Research Methods
Research informs practice, and practice informs research
What is Research?
Psychological research is the systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information in order to increase our understanding of a phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Research is an essential activity within the field of psychology. As a subjective science, reliable research is necessary in order to prove the most efficient forms of therapy and to document the ways in which various forms of therapeutic interventions have statistically proven to be effective with clients. Without established research I do not think that the field of psychology would be viewed as a credible science, nor as a viable mode for assisting persons living in various unfavourable circumstances. As Ormrod and Leedy (2010) suggest, “truly competent and effective practitioners base their day-to-day decisions and long-term practices on solid research findings” (p. 8), thus research gives direction and character to the field of psychology.
My View on Research
I do believe that there is some truth to the stereotypical perspective that researchers can be individuals isolated from the rest of society in their ivory towers at the universities. Along with the integral value of research, I see experiential learning as an equally important aspect of the discovery process. In contrast to research, which focuses mainly on the theoretical side of learning, I think that without experiencing what is being researched one cannot gain a full understanding of the topic under investigation. For example, I think that one can read everything there is about the culture in Italy (food, music, festivals, etc…), but without actually ever travelling to Italy and experiencing the culture there for oneself I do not think that one can ever gain a complete understanding of the culture being studied. While I believe that research is definitely important in order to advance the field of psychology, I do not think that research alone can answer all questions that may be asked.
The Research Process
1. Identify your worldview and preferred research paradigm
2. Identify the problem
3. Develop a literature review and research question(s)
4. Identify research design (quantitative / qualitative / mixed method)
5. Identify and select sources of data (sampling)
6. Identify and select data collection methods and instruments
7. Ensure ethical issues of research are addressed
8. Consider credibility of research
9. Data analysis, reporting, dissemination, and utilization (consider relevance and practical significance)
10. Identify future directions
Psychological research is the systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information in order to increase our understanding of a phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Research is an essential activity within the field of psychology. As a subjective science, reliable research is necessary in order to prove the most efficient forms of therapy and to document the ways in which various forms of therapeutic interventions have statistically proven to be effective with clients. Without established research I do not think that the field of psychology would be viewed as a credible science, nor as a viable mode for assisting persons living in various unfavourable circumstances. As Ormrod and Leedy (2010) suggest, “truly competent and effective practitioners base their day-to-day decisions and long-term practices on solid research findings” (p. 8), thus research gives direction and character to the field of psychology.
My View on Research
I do believe that there is some truth to the stereotypical perspective that researchers can be individuals isolated from the rest of society in their ivory towers at the universities. Along with the integral value of research, I see experiential learning as an equally important aspect of the discovery process. In contrast to research, which focuses mainly on the theoretical side of learning, I think that without experiencing what is being researched one cannot gain a full understanding of the topic under investigation. For example, I think that one can read everything there is about the culture in Italy (food, music, festivals, etc…), but without actually ever travelling to Italy and experiencing the culture there for oneself I do not think that one can ever gain a complete understanding of the culture being studied. While I believe that research is definitely important in order to advance the field of psychology, I do not think that research alone can answer all questions that may be asked.
The Research Process
1. Identify your worldview and preferred research paradigm
2. Identify the problem
3. Develop a literature review and research question(s)
4. Identify research design (quantitative / qualitative / mixed method)
5. Identify and select sources of data (sampling)
6. Identify and select data collection methods and instruments
7. Ensure ethical issues of research are addressed
8. Consider credibility of research
9. Data analysis, reporting, dissemination, and utilization (consider relevance and practical significance)
10. Identify future directions
Research Paradigms
Paradigm: A way of looking at the world.
Guba & Lincoln (1994) identify three questions that help define a paradigm:
1. Ontology: What is the nature of reality?
2. Epistemology: What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the would-be-known?
3. Methodology: How can the knower go about obtaining the desired knowledge and understandings?
Please click here to see a chart that outlines the different research paradigms according to the principles above
Guba & Lincoln (1994) identify three questions that help define a paradigm:
1. Ontology: What is the nature of reality?
2. Epistemology: What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the would-be-known?
3. Methodology: How can the knower go about obtaining the desired knowledge and understandings?
Please click here to see a chart that outlines the different research paradigms according to the principles above
Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Research
Although the definition of what research means within the realm of psychology is fairly straightforward, the distinction between the differing types of research that psychologists engage in can be a little bit more confusing. In order to demonstrate the differences between the different types of research I have elaborated on both quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
Quantitative research can be distinguished from qualitative research in a number of different ways. In quantitative studies, sets of statistical analyses are run on the data in order to calculate the mean, standard deviation, z-scores, t-scores and other significant numerical values on the sample. This serves the purpose of allowing researchers to draw generalizable conclusions from their data and apply it to other populations. Essentially, quantitative studies aim to generalize certain populations of people.
On the other hand, qualitative research allows scientists to focus on a major sub-group of individuals within a population, and to draw conclusions pertaining to that particular set of individuals that may not necessarily be generalizable to other populations. For instance, qualitative researchers may strive to uncover a better understanding of what it is like for a sample of 25-year old Native-American males to live with an abusive spouse; whereas, quantitative research does not take into account the individual differences that people in this group may experience.
In order to elaborate a little more on the differences between quantitative and qualitative research, I have attached a study that I completed in CAAP 617: Methods of Inquiry. Through the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, I explored the topic of choosing a theoretical orientation among graduate students. I also highlight some of the major differences between the two research styles below as I expand on both streaks and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
Quantitative research can be distinguished from qualitative research in a number of different ways. In quantitative studies, sets of statistical analyses are run on the data in order to calculate the mean, standard deviation, z-scores, t-scores and other significant numerical values on the sample. This serves the purpose of allowing researchers to draw generalizable conclusions from their data and apply it to other populations. Essentially, quantitative studies aim to generalize certain populations of people.
On the other hand, qualitative research allows scientists to focus on a major sub-group of individuals within a population, and to draw conclusions pertaining to that particular set of individuals that may not necessarily be generalizable to other populations. For instance, qualitative researchers may strive to uncover a better understanding of what it is like for a sample of 25-year old Native-American males to live with an abusive spouse; whereas, quantitative research does not take into account the individual differences that people in this group may experience.
In order to elaborate a little more on the differences between quantitative and qualitative research, I have attached a study that I completed in CAAP 617: Methods of Inquiry. Through the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, I explored the topic of choosing a theoretical orientation among graduate students. I also highlight some of the major differences between the two research styles below as I expand on both streaks and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Qualitative Research Designs
Qualitative research takes into account the fact that observable phenomena may not always present itself in an identical fashion to different researchers. Every researcher will pick up on different attributes, and as a result come to different conclusions based on their unique style. Qualitative research takes into account the subjective nature that researchers can hold, and in some instances may even attempt to uncover these subjective attitudes held by researchers. I like qualitative research because it incorporates human nature into research; whereas, quantitative research is more concerned about drawing statistical conclusions on data sets and using them as a measuring stick in order to compare different populations. Qualitative research takes into account the fact that research can be colourful; it is not always black and white.
Strengths of Qualitative Designs
1. Qualitative researchers recognize” that the issues they are studying have many different dimensions and layers, and as a result they try to portray the issue in its multi-faceted form” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010, p. 135).
2. The open-mindedness and creativity on behalf of the researcher allows endless possibilities with qualitative research designs.
3. Provides researchers with the ability to use a variety of research methods in order to collect meaningful data (i.e. ethnography, case study, etc…)
Weaknesses of Qualitative Designs
1. The collection of data takes a great deal of time and patience.
2. Because researchers need to be rather selective about the data they use, their conclusions will give them an incomplete picture of the phenomenon in question.
3. Uses non-random sapling in order to more accurately target the population at hand.
Quantitative Research Designs
Leedy and Ormrod (2010) offer a inclusive summary of the quantitative data process: “the researcher must decide on a population, choose a technique for sampling it, minimize the entrance of bias into the study, develop a valid means for collecting the desired information, and then actually collect, record, organize, and analyze it all” (p. 218). In contrast to qualitative studies, quantitative research is more concerned with examining a situation as it occurs in its natural setting; it is not interested in determining cause-and-effect relationships. Rather, it strives to either identify the characteristics of an observed phenomenon or explore the possibility of existing relationships among two or more occurrences.
As a unique entity in the domain of research, quantitative studies have several strengths. One strongpoint is that quantitative studies can be applied to a much greater population of individuals than qualitative studies, as it uses tools such as questionnaire, surveys, and/or rating scales to obtain information. This allows for a standardized method of inquiry to be delivered to participants, and allows for a much more black and white approach to conducting research. Due to the more conservative approach to research, many individuals prefer this approach to other less structured research methodologies.
Qualitative research takes into account the fact that observable phenomena may not always present itself in an identical fashion to different researchers. Every researcher will pick up on different attributes, and as a result come to different conclusions based on their unique style. Qualitative research takes into account the subjective nature that researchers can hold, and in some instances may even attempt to uncover these subjective attitudes held by researchers. I like qualitative research because it incorporates human nature into research; whereas, quantitative research is more concerned about drawing statistical conclusions on data sets and using them as a measuring stick in order to compare different populations. Qualitative research takes into account the fact that research can be colourful; it is not always black and white.
Strengths of Qualitative Designs
1. Qualitative researchers recognize” that the issues they are studying have many different dimensions and layers, and as a result they try to portray the issue in its multi-faceted form” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010, p. 135).
2. The open-mindedness and creativity on behalf of the researcher allows endless possibilities with qualitative research designs.
3. Provides researchers with the ability to use a variety of research methods in order to collect meaningful data (i.e. ethnography, case study, etc…)
Weaknesses of Qualitative Designs
1. The collection of data takes a great deal of time and patience.
2. Because researchers need to be rather selective about the data they use, their conclusions will give them an incomplete picture of the phenomenon in question.
