Research Methods and Critique, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Presented with the challenge of designing a research study, one with the goal of enhancing the results of education for underachievers, the immediate dilemma lies in selecting the proper, guiding approach. Both quantitative and qualitative methods carry with them advantages and potential flaws; the mixed method of combining the two, inherently more complex, is consequently marked by the virtues and shortcomings of both. It is as well as a method which, relatively new and undefined, demands unique application born from its singular nature as a hybrid approach. Nonetheless, given the import of the research study and the variables within it, only a mixed method will yield optimal results. It is the more evolved approach, as it implicitly relies upon the essential components of both quantitative and qualitative research.

Overview of the Assignment

There is, to the dedicated instructional leader of a school, virtually no overestimating of the value of his position. Education is the foundation for how all societies develop, and any misapplication of it may yield unfortunate outcomes with lasting effects, both to individuals and to the greater society surrounding them. The responsibility, then, to take on the task of orchestrating the most expeditious and fruitful modes of education for the school is both daunting and inspiring.

Underachievers, not unexpectedly, demand the more intent focus. Students performing poorly exist as a contradiction within education itself; the process is, quite simply, not occurring as it should, and an instructional leader must employ every means at his disposal to determine the causes and devise solutions. As the circumstance is weighty and the results immeasurably important, the approach must be taken with great care. No proposed answer can be considered unless it rests upon a base of well-conducted research.

In the following case, I confront this challenge. My school has a significant number of students who are not doing well. These students, as far as I have been yet able to ascertain, share little in the way of commonality save for this consistently poor performance and nearness in age. Their failure to make progress is occurring in a variety of subjects. Certain factors have presented themselves as potentially obvious causes, most notably lack of school attendance and economically deprived background. There are, nonetheless,  far too many other aspects influencing this collection of students to safely ascribe the underachieving to any one reason.

Committed to addressing this issue, I have concluded that my first, and most essential, obligation is to clarify the situation. Acting on insufficient and/or flawed information may well prove more damaging than not acting at all, and I am determined to select a course of action based on the most effective research method for this challenge. To identify the desired research, then, I must research the methods themselves.

The Quantitative Approach

An initial obstacle I must first overcome is that, as an educator, I am biased towards what I perceive quantitative research to be, and not in its favor. Education is, first and foremost, a highly personal experience for both educator and student, no matter the level at which it is practiced. I am instinctively wary of any research method that is, as quantitative research is, fundamentally data-based. To my mind, such a clinical approach, no matter the variety of elements assessed, eviscerates the goal in the very process.

My own “education” in these matters, however, is crucial here, for I discover that I do a disservice to quantitative research in so categorizing it. Quantitative findings do rely upon generalizations to a substantial extent, if not wholly: “Quantitative researchers hope to find common patterns in thought and behavior and to generalize broadly” (Johnson, Christensen, 2010, p. 53). Nor, as I learn, am I alone in my disinclination to turn to this method. Fields ranging from marketing to corporate finances tend to view quantitative research as a cold, and perhaps irrelevant, means of gaining insight into an unsatisfactory situation. Those arenas more concerned with motivation, which is clearly at the heart of my school’s dilemma, resist the mode: “Quantitative methods are not very useful for understanding an outcome that has multiple causes…’good science can be antithetical to good action’” (Burke, 2010, p. 139).

The pivotal fact, nonetheless, is that the findings are themselves produced by investigation into the same issues prompting qualitative research. Typically numerical in result and seemingly impersonal, if not altogether unconcerned with social and human issues, quantitative work provides an immensely valuable framework. Essentially, it serves to bring some order into chaos, and segments factors based upon their empirically determined degrees of influence. It is not ordinarily interested in the influences themselves, but that is the responsibility, then, of the researcher.

I consider my own situation, and that of the school. More than several students, all at the freshman level of high school, are failing, and in a range of subjects. Each student is, of course, an individual, yet I am faced with the unavoidable connecting factor of poor performance. If I determine that quantitative research is to be employed, it is likely that a host of previously unknown or suspected similarities will be revealed. It has been brought to my attention already that a substantial number of the students doing badly come from low-income homes, or have decidedly non-traditional home lives. Others, however, share none of these disadvantages, and appear to be performing poorly due to more internal, emotional and/or psychological issues.

It is tempting, as I review what I know and consider the best means of designing effective research for this purpose, to sidestep quantitative applications and focus my team’s energies on uncovering the problems with each particular student. The task would be lengthy, complicated, and highly involved, yet this approach would ensure that measures of individual regard in assessing these young people would be present. This concept is appealing; it rejects out of hand any appearance, or indeed practice, of “grouping” the students in subjective and impersonal ways. It validates the essence of education, in that it accords each person respect for his or her unique circumstances, difficulties, and abilities.

Upon further reflection, however, I begin to perceive that this course entails unnecessary effort, and unnecessary in that the ultimate results sought might be obtained in a more efficient manner. It is, I must acknowledge, inevitable that certain shared circumstances will be determined as existing within this body of underachieving students, aside from that of age. Some will evince having problems because of domestic conditions; that is only to be expected, as others will betray a more independent basis for their lack of application to their studies. These factors, among others, will be further delved into, and the greater individual causes for each student’s problems will be isolated. In a sense, that is the true goal of this assignment. Only the most exact information possible can lead to the greatest likelihood for an effective solution, in any circumstance.

This understanding in place, then, I am compelled to reevaluate the import of quantitative research. In electing to bypass the quantitative method altogether, I suspect I am creating additional, and ultimately unneeded, work for my research team. The answer lies, as I see it, in utilizing quantitative processes in a structural fashion. The information gleaned from it would serve as a platform, an admittedly generalized assembly of data revealing distinct patterns in motives and behaviors. Such research would provide nothing more than a framework, yet I understand that the efficacy of the method lies chiefly in this benefit.

Further consideration of this issue leads me to believe that there may well be circumstances wherein quantitative research is the sole and best approach. It is arguably essential when confronting factors of large demographics, in retrieving census information, and when patterns in specific behaviors, such as spending, need to be identified.  It is, conversely, inappropriate and unproductive to rely upon a quantitative method when distinctly personal variables, and ones which impact heavily upon both dilemma and desired outcome, are present. Then, the method must yield authority. It should be employed, but as a limited tool to eliminate redundant efforts in gathering basic information.

The issue facing me is, again, complex and important, and I must conclude that a careful application of quantitative research method will be valuable to my team. I project that there will be those more adamantly against this impersonal method than I myself was; those committed to education, as my team largely consisting of teachers is, typically disapprove of such detached inquiry. I am obligated, then, to assure them of my intentions. By no means will the quantitative data obtained be used to either render verdicts or implement plans. As I instruct my team and design our research, I will make it abundantly clear that whatever quantitative information we generate will be employed only as a starting-point.

Furthermore, my team will understand that data will be disregarded if it does not serve to promote potential solutions. Sensitive to their own sensitivities, I must convince them that our goal is not “information-gathering”, or any attempt to simplify the issues creating the students’ poor performance. We will use what is useful for the greater purpose, and quantitative research is only as analytically removed from the issue as how we choose to employ it. My directions to the team in this regard will be specifically outlined further on.

Examining Qualitative Worth

Turning my attention to the possibilities and benefits of a qualitative method, I find myself seeing these two, time-honored approaches in a peculiar light. I am aware that each has its devout adherents, and this intrigues me. As I investigate qualitative research, I am increasingly inclined to see it as a necessary adjunct to the quantitative, and by no means an inherently contrary method. It strikes me as odd, that these approaches are not viewed as the complimentary processes their very natures seem to dictate.

Simply expressed, qualitative research goes to the “whys” of an issue. It “…is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). This is, not unexpectedly, critical in the task my school faces; poor performance is, essentially, the symptom of how these underachieving students are interpreting the meaning of their school experience. It is reasonable to assume that the underachieving is arising from an unwillingness to attach importance to education, yet I may not enter into this research with even that logical predisposition; my team may discover that it is ability, and not lack of ambition, which is holding these students back.

As I will assure my team of the strictly practical purposes for which we will employ quantitative method, I will then emphasize that the ensuing, qualitative approach we turn to must be undertaken as the nature of the method demands. It is a lengthier and more involved process, for we must inquire of each student the reasons he or she believes they are not doing well, and also be on the alert for information not intentionally revealed.

My team and I will touch upon another component to this mode of research I most particularly want them to acknowledge: namely, as they talk to the students, expectations and biases must be set aside to the best of their abilities. I want them to be “all ears”, as it were, albeit equipped with a system and parameters of inquiry. Educators have good reason to draw assumptions as to the causes of poor performance; they are exposed to relatively convincing evidence of lack of attendance, contempt for the process and/or school, and unrealistic ideas as to the best path to taking a place in the world, as typical factors. It may well prove that these reasons are what is behind our school’s dilemma.

That notwithstanding, I will urge as much of a “blank slate” state of receptiveness on the part of my team as can be achieved. Bias is an influential and destructive element within qualitative research: “…We have lower standards for information that confirms beliefs we already hold and higher standards for accepting information that disconfirms (sic) our beliefs” (Willis, 2008, p. 10). The psychology is predictable and understandable, yet me must make the greatest effort to resist anticipated responses, for such anticipation may often serve to help generate what is expected.

