Selection of research method

Draft section of my reflective assignment, based on the blog post ‘A little more action (research) please!’

I have been forced to challenge my own pre-disposition towards quantitative research methods, which was influenced by my physical sciences background. I identified this bias at an early stage in my writing, and found the distinction with qualitative research better defined in my mind by reading the comparisons made by Creswell (2009, Ch.7) and Newby (2010, Ch.3). I also realised that my previous experiences lacked any real involvement in the formal planning of research; my previous projects has always been funded without me having to submit research proposals myself. I decided that qualitative approaches seemed better suited to my context, but it took some time to fully challenge my unconscious habits. I was able to identify possible sources of bias towards theoretical models that I had used (Salmon, 2004).

However it took some additional reading (and re-reading) to fully isolate my unconscious assumptions. After extensive reading about how to create both quantitative and qualitative research proposals, I believed that I had created a set of reasonable questions for qualitative research. My initial research questions were phrased as ‘What effect does...’ and ‘How does...affect...’ Only by revisiting some of the initial reading did I notice that, despite my initial conclusions that qualitative research would be the best approach, that I had automatically designed my questions in a directive way, that would lead to bias towards theory rather than interpreting participants responses from a neutral standpoint.

After some more reading, I was able to present a much more complete and reasoned overview of my research proposal, showing a great deal more thought. This revised research plan fitted much more closely with the principles of action research (Creswell, 2009; Newby, 2010 pp.623-4; O’Brien, 1998), and represents a successful change in my thinking about research.

‘Re-learning means to abolish some toxic assumptions’ (Leonhard, 2013)

References:

• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (3rd edition) Sage.
• Leonhard, G. (2013). Beyond the obvious: re-defining the meaning of learning in a networked society. (video online) Available at: https://www.annotag.tv/learningtechnologies/play/18320
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• O'Brien, R. (1998). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. (online) Available at: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/xx%20ar%20final.htm (Accessed March 2013)
• Salmon, G. (2004). e-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Time to dig deeper?

My initial literature review led me to a very comprehensive article by Ke & Hoadley (2009), which was very much a centre-piece for my (admittedly still thin) literature review. Whilst I'm keen to continue using this and related articles, I'm now realising after the last few weeks of considering research methods that I need to dig a little deeper, and in a different direction. The problem is that the article focuses on evaluation research, whereas I really need some good pointers on action research, as I believe this will be of more benefit in the qualitative research project I actually intend to do.

 

One useful resource that I have come across is an overview of action research (O'Brien, 1998). Although this is a slightly older article, O'Brien covers a lot of the points made in my earlier reading, and with a slightly different perspective on how it might be used. He also gives case studies of early use of computer mediated conferencing, and how action research was utilised to give the practitioners and participants useful insights that improved practice. Most tellingly, O'Brien points out that action research in itself is becoming a vital tool for organisations that are increasingly interdependent in a climate of change, something that fits well with my worldview.

 

"If you want it done right, you may as well do it yourself"

 

Johnson (2001) offers a good overview of online interaction and communities, again slightly ahead of the review by Ke & Hoadley (2009). One point that immediately caught my eye, is the acknowledgement of attrition as being a key problem - within the workplace, simply getting people to participate in learning activities can be problematic, and online interactions even more so. There is also convergence with the works of Wenger, and of Palloff & Pratt, but again no mention of Salmon, nor of Anderson.

 

References:

• Johnson, C.M. (2001). A Survey of Current Practice on Online Communities of Practice.  Internet and Higher Education, Vol.4 pp.45-60. Available at: <http://repository.maestra.net/valutazione/MaterialeSarti/articoli/Johnson-Survey.pdf> [Accessed March 2013]
• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• O'Brien, R. (1998). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. [online] Available at: <http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/xx%20ar%20final.htm> [Accessed March 2013]