Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences

Mark Garner, Claire Wagner, Barbara Kawulich, Mark Garner, Claire Wagner, Barbara Kawulich

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754673521
• eBook ISBN: 9781317046561
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Antropologia

How can excellence in the teaching of research methods be encouraged and ensured? This question has become increasingly important following the adoption of research methodology as a core part of many postgraduate and undergraduate courses. There has, however, been little discussion about the aims and methods of teaching the subject. In this volume; a number of authors from a variety of countries and disciplines employ their knowledge and experience towards the development of a 'pedagogical culture' in research methods. Their aim is to establish the extent of common concerns and challenges and to demonstrate ways in which these are being met. Intended to provide both a stimulus and source materials for the development of a more substantial and systematic literature in the field, the book will be of great interest to all those teaching research methods courses within social science disciplines.

PART I
Historical Perspectives

Chapter 1
Trends in Teaching Qualitative Research: A 30-year Perspective

Judith Preissle and Kathryn Roulston

Drawing from the literature on teaching qualitative research methods, our own research on the topic and our experiences in developing a qualitative research programme that celebrated its 30th anniversary in January 2006, we examine key trends and central issues in preparing qualitative researchers. Based in the US, Judith Preissle offered the University of Georgia’s first designated course in qualitative research in 1976 to five doctoral students in the College of Education. At that time, most aspiring qualitative researchers were being educated as she had been, through a combination of apprenticeship, extensive reading, bits on fieldwork in courses on other topics and trial and error experiences. This preparation had more or less adequately served the small minority of qualitative researchers working in the social and professional sciences to that point in time. By 2006, in contrast, over 50 doctoral students from fields across the university have graduated with our Interdisciplinary Qualitative Studies Certificate, preparing them to practise and teach qualitative research methods and design.

The emerging, interdisciplinary methodology of qualitative research presents us, like other qualitative research instructors around the globe, with both familiar on-going concerns and new challenges. In this chapter we discuss five issues most qualitative research instructors face: (1) representing the interdisciplinary roots of qualitative research; (2) balancing theory and practice; (3) integrating apprenticeships into class-based instruction; (4) balancing credentialism and scholarship while addressing both the intrinsic and the instrumental values for qualitative work; and (5) working with student researchers from many cultural backgrounds and countries using scholarship in qualitative research methodology that has developed primarily in the West.

One problem we wish to avoid in teaching qualitative research is depending on simplistic recipes for research design. One kind of recipe grounds decisions in deterministic epistemological, philosophical and theoretical perspectives. Students are taught that philosophy and theory dictate design and methods. For novice qualitative researchers, this approach poses the dangers of adhering to strict methodological prescriptions with little regard for varying contexts or sensitivity to emergent research problems. A second recipe for research design begins with prescriptions for collecting and analysing data, but ignores epistemological and theoretical assumptions underlying the researcher’s choices. A third recipe is based on the premise that the research question drives the development of methods and design with no consideration for either context or the theories and philosophies that frame all questions about the world.

We believe that instructors of qualitative research courses should avoid teaching research design as a linear recipe-like process, and we aim to provide novice qualitative researchers with sufficient understanding of theory to allow them to make appropriate choices. These include considering theories and methods that may be flexibly used to study research problems in social settings. Students can then be encouraged to apply their knowledge of theories and methods to real-world social problems in the context of theoretical discussions and contemporary debates in a range of exercises. The intention is to socialize students into a ‘culture of research’ (Eisenhart and DeHaan, 2005, 7) and also to foster opportunities for them to demonstrate and develop creative and innovative scholarship. In this approach, theories, methods and questions interact in a mutually defining fashion, and trainee researchers learn to reflect on how choices in each area affect reconsideration of the other areas.

Representing the Interdisciplinary Roots of Qualitative Research

The literatures from which we draw in teaching qualitative research are derived from multiple disciplines, including anthropology, arts and humanities, communications, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and education and other applied fields. This profusion of methodological sources provides rich material for conceptualizing and designing research projects, as well as diverse examples of empirical research from varied communities of scholarly practice. Our experience shows that it can also be an obstacle to students’ understanding, for a number of reasons.

First, what is seen as ‘normal’ science or inquiry varies from one discipline to another (Hammersley, 2004). Students enter our courses with different assumptions about what qualitative research is and should be; they are often familiar with one perspective and tend to valourize it above others. This kind of single-mindedness can be reinforced by the literature of each discipline. Our challenge as teachers is to demonstrate to students the value of learning how different disciplines and fields vary in scholarly culture, style and practice. Support for interdisciplinary scholarship, we believe, begins with inculcating respect for diversity among our newest scholars and researchers.

Second, the profusion of scholarly sources from multiple fields presents a linguistic issue: there is no systematic or consistent use of terminology in qualitative research across disciplines. The task for instructors, then, is to assist beginning researchers to construct preliminary scaffolding for understanding theory, from which students may then refine their understanding of how theories inform their research questions on discipline-specific substantive topics. The benefits for qualitative researchers of working through these challenges and drawing on the interdisciplinary applications of qualitative inquiry, however, are many. For example, the journey of one author (Kathryn) into qualitative research has required crossing disciplinary boundaries from music education into the field of education. Her studies in the sociology of education and collaborations with researchers in other disciplines have assisted her in conducting research informed by alternative perspectives that are less commonly used in her disciplinary home of music education, which historically has relied on multivariate arguments and experimental research designs. One recent research collaboration with scholars and teacher–researchers in reading education (Aaron et al., 2006) inspired a teacher–research collaboration among practising music teachers and university educators (Roulston et al., 2005). Our students have had similar experiences. For example, linguists have framed studies using different sociological theories; language and literacy educators have learned alternative representational strategies from the arts and humanities; mathematics educators have posed deconstructive questions of their data; and science educators have explored applications of narrative inquiry.

Not all qualitative research methods courses are delivered to students from a range of disciplines, of course. We have had intense discussions with colleagues who believe that research methods must be taught only within a disciplinary tradition to assure the congruence between the subject matter and its knowledge production. Some argue that this aim is undermined by what they view as content neutral statistics. Furthermore, programmes in sociology, anthropology, counselling, speech, business and other fields do provide qualitative coursework tailored to their specialties. Nonetheless, the experience of one author (Judith), in running a summer programme in fieldwork methods with colleagues in sociology, was that even content-specific qualitative research methods offerings attract a diverse crowd. Graduate students in the programme came from health professions, hotel administration and other management programmes, education, as well as the social and behavioural sciences (Grant et al., 1999). Although academics do teach qualitative research methods and design to specific discipline groups, to restrict the material to the given discipline denies students access to the valuable breadth of scholarship that can inform qualitative endeavours.

Balancing Theory and Practice

As in many doctoral programmes, our own College of Education students come from multiple disciplinary backgrounds and bring to their studies diverse work experiences and prior learning. Although the majority of our students are pursuing doctoral degrees in education, we also work with students from the social sciences and professional fields other than education. As instructors, we face an initial challenge of assisting students to become familiar with the academic discourses found in writing on qualitative research methodology. Although some students eagerly embrace and immerse themselves in theoretical writings others, some of whom have extensive practitioner experience, find the onslaught of unfamiliar terms and abstract concepts replete with numerous ‘ologies’ and ‘isms’ to be overwhelming. Students are faced with learning new terminology and academic discourses. They are called on to read, write and make abstractions from their experience in new and different ways. Initial encounters with social science theory are daunting for some students and prompt their complaints, but we believe it is important to resist calls to resort to simpler descriptions of ‘methods’ of fieldwork practice or recipes for doing research. As Eisenhart and DeHaan (2005) argue, in an effective doctoral programme ‘students must experience firsthand the culture of research’ (p. 7). They propose that doctoral students must:

learn how to pose researchable questions whether requiring quantitative or qualitative methods or data; develop strategies for sampling, data collection, and analysis; learn ways of reasoning and arguing from evidence, means of assessing quality, styles of writing for technical reports and publishable articles, and ways of scrutinizing and constructively critiquing others’ work (Eisenhart and deHaan, 2005).

For qualitative researchers to pose ‘researchable questions’, they need to be competently versed in how theoretical decision-making informs research design and how different epistemological and theoretical assumptions are congruent with different kinds of research questions and research designs (see Kawulich, Chapter 3). To this end, qualitative research courses need to survey a range of theoretical approaches to research and be taught by instructors who represent a range of theoretical and methodological expertise. Through exposure to a wide spectrum of readings and engagement with qualitative researchers who conduct research from different perspectives, students can begin to identify with the theories that will be best suited to their research purposes. Whether students intend to conduct qualitative research for the purpose of understanding, emancipation or deconstruction (Lather, 2004), through directing our students to exemplars of research conducted from different epistemological assumptions, they can be assisted to formulate research questions consistent with the purposes, theory and methods selected or developed.

Our approach to teaching, then, is iterative – aiming for an elaborated understanding of theory, concepts and terms over time. This process frequently resembles back-and-forth journeys between confusion and clarity, as students encounter and struggle with theoretical issues in the midst of the problems that emerge during fieldwork. As Dewey (1939) emphasizes, action and knowledge, theory and practice, are inseparable human activities. Practical engagement in field-related exercises and authentic research activities is integral to discussion of theoretical issues. Reading about the theory and methodology of qualitative research, as our students have reported, produces certain understandings that are illuminated through doing (Roulston et al., 2003). Working through this iteration also can relieve a common problem of novice researchers. Some of our most skilled interviewers and fieldworkers, who rely on interpersonal prowess to gather qualitative data, have tended to delay ‘thinking’ about what they have until ‘later’. As the data accumulate, the propensity may increase to postpone serious analysis. Urging students to recognize that they are ‘thinking the data’ all along and to learn to think more systematically and self-consciously (see Earley, Chapter 9) helps prevent the confusion brought on by not knowing what to do with the data they have collected.

Yet there are no simple or clear routes to the production of scientific knowledge for qualitative researchers – whether expert or novice. As people increase their knowledge, they also understand the limits of that knowledge. Research often provokes more (and more complex) questions than those that it seeks to answer. This is especially true of research projects on the constantly changing experiences and contexts of human life that are especially vulnerable to this pattern and researchers must learn patience, flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity.

Integrating Apprenticeships into Class-based Instruction

We have argued that adequate theoretical preparation is essential to the education of qualitative researchers if they are to design and conduct worthwhile research and that this theoretical preparation must be balanced with practical experiences in doing research. Students must be able to work through the difficult issues raised in methodological writing. For example, how do researchers conceptualize the participants in their studies? What are the implications of this conceptualization for representation of ‘others’? How can masses of qualitative data be reduced to an article length report? What do researchers do when the people they study disagree with the researchers’ interpretations?

Many of us who are teaching research methods learned to do research in apprenticeships with senior scholars. We are now faced with providing large numbers of students with research opportunities to work through just these kinds of questions. Both authors began our research careers as apprentices, working closely and individually with a faculty mentor. Lacking the organization and structure provided by class instruction and course work, we often learned through trial and error, reflecting on our mistakes and then writing about what we did next. Our present challenge is to provide our students with a different kind of apprenticeship experience that provides reflective critique and supervision within the different learning environment of structured coursework (see Roth, Chapter 10).

This is possible if beginning researchers engage in authentic research projects to develop skills in all facets of qualitative inquiry, including data collection, analysis and representation, and peer evaluation (Grant et al., 1999). In our own courses, we supervise students in both group and individual projects that allow them to grapple with a variety of issues, including ethical dilemmas (see McAuliffe, Chapter 8) and the influence on research methods of gatekeepers and ethical review committees. Apprenticeships in coursework include the following:

1. Supervised classroom projects. In these projects, students conduct an individual project of their own choosing for which they receive the instructor’s approval. Given the regulations governing university research in the US, these projects must conform to certain guidelines outlined by each university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (ethics committee). At our university, these kinds of classroom projects may not involve videotaping, sensitive topics such as sexuality, or children and other participants deemed to be vulnerable.

2. Individual projects. Some students prepare research projects and obtain IRB approval prior to coursework. Unlike data developed in class projects, data generated from these individual projects may be used by students in conference presentations and publications.

3. Authentic team projects. In some of our courses, students have engaged in authentic projects for which the instructor has gained IRB approval prior to the course (see Garner and Sercombe, Chapter 7). Like individual projects, these assignments provide opportunities for students to engage, for example, in conducting individual interviews and focus groups. As a basis for a course on interviewing, one author (Kathryn) designed a number of qualitative interview studies in collaboration with key persons from different on-campus units, each of which resulted in a report to a client group on a topic of concern to the unit involved. Client groups have included a conference planning department, a university department, and a group of librarians and media specialists. At the end of the course, students presented oral and written reports of preliminary findings to the client group. Team projects have also provided students opportunities to collect and sometimes analyse data for ongoing research conducted by various faculty members at our institution. This provides us with the chance to introduce students to the varying levels of responsibility for research and the expectations for acknowledgment, authorship and such (see Roth, Chapter 10).

As scholars in a research university, we encourage our students to present the findings of their research for local, national and international audiences through conferences and publications. We realize, however, that our students have a great variety of career aspirations and trajectories, and while some intend to pursue research career paths similar to our own, many do not. This represents a different challenge to research methods teachers, to which we now turn.

Balancing Credentialism and Scholarship and Addressing both the Intrinsic and the Instrumental Values for Qualitative Work

As emphasized earlier, we value multiple qualitative traditions as ways to produce knowledge about social life and view research methods as integral to generating knowledge. In teaching qualitative research, however, this emphasis on scholarship sometimes conflicts with the goals of students who undertake advanced research degrees to obtain credentials that assist them in workplaces outside the academy, with no intention of pursuing scholarly careers. For them, learning research methods is simply a requirement in achieving the degree as a means for promotion or higher salaries. In 1979, the sociologist Collins argued that credentialism had become the mechanism controlling professional mobility across higher status occupations in societies around the world: students’ ‘reasons for going to school are extraneous to whatever goes on in the classroom’ (p. 192). Graduate education in the US is experiencing this kind of credentialist pressure. For example, in a 2004 national survey of earned education doctorates in the US, of the 67.7 per cent of 6,635 graduates who had ‘definite employment plans’ on graduation, only 7.7 per cent mentioned ‘research and development’ as the primary activity (Smallwood, 2005). Although we expect some students in our qualitative certificate programme will take academic positions, others do not (Preissle, 1999).

Research degrees thus serve two somewhat disparate ends: to prepare scholars to conduct their inquiries and to facilitate career advancement. Given the emphasis on scholarship in academe (see, for example, National Research Council, 2005), as instructors we are placed in the uncomfortable position of managing the gatekeeping demands of the ac...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction Towards a Pedagogical Culture in Research Methods
• PART I HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
• PART II APPROACHES TO THE CURRICULUM
• PART III APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING RESEARCH COMPETENCE
• PART IV APPROACHES TO TEACHING PARTICULAR METHODS
• PART V APPROACHES TO TEACHING NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS
• Afterword
• Bibliography
• Index