For example, student John may have little to say regarding why he thinks he is not doing well. With the best of intentions, and prompted by a genuine desire to assist John, a teacher may suggest to him that perhaps his concerns at home are responsible. He resides with a single parent, the teacher knows, and their financial situation is not good. John is being pressured by his parent to leave school and take a job. This articulated to him in this fashion, John may then immediately offer it as the chief, if not sole, reason for his disappointing school performance. In a sense, expectations on both sides of the inquiry are then met, because a possible answer is being relied upon as the only answer.

This is the pitfall we must avoid. Our task is important, and I am not especially interested in confronting a tableau of historically common teen issues. The issues are, quite often, real, and I know this. If these typical factors of low income and domestic stress prove to be the prevalent causes of the problem, we will move forward on that basis. What I seek, however, is the greater understanding, and only diligently applied qualitative research will yield this. The more our approach is purely receptive in nature, particularly in regard to how our qualitative work is done,  the greater our chances of obtaining truly relevant information.

Fortunately, I believe I can substantially rely upon the relationships between my team and even the most reticent students. In this, we have an advantage a great deal of qualitative research lacks; the teachers and the students are familiar to one another, and even sporadic contact over time forges a comfort level, or degree of intimacy. I am trusting that this aspect will enhance the process: “…The methodological literature on qualitative research ‘consistently endorses the advantages of close relationships with respondents which will enhance rapport and enrich research findings’” (Gibbs, 2010, p. 132).

Mixed Method

Having given extensive consideration to both quantitative and qualitative approaches, I am convinced that an application of the two is essential in producing the information, and consequently the solutions, my school requires. While, as stated earlier, I am not ignorant of the value of quantitative research as a mode employed to achieve specific, and typically statistical, information, I believe that combining the approaches is mandated when the variables of personality, age, motivations, and circumstances all directly relate to one another, as is inevitably the case in a high school environment.

The key is complimentarity, as has been solidly endorsed by the research community. Each discipline expands the potentials of the other, and the manner in which the two methods are related is dictated entirely by the circumstance, and by whichever system of combined application will yield the necessary information. Complimentarity is “…accomplished by utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data and not just the numerical or narrative explanation alone to understand the social story in its entirety” (Hesse-Biber, 2010, p. 4).

“Social story” is, in fact, as precise a way as any of defining what underlies the dilemma facing my school. A good number of young people are doing poorly in their studies, and their futures, academic and otherwise, will likely be greatly and negatively impacted if we cannot find a means of reversing the performance levels. This demands taking into account every significant variable, both external to the school and pertinent to the student’s time within it, and each of these variables invariably influence the others. It is a social construct, in every sense of the term. Accordingly, we must approach it with a careful and measured strategy in mind, and an evident and authentic respect for both student and school.

Research Strategy

As has been amply reiterated, my school contains within it a disturbingly high percentage of students who are not performing well. I have been empowered, as an instructional leader, to assemble a team and implement a research strategy. My first action, then, having reviewed the methodological options identified above, is to gather my team and explain how I best see us proceeding. I make it evident to them here that, while I have drawn conclusions regarding the approach I deem most potentially efficient, I am open to hearing their viewpoints and perspectives.

We have a common goal, and I stress this in the initial meeting to both reinforce commitment levels and to underscore that the single, shared objective intrinsically admits to no real disputes between us. Provided all concerned acknowledge the purpose of the team and devote sincere efforts toward attaining it, I can foresee no difficulties. I believe that these teachers are as eager to see their students succeed as I am, and this expression of confidence in their “better natures” will psychologically assist what all such expressions of confidence tend to promote: the better nature itself.

My primary instruction to the team, before we segment into specifics, is that our initial, quantitative approach be conducted much as the qualitative must be; that is to say, I am insistent that no group inquiry be made with these students. It is common knowledge in the educational community that a “herding” of students based upon a single, negative element in no way ameliorates that very element, but rather serves to substantiate it. The students in question are underachievers and, irregardless of how they individually view this condition, they are aware of the fact. It would be psychologically unhelpful, if not blatantly insulting, to gather them together under such a shadowed banner, no matter the goal of the gathering.

Then, such a grouping would greatly impair the chances of obtaining honest information. There is a reflex within people to “play to the crowd”, and the reflex is at its most potent when the people are teens. For our work to succeed, we must have information as accurate, and undiluted by extraneous influences, as possible. To that end, then, I ask my team to draw up schedules of interviews with the students in their classes who fall into the category of underachiever.

I am aware, as I make clear to my team, that this scheduling is dependent upon a variety of factors. The availabilities of both teacher and student, obviously, are paramount considerations here, and I extend to my team a liberal time frame. As I say to them, the underachieving we seek to redress did not occur overnight, and a hurried attempt to resolve it would likely be a waste of our energies and contrary to our ambition. I ask only that the teachers orchestrate sufficiently long interviews with each student to permit a dialogue meaningful to our purpose.

Regarding the actual content of the interview, I then propose that, rather than attempt distinct quantitative and qualitative components, the teachers instead employ a series of questions which, when all responses are taken together, will reveal data corresponding to both methods. As I view it, this is a real value of the mixed methods approach; essentially, the methods are determined after the fact, as the information is sorted by the team.

I suspect this means of interview will greatly ease the teachers’ minds, for I am as well unconcerned with the order of the questioning. There are certain things we need to know, most definitely, but I believe a greater freedom in expression will be elicited by a form dictated by the unique quality of each student, and dialogue. Once these are concluded, again, may we begin the process of shifting the information.

While still open to modifications as suggested by team input, I have determined that the following questions be asked of the underachieving students. I stress that we are seeking answers as detailed and/or lengthy as possible; there is no such thing as too much information, and we can certainly absorb unnecessary or repetitive remarks if the freedom to answer prompting them gives us a greater likelihood of honesty. The basics, then, are: how happy are you with school? Do you feel that the school is giving you what you need to do your best? Is there anything going on in your life that you feel is interfering with what you want to do at school? How do you feel about yourself, in a general way? Do you think of yourself as smart, and is that important to you? Do you believe that doing well in school, at this level and beyond, is worth working toward? What single thing you could change would make you see your school life differently? Lastly: what do you see yourself doing, when your school days are over?

I believe that these eight questions, presented, again, in any sequence at all, may provide an extraordinary amount of quantitative and qualitative data. Moreover, I have compiled them with an eye to encouraging open response; each sets the student as the principal agent in the scenario, and the sole object of concern. Nor, additionally, are the questions challenging or confrontational.

I rely, as stated, as well upon the discretion of the team and its relationships with the students to facilitate a free, non-judgmental exchange.

The responses in hand, then, we will assemble at a set date to begin an initially broad analysis, and this can be best effected by isolating similar elements of each interview. First, we will, in a quantitative manner, identify what home/background issues appear consistent, if any. Depending upon how uniform and/or influential this facet of the students’ lives seems to be, we will assign to it an appropriate value. From there, we move onto personal reflections of how these students view themselves in their present positions. Lastly, we will sort and examine the responses relating to ambition or the lack thereof. In these phases of the work, qualitative and quantitative will merge to provide a clearer understanding of how similar traits and/or circumstances are resulting, in varying degrees, to the problem.

As must be obvious, no solution proposals can be entertained until we have a distinct sense of what the chief issues are. If, for example, we come upon the startling evidence that the majority of underachievers desire to do well but are hopelessly impeded by dire home situations, the school, while still obligated to do what it can, is severely limited. Conversely, should a greater number of underachievers express discontent in what they deem to be poor instructional processes, we must be prepared to evaluate our own methods, and be open to identifying and correcting shortcomings.

Conclusion

Having devoted considerable time and energy into examining research processes, I have resolved that the eight simple questions delineated can offer all the information my school requires to move onto progressive measures, and practically address the problem of the underachieving student population. Through this approach, and in the subsequent treatment of the data, the quantitative information will augment the qualitative, and in a manner which can be determined only by the information itself.

I am, moreover, aware that this research design is wholly dependent upon the integrity of the process, for only then can there be validity to our findings. The mixed method approach is no more innately liable to lapses in integrity than the qualitative or quantitative; its inherent complexity, however, demands that each step of the research be done in a manner which adheres to the goal of obtaining relevant, operable information. “The uneven knowledge and applications of methods can negatively affect the research process, and…the integrity of a mixed methods project may be compromised” (Hesse-Biber, 2010, p. 213). As team leader, it is my further responsibility to maintain a broader perspective as the research is conducted. I must ensure that the distinct processes within the larger framework are all conducted within professional parameters, and moving in the same direction.

In this circumstance facing my school, which bears an apparent complexity we must set within a viable, and consequently operable, framework, only a mixed method will yield optimal results. It is the more evolved approach, as it implicitly relies upon the essential components of both quantitative and qualitative research.

References

Burke, W. W. (2010.) Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2009.) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Gibbs, P. (2010.) Heidegger’s Contribution to the Understanding of Work Based Studies. New York, NY: Springer.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010.) Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Johnson, B., and Christensen, L. (2010.) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Willis, J. (2008.) Qualitative Research Methods in Education and Educational Technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.