Dyson and Genishi

The readings for this week consistent of mixed methods procedures and a look at case studies. What interested me was the way the case study chapter was approached in “Approaches to Language and Literacy Research.”  I felt that the chapter explained very well how there are an infinite number of factors and complex systems to consider when looking at a case study, but I didn’t grasp the idea of how a case study would fit into creating a greater theory for a certain population or if it simply stayed within that individual or group’s context.

                For me, the idea of a case study is simply to gain a greater understanding of an event or phenomenon within its context in an individual’s own mind. After reading the first chapter, which outlined numerous lenses and angles that can be used in a case study, it became clear to me that case studies should not be, for whatever reason, implemented to a greater population, ethnic group, or body of people.

                The reason a researcher would choose to follow a case study of an individual is because he or she understands that there are so many complexities within every single situation that it would be impossible to apply the rules learned within that study to a greater group or individuals. For me, case studies should not consist of groups greater than one person. An ethnic study is too general for a research given these times.

                I say these times because every public school, every employer, and every institution is pushing forward on the idea of diversity within their environment. Taking a sample of greater than one in any study undermines the meaning of diversity. A researcher might be under the impression that his subjects are diverse because they look different or speak different, but in reality, it goes much deeper than that.

                If a researcher sets forward on an ethnographic study, it reinforces the idea of what diversity should be as a social word and ignores the real diversity behind every single individual. The researcher is ignoring the fact that this African American or Mexican American who lives in a certain area, goes to a certain school, or performs a certain action is completely different from his friend who lives in that same area, attends the same school, and performs certain actions as well. It undermines the individual’s thoughts and experiences. They don’t spend every single minute of their lives together, and if they did, it still wouldn’t be the same because they’re different people.

                Ultimately, I think Creswell mentions in his book that a researcher states his biases and reports his findings to people and also explains the situation to others. What I think would be a bad idea is to go ahead and take these findings and apply them to a huge population without acknowledging that they’re in fact stating that these people aren’t as diverse as we think: if they worked for this guy who has certain characteristics, it should also work for this entire group, who share those characteristics.

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. Pretty simple...

Week 6 Response

The latest chapter in Creswell’s book focused on the specific procedures of mixed methods methodology, as opposed to (or rather combining) qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This is a relatively new area of research which attempts to combine the strengths and counteract the weakness of both “qual” and “quan.” As it is an emerging field, there is far less of a definite structure that must be followed for conducting and writing this research. You could start with either approach, or do both at the same time, depending on how much time, money, and other necessary resources you have available.

Beginning in Dyson and Genishi’s book, we begin to see the qualitative research method in more action. I can see how it was useful to read Research Design first, as this next book uses the methodology, but does not give the terminology for their research ideas. Still, I feel like I understand the motivations behind qualitative research better with the stories of case studies that this book presents. Factors that shape research, interpreting outcomes, conducting research in the field, and the researchers situating themselves in their subjects’ environments began to form into a clearer picture for me with the case studies of Madlenka and Lyron.

By the section of the first chapter where the authors talked about researching in a first/second grade classroom, I began to think of instances where I could do research. My mom is a first grade teacher, and her school district has recently been focusing on the teaching of writing. This could be a really interesting resource for study. I know in one of my other classes I will need to do an interview study, and I think going into the first grade classroom and talking with the students and teachers might prove to be a good topic for research.

The authors talk about how their qualitative research aims to study the “teacup” of the individual in a case study and understand the created “world” of the setting. While this is not the technical language of the first book, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the examples. Researchers “construct interpretations of other people’s interpretations” and in my own imagined case study, I could see myself trying to interpret the students’ interpretation of what writing is, and the teacher’s interpretation of how the kids both respond to new writing curriculum as opposed to past years, and interpret how she interprets the kids interpreting writing (18). 

