Academic Social Research Practices: A Plot
Abstract
Higher
education is committed to equip its graduate with the latest advancement in the
research and knowledge. Universities roles stand most important on taking this
stake at present context. The ongoing practices among most of the Universities along
with Nepalese academia do find themselves comfort with the discrete ‘philosophy
taxa’ designed conventionally by the western knowledge pool. I argue that the
majority of the University fail to understand the real philosophy of research
and are dragged to the same claims thereby reducing the innovations and
creativity in the research. This had even challenged the pragmatic concern of
the research to the local context. And on the other hand this does not allow
the scholars to foster an intellectual rigor. In this paper referencing some genuine article
I argue the need of openness and creativity (in academic researches) both in
philosophy as well as approaches. The examples brought here substantiate my
position that ‘contemporary research became more loaded with flaws’ additionally
the research ‘philosophy’ and ‘methodology’ restrict researcher to go beyond to
capture the real contexts. In this
scene, most of the research knowledge delivered in the academia looks like a
plot over a search for ‘reality’. This demands the need to boost practical
researches that foster the creativity, equip graduates to create knowledge over
‘following a track’ and help strengthening the indigenous knowledge philosophy
and system to contribute to the ‘Research Science’. Furthermore the academia
also must engage them to lead to optimization of resources and bring genuine
alternatives in education, social science and social research.
Keywords:
Philosophy, Research, Approach, Universities, Academia, Methodology.
Background
“What
is Society?” This was the first query by my Professor in the day one class of ‘Sociology
of Education’. Since then I have been regularly making unsuccessful attempts to
bring a communicable sense of ‘Society’. Despite I feel comfort with pieces of
information by context, time, space, etc., a complete universal definition
still stands a challenge. Understanding
society starts with an understanding on; how societies functions, grow,
influence, changes, etc. and even the dynamics in terms of knowledge and
practices. Academia has been practicing an important tool, “Social Science
Research” to understand how society functions and humans influence each other
and the society. With a vague concept of Society, what does Social Science
research actually mean? is yet another challenge to the scholars. At one level,
I believe research dealing with Sociology, History, Geography, Psychology,
Political Science, Economics, etc., and, other researches based on these
disciplines are Social Science Research. Wrong describes Social Science Research
as a Sociological study; it describes them as study of theory which includes
the discussion and analysis of basic concepts that are common to all the
different spheres of social life studied by sociologists (Wrong, 2008).
Exploring and building with study and experience, I have noted that; there were
more abstract vision in Sociology and Social Reality before 19th
century. And then scholarly art - ‘Social Science Research’ came as an
effective tool to dig out the social reality started after 19th
century. Along with the claim for systematic and a form way of analysis; the
academia brought almost all readings/knowledge with many fields and subfields;
courses, textbook, manuals, journals, this emphasized making the Social Science
objective as well as a field which must employ the realistic (pre-defined)
methodology. And these started the present
tradition of Social Science Research. And ‘Sociological Theory’ and ‘Research Methods’
became most essential components for all who study Sociology. This underlying
‘must’ knowledge gradually propagated and framed the Social Science Research in
more rigid frame. Since Social Science Research is a big and
vague subject, defining a certain frame could make it easy to study but at the
same time, does it ensure bringing the reality? My concern in this article will be seeing the challenges
in ongoing (which I like to call conventional research methods) Social Science
Research where I evaluate the highest challenges lies on ‘structuration’ in the
research.
I was not happy getting ‘narrow issue’
and ‘procedural limitation’ chunking many components away in an academic research
made for my early degree, which I am still not. For me, I have never been truly
convinced that the findings (of the study) to be used independently. This is
where I evaluate the academic researches are more a classroom trainings over
real practical needs. This paper argues that despite there are strong practices
in the researches to conform the research methodology, it is not wise to claim
for aligning to the fashion. Rather valid every research which produces grounds
and logics to substantiate their findings.
