Methods of
Qualitative Research
Based on
Dr. Nick Pratt from Faculcity of Education University of Playmonth 2006, there
are some method that is used in Qualitative Research :
1.
Observation
In seeking
to explore the natural scene, the qualitative researcher aims to be as
unobtrusive as possible, so that neither research presence nor methods disturb
the situation. This is why participant observation is one of the favoured
approaches. Here, the researcher adopts a recognised role within the
institution or group. Researchers have become, amongst other things, teachers,
gang-members, pupils, nudists, hippies, bread salesmen, and medical students.
v The advantages of participant observation
·
It blends in
with natural activity.
·
It gives the
researcher access to the same places, people and events as the subjects.
·
It gives
access to documents relevant to the role, including confidential reports and
records.
·
It
facilitates the use of mechanical aids, such as tape recorders and cameras.
·
It provides
personal first-hand experience of the role and thus heightens understanding of
it.
·
It makes a
worthwhile contribution to the life of the institution.
v The disadvantages of paticipant observation
·
It might be
more difficult to make the situation 'strange', especially if one is a member
of the institution before starting the research. Indeed there is a danger of
'going native' - an over-identification with people's views so that one's
perspective as a researcher is submerged beneath them. One must work hard to
achieve 'analytic distance' from the role, to set aside taken-for-granted
assumptions and to see oneself in the role. The cultivation of reflectivity,
and keeping personal diaries, have helped here.
·
It adds to
the demands on the researcher. Qualitative research in any form is demanding,
typically presenting a mass of confusing and intricate data. Participation adds
to this, taking up valuable time and adding to one's responsibilities.
·
There is a
possibility of conflict between one's role as a participant and one's role as a
researcher.
v The
strengths of systematic observation
·
It is
relatively free of observer bias. It can establish frequencies, and is strong
on objective measures which involve low inference on the part of the observer.
·
Reliability
can be strong. Where teams of researchers have used this approach, 80%
reliability has been established among them.
·
Generalisability.
Once you have devised your instrument, large samples can be covered.
·
It is
precise. There is no 'hanging around' or 'muddling through'.
·
It provides
a structure for the research.
v The
weaknesses of systematic observation
·
There is a
measure of unreliability. Qualitative material might be misrepresented through
the use of measurement techniques.
·
Much of the
interaction is missed.
·
It usually
ignores the temporal and spatial context in which the data is collected.
·
It is not
good for generating fresh insights.
·
The
pre-specification of categories predetermines what is to be discovered and
allows only partial description.
·
It ignores
process, flux, development, and change.
A great deal
of qualitative material comes from talking with people whether it be through
formal interviews or casual conversations. If interviews are going to tap into
the depths of reality of the situation and discover subjects' meanings and
understandings, it is essential for the researcher:
v to develop empathy with interviewers and win their
confidence;
v to be unobtrusive, in order not to impose one's own
influence on the interviewer.
The best
technique for this is the unstructured interview. Here, the researcher has some
general ideas about the topics of the interview, and may have an idea memorie
of points that might arise in discussion for use as prompts, if necessary. But
the hope is that those points will come up in the natural course of the
discussion as the interviewer talks. Care is needed, therefore, to avoid
leading questions or suggesting outcomes, and skill is called for in discovering
what the interviewer really thinks. The researcher aims to appear natural, not
someone with a special role, but one who engages with interviewees on a
person-to-person basis. Attention will be paid to where the interview is held,
arrangement of seating, how the researcher dresses, manner of approach, all in
the interests of equality. There might be a certain amount of pleasant chat
before getting into explaining what the research is about. If rapport has been
established, there should not be a difficulty in getting people to talk. The
problem, rather, might be that they talk too inconsequentially, or off the
subject, or vaguely.
3.
Sampling
Where
qualitative research is seeking to generalise about general issues,
representative or 'naturalistic' sampling is desirable. This covers places,
times and persons. Thus, if we were studying teachers' or pupils' perspectives,
or the culture of a group, we would need to consider them in different
settings, since behaviour can differ markedly in different situations - for
example, the formal circumstances of a teacher's classroom or office, the
staffroom, different classrooms, the informal ambience of a pub, and the
personal stronghold of the teacher's home. The same point applies to time.
Representative
sampling cannot always be achieved in qualitative research because of a) the
initially largely exploratory nature of the research; b) problems of
negotiating access; c) the sheer weight of work and problems of gathering and
processing data using only one set of eyes and ears. Often, one has to make do
with an opportunity sample in those areas where access is offered; or a
snowball sample, where the sample is developed through personal contact and
recommendation as the research proceeds. In these cases, the basis of the
sampling must be made clear and no inappropriate generalising claims made for
the findings.
Documents are a
useful source of data in qualitative research, but they have to be treated with
care. The most widely used are official documents, personal documents, and
questionnaires.
Official
documents include registers, timetables, minutes of meetings,
planning papers, lesson plans and notes, confidential documents on pupils,
school handbooks, newspapers and journals, school records, files and
statistics, notice boards, exhibitions, official letters, textbooks, exercise
books, examination papers, work cards, blackboard work, photographs. Any of
these might give useful information, but they do not all provide an objective
truth. They have to be contextualised within the circumstances of their
construction. Registers of attendance, for example, do not contain 'concealed'
absences. Delinquency rates are notoriously unreliable, being subject to
different and varying interpretations of the rules. School and teacher records
on disruption might be incomplete. It is not something one necessarily wishes
other people to know about. The number and nature of notices around a school
can tell us a great deal about school ethos and policy. Punishment books, a
presentation of examination results, official minutes of meetings might all
present a truth of a kind, but perhaps not the complete truth. The task for the
researcher is not to take such documents at face value, but to find out how
they were constructed, and how they are used and interpreted. They can thus be
a useful way in to observation and interview.