Mixed Case Response

 Last chapter in Creswell text covers Mixed Methods. It gives you four criteria to determine which method to use - timing, weight, mixing, and theoretical lens/framework. Then it breaks the methods down into six strategies based on how the data is collected.

To me, Creswell seems to obfuscate Mixed Methods (while simultaneously oversimplifying quantitative, but that's another discussion). In exploring the use of Mixed Methods, we can ask the same questions we've been asking about qualitative and quantitative methods this whole time. What question are you asking and what is the best method for obtaining an accurate answer? Why is your method reliable and valid for what you're studying? If you were doing an in-depth interview of a specific group of people, would some broader statistics about that group be relevant and enlightening for your research? Yes? Boom! You have a reason to use mixed methods. If you perform a survey and find that a group of people gave unusual answers that didn't line up with your hypothesis, would interviewing or doing a case study of those people be helpful? Boom! Mixed Methods!

I am glad to be moving on to The Case. While Creswell is a useful primer for a very broad view of research, as soon as you move into a meaningful research project you would have to do additional reading on the methods you are using anyway.

The introduction to the Dyson and Genishi text explains why a text on Case Studies is warranted. They give examples, specifically about a girl named Madlenka and others, of how a particular individual's story can be used to paint a picture about their world and other people within that world, or other worlds like them. By world, they are referring to a social ecosystem, basically. While the text is a little more abstract so far than Creswell, it does give much more pragmatic and relatable examples/anecdotes.

I particularly enjoyed their section on “cultural practices,” a term they use to describe recurrent events within a group of people. Outside of a modern context, we might immediately think of rituals and in some sense we'd be correct, depending on how broad your definition is. I like the idea of looking at a particular event and then using that event as context to view differences or similarities between groups of people, or between generations of a group. The text uses a lost tooth, which is interesting to think about, but events that spring to mind for me are things like high school graduation, retirement, divorce, or the death of a child. Seeing how families and the social groups they are connected to comes together in these times can definitely say a lot.

Creswell's Final Chapter

The last chapter of this book goes over mixed methods as well as strategies for deciding and writing proposals for mixed methods. Creswell begins with the how to define, or rather ways to incorporate the definition of, mixed methods to your proposal. He suggested that you could provide a sort of an evolutionary timeline of how the origins of this type of study came to be. Creswell also included using his own definition from the beginning of this book, because we all know there’s no shame in self-promoting your own work, he cites himself enough in every chapter. Another example of defining mixed methods is to use the “growth of interest” (205) that expands from scholarly bodies of work such as journals, books, and other academic discourses.  Creswell also expands on this idea to include the opposite perception and define mixed methods by the challenges research faces and the need for this type of inquiry. He then goes on to discuss the importance of timing, weighting, mixing and theorizing. These four aspects structure the type of proposal you will take on. Timing is further divided into sequentially (one type of data is taken before the other) or concurrently (data collected simultaneously).  Weighting is the author’s decision to emphasize qualitative or quantitative qualities based on audience, topic, and research. Mixing is how the author effectively mixes quantitative and qualitative data and interpretations. Mixing is further divided into connected, where the data and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative methods are “connected” throughout the proposal; integrated, where the two methods merge during the interpretation or analysis; or embedding, which uses both methods, but one form is used within the other form as a support. This section, most specifically, gave me the most trouble out of the chapter when trying to understand the different concepts. This is the one time I would have like Creswell to but in examples even if they were short, fictional excerpts. Instead I had to wait six pages and five strategies until I got an example and by that time I had already caught on since the strategies incorporates the three types of mixing. Theorizing is the last step to situate the proposal to include the author’s biases.  The next portion of the chapter Creswell begins to explain the rudimentary elements that develop the base for the strategies for inquires. He notes six different types of mixed method strategies which are sequential explanatory strategy, sequential exploratory strategy, sequential transformative strategy, concurrent triangulation strategy, concurrent embedded strategy and concurrent transformative strategy. The sequential explanatory strategy’s main difference is when the quantitative data (taken first) mixes to inform the qualitative data (taken second). For the, sequential exploratory strategy, the different characteristics are “mix[ing] through being connected between the qualitative data analysis and…quantitative data collection” (211) and this method is exploratory. Sequential transformative strategy has a distinct quality in that it incorporates a theoretical lens. The concurrent triangulation strategy differs from the rest because the mixing is done in the interpretation portion or it can be used to compare results simultaneously in the discussion. The concurrent embedded strategy can be used to show the unevenness in a situation by not being compared but by having the data embedded and side by side. The last strategy, concurrent transformative strategy, is different because it leaves the author free to incorporate features of triangulation and embedding. Creswell later goes on to explain how to choose a strategy, which he just did when he introduced the six strategies. He also continues to describe how to analyze data and represent it within your proposal.