As this discourse has already sparked in the academia; here I will be
referring to five main articles which one or the other way agrees to my notion.
The Research Philosophy
Every change has
its foundations; Oduor (2010) evaluates many thinkers being impressed by the
great accomplishment of the natural sciences, “endeavor to attain corresponding
achievements in studies of human individuals and societies”. This is where
Social Science gets tremendous influence and social activist started to demand
“facts and figures” in social science issues. “While this approach encourages a considerable amount of objectivity in the endeavor
to understand the causes and nature of such problems, it has also resulted in
the unwarranted assumption that all disciplines must employ the empirical
methodology of the natural and social sciences” (ibid.). This has created the
risk that the social sciences are in danger of being blurred, as to employ the
common methodology. Besides
advocating for African philosophy and Humanities research, Odour (2010) has
clearly marked the need of revisiting the understanding of ‘research’. Odour
(2010) brings the say by Bloom:
While both Social Science and Humanities are more or less willingly awed by
natural science, they have a mutual contempt for one another, the former
looking down on the latter as unscientific, and the latter regarding the former
as philistine. They do not cooperate. And most important, they occupy much of
the same ground. Many of the classic books now part of the humanities talk
about the same things as do social scientists but use different methods and
draw different conclusions; and each of the social sciences in one way or
another attempts to explain the activities of the various kinds of artists in
ways that are contrary to the way they are treated in the humanities. The
difference comes down to the fact that social science really wants to be
predictive, meaning that man is predictable, while the humanities say that he
is not. (Bloom,
1968 as cited in Odour)
Though the Humanities
and Social Science have a mutual contempt both are influenced by natural
science and are structured similar in many ways. Academia has already started
to speak about the alternative philosophy to incorporate the increasing
discrete disciplines and contexts. Discourses have been initiated for
indigenous philosophy. Odour (2010) cites an example; “Imbo (1997) adopts a
tripartite scheme, distinguishing among the universalists (Wiredu, Hountondji,
Bodunrin,Odera-Oruka), the ethnophilosophers (Tempels, Senghor, Mbiti, Kagame)
and those who take a hermeneutical approach (Towa, Okolo, Serequeberhan). Vest
(2009) speaks of Ethnophilosophy, Excavationist, Professional, Cultural, and
Sage philosophy (as cited in Odour, 2010)”. The new faces of research
philosophy are gradually expanding.
What
is philosophy? What is its importance in research? Coming to this point there
arise a doubt of looking to philosophy. Philosophy as many argue directs main
tool to model a research. Being aware with the practices at Kathmandu
University School of Education I must communicate, the underlying philosophy
guides the entire research here. For me I find this is the start point where
research starts getting mold and this quite often makes the research objective go
blur. Philosophy is not to set the design and draw stances from empirical
stances (Odour, 2010) rather is a reflective point of view making sit
investigations.
When one is engaged in reflection, one is reconsidering a belief or a
judgment which one may have previously accepted without question, or without
serious interrogation. Thus whereas most people simply make judgments about
right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, justice and injustice, and truth and
falsehood, philosophers seek to understand the meaning and justification of
such concepts.
The philosophy
should concentrate on being reflective over rather making simple judgments. And
to practical, Richards (2003) says, “None of the philosophy should be taken
without dilution”. The sole business of
philosophers is ‘finding of problems’ in what most people take for granted and (philosophy)
should
be considered as a bigger umbrella rather than taking it as discrete taxa ( eg.
constructivism, interpretivism, positivism, post-positivism, subjectivism,
naturalism…) as many conventional
practitioners do. Every society has a ground of knowledge and reflective
practices to substantiate the (inbuilt) knowledge, all these practices
(indigenous reflection/culture) can be a part of social research - philosophy.
