Creswell’s
final chapter deals with mixed methods research. He breaks down ways to plan
mixed methods procedures, including the “timing” of data collection, the “weight”
given to qualitative and quantitative data in the study, as well as introduces
the concept of “mixing” the data. He discusses six main ways to conduct mixed
methods research, but they fall under three rough categories: sequential, in
which researchers conduct one stage of the research before the other,
concurrent qualitative/quantitative, and transformative, in which researchers
begin with an advocacy position before using one of the other structures. Based
on a person’s training and area of interest, they can conduct mixed methods
research “leaning” more one way or the other.
This
point underscored for me the importance of bringing our own viewpoints,
experiences, and personalities to research. Reading through the first half of this book,
especially the quantitative stuff, it seemed as if research was a rigid field
of templates. The in depth chapters on qualitative and mixed methods, however,
were extremely different from the rest of the book. I learned a lot about not
only simple templates, but how research might be conducted. His example of how
researchers used a feminist lens to provide a starting point for their mixed
methods research, for example, helped me understand how these concepts he lists
in bullet points are used by real researchers. The goal here isn’t to create a
perfect “dry” essay or assignment. We want to conduct research that is interesting
and meaningful to us, but in order to do so in the academic “conversation,” we
must do so with the appropriate formatting and methodology. I’m sure I’ll refer
to this book quite a lot in the future, but I’ll especially look for those blue
boxes, where Creswell provides insight into how these strategies have been used
successfully in published research.
On the Case was a welcome break from
reading the other text, and so far it is one of my favorite things I’ve looked
at in my first semester in the program. The “Madlenka’s Tooth” story was
extremely evocative in bringing home how we as researchers can look at a “case.”
Thinking about Madlenka’s journey through her neighborhood really helped me
fully appreciate a lot of the things we’ve been discussing in class. Though it’s
a simple metaphor, it helped me conceptualize exactly what we’re meant to do as
researchers. I have always enjoyed studying the way that people use language and
interpret meaning; it’s a theme that I’ve gone back to quite often when writing
linguistics papers as well as literary analysis. Reading this chapter reminded
me of some of my favorite linguistics and sociology texts. The example from Ms.
Yung’s class was particularly insightful, because the authors were able to expound
upon this one-minute piece if the school day by explicating the larger theories
and framework behind this style of teaching, learning, and speaking. I’m
looking forward to seeing where this book takes us in the coming weeks and
reading this short chapter helped clarify some key philosophical issues
regarding our upcoming assignment (I would expound on that, but it would be a
response in itself!)
I think you are right in saying that "On the Case" helps us to understand what we are supposed to be doing as researchers. I, too, found it very helpful in giving me visualizations through the narrative of the little girl.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that your references to the blue boxes in "Research Design" was all too right. I think all of us in class will be referring to that book for much of our own proposals.
While reading your response and the chapter in "On the Case", I too thought about the philosophy and instead of sociology I thought of anthropology and their types of cultural research. Already I can see a connection to the rhetoric readings we have been reading and how (in my mind) much of it is slowing coming together.