Mixed Methods/On the Case Response, Bree

The Creswell section on mixed methods procedures focuses on the start of a mixed methods study. It includes step-by-step guidelines as well as a checklist for guidance. It emphasizes the importance of defining mixed methods and discussing some of its history, since it is still fairly new. Pay special attention to timing, weight, mixing, and theorizing/transforming and include these in your proposal. The chapter goes on to discuss the 6 strategies for data collection; they are centered on how data is collected (sequentially, concurrently, or with transformative lens). Research tips are included to help decipher which strategy to choose as well as data collection, analysis and checks for validity procedures. This didn't exactly simplify the thought of mixed methods, but did provide a sort of guidebook, which I suppose is the intended purpose. I would like still lean more towards a qualitative method though. This process seems highly time-consuming and not for the ill-experienced researcher.

I found the chapter in On the Case much more interesting than the Creswell text, likely because real, or should I say realistic, were used much more frequently. The chapter focuses on the nature and the value of case studies, a sort of ground-up look at the topic. It distinguishes units and cases and how each may lead to insight to another person's situation or life. They discuss how processes or objects gain meaning, and how contexts are not fixed concepts as well as cultural practices. I found this passage very interesting: "Everyday teaching and learning are complex social happenings, and understanding them as such is the grand purpose of qualitative case studies" (9). It's really the central notion of our field, if we so choose to study qualitatively; I thought it was stated, we should strive to understand, regardless of our biases. The chapter goes onto discuss how it's tempting to merge quantitative and qualitative studies when researching, and how we must be weary of this. Essentially, the chapter aims to point out that we want to make perceptions of others' perceptions, to see their "real worlds". I preferred this style of text over the formulaic version (Creswell). Reading about real situations helped me gain an understanding of case studies and it should be very helpful when I begin my research endeavors.

Week 4 response

While reading Creswell’s chapters on quantitative and qualitative methods this week, it became clearer than ever just how different the two approaches are. It also became clearer than ever that I am vastly more familiar with qualitative research methods.

One of the things which stood out to me as a difference between the two methodological approaches was the stress on the importance of the role of the researcher in the qualitative method as opposed to the quantitative. This seems to take the form more of the participation the researcher actually has in the process of gathering data, interacting with participants, and the researcher’s biases and opinions in data interpretation; the idea with quantitative is that is seems to strive to be as neutral and random as possible which is where they find strength and validity as opposed to a heavier emphasis on authenticity found in qualitative studies.

I was thinking about my possible thesis research options. I could be doing research on composition classroom practices, and I would probably do observations, interviews, or documents. This methods procedure outline would clearly be very useful. If I were to do a critical discourse analysis of films and reproductions of films, I think I would less of this type of data collection methodology. Perhaps the literature review section of this book would be most useful to that thesis idea. The data interpretation of this idea might also be useful, because although I might not collect data from participants, I would think I still need to interpret the “data” of the films.

Final Chapters: Procedures

Not only were these chapters informative on who, what, when, where, why, and how of the research process, but they also took a big weight off my shoulders. I was reminded of when I did quantitative research for an international advertising class. I followed each step to locate reliable and valid research that would show the different types of demographic our group was trying to reach. I remember reading through thousands of government data analysis documents on everything from age to what they watched on TV. I learned the importance of designing a advertising strategy and which resources I could use and present as reliable.

