Devised; it Has to Be

¶ … Devised; it has to be distilled" Raymond Chandler (1888 -- 1959) (Columbia World, 1996). Methodology's Primary Purpose The research methodology constitutes a paradigm or theory that relates how the researcher approaches his/her study, as well as how he/she undertakes the research effort. In the study, "Using the 'power of the data' within indigenous research practice," Maggie Walter (2005), a lecturer in sociology at the University of Tasmania, explains that methodology, albeit, differs from method. Method compliments the methodology as it consists of the techniques; the means and procedures the researcher utilizes.

As methodology traditionally recounts the specific course of action the researcher utilizes to complete the research project, its primary purpose purports to denote how the research materialized, as well as what the data consist of, and the specific means the researcher implemented to collect, organize and analyze the data (Berg, 2007). As this paper examines the methodology, the researcher utilizes the literature search methodology to collect, organize and analyze the data.

During this literature search methodology, the researcher investigates the research methodology separately and dissects, as well as evaluates the methodology's component characteristics, addressing a number of relevant questions, along with noting numerous pros and cons relating to particular methodology considerations.

The researcher asserts that the literature search methodology, utilized to address the researcher's argument that the methodology serves as an appropriate application of the methodology, as it relates the story of the methodology In a sense, the revelation of the methodology proves similar, yet simultaneously dissimilar to the relating of a story. In both scenarios, the "speaker" reveals details that entwine with each other to portray and/or support particular points.

Details with/in both ventures; from story to story; from study to study may vary, nevertheless, both the story and the study embrace and adhere to particular "rules" to carry out their intent, the revelation of a particular "plot." In addition, the point Chandler, a U.S. author, wrote in a letter during 1947, aptly applies to the research methodology. Like the story, the methodology "…has to be distilled" (Columbia World, 1996). Through the distillation process, the researcher concentrates and condenses vital information to tell the story of the methodology.

Research Endeavors Pure research relates to particular components that constitute the body of research methodology, Ranjit Kumar (2005) explains in Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. In pure research, the researcher develops a sampling technique that he/she may apply to a particular situation. The process requires that the researcher develops a methodology to assess the procedure's validity, as well as develops a technique for sampling to apply to a particular scenario. Ultimately, the research effort produces knowledge that adds to the current body of knowledge and methods of research.

Kumar (2005) points out that in social sciences the researcher applies the methodology's research techniques, procedures and methods to the collection of information about certain components of an issue, problem, situation or phenomenon. In turn, the accessed information may be utilized in a variety of ways. The resulting knowledge may administer and enhance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or formulate policy. Determining the methodology for a research study will evolve from the determination of its objectives. Kumar (2005) explains that basically a research endeavor may be deemed as: 1. Correlational, 2. descriptive, 3.

explanatory, or 4. exploratory (Kumar, 2005, **) As the correlational research investigates two or more aspects of a particular situation, the researcher aims to discover or establish the existence of an association, relationship, or interdependence between the two aspects. These studies merit the name, correlational studies, because they seek to determine whether a relationship between two or more aspects of a situation or phenomenon actually exists.

The correlational study may include exploring how an advertising campaign impacts the sale of a product, for example, or determining the relationship between stressful living scenarios and the incidences of heart attacks (Kumar, 2005). The descriptive research endeavor aims to systematically describe a problem, phenomenon, service, situation or program, situation, or proffer information. This type research may relate a community's living condition, for instance, or describe the reported attitudes toward a particular issue.

These studies primarily aim to describe prevalent factors/point in regard to the issue or problem being investigated (Kumar, 2005). Kumar (2005) explains that explanatory research attempts to clarify why and how the relationship between two aspects of a situation or phenomenon exists. For instance, explanatory research may attempt to explain why stressful living contributes to heart attacks. This type research may strive to determine how the home environment impinges on the level of academic achievement the child demonstrates or why fertility decline follows a decline in mortality.

