For Research Methods (Research Design by Creswell and On the Case: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research by Dyson and Genishi)

Mixed Methods and Considering the Case

So, I hate to say it, but I was kind of bored reading the mixed methods chapter. I’m sure it is because it is not relevant to my thesis research, and not because the information itself was actually boring. Anyway, it seems a lot of mixed methods research has to do with explaining mixed methods—what it is, why you are using, how you use it, who has used it before, which strategy you are using, the order you use qualitative and quantitative methods/data, the type of data (along with a visual), etc. Apparently, this is due to mixed methods research being “relatively new in the social and human sciences as a distinct research approach” (204). I’m sure there is just as much justification in the other methods of research, but for some reason this stood out so much more in this chapter.

There were two parts that I found the most interesting in this chapter, the strategies and data analysis. Honestly, I didn’t think that there would be so many different strategies in a mixed methods design. The six of the twelve strategies outlined in the chapter are sequential explanatory, sequential exploratory, sequential transformative, concurrent triangulation, concurrent embedded, and concurrent transformative. In all three sequential strategies, the data collection is two-phase with one following the other. In sequential explanatory, the quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, and secondly, the qualitative data is collected and analyzed in order to “explain and interpret [the] quantitative results” (211). Sequential exploratory is the same approach, but the order is switched—qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, and then quantitative data is collected and analyzed in order to “assist in the interpretation of qualitative findings” (211). Side note: I found it interesting that this model would make a qualitative study “more palatable” for an audience unfamiliar with qualitative research (212). The sequential transformative uses a theoretical lens to “guide the study” (212), and it doesn’t matter if qualitative or quantitative comes first or is used to support the other.

 The same is with the three concurrent strategies in which both qualitative and quantitative data are collected simultaneously. In concurrent triangulation, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected at the same time, and then the results merged or integrated/compared into two databases for a side by side discussion (213). Concurrent embedded has the same one phase of data collection, but has a primary method that “guides the project and secondary database that is embedded, or nested, within” (214) the primary method. The embedding of the secondary database means that it either addresses a separate research question or “seeks information at a different level of analysis” (214). The concurrent transformative uses a specific theoretical perspective along with the concurrent data collection, but can use either the triangulation or embedded models in its design.

The approach to data analysis that caught my attention is data transformation. Why? I don’t know…The idea of having to “quantify the qualitative data” or to “qualify quantitative data’ intrigued me. I’m not entirely sure how you qualify quantitative data, but I think I’m probably overthinking it.

Since I am already over my word limit, AND since Dyson and Genishi was so straightforward I will keep my discussion of that book really short. Basically, to me the idea here is that “adults and children interpret their meanings in particular situations through interactions with others” (Dyson and Genishi 18). The role of the researcher is to use “methods of observation and analysis [of other people’s interactions] to understand other’s understandings” (Dyson and Genishi 12). In other words, the researcher interprets other people’s interpretations of meanings through observing their interactions with other people. 

For Research Methods (Research Design by Creswell)

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methods

Chapter eight really seemed like a review from my experimental psychology course. I pretty much remembered most of the things discussed here, but I don’t think I remember them being this involved. Now I kind of wish I had participated in one of my professor’s big research projects, so I would be more familiar with the methods sections of a much larger research project than what I actually did. On another note, I think I have used the survey method more than once, and I found it interesting that there is a website called SurveyMonkey.com (149) that will do all of that work for you. That would have come in handy.

Anyway, for the most part I again noticed difference between qualitative and quantitative research. One thing that stood out to me was the procedures. In quantitative research, the objective is to use a smaller sample to represent a large population, and seems to depend more so on the randomness of the sample participants for accuracy (148, 155). In qualitative research, the researcher must “purposefully select participants or sites…that will best help the researcher understand the problem and the research question” and is not dependent upon the random selection of participants for its readers understanding (178).

There is also the instrument that is used to collect data. In quantitative research, a thorough discussion of the type of instrument used, its validity and reliability, who created the instrument, and how that instrument is going to be used to collect data are necessary to the methods section (149). However, in qualitative research, the researcher collects data by looking at documents, observing, and interviewing and don’t necessarily rely on outside instruments because, “researchers are the ones who actually gather the information” (175).

There is also a difference with regard to bias. In quantitative research, the response bias has to do with whether or not the results would have changed if nonrespondents had responded, and the researcher must check for this type of bias and record the procedures used (151-152). The researcher in qualitative research deals with their own personal bias, and has to include information about their own biases, values, past experiences, and any background information that “may shape their interpretations formed during a study” so that the reader can better understand the researcher’s findings (177).

The last thing that stuck out to me was the protocol. This is something that is new to me. I can’t remember it being brought up in research as an undergrad, and I did do some observation and a case study where I conducted interviews. Basically, I was told to write down what I see, hear, smell, feel, and taste—that’s it. The interview protocol is actually quiet helpful, and while some of it seemed simple enough there were things, such as the ice-breaker question, probes, and instructions, that would have made my work much easier. 

For Research Methods (Research Design by Creswell)

Creswell: Introduction, Purpose Statement, Research Questions and Hypotheses

I have been reading proposals to get an idea of what I need to do for my thesis proposal. I have to admit that I have been really confused. These three chapters have actually helped me understand what I am supposed to be doing. I still have some questions specific to my project, but at least I know how to start. One thing that I have noticed is that I have quantitative research on the brain. I am used to doing research in psychology, and it is a lot different than what I will be doing in my thesis. I think that since I want to think in quantitative, while doing qualitative research is probably what is confusing me.

The introduction chapter is pretty straight forward. The deficiencies model makes things so much easier to outline. In qualitative research, the researcher explores the problem through a particular theoretical lens, and may use personal experiences ( 98-99). I found this to be the most beneficial, because I can tell about my own experience in relation to the problem I am researching. The research problem needs to engage the reader right away, clearly identify what the problem is that is being studied, and why it is important to study it. The review of studies almost sounded like a literature review, but I think of it as establishing what research has been done and how your research adds new knowledge to what is already known. Why your research is important is the significance of a study for audiences.

The purpose statement is another area that was confusing me. Maybe this is because my idea is too broad. Anyway, I see that it basically says what you intend to find in the study, who you are studying, and where you are studying them (112). What also threw me off was that in chapter seven it says in qualitative research you use research questions instead of objectives (129). Part of the purpose statement is to state your objectives, so I was a little unsure of what it meant.

The central question of the research questions was the same way. If you have to focus on a single concept in the study, how do you then ask a very broad question about the study (129-130)? I am probably overthinking this, but it didn't seem to make sense when I was reading it.