Sunday, September 13, 2009

Sunday, May 24, 2009

critical reading



click to enlarge

doing a literature review



click to enlarge

what is a theoretical framework?

What is a theoretical framework, where do you get one, and how does it affect the research and the researcher[1]?

· The researcher starts with some preconceptions – which could be termed bias but Glaser (2002) asserts that this is not so because these notions are acknowledged and described.[2]
· These preconceptions determine the researcher’s personal ontology (what s/he perceives as truth).
· This ontology, in turn, determines the researcher’s proposed defined epistemology (what s/he perceives as knowledge) of a certain situation or context which is under examination.[3]
· Thus, the researcher will develop a set of research questions aimed at interrogating the proposed epistemology.
· The ontological perspective and the epistemological stance will determine the methodology of the investigation (including the methods of data collection and analysis)[4].
· The methodology is validated by these perspectival linkages – the sources of knowledge in the domain chosen by the researcher.
· The whole process described above defines the personal theoretical framework for the particular researcher in the particular context. The exact moment that the framework is defined varies according to the research approach being used (Grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, etc.). Framework ≠ methodology. Frameworks in qualitative or mixed methods research can be based upon a mixture of small, medium or grand theories (personal, interpretive or paradigmatic).
· Theoretical frameworks in qualitative or mixed methods research do not necessarily have ‘names’.
· The theoretical framework defined by the researcher is unique, a perception of reality expressed through the data (including literature search) accumulated, analysed and (most importantly) interpreted with clear and thorough descriptions of the context.[5]

References
Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Glaser, B. G. (2002, September). ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory?’ Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 3, 3 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm (accessed 20.02.2004 and 05.03.2004) 24 paragraphs
Pole, C. and Lampard, R. (2002) Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. (2002) Essex, England: Pearson

[1] Based upon Denzin and Lincoln (2003:30) cited in Anfara and Mertz (2006:xx1): see references for full citation.
[2] It is important to remember Glaser’s points (2002) about the partiality of the researcher. The perspectives of the researcher (in conceptualising the grounded theory) do not affect the way in which the reader acquires it; therefore no bias can reasonably be claimed. We must show a commitment to realism and we cannot be completely objective so partiality is not a failing.
[3] Although Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv) present a linear relationship from concepts/events to constructs (“clusters of thoughts”) to propositions (or “expressions of relationships among several constructs”) to theory ( “a ‘set’ of propositions”), the process is probably nested or looped, since the researcher may move backwards and forwards between concepts, constructs and propositions before any kind of substantive theory emerges. Even then, the emerging theory may drive the analysis back to the very beginning and start off a new loop.
[4] Pole and Lampard (2002: 132-133) state that it is too simple to view the researcher’s epistemological stance as the main determining factor in choosing a methodology for a particular study. If one’s epistemological stance is related to a personal view of knowledge, then I agree with them. For me, the purpose of research is to extend one’s own view of knowledge – its nature, sources and limits. On the other hand, one’s ontological position may well have a great bearing on the chosen methodology, since it is related to a particular domain of study which has been chosen by the researcher, rather than by the other participants.
Footnotes 2,3 and 4 from my thesis
[5] Silver (1983), cited by Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv), sees theory as “a unique way perceiving reality, an expression of someone’s profound insight into an aspect of nature”.

What is mixed methods research?

What is mixed methods research?

According to Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 121), one definition of mixed methods research, is that it entails “within research paradigm mixing”. In their discussion of the search for a definition of mixed methods research, they remind us that: “The classical pragmatic philosophers (i.e., Pierce, James, Dewey) had it right when they pointed out that the present is always a new starting point.”

Is mixed methods research an opportunity to develop a shared ontology? This would fit well with the description provided by Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) of mixed methods research as an approach which attempts to “consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints”.

Perhaps mixed methods research is based upon an epistemological rather than an ontological stance. In his article outlining the paradigmatic history related to mixed methods research, Morgan suggests a pragmatic approach rather than a worldview definition. He considers that methodology should be at the centre of the research design, placing it between methods and epistemology (2007: 68/69). Reflecting upon this has given my original evolutionary and situational approach to grounded theory a slightly altered perspective. Morgan’s exposition (ibid: 71) of abductive reasoning that “moves back and forth between induction and deduction – first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action” is a good description of how a study can be progressed.

As Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) describe it, mixed methods research takes account of multiple perspectives. For me, this is the essence of postmodernism. Clarke (2005: xxiv) describes postmodernism in an easily accessible manner when she cites Fontana (2002) explaining that postmodernism abandons “overarching paradigms and theoretical methodological metasystems”. For Clarke, postmodern research involves embracing complexity, partial hypotheses, and contradictions. She continues (ibid) by highlighting the fact that, from the postmodern perspective, all forms of knowledge are socially and culturally produced – and this includes both natural and social sciences, as well as ‘lay knowledge’.

In other words, all knowledge is situated. This implies that tacit knowledge of the field of inquiry is not only valid but also enables the researcher to construct analytical methods which pertain directly to the phenomena being measured.

Burke Johnson (2007: 116) cite Collins et al. (2006) and their “four rationales for conducting mixed methods research: participant enrichment …., instrument fidelity ……., treatment integrity …., and significance enhancement…..” The first of these (participant enhancement), involves ensuring that respondents are all suitable for the aim of the investigation. Instrument fidelity requires that all measurement instruments are also appropriate. Treatment integrity involves maintaining the reliability of any interventions that are made by the researcher. Finally, significance enhancement involves employing thick descriptions (Geertz, Fosket) and thus validating the findings through a process of ‘crystallisation’ (Ely et al.) and providing enough information for the reader to determine a degree of fit (Schofield).

References (I really will get round to these refs)
· Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A. (2007) Towards a Definition of Mixed Methods Research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 2, pp. 112 - 133, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
· Clarke, A. E. (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. California, USA: Sage
· Ely
· Geertz
· Fosket
· Morgan, D. (2007) Paradigms lost and Pragmatism regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 1, pp. 48 – 76, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
· Schofield

my first ever EdD supervision preparation

These are the notes I am using to prepare for my first telephone supervision. Hope they may be useful for my student and anyone interested. they should also help me this time next year!

Preparation for telephone supervision (1)
Note that student should also type up her notes and send to me – she could do this as a ‘learning contract’ p17 Programme Guide.
1. Common ground: what are our common interests?
2. Her proposal and feedback:
a. I especially liked ...
b. She needs to explain why she is ......
c. Develop Research questions if necessary
d. Theoretical/methodological considerations
3. Her progress notes sent to me by e-mail prior to this conversation (thanks):
a. What I liked ....
b. What does she see as the purpose of the literature review? (ch3 of course reader)
c. considering mixed methods – if appropriate
d. What other ideas is she developing?
4. PR01
a. Due 15th June 3000 – 4000 words (p21 of my pink booklet and p63-66 of programme guide): i. RQs and hypotheses for Year 1
ii. Lit review development
iii. Rationale for methodology and methods
iv. Month by month timetable for Year 1 showing where PR02,03, 04 and the initial study fit in
v. Brief indication of what will be in 02 and 03 (eg Lit Review and methodology)
b. Has she already got a theoretical framework? See ch5 of course reader.
c. Activity 19 (p65 of programme guide) – just looking at first two questions of this here:
i. What is her theoretical perspective in terms of the work being undertaken and the methodology?
ii. The research questions (see 2b and c above)
5. Ideas
a. Consider using the forum linked to her own blog to sound out bits of writing – e.g. the purpose of a literature review, how she developed her personal framework; or use the OU Knowledge Network to publish
Methods in Social Research. (2002) Essex, England: Pearson