The Research Design
My
experiences in a graduate school find scholars argue to go either for qualitative
or quantitative research 'track' on in their educational voyage, while
preparing for their academic research - theses. The courses at first instances
are offered together and later taught distinctly as if there are no links in
between the two approaches. But I evaluate the society demands scholars who are
compatible for applied research and are with required (every) skill. Society doesn’t
demands scholars of mono-methods rather prefers practical scholars (prepared
for mixed methods); who truly at the same time blends more ideas to synthesize
more relevant contextual methodologies to get to the reality. After all
academia are to educate to individual as well as to the society.
On
the other hand students defending their research work are being inquired to
take certain techniques like ‘Phenomenological Research’ to the level of
approach. Husserl, who set of the doctrine of phenomenology, evaluates
The philosopher
must begin from a scrupulous inspection of his or her own conscious, and
particularly intellectual, processes. In this inspection all assumptions about
the wider and external causes and consequences of these internal processes have
to be excluded (bracketed). Although this sounds like a programme for a
psychology of introspection, Husserl insisted that it was an a priori
investigation of the essences or meanings common to the thought of different
minds (Husserl 1982; Passmore 1968, 466-503 as cited in Oduor, 2010).
The message
legibly marked here is, every specific research technique is so distinct that
one should not keep them in two or three boxes of approach. The science –
‘every study procedure’ is with a full of exception and in this scene it does
not have a meaning to be clustered, this is of no sense rather than loading pity
graduate students. My argument here is ‘philosophy
on being reflective checks the substantiation of an approach/technique being
deployed in a research thus there is no need to cluster the techniques/approach’.
Every approach and technique overlaps in their concern with some others in their
attributes; basically there is no difference among the approaches. I will bring
some practices/examples in the early part of the article which will further
clarify the ‘needless’ of understanding conventional research techniques by
their types and clustering them on different baskets.
Arnold (2012), a professor of
writing, briefing about the methodology adopted in his research article, where
he emphasize about ‘Practice Led Research’ mentions singular experiences
‘autoethnography’ contribute in a scholarly way to knowledge itself. But at the
mean time he picks another idea, ‘mystory’. He mentions to focus Gregory
Ulmer’s idea of a ‘mystory’, in addition to the autoethnography in the paper.
Following
this mystorical approach, I bring to this paper my personal observations and
reactions as well as my academic reading and thinking. Ulmer (1985) identifies
a ‘mystorical’ approach to thinking and research. A ‘mystory’ puts under erasure
all claims to fact/authenticity in writing. It shows all writing to be both
personal and mysterious (my story and mystery) whatever its claims to
authenticity and depersonalisation. It reveals the academic text to be sewn together
as a compilation of the scholarly, the anecdotal or popular, and the
autobiographical. It questions the dominant analytico-referential model of
knowledge.
Summarizing
the paper’s methodology Arnold (2012) evaluates, “the methodology I employed in
this paper is one of narrativity that I call the ‘subjective academic
narrativity”. Upcoming scholars have now widened the horizon of methodology
rather sticking themselves to the conventional frames.
Arnold (2012) adds a contextual example;
The artefact and exegesis model of the PhD in writing at Swinburne
University of Technology offers an opportunity to bring the creative activity
together with the academic debate and rigour. In this context, the latter does
not justify the former nor interpret it in an academic and theoretical way. Rather,
acting together, the artefact and exegesis bridge the Cartesian binary, offer
new models of knowledge to the academy, and enrich the artistic practices of
the practitioners themselves.
Experience has built us (academia) to know researches
differ across the disciplines. And even the contribution to the knowledge, and
how this contribution is experienced, differ similarly. Kathmandu University School of Education has
given an informed choice in between a thesis and research report for its
postgraduate students (expecting the level attainment). Other examples of
contribution to the knowledge could stand creating a novel, making
performances, programing ideas (in ICT) yet applicable for all, etc, as given
by James and Baldwin, (1999 p.3 as cited in Arnold 2012) are some are emerging
practices of ‘the process of knowledge
creation’ where the academia needs to speak out. Arnold (2012) agree looking
for new dimensions of creative practice and takes an reference of Harper (2008)
to substantiate the idea, which is noteworthy here;
The creative practitioner brings to the academy new dimensions of what
knowledge itself consists of, and how this contributes to learning. Because
this disputes the regular academic templates, it challenges the academy itself.
This means that practice-led research students are engaged in defining their
model in ways that traditional research students are not. (Harper 2008, as
cited in Arnold, 2012)
The concept of hybridization has already merged in many of the academic
practices, it is only a matter some take them openly and some with criticism
and some conventional academia counter them. In Arnold (2012) narratives it
even seeks (in their practices) sustainability in relation to creative and
practice led research in the academy; “it is not defined by traditional
templates of learning or views of what knowledge consists of; it enables
disputation and critical thinking by bringing together the Cartesian binary; it
recognizes practice as being a leader of research rather than a servant to
explicate theories”. I agree to the claim of the paper that new knowledge
models are created (-and should be continued within academia) that are inclusive
rather than acting as gatekeepers protecting existing conventional
methodologies and definitions of knowledge itself. In summary, what I mean here
is one can still justify the rational of ongoing for conventional practices
being open for alternatives.
Changing a traditional knowledge-culture within the
academy means confronting academic cultural ideologies that are the unspoken
‘givens’ that tend to ‘glue’ the university research group together (Arnold,
2012). We accept readily the academia structure as we are reproduction of the
same culture, “and perhaps ‘blinded’ to its social constructions of ‘the
natural’” (Arnold, 2012). Gradually all scholars must accept the dynamicity
across the knowledge, academia and more specifically ‘research’ culture. So,
there is a need to be open to the substantiating practices (research
practice/design) being adopted in bringing new knowledge to/by the scholars. This
is even important as there are varying flaws with the conventional ‘strongly
practiced’ research approaches. The latter part of the article focus to see
some of them, some authors have evaluated the academic practices undertaken in
different Institutions/Universities. The examples clearly mark the need for
breaking conventional knowledge search exercise, which in many ways carry flaws
despite of ‘advancement’.
Some Issues of Conventional Research
Three articles
discussed below, are actually review of some well accepted researches (academic
researches) which still mark some flaws on the validity and interpretations of
the outcomes. The challenges are due to integrated reason; while a continuous
rescue attempts are always there in the process. The addresses to the
challenges are relatively better where the practices are more open. With the discourse
made on each article, I assume that I legibly communicated my concern to the
scholarly audience including the academia.
Student Academic Researches and Validity
Porter (2011) finds
vivid reasons for challenging the academic research ‘Student Survey’ which he
refers to lack validity;
Our surveys lack validity because (a) they assume that college students can
easily report information about their behaviors and attitudes, when the
standard model of human cognition and survey response clearly suggests they
cannot, (b) existing research using college students suggests they have
problems correctly answering even simple questions about factual information,
and (c) much of the evidence that higher education scholars cite as evidence of
validity and reliability actually demonstrates the opposite.
There is a question coming up as Porter challenges the validity, what do we
mean by ‘validity’? Porter remarks a change over the concern of validity over
the time period. To Porter (2011) “today, validity encompasses a far broader
meaning than most higher education researchers realize”. The 1980’s unified theory
of validity has widened to criterion-related validity, content validity,
constructs validity and further which he argues in his paper. The author takes
a reference of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) a standard survey
very precautiously designed and used by most of the institution in the US
interested in assessment for his critical examination (in his article). Porter
in his critical examination evaluates the standard documents come with five
part validity argument (Background, Content, Response process, Internal
structure, Relations to other variables) rather than
conducting validity research. ‘Researchers think of constructing a validity
argument rather than conducting validity research’. This is what Cronbach had
marked in his writing as cited by Kane (2001, as cited in Porter, 2011). Porter
evaluates the survey has been standard to the extent following the marked
standards by Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing (1999), which
states; “A sound validity argument integrates various strands of evidence into
a coherent account of the degree to which existing evidence and theory support the
intended interpretation of test scores for specific uses. It encompasses
evidence gathered from new studies and evidence available from earlier reported
research (p.17 as cited in Porter, 2011)”. But he evaluates a need to add
‘rival hypotheses’ that may provide an alternative explanation of specific
validity evidence. One of the challenge
that lies in this standard research as marked by Porter (2011) is the survey
have misunderstood the human cognition and survey response, and that college
students only rarely report accurate information about their behaviors. I
emphasize this point, where many survey gets limited for their intended
purpose, a question of ‘validity’ which demands a new approach of surveying
when we are collecting data based on people’s standpoint.
Porter brings an example
of study based on two tools by a group of researcher which brings some
interesting pictures and challenges to the ongoing survey research. Responding
to most of the survey research are based on how distinctly and more accurately the
respondents ‘recall events’. Garry, Sharman, Feldman, Marlatt, and Loftus’s
(2002, as cited in Porter 2011) made a study of how accurately college students
report frequency of sexual acts. Using a sample of students who had sex at
least once a week, the researchers had students fill out detailed daily diaries
about their sexual experiences for four weeks. Daily diaries are far more
accurate (valid) than retrospective surveys, because respondents’ memories of
the day are fresh in their mind. Six to twelve months later, the students were
given an unexpected follow-up survey testing their memory about their sexual
activities for the month covered by the diaries. The results were unexpected:
Students in the follow-up survey reported having vaginal sex by almost 300% and
oral sex by 100%–200%. For porter as to social desirability bias they would be more
likely to reduce reported frequencies of sexual activity. Including the
challenges with the response process and recalling challenges to the
respondents, this fairly indicates the survey have many flaws. For porter he
evaluates for many of the survey research that the more time respondents spend
trying to recall information, the more accurately they report it. “This leads
to the recommendation that survey researchers use long introductions to
questions as a way to increase recall effort (Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski,
2000 as cited in Porter, 2011). Porter reports over 10 similar challenges with
the ‘standard’ called National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) survey.
Porter finally marks an odd option to the regular ongoing practices; “Finally,
and most importantly, the tacit agreement in postsecondary research seems to be
that validity is assumed until proven otherwise. Instead, we must establish
standards such that a lack of validity is assumed until proven otherwise
(Porter, 2011).
Sampling Issues in Research
Paradigmatic
(Guba and Lincoln preferred term as Delice, 2010 reports) ties, as many
researcher argue are more important to define the ‘methods of inquiry’. When
quantitative research paradigm emphasize on generalizability, Delice has made
an interesting inquiry which is a qualitative examination of quantitative
master’s theses in mathematics education (10 Universities, 90 theses from
Turkey) in terms of population, sampling design and analysis deployed in those
study. Despite the study is descriptive and does not have critical examinations
it still notes gaps in various aspect. One may be willing not to concern with
the challenges in Turkey’s Universities but I argue that an academic practices
of a ‘world part’ cannot remain in isolation. Delice (2010) reports one third
(29%) of the theses do not include adequate information on populations, whereas
60% have not been able to specify the sampling techniques and the rest (40%) do
not sufficiently mark the rationale behind going for a particular sampling type.
30% of student undertaken study maintain sample valid for statistical analyses
(as to some statistics rules say, sample no 250 – this can be again challenged
in the light of sampling design) whereas 40% have the sample size under 50
(Delice, 2010). Delice report students hardly refer to the available resources
and the institutions guidelines. Relating the design to the sample size, the
study evaluates among 47% of experimental design only quarter use appropriate
sample size, the survey (20%) carried out except few (4%) had met the criterion of
getting over 50 participants. The most important part of this picture lies;
scholars take one or the other references to valid the appropriateness of
sample size, which in most stances are invalid with alternative knowledge
stands and new advancements. Despite the procedural aspects are usually covered
in academic researches but the appropriateness of analysis and interpretations
are not truly addressed. Delice (2010) records almost all reports stand useless
in quality measures;
[58%
of the theses use t-test] Latest research
regarding t-tests suggests that even minimal deviations from the normal distribution
could cause unreliable results (Wilcox, 2010, p. 79). Still, only 15 theses reported
testing for normal distribution. One of the most widely used normality tests is
the Kolmogorov Smirnov normality test. A sample size of more than 50 is recommended
for this test (Köklü, Büyüköztürk, & Çokluk-Bökeoglu, 2006). However, only two
of the theses satisfy this requirement. Moreover, literature in the area
emphasizes that Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test is out of date and should not
be used anymore (D’Agostino & Stephens, 1986 cited in Kwam & Vidakovic, 2007, p. 96;
Seier, 2002; Thode, 2002). (Delice, 2010)
Student researchers have some
limitations and Universities also makes consideration which is somewhat an
agreed deal. I claim this with my experience along with Delice above evaluative
statement. As noted by Delice the challenges
in early reports became prominent with the light of new advancements in
research. I like to take my position in the paper to claim that the academia should
challenge the scholars to substantiate their (samplings) techniques over
driving them to the normative practices. This will hopefully set argumentative
grounds for the context specific researches over being loaded with flaws
following the conventional frames.
Sampling Design
Nothing
stands better to analytical study of journal article to understand the ongoing
research practices in the academia. Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao (2006)
made a quantitative analysis of 42 mixed-methods researches published in four
journals to see the prevalence of sampling designs and interpretative
consistency in the studies. Sampling becomes very important as it is the basis
of getting to the real inferences. ‘Sampling’ is already a difficult stance
with mono-method and becomes more complex when researcher gets into mixed
design;
Sampling
strategies are even more complex for studies in which qualitative and
quantitative research approaches are combined either concurrently or
sequentially. Studies that combine qualitative and quantitative research
techniques fall into a class of research that is appropriately called
mixed-methods research. In mixed methods investigations researchers must make
sampling decisions for both the qualitative and quantitative components of the
study. Thus, it is surprising that there is scant discussion in the extant
literature about how to select appropriate sampling designs in mixed-methods
research. (Collins et. al. 2006)
Mixed
method design is later advancement in research. If one looks from the
perspective of ideography or nomothetic ideology, it is painful to make both
considerations at a single stance. This field grew as academia gradually became
welcoming to it as certain issues were left unsolved by earlier conventional
frames. If you look at the major alternative sampling schemes in mixed-method
research given by Collins et al. (2006) it is very challenging to accept them
readily as some schemes fairly indicates that the interpretation will drives to
one direction. In these stances the
scholars give the sole responsibility to the researcher for making valid
research.
Table
1: Major Sampling Schemes proposed by Onwuegbuzie & Leech.
|
Sampling
Schemas
|
Description
|
|
Simplea
|
Every individual in the sampling frame (i.e. desired population) has an
equal and independent chance of being chosen for the study.
|
|
Stratifieda
|
Sampling frame is divided into subsections comprising groups that are
relatively homogeneous with respect to one or more characteristics and a
random sample from each stratum is selected.
|
|
Clustera
|
Selecting intact groups representing clusters of individuals rather than
choosing individuals one at a time.
|
|
Systematica
|
Choosing individuals from a list by selecting every kth sampling
frame member, where k typifies the population divided by the preferred sample
size.
|
|
Multistage randoma
|
Choosing a sample from the random sampling schemes in multiple stages
|
|
Maximum variation
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals to maximise the range of
perspectives investigated in the study.
|
|
Homogeneous
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals based on similar or specific
characteristics.
|
|
Critical case
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals based on specific characteristic(s)
because their inclusion provides the researcher with compelling insight about
a phenomenon of interest
|
|
Theory-based
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals because their inclusion
helps the researcher to develop a theory.
|
|
Confirming/
Disconfirming
|
After beginning data collection, the researcher conducts subsequent
analyses to verify or contradict initial results.
|
|
Snowball/chain
|
Participants are asked to recruit individuals to join the study.
|
|
Extreme case
|
Selecting outlying cases and conducting comparative analyses.
|
|
Typical case
|
Selecting and analyzing average or normal cases.
|
|
Intensity
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals as their experiences
relative to the phenomena of interest are viewed as intense but not extreme.
|
|
Politically important
Case
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals to be included or excluded
based on their political connection to the phenomena of interest.
|
|
Random purposeful
|
Selecting random cases from the sampling frame and randomly choosing a
desired number of individuals to participate in the study.
|
|
Stratified purposeful
|
Sampling frame is divided into strata to obtain relatively homogeneous subgroups
and a purposeful sample is selected from each stratum.
|
|
Criterion
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals because they represent one
or more criteria.
|
|
Opportunistic
|
Researcher selects a case based on specific characteristics (i.e.
typical, negative or extreme) to capitalise on developing events occurring
during data collection.
|
|
Mixed purposeful
|
Choosing more than one sampling strategy and comparing the results emerging
from both samples.
|
|
Convenience
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals that are conveniently
available and willing to participate in the study.
|
|
Quota
|
Researcher identifies desired characteristics and quotas of sample
members to be included in the study.
|
|
Multistage purposeful random
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals representing a sample in two
or more stages. The first stage is random selection and the following stages
are purposive selection of participants.
|
|
Multistage purposeful
|
Choosing settings, groups and/or individuals representing a sample in two
or more stages in which all stages reflect purposive sampling of participants
|
a Represent
random (i.e. probabilistic) sampling schemes. All other schemes are nonrandom
(purposive) sampling schemes. (Collin et al. 2006)
The variety in options comes ahead to the usual
traditions of sampling design. But Collin et al (2006) are still unclear about
the administration of two dimensional samplings models:
…and will be coming with the framework for formulating sampling decision
with models to clarify the typology as well as design categorized according to
(1) the time orientation of the components (i.e. whether the qualitative and
quantitative components occur simultaneously or sequentially) and (2) the
relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples (i.e. identical versus
parallel versus nested versus multilevel).
The message here, ‘as some part of the academia started open practices, it
is not necessary to be hegemonised waiting Cohen et al. another publication to
practice ‘correct’ sampling procedure’. Scholars around the globe can claim a
substantial design to their purpose. Furthermore, the sample design issue has
gaps in many areas and at the mean time there are varying and contrasting
standpoints that the literature makes in regard to sampling. Let us make a look
of sample size design proposed in two research design as presented by Collins
et al (2006).
Table 2: Some Design and sample seize suggestion.
|
Research
Design
|
Minimum
sample size suggestion
|
|
Phenomenological
|
≤10 interviews (Creswell, 1998); ≥6 (Morse, 1994)
|
|
Grounded Theory
|
15- 20 (Creswell, 2002); 20-30 (Creswell, 1998)
|
|
Focus Group Discussion
|
6-9 participants (Krueger, 2000); 6-10 participants
(Langford et al ., 2002; Morgan, 1997); 6-12 participants
(Johnson & Christensen, 2004); 6-12 participants (Bernard,
1995); 8-12 participants (Baumgartner et al ., 2002)
|
(Colin et al. 2006).
The scholars
have varying ground for their claim of sample design this even demands the
parallel interpretation by the researcher. This is where Collins and Onwuebuzie
make their position for future and promise to come with eight unique sampling
designs for mixed method research (Collins et. al., 2006). Research is an ongoing process of welcoming
new endeavors and Collins et al. (2006) are welcoming to such practices in
their paper and are in an eager to resolve new issues arising during the
advancement. This practice admits the change and allow the scholars to come
with their own substantiated procedure; and all Universities around should be
welcoming to these practices.
The study on
the other hand had focused to see the interpretive consistency the research had
made by taking the two methods. The authors followed the six steps
interpretation consistency assessment following Teddlie (2003) et al. model.
Collin et al (2006) derive to the conclusion that
A
sequential design using multilevel samples was the most frequent sampling
design, being used in 40.5% of the studies. More studies utilized a sampling
design that was sequential (66.6%) than concurrent (33.4%). Also, multilevel
sampling designs were the most prevalent (54.8%), followed by identical sampling
(23.8%) nested sampling (14.3%) and parallel sampling (7.1%). A qualitative
analysis suggested a degree of interpretive inconsistency in many studies.
Only 57.1% of the study had marked the
sample cluster and size clearly but the rest were not very clear. The finding
above clearly marks a need to verify the rational for concurrent and sequential
guideline for different level samples. This issue even get interlinked with the
sample cluster can be repeated for both entity or not, how much is fair. The
academic discourse should be continued to seek answer to new queries through a
‘notion of openness’ without going wild.
One issue which is crystal clear is that academic researches are full of
flaws. They can hardly stand as a training to real concern to knowledge unless
unframe them from the conventional frames.
Conclusions
One of the important stakes
of University is to pledge solution for various societal issues and help
society in understanding as well as bringing solution to reversing challenges.
In this stance the research is an important tool to look into the social
issues. Moreover research is a microscope to identify the societal pathogens in
the society. We are in the stage, more we know on subject, more dimensions and
discrete study fields are growing. The higher education ‘Universities’ prepares
scholars of high potent who are supposed to understand the context and make
non-reversing solution to reversing challenges.
It
has already been noted that the present practices in the academia are full of
challenges across the globe. One clearly marked point from the discussion is
Universities must stand to be a learning organization holding all (as possible)
the experiences; they should be committed to grow and rectify it-self. In this lieu, the Universities must remain
open to and for different alternative and innovative approaches. But contrary
to it, many of the institution still have not undertaken the concern genuinely.
As a fact of which most of the academic practices at Universities are very
structured and framed, including the research. I argue we are misleading the Universities
with these practices. Research philosophies are not a couple of taxa that a academia
(professor) should delimit rather are thoughtful practices to be carried out by
every researcher and researches before getting to the inferences. Every
research designs with valid justifying grounds are approach and are equally
valid unless the new knowledge base challenges them. I opt for a practical
practice of study which must be reflective and claims the knowledge to be
genuine to the context; and this is the main essence of social science
research. Academic discourses are regular part to help the society to grow and
build them. In this regard, the academia rather working on some molded
principle should go beyond, and experience different knowledge source and
possibilities. This is even important as we are along with many challenges in the
existing practices. The emerging knowledge banks (Universities in South) should
even concentrate to lead to optimization of resources and bring genuine
alternatives in education, social science and social research.
References
Arnold
J. (2012). Practice led research: creative activity, academic debate, and
intellectual rigour. Higher education studies. 2(2).
DOI:10.5539/hes.v2n2p9.
Collins,
K. M. T. , Onwuegbuzie, A. J. &
Jiao, Q. G. (2006). prevalence of mixed-methods sampling designs in
social science research. Evaluation and research in education. (19)2.
DOI: 10.2167/eri421.0
Delice, A. (2010). The sampling issues
in quantitative research. Educational
sciences: theory and practice 10 (4).
pp 2001-2018. Retrieved from muse database www.jhu.edu
Odour,
R. M. J. (2010). Research methodology in philosophy within an interdisciplinary
and commercialised african context. Thought and practice: A journal of the
philosophical association of Kenya (PAK)(2).pp.87-118. Retrieved from
http://ajol.info/index.php/tp/index
Porter, S. R. (2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? The
review of higher education. 35 (1). pp. 45-76: The Johns Hopkins University
Press. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2011.0034
Richards, K.
(2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wrong, D. H.
(2008). Sociology. Microsoft encarta 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft
Corporation.
No comments:
Post a Comment