When reading the quantitative procedures, I realized that there is more to it than just having a strategy or reliability. What really stood out to me though was what to watch out for when giving definitions and proving that my data is valid. I know that in this class I will not be doing any quantitative research, but there is something that I am working on that will require a mixed methods approach, so this information is very useful to me.

About the qualitative procedures, I really liked the checklist at the beginning of the chapter. Even though it is kind of like a script, I find it helpful ( I am a big checklist person). Also the detailed descriptions on the different roles and analysis were very informative, especially in the data analysis and  collection sections. For my qualitative portion of my research, I have been having trouble trying to pin down exactly what type of data I want to collect. These sections, I feel have helped narrow my ideas down and given me some sort of direction.

Discussing the Validity of Research

Discussing the Validity of Research

John Creswell uses chapters 8 and 9 to focus on the specific components that make up quantitative and qualitative research.  In an effort to provide his readers with a baseline for both research methods, Creswell utilizes a linear method of explanation (both methods are explained from beginning to end); in other words, in both chapters, each method is presented like a series of building blocks (Creswell even presents his readers with different checklists to use when creating and composing research).

In chapter 8, Creswell explains the quantitative research method in detail.  As mentioned before, he uses a linear building block form of instruction to explain to his readers not only the methods of creating a survey (he explains the difference between a quasi-experiment and a true experiment – I found this to be extremely useful (pg 155)), but he also explains how to pick and examine the population who takes part in the survey (the checklist on 156 is also helpful when examining a specific population).  Because Creswell is explaining quantitative research in this chapter, he explains in detail the importance of informing an audience of the different variables in the experiment (what or whom is being experimented, and what are the expected outcomes – independent and dependent variables).  Before ending the chapter, Creswell explains the threats to validity and the importance of interpreting results: “Address whether the results might have occurred because of inadequate experimental procedures, such as threats to internal validity, and indicate how the results might be generalized to certain people, settings, and times” (167).

In chapter 9, Creswell gives the readers a detailed explanation of the qualitative procedures in a research project.  By fully explaining the specific characteristics of this type of research, Creswell continues his linear method of explanation, which I believe is important for qualitative research, because it is less formulaic than quantitative research (a great checklist is provide on pg 174).  Because qualitative is the antithesis to quantitative design, the explanation of human perception is completely outlined as a characteristics: “In the entire qualitative research process, the researcher keeps a focus on learning the meaning that the participants hold about the problem or issue, not the meaning that the researchers bring to the research or writers express in the literature” (pg 175 – emphasis added).  Like the previous chapter, Creswell lines out the different steps to data analysis and data recording; the details in the processes for collecting, recording, and analyzing are more detailed because of the abstract nature of this research.

Like quantitative research, the qualitative design does have threats to validity.  Although Creswell accurately explains the nature of validity in qualitative research and the significance of reliability factors, I believe he deemphasizes the importance of validating a response in the more abstract forms of qualitative research: “Validity does not carry the same connotations in qualitative research as it does in quantitative research, nor is it a companion of reliability (exampling stability or consistency of responses) or generalizability (the external validity of applying results to new settings, people or samples…” (190).  Even though qualitative research relies on the perception of knowledge to convince an audience of a probable truth (juxtaposed to an absolute truth), the threats to validity should be considered just as severe.  If an author utilizes only a small portion of evidence, which is actually part of a larger study that might hurt an expected outcome, to his or her advantage, then Creswell has to agree that this researcher has severely altered the validity of the outcome.  

Blog 2- Clayton Yantis

Creswell offers numerous options that help researchers achieve their goals while being as objective as possible. This blog focuses exclusively on qualitative procedures and strategies recommended by Creswell. Qualitative procedures includes various characteristics, strategies of inquiry, researcher’s roles, data collection/ recording procedures, data analysis and interpretation, and the reliability, validity, and generalizability of data.