Some
documentation is more objective. Colin Lacey (1976, p. 60), commenting on his
research methods in his Hightown Grammar study, said that while his core
methods were participant observation and observation 'the most important
breakthrough for me was the combining of methods', which included a key use of
documents:
The
observation and description of classrooms led quickly to a need for more exact
information about individuals within the class. I used school documents to
produce a ledger of information on each boy, for example, address, father's
occupation, previous school, academic record, and so on. I built on this record
as more information became available from questionnaires.
Documents
can help reconstruct events, and give information about social relationships.
Burgess (1984), for example, found official letters 'indispensable' in the
course of his study. These included letters between the headteacher and
governors and LEA officials, letters between teachers and parents, and notes
circulated around teachers. Similarly, a school's official brochure can tell
you a great deal about projected school ethos (which may or may not accord with
reality), sometimes as much from its omissions as from what it contains. School
reports ostensibly give an evaluation of a pupils' progress, but they also are
cultural products which might tell us more about the teachers and the school
than about the pupil.
5.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
are not among the most prominent methods in qualitative research, because they
commonly require subjects to respond to a stimulus, and thus they are not
acting naturally. However, they have their uses, especially as a means of
collecting information from a wider sample than can be reached by personal
interview. Though the information is necessarily more limited, it can still be
very useful. For example, where certain clearly defined facts or opinions have
been identified by more qualitative methods, a questionnaire can explore how
generally these apply, if that is a matter of interest. Ideally, there would
then be a qualitative 'check' on a sample of questionnaire replies to see if
respondents were interpreting items in the way intended. Alternatively, a
questionnaire might be used in the first instance, followed by qualitative
techniques on a sample as a check and to fill out certain features of the
questionnaire replies. Interaction among techniques in this way is typical of
qualitative research.
6.
Validity
Some
qualitative researchers are not concerned about validity as it is commonly
understood, preferring to aim for 'understanding', which might be achieved by
what Harry Wolcott (1994) calls 'rigorous subjectivity' - using the methods
discussed above.
What I seek
is something else, a quality that points more to identifying critical elements
and wringing plausible interpretations from them, something one can pursue
without becoming obsessed with finding the right or ultimate answer, the
correct version, the Truth. (Ibid. pp. 366-7)
The quest is
not so much with 'getting it right' as getting it 'differently contoured and
nuanced' (Richardson 1994, p. 521). To some, there are many overlapping truths
operating at different levels and constantly subject to change.
When we use
many method we will get more information and our understanding will increase.
In each research, triangulation is very important. Triangles possess enormous
strength. Amongst other things, they make the basic frames of bicycles, gates
and house roofs. Triangulation enables extraordinary precision in measuring the
height of mountains and astronomical distances. It is also a strength in
research. The most common forms of triangulation in qualitative work are:
·
Of method.
The use of several methods to explore an issue increases the chances of depth
and accuracy. For example, if the project concerned a school's policy towards
new intakes of pupils, it would be a good idea to interview the headteacher,
usually the main formulator of the policy. But it would also be useful to
research it from other vantage points, for example, the various meetings that are
held with parents, pupils and teachers and how the policy is presented and/or
negotiated with them; the views of people in these groups, the documents
associated with the policy, as well as observations of the policy in progress.
One of the
commonest forms of triangulation is to combine interviews with observation.
Observation will test and fill out accounts given in interviews, and vice
versa. Others have been mentioned above.
·
Of time.
This allows for the processual nature of events. For example, one might wish to
study a teacher's teaching methods. Observation of a class or classes is
clearly indicated. But a deeper understanding might be achieved if the
researcher were to:
a) discuss with the teacher
beforehand what content and approach was planned for the lesson;
b) observe
the lesson as it happens;
c) discuss with the teacher
afterwards what had happened and why, if aims had been achieved, modified, etc.
·
Of persons.
This might involve consulting a range of people, perhaps in different roles or positions
about a particular item - as with school policy above; or bringing more than
one view to bear on a situation, that is, using more than one researcher.
Checking each other's accounts for differences can lead to closer interrogation
of data, even revisiting the site to collect more data, and more accurate
development of theory.
7.
Ethics
The main
ethical debates in qualitative research revolve around the tensions between
covert and overt research, and between the public's right to know and the
subject's right to privacy. Clearly, some practices that might be extremely
unobtrusive, such as observing through a one-way mirror, concealed
tape-recording, or telephone-tapping are just not permissible - and might lead
to criminal proceedings! Participant observation has, on occasions, been
likened to 'spying' or 'voyeurism'. There is a temptation, too, for some
researchers to negotiate access into an institution, carry out observations
that he or she requires, persuade subjects to 'spill the beans', and then 'cut
and run'. Such practice runs against the principle of 'informed consent'
(people agreeing to take part in research on the basis of knowledge of what it
is about); invades privacy; involves deception, all of which is inimical to
generating qualities of trust and rapport, essential ingredients for this kind
of research. As Dean (1954, p. 233) states, A person becomes accepted as a
participant observer more because of the kind of person he turns out to be in
the eyes of the field contacts than because of what the research represents to
them. Field contacts want to be reassured that the research worker is a 'good
guy' and can be trusted not 'to do them dirt' with what he finds out.
No comments:
Post a Comment