Research Methods
Experiments
People who take part in research involving experiments
might be asked to complete various tests to measure their cognitive abilities
(e.g. word recall, attention, concentration, reasoning ability etc.) usually verbally,
on paper or by computer. The results of different groups are then compared.
Participants should not be anxious about performing well but simply do their
best. The aim of these tests is not to judge people or measure so-called
intelligence, but to look for links between performance and other factors. If computers
are used, this has to be done in such a way that no previous knowledge of
computers is necessary. So people should not be put off by this either. The
study might include an intervention such as a training programme, some kind of
social activity, the introduction of a change in the person’s living environment (e.g. different lighting,
background noise, different care routine) or different forms of interaction
(e.g. linked to physical contact, conversation, eye contact, interaction time
etc.). Often the interaction will be followed by some kind of test (as
mentioned above), sometimes before and after the intervention. In other cases,
the person may be asked to complete a questionnaire (e.g. about his/her feelings,
level of satisfaction or general well-being).
Some studies are just based on one group (within-group
design). The researchers might be interested in observing people’s reactions or behaviour before and after a certain
intervention (e.g. a training programme). However, in most cases, there are at
least two groups (a between-subjects design). One of the groups serves as a
control group and is not exposed to the intervention. This is quite similar to
the procedure in clinical trials whereby one group does not receive the experimental
drug. This enables researchers to compare the two groups and determine the
impact of the intervention. Alternatively, the two groups might differ in some
important way (e.g. gender, severity of dementia, living at home or in residential
care, etc.) and it is that difference that is of interest to the researchers.
Surveys
Surveys involve collecting information, usually from
fairly large groups of people, by means of questionnaires but other techniques
such as interviews or telephoning may also be used. There are different types
of survey. The most straightforward type (the “one shot survey”) is administered to a sample of people at a set point
in time. Another type is the “before and after survey” which people complete before a major event or
experience and then again afterwards.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a good way to obtain information
from a large number of people and/or people who may not have the time to attend
an interview or take part in experiments. They enable people to take their
time, think about it and come back to the questionnaire later. Participants can
state their views or feelings privately without worrying about the possible
reaction of the researcher. Unfortunately, some people may still be inclined to
try to give socially acceptable answers. People should be encouraged to answer
the questions as honestly as possible so as to avoid the researchers drawing
false conclusions from their study.
Questionnaires typically contain multiple choice
questions, attitude scales, closed questions and open-ended questions. The
drawback for researchers is that they usually have a fairly low response rate
and people do not always answer all the questions and/or do not answer them
correctly. Questionnaires can be administered in a number of different ways
(e.g. sent by post or as email attachments, posted on Internet sites, handed
out personally or administered to captive audience (such as people attending
conferences).
Researchers may even decide to administer the questionnaire
in person which has the advantage of including people who have difficulties
reading and writing. In this case, the participant may feel that s/he is taking
part in an interview rather than completing a questionnaire as the researcher will
be noting down the responses on his/her behalf.
Interviews
Interviews are usually carried out in person i.e.
face-to-face but can also be administered by telephone or using more advance
computer technology such as Skype. Sometimes they are held in the interviewee’s home, sometimes at a more neutral place. It is
important for interviewees to decide whether they are comfortable about
inviting the researcher into their home and whether they have a room or area
where they can speak freely without disturbing other members of the household.
The interviewer (which is not necessarily the
researcher) could adopt a formal or informal approach, either letting the
interviewee speak freely about a particular issue or asking specific
pre-determined questions.
This will have been decided in advance and depend on
the approach used by the researchers. A semi-structured approach would enable
the interviewee to speak relatively freely, at the same time allowing the researcher
to ensure that certain issues were covered.
When conducting the interview, the researcher might
have a check list or a form to record answers. This might even take the form of
a questionnaire. Taking notes can interfere with the flow of the conversation, particularly
in less structured interviews. Also, it is difficult to pay attention to the
non-verbal aspects of communication and to remember everything that was said
and the way it was said. Consequently, it can be helpful for the researchers to
have some kind of additional record of the interview such as an audio or video
recording. They should of course obtain permission before recording an
interview.
Case studies
Case studies usually involve the detailed study of a
particular case (a person or small group). Various methods of data collection
and analysis are used but this typically includes observation and interviews
and may involve consulting other people and personal or public records. The researchers
may be interested in a particular phenomenon (e.g. coping with a diagnosis or a
move into residential care) and select one or more individuals in the
respective situation on whom to base their case study/studies. Case studies
have a very narrow focus which results in detailed descriptive data which is
unique to the case(s) studied.
Nevertheless, it can be useful in clinical settings
and may even challenge existing theories and practices in other domains.
Participant and non-participant observation
Studies which involve observing people can be divided
into two main categories, namely participant observation and non-participant
observation.
In participant observation studies, the researcher
becomes (or is already) part of the group to be observed. This involves fitting
in, gaining the trust of members of the group and at the same time remaining sufficiently
detached as to be able to carry out the observation. The observations made
might be based on what people do, the explanations they give for what they do,
the roles they have, relationships amongst them and features of the situation
in which they find themselves. The researcher should be open about what s/he is
doing, give the participants in the study the chance see the results and
comment on them, and take their comments seriously.
In non-participant observation studies, the researcher
is not part of the group being studied. The researcher decides in advance
precisely what kind of behaviour is relevant to the study and can be realistically
and ethically observed. The observation can be carried out in a few different
ways. For example, it could be continuous over a set period of time (e.g. one
hour) or regularly for shorter periods of time (for 60 seconds every so often)
or on a random basis. Observation does not only include noting what happened or
was said but also the fact that a specific behaviour did not occur at the time
of observation.
Observational trials
Observational trials study health issues in large
groups of people but in natural settings. Longitudinal approaches examine the
behaviour of a group of people over a fairly lengthy period of time e.g. monitoring
cognitive decline from mid to late life paying specific attention to diet and
lifestyle factors. In some cases, the researchers might monitor people when
they are middle-aged and then again after 15 years and so on.
The aim of such studies is usually to determine
whether there is a link between one factor and another (e.g. whether high
alcohol consumption is correlated with dementia). The group of people involved
in this kind of study is known as a cohort and they share a certain
characteristic or experience within a defined period. Within the cohort, there
may be subgroups (e.g. people who drink moderately, people who drink heavily,
people who binge drink etc.) which allow for further comparisons to be made.
In some cases, rather than following a group of people
from a specific point in time onwards, the researchers take a retrospective
approach, working backwards as it were. They might ask participants to tell
them about their past behaviour, diet or lifestyle (e.g. their alcohol
consumption, how much exercise they did, whether they smoked etc.) They might
also ask for permission to consult the participants’ medical records (a chart review). This is not always
a reliable method and may be problematic as some people may forget, exaggerate
or idealise their behaviour. For this reason, a prospective study is generally preferred
if feasible although a retrospective pilot study preceding a prospective study
may be helpful in focusing the study question and clarifying the hypothesis and
feasibility of the latter (Hess, 2004).
Studies using the Delphi method
The Delphi method was developed in the United States
in the 1950s and 1960s in the military domain. It has been considered
particularly useful in helping researchers determine the range of opinions which
exist on a particular subject, in investigating issues of policy or clinical
relevance and in trying to come to a consensus on controversial issues. The
objectives can be roughly divided into those which aim to measure diversity and
those which aim to reach consensus.
Different ways to employ this method have been devised
but they tend to share common features, namely a series of “rounds” in which the participants (known as “panellists”) generate ideas or identify salient issues, comment
on a questionnaire (constructed on the basis of the results from the first
round) and re- evaluate their original responses. After each round, a
facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the forecasts/opinions made by the
experts and of their reasons.
There is no limit to the number of panellists involved
but between 10 and 50 might be considered
manageable. The panellists are chosen on the basis of
their expertise which could take many forms (e.g. academic, professional or
practical knowledge, personal experience of having a condition, being a service
user etc.).
The four main approaches
Quantitative research
Quantitative research is generally associated with the
positivist/postpositivist paradigm. It usually involves collecting and
converting data into numerical form so that statistical calculations can be
made and conclusions drawn.
The process
Researchers will have one or more hypotheses. These
are the questions that they want to address which include predictions about
possible relationships between the things they want to investigate (variables).
In order to find answers to these questions, the researchers will also have various
instruments and materials (e.g. paper or computer tests, observation check
lists etc.) and a clearly defined plan of action.
Data is collected by various means following a strict
procedure and prepared for statistical analysis. Nowadays, this is carried out
with the aid of sophisticated statistical computer packages. The analysis enables
the researchers to determine to what extent there is a relationship between two
or more variables.
This could be a simple association (e.g. people who
exercise on a daily basis have lower blood pressure) or a causal relationship
(e.g. daily exercise actually leads to lower blood pressure). Statistical
analysis permits researchers to discover complex causal relationships and to
determine to what extent one variable influences another.
The results of statistical analyses are presented in
journals in a standard way, the end result being a P value. For people who are not
familiar with scientific research jargon, the discussion sections at the end of
articles in peer reviewed journals usually describe the results of the study and
explain the implications of the findings in straight forward terms
Principles
Objectivity is very important in quantitative
research. Consequently, researchers take great care to avoid their own
presence, behaviour or attitude affecting the results (e.g. by changing the
situation being studied or causing participants to behave differently). They
also critically examine their methods and conclusions for any possible bias.
Researchers go to great lengths to ensure that they
are really measuring what they claim to be measuring. For example, if the study
is about whether background music has a positive impact on restlessness in residents
in a nursing home, the researchers must be clear about what kind of music to
include the volume of the music, what they mean by restlessness, how to measure
restlessness and what is considered a positive impact. This must all be
considered, prepared and controlled in advance.
External factors, which might affect the results, must
also be controlled for. In the above example, it would be important to make
sure that the introduction of the music was not accompanied by other changes
(e.g. the person who brings the CD player chatting with the residents after the
music session) as it might be the other factor which produces the results (i.e.
the social contact and not the music). Some possible contributing factors
cannot always be ruled out but should be acknowledged by the researchers.
The main emphasis of quantitative research is on
deductive reasoning which tends to move from the general to the specific. This
is sometimes referred to as a top down approach. The validity of conclusions is
shown to be dependent on one or more premises (prior statements, findings or
conditions) being valid. Aristotle’s famous example of deductive reasoning was: All men
are mortal à Socrates is a man à Socrates is mortal. If the premises of an argument
are inaccurate, then the argument is inaccurate. This type of reasoning is
often also associated with the fictitious character Sherlock Holmes. However,
most studies also include an element of inductive reasoning at some stage of
the research (see section on qualitative research for more details).
Researchers rarely have access to all the members of a
particular group (e.g. all people with dementia, careers or healthcare
professionals). However, they are usually interested in being able to make inferences
from their study about these larger groups. For this reason, it is important that
the people involved in the study are a representative sample of the wider
population/group. However, the extent to which generalizations are possible
depends to a certain extent on the number of people involved in the study, how
they were selected and whether they are representative of the wider group. For
example, generalizations about psychiatrists should be based on a study
involving psychiatrists and not one based on psychology students. In most
cases, random samples are preferred (so that each potential participant has an
equal chance of participating) but sometimes researchers might want to ensure
that they include a certain number of people with specific characteristics and
this would not be possible using random sampling methods. Generalizability of
the results is not limited to groups of people but also to situations.
It is presumed that the results of a laboratory
experiment reflect the real life situation which the study seeks to clarify.
When looking at results, the P value is important. P
stands for probability. It measures the likelihood that a particular finding or
observed difference is due to chance. The P value is between 0 and 1. The
closer the result is to 0, the less likely it is that the observed difference
is due to chance. The closer the result is to 1, the greater the likelihood
that the finding is due to chance (random variation) and that there is no difference
between the groups/variables.
Qualitative research
Qualitative research is the approach usually
associated with the social constructivist paradigm which emphasizes the
socially constructed nature of reality. It is about recording, analysing and
attempting to uncover the deeper meaning and significance of human behaviour
and experience, including contradictory beliefs, behaviour and emotions.
Researchers are interested in gaining a rich and complex understanding of
people’s experience and not
in obtaining information which can be generalized to other larger groups.
The process
The approach adopted by qualitative researchers tends
to be inductive which means that they develop a theory or look for a pattern of
meaning on the basis of the data that they have collected. This involves a move
from the specific to the general and is sometimes called a bottom-up approach.
However, most research projects also involve a certain degree of deductive
reasoning (see section on quantitative research for more details).
Qualitative researchers do not base their research on
pre-determined hypotheses. Nevertheless, they clearly identify a problem or
topic that they want to explore and may be guided by a theoretical lens – a kind
of overarching theory which provides a framework for their investigation.
The approach to data collection and analysis is
methodical but allows for greater flexibility than in quantitative research.
Data is collected in textual form on the basis of observation and interaction
with the participants e.g. through participant observation, in-depth interviews
and focus groups. It is not converted into numerical form and is not
statistically analyzed. Data collection may be carried out in several stages
rather than once and for all. The researchers may even adapt the process
mid-way, deciding to address additional issues or dropping questions which are
not appropriate on the basis of what they learn during the process. In some
cases, the researchers will interview or observe a set number of people. In
other cases, the process of data collection and analysis may continue until the
researchers find that no new issues are emerging.
Principles
Researchers will tend to use methods which give
participants a certain degree of freedom and permit spontaneity rather than
forcing them to select from a set of pre-determined responses (of which none might
be appropriate or accurately describe the participant’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes or behaviour) and to
try to create the right atmosphere to enable people to express themselves. This
may mean adopting a less formal and less rigid approach than that used in
quantitative research.
It is believed that people are constantly trying to
attribute meaning to their experience. Therefore, it would make no sense to
limit the study to the researcher’s view or understanding of the situation and expect to
learn something new about the experience of the participants. Consequently, the
methods used may be more open-ended, less narrow and more exploratory
(particularly when very little is known about a particular subject). The
researchers are free to go beyond the initial response that the participant
gives and to ask why, how, in what way etc. In this way, subsequent questions can
be tailored to the responses just given.
Qualitative research often involves a smaller number
of participants. This may be because the methods used such as in-depth
interviews are time and labour intensive but also because a large number of
people are not needed for the purposes of statistical analysis or to make
generalizations from the results.
The smaller number of people typically involved in
qualitative research studies and the greater degree of flexibility does not
make the study in any way “less scientific” than a typical quantitative study involving more
subjects and carried out in a much more rigid manner. The objectives of the two
types of research and their underlying philosophical assumptions are simply
different. However, as discussed in the section on “philosophies guiding research”, this does not mean that the two approaches cannot be
used in the same study.
Pragmatic approach to research (mixed methods)
The pragmatic approach to science involves using the
method which appears best suited to the research problem and not getting caught
up in philosophical debates about which is the best approach. Pragmatic researchers
therefore grant themselves the freedom to use any of the methods, techniques
and procedures typically associated with quantitative or qualitative research.
They recognize that every method has its limitations and that the different
approaches can be complementary.
They may also use different techniques at the same
time or one after the other. For example, they might start with face-to-face
interviews with several people or have a focus group and then use the findings
to construct a questionnaire to measure attitudes in a large scale sample with
the aim of carrying out statistical analysis.
Depending on which measures have been used, the data
collected is analyzed in the appropriate manner. However, it is sometimes
possible to transform qualitative data into quantitative data and vice versa although
transforming quantitative data into qualitative data is not very common.
Being able to mix different approaches has the
advantages of enabling triangulation. Triangulation is a common feature of
mixed methods studies. It involves, for example: the use of a variety of data
sources (data triangulation) the use of several different researchers
(investigator triangulation) the use of multiple perspectives to interpret the
results (theory triangulation) the use of multiple methods to study a research
problem (methodological triangulation)
In some studies, qualitative and quantitative methods
are used simultaneously. In others, first one approach is used and then the
next, with the second part of the study perhaps expanding on the results of the
first. For example, a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews or focus
group discussions might serve to obtain information which will then be used to
contribute towards the development of an experimental measure or attitude
scale, the results of which will be analysed statistically.
Advocacy/participatory approach to research
(emancipatory)
To some degree, researchers adopting an
advocacy/participatory approach feel that the approaches to research described
so far do not respond to the needs or situation of people from marginalised or vulnerable
groups. As they aim to bring about positive change in the lives of the research
subjects, their approach is sometimes described as emancipatory. It is not a
neutral stance. The researchers are likely to have a political agenda and to
try to give the groups they are studying a voice. As they want their research to
directly or indirectly result in some kind of reform, it is important that they
involve the group being studied in the research, preferably at all stages, so
as to avoid further marginalising them.
The researchers may adopt a less neutral position than
that which is usually required in scientific research.
This might involve interacting informally or even
living amongst the research participants (who are sometimes referred to as
co-researchers in recognition that the study is not simply about them but also
by them). The findings of the research might be reported in more personal
terms, often using the precise words of the research participants. Whilst this
type of research could by criticized for not being objective, it should be
noted that for some groups of people or for certain situations, it is necessary
as otherwise the thoughts, feelings or behaviour of the various members of the
group could not be accessed or fully understood.
Vulnerable groups are rarely in a position of power
within society. For this reason, researchers are sometimes members of the group
they are studying or have something in common with the members of the group.