The first procedure involves characteristics, which include the “how’s and why’s” of the experiment. Creswell includes a list of questions on page 174 which helps the researcher better define procedures. Another way of looking at this is how Creswell defines the parameters of the experiment. I will focus on the researcher as a key instrument who observes behaviors. Behaviorists focus on the subjects external behaviors (obviously) and form conclusions about what is displayed. The behaviorist’s goal is to understand non-verbal cues that subjects project.

The second procedure involves the strategies of inquiry. Creswell states that this strategy “focus[es] on data collection, analysis, and writing.” For example, a behaviorist will collect data by observing the subject(s) around them. They will then take the observations and then attempt to analyze them (as objectively as possible) and write about them.

The third procedure is defining the researchers role in the experiment. This can be accomplished in different ways, but my role tonight will be facilitator of the game called Werewolf. This game is a lot of fun and it will be easy to “break the ice” with everyone. I have used this game at parties and it has been a huge hit among my extroverted friends.

The next procedure involves data collection, which can use different approaches. Creswell lists four types of data collection: observations, interviews, documents, and audio-visual methods. Observations enable researchers to have flexibility in their roles and they can move around the situation “fluidly.” The observer can be a complete participant (conceals role), observer as participant (role is known), participant as observer (observation role secondary to participant role), and complete observer (researcher observes without participating). The game will enable me to “rotate” the roles of observer and create a unique situation based on the subjects’ interaction. I prefer this method because it is flexible and easy to use.

Interviews can occur in a number of ways. They range from being face-to-face, one on one encounters (common in counseling sessions).

Documents can be useful but I prefer the interaction style between subjects. Documents can provide researchers language and words of participants. The problem here is that the data can be manipulated to “save face.”

Audio-visual materials can help bridge the gap, but the behavior can be modified and/or manipulated for desired outcomes. These materials suffer from the similar problems that occur in documents.

        The final phase will discuss how data recording procedures can enhance research. The researcher can establish different protocols (which is a fancy word for procedures). The researcher can use observations, interviews, documents, and/or visual materials. Observations and interviews typically rely on notes (Creswell) that the researcher annotates and records information. Documents and materials use various entities to include journals and videos.

        Qualitative research uses different strategies that can be used to promote open-ended research. The aforementioned procedures help accomplish the various goals that researchers set out to discover and prove. I enjoy qualitative research for using the different possibilities and enjoying the flexibility that it provides. Behaviors and interviews are (in my humble opinion) the best resources for my proposal. Thank you for your time!

The audience behind the research

            When designing a research project, there are various components that need to be considered whether it’s a quantitative or qualitative research study. In the two chapters, the two designs were examined thoroughly. When reading about these methods, I kept asking myself where does the research fit in?

            The quantitative methods of research consist of designing the survey or experiment, the population and sample size, instrumentation, variables in the study, and the data analysis. As the name implies, identifying survey or experiment design is the first step in undertaking a research project. The sample size and population are targeted after that to see if a research would want to have a random sample that represents the population or a stratified that represents the population who have certain characteristics. The instrumentation is what’s going to be used to help with the measuring of data. After all the variables have been accounted for a researcher interprets the data. The qualitative research takes a different approach.

            The qualitative research methods in the chapter consist of strategies of inquiry, researcher’s role, data collection, data analysis, and the reliability and validity of the research. Every research question should be looked at through a strategy of inquiry that must be selected at the beginning. The researcher’s own biases are known and explicitly stated in the project to better understand his or her perspective. Data collection and procedures are clearly stated to have some realistic boundaries in the process. At the end, the methods and results need to have reliability and validity but will not always have generalizability.

