UNIT 3

SURVEY:
The survey is the most widely used social science data gathering technique. Survey
questions are measures of variables and all the respondents are to answer the same
questions. Despite their wide use and popularity, without care a survey can easily yield
misleading results but with serious efforts and thought survey can provide us with accurate,
reliable, and valid data. Survey research is often called correlational. This is because survey
research has control variables.
Conducting a survey involves several key steps.
Initially, researchers conceptualize their variables and translate them into survey questions,
ensuring clarity and completeness. The development of the questionnaire follows, where
questions are crafted, revised, and organized based on research goals and respondent
characteristics. Pilot testing with a small sample group helps refine questions and ensures
clarity. During data collection, sampled respondents are approached either in person, by
phone, mail, or online, and provided with necessary instructions for completing the
questionnaire. Accurate recording of responses is vital, followed by meticulous organization
of collected data, assigning identification numbers to respondents for tracking purposes, and
transferring data into electronic formats for analysis. Surveys vary in complexity, ranging
from simple, small-scale endeavours to large-scale national surveys, each demanding
meticulous record-keeping and organizational skills to manage respondents, questionnaires,
and data effectively. Regardless of scale, precise planning, execution, and data management
are imperative for reliable results.

Constructing a questionnaire involves adhering to several principles of good question

writing. The questionnaire should seamlessly integrate its questions to form a coherent
whole, incorporating introductory statements and instructions for clarity and reducing
errors. Effective survey questions follow three key principles: clarity, simplicity, and
consideration of the respondent's perspective. Such questions provide valid and reliable
measures of variables while ensuring respondents understand the queries and feel their
answers are meaningful. It's crucial to avoid writing questions that don't align with the
respondent's viewpoint or create confusion, as this can compromise the validity and
reliability of the data. However, a dilemma arises regarding question wording - while
identical questions ensure uniformity in responses, diverse backgrounds among respondents
might necessitate tailored wording, hindering data pooling and comparability. Question
writing demands skill and creativity, focusing on avoiding common errors such as jargon,
ambiguity, emotional language, leading questions, and double-barreled inquiries. Language
should be neutral, avoiding emotional biases or associations with prestigious entities that
might sway responses. Questions should focus on concrete, current experiences rather than
hypothetical or distant future scenarios to yield reliable data. Additionally, response
categories should be clear, exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and balanced to prevent
confusion or overlapping choices. Creating effective survey questions involves finesse,
demanding precision and thoughtful consideration to gather accurate and meaningful data.
Avoiding Jargon and Ambiguity: Steer clear of technical terms or ambiguous wording,
ensuring questions are universally understandable.
Neutral Language and Prestige Bias: Use neutral language devoid of emotional connotations
or associations with prestigious groups.
Avoid Double-Barreled Questions: Keep each question focused on a single topic to prevent
ambiguity in responses.
Distinguish Beliefs from Reality: Differentiate between respondents' beliefs and empirical
measurements to ensure accurate data.
Steer Clear of Leading Questions: Craft questions that don't guide respondents toward
specific answers, allowing for varied responses.
Consider Respondents' Capabilities: Frame questions based on respondents' knowledge or
experiences, avoiding inquiries beyond their scope.
Avoid False Premises: Don't assume agreement with a premise before presenting choices,
reducing respondent frustration.
Questioning Distant Future Intentions: Focus on current or recent attitudes and behaviors
rather than hypothetical or distant future scenarios.

Eliminate Double Negatives: Formulate questions without confusing double negatives to

ensure clarity in responses.

Balanced Response Categories: Create mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and balanced

response choices to prevent overlap or imbalance in options.

Constructing effective survey questions involves meticulous attention to wording, ensuring

clarity, relevance, and meaningfulness across diverse respondent backgrounds and
perspectives.
The respondent recall and honesty are crucial factors in survey research, demanding
thoughtful consideration and strategic planning in questionnaire design. Regarding recall,
respondents' ability to accurately remember past events is limited by factors like time,
significance, and question structure. This limitation underscores the need for tailored
questions, instructions, and aids to enhance recall accuracy. Techniques like telescoping
reduction and special question phrasing can mitigate memory errors. Honest responses in
sensitive topics, however, pose another challenge due to ego protection and social
desirability biases. To foster honesty, researchers employ diverse approaches such as
creating comfort, enhancing question phrasing, contextualizing, and ensuring anonymity in
questioning methods. Technological advancements offer semi-anonymous techniques like
computer-based interviews, improving respondents' perception of privacy. Still, strategies
like the randomized response technique (RRT) introduce statistical complexities but enhance
accuracy. However, addressing social desirability bias requires nuanced question framing to
provide face-saving alternatives and normalize sensitive behaviors. Moreover, ensuring
knowledge-based questions yield valid insights demands careful phrasing and employing
pilot tests to gauge respondents' understanding without inducing false information. Finally,
employing contingency questions helps tailor survey inquiries based on respondents'
relevance to ensure precise and efficient data collection. Overall, handling respondent recall
and ensuring honesty in sensitive topics involve multifaceted strategies aimed at enhancing
accuracy while respecting respondents' privacy and cognitive limitations.

in surveys, there are two kinds of questions: open-ended and closed-ended. Open ones let
people answer freely, which is great for different ideas but takes more time to understand.
Closed ones give set options, making things quick but might miss deeper thoughts. Using
both can be helpful. Closed ones are practical, but only using them might miss some cool
ideas. Open ones are good at the start for getting lots of thoughts. Mix them to get the best
of both! There's also something called partially open questions, which give set choices and a
space for other ideas too.

TYPES OF SURVEYS:
Surveys come in various flavours, each with its own perks and pitfalls.

Mail and Self-Administered Questionnaires: Sending out questionnaires allows people to

answer at their leisure, covering a wide geographic area at a low cost. However, getting
people to respond can be tough, leading to low returns. Plus, there's no control over where
or when people fill them out, and certain types of questions aren't feasible.
Telephone Interviews: With almost everyone having a phone, these surveys can reach a lot of
people fast. They're more efficient with computer tech and allow for controlled questioning.
But not everyone answers, and the questions you can ask are somewhat limited. Plus, you
miss out on visual cues.
Face-to-Face Interviews: These have the best response rates and allow for thorough surveys
with visual aids. Yet, they're costly due to training and travel. There's also a higher risk of
interviewer bias, impacting responses.
Web Surveys: Quick, cheap, and flexible, these surveys adapt well to different media and
designs. But not everyone has internet access, there are concerns about privacy, and
designing them can be complex.
Each type has its time and place depending on the target audience, information needed, and
resources available.

ETHICAL ISSUES

Survey research has its ethical concerns that impact how surveys are conducted. Privacy
invasion is a big one. People have a right to their privacy, and when surveys ask about
personal beliefs or private actions, it can make folks uncomfortable. People are more likely
to share such information when they feel respected, trust the survey's purpose, and know
their answers stay confidential.
Another issue is voluntary participation. People should willingly agree to be part of a survey,
and their consent matters. They should feel comfortable answering questions, knowing they
can refuse to participate anytime.
Misleading surveys are also a problem. Some surveys might pretend +-to gather information
but actually aim to push someone into doing something. For instance, during elections,
some fake surveys aimed to change people's minds about candidates rather than genuinely
learning their opinions.
There's also a concern about surveys being misused or poorly designed, leading to incorrect
conclusions or decisions. Sometimes, the media reports survey results without explaining
how the survey were conducted or who did it, leading to confusion and mistrust in surveys.
Overall, conducting surveys ethically means respecting people's privacy, getting their
consent, ensuring surveys are honest, and reporting survey results accurately.

INTERVIEWS
An interview is a structured conversation between two or more individuals conducted for
various purposes, including gathering information, assessing qualifications, understanding
experiences, or exchanging ideas. It involves one person, often referred to as the
interviewer, asking questions or discussing specific topics while another person, the
interviewee, responds or provides information. Interviews can range from formal settings,
such as job interviews or research inquiries, to casual conversations aimed at exchanging
information or opinions. The format, purpose, and style of interviews can vary widely based
on the context and objectives. There are two types of interviews in psychological research:
qualitative and structured.

Qualitative interviews serve as a cornerstone in research methodologies, offering an

intricate and detailed approach to understanding human experiences and perceptions.
Unlike structured interviews that follow a set list of questions, qualitative interviews thrive
on open-ended discussions, aiming to capture rich narratives and insights from participants.
The process involves a facilitative role for the interviewer, fostering an environment that
encourages participants to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences openly. These
interviews are characterized by their flexibility, depth, and emphasis on context, allowing
researchers to explore the nuances behind behaviors, beliefs, and emotions.
Preparation is crucial, although the format isn't strictly scripted. Researchers devise an
interview guide with open-ended questions to guide the conversation, creating a framework
while allowing for organic exploration. The interviewer's skills in active listening, empathy,
and steering the dialogue play a pivotal role in eliciting comprehensive responses from
participants. The resulting data is qualitative, often comprising detailed transcripts, notes, or
recordings that offer narrative-rich insights.
Analysis of qualitative interview data involves techniques like thematic or content analysis,
aiming to extract recurring themes and patterns within the collected information. These
interviews find wide application in diverse fields such as social sciences, psychology,
anthropology, and more, where a deep understanding of human perspectives and behaviors
is sought. Overall, qualitative interviews provide a unique and invaluable approach to
explore and comprehend the intricate tapestry of human experiences and viewpoints.

Structured interviews in research involve a systematic approach where interviewers ask a

predetermined set of standardized questions to participants. These interviews are
meticulously organized, employing a fixed script of questions that remains consistent across
all participants. The questions are designed beforehand and follow a rigid format, minimizing
deviations from the established sequence. This method is particularly useful in quantitative
research settings, aiming to gather specific, quantifiable data that can be easily analyzed
statistically.
The strength of structured interviews lies in their reliability and consistency. Standardization
ensures that all participants are asked the same questions in the same order, reducing
variability in responses and enhancing the reliability of collected data. Moreover, structured
interviews offer ease in analysis, as the responses are structured and amenable to statistical
processing. They are efficient, enabling researchers to conduct interviews with multiple
participants within a short time frame.
Preparation for structured interviews involves careful development of the question set,
often subjected to pretesting for clarity and relevance. During the interviews, adherence to
the predetermined questions is crucial to maintain uniformity and consistency across all
interactions. Structured interviews find extensive use in quantitative studies and survey
questionnaires, providing a reliable means to gather specific data efficiently.
However, these interviews have limitations. Their structured nature limits the depth of
information collected, as they might not capture nuanced or in-depth responses from
participants. Additionally, the fixed question format might restrict participants, potentially
leading to response bias or limited expression of their true thoughts and experiences.
Structured interviews offer a systematic and reliable approach to collecting specific
information, making them valuable in research settings that require standardized data
collection and statistical analysis. Nonetheless, they might not be as effective in eliciting the
rich qualitative data often obtained through more open-ended approaches.

FOCUS GROUP
Focus groups are a qualitative research method characterized by structured discussions led
by a moderator among a small group of participants, typically ranging from six to ten
individuals. These discussions are orchestrated to explore specific topics or issues defined by
the researcher. Unlike standard interviews, focus groups harness the dynamics of group
interaction, fostering a setting where participants can exchange ideas, opinions, and
experiences related to the research topic.

Key features distinguish focus groups from other research methods. The discussion is
coordinated by a moderator rather than a traditional interviewer, aiming to facilitate
conversation among participants. Unlike one-on-one interviews, focus groups emphasize
collective dialogue, where group members interact, share insights, and respond to the
moderator's questions or prompts.
The primary objective of focus groups is to leverage group dynamics to generate insights and
perspectives that might not emerge in individual interviews. The dynamic interactions within
the group often lead to a richer understanding of the topic under study. Careful planning is
crucial in forming focus groups; participants are selected based on similarity in status or
shared characteristics, fostering an environment where participants feel comfortable
expressing their views.
Focus groups serve multiple purposes in research. They can serve as an initial stage to
explore and identify key issues, generate in-depth conversational data for independent
analysis, or even validate and evaluate research findings through discussions among the
participants directly involved in the study.

