Research Design, as Independent of Methods



pattern - gives a much better indication of the impact of this research. Methods of
data collection and analysis are not alternatives; they are complementary. Specific
methods might be used to answer a simple, perhaps descriptive, research question in
one phase, but even then the answer will tend to yield more complex causal questions
that require more attention to research design (Cook and Gorard, 2008).

Across all stages of the cycle up to definitive testing, engineering of results into
useable form, and subsequent rollout and monitoring, different methods might have a
more dominant role in any one stage, but the overall process for a field of endeavour
requires a full range of research techniques. It is indefensible for a researcher, even
one limited in expertise to one technique (and so admitting that they are not
competent to conduct even something as basic as a comprehensive literature review,
for example), to imagine that they are not involved in a larger process that ‘mixes’
methods naturally and automatically.

Re-considering the schism

Therefore, the q-word dichotomy has, as illustrated, no relevance to design or indeed
to entire programmes of research. We may consider that surveys and interviews, for
example, are quite different, but even here there may be a continuum through
structured interview schedules to open-ended survey items delivered face-to-face.
The q-word division is not helpful even with methods. Is there such a thing as a
qualitative interview
and a quantitative interview? I doubt it. Interview, as a general
category, is enough. The q-words add nothing. So what lies beneath the schism? I
consider here three general propositions - that the schism arises from important
differences in paradigm, scale, and methods of data analysis.

The q-words are not paradigms

In the sociology of science the notion of a 'paradigm', is a description of the sets of
socially accepted assumptions that tend to appear in 'normal science' (Kuhn, 1970). A
paradigm is a set of accepted rules within any field for solving one or more puzzles -
where a puzzle is defined as a scientific question that it is possible to find a solution to

10



More intriguing information

1. Ultrametric Distance in Syntax
2. THE AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS LABORATORY
3. Chebyshev polynomial approximation to approximate partial differential equations
4. The name is absent
5. Ruptures in the probability scale. Calculation of ruptures’ values
6. The name is absent
7. Regional specialisation in a transition country - Hungary
8. Monopolistic Pricing in the Banking Industry: a Dynamic Model
9. THE USE OF EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY SIMULATION MODEL
10. Measuring and Testing Advertising-Induced Rotation in the Demand Curve
11. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
12. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education
13. A Location Game On Disjoint Circles
14. Consciousness, cognition, and the hierarchy of context: extending the global neuronal workspace model
15. CGE modelling of the resources boom in Indonesia and Australia using TERM
16. PEER-REVIEWED FINAL EDITED VERSION OF ARTICLE PRIOR TO PUBLICATION
17. Experience, Innovation and Productivity - Empirical Evidence from Italy's Slowdown
18. THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
19. Stakeholder Activism, Managerial Entrenchment, and the Congruence of Interests between Shareholders and Stakeholders
20. The Interest Rate-Exchange Rate Link in the Mexican Float