Rose Mary Kelley
Dr. Allan Eickelmann
Chapter 7
7.4,7.6,7.8
IDS 301
July 16, 2012
IDS 301
7.4 Let’s say you are researching a problem that has generated considerable attention from
disciplinary scholars and that they have advanced various theories to explain the behavior.
How do you discover if there is a gap in the research? How would you go about advancing
a theory to explain the problem (e.g. it cause or the behavior) that disciplinary experts have
overlooked?
In researching a problem that has generated considerable attention from disciplinary
scholars and advanced various theories to explain the behavior of certain phenomenon or the
cause of some behaviors could be a very daunting task. Discovering gaps in scholars’ research
can often help broaden the research base. One would have to revisit the STEPS in order to
identify the disciplines by analyzing the problems and evaluating insights of other disciplinary
scholars. I noticed in STEP 3, that the discipline is potentially relevant to the problem and the
reduced the question to just the most relevant to the topic. The full scale literature search
conducted in STEP 4 is where I would discover that there is a gap in the research. In researching
a problem it is hard to validate our choices and identify the important disciplinary insights and
theories. Disciplinary experts have generally overlooked for other ways to explain the
phenomenon or the causes of some behavior after reidentified the important disciplinary insight
that may have been overlooked and reduced to the most relevant to the problem. STEP 5 is very
important in developing adequacy in the relevant disciplines. Analyzing the problem from
evaluating each of the scholar’s insights and theories would be where I will add my findings. I
would use the disciplinary specific information to take action. The disciplines provide a different
lenses or perspective.
7.6 What assumption(s) would you be making if you preferred either qualitative or
quantitative methods of data collection?
The major assumption that would be made if I used either qualitative methods of data collection
would consist of the following: Disciplinary scholars have leaded the way in adequacy in
disciplines. Knowing the issues involved in the quantities. Quantitative versus qualitative
methods is a large debate of scholars of versus different disciplines. The interdisciplinary
position that I would use would come from that which emphasize evidence that can be
quantified, such as the number of votes in an election, the flow of water in a river or the number
of atoms in a molecule. Qualitative in short refers to the meaning, concepts, definitions,
characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things or people that are not measured or
expressed numerically. I would use qualitative research methods for a research question or from
an old problem or question in a new way, because the qualitative research tends to rely on words,
images, and descriptions. The quantitative versus qualitative debate is over. Researchers today
are using a methodology of stress mixing methods rather that distinguishing between methods.
The relative importance of two broad approaches may vary according to the characteristics of the
research problem Students should accept both quantitative and qualitative approaches because it
has been used and accepted. Researchers must consider identifying the perspectives of various
writers on a problem. The Qualitative research approach is a more certain and more valid result
driven research that qualitative. In the field of social sciences there is a tendency to give
quantitative research more respect.
7.8 Concerning the topic you are researching, how can you provide “in –text” evidence of
disciplinary adequacy?
Providing “in –text” evidence of disciplinary adequacy in concerning the topic that I am
researching is not easy. Adequacy in a relevant discipline involves comprehending enough about
each of discipline to know which one to use for the research.
The adequacy in relevant disciplines involves understanding enough about the subjects
and each discipline to decide which of its defining elements are relevant to the problem and
identify appropriate methods. Students such as me are advised to provide in text evidence that
they have developed adequacy in the disciplines they are using. There are two practical reasons
for providing in text evidence of disciplinary adequacy. Interdisciplinary work tends to focus on
complex and real world problems and on intellectual problems that are not necessarily real
world. Some problems are time sensitive. Scholars have demonstrated the academic rigor and
students today bear a heavier responsibility than disciplinary students do in their research
because interdisciplinarians have established adequacy in two or more disciplines. The second
practical reason for providing in text evidence of disciplinary adequacy is to highlight the
distinctive character of the research project compared to that of disciplinary research. The
research has to pay attention to the interdisciplinary research process that involves not just
moving through the various STEPS; it should always involve being self consciously
interdisciplinary. Reflecting on the biases and restating the problem or reframe the question will
be the most difficult decision to make in the end.
References
Repko, Allen, F. (2012) Interdisciplinary Research Process and Theory (2nd edition), pp .143166. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA