by identifying methodological problems of existing research and the development of the research questions, along with understanding to the suitable level which methodology would best address the research problem and research questions. Briefly, the Mixed Methods methodology defines the use, ordering, importance and value of the methods in many different ways than other methodologies, such as a case study, and remember that each model of the Mixed Methods methodology differ from each other slightly in these respects.

So, when the methodology has been decided upon it’s time to choose the methods. Whatever methods are suitable for the methodology is endless as there is no right way and depending on their structure a method can be used with multiple methodologies. As an example, the case study methodology can be either quantitative based, or qualitative based. If the case study is to be quantitative then methods that generate figures and numbers would be used, such as closed questions on a questionnaire; qualitative based case study methodology would need methods that generate data that expressed the perspectives and experiences of the individual, such as an Interview technique. With Mixed Methods methodology this is even more complex, because it can’t be either quantitative or qualitative: both strands have to be used and therefore there is wide variety of methods that can be used and several ways in which these strands can be converged or combined appropriately.

Developing the research design is a complex task and goes way beyond what has been described in this blog post. I’ve simply presented a general overview of some of the ideas that I have about research design and some of the key points that need to be considered carefully when designing research. I’m still learning; I’m still learning about my own research design and still adjusting the design in accordance to what I am reading not only from research methodological textbooks but also the way that other researchers have implemented methodologies and methods and designed their research in general, particularly those relevant to the Mixed Methods designs. I have decided fully on the methodology as Mixed Methods, the model of Mixed Methods as Convergent Parallel, and decided on the data collection and most of the analysis methods that shall be used. The key areas of the design are now in place with the finer details of the design continuing to be thought about.

The sheer amount of Philosophical perspectives, methodologies and methods that can be thought about and used is diverse and complex, with much overlapping, but must be something that the new researcher including Ph.D. candidates much engage with. It simply is not the case where a Ph.D. candidate can jump into a research project with any random methodology and methods because this might go against the Philosophical stances that the researcher is claiming. Apparently in several Ph.D. theses a researcher would claim to follow a relativist position when they use methods that subscribe more to the positivist position. So this needs to be carefully thought about. Additionally therefore there is a need to be fully aware of all the methodologies and methods that can be used, select that or those which best fit, and develop argumentation as to why those methodologies and methods are most appropriate. In my opinion, the argumentation that develops to justify and defend methodological and method selections, and the overall design of the research, is just as important as the selection itself.

Till next time: keep thinking!

Alex Darracott : 29 Jan 2016 17:34 |  Tags: Design Methodology Philosophy Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Research design, Research Conference, Conference Paper and Upgrade Paper!

Research Design: getting there!

When exploring learning processes there is a need to develop activities for the participants of the research so that the data can be generated for analysis. These activities need to be appropriate for the participants, relevant to their interests and have the design that encourages participation and therefore generate lots of data. The design of these activities therefore must be grounded in existing empirical literature. Thinking about and designing these activities have begun this past week, starting with a rough outline and what I want to achieve with them. I have thought about the topics, now what I need to do is explore these topics further so that I can create interesting scenarios within which learning processes can be assessed in ways that have not really happened before. These activities therefore are in their early stages of development and they need to be experimented with and amended as necessarily. What exactly shall be measured and assessed shall be partly presented in a conference paper at the next Post Graduate Warwick University conference, along with the Upgrade Paper and Upgrade Presentation, and also a full elaboration, justification, and critique of existing relevant assessment processes in the Thesis and future research papers.

This has led to an interesting observation in that there appears to be quite an interesting approach taken to designing a Ph.D. project in the sense that there appears to be some sort of ordering to the decisions that are made, and that each decision that is made influences the next decision or in some way guides the next step in the design making process of a Ph.D. research design. I have indicated something like this in previous blog posts where I discussed the relationship between Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology but my ideas of this are developing and I think I will come back to this in a future blog post.

Research Conference and Upgrade Paper

Had an email the other day saying that planning and organising of this year’s Post Graduate conference at Warwick University shall begin soon, which means that I shall be starting to write the conference paper from the day that planning begins. Well, I say write but it’s more like planning the outline and structure of the paper first before actually writing it. As I have mentioned before, the conference paper shall be in part based on ideas that were presented in the second ARM assignment and relevant ideas were appreciated by the supervisor therefore these shall be more fully explored in the conference paper. The conference paper and the presentation at the conference shall relate at this time more or less exclusively to the questionnaire, and there are plans to transform it into a research paper but this is something that I shall have to investigate further soon.