The role of the moderator, often referred to as a facilitator, is pivotal in guiding the
discussion while allowing for spontaneity and unexpected insights. The moderator ensures
that the discussion covers planned topics but also encourages the emergence of new
perspectives. They facilitate the group process, intervening only when necessary to redirect
the conversation or stimulate further discussion.
While focus groups offer unique advantages in qualitative research, they differ significantly
from standard interviews and should not be seen as interchangeable. They do not aim for
representative sampling like surveys and adopt distinct participant selection and recruitment
approaches. Focus groups require an understanding of their specific methodology and are
not merely a cheaper alternative to other research methods; they provide a distinct means
of exploring complex topics through group dynamics and interaction.
Calder (1977) outlines three key approaches to using focus groups:

Exploratory Approach: This method revolves around gathering information and insights
within a relatively unexplored field. It's a methodological journey into new territories of
research, seeking foundational knowledge and novel ideas. By probing into areas that lack
extensive investigation, this approach aims to unearth fundamental understandings and
potentially groundbreaking concepts.
Clinical Perspective: In this context, focus groups are utilized to comprehend the motivations
and rationales underlying people's behaviors. Accessible to trained analysts or experts, these
groups aim to uncover the reasoning behind individuals' actions. By employing focus groups
from a clinical standpoint, researchers seek to dive deeper into the psychological and
behavioral aspects that drive human conduct.
Phenomenological Angle: Researchers using focus groups from a phenomenological stance
endeavor to capture diverse viewpoints prevalent within various societal groups. This
approach is geared toward comprehending how different groups perceive specific matters or
topics. By examining these perceptions, researchers aim to unravel the nuances and
variations in perspectives that exist among different social cohorts or demographics.

These distinct approaches to utilizing focus groups highlight their versatility as a qualitative
research tool, allowing researchers to explore, dissect, and understand a wide array of
subjects, behaviors, and societal perspectives. Each approach caters to specific research
objectives, providing a comprehensive methodological framework for investigation and
analysis.
The process of conducting focus groups involves several crucial steps:

Planning the Study: Defining the research problem, understanding the study's purpose, and
specifying the information to be gathered. This phase requires clarity on who needs the
information and how it will be utilized.

Optimizing Group Participants: Selecting participants based on characteristics that would

yield relevant and rich data. Purposive sampling is used to maximize data quality rather than
convenience sampling.

Maximizing Group Structures: Ensuring a balanced interaction among group members is

crucial. Dominance by a few individuals can hinder the group's purpose, so creating a
conducive environment where all members contribute equally is essential.
Planning the Number of Groups: While three or four groups per category studied could be a
rule of thumb, the saturation criterion is also considered. This approach collects data until
no new insights emerge.
Designing Questions: Focus groups require fewer questions compared to structured
interviews. The need for many questions may signal a lack of engagement or flawed
questions.
Moderator's Role: The moderator plays a significant role in guiding the discussion, posing
clear questions, ensuring everyone's participation, recording the session, and preventing
drifts from the focus topic.
When to Use Focus Groups: Focus groups are valuable for capturing opinions, beliefs,
experiences, and group responses that are challenging to obtain through other methods like
interviews or observations. They are particularly adept at revealing group priorities, feelings,
attitudes, and understandings regarding specific topics.

In essence, focus groups serve as a powerful tool to explore uncharted areas, understand
behavior and viewpoints, and gain nuanced insights that might not surface through
conventional research methods. They are adept at uncovering group dynamics and shared
perceptions on various subjects, shedding light on attitudes and beliefs within different
societal groups.

CASE STUDY

A case study involves a thorough exploration of a specific case, considering its unique
attributes, context, temporal aspects, and contributions to theory development or testing.
The essence of a case study lies in its focus on a specific, singular entity or occurrence for in-
depth exploration. It's not defined by the methods used for data collection and analysis but
by its emphasis on the unit of analysis, termed as the 'case.' This 'case' could encompass
various entities such as organizations, communities, individuals, or even events.

Key features of case study research include:

Idiographic perspective: Researchers concentrate on the particular rather than the general,
aiming to understand the unique characteristics of an individual case.
Attention to context: Case studies consider the holistic context in which the case exists,
examining how various dimensions interact with the environment.
Triangulation: Integration of information from diverse sources to comprehensively
understand the phenomenon under investigation, utilizing multiple data collection and
analysis techniques.
Temporal element: Investigation of occurrences over time, focusing on processes, change,
and development within the case.
Concern with theory: Case studies contribute to theory generation by offering insights into
social or psychological processes, potentially leading to the development or refinement of
theories. They can also test or clarify existing theories by examining deviant or extreme
cases.

Case study research encompasses various designs that cater to different research goals and
approaches. Here are the different types of designs for case study research:

Intrinsic versus Instrumental Case Studies

Intrinsic Case Studies: These focus on cases that are interesting in themselves, chosen for
their uniqueness or intrinsic value. The researcher's interest lies specifically in understanding
these individual cases, such as patients with rare diseases or clients with unique problems.
Instrumental Case Studies: Here, cases are selected as representatives of a broader
phenomenon of interest. They serve as examples allowing the researcher to study a
particular phenomenon within the context of these cases. For instance, studying
bereavement, fame, or recovery from illness by analyzing individuals experiencing these
phenomena.

Single versus Multiple Case Studies

Single-Case Studies: Often chosen for specific reasons, such as being critical for testing a
theory, representing a unique case of intrinsic interest, or being previously inaccessible but
now available for study. Single cases help test theories against real-world data or provide
insights due to their uniqueness.
Multiple-Case Studies: Involves the comparison of several cases to generate new theories.
The process begins with the formulation of hypotheses based on the analysis of the initial
case and then refining these hypotheses as subsequent cases are studied. This iterative
process helps in theory development.

Descriptive versus Explanatory Case Studies

Descriptive Case Studies: Focus on providing detailed descriptions of the phenomenon

within its context. These studies aim to generate new insights and a deeper understanding
of the phenomenon by offering rich, detailed descriptions.
Explanatory Case Studies: Aim to explain occurrences by deploying explanatory concepts
alongside descriptions. They go beyond mere narration or description, aiming to provide
explanations for the events or phenomena studied.

Naturalist versus Pragmatic Case Studies

Naturalist Case Studies: Conducted in real-world contexts without predefined hypotheses.
The researcher approaches the case with an open mind, allowing patterns and propositions
to emerge from the data.
Pragmatic Case Studies: Begin with well-defined research questions that guide data
collection and analysis. They work with propositions or hypotheses, testing and revising
them during the research process. Data sources and analysis techniques are driven by these
research questions and propositions.

Each type of case study design serves distinct purposes, from exploring intrinsic cases to
testing theories, generating explanations, or working with predefined hypotheses in real-
world contexts. The choice of design depends on the research objectives and the nature of
the phenomenon under investigation.

Addressing procedural issues in case study research involves careful consideration of several
key aspects:
Selection of Cases

Object of Study vs. Case: Distinguishing between the phenomenon of interest (object of
study) and its concrete manifestation (the case) is crucial. Selecting a case that helps
understand the object of study better is essential, whether intrinsic (intrinsically interesting)
or instrumental (representative of a general phenomenon).
Establishing Boundaries: Defining the boundaries of a case study is challenging as cases exist
within contexts. Identifying terms of reference helps clarify what aspects of the case are of
interest and need exploration.
Selection of Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
Aligning with Research Questions: Methods should match the research questions. For
instance, exploring an individual's experience may involve interviews and diaries, while
understanding an educational trajectory may require document analysis and interviews with
relevant individuals.
Triangulation: Case studies benefit from triangulation, using multiple methods to capture
the complexity of contextual and temporal dimensions.
The Role of Theory
In Initial Design: Case study designs embody a 'theory' of what is being studied, directing
attention to relevant concepts and guiding the selection of methods.
Theory Development: Case studies can test existing theories or lead to new theory
generation. They contribute to knowledge advancement through falsification or conceptual
refinement.
Writing Up
Format and Structure: There's no standard format for presenting case studies. Reports
should include participant information, methodological details, findings, implications,
purpose, and terms of reference. They can't capture a complete picture but provide a partial
understanding.
Balancing Description and Explanation: Debates exist about emphasizing detailed
description or introducing explanatory concepts in case study reports. Clarity between
description and interpretation is vital.
Ethical Considerations
Confidentiality and Anonymity: Protecting participants' identities is crucial, especially when
details might lead to identification. Alterations to prevent identification while maintaining
the essence of the case are necessary.
Involving Participants: Some researchers involve participants in discussions about emerging
interpretations, maintaining transparency and respecting their privacy.
Case study research demands meticulous planning, considering various facets from case
selection to ethical considerations. It's about maintaining rigor while exploring the intricacies
of individual experiences within contexts.
Case study research, while versatile and adaptable to various investigative goals, encounters
challenges that impact its clarity and boundaries. The classification of related studies as
proper case study research versus studies addressing similar questions remains ambiguous.
For instance, approaches like discourse or conversation analysis might resemble multiple-
case studies, yet practitioners in these fields may not identify as case study researchers.
Consequently, defining the scope of case study research becomes complex, muddling
distinctions between related methodologies.
Epistemological challenges within case study research encompass issues like triangulation
and generalizability. While triangulation offers a comprehensive view by merging diverse
analytical methods, it might overlook context-specific elements crucial for interpreting data.
Moreover, mismatched epistemological approaches within triangulation methods can hinder
meaningful insights. Generalizability in case studies poses another debate; while intrinsic
cases emphasize uniqueness, instrumental designs aim for broader applicability. However,
extrapolating findings from limited cases to broader contexts requires caution, blurring the
line between the local and the global.
Ethical quandaries arise due to the deep involvement of participants in case study research.
Participants often delve into personal experiences, possibly triggering unintended emotional
responses or uncovering conflicting beliefs. Researchers must navigate responsibly,
acknowledging potential impacts on participants and offering support when necessary.
Interactive case studies, involving participant feedback in analysis, can inadvertently
compromise objectivity, potentially leading to biased validation or acquiescence.

Reflecting on the epistemological foundations of case study research reveals its orientation
toward realist perspectives, seeking to understand complex human situations. The
assumption of access to participants' experiences through their accounts underpins
methods like grounded theory and interpretative phenomenology. Case study research leans
toward an idiographic approach, focusing on the particular rather than the general,
embracing the complexity and uniqueness of each case within its contextual entirety.
Researchers play the role of meticulous observers and reporters, aiming to offer accurate
and detailed depictions while maintaining objectivity.
In essence, the intricate nature of case study research poses challenges that span
methodological, epistemological, and ethical domains, demanding rigorous attention and
ethical consideration from researchers embarking on such investigations.

SECONDARY DATA
Secondary data, collected for purposes other than the researcher's specific study, offers a
rich resource for investigations. Researchers leverage preexisting data from various sources
like government agencies, archives, or databases for new inquiries, validation, or
comparative analyses. While commonly used in quantitative research, its integration into
qualitative methodologies emerged more recently, driven by technological advancements,
interdisciplinary demands, and calls for larger-scale projects.

Employing secondary data presents clear advantages, including time and cost savings, and
reduced intrusion into participants' lives. It maximizes societal benefits by utilizing data from
one study across multiple research projects. However, ethical and methodological challenges
abound. The primary concern revolves around respecting individuals' autonomy who
originally provided the data, raising issues of consent, privacy, and potential harm.
Ethically, using secondary data necessitates considerations about participants' consent and
privacy, especially when the data could reveal sensitive or identifiable information. Privacy
laws and ethics boards evaluate risks, consent expectations, and societal benefits against
potential harms to participants. Researchers collecting data should anticipate potential
secondary uses and seek consent during the initial data collection phase to uphold ethical
standards.
Methodologically, qualitative researchers face challenges concerning their limited
connection to the original context and participants. Lack of direct involvement might
compromise understanding nuances and sensitive aspects of the data. Researchers who
were not part of the original study might lack insight into participants' sensitive information,
risking inadvertent disclosure.
Secondary participants, individuals indirectly involved in research through information
provided by primary participants, introduce ethical considerations. Ethical guidelines vary
globally, requiring researchers to adhere to specific regulations regarding consent and
privacy rights for secondary participants. Identifying potential secondary participants and
their consent becomes essential, especially when handling private or sensitive information.
Mitigating these ethical concerns involves cautious handling of identifiable or sensitive data
and obtaining consent whenever necessary. Researchers can adopt strategies like avoiding
direct inquiries about individuals or ensuring potential participants are informed about the
study before their involvement.

In essence, while secondary data offers a wealth of opportunities for research, navigating
the ethical and methodological challenges demands careful consideration and adherence to
ethical guidelines to protect the rights and privacy of all involved individuals.

