Sessions 13, 14, 15, 16
Qualitative and quantitative research
Session 13 Qualitative vs
quantitative research
Preparation
Prepare your arguments for or against the topic
• That qualitative research is better than
quantitative research
First three speakers: 3 minutes each
Final speaker: 4 minutes
Audience
Your role is
• to identify points for clarification, elaboration,
further inquiry or debate
• To provide feedback to individuals and to the
teams
Ethics and Publication
Ethics in Conducting Research
Research Merit
• justifiable by potential benefit
• appropriate methods
• thorough study of current literature
• conducted or supervised by persons with suitable
experience, qualifications and competence
Research Integrity
• searching for knowledge and understanding
• following recognised principles of research
conduct
• conducting research honestly, and
• disseminating and communicating results,
whether favourable or unfavourable, in ways
that permit scrutiny and contribute to public
knowledge and understanding.
Justice
• process of recruiting participants is fair
• no unfair burden of participation on particular
groups
• fair distribution of benefits of participation
• no exploitation of participants, and
• fair access to the benefits of research.
Beneficence
• Likely benefit must justify any risks of harm or
discomfort
• Likely benefit may be to participants, the wider
community, or both
• Where there are no likely benefits to
participants, the risk to participants should be
lower than would be ethically acceptable
where there are such likely benefits.
Respect
• Due regard for the welfare, beliefs, perceptions,
customs and cultural heritage of participants
• Respect for privacy, confidentiality and cultural
sensitivities of the participants and their
communities.
• Due scope to the capacity of human beings to
make their own decisions.
• Empowering and protecting participants unable to
make their own decisions/having diminished
capacity to do so
Minimising Risk
• Risk is the potential for harm, discomfort or
inconvenience, including:
– the likelihood that a harm (or discomfort or
inconvenience) will occur and
– the severity of the harm, including its
consequences.
Requirements for Consent
• Participation must be voluntary, and based on
adequate understanding of the proposed research
and implications of participation.
• Consent may be expressed orally, in writing or by
some other means (for example, return of a survey,
or conduct implying consent), depending on:
– the nature, complexity and risk of the research and
– the participant’s personal and cultural
circumstances.
Information Requirements
• Participants should be informed of such things as:
– alternatives to participation
– how the research will be monitored
– provision of services to participants adversely
affected by the research
– how privacy and confidentiality will be protected
– their right to withdraw from further participation at
any stage, along with any implications of withdrawal
Vulnerable Groups
• Women who are pregnant and the human foetus
• People highly dependent on medical care who
may be unable to give consent
• People with a cognitive impairment, an intellectual
disability, or a mental illness
• People who may be involved in illegal activities
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
• People in other countries
Ethics in Publishing Research Work
• Intellectual ownership of research work is shared by
all not only those who have made significant
intellectual or scholarly contributions to that
research.
• The significance of the contribution made is the only
relevant criterion for making such judgments. Status
(e.g., student, supervisor), time or effort expended,
and other such considerations are irrelevant.
• Student-supervisor co-authorships constitute a
special case (power and research experience
differential)
• In recognition, a paper co-authored with a
student would normally list the student as first
author (except in exceptional circumstances)
• It is unethical for supervisors to accept co-authorship
of students’ publications if they have not provided
significant intellectual input to the work on which
these are based.
• Equally, if a student receives significant intellectual
input to his/her work from more experienced
researchers (e.g., significant guidance on the
research aims, design, analysis, or interpretation), it
would be unethical for the student to publish the
work independently
• Less experienced researchers can find it difficult to judge
whether the contributions made by others to their work is
intellectually significant.
• The significance of a contribution is generally seen in the
impact it has had on a work. Thus, if a contribution has
determined, or clearly altered
– the rationale for, or research questions addressed in, a
study,
– the design of the study,
– the analyses performed in the study, or
– the interpretation of the study outcomes
• it is significant regardless of the time invested in making it.