Construction of the conference paper shall occur along with the construction of the Upgrade paper and work has continued on this during the week. Even though it is due in September, it is such an important document that it is best to start planning the paper early along with writing rough drafts of various sections of the paper just to get ideas down of what is going to be explained in which section, and therefore setting down quite early some of the directions of the paper. The word requirement is around four thousand words and there is a fair bit to do in preparation of writing some sections of the paper so an early start is fine. The paper is important because it is part of the Upgrade process, the result of which shall consider the suitability and feasibility of my research and therefore whether or not the research project is worthy of being upgrading from working towards Master of Philosophy to Doctor of Philosophy.

That’s it for this post so ‘till next time: Easter eggs are starting to roll out!

Alex Darracott : 24 Jan 2016 23:09 |  Tags: Conference Design Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Engagement at the Philosophical level

The Ph.D. is not just about generating new knowledge about a phenomenon: it is also about being engaged at the Methodological and Philosophical levels. Being engaged at the Methodological level means really thinking about the methodologies and methods that have been used to explore and develop new knowledge about the phenomenon of investigation. The uniqueness of a Ph.D. therefore lies not just in thinking about it in terms of developing new knowledge but about the way in which this new knowledge is developed and understood. Being engaged at the Philosophical level means to think about your own perspectives of reality, the way that knowledge of this reality is collected, and understanding a variety of different Philosophical perspectives of reality and their relevance towards the research project along with understanding the way in which your perspectives of reality influences research design. This post shall deal with being involved at the Philosophical level.

Previous Thinking

Previously I thought of myself as a constructivist, an interpretivist, a relativist and a contextualist. I began to reject the notion of an objective reality and therefore had the idea that we create or construct our own reality, that therefore reality is a little different for each of us and that the way we come to understand and attain knowledge within this reality is different for all and our perceptions of the usefulness of related processes also differ.

This view was initially reflected in my own research design through favouring a qualitative methodology and using qualitative based methods to explore the phenomenon of interest. As time progressed however and a more significant understanding of the research problem and research methodologies was attained, I began to grow an appreciation for quantitative methodologies and methods. Philosophical and Methodological battles therefore began to occur as I attempted to understand the way that quantitative data could be included in a qualitative methodology. These battles were a reflection of the fact that what was occurring was going against the way that I perceived the relationship between reality and research exploration with Social Science disciplines: that you cannot define behaviour and generalise behaviour of phenomena through using statistical analysis and relationship between variables. But the more I thought about this (and the more that I continue to think about this) the more that exploring particular aspects of the phenomenon using quantitative analysis made more sense. Using a methodology where quantitative and qualitative approaches complement rather than compete with each other made more sense when an aim is to attain a substantial understanding of the phenomenon.

Current Thinking

There appears to be a group of researchers who subscribe exclusively to quantitative methodologies and methods and therefore perceive reality as absolute; that reality exists independent of our thoughts and behaviour of the mind and therefore can be understood through deconstructing or reducing reality down to a series of variables and exploring relationships between them. There is another group of researchers at the other side of the Philosophical and Methodological Spectrum who are exclusively qualitative; that they perceive reality as being relative and contextual, and that therefore each person develops their own reality within the context they are within. Then there are those in the middle who believe that reality can be understood through the complementation of both perspectives. Remember however that within Mixed Methods there can be no “mixing” or combining of these perspectives, only that they are used to deal with separate but related research questions and problem areas.

So where do I stand with all of this at the moment? I still consider myself as a constructivist: I perceive reality as being subjective, that each of us develop our own realities and that this construction of reality and reality itself is relative only to the context that we are within. But, I do and am beginning to value the quantitative relative to my own research problem and research question therefore I would place my own perspectives and research itself now towards the middle.

General Thoughts

Note that I am not suggesting that all Ph.D. candidates should immediately start considering the middle as the answer to everything. Which side you place your research is influenced by your own stances and understanding of its Philosophy and Methodology, and a sound grasp, understanding, and critical analysis of the relevant, current literature. The research questions, the research problems, the research purposes, the methodology that you select, and methods that you adopt should be led not by your own agendas and Philosophical perspectives, but by the needs identified in the literature.