OBSERVATION
Observation, a foundational method in social science research, unveils captivating insights
into human behavior. In recent times, the intriguing conduct of individuals using cell phones
has caught the attention of researchers. Upon connecting, their voice volume, discourse, and
non-verbal cues adapt to their virtual conversation, often diverging in appropriateness from
their physical surroundings. Patterns emerge – speaking too loudly, divulging personal
details, or disclosing their location become common occurrences. These observations, while
novel, highlight how certain behaviors stand out when observed systematically.
At its core, observation involves immersing oneself in a setting and documenting
impressions. It relies on sensory input—sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch—to capture a
situation's essence. However, human behavior, whether individual or collective, presents a
challenge due to its intricate nature. A researcher can't comprehensively document every
impression amid the complexity. Furthermore, subjectivity comes into play as the researcher
interprets observed behaviors and attempts to make sense of the gathered data. The act of
recording observations inevitably becomes selective, influenced either by real-time
impressions or by preconceived notions guiding what to observe and record.

The observer's role is vital, consciously selecting elements to study while interpreting the
observed behaviors and events. This subjectivity shapes the recorded observations,
reflecting choices made during or before the observation to impose some structure on the
collected data. In essence, observation offers a lens into human behavior, but its
effectiveness relies on the observer's sensitivity, interpretative skills, and strategic focus on
the elements deemed significant within the complexity of social interactions.
Observation as a method in social science research unveils different ways of perceiving the
world, largely dictated by the underlying ontological assumptions of the researcher. Each
approach leads to distinct observations and methodological considerations.

Positivist Approach: This viewpoint asserts that the world exists externally to the observer.
Researchers using this lens aim for accurate observations with reduced bias. They structure
observations systematically, categorizing data for quantitative analysis. For instance, studies
on teacher-student interactions, such as measuring the time teachers pause after asking
questions in classrooms, exemplify this method.
Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Here, behaviors are seen as constructed through
interactions. Observers look for and identify patterns in behavior. They focus on recording
detailed verbal and non-verbal actions to decipher interactional patterns. For instance,
observing teacher-student interactions to understand the mutual performance in
classrooms.
Ethnographic Approach: Embracing immersion and open-ended observation, ethnographers
aim to interpret cultural meanings inherent in behaviors. They observe in a participatory
manner, noting minute details guided by overarching categories like culture, gender, or social
class. The analysis aims at drawing meaning from complexity to interpret cultures deeply.
Deconstructionist Approach: Researchers operating from this standpoint challenge obvious
interpretations. They aim to uncover underlying layers of meaning and question established
interpretations. This approach seeks to reveal deeper meanings embedded within observed
behaviors.

Regarding observational methods:

Structured Observation: Involves predefined schedules categorizing observed behaviors,

such as Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). It provides replicable observations
but can be biased and selective.

Unstructured Observation: Researchers make detailed notes based on their unique lens and
prior knowledge. This holistic approach is guided by personal socio-cultural values and
allows capturing nuanced details.

Shadow Studies: Researchers track individuals' experiences either with or without prior
agreement to understand their experiences or behaviors.

Participant Observation: Involves researchers participating in the activities of the observed

group. It offers unique insights but may pose challenges in maintaining focus and note-
taking.
Each observational method has its advantages and limitations, ultimately shaping what the
observer 'sees' and how observations are interpreted within the research framework.

Observation in research invariably influences those being observed, potentially leading to

tension or a sense of being inspected. To mitigate negative impacts, it's vital to clarify the
observation's purpose, data usage, and access before commencing. The observer's attire
should blend into the context, signaling equality of status with the observed individuals.
When employing technology to record observations, it's crucial to recognize that neither
audio nor video recordings substitute for field notes. The researcher's sensitivity to nuances
and interpretations is irreplaceable, necessitating a supplemental record through
technology.
For effective tape-recording, a good microphone is key. Choosing the microphone placement
significantly influences what is recorded clearly. Transcribing the tape recordings, whether in
full or selected passages, is time-consuming but yields valuable data.
Digital video offers advantages over traditional recording due to quicker editing and the
ability to select individual frames. However, researchers must balance continuous recording
with reducing the impact on participants. Preparation for analysis includes transcribing talk
and organizing visual images.
Digital still images, captured systematically with a small digital camera, provide another
observational avenue. Careful planning is crucial, differentiating between taking social
pictures and using images as research data.
In research design, the chosen methodological framework profoundly shapes the
observation process and data analysis. The researcher's understanding of ontology (being in
the world) and epistemology (nature of knowledge) fundamentally influences these aspects.
Preparation is key: structured observations require precise scheduling, while unstructured
observations necessitate establishing suitable participant relationships and appearances.
Observation involves interpreting activities from firsthand experience rather than relying
solely on participants' accounts. This mismatch between intentions and effects, observed
versus reported behavior, underscores ethical considerations. Seeking informed consent and
negotiating data ownership and usage codes beforehand are vital steps in addressing these
ethical concerns.
 UNIT 1
WHAT IS PARADIGM:
Thomas Kuhn an American philosopher first used the word paradigm to mean a
philosophical way of thinking. The word has its aetiology in Greek where it means pattern. In
educational research the term paradigm is used to describe a researcher’s ‘worldview’, This
worldview is the perspective, thinking, school of thought, set of shared beliefs, that informs
the meaning or interpretation of research data.
Lather (1986) explains, a research paradigm inherently reflects the researcher’s beliefs about
the world that s/he lives in and wants to live in. It constitutes the abstract beliefs and
principles that shape how a researcher sees the world, and how s/he interprets and acts
within that world. It is the lens through which a researcher looks at the world. It is the
conceptual lens through which the researcher examines the methodological aspects of their
research project to determine the research methods that will be used and how the data will
be analysed.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) define a paradigm as a basic set of beliefs or worldview that guides
research action or an investigation. A paradigm is a way of looking at the world. It is
composed of certain philosophical assumptions that guide and direct thinking and action.

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a paradigm comprises four elements, namely,
epistemology, ontology, methodology and axiology. They hold the basic assumptions, beliefs,
norms and values that each paradigm holds.