During exploratory research, the fourth type of research, Kumar (2005) explains, the researcher undertakes a study with the intent to investigate an area where little may be known or to explore the possibility to of undertake a particular research study. This type study, also identified as a feasibility study or a pilot study implemented to determine the feasibility of more advanced study, traditionally evolves from the researcher's desire to investigate areas about which he/she possesses little or no knowledge.

The assessment the researcher makes during the exploratory study regarding the small-scale study determines whether or not a full study eventuates. The researcher also completes exploratory studies to develop, distill and/or examine measurement tools and procedures (Kumar, 2005). Figure 1 reflects three of the four types of research from the objectives' stance. Figure 1: Aims and Purposes of Research Studies (adapted from Kumar, 2005).

Even though in theory, the research study may be characterized as correlational, descriptive, explanatory, or exploratory, in practice, albeit, most studies consist of a blend of correlational descriptive, and explanatory research as they include elements of each (Kumar, 2005). The type of research determines the methodology the researcher will choose to implement.

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodology The purpose of the research determines which type of research methods would prove to be most effective, While the quantitative-- qualitative research debate ravages, what is obvious is that there is no one best research method for all research and evaluations. Different research purposes require the use of different research methods, Olusegun A. Sogunro (2002), Central Connecticut State University, explains. In "Selecting a quantitative or qualitative research methodology: An experience," Sogunro stresses that there no particular research method proves best for all research and evaluations.

Whether used separately or joined together, both quantitative and qualitative research methods denote different, yet complementary roles in the research process and outcome. Sogunro (2002) notes a quantitative research tests a theory consisting of variables, measures the study's components with numbers, and analyzes these with statistical procedure to determine whether the theory's predictive generalizations prove true. A qualitative research, Sogunro (2002) purports, based on developing a complex, holistic picture, utilizes words to report detailed views of informants. The researcher conducts this type research in a natural setting.

Basically, qualitative research constitutes an empirical research where the data is presented in numerical format, while qualitative research consists of an empirical research with data, not in numerical format. Quantitative research collects numerical data to control, explain, and/or predict the phenomena of interest. Qualitative research collects extensive data on numerous variables over time, in a naturalistic setting to better understand a social or human problem. This type research enables the researcher to obtain insights that other types of research would not enable the researcher to gain.

Primary differences in quantitative and qualitative research approaches, both equally recognized and routinely utilized conducting research, appear in the realms of data collection and analyses. Quantitative research depends heavily on numerical data and statistical analysis, while qualitative research minimizes the use of numbers or statistics and instead, relies more on the participants' verbal data and subjective analysis (Sogunro, 2002). The term "quantitative research," denotes those research methods that implement quantitative principles, techniques, and theoretical statistics,.

Walter (2005) stresses that quantitative research methods and techniques serve as potent analytical tools, and that within particular research settings, the researcher use of quantitative research methods enable him to engage the data's power (Sogunro, 2002). Qualitative research, concerned with understanding human experience, interactions, and behavior patterns. It seeks to describe and interpret the why of human behavior and motivation (Creswell, 2009; Sogunro, 2002). Qualitative approaches may best suit the researcher's quest to explore the complexities of multicultural contexts and multicultural individuals.

Contrary to quantitative research which focuses on numerical data, qualitative research validates the value and validity of personal experience, as well as the existence of competing ways of understanding social realities. Social work, the professional activity of helping individuals, groups, and communities improve their overall social functioning and work towards influencing environmental social conditions that will aid in reaching goals, routinely utilizes qualitative research to explore concerns and/or issues.

Although social workers have not historically emphasized the importance of research knowledge for decision making, during the past few decades, social workers have begun to positively influence the ways in which research is conducted. Research methods related to homelessness, a residential instability which may be compared or contrasted with definitions of poverty, for example, are evolving.

At times, even though the research may be complicated by varying definitions of homelessness, researchers are establishing methods for estimating the size of the homeless population, which includes people who have nowhere to go; at risk of losing housing through eviction or institutional discharge (Drury, 2008). Case Study Methodology In the case study methodology, a form of qualitative descriptive research, according to M.

Dereshiwsky (1999) in "Electronic Textbook - Let Us Count the Ways: Strategies for Doing Qualitative Research," the researcher using the case study methodology does not focus on discovering a universal, generalizable truth, nor do the researcher generally search for cause-effect relationships. Instead, the researcher emphasizes the exploring and describing process. As the researcher examines one individual or small participant pool, he/she then draws conclusions only about that one particular participant or group; only in the designated, specific context Case Studies 2008).

In considering or defining the case study methodology, the researcher found that case studies may point to focus or approach a broad view of life. Case study, a method involves the researcher systematically gathering enough information about a particular person, social setting, event, or group to permit him/her to effectively understand how the subject operates or functions (Berg, 2007). Observation/ethnographic research contrasts the case study methodology, as it involves the researcher entering the setting being investigated and observing participants and/or listening to discussions the participants engage in.

As observing or hearing everything or hearing all of the participant's experiences or conversations proves virtually impossible, ethnographers observe and listen only to particular portions of the participants' experiences and discussions (Berg, 2007). Focus group interviewing style also contrasts the case study methodology. The investigator forms and leads a group discussion on a particular pertinent topic(s) in focus group interviewing.

This methodology, designed for small groups of unrelated individuals, formed by enables the researcher to learn through discussion about conscious, semiconscious, and unconscious psychological and sociocultural characteristics and processes among groups (Berg, 2007). Psychologists have utilized the various kinds of case study methodology since the early stages of the development of the discipline. Notably, Freud and his followers, as well as Piaget and Inhelder, used case studies as venues to describe and explore psychological processes.

In contemporary research, the researcher frequently incorporates ethnography or phenomenology in case study, with the primary purpose to obtain in-depth knowledge about an individual, a group of individuals, or other bounded fields of interest (Berg, 2007). The term "case study," per se, refers both to methodological strategy and subject of study. Social scientists routinely implement the case-study approach as a methodological strategy when they aim to provide rich descriptions and analyses of a single case, or a small number of cases (Turner, 2006).

A case study combines observations of behavior without observations of attitudes and perceptions of research case participants (Berg, 2007). This approach allows researchers to develop a detailed view of processes, interactions, and meaning systems in a way that would prove prohibitive if the researcher were examining dozens or hundreds of cases (Turner, 2006). According to Creswell (2009), case studies depict a strategy of inquiry, utilizing data collection procedures over a period of time, which researchers implement to process collected detailed information.

Case studies may prove particularly pertinent to explain cases that do not fit an existing theory; to explain why the case violates theoretical predictions and to refine or replace an existing hypothesis. The case study may also specify its scope conditions as it proffers rich, detailed data, difficult to obtain from more representative research designs. The case study, albeit, may include the cost of a lack of generalization. Case studies, nevertheless, prove advantageous at times as they enable the researcher to achieve insights unavailable from quantitative methods.

Case studies include a myriad of interesting and gratifying types of research, which in turn, enable the researcher conducting a case study to experience the satisfaction that encompasses being on the edge of knowledge building about a problem or question. A disadvantage of case study includes its limited capacity to generate definitive knowledge. Due to the minute number sampled in case studies, the case study reportedly cannot be considered representative, as few real conclusions emerge from them.

In addition, the case study does not permit the researcher to generalize from the participants to others who were not part of the study. Consequently, the external validity of a case study's findings purportedly proves particularly diminutive (Creswell, 2009; Turner, 2006). The primary benefit of case study research includes the depth of information the methodology provides, within context, about a single unit (person, organization, or issue). This detailed information, often referred to as thick descriptions, provides a real-world context in which the processes under investigation may be better understood.

Case study research may also benefit theory building and result in more robust theories that reflect contextual influences (Creswell, 2009). A number of case study qualitative researchers argue that the method proffers high construct validity because it does not mandate that constraints be placed on the situation being investigated, a traditional, necessary element of quantitative research.

Due to the case study's narrow focus and sample, the most common argument against the use of the case study method as a technique for scientific inquiry includes the argument that this method lacks the generalizability of findings Creswell, 2009). For a number of researchers, external validity only involves the use of sample data to approximate population parameters in order to identify a universal law of behavior and achieve statistical generalizability.

Internal validity may also be an issue in case study research in that the researcher exerts little to no control over the factors influencing the behavior or individuals of interest. This lack of control may contribute to questions regarding the establishment of any patterns of behavior. Case study researchers argue, albeit, that the consistency of the case study process may be enhanced by thorough research protocols with careful documentation.

Some researchers, who subscribe to case study methodology, also argue that a shift in thinking to an examination of dependability, or the stability and consistency of the process of collecting the in-depth data needs to occur, rather than continued focus on the outcome of the data-collection procedure (Creswell, 2009. In the study, "Factors changing attitudes of graduate school students toward an introductory research methodology course," Simon A. Lei (2008) Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, examines six factors that changed attitudes of graduate students regarding an introductory research methods course.

Using the Student Research Assessment Survey, Lei (2008) found a semblance of similarity in the student's attitudes toward statistics courses and research methods courses. The six factors that significantly influenced student attitudes in regard to research during the course of a semester, which Lei investigated, include: 1. Students' research interest, 2. usefulness, 3. overall self-efficacy, 4. training environment, 5. students' levels of research anxiety, and 6. task difficulty (Lei, 2008). Providing explicit research opportunities within the student's training environment, Lei, (2008) asserts, serves to help ensure the student's attitude toward research will be positive.

In addition, providing the student with specific interventions such as instruction in research methodology, for example, may also increase the student's research self-efficacy, expand his/her perception of the research's utility, as well as, decrease his/her anxiety level task difficulty relating to the research effort. Khairul Baharein Mohd Noor (2009), Universiti Industri Selangor, Malaysia, contends that the methodology the researcher chooses to employ directly relates to the nature of the research problem.

In the report, "Case study: A strategic research methodology," Noor (2009) notes the existence of two basic methodological traditions of research in social science: positivism and post-positivism (phenomenology) (Noor, 2009, ¶ 1). Positivism, according Noor (2009), approaches the development of knowledge through research stressing the natural science model, in which the scientist, who adopts the position of objective researcher, collects facts relating to the social world and then arranges such facts in a chain of causality to build an explanation of social life.

Post-positivism, on the other hand, rather than objectively determining findings, relates to the socially constructed reality. Noor further explains that positivism, as its base evolves from the natural science model of dealing with facts, more closely links with the quantitative methodology. In contrast, as post-positivism relates to understanding the subjectivity of social phenomena, this research requires a qualitative methodology. The case study, Noor (2009) acknowledges, does not aim to encompass the entire organization, but instead, intends to focus on a particular feature, issue, or unit of analysis.

The case study method proves particularly practical to gain an enhanced understanding of a particular problem or situation. Focus Group Study The focus group study, a qualitative method involving a group discussion, typically supplements other methodologies, Gross (1996) explains. The roots for this particular methodology stem from market research; however, human geographers routinely utilize this methodology. Usually, six to twelve participants partake in this study scenario, which focuses around the questions a moderator presents.

The focus group constitutes a form of research designed to generate data on group beliefs and group norms where the researchers seeks to facilitate and record that interaction. The researcher may implement the focus group at the beginning of a research process to orient the researcher to a new field. During the implementation, the focus group may follow a questionnaire survey to verify the researcher's interpretation.

The interviews may also be utilized in a pilot study phase of a larger scaled research where alternative questionnaire item wordings assist for characterized, as structured, semi-structured and conversational, open-ended questions (Turner, 2006). Compare/Contrast Focus Group to Case Study As the focus group interviews allow meanings to emerge in a less directed way, and foster creative encounters, in which participants share and test their ideas within the group, they appear to be advantageous to the interview.

Waclawski (2007) notes Krueger (1994) to contend that a focus group constitutes the fundamental qualitative data-collection tools that industrial and organizational carefully-planned discussions utilize, as it is designed to obtain perceptions about a defined area of interest in a permissive and nonthreatening environment. Because the focus group may be used to explore a multitude of issues, marketing researchers also perceive it as effective technique. The focus group study also affords the researcher the control over the line of questioning.

Focus group interviews, Berg (2007) notes, may also prove useful strategy as a standalone data gathering strategy or as an add-on to other methods. Focus groups are often used alone when the researcher purports to study a topic in depth with a group of individuals who may provide significant insight beyond what a traditional survey offers. The researcher also utilizes the focus group study to collect data on participant attitudes or opinions about a particular topic or a set of related topics.

For instance, an organization might conduct a focus group to assess its employees' level of satisfaction with its current homeless program, to determine whether employees perceive the company's efforts as successful or deem the program to be ineffective. An organization may also utilize the focus group to assess the employee's attitudes and opinions about the recognition he/she receives for his/her job performance. In contrast to the focus group, the case study is limited by the capacity to generate knowledge that could be described as definitive (Yegidis & Weinbach, 2002).

Used in conjunction with surveys the focus group explores issues, unearthed by the survey, yet not explained in sufficient detail to satisfy the researcher or to answer the relevant research question(s). The focus group additionally facilitates an open dialogue between the researcher and participants, allowing the researcher to delve into issues and explore those issues in greater depth. Whether implemented as a standalone, or utilized in conjunction with other research methods, the focus group constitutes a significant applied research tool.

The variability within each focus group, as the decision to how structured the focus group will be, remains a key methodological decision for the researcher to determine. Focus groups may be rigidly structured situations, in which the researcher moves the group through a structured set of questions, or loosely planned occasions in which the group develops its own dynamic; initiating and following it own agenda. Observation Methodology Observation methodology occurs in a setting without the researcher utilizing predetermined categories of measurements or responses.

The researcher, interested in observing the individual's behavior as those behaviors naturally occur in expressions that appear meaningful to the individual involved (Villadsen, 2008). The researcher conducts this type methodology by investing more time as an observer than as a participant. During the observation process, the researcher obtains first-hand experience of the participants. he/she may note unusual aspects during observation and is able to record information in real-time. In turn, this may prove useful when the researcher explores topics that may be uncomfortable for participants to discuss.

Participant Methodology Participant observation differs from observation methodology as a research method in the area of the researcher's participation. In participant observation, the researcher personally engages in the social phenomenon being studied (Jorgensen, 1989). This approach, as observation methodology, however, enables researchers to study social behavior as in real time. Unlike observation methodology, the disadvantage may materialize as the researcher personally participates in his/her study focus if he/she unwarily develops interests, loyalties, and points-of-view that influence his/her observations and interpretations (Jorgensen, 1989).

As with numerous research strategies, the primary strengths of participant observation also mirror samplings of its weaknesses. Case Study Compared/Contrasted to Observation In observation participation research, the researcher may observe session participants interact and share specific attitudes and experiences (Berg, 2007). In this type of qualitative research, the researcher desires to interact with the participants while he/she collects data from the participants. Creswell (2009) relates the following five types of observation participation: 1. Nonparticipation: This type observation constitutes the lowest level of researcher involvement, usually conducted by viewing a DVD.

A researcher, for example, requests that the teacher records a particular period for the researcher to review at a later time. 2. Passive Participation. During passive participation observation, the researcher personally attends the experience, albeit, he/she does not interact with participates. For example, a researcher may observe a group of homeless young people living in a shelter. 3. Moderate Participation. During this type observation, the researcher attempts to balance the inside and outside roles of observations by observing and participating in a limited number of activities.

For example, a researcher may volunteer to teach a class at a local homeless shelter. 4. Active Participation. In active participation observation, the researcher replicates the actions of the participants, yet does not strive to blend in completely. For example, a researcher may personally remain all day with a group of homeless youth inside the shelter and out on the streets. 5. Complete Participation. During this type observation, the researcher naturally, actively participates with the study participants.

This may prove to be a hindrance, however, to the researcher's attempt to collect data and maintain a reflective stance. For example, the researcher may continue his/her role as a volunteer a homeless shelter, while he/she simultaneously collects qualitative data by observing the participants and facilitating interviews (Villadsen, 2008). Observation techniques, a cornerstone of the qualitative research paradigm, may be divided into two main categories, Burke (2005) notes: Participant and naturalistic observation. Participant observation appears to possess the advantage of allowing first-hand contact with the researcher as events occur.

Key events in the development of research may be more readily observed, with the involvement enhancing the examination of all pertinent information. In contrast, methods such as repeated interviews or questionnaires tend to ascribe more weight to the views of the most articulate or literate researcher (Burke, 2005). Ethnographers examining cultural behavior, organizational development researchers, and program evaluators frequently utilize naturalistic observation (Patton, 2002).

Ethnography, an analytic description or reconstruction of cultural scenes and groups, designed for observing behavior, discovering the cultural knowledge governing that behavior, and relating the behavior to the knowledge as relationships are played out in social contexts, describes and interprets cultural behavior to discern cultural patterning in the behavior observed. This type research also provides an ongoing dialogue about the culture's inherent nature. Empirical and naturalistic strategies involve observation the researcher utilizes to acquire firsthand accounts of phenomena as they occur in real settings (Villadsen, 2008).

In ethnographic research, ethnographers attempt to provide descriptions of material and nonmaterial phenomena that represent multilayered contexts, complex interrelationships among participants and nonparticipants, and various interpretations of the phenomena. Interviews and Data Collection Tools The researcher often implements structured interviews to gather specific comparative data. The researcher uses non-structured interviews, noted as less formal, such as conversation in the course of daily interaction, to gather general information about particular settings or events.

As in traditional field-based studies, the researcher becomes a participant-observer, capable of interpreting the overt and subtle manifestations of a culture. (Patton, 2002). The non-interactive methods the researcher utilizes to collect ethnographic data include the researcher completing a fieldworker's journal, collecting and analyzing various documents, and conducting nonparticipant observation. When the researcher collects data over an extended period of time, this affords him/her opportunities to re-interview informants about specific events and to cross-check data by interviewing several informants regarding the same events (Patton, 2002).

One may enhance the study's reliability, as well as the ability to replicate the study, by blending relatively non-structured, long-term observations and interviews, which possess high validity, with more structured interviews and other more formalized procedures. The control factors ethnographers into their data collecting include understanding various factors that potentially affect informants' reporting, as well as, the ethnographer's awareness of his/her personal error and/or biases, researcher's role, field time, field experience, implicit or explicit objectives, theoretical orientations, or participation within the community or work group.

As ethnographers have begun to gain more access to schools and school sites; the ethical role of the ethnographer mandates closer examination. Contrary to earlier ethnographies that implied observer objectivity, contemporary ethnography reportedly grapples with the position of the observer and the subjective interpretative frame imposed on the context (Patton, 2002). Participant Observation The contrast of observation methodology includes the environment in which the program occurs. The researcher should describe this setting in terms that enable the reader to visualize the setting.

When the researcher avoids relating the participants' interpretive adjectives and quotations, this helps ensures less interpretive measurements (Patton, 2002). Participant observation, the other broad category of observational techniques, may adhere to one of the following three forms:.