3. Uses non-random sapling in order to more accurately target the population at hand.
Quantitative Research Designs
Leedy and Ormrod (2010) offer a inclusive summary of the quantitative data process: “the researcher must decide on a population, choose a technique for sampling it, minimize the entrance of bias into the study, develop a valid means for collecting the desired information, and then actually collect, record, organize, and analyze it all” (p. 218). In contrast to qualitative studies, quantitative research is more concerned with examining a situation as it occurs in its natural setting; it is not interested in determining cause-and-effect relationships. Rather, it strives to either identify the characteristics of an observed phenomenon or explore the possibility of existing relationships among two or more occurrences.
As a unique entity in the domain of research, quantitative studies have several strengths. One strongpoint is that quantitative studies can be applied to a much greater population of individuals than qualitative studies, as it uses tools such as questionnaire, surveys, and/or rating scales to obtain information. This allows for a standardized method of inquiry to be delivered to participants, and allows for a much more black and white approach to conducting research. Due to the more conservative approach to research, many individuals prefer this approach to other less structured research methodologies.
Program Evaluation
What is Program Evaluation?
Program evaluation is described as a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer questions about policies, projects, and programs (Savaya & Waysman, 2005). This process is similar to the practice of self-reflection, only it is applied at an organization level rather than an individual level. Similar to self reflection, program evaluation is used as a method to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Challenges with Program Evaluation
With respect to the program evaluation website (http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm), I find the most difficult aspect to be the outcomes-based evaluation. With the experience I have working at non-profit organizations I understand the idea behind outcomes-based evaluations, but I see too many issues with conducting such an evaluation. McNamara (n.d.) states that “an outcomes-based evaluation facilitates your asking if your organization is really doing the right program activities to bring about the outcomes you believe to be needed by your clients.” McNamara suggests that by consulting members of organizations one can gather the information that is necessary in order to carry out this type of evaluation. However, I think that asking clients will not yield useful results, and they will feel pressured into giving you the answer they think you want to hear, rather than the one that reveals their true feelings. I think that I may be coming off as somewhat biased in my opinion here, but through further applied work and consultation with others I think I will eventually be able to see the entire elephant here.
The aspect of Logic Model, as outlined by Savaya & Waysman (2005), that I find the most difficult to see in relation to program development is their notion of outputs. In their article, Savaya and Waysman offer the cushy theoretical definition of outputs as “the direct products of the program activities, usually measured in terms of the volume of work accomplished…” (p. 87). However, for those looking to apply this model to real life situations I find it difficult to wrap my head around what their definition means. I think that by gaining some more familiarity with the Logic Model and through consultation with professionals I can get a clearer idea of what the authors mean by outputs.
Program evaluation is described as a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer questions about policies, projects, and programs (Savaya & Waysman, 2005). This process is similar to the practice of self-reflection, only it is applied at an organization level rather than an individual level. Similar to self reflection, program evaluation is used as a method to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Challenges with Program Evaluation
With respect to the program evaluation website (http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm), I find the most difficult aspect to be the outcomes-based evaluation. With the experience I have working at non-profit organizations I understand the idea behind outcomes-based evaluations, but I see too many issues with conducting such an evaluation. McNamara (n.d.) states that “an outcomes-based evaluation facilitates your asking if your organization is really doing the right program activities to bring about the outcomes you believe to be needed by your clients.” McNamara suggests that by consulting members of organizations one can gather the information that is necessary in order to carry out this type of evaluation. However, I think that asking clients will not yield useful results, and they will feel pressured into giving you the answer they think you want to hear, rather than the one that reveals their true feelings. I think that I may be coming off as somewhat biased in my opinion here, but through further applied work and consultation with others I think I will eventually be able to see the entire elephant here.
The aspect of Logic Model, as outlined by Savaya & Waysman (2005), that I find the most difficult to see in relation to program development is their notion of outputs. In their article, Savaya and Waysman offer the cushy theoretical definition of outputs as “the direct products of the program activities, usually measured in terms of the volume of work accomplished…” (p. 87). However, for those looking to apply this model to real life situations I find it difficult to wrap my head around what their definition means. I think that by gaining some more familiarity with the Logic Model and through consultation with professionals I can get a clearer idea of what the authors mean by outputs.
References
Avramidis, E., & Smith, B. (1999). An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research. Emotional & Behavioral Difficulties, 4, 27-36.
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.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McNamara, C. (n.d.). Basic guide to program evaluation. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm
Savaya, R., & Waysman, M. (2005). The logic model: A tool for incorporating theory in development and evaluation programs. Administration in Social Work, 29, 85-103.
Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying and Internet population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(1).
Avramidis, E., & Smith, B. (1999). An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research. Emotional & Behavioral Difficulties, 4, 27-36.
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.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McNamara, C. (n.d.). Basic guide to program evaluation. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm
Savaya, R., & Waysman, M. (2005). The logic model: A tool for incorporating theory in development and evaluation programs. Administration in Social Work, 29, 85-103.
Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying and Internet population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(1).