EPISTEMOLOGY:
Epistemology has its aetiology in Greek where the word episteme, means knowledge. In
research, epistemology is used to describe how we come to know something; how we know
the truth or reality; or as Cooksey and McDonald (2011) put it, what counts as knowledge
within the world. It is concerned with the very bases of knowledge – its nature, and forms
and how it can be acquired, and how it can be communicated to other human beings. It
focuses on the nature of human knowledge and comprehension that the researcher or
knower, can possibly acquire so as to be able to extend, broaden and deepen understanding
in the field of research.
Schwandt (1997) defines it as the study of the nature of knowledge and justification. in
considering the epistemology of your research, you ask questions like: Is knowledge
something which can be acquired on the one hand, or, is it something which has to be
personally experienced? What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the
knower and the would-be known? What is the relationship between me, as the inquirer, and
what is known? These questions are important because they help the researcher to position
themselves in the research context.
ONTOLOGY:
Ontology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the assumptions we make in order to
believe that something makes sense or is real, or the very nature or essence of the social
phenomenon we are investigating. It is the philosophical study of the nature of existence or
reality, of being or becoming, as well as the basic categories of things that exist and their
relations. It examines your underlying belief system as the researcher, about the nature of
being and existence. It is concerned with the assumptions we make in order to believe that
something makes sense or is real, or the very nature or essence of the social phenomenon
we are investigating. It helps you to conceptualise the form and nature of reality and what
you believe can be known about that reality. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of
reality are crucial to understanding how you make meaning of the data you gather.
Ontology is so essential to a paradigm because it helps to provide an understanding of the
things that constitute the world, as it is known. It seeks to determine the real nature, or the
foundational concepts which constitute themes that we analyse to make sense of the
meaning embedded in research data. It makes you ask questions such as: Is there reality out
there in the social world or is it a construction, created by one’s own mind?

METHODOLOGY:
Methodology is the broad term used to refer to the research design, methods, approaches
and procedures used in an investigation that is well planned to find out something (Keeves,
1997). For example, data gathering, participants, instruments used, and data analysis, are all
parts of the broad field of methodology. In sum, the methodology articulates the logic and
flow of the systematic processes followed in conducting a research project, so as to gain
knowledge about a research problem.

AXIOLOGY:
Axiology refers to the ethical issues that need to be considered when planning a research
proposal. It considers the philosophical approach to making decisions of value or the right
decisions (Finnis, 1980). It involves defining, evaluating and understanding concepts of right
and wrong behaviour relating to the research. It considers what value we shall attribute to
the different aspects of our research, the participants, the data and the audience to which
we shall report the results of our research. Put simply, it addresses the question: What is the
nature of ethics or ethical behaviour? In answer to this question, it is important to consider
your regard for human values of everyone that will be involved with or participate in your
research project.

Guba and Lincoln (2005) identify four basic belief systems characterized by the following
questions that help define a paradigm:
1. The axiological question asks, "What is the nature of ethics?
2. The ontological question asks, "What is the nature of reality?"
3. The epistemological question asks, "What is the nature of knowledge and the relationship
between the knower and the would-be known?"
4. The methodological question asks, "How can the knower go about obtaining the desired
knowledge and understandings?"

Answers to these questions are best guided by four criteria of ethical conduct namely,
teleology, deontology, morality and fairness. Technically, teleology is the theory of morality
which postulates that doing what is intrinsically good or desirable, is a moral obligation that
should be pursued in every human endeavour. And so, teleology refers to attempts made in
research to make sure that the research results in a meaningful outcome that will satisfy as
many people as possible. Deontology is the understanding that every action that will be
undertaken during the research will have its own consequence, intended to benefit
participant, the researcher, the scholastic community or the public at large. It also allows for
flexibility to deal with individual participants or observations. The morality criterion refers to
the intrinsic moral values that will be upheld during the research. For example, that the
researcher will be truthful in their interpretation of the data. Finally, the criterion of fairness
draws the researcher’s attention to the need to be fair to all research participants and to
ensure that their rights are upheld.
Implementation of ethical considerations focuses on four principles which you need to
uphold when dealing with your participants and data. These principles have the acronym
PAPA namely: Privacy, Accuracy, Property, and Accessibility.

POSITIVIST PARADIGM:

the Positivist paradigm defines a worldview to research, which is grounded in what is known
in research methods as the scientific method of investigation. It was first proposed by a
French philosopher named Auguste Comte. According to Comte, the scientific method
involves experimentation, observation, and reasoning grounded in empirical experiences to
expand knowledge and comprehension.
In the purest form, the scientific method is a systematic process of experimentation used to
explore observations, address queries, and investigate cause-and-effect relationships in the
natural world. This approach is favoured in research as it endeavours to interpret
observations based on measurable facts or entities. Studies rooted in this paradigm rely on
deductive reasoning, hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, operational definitions,
mathematical equations, calculations, and extrapolations to draw conclusions. The primary
goal is to provide explanations and predictions derived from measurable outcomes. Those
measurable outcomes are undergirded by four assumptions that Cohen, Manion and
Morrison (2000), explain are determinism, empiricism, parsimony and generalizability.
Determinism means that the events we observe are caused by other factors. Therefore, if we
are to understand casual relationships among factors, we need to be able to make
predictions and to control the potential impacts of the explanatory factors on the dependent
factors.
Empiricism means that for us to be able to investigate a research problem, we need to be
able to collect verifiable empirical data, which support the theoretical framework chosen for
your research and enable you to test the hypotheses you formulated.
Parsimony, the Positivist paradigm refers to the researcher’s attempts to explain the
phenomena they study in the most economical way possible.
Finally, the generalizability assumption tells us that the results obtained from a research
project conducted within the Positivist paradigm should be applicable to other situations by
inductive inferences. This means that the positivist researcher should be able to observe
occurrences in the particular phenomenon they have studied, and be able to generalise
about what can be expected elsewhere in the world. Because of these assumptions, the
Positivist paradigm advocates the use of quantitative research methods as the bedrock for
the researcher’s ability to be precise in the description of the parameters and coefficients in
the data that are gathered, analysed and interpreted, so as to understand relationships
embedded in the data analysed.
In terms of the four foundational elements or assumptions of a paradigm, for the Positivist
paradigm, its epistemology is said to be objectivist, its ontology is naive realism, its
methodology is experimental, and its axiology is beneficence.
Epistemology:
The objectivist epistemology holds that human understanding is gained through the
application of reason (Fadhel, 2002). This implies that through research we can acquire
knowledge which increasingly approximates the real nature of what it is that we investigate.
In other words, through research, we can gain knowledge which helps us to become more
objective in understanding the world around us.
Ontology:
The naïve realist ontology assumes the acceptance of the following five beliefs:

• There exists a world of material objects.