What are you really investigating? What do you want to investigate? What are the constructs of your research? What are your Philosophical views? What way do you perceive reality? What methodology are you adopting? What methods are you going to use?

All these questions, and more, should be led by that understanding of the literature, and your own biases and assumptions need to be placed aside as much as possible. But this is not always achieved, as even the most objective person has even the smallest amount of bias and favourability towards particular research methodologies and methods. Researcher bias therefore is a big topic of debate within academia and the way in which researcher bias influences the results and therefore questions are asked as to what influences researcher bias to occur in the first place.

It is challenging when you really start questioning your own perspectives because some can go into a complete denial about the complementary aspects of differing methodologies and methods, but this is a challenge that all Ph.D. candidates should tackle. Again, don’t feel that you should subscribe to a particular methodology or method just because it appears fashionable, but go with what is right for your own research questions and problem areas. Once you feel authentic, you begin to produce authentic work, and therefore raise the respect and authenticity levels of research work as a whole.

‘till next time: question yourself and your views of reality, and do what is right for the context you are in!

Alex Darracott : 17 Jan 2016 15:20 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Philosophy Prd |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Methodology now in place: the convergent flavour of the Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology!

The methodology has been set in place and that is the Mixed Methods methodology; specifically, Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology (triangulation simply means to collect and analyse data from multiple sources using multiple methods in order to increase validity and reliability of the research findings: more about this shall be discussed in time). There are various flavours of Triangulated Mixed Methods each of which having a specific, clear, concise and contextually defined set of objectives therefore each flavour is suitable for a particular purpose. Out of all of these flavours I have decided to select the convergent flavour of the triangulated mixed methods methodologies.

Triangulated Mixed Methods Methodology: the Convergent flavour.

This convergence design has been termed in various ways in existing literature including “convergent parallel” design, but regardless the aim of this flavour is to converge quantitative and qualitative findings at the interpretation level. This shall enable the findings to be compared, contrasted, corroborated and related (hence convergence) in order to discover similarities and differences in order to increase validity and reliability of research findings (hence triangulation). But there are other interesting potential uses for this converged (or mixed) results such as developing further research methods to explore further aspects of the phenomenon that were not been previously considered.

Other varieties of Mixed Methods and indeed other flavours of the Triangulated mixed methods differ in the order of which quantitative and qualitative data should be collected and analysed, whether or not the quantitative or qualitative data should be independently collected and analysed or integrated at various stages, and the importance or weighting of both types of data. The Convergence model encourages the separate, independent collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, but converge at the interpretation stage. The model also promotes a concurrent (where both quantitative and qualitative can be collected simultaneously within the same time phase of the research) approach to collecting data instead of sequential (quantitative then qualitative or qualitative then quantitative). This means that the findings of the quantitative does not influence the findings of the qualitative, and vice versa. Basically they are both collected at the same time, but do not influence each other or data collected using other methods. What this can do however is influence the design of any further methods that might be used throughout the duration of the research. Further to this, the model also encourages an equal weighting of quantitative and qualitative data in answering research questions and dealing with aspects of the research problem.

More questions!

The key decisions have been made with each decision bringing about more questions and challenges that need to be addressed, but this is the case with all decisions made about research design. If you are not generating any questions about your research design as you go along then your inquiry into your own thinking, perspectives about reality, purposes and uses of your own design and a complete and full understanding of the underlying problems and questions and the relationship between these and the design shall be unguided and chaotic. Questions bring order and a sense of direction to any research project, that their development and refinement are continuous, and is something that each Ph.D. candidate should be engaged with at all levels and stages of their Ph.D. research.

Therefore, the selection of the Mixed Methods methodology, the selection of the type Triangulated Mixed Methods, and the selection of the Convergent flavour, along with the previous selections of specific methods that shall collect quantitative and qualitative data and the ongoing decision making regarding data analytical methods, introduces many more challenges and questions than answers! There simply does not appear to be any right or wrong answer or approach to deal with any of these challenges or questions: what therefore needs to be done is attain a full understanding of each challenge and question, carefully read and analyse relevant literature, and develop a solution or answer with suitable argumentation.

