others). But it may be interesting for those imbued with ‘isms’ at least to understand
my point of view.
Research design in social science: the forgotten element?
Research design in the social sciences, as elsewhere, is a way of organising a
research project or programme from inception in order to maximise the likelihood of
generating evidence that provides a warranted answer to the research questions for a
given level of resource. The emphasis is less on how to conduct a type of research
than on which type is appropriate in the circumstances (Hakim, 2000). In the same
way that research questions can evolve as a project unfolds, so can its design(s). The
structure of a standard design is not intended to be restrictive, since designs can be
easily used in combination; nor is it assumed that any off-the-shelf existing design is
always or ever appropriate. Instead, consideration of design at the outset is intended
to stimulate early awareness of the pitfalls and opportunities that will present
themselves, and through knowledge of prior designs to simplify subsequent analysis,
and so aid warranted conclusions.
There are many elements to consider in a research design, but they commonly
include the treatment or programme to be evaluated (if there is one), the data
collected, the groups and sub-groups of interest, the allocation of cases to groups or
to treatments (where appropriate), and what happens over time (unless the study is a
snapshot). Any design or project may have only some of these elements. Perhaps the
most common type of design in social science involves no treatment, no allocation to
groups, and no consideration of time. It is cross-sectional with one or more pre-
existing groups. It is also often described as ‘qualitative’ in the sense that no
measurements are used, and the data are often based on interviews. It is this design
that makes it hardest to warrant any claims, since there is usually no comparison
between groups or over time or place. But actually this design does not entail any
specific kind of data, any more than any other design. In fact, nothing about
consideration of treatments, data collection, groups, allocation and time entails a
specific kind of evidence. Most designs seem to me to be an encouragement to use a
variety of data. Standard designs can be classified in a number of ways, such as