• Some statements about these objects can be known to be true by experiencing it
through our senses.
• These objects exist whether they are actually perceived or even when they are not
perceived. These objects of perception are assumed to be largely perception-
independent.
• These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as
having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-
independent.
• By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In
the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified.

Methodology:
The experimental methodology element means that the research will involve manipulation
of one variable to determine whether changes in that variable cause changes in another
variable. The former variable is called the explanatory or predictor variable, and the latter
variable, is called the explained or dependent variable. This methodology can only apply if
we are able to control what happens to the variables or subjects we study. Such control
enables the researcher to test and to accept or reject hypotheses.
Axiology:
The beneficence axiology refers to the requirement that all research should aim at
maximizing good outcomes for the research project, for humanity in general, and for the
research participants (Martens, 2015). It also implies that the research should aim at
avoiding or at least minimizing any risk, harm, or wrong that could occur during the
research.
Research within the Positivist paradigm adheres to specific characteristics outlined by
Neurath (1973) and Fadhel (2002). It operates on the belief that theories are universally
applicable, allowing for law-like generalizations across various contexts. Within this
paradigm, the context is considered less important as the focus remains on discovering
universal truths. Truth or knowledge is perceived as existing externally and waiting to be
uncovered through research endeavors. Moreover, cause-and-effect relationships are seen
as distinct and analytically separable, enabling researchers to identify and understand these
connections. Quantification of results is essential, emphasizing the need for measurable
outcomes. Positivist research also relies on theories to predict and control outcomes,
aligning with the scientific method's principles of hypothesis formulation, testing, and
empirical or analytical approaches. Objectivity in the pursuit of factual knowledge through
observation is paramount, driving the researcher towards establishing comprehensive,
universal theories capable of accounting for human and social behavior. Ultimately,
adherents of this paradigm prioritize the application of the scientific method to uncover,
quantify, and predict universal truths in their research endeavors.

POSTPOSITIVISM:
The dominant paradigms that guided early educational and psychological research were
positivism and its successor postpositivism. Post-positivism emerged as a response to the
limitations of strict positivism, especially concerning the study of human behavior within
social contexts. It acknowledges that the social world, unlike the natural world, poses
challenges to applying certain characteristics like value-free observation, causal
explanations, and absolute truth. This paradigm shift relaxed some positivist assumptions.
Post-positivism accepts that reality is imperfect and truth isn't absolute but probable. It
allows for observations without strict experimentation or hypothesis testing. Unlike
positivism, which believes reality can be fully captured and understood, post-positivism
accepts the limitations of human understanding. It suggests that reality can't be entirely
grasped but can only be approximated. In educational contexts and studies of human
behavior, post-positivism serves as the foundation for research, recognizing the complexities
and uncertainties inherent in social phenomena.
Axiology:

In the realm of post-positivism, ethics and methodology are closely intertwined, with
researchers having a fundamental ethical obligation to conduct what is considered "good"
research. This entails several key aspects, such as intellectual honesty, minimizing personal
biases, meticulous data collection, and accurate reporting. Admitting the limitations of
scientific reliability in empirical studies is also crucial within this paradigm.
Post-positivist researchers are guided by the principles and norms identified in the Belmont
Report by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (1978). The report highlights three ethical principles:
Beneficence: This principle emphasizes maximizing positive outcomes for science, humanity,
and individual research participants while minimizing unnecessary risks or harm.
Respect: It advocates for treating individuals, including those who may not be autonomous,
with respect and courtesy.
Justice: This principle involves ensuring fairness in risk-benefit ratios within research,
ensuring that those undertaking risks are the ones benefiting from the research, and that
procedures are nonexploitative and carefully administered.

Additionally, six norms for ethical scientific research are outlined:

Valid Research Design: Emphasizes the importance of a valid research design to ensure that
the research contributes positively and ethically without being wasteful or harmful.
Researcher Competence: It stresses the researcher's competence to conduct the research
appropriately.
Identifying Consequences: Researchers must identify the consequences of their studies,
respecting privacy, ensuring confidentiality, maximizing benefits, and minimizing risks.
Appropriate Sample Selection: Selection of a suitable and representative sample size that
aligns with the study's objectives and benefits the population of interest.
Voluntary Informed Consent: Participants must provide voluntary, informed, and explicit
consent without coercion or undue inducement.
Compensation for Harm: Researchers are obliged to inform participants about potential
harm and whether compensation will be provided.

Ontology:
Positivists adhere to the belief that a singular reality exists, and it is the responsibility of
researchers to uncover and comprehend this reality, a standpoint often associated with
naive realism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Conversely, post-positivists agree that reality exists but
contend that due to inherent human limitations, complete understanding of this reality is
unattainable, a concept linked with critical realism (Maxwell, 2004). Post-positivists assert
that while researchers cannot fully ascertain this reality, they can apprehend it within a
certain realm of probability. They acknowledge the impossibility of definitively "proving" a
theory; however, they strengthen their assertions by systematically eliminating alternative
explanations. This approach allows researchers to construct a more robust case for their
interpretations and conclusions, acknowledging the limitations of complete understanding
while striving to improve the credibility of their claims through the careful elimination of
alternative explanations.
Epistemology:
In early positivist thinking, researchers and participants were assumed to be independent,
exerting no influence on each other during studies (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Postpositivists,
however, introduced modifications, acknowledging that a researcher's theories, hypotheses,
and background knowledge can significantly impact observations. In this paradigm,
achieving objectivity is crucial, emphasizing that researchers should maintain neutrality to
prevent personal biases or values from affecting their work. This necessitates adhering
rigorously to prescribed procedures to uphold objectivity and minimize the influence of
biases.
Methodology:

Methodology within post-positivism encompasses a balanced approach that integrates

quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data and gain a comprehensive
understanding of phenomena. Rigor is a central focus, emphasizing the importance of
validity and reliability in data collection methods. Post-positivist researchers pay close
attention to the contextual factors shaping human behavior and social phenomena,
incorporating these elements into their research design and interpretation. They use
hypotheses as guides for systematic testing, acknowledging the limitations in definitively
proving theories. Objective and systematic data collection methods, often employing
standardized procedures, aim to minimize biases and subjectivity. Statistical analysis helps
quantify variables and identify patterns within data sets. Post-positivists critically evaluate
their findings, recognizing inherent limitations and biases while reflecting on their own
perspectives, promoting transparency and reflexivity. Their approach involves both
deductive and inductive reasoning, moving from theory to observation and vice versa,
ensuring a well-rounded and thoughtful research process.

