The Research Design as the Inherent Strategy That a Researcher Chooses - Essay Example

Research Research Part The research design is the inherent strategy that a researcher chooses to integrate and arrange differentparts of a study in a logical and a coherent way. The design phase is one of the most critical stages in research. This is because it defines the structure of a research such that the researcher follows the guideline as it envelops. It is essential to figure out a research design that is appropriate to the context and the nature of the study. There are different types of research designs. For instance, case study designs involve analyzing given scenarios. Historical research design, on the hand, entails trailing the development of a given idea and making conclusions out of such data. In causal designs, a relationship is hypothesized between two variables. In such a circumstance, there must be a one dependent variable and one or more independent variables (Turksen 2006, p. 143). The nature of such a relationship is essential for making given conclusions. For instance, a researcher may ask if one wants to explore the perceptions about a given social phenomenon and how such perceptions link to other outlooks. Besides, the researcher may ask if one wants to use a distinct field method for studying a given group and use another method for studying another subset of a population. Brannen defines research design as a context of inquiry. In this sense, she means a research design determines the process and structure of investigation. It is essential to highlight the logic of the study that drives the inquiry process. In this sense, the researcher should clearly define whether one wants an inductive system or a deductive system (Tolk 2013, p. 113). However, it is essential to note that mixed methods may still involve both of the logics. For instance, survey research may involve both deductive and inductive logics. In qualitative designs, the research tests ideas and generate new ones. She also argues that this phase involves framing researchable questions. These are not actual research questions but questions that will guide the kind of investigation a researcher chooses (Siraj-Blatchford 2010, p. 467). In a project, researchers may ask different types of questions. In the end, the hybrid nature of the questions influences the choice of a method or the choice of a set of methods. Ercikan and Roth emphasize on the dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative research designs. They argue that this is a primordial basis for constructing any given research. Polarization usually occurs by terming quantitative research as objective while classifying qualitative research as subjective. The authors despise the idea that research design polarization eventually determines the type of data collection used. This occurs in spite of the fact that proper research questions and conduction of a good research as the core elements of any investigation. However, the authors argue against such polarization in the case of education research inquiry. They argue that, due to the complex nature of education inquiry such methods should be integrated to grant quality research. Besides, they argue that both types of research designs involve subjective analysis in the form of drawing conclusions and linking premises. This usually occurs due to the purpose of a research (Colburn & Newmark 2007, p. 113). Apart from determining the research design, the purpose of a research eventually influences the nature of conclusions that the investigator draws. The authors subtly assert that it is crucial to lay the groundwork of a research. In this sense, the researcher well understands the motivations for doing a research and is aware of the nature of data appropriate for such an undertaking. In the end, the research design naturally emanates. Ercikan and Roth make an essential point about how the nature of data influences either qualitative or quantitative research designs. The authors describe data as representations of phenomena in a community. Research activities, therefore, classify into qualitative and quantitative frames depending on the type of phenomena represented. The authors argue that cultural and natural phenomena are both qualitative and quantitative. It is, therefore, counterproductive to set up a dichotomy between these two aspects of research. In the end, all research involves abstraction that strives to relate theory with reality (Ercikan& Roth 2005, p. 22). In a society, individuals face different needs thereby requiring different forms of knowledge and related analysis. Besides, researchers should attain the freedom to summarize knowledge in unique ways. In debating paradigms of learning, Hodkinsona and Macleodb define learning as both a linguistic and a conceptual construction (Hodkinsona and Macleodb 2010, p. 174). Since learning does not have a distinct physical or reified identity, people construct learning to explain different type of phenomena that astound them. In the surveys, learning occurred as an acquisition. In mini-ethnographies, learning occurred as participation. In life history designs, learning occurred as a construction. In all types of learning, empirical evidence is an essential precept to creating comprehensive epistemology (Peshkin 2000, p. 6). In this sense, the choice of a particular research methodology is highly likely to define learning in a unique way. This characterizes research methods as biased in relation to learning paradigms. This, however, offers an optimistic position. In case a researcher adopts a given view of learning thereby asking research questions that synchronize with the position, one becomes biased to the understanding of learning adopted. It is essential, all the same, to attain awareness on the intricacies and limitations of a given choice of learning. Brannen argues that the ontological and epistemological assumptions define the research methods used by a researcher. In referring to paradigm wars, the author mentions the positivism and interpretevism have always possessed a dichotomy (Brannen 2005, p. 7). In the positivist strategy, the researcher assumes there is already a known reality that one is merely uncovering. On the other hand, the interpretevist position holds knowledge as a subjective idea, therefore, being multiple and relative. The author, however, stresses that such a dichotomy is complex in actual research (Brannen 2005, p. 7). For instance, surveys do not only entail the positivist approach but also demand the interpretative strategy in researching and examining data. In some cases, generating data at the micro and the macro levels involve different paradigms of learning. He finally argues that if research paradigms influence the nature of research methods that a person utilizes, then a researcher may rule out certain forms of methods. The author highlights the concept of pragmatism that respects philosophical underpinnings but argue for emphasis on technical issues. In the end, technical issues are more essential in defining the paradigm of a research. This is because they define the scope and death of research. Brannen argues for a method that is appropriate to research questions. The framing of a research question, however, is not only shaped by epistemological assumptions, but influenced by the need to choose the theory that fits within particular cases or contexts. This means that a researcher can develop research questions in the course of investigation. A paradigm eventually develops as the researcher faces new situations and unpredicted challenges. She says that research questions reflect different needs and