Advertisement

Research Design and Methodology

Chapter
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Having set the background for this study in Chap.  1, in addition to giving a full description of current literature within pertinent scholarship in Chap.  2, the main task of this chapter is to describe the methodology that has been employed in order to answer the research questions. The methodology design and research implementation are the key issues discussed. The chapter examines a qualitative paradigm and its ramifications, justifying the rationale of adopting a qualitative lens for this study.

References

  1. Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis: A guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9–19.  https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 547–570.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, S. (2015). Is this how you pictured it? In S. P. Hanna, A. E., Potter, E. A. Modlin, P. Carter, & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Social memory and heritage tourism methodologies (pp. 92–108). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Butterfield, L. D. (2001). A critical incident study of individual clients’ outplacement counselling experiences. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Simon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods & analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 51–72). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, J. A. (2013). Researching whole people and whole lives. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Copeland, A. J., & Agosto, D. E. (2012). Diagrams and relational maps: The use of graphic elicitation techniques with interviewing for data collection, analysis, and display. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(5), 513–533. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/10259.
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Lincoln: Pearson University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279–289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denicolo, P., Long, T., & Bradley-Cole, K. (2016). Constructivist approaches and research methods: A practical guide to exploring personal meanings. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419–427.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making: Concepts, methods, and results to date. Paper presentation at Annual meeting of the International Communications Association, Dallas, TX. https://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin83.html.
  26. Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in educational research (pp. 643–680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Toronto, Ontario: Collier Macmillan Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Fitzgerald, M. (2001). Gaining knowledge of culture during professional education. In J. Higgs & A. Titchen (Eds.), Practice knowledge and expertise in the health professions (pp. 149–156). Melbourne, VIC: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  29. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. The Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flick, U. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Freidson, E. (1975). Doctoring together: A study of professional social control. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Frith, H., Riley, S., Archer, L., & Gleeson, K. (2005). Imaging visual methodologies [Editorial]. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(3), 187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp037edCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  35. Gloor, D., & Meier, H. (2000). A river revitalisation seen through the lens of local community members. Visual Sociology, 15, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Guillemin, M. (2004). Understanding illness: Using drawings as a research method. Qualitative Health Research, 14(2), 27–289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303260445.
  38. Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles and in practice. New York, NY: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Holliday, A. (2016). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Qualitative research methods series 37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Kelle, U. (1995). Theories as heuristic tools in qualitative research. In I. Maso, P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, & J. C. Verhoeven (Eds.), Openness in research: The tension between self and other (pp. 33–50). The Netherlands: Van Gorcum Assen.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Lietz, C., Langer, C., & Furman, R. (2006). Establishing trustworthiness in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 5, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liebenberg, L. (2009). The visual image as discussion point: Increasing validity in boundary crossing research. Qualitative Research, 9(4), 441–467.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109337877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lub, V. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in intercultural learning: Examining the international experience through a critical incident approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367–381.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940600837624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2018). Identity trajectories of early career researchers: Unpacking the post-PhD experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Medica, K. (2016). Cultural adjustment in the context of an aid-funded higher education sojourn: An exploratory case study that examines acculturation and re-acculturation challenges for Indonesian PhD Australian scholarship awardees. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Monash University.Google Scholar
  53. Moriarty, J. (2011). Qualitative methods overview. National Institute for Health Research School for Social Care. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/41199.
  54. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Mill, J. (2001). Being bilingual: Perspectives of third-generation Asian children on language, culture and identity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morse, J. M. (1994). “Emerging from the data”: Cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research (pp. 23–43). Menlo Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Niesyto, H. (2000). Youth research on video self-production: Reflections on a social aesthetic approach. Visual Sociology, 15, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Northcote, M. (2012). Selecting criteria to evaluate qualitative research. In M. Kiley (Ed.), Narratives of transition: Perspectives of research leaders, educators and postgraduates (pp. 99–110). The Centre for Higher Education, Learning and Teaching/The Australian National University. https://www.qpr.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/QPR_2012_proceedings-1.pdf.
  60. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Phillips, D. C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary: A guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  62. Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2012). Praktyczny przewodnik interpretacyjnej analizy fenomenologicznej w badaniach jakościowych w psychologi. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 18(2), 361–369.Google Scholar
  63. Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/.
  64. Richards, L. (2009). Handing qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 74–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100107.
  67. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 25–52). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2007). The methodology of students-as-researchers: Valuing and using experience and expertise to develop methods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300701458863.
  72. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tangen, R. (2014). Balancing ethics and quality in educational research—The ethical matrix method. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 678–694.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (2002). Interviewing in education. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 453–471). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Wainwright, D. (1997). Can sociological research be qualitative, critical and valid? The Qualitative Report, 3(2). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol3/iss2/1.
  76. Wight, A. R. (1995). The critical incident as a training tool. In S. M. Fowler & M. G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods (pp. 127–140). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International RelationsSichuan International Studies UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.School of EducationThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  3. 3.School of EducationThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations