1 / 42

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES SEMINAR

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES SEMINAR. Tom Cooper Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Kelvin Grove. Giving position, theory & technical points Activities re your research Needs your questions/suggestions/arguments - want to be useful.

topaz
Download Presentation

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES SEMINAR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES SEMINAR Tom CooperMathematics, Science and Technology EducationKelvin Grove • Giving position, theory & technical points • Activities re your research • Needs your questions/suggestions/arguments - want to be useful

  2. Like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting Like to welcome you all to this seminar and I hope I can be of use to you

  3. THIS PRESENTATION My position Nature of qualitative research Technical issues Your questions/Your examples

  4. ACTIVITY ONE • Research question: Why do secondary mathematics teachers not use computers to help teach mathematics? • Context: Most secondary schools have computer labs and good software to assist with mathematics learning exist. Many of the maths teachers are also technology teachers. • Questions: • - What qualitative design could we use? What about participants? Data gathering methods? Procedure? • - How can you ensure you are getting the REAL reasons for maths teachers not using computers?

  5. MY POSITION QUESTIONS

  6. My situation • “Hillbilly” in 50s; Unemployed in 60s; Scholarship boy • 31 years lecturing; This place still feels alien to me • PhD in pure mathematics; Lecturer-researcher in education • Started supervising in the 80s; Reason came to this place • Love research; Love the struggle to know; Love the wonder of it; Love the courage it requires; The way it changes you • Stupidly overloaded; Involved in setting up a new research Centre, 6 research projects plus a ridiculous writing program; still applying for funding; 10 research students • No real time to prepare for this; For anything

  7. My beliefs • Knowledge is an invention/construction of the mind – it is not a discovery • No way to logically compare – we are responsible for all choices – the only position I can give you is mine – to understand it means you have to know me • Knowledge is therefore consensus (Feyeraben) – a social and political act – that often benefits some against the many • Research degrees are the hurdle you leap to be accepted; Criteria are set by community; For writing it is the ability to follow a line of argument • Real insight could lead to failure – unless consensus is ready for a revolution (Kuhn)

  8. My beliefs • Sceptical that even the best research will uncover truth; Hopeful it will bring understanding • Believe that the best research will change the researcher; Not afraid to see this as part of the research process and part of the research outcomes • See thinking and growing as a cycle (dialetic, hermeneutic) of thesis – antithesis – synthesis (Hegel) • In the research act: literature - thesis findings - antithesis conclusions - synthesis • Methodology is to develop the antithesis

  9. HEGELIAN DIALECTIC CYCLE Thesis (plan/theory) Thesis Synthesis (reflection) Synthesis Antithesis Antithesis (action) Underlies Action Research, Design Experiments & the hermeneutic cycle of Guba and Lincoln (1989)

  10. PHILOSOPHY • Positivist uncovering Surveys, interviews discovering • Interpretive Inventing Case study (Phenomenology Observation/Interview Hermeneutics Document analysis Grounded theory) Biography Design experiments • Critical Post-colonial Action research Feminist Discourse analysis Design experiments • Subjective Post-modern Special types of above Multiple approaches

  11. How I see a thesis: The classical thesis structure INTRODUCTION What I want to do LITERATURE What others say about it DESIGN My plan for doing it RESULTS What happened when I did it DISCUSSION What this means CONCLUSIONS What I found out Driven by research objectives

  12. How I see design: The APA design structure METHODOLOGY PARTICIPANTS DATA GATHERING METHODS PROCEDURE ANALYSIS TRUSTWORTHINESS Driven by research objectives and literature

  13. ACTIVITY TWO • Your situation? • What do you believe? • - Is knowledge invented? Is knowledge discovered? • - Do people have to know you before they can understand what you are saying? Or can their be shared understanding (and what knowledge does someone have to have to be able to share)? • - What is your philosophy? Positivist, interpretive, critical, post-modern

  14. NATURE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

  15. CONTINUA • Goetz and Le Compte (1984): • Generative Confirmative • Inductive Deductive • Constructive Enumerative • Subjective Objective • Qualitative Quantitative

  16. CYCLE TheoreticalConceptual Confirmative Generative Passive ObservationInterviewSurvey Intervening/Validating Action researchDesign experiments

  17. DEVELOPMENT Uprichard & Englehardt: TheoreticalConceptual Open (Naturalistic observation, Case study, Semi-structured interview) Generative Systematic (Structured interview, Survey, Triangulated observ.) Confirmative Intervening/Validating

  18. RESEARCHER AS INSTRUMENT Your role as instrument Declare self Reduce self Hermeneutic Attitude of mind Techniques Categorisation self  observation Theory driven researchDesign experiments Clinical interviewPhenomenography

  19. TYPES (AERJ) Emic Etic Interpretive/Ethnographic Systematic (triangulation) Journalistic/Artistic Theory driven Quality  Impact (relationship to service) Deep  Shallow (relationship to participant size and detail in the analysis)

  20. 1. Theoretical/Conceptual Reality • In the mind • - Literature review • Reconceptualising • New theoretical framework • - Design/Results  Nil

  21. 2. Open/Emergent • Getting started • - Literature • Open exploration (observation, unstructured interviews) • Categories/Comparison with literature • Emergent theory Reality

  22. 3. Clarifying/Enumerating • Probing deeper • - Literature/General framework • Exploration (semi-structured interviews, surveys, artefacts) • Findings • New specific theory Reality