Session 14 Mixed methods
Session Outline
• Strengths and weaknesses of quantitative
research and qualitative research (debate)
• Mixed methods
–
–
–
–
Philosophical underpinning
Historical background
Distinguishing feature
Designs
Quantitative and qualitative
research methods differ
in:
• their analytical objectives
• the types of questions they pose
• the types of data collection instruments they
use
• the forms of data they produce
• the degree of flexibility built into study design
Historical background
• Quantitative research dominated education
until 1970s
• Qualitative research gradually (very slowly)
gained acceptance from 1970s to 2000
• The period 1970-2000 was known as the period
of the paradigm wars
• By 2005, general acceptance for mixed
methods
Positioning in the
qualitative/quantitative debate
• The purist
–
–
Qualitative and quantitative methods are incompatible (grounded in
different ontologic and epistemologic assumptions)
Advocate mono-method studies
• The situationalist
–
–
Both approaches have merit for answering different types of research
question
Advocate mono-method studies but accept the two approaches as
complementary
• The pragmatist
–
–
Dichotomy is false; many associations with each paradigm erroneous (e.g.,
experiments must be quantitative)
Advocate mixed-method approaches
Mixed methods
• Basic idea: combine the methods to maximise
strengths and minimise weaknesses
• Philosophical underpinning: pragmatism (what
works)
• Most important point is that the research
question(s) drive the paradigm and the
method (not vice versa)
Distinctions between two
approaches
Variables vs cases
• Variable-oriented analysis: good for finding
relationships among variables in large
population; based on measurement
• Case-oriented analysis: good for finding
specific, concrete, patterns in small sets of
instances; sensitive to context, process, lived
experience, complexity, in-depth and holistic
understanding
Mixed method designs
1. Triangulation design
2. Embedded design
3. Explanatory design (eg R Watson: survey then
interviews)
4. Exploratory design (eg ISPP; outcomes of drug
rehab; standards)
These differ in terms of ordering of data
collection, balancing of importance and
strategy for combining of data
Session 15 Writing Research Proposals
Purposes of a Research Proposal
• Help clarify your interests and objectives
• Establish the significance of the proposed
research, in light of previous theory and research
• Allow supervisors to provide advice
Typical Components of a Research
Proposal
• Title/Abstract
• Introduction/Context
• Conceptual Framework/Literature Review
• Study Rationale and Aims/Questions
• Methods
• References
• Appendices
Title and Abstract
• Title: concise but thorough statement of
the topic or problem to be addressed in
the study
• Abstract: Concise, coherent summary of
proposed study
– Statement of the problem or topic addressed
– Proposed research design and data collection
procedures
– Data analysis methods
Introduction/Context
• Outline your problem/topic area
• Establish the importance of the problem/topic
(why it is worth pursuing)
• Set a meaningful context for the area of
investigation (background to current research
interest)
• Define key terms and concepts
Conceptual Framework/Literature
Review
• Concise summary of previous empirical and
theoretical work in the area
• Should lead systematically towards your
rationale and research aims or hypotheses
• Should establish the relation between your
research aims to significant literature and
recent (or current) research in your field
• Explicit rationale should be presented for any
conclusions you reach in the literature review
Study Rationale and Specific
Aims/Questions
• The transition from the conclusions you
reached in your review to your rationale is
smooth and orderly
• Aims, questions, and hypotheses (if any) flow
logically from your rationale, (a “therefore”
statement)
Method
• Research Approach
• Sample
• Study Design
• Instruments/Protocols
• Data Collection Procedures
• Data Analysis Procedures
• Conformity to Standards for Ethical Research
Practice
• Proposed Timeline
References and Appendices
• Use of a consistent referencing style
• Notes on APA style
• Appendices should include copies of any noncommercial stimulus materials and measures
used, and any other information that could not
be included in the main body of the proposal
• Assignment 1 is designed for you to practice
and receive feedback on standards of writing
and referencing
Session 15
Proposal writing
• In this session your have an opportunity to seek
feedback from each other on your first draft of
–
–
–
–
Your research question
Your approach
Your proposed method
Your statement of significance
Session 16 Closing
Next steps
Assignment 1 expectations
Assignment 2 expectations
• Support
• Feedback