            As I was reading through the chapters, I was extremely excited about the idea of doing qualitative research in different aspects of topics and reporting them to the world. I was extremely excited until I contemplated on who the “world” truly entailed and wondered how it was useful to them. In undertaking any research project, I hope that the researcher is trying to resolve an issue or point one out rather than simply gaining points through the academy for his work. After reading several regulations and procedures to follow for qualitative research, I asked myself how many people will actually understand the writing when it comes down to looking at the problem and taking action to resolve it.

            Once the work is published, how is it going to help the community? I felt that the research itself may not be the best method for creating activism or change- mostly because the community affected may not be able to obtain the research that the person did. Furthermore, I asked myself how does research truly help a community since people within the community are the ones who know the problems they face. Their own voices do not need to be substantiated with protocols and procedures for voicing their opinion and are the quickest method to reaching their community. Many social movements have been started through people within the community, but I have never seen an article or research finding have a huge impact in creating an enormous social movement.

            At the end, I simply want to know, what audience is the qualitative research trying to please through the studies undertaken? Is it the best method of approach to resolving issues in the community? And isn’t it more impactful to have a single person, within the community, to unify the community with his or her concerns rather than scholars behind the desk writing an article? 

The research question

This week’s reading discusses the introduction, the purpose statement, and the research questions and hypotheses. All of these areas are used at the beginning of actually writing a paper for a research study.

The introduction hooks the readers into the paper. Since there are plenty of people who differ in interests, the researcher needs to create a few sentences that can appeal to the masses in general and not just get into the research project itself. The purpose statement follows directly after.

The purpose statement gets to the point of why a researcher wants to take on such a study and with what end-results. There are different purpose statements depending on a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach to take with the project. The statements differ in their fundamental definitions. A qualitative statement discusses a single, general issue while a quantitative statement will focus on the variables at hand. The research questions and hypotheses follow this section.

The research question or hypothesis is one of the most important aspects of the paper. The researcher needs to identity exactly what it is that is going to be researched. For a qualitative study, the student needs to focus on a single issue without making it too broad where it cannot be studied. The quantitative question or hypothesis needs to consider the variables that are going to be used, and they need to be presented in this section, so the reader is aware of the independent, dependent, and intervening variables.

When reading about these topics, it was difficult for me to grasp the perfect research question for a qualitative study. I’ve read a couple of qualitative studies where researchers examine participants; however, I am not too sure how they went about focusing on particular issues when discussing them. Through my perception, it may be extremely difficult for me to focus a particular research question without being too broad or general. This may be the general idea of a qualitative research question, but it sounds easy to state a question that will encompass a numerous amount of factors contributing to the case that were not considered before the study. The text says that the research question is essentially a working model that can be changed and altered as needed, but I’m concerned with the amount of change that can occur. If a proposal is submitted with a certain topic in mind, but the research question is drastically changed because of certain preliminary observations, will the research proposal still stand or will a new one have to be devised?

An aspect of the qualitative research question that I thoroughly enjoyed was reading about using exploratory terms. I liked this idea because it forces the researcher to bring in a more open mind into the research. In contrast to quantitative research, the researcher in a qualitative study has to somehow temporarily shut down all preconceived ideas of the topic in order to create a less unbiased paper or presentation.

Overall, the introduction, research question and hypotheses, truly set the tone for the rest of the project. It is extremely vital to let the readers know what kind of project is going to be undertaken, but in doing so, the researcher also finds him or herself exploring the ideas that are going to be mentioned because of how the statements in these areas need to be addressed.

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. 

Aryeh Wiznitzer Response 9/24 Chapter 9 with some 8 thrown in

Since the readings this week were rather lengthy, I have decided to summarize and focus on chapter 9, qualitative methods. Also, I think Graham and others have done a good job talking about quantitative, and I would like to approach this slightly differently from some of the other posts I have read. I've decided to briefly summarize the chapter and intersperse my response to some key points throughout the discussion.

Chapter 9 discusses the characteristics of successful qualitative research; according to the chapter, qualitative research should take into consideration the audience of the piece, as well as include multiple sources of data. I particularly connected with the concept in the chapter of observation in a "natural setting" as important to qualitative research. I’m glad the book stressed that point, because as we have been discussing all along in class, it's clearly important for us to collect data “in the field” to create a true picture of what we're studying. As Dr. Pimentel has been stressing all along, qualitative research is very much about context. Without studying phenomena in the proper context, we cannot attempt to gain useful information. This relates directly to the other main concern early in this chapter, which is the idea of the "researcher as instrument"; it's critical to remember that as we embark on qualitative research, we have a responsibility to report the information appropriately. Because we don't have an exterior "instrument" to follow (as in 158 regarding quantitative research), we must  develop our data appropriately to avoid pitfalls or mistakes.

The chapter then delves into different ways to collect data. Creswell specifically mentions qualitative observations, interviews, and documents. I found it interesting that he brought up the idea that a qualitative observer can be anything from a non-participant to a complete participant. This is definitely something I will keep in mind as we move towards conducting our research, because some of the areas and communities I would like to study are things I am somewhat tied to emotionally. I was uncertain whether or not to study things I deal with every day, but I very well may do so given the advice in this chapter, assuming I can do so with validity.

Creswell then moves into a discussion of the steps in coding data. I was quite surprised by the intensity of this analysis, simply because the rest of the book had been somewhat dry; in this section, Creswell gives more specific philosophical advice, such as deciding "What is this about?" and other critical questions we must ask ourselves as we "code" qualitative data.

Finally, Creswell speaks about the aforementioned issue of validity. I was particularly drawn to the idea of "member checking" as a method of finding validity in your results. I found it quite interesting that he feels we as researchers might go back to people we have interviewed with some version of our findings, in order to see if they agree that the findings are appropriate. He also discusses some key concepts we have covered in class, including the importance of a "thick description" to help transport readers (191-192), as well as how we might use self-reflection in order to honestly present our biases to readers.

Overall, this was quite an interesting chapter, as opposed to Chapter 8, which I found a bit rough, simply because it read more as a kind of handbook of terms than a discussion of the philosophy of research as in Chapter 9. However, Chapter 8 did include some relevant nuggets of information, such as external and internal validity threats (162), which is something that, as Graham said in his response, we can apply to our qualitative work.

Chap. 8-9 response, Bree

Well, I can effectively say that if I weren't scared of quantitative research before, I certainly am now. Thanks chapter 8, you're what nightmares are made of. on a serious note though, many of my other colleagues seem to be on the same page as me; and though I am much more drawn to qualitative research, the Creswell text was an enormous help to getting a better glimpse at the topic. What I found especially helpful were all of the charts/tables throughout the text (147, 151, 153, 156, 163-165). With serious instruction, I could probably handle one of these research projects through a quantitative method  with the help of the checklists provided in the chapter, because those steps are fairly black and white, but pre-experiemental design really threw me off. The different types of experimental design had me scratching my head, I honestly felt like I was in a math class. The concept of threats made sense; that's similar to evaluating biases in qualitative research, I'm pretty confident of that lesson. Hopefully class tomorrow will help me get a stronger hold on this method.

As for qualitative, I'm much more comfortable diving into this approach. I'd almost go so far as to say that with face-to-face interactions, better data can be collected. Watching mannerisms and even recording things like gasps/pauses in speech can be very valuable to what a person is attempting to communicate, the only problem is that, language is not universal, and what may be discomfort in someone's voice to me, might not always be the same thing to the person speaking. Data analyses could also be tricky, as well as discussing the expected outcome of the study. My favorite part of this method is the freedom to use something like personal narrative to portray the point. It only makes sense that, when dealing with the personal, you'd be able to include yourself...but the tricky part there is knowing when to draw the line on what is too personal or private for publication, is there is such a thing.

I'm looking forward to exploring these approaches in class tomorrow, and hopefully gaining more insight on quantitative research methods.