  23. 4. Validating/Theory driven Intervening - Literature/Initial theory (THESIS) Design/results (ANTITHESIS) (observations, pre-post tests/surveys, interviews) Discussion/Final theory (SYNTHESIS) Reality

  24. 5. Confirmatory/Quantitative “Evidence based” - Literature/Hypotheses Design (hypotheses, tests/surveys/structured interviews, external data) Results/Testing Significance/Confirmation Reality

  25. RELATION TO QUANTITATIVE? • Mixed methods: • Quantitative  Qualitative • - quantitative is used to select participants for qualitative so results better reflect population • Qualitative  Quantitative • - qualitative finds the hypotheses that are the bases of quantitative study • Qualitative and quantitative • - participants analysed both ways

  26. 6. Mixed method Triangulating - Literature/Hypotheses Design (everything that is relevant) Results/Testing Significance/Confirmation Reality

  27. ACTIVITY THREE • Your research? • Where is your research in terms of: • Your topic’s development – how much is known? • Passive  Intervention? • Open  Systematic  Intervention • Your role? Participant  Non-participant? • Emic  Etic? • Deep  Surface?

  28. TECHNICAL ISSUES

  29. PARTICIPANTS • How many? • - one, few, many? • How to choose them? • - random, purposive, pragmatic? • Particular characteristics?/Ethics? • No participants • - document analysis/discourse analysis • Comparison participants

  30. DATA GATHERING METHODS • Observations • - Schedules, checklists, “write like crazy” • - Own feelings • Interviews? • - open  semi-structured  structured? • - face-to-face OR distance • - Who interviews, how to dress, approach to be used? • - Repetition/difference – how to arrange? • Interventions? • - Pre-post instruments, input  reactions? • Video, audio, field notes?

  31. PROCEDURE • Entry • - credentials/credibility - reasons for being there (role)? - gatekeepers - who to collaborate with? - baseline data • Activity • - sequencing data gathering/interventions - follow up • Exit • - strategy/reasons for leaving - leaving participants better off (empowerment) - closing off interventions

  32. ANALYSIS • Organising/collating • - Transcribing/marking/coding • - Rich descriptions • Immersion • - Reading, re-reading • Data reduction • - Rewriting, summarising • - Similarities/differences (matrices) • - Categorisation • Hypothesis generation • - propose relationships/check proposals • Theory building

  33. ANALYSIS continued • Dependability/Legitimacy - objectives  literature  design - methodology - data gathering methods • Trustworthiness • - make visible the analysis procedure • - low-inference findings  inferences • - inferences  hypotheses  theory • Trust your mind • - respect ideas that emerge as doing research

  34. Analysis & Writing up • When you think about how you are going to analyse and then write up your research you need to think about ways to gather your data together in order to interpret it, and explain it e.g. • Systematic (making a matrix) • Concept map (building relationships) • Flow chart (what impacted on what) • Simulation (how it can be done given your new theory)

  35. ACTIVITY FOUR • A student wants to study stress in Welfare workers. What options are there for a qualitative design? • How do these options relate to possible aims of the thesis?

  36. ISSUES • Relationship with participants • - explaining your role/sharing data • Analyse continuously  Analyse at end? • - cumulate/build theory across analyses? • Contingency? • - change interventions/data gathering as a result of earlier analysis • Role of theory? • - data  theory (emergent) • - theory  data  new theory (constructivism) • - general theory  data  specific theory

  37. WRITING • Detail of what observed or in interviews, etc. • Low vs high inference • Line of argument • - across chapters and sections • - within sections • Consistency and substantiation • Rewriting and restructuring

  38. FINAL POINT Actually the process of doing research … is a rather informal, often illogical and sometimes messy-looking affair. It includes a great deal of floundering around … Somewhere and somehow, in the process of floundering, the researcher will get an idea. In fact s/he will get many ideas. On largely intuitive grounds, s/he will reject most of her/his ideas and will accept others as the basis of extended work (APA, Education and Training Board, 1959, p. 169)

  39. YOUR QUESTIONS AND EXAMPLES

  40. Questions and examples • Your opportunity to: • - ask questions • - put forward your examples for perusal/discussion • What about your own study? Do you have any questions regarding your design?

  41. References • Chalmers, A. F., 1977, What is this thing called Science? (call no: 501.10/3) • Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G., 1985 Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publicatoins, Newbury Park, CA. . • Feyerabend, Paul, 1975, Against method, Verso, London. • Geotz, J. & LeCompte, M. 1982, ‘Problems of Reliability & Validity in Ethnographic Research’, in Review of Educational Research, vol 52, No. 1, 31-60 • Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. 2004, Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research: theories and Issues, Oxford University Press, New York. • (call no: 001.42.71)

  42. References • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S.,1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA • Kuhn, T. 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. • Mills, C. Wright, 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York. (ISBN: 0195133730) • Smith, Linda Decolonising Methodologies, by Linda Smith (ISBN/ISSN 9781856496230) • Uprichard, A. Edward & Engelhardt, J., 1986, ‘A Research Context for Diagnostic and Prescriptive Mathematics’, in Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 1, 19-38. • Willis, Paul E., 1977, Learning to Labour: How working class kids get working class jobs, Saxon House, Farnborough, Hants. (Call no: 305.562.1)

More Related