NOTES: How to tackle research problem (2.3-2.4) Inductive vs Deductive frameworks

Research starts from asking

  • what do we already know (theories, concepts, studies)?
  • what don't we know yet (the nature of the current problem, the ways we can explore it, the range of possible descriptions, accounts or solutions)?

Good research is always a mixture of these two modes: what we already know and what we don’t yet know. It draws on what has been done before but also uncovers new (ideally, unexpected) aspects of the problems it addresses. 

Ultimately you want to be saying something different (not necessarily wholly new), but based on solid research.

If you can already see the answer to your problem without doing any actual empirical work, then what you are doing is not really research (it is merely confirming your initial opinion). 

Likewise, if your empirical work is not informed by any previous theories or concepts, then it does not qualify as a contribution to scholarly debate. 

Deductive

This approach requires an existing body of research and data surrounding a particular approach, issue or field to which you can then contribute.

Start with clear idea of problem, ask what we think we know --> theory/hypothesis --> test it

cumulative - built on previous research

pursue unanswered questions

close off 'dead ends'

Two main types of access/research proposals

  • Supervisors/departments/universities/funding bodies often have a clear idea of what they want "an extra researcher" to do - they advertise the post

    If you apply, be sure it's what YOU want to spend 5+ years of your life doing, with some but limited scope to explore avenues that interest you. Get it spelled out in advance who will get credit for the research and how, whose names will appear on any publications 

  • Student driven - where you must first get to grips with the literature and research to date that addresses a particular problem or from which a specific theoretical approach has been developed. You then need to ask
    • What is missing from existing studies?
    • What problems have yet to be addressed by the current approach?
    • What are the gaps in the existing literature?

Your investigation will reveal yet more questions. 

  • Look at the end parts of research articles for suggestions of areas needing further research

  • Remember, you need to be looking at empirical evidence and devising ways to build on (provide more) empirical evidence.

    • for example, look at a study that's been done and ask what would happen if the same study were done on a different population, or if slightly different variables were used

    • ask why an approach has not, as yet, dealt with a particular problem or issue. 

    • How can the theoretical approach be tested in a new way? 

    • Can the theory be extended to other kinds of problems than the ones studied already? 

    • What aspects of the theory might be revised or critiqued?

 Theories need to be tested against empirical material (data) to be credible.

What if there is little data?

Can you instead try to *extend* the reach of an existing theory - apply it to a different problem or in a different context or to recent developments?
 
for example - 
        • Are there any controversies or unsettled debates within the literature to which I might contribute?
        • Are these debates conceptual, technical, methodological or empirical?
        • What kind of research might provide evidence for one or other side or even ‘the answer’ to the debate?
But!
        • BEWARE attempting to RESOLVE any controversies! Instead, consider trying to design a study that offers further evidence or support in favour of one side of it, or even one that proposes an alternative or direction. 
        • Be realistic about what aspects of the controversary are within your ability to address
        • Be pragmatic about what kinds of 'evidence' might be required to make any kind of meaningful, productive contribution (rather than just 'stir the pot') and whether you can realistically access and utilise that kind of evidence 
        • You will need the right sort of supervisor!

Inductive


Here, you may have identified an issue or problem that you feel has not been sufficiently addressed by existing/previous research/studies/literature. Your approach is to develop a theory or framework, based on what *is* known, that would enable the problem to then be adequately studied - and for theories to be formulated from that. 

You are not seeking to find a place within existing research (for your research to fit into/contribute to) but to explore new ways of finding solutions to a particular problem. 

Your starting point isn't other people's research but what YOU may know about the problem, perhaps through work or your own industry practice.  

I love this!  "You may not (yet) be an expert in a particular theory, but you may already be something of an expert on this particular issue because it is one that you have spent some time addressing."

First step: DEFINE THE PROBLEM.  Describe it in ways that give you 'handles' to get a grip on, to search out what research has been done and what solutions may already have been suggested or tested - i.e. what to look for and where in current literature. You likely know this anyway!

This needs to be a problem that interests other people, not just you. 

  • Who are the major stakeholders in this problem?
  • What is the nature of their involvement?
  • In what settings is this problem particularly prevalent?
  • What is the historical background to its emergence?

Problems always arise within CONTEXT - time, place, processes, activities, goals/aims/purposes. 

Identify - 

  • who is involved
  • how they are involved
  • what kinds of things are they doing that may be helping? or making the situation worse?

Look for the "story" - when did this problem emerge, what were its causes, how did it manifest itself. 

Consider informal research: news sources, trade publications, Internet, interviews with others who are aware of the problem and may have thoughts about it. 

    • What sort of a problem is this?
    • Do the stakeholders appear to have an adequate understanding of the problem?
    • If they do, why haven’t they been able to solve it?
    • If they don’t, then what do you think is actually the nature of the problem?

Be aware that problems may not present them clearly - sometimes 'people' problems are addressed through technology, other times the other way wrong. Which means, problem not solved and the causes and processes are obscured.

Multi-dimensional aspects - lots of stakeholders may be trying to address it but with no one having the big picture, only tackling sharp ends of the stick that affect them most.

Lots of different ways of looking at it

Framing

    • What happens if this problem is framed in different ways?
      • does re-framing the theory or concept change the nature of the problem? 
      • does it connect this problem to other problems that perhaps are better understood?
      • does it make a solution more likely?
      • does it affect stakeholders differently and how? empower some and/or dis-empower others?
      • can you now connect the problem directly with an existing body of literature?
    • What appears to be the ‘best’ framing?
    • How do I decide what ‘best’ means here?
    • What kinds of literature does each framing connect to?
Experiment with different KINDS of theories and concepts
    • explore what happens when you look at the problem through a different 'lens' (e.g. source material, archive data, 

If you work through a variety of re-framings and can find connections to existing literature, then you should be better able now to generate your research questions. 

    COMPARATIVE TABLES

    Inductive approach

    What we know, what we don’t knowImpactRecommendations for practice
    Who are the major stakeholders in this problem?
    - What is the nature of their involvement?
    - In what settings is this problem particularly prevalent?
    - What is the historical background to its emergence?

    What sort of a problem is this?
    - Do the stakeholders appear to have an adequate understanding of the problem?
    - If they do, why haven’t they been able to solve it?
    - If they don’t, then what do you think is actually the nature of the problem?

    What happens if this problem is framed in different ways?
    - What appears to be the ‘best’ framing?
    - How do I decide what ‘best’ means here?
    - What kinds of literature does each framing connect to?    		Who might be the audience for my research?
    - Which academic communities would be interested in what I am doing?
    - Can I meet the standards for evidence and debate in that community?

    What are the audiences outside a university context?
    - How can I reach these audiences?
    - What kind of language will I need to speak?
    - What will they find useful in what I do?    		How can I assist in improving practice?
    - What kinds of change would I like to see brought about?
    - Who would benefit from these changes (and who might lose out)?
    - How would I benefit from those changes?

    Deductive approach

    What we know, what we don’t knowImpactRecommendations for practice
    What is missing from existing studies?
    - What problems have yet to be addressed by the current approach?
    - What are the gaps in the existing literature?

    How can the theoretical approach be tested in a new way?
    - Can the theory be extended to other kinds of problems than the ones studied already?
    - What aspects of the theory might be revised or critiqued?

    Are there any controversies or unsettled debates within the literature to which I might contribute?
    - Are these debates conceptual, technical, methodological or empirical?

    What kind of research might provide evidence for one or other side or even ‘the answer’ to the debate?    		Who might be the audience for my research?
    - Which academic communities would be interested in what I am doing?
    - Can I meet the standards for evidence and debate in that community?

    What are the audiences outside a university context?
    - How can I reach these audiences?
    - What kind of language will I need to speak?
    - What will they find useful in what I do?    		How can I assist in improving practice?
    - What kinds of change would I like to see brought about?
    - Who would benefit from these changes (and who might lose out)?
    - How would I benefit from those changes?

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    NOTES: Plan & Write a Literature Review (3.11-3.12)

    You will need to provide a list of references of all the material you have drawn on at the end of your proposal. The quality of the material you have discussed is just as important as the quantity. demonstrate that you have a fair sense of current trends in the area. show that you can think your way through the literature, synthesise a range of work, indicate where there are debates, and ground your own ideas in an existing tradition (which can include showing how your work challenges or is set against a given tradition)  convince the reader that you are creative thinker, who is not simply reproducing what has been done before, but someone actively wishing to participate in moving scholarly work forward in a chosen or specific area STRUCTURE = storyline HEADLINE : the problem to be addressed [succinct, forceful] present your research problem clearly, grounded in the literature INTRODUCE THE LITERATURE Only discuss literature and research context that  are directly relevant to ...
    Read more

    NOTES: Literature Review - Purposes & Where to Start (3.1-3.2)

    Show you have engaged (or *can* engage) with the scholarship around your topic and have some idea of relevant theoretical and/or methodological approaches.  Provides overall context as to what your trying to do, which helps in assessing feasibility and establishing criteria for success/failure. Narrow in on succinct statement of the tradition of the work in your area that you feel is relevant/important, and of your scholarly values.  Enables you to define series of research questions to guide and frame your work.  Don't just list and evaluate work done by others to date. Write a  ‘problem-oriented’ narrative   beginning - identify the main issue middle - add in scholarship to date and develop a framework  end - pose a set of focused RQs. Start with what you know identify related theories and authors who publish around the topic you are interested in snowballing - look at works cited by the authors you know, track them down --> build up picture of researc...
    Read more

    NOTES: Organising notes as you're reviewing literature (3.10)

    What is the main research problem for the authors and why is it an issue? How have they chosen to frame the problem? Might there be other ways to do this? What literature do they point to in developing their research questions? How do these questions relate to what other people have done? What are the research questions posed? How clear are they to you? If there is an empirical component, then what kinds of methods do they adopt? Are there other alternatives? What are their key findings? And just as importantly, what did they not find? What is absent? What conclusions do they draw from the findings? Do these appear to be valid? Overall, what might you think is the contribution of the paper to the research literature? (This last one is not easy at this stage – after all, you are only just starting out and so cannot easily say if a paper is right and what its full contribution or value might be – thus think about whether the ideas or arguments  convince  you). BASED ON THE NOTES...
    Read more