The Correctness of the Choice of Methodology - Research Paper Example

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3 Introduction Before moving into analyzing the methodology used in both the articles it would be wise to take of certain basic things regarding methodology of research. Article A considers a time series qualitative responses of three teachers. Recorded conversation instead of written questionnaires has been used that ran over two to three weeks and spanned sixty minutes each. The second article used cross sectional data collected through framed questionnaire from 100 teachers; randomly selected from 600 teachers. Considering the background of the participants it is expected that they would be confident on what they say. The reviewer also assumes that the researchers associated with both the articles are reliable and would not be involved in data morphing. The participants are allocating their valuable time to the researchers so their permission prior to the interview and a vote of thanks once it is over should be extended. Perhaps a third party verification of the statistical data qualitative or quantitative and checking the parity of the same with the conclusions of the researchers would have been beneficial (Willis, 2007). However, both the authors have restrained themselves from performing the same and this leaves a doubt on both the studies. Researchers are often subject to self-biasness and are prone to hear what they believe in their mind from the respondents. To avoid such biasness; carrying the primary interview by a third party would have been enough; however none of the authors opted for the same (Turner, et al 2008). 3.2 Research Methods Both of the articles resorted to exploratory research framework, interpreting the observations of the respondents. Mooi and Sarstedt (2011) have explained exploratory research as a method that is used to explore a problem or situation. As mentioned earlier the second article has considered cross sectional data. Doane (2006) mentioned that “If each observation represents a different individual unit (e.g., a person, firm, geographic area), at the same point in time, we have cross-sectional data” (Doane, 2006, 30). Considering the nature of study of both the articles the framework suits the methods been followed. Opting for the mentioned approach played an important role in accumulating and comparing the data. Such approach is particularly suitable for subjective and personal opinion based information and their respective contexts (Descombe, 2003; Willis, 2007). While the first article is entirely qualitative; the second one resorts to mixed methods. The limitations of quantitative data and approach have been highlighted by many scholars on the ground of source of data, deception and ignorance of the qualitative environment when the data was gathered (Denscombe, 1998; Browne and Keeley, 2011). However both the articles depend on primary survey and only human error might be associated with the data gathered this way. 3.3 Individual Interviews and Piloting For primary survey interview is almost mandatory as it helps in gathering information from one person and distributes the same to the other, but there is also a dangerous possibility of bias both on the behalf of the interviewer and the interviewee (Cohen et al., 2000). Bearing in mind both articles considered interview as the mean of collecting information; presence of biasness cannot be ignored. Again neither of the articles have considered group interview, which as suggested by Cohen (2011) often brings out interesting information. Considering that people interviewed are all teachers, this specifically relates to them (Cohen et al., 2000). Neither of the articles supplied any copy of questionnaire; hence it is impossible to judge the quality and appropriateness of the same. The first article took consideration of only three individuals that again a severe shortcoming to attract significant notice. 3.4 Surveys/Questionnaires Robson (2002) emphasized on the quality and flexibility in terms of language used in framing the same, since none of the articles come with any copy of questionnaire; hence it is impossible to comment in this regard. It is worth mentioning that the first article used recording instead of framed questionnaires that again force the reviewer to give a benefit of doubt to the authors as far as the responses presented by them are concerned. Demotivation on behalf of the respondent in providing answers might be another problem that the interviewer encounters (Robson 2002). Again a survey should be preceded by pretest and pilot study. Through pretest the researcher can understand that whether his questionnaire contains any dubious question and what would be the mode of survey. A pilot study on the other hand helps the researcher to determine, the format and the length of the questionnaire and the data collection process (Miller and Yang, 2008). Again a pilot study also reduces the unnecessary financial and opportunity cost that might be incurred in case of a failed full scale survey; but none of the authors of the concerned articles have mentioned that they have opted for it before starting a full scale survey (Bell, 1999). 3.5 Triangulation Triangulation is an important methodology regarding the enhancement of the quality of the research. It might be defined as the combination of different methodologies while studying the same phenomenon. The agreement among different methodologies studying the same research issue generates the belief that the research carried is valid and the researchers are correct. Triangulation also improves the judgment of the researcher on his research problem or question. Triangulation can be of different types such as data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation and methodological triangulation. In other words variation in data sources as well as collection methods leads to successful triangulation (Gerald and Yang, p.247). From this point of view; in article A the three respondents’ responses should have been compared to notice any disparity or similarity and that would have strengthened the article at least regarding the triangulation process. An individual interview followed by a group interview would also have facilitated the verification of responses received that way. Keeping the small number of respondents in mind this would have been particularly helpful for the concerned authors. Article B is in a better position as far as triangulation is considered, first of all owing to its more number of respondents, and secondly it involved survey, questionnaire and interviews (Mumford, 2006, Denscombe, 2003). However, again no cross comparison among respondents’ responses is considered and that leaves a hint of doubt as far as triangulation is concerned. Use of Likert scale is widely accepted tool in academic field; and that gives the concerned article an edge over the other one as far as triangulation is concerned. Observation itself is subject to human error and that for only three respondents puts severe limitations on the authors of article A. 3.6 Validity and Reliability Reliability might be considered as “the extent to which a data collection procedure and analysis yield the same answer for multiple participants in the research process. Intersubjective agreement, consensus between two or more observers, is also important for establishing reliability in qualitative studies. The cross checking process is the reliability check of choice for most researchers.” (Thyer, 2010, 356). Reliability might be divided into two type namely internal and external reliability. In case of internal reliability similarity between the data gathered by the original researchers with that of the other researchers is considered. For external reliability different researchers should embark on the similar findings given similar settings (Thyer, 2010). Validity on the other hand refers to the accuracy of the findings. Reliability might be considered as the precondition of validity. Validity is always subject to several biases among them interview and interviewer bias are the two prime concern of a researcher. In qualitative research another problem arises from interpretation of the observations (Thyer, 2010). It is easily understandable from the theoretical consideration of reliability and validity that unless a research is reliable and viable it has no worth to the academic commune. The main issue concerning the reliability and validity of both the articles is the absence of a questionnaire attached with the article. Furthermore article A considers recorded representation of the respondents not available for the readers; so they have to take the authors as granted as far as the interpretation of those responses are concerned. Article B never mentioned that whether a Cronbach’s alfa test has been performed on the questions after getting the responses; this leaves doubt that whether the responses are acceptable at all or not. This might remind the reader that any article with unreliable or non-valid statistical data is a junk of paper at its best (Cohen, 2011). 3.7 Sampling It is argued that there is no fixed number for sample size (Denscombe, 2003). However as agreed by many scholars, larger is better as it minimizes sampling error (Cohen et al., 2011; Robson, 2002; Denscombe, 2003; Seale, 2004). Article A has opted for non-random sampling considering the fact that all the three teachers chosen are female and not representative of the entire teacher commune in any sense. The article B opted for random sampling choosing 100 teachers among 600 of them. Both the articles used purposive sampling (all the respondents are teachers). At this ground article B definitely has an edge over article A. Read More