perspectives. Quantitative perspectives may emphasize on the behavior and actions of informants while qualitative perspectives may strive to uncover the interests and attitudes of informants. On the other hand, as similar to their arguments on research dichotomies, Ercikan and Roth argues for a mix of paradigms of learning in constructing research since choosing a particular paradigm for a given project is pragmatically impossible. Brannen explains the complexity of mixed research methods. Mixed research methods suggest employing more than one nature of research method. In this view, the methods might be a composition of both qualitative and quantitative methods. This creates complexity in defining mixed research methods in terms of design. This is because it may constitute a strategy or it may be submerged within another strategy. On the other hand, Ercikan and Roth define the difficulty of constructing research methods from qualitative and quantitative paradigms. In turn, research methods should form as the project envelops. Hodkinsona and Macleodb, in relation to learning, say that research methods have different limitations thereby requiring the use of mixed methods. Part 2 Hodkinsona and Macleodb argue that there are different forms of learning. In the mini-ethnography approach research method, the participatory form of learning is the most dominant. For instance, the article highlighted the study of English learning in different colleges. This is because it entails the study of social life within places. Such studies involve relational complexity, it is essential to involve various forms of perspectives. In addition, individuals react emotionally and do things differently thereby involving participation. On the other hand, life histories involve learning as a construction. Life histories involve contextual learning thereby demanding subjectivity in interpreting events. The construction metaphor entails how individuals interpret their learning in independent ways (Macnee & McCabe 2007, p. 219). In terms of learning as an acquisition, the surveys follow and study a given phenomena over a long time. In addition, surveys have acquisition-based learning because research begins from a conceptualized and theorized point (Hodkinsona and Macleodb 2010, p. 180). I agree with Ercikan and Roth in explaining that paradigms are irrelevant in comprehensive research. Instead, by asking certain questions, the researcher achieves a perspective or a mix of perspectives in fine-tuning research according to the intended purposes. The authors argue that defining research between qualitative and quantitative perspectives is fallacious because it betrays the reality of analyzing information. This is because analyzing empirical information also comprises some level of abstraction and relation to theory (Kemmis 1988, p. 67). This argument, however, has a limitation as based on the blurry perspective it grants to research. It is usually constructive to define research within distinct paradigms that encourage coherence and consistent follow-up. Defining a contextual paradigm helps articulate the expectations of the audience. In this sense, the audience immediately knows what to expect out of a research. For instance, a descriptive research only manifests the outlook of a situation. A researcher, therefore, in the conclusion part, only makes a summary of one’s findings. A descriptive research has the pressure for objectivity because it has a unique need. For instance, a government responding on a floods’ disaster will only require the information that deals with numbers, of lives and deaths, and extent of damage. In cases of further inquiry, it is crucial for a research to acquire a distinct frame. This guides other researchers in knowing the type of information contained in a research work. Paradigms are also useful in guiding the critique and analysis of research. This enables the gathering of relevant tools for analysis. Part 3 The proposal requires certain changes. To begin with, it is essential to highlight the positive attributes of the research and consequential problems. To begin with, the proposal has defined its research to essential narrow point of Saudi students. This helps create coherence in the development of data (McNabb D 2004, p. 67). This research, however, ignores the control experiment that may help manage the research within objectivity. In addition, this research also requires a positivist approach in steering the investigation and analysis. According Ercikan and Roth, the research proposal should entail multiple questions. The multiple questions eventually define a mix of perspectives that help uncover the reality (Hine& Carson 2007, p. 90). A strict interpretivist position constricts data collection and despises the role of theorizing and conceptualizing (Babbie 2010, p. 109). In turn, the use of interviews alone cannot help define comprehensive data. Ercikan and Roth argue for a mixed methods’ approach that involves collecting different types of information for different people. In this sense, comparing the Saudi students’ mode of English learning and actual performance in class becomes a possible perspective of articulating the research. In this sense, the research should adopt the quantitative method of aligning students’ results against their speaking abilities. This will necessitate computing the performance of foreign students against the performance of host country’s students. In addition, it is essential to choose the acquisition learning approach in understanding such a complex social issue. Bibliography Babbie, E 2010, The practice of social research, Wadsworth Cengage, Belmont. Brannen, J 2005, Mixed methods research: a discussion paper, ESRC, viewed 17 June 2014, < http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/89/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf> Colburn, K, & Newmark, R 2007, Service-learning paradigms: Intercommunity, interdisciplinary and international, University of Indianapolis Press, Indianapolis. Ercikan, K, & Roth, W 2005, ‘What Good Is Polarizing Research Into Qualitative and Quantitative?’ Educational Researcher, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 14–23. Hine, D, & Carson, D 2007, Innovative methodologies in enterprise research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenhan. Hodkinsona, P, Macleodb, F 2010, ‘Contrasting concepts of learning and contrasting research methodologies: affinities and bias’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 173–189. Kemmis, S 1988, Action research in Keeves, J.P. (ed.) Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurements: An International Handbook, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Macnee, C, & McCabe, S 2007, Understanding nursing research: using research in evidence-based practice, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. McNabb, D 2004, Research methods for political science: quantitative and qualitative methods, Sharpe, Armonk. Peshkin, A 2000, The nature of interpretation in qualitative research, Educational Researcher, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 5-10. Siraj-Blatchford, I 2010, “Learning in the home and at school: how working class children succeed against the odds, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 463-82. Thomas, G 2009, How to do your research project, Sage, London. Tolk, A 2013, Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation: philosophical foundations for intelligent M&S applications, Springer, Berlin. Turksen, I 2006, An ontological and epistemological perspective of fuzzy set theory, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Read More