How Identity Impacts the Way Social Scientists Frame Research Questions and Conduct Research - Assignment Example

Discuss with reference to at least three theoretical perspectives, how identity impacts on the way social scientists frame research questions and conduct research. Introduction Theoretical approaches on research in social sciences can be classified as follows: Quantitative Approach Qualitative Approach Scientific Approach Mixed Methods Approach Quantitative research is the systematic, parametric and scientific investigation of quantitative elements and occurrences and their relationships in a given sample of data. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses connected with natural occurrences. The process of measurement is pivotal to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships or observable correlations. Quantitative research is widely used in both the natural sciences and social sciences, from chemistry and physics to sociology and psychology. It is also used as a method to research different parameters of education. The quantitative approach is more often used in social sciences as against qualitative research because statistical measurements of variables present a degree of accuracy in correlations. Quantitative research is generally applied using scientific methods, which include: Development of models, theories and hypotheses Perfection of tools and methods for measurement Experimental control and manipulation of variables Gathering empirical data Data modeling and analysis Evaluation of results Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters. Qualitative researchers attempt to get an insight into human behaviour and the reasons that govern human behaviour. Qualitative research depends on reasons behind various aspects of behaviour (Creswell, 2007, p.78). To put it in brief , it investigates the why and the how of decision making. . Hence, the need is for smaller but focused samples rather than large random samples. Qualitative research categorizes data into patterns as a priority for organizing and reporting results. Qualitative researchers typically rely on four methods for gathering information: (1) self-involvement in the process (2) direct observation, (3) in depth interviews, and (4) analysis of documents and materials. Qualitative research is more often used in the social sciences as against quantitative research because it provides a dynamism to the researcher in approaching an otherwise fluid scenario. Scientific approach refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (Montello and Sutton, 2006, p.168). Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experiments to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeated, in order to predict any future results with a degree of reliability. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may put many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This, in turn, may help construct new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into their proper context. One of the factors shared by the various fields of inquiry, is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another objective is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. This procedure affords other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, known as ‘full disclosure’, also encourages statistical measures to be made to test the degree reliability of these data. Corpus of Analysis Identity of the individual researcher, literally, bears his/her signature. Individual idiosyncrasies apart, the researcher applies the available techniques or a set of tools under the chosen research method. For example, a researcher who adopts the quantitative approach may have available to him a variety of techniques ranging from mathematical tools to statistical procedures. As Robson points out such abundance in the availability of techniques does not reduce by one iota the magnitude of the researcher’s task. Where quantifiable data are subject to analysis, a rigorous methodology has to be adopted by him to achieve the predefined goals. Researcher’s identity plays a very significant role here because though the techniques cannot be influenced the outcome of such research may bear the hallmark of the researcher’s identity through bias or prejudice. Just, the researcher selects data samples, not at random, but through pre-design from a given collection. “...importance of reflexivity, i.e. an awareness of the ways in which the researcher as an individual with a particular social identity and background, has an impact on the research process”, (Robson, 2002, p.172). Quantitative research has a still greater identity marker, i.e. the calibre of the researcher is imprinted on the final results. The mosaic of data on a set of variables such as population, sex ratios, age groups, income levels and so on has to produce an identical outcome, irrespective of the diversity of researchers, providing all of them tested the variables of the same data to come to their conclusions. Bell calls it “bias- the old enemy” (Bell, 2005, p.166). Once the research parameters have been decided upon, the most significant task of the researcher is to camouflage his identity through articulate and assiduous effort. Thus, it is obvious even in quantitative research the probability of individual identity of the researcher impacting on his work, cannot be ruled out, altogether. Qualitative research also has its share of imperfection in the form of identity markers left behind by researchers in their work. In fact, Robson points out that female researchers prefer qualitative research against quantitative research due to the fact that the former seeks to erase gender-based biases and prejudices (ibid Robson, p.173). He attributes sexism in research to four factors – “androcentricity, overgeneralisation, insensivity and double standards”.(ibid Robson, p.75). While quantitative research tends to be more scientific than qualitative research, the latter has the distinct advantage of being ‘hermeneustically inclined’. However, one might doubt the scientific objectivity in such research for cultural and ethnic identities may mar the otherwise plausible content. Researcher bias, according to Flick, could lead to “premature closure, unexplained data in the field notes and a lack of search for negative tendencies”, (Flick, 2006, p.377). Cultural and ethnic identities of individual researchers have, on occasions, impacted the outcomes of research, despite their relentless efforts at producing documented empirical data to support preconceived hypotheses. Enthusiastic indulgence by researchers in conversations with participants, could inevitably produce a ‘biased outcome’ (Silverman, ed, 2004, p.112). Researchers who deliberately seek to address participants’ concerns get trapped in the latter’s predilections or proclivities. Thus, the final result might not reflect the true picture. Qualitative research in social sciences tends to identify with the individual researcher when he, knowingly or unknowingly, leaves behind the telltale imprint of individuality in his work. The extent, to which it happens, is again determined by the researcher’s compunction. Finally, scientific approach is more objective and less likely to be influenced by researcher’s identity. It is not purely intended for physical sciences alone such as physics and medicine. In fact, it is widely used in humanities such as geography and history. In scientific literature the researcher’s identity can be traced to his making two fundamental errors: (a). a tendency to seek confirmation of what we think we already know rather than to explore the possibility of variances, and (b). a positive bias about our predisposition (Ford, 2000, p.30). The author discusses the not-so-marked tendentious attitudes of scientific researchers in ecological science. There are three assumptions that signify the underlying prejudices of the researcher in scientific method: (a). detachment or disengagement is not a positive tendency, (b). post-modernist literature emphasises disengagement despite its failure to address the most recurring fault on the part of the individual researcher and (c). the critique of disengagement or the absence of gender as a significant social category in research is opposed by feminists. (May, 2003, 3rd ed, p.22). “…the idea of disengagement to produce untainted data is something of a myth and is based upon a particular view of scientific procedure, challenged by feminists, postmodernists and positivists”, (ibid May, p.170). I have made a squarely exhaustive attempt to capture the very essence of the problem associated with ‘the individual identity of the researcher being detected in his work by the reader’ and its implications for the whole process of developing techniques to overcome this particular deficiency. Despite some marked differences between the three approaches, the impact of the researcher’s identity is symmetrically balanced in them. References 1. Bell, J, (2005), Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First Time Researchers in Education, Berkshire, Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education. 2. Creswell, J.W (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, California, Sage Publications, Inc. 3. Flick, U, (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd Ed, London, Sage Publications Ltd., 4. Ford, E. D, (2000), Scientific Method for Ecological Research, Cambridge, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 5. May, T, (2003), Social Research, Issues, Methods and Process, 3rd Ed, Buckingham, Open University Press. 6. Montello, D.R, (2006), An Introduction to Scientific Research Methods, California, Sage Publications, Inc. 7. Robson, R, (2002), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers, Massachusetts, Wiley Blackwell Publishers. 8. Silverman, D,(Editor), (2004), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, London, Sage Publications Ltd., Read More