Key questions are: could mixing of the data occur at both the analysis and interpretation stages? Would this approach to mixing be appropriate for my research? What could the potential findings be? What implications could this have on any aspect of the research design? What implications could this have on the rigour, validity, reliability, generalisability, completeness and comprehensiveness of the findings, discussions, and research design overall?

I am not in a position to answer these questions yet, but they along with all other questions and challenges, and every other question that shall occur in the future, shall be answered in time!

‘till next time: let your research design be guided not by your answers but by your questions!

Alex Darracott : 17 Jan 2016 15:14 |  Tags: Design Methodology Mixedmethods Triangulation |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Methodological Breakthrough, Part A: Background To The Problem!

Explaining the Background

Regular readers will have probably come to know that Constructivist Grounded Theory became the selected research methodology (framework of understanding overall research design of exploring phenomenon of interest) and that the following problems were fairly immediately obvious:

• Considering the integration of quantitative and qualitative data was proving to be problematic within a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology

• Compatibility issues therefore between Philosophically different approaches to understanding reality

The initial decision to use Constructivist Grounded Theory as an overall methodology led to Philosophical and Methodological problems. Philosophical problems in that Positivism and Interpretivism differ widely in that Positivism suggests a social reality independent of human perceiving and thinking therefore reality is absolute whilst Interpretivism suggests a social reality dependent on human perceiving and thinking therefore reality is relative. Positivism suggests that reality can be explored through reducing reality to a series of variables and the exploration of relationships between them; Interpretivism along with Constructivism suggests social reality as an interpretation therefore each person constructs their own perspective of reality and is therefore more complex to understand than a simple reduction to a series of variables and their relationships.

In what way could research be designed so that differing Philosophical perspectives increase in compatibility within a single research project? Could the phenomenon of interest be explored and explained using methodologies and methods that adopt either of these Philosophical definitions and then integrated to explain the phenomenon?

Methodological problems came about because Constructivist Grounded Theory as a methodology for this research entailed compatibility issues between quantitative and qualitative data that were not so easily resolved, as it was realised that Constructivist Grounded Theory unlike other flavours of Grounded Theory did not work with quantitative data. Even if I persevered with this, I envisioned having difficulty with figuring out and explaining the way that quantitative data from questionnaires could integrate with qualitative data from Constructivist Grounded Theory techniques as there was no guidance in textbooks available.  This obviously led me to knowing that as a methodology, Constructivist Grounded Theory was no longer applicable

To briefly explain my logic behind that (shall be exploring more about this in the thesis) Constructivist Grounded Theory as a methodology makes most sense in contexts that are exclusively qualitative; where all research methods are based on collecting and analysing qualitative data. With my research, this is simply not the case because the phenomenon of interest needs both quantitative and qualitative data to provide the basis of substantial and detailed theorising therefore I was not willing to alter any methods unless absolutely necessary in order to stay within the Ph.D. time frame. So, to find answers, I had to revisit previous research methodological ideas.

Returning to previous ideas

So, I had a problem to solve. Constructivist Grounded Theory was no longer making much sense as an overall methodology and given the phenomenon of interest I was not willing to drastically redesign any of the methods that are in development. Therefore I had to find a more appropriate methodology that assumed compatibility between differing Philosophical perspectives, and therefore allowed for the differing data types to be more effectively explored, compared or integrated within a single research project, leading to more effective and sound theorising of the phenomenon of interest.

Thinking back to earlier in the Ph.D. before initially deciding on Constructivist Grounded Theory as the most appropriate research methodology, I had thought for a while about Mixed Methods methodologies as well as Triangulation methods. Triangulation I had in the back of my mind to work with along the way, but Mixed Methods at the time unfortunately was considered unsuitable as the types I had learned about I considered inappropriate due to incompatibility between sequence orderings and timings of methods along with mixing approaches, and the vision I had of the research.

After a short stint into rereading mixed methods methodologies I thankfully came across a methodology that appears to be extremely appropriate for my research and for whatever reason I had not noticed it the first time I read a set of Mixed Methods literature.

That methodology is Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology!

Alex Darracott : 09 Jan 2016 20:56 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem