The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods

Victor Jupp

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9780761962984, 9780761962977
• eBook ISBN: 9781446238561
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Recherche scientifique et méthodologie

Bringing together the work of over eighty leading academics and researchers worldwide to produce the definitive reference and research tool for the social sciences, The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods contains more than 230 entries providing the widest coverage of the all the main terms in the research process. It encompasses philosophies of science, research paradigms and designs, specific aspects of data collection, practical issues to be addressed when carrying out research, and the role of research in terms of function and context.

Each entry includes:

- A concise definition of the concept

- A description of distinctive features: historical and disciplinary backgrounds; key writers; applications

- A critical and reflective evaluation of the concept under consideration

- Cross references to associated concepts within the dictionary

- A list of key readings

Written in a lively style, The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods is an essential study guide for students and first-time researchers. It is a primary source of reference for advanced study, a necessary supplement to established textbooks, and a state-of-the-art reference guide to the specialized language of research across the social sciences.

A

---

ACCESS

Definition

The process of gaining and maintaining entry to a setting or social group, or of establishing working relations with individuals, in order that social research can be undertaken.

Distinctive Features

Access is part of the initial phase of social research, and is usually negotiated at the start of the research project. Access can also be conceptualized as a continuous process (Lee, 1993). Relationships may need to be renegotiated throughout the course of research. It is sometimes unclear exactly what access is required once research is under way.

There are a variety of practical and theoretical matters associated with ensuring research access. There are certainly practical issues involved in gaining entry to settings or data, and to establishing rapport with research participants. These might include formal approaches or applications (by letter or direct contact), arranging initial meetings and providing descriptions of the research for potential settings and participants. It is usually appropriate to offer reassurances of confidentiality and trust as part of initial access negotiations.

Identifying and establishing rapport with key gatekeepers or (informal) sponsors within a setting can be important to gaining and maintaining access (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995). This can entail developing a theoretical or analytical appreciation of the setting or social group, and the relative standing of different social actors within the field. There are also occasions when access will need to be negotiated with a variety of different social actors within the setting. This can mean paying particular attention to the role(s) that the researcher adopts during social research, and the ways in which these roles are managed throughout the research encounter. This role management can include adopting certain styles of dress or personae in order to fit into the setting.

Complex and protracted access negotiations are most often associated with qualitative or ethnographic work (de Laine, 2000). However, there may be similar processes involved in gaining access to secondary data, documentary sources, or large research samples. Establishing trust and gaining a working familiarity of the research field are essential components of undertaking social research of all kinds.

Evaluation

Access is not a single event to be undertaken only at the beginning of the research process. However, advice tends to focus on the initial negotiation of access, rather than on the maintenance and renegotiation of access over time. Access is more than seeking formal permission or gaining informed consent. It is also part of a more general process of active engagement with settings and social actors, and of recognizing the need to work at ethical research relationships (Denscombe, 2002).

How much information to disclose during access negotiations is a matter for careful consideration. It may not be possible to inform potential research participants about the full extent of the research, particularly if an exploratory study is envisaged, with new research questions emerging over time. Equally, full disclosure may not be desirable, perhaps because this may jeopardize access, or potentially change the behaviour of informants. Sometimes it is easier to give a fuller account of the aims of the research once initial access has been secured and a level of rapport and trust established. However, where possible, those concerned should be told about any implications of the research from the outset. Deception should certainly be avoided.

Amanda Coffey

Associated Concepts: confidentiality, covert research, dangerous research, ethics, gatekeeper, impression management, informed consent, organizational research, participant observation, reflexivity, research bargain, unobtrusive measures, validity of measurement

Key Readings

de Laine, M. (2000) Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denscombe, M. (2002) Ground Rules for Good Research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

Lee, R. M. (1993) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.

---

ACTION RESEARCH

Definition

Action research is a type of applied social research that aims to improve social situations through change interventions involving a process of collaboration between researchers and participants. The process is seen to be both educational and empowering. Action research should not be confused with evaluation research which attempts to measure the impact of interventions without the active collaboration of participants.

Distinctive Features

In a systematic review based on UK healthcare settings, Waterman et al. (2001) identified two distinguishing features of action research: first, the cyclic process, and second, the research partnership. The action research cycle begins with the analysis of a social situation or the identification of a problem. This is typically followed by the formulation of some kind of intervention (for example, nurses in a clinic may change the way they carry out some aspect of professional practice), which is then evaluated. The planning, action, reflection and evaluation may lead to new rounds of intervention and evaluation. The research element often focuses on the process of change and the achievement of planned objectives.

The second distinguishing feature of action research is a partnership or collaboration between the researcher(s) and the researched. In traditional research there is a clear separation between the researcher(s) and the researched, which is seen as essential to preserving objectivity. In action research, however, there is a deliberate attempt to involve participants as a way of promoting change and as a device to reduce the social distance between researchers and subjects. This involvement is felt to be both educative and empowering. As Greenwood and Levin (1998: 6) say: ‘Action research aims to increase the ability of the involved community or organization members to control their own destinies more effectively and to keep improving their capacity to do so.’

It is clear that underpinning these distinguishing features are certain value commitments. The first of these is what could be called a democratizing motive, which reverses the conventional relationship between researchers and researched, which some action researchers see as elitist and exploitative. The second commitment is to participation. Drawing on a long heritage of pragmatist scholarship Peter Reason (1994) has argued that traditional social science alienates subjects from their own understandings of the world. Action research attempts to transcend this alienation through the active involvement of people in transforming organizations or social groups. The third commitment is to forms of inquiry that rely on subjective understanding. Action researchers believe that it is only through action and reflection that participants can understand their social situation and through formulation of interventions arrive at new understandings.

Evaluation

If judged by the standards of conventional academic research, action research might appear to be unscientific. The close and collaborative relationship between researchers and researched, for example, could be seen as a source of bias because the researcher is no longer independent of the research setting. The flexible design features of action research projects might also be an anathema to the mainstream social researcher. In contrast to the clear specification of research questions or hypotheses to be found in conventional empirical studies, action research is characterized by a fluid and ongoing process of formulation, implementation, adaptation and evaluation in which the identification of stages or project milestones is often difficult. Research design in action research is evolutionary rather than specified beforehand in a research protocol.

Since there is such a marked difference between conventional and action research it would probably make more sense to judge the latter on its own terms. Such a judgement would need to consider the action research process, with its emphasis on participation to bring about change and the role of reflection and self-evaluation in that process. Evaluation should also take into account how action research aims to change the way people do things. Its outcomes are not necessarily ‘findings’ in the conventional sense of theoretical progress, but in terms of new practices, changed behaviour patterns or improvements in organizational processes.

Given the rapidly changing nature of organizational settings and the continuing pressure on organizational members to improve their performance it is likely that action research has a considerable contribution to make in the management of change. As Waterman et al. (2001: 57) suggest, action research has the potential to go ‘beyond an analysis of the status quo to directly consider questions of “what might be” and “what can be”’.

John Newton

Associated Concepts: applied research, emancipatory research, evaluation research, messy research, participatory action research, policy-related research, practitioner research

Key Readings

Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (1998) Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. London: Sage.

Reason, P. (ed.) (1994) Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage.

Waterman, H., Tillen, D., Dickson, R. and de Koning, K. (2001) ‘Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment’, Health Technology Assessment, 5 (23).

---

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

Definition

A set of procedures that estimate and attribute variance in a data set to different sources and determine the probability, under the null hypothesis, of obtaining the differences between the variance estimates by chance.

Distinctive Features

In ANOVA, variance attributable to differences between groups of scores is compared with an average variance attributable to differences between the scores within each group. Between-group variance is defined with respect to differences between the group means, and within-group variance is defined with respect to differences between the individual scores and their group mean. If the nature of the groups influences the scores more than chance fluctuation, then the between-group variance estimate will exceed the within-group variance estimate. If this difference between the variance estimates is sufficiently large, then the null hypothesis that all group means are equal is rejected.

The t-test compares the means of two experimental conditions. However, when there are more than two groups or conditions, more than one t-test is needed to compare all of the conditions. Unfortunately, the likelihood of obtaining a significant result by chance increases with the number of statistical tests carried out (that is, hypotheses tested). A Type 1 error is committed when the null hypothesis is rejected erroneously. Therefore, the Type 1 error rate increases with the number of statistical tests applied to any data set. ANOVA was developed to assist in the analysis of data obtained from agricultural experiments with any number of experimental conditions without any increase in Type 1 error. ANOVA procedures appropriate for an extensive variety of experimental designs are now available (e.g. Kirk, 1995).

Nevertheless, despite ANOVA being developed for use in experimental research, it may be applied to any data organized by categories. However, as with any statistical procedure, interpretation of the ANOVA results will depend upon the data collection methodology and the conformity of the data to the statistical assumptions underlying the analysis (e.g. Rutherford, 2001).

Evaluation

When regression, ANOVA and ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) are expressed in matrix algebra terms, a commonality is evident. Indeed, the same matrix algebra equation is able to summarize all three of these analyses. As regression, ANOVA and ANCOVA can be described in an identical manner, clearly they follow a common pattern. This common pattern is the GLM (general linear modelling) conception. It is said that regression, ANOVA and ANCOVA are particular instances of the GLM or that the GLM subsumes regression, ANOVA and ANCOVA. Unfortunately, the ability of the same matrix algebra equation to describe regression, ANOVA and ANCOVA has resulted in the inaccurate identification of the matrix algebra equation as the GLM. However, just as a particular language provides a means of expressing an idea, so matrix algebra provides only one notation for expressing the GLM.

Andrew Rutherford

Associated Concepts: experiment, general linear modelling, inferential statistics, multivariate analysis

Key Readings

...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Editor’s Introduction
• The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods
• Subject Index
• Author Index