First World Biases

“[q]ualitative research is interpretative research, with the inquirer typically involved in sustained and intensive experience with participants. This introduces a range of strategic, ethical, and personal issues into the qualitative research process. With these concerns in mind, inquirers explicitly identify reflexively their biases, values, and personal background, such as gender, history, culture, and socioeconomic status that may shape their interpretations formed during a study.”(177)

Thank you qualitative research for letting me be honest. I was always annoyed by the idea of trying to keep your biases at bay. Trying to stay objective. Objective is unrealistic. Everyone has biases, always and at all times. I think the most we can do to reach truth is to acknowledge and embrace these biases so that when they change, if they ever do, it will be real. Not only will acknowledging your biases give insight to your readers, but also inside yourself. Qualitative research seems like an opportunity to not only expose and learn about an outside situation, but to recognize the situation in contrast yours. That contrast can be enlightening. I don’t know if you have ever heard of this phrase “first world problems”. I thought I had made it up, when one day something stupid had inconvenienced me, but apparently it’s an internet thing. With websites and hashtags dedicated to it. Anyways the site is basically an outlet for people to complain about silly things that inconvenience them. The inconvenience is an obvious problem, but in a third world country (as opposed to our first world) these things wouldn’t be a problem. In some cases the fact that these inconveniences exist only highlights the luxury that we are living in. (http://www.reddit.com/r/firstworldproblems/). Basically when you acknowledge that your problem IS a first world problem you are admitting and understanding your bias. You understand yourself and situation in contrast to another. Perspective.

Sometimes I get a little too excited to throw my biased up in the air. But when I think of what I see in the news on TV, radio, online, in publications I get irritated that biases are not always admitted, mentioned or considered. But I understand that being all into being biased could be dangerous and close an open mind. I am assuming that when people acknowledge that they’re biased it would be obvious to realize that other versions of biased thinking exist. I was talking with my mom about my blog and as soon as I got all excited and uppity about being into my biases she reminded me that I needed to keep an open mind and not let my biases close it. I think of people who cling to their ideologies without acknowledging or accepting that other exists. I guess that’s what embracing your biases could turn into if there is not a moment while acknowledging your biases, that you acknowledge others. The contrast gives perspective.

 

I am naturally a horrible speller, because I’ve been using spell check since I was 6. #FirstWorldProblems

Creswell response

I, like everyone else here apparently, was initially drawn more to the qualitative chapter than the quantitative. However, there were things in the quantitative chapter that were directly applicable to data I've been compiling for the paper I'm writing to present at IWCA next month. Specifically, I did not anticipate the limitations that would arise when creating the survey. In my paper, I intend to debunk the assumption that media multitasking (whether it be Facebook, e-mail, Reddit, etc.) is harmful to students' writing processes. In my survey, I asked students to select the sites they frequent from a list of popular websites. I wanted to give the students multiple choices for this step, assuming that college students will be reluctant to fill out a short response. With this decision however, I was suddenly faced with the realization that by providing a list of websites, I was limiting the students' answers based on my own assumptions of what are and are not popular websites. Sure, I provided an "other" option, but I'm sure that most students' answers will be limited to the list I provided. I faced another problem when reading over my original list of questions such as "How long does it take you, from the first word you put on the page to the time that you print it off, to complete an average paper assignment?" Even more limitations: what's an average paper assignment, and to whom? A first semester composition paper is going to be drastically different than a fourth year biology lab report. That said, I had to decide on a few delimitations; I narrowed the scope of my study to focus on ENG 1320 students since they will be able to take both their 1310 and 1320 experiences into consideration, and because Texas State's composition program is relatively uniform in terms of the papers the students are expected to write, thus solving the "average assignment" issue somewhat. My study will certainly still have its weakness and limitations, but Creswell helped me to identify the decisions I made and the reasons for them and will certainly be helpful through the rest of my data collection.