[Suhani ke pages]

QUESTIONS
What are the components of a paradigm? Discuss any 2 paradigms in detail.
Thomas Kuhn an American philosopher first used the word paradigm to mean a
philosophical way of thinking. The word has its aetiology in Greek where it means pattern. In
educational research the term paradigm is used to describe a researcher’s ‘worldview’, This
worldview is the perspective, thinking, school of thought, set of shared beliefs, that informs
the meaning or interpretation of research data.
Lather (1986) explains, a research paradigm inherently reflects the researcher’s beliefs about
the world that s/he lives in and wants to live in. It constitutes the abstract beliefs and
principles that shape how a researcher sees the world, and how s/he interprets and acts
within that world. It is the lens through which a researcher looks at the world. It is the
conceptual lens through which the researcher examines the methodological aspects of their
research project to determine the research methods that will be used and how the data will
be analysed.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) define a paradigm as a basic set of beliefs or worldview that guides
research action or an investigation. A paradigm is a way of looking at the world. It is
composed of certain philosophical assumptions that guide and direct thinking and action.
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a paradigm comprises four components, namely,
epistemology, ontology, methodology and axiology. They hold the basic assumptions, beliefs,
norms and values that each paradigm holds.
Components of a Paradigm:
Ontology: Concerned with the nature of reality and existence. It explores questions like:
What is the nature of reality? Is there a single objective reality or multiple subjective
realities?
Epistemology: Focuses on the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. It asks: How do
we know what we know? What is the source of knowledge, and how is it validated?
Axiology: Involves the researcher's values and ethics, shaping the stance on morality, biases,
and subjective influences in research.
Methodology: Refers to the approach or methods employed in research. It includes
quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, along with the rationale for method selection.

The 2 paradigms:

POSITIVIST PARADIGM
the Positivist paradigm defines a worldview to research, which is grounded in what is known
in research methods as the scientific method of investigation. It was first proposed by a
French philosopher named Auguste Comte. According to Comte, the scientific method
involves experimentation, observation, and reasoning grounded in empirical experiences to
expand knowledge and comprehension.
In the purest form, the scientific method is a systematic process of experimentation used to
explore observations, address queries, and investigate cause-and-effect relationships in the
natural world. This approach is favoured in research as it endeavours to interpret
observations based on measurable facts or entities. Studies rooted in this paradigm rely on
deductive reasoning, hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, operational definitions,
mathematical equations, calculations, and extrapolations to draw conclusions. The primary
goal is to provide explanations and predictions derived from measurable outcomes. Those
measurable outcomes are undergirded by four assumptions that Cohen, Manion and
Morrison (2000), explain are determinism, empiricism, parsimony and generalizability.
Ontology: Positivism assumes an objective, singular reality that exists independently of
human perception. It believes in a concrete, observable reality that can be measured and
studied objectively.
Epistemology: Positivism values empirical evidence and scientific methods as the basis for
valid knowledge. It holds that knowledge is obtained through objective observation,
measurement, and verification.
Axiology: Positivism strives for value-neutrality, emphasizing objectivity and detachment
from personal biases or values to ensure scientific rigor.
Methodology: Positivists rely on quantitative methods, emphasizing controlled experiments,
standardized surveys, and statistical analyses to test hypotheses and derive general laws.

CONSTRUCTIVIST PARADIGM
Grew out of philosophy of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology and Diltheys and other
German philosophers’ study of interpretive understanding called Hermeutics, it is the study
of interpretive understanding or meaning.
Constructivist researchers use term hermeneutics as a way to interpret the meaning of
something from a certain standpoint or situation. The basic assumptions guiding the
constructivist paradigm is that knowledge is socially constructed by people active in the
research process and that researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of
lived experience from the point of view of those who live in it. They emphasize that research
is a product of the values of researchers and cannot be independent of them.
Ontology: Constructivism views reality as subjective and socially constructed. It suggests that
reality is shaped by individuals' perceptions, experiences, and interactions, emphasizing the
existence of multiple subjective realities.
Epistemology: Constructivism asserts that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals
based on their experiences, social interactions, and interpretations. It emphasizes
understanding the context and meanings attributed to phenomena.
Axiology: In constructivism, researchers acknowledge their subjectivity and the influence of
their values and beliefs on the research process. It promotes reflexivity and recognizes the
role of values in knowledge construction.

Methodology: Constructivist researchers predominantly employ qualitative methods like

interviews, observations, and discourse analysis. They aim to explore and understand the
subjective interpretations and perspectives of individuals within their social contexts. Rather
than aiming for generalizability, constructivism emphasizes rich descriptions and in-depth
understanding of phenomena within specific contexts.
What is the importance of paradigms? What are the differences between positivist ans
post-positivist paradigms?
Paradigms are crucial in research as they serve as foundational frameworks that shape
researchers' perspectives, guiding their approach to understanding phenomena, conducting
inquiries, and interpreting findings. The importance of paradigms lies in several key aspects:
Guiding Research Approaches: Paradigms offer researchers a lens through which they
perceive the world and guide their research approaches. They dictate the types of questions
asked, methods used, and how data is interpreted.
Defining Knowledge and Reality: Paradigms influence how researchers define and
conceptualize knowledge and reality. They shape beliefs about what is considered valid
knowledge, the nature of reality, and how it can be understood.
Influencing Methodological Choices: Different paradigms advocate for distinct research
methods. They influence whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods are employed
and guide researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies.
Impacting Ethical Considerations: Paradigms influence ethical considerations in research.
They shape researchers' perspectives on values, biases, and their role in the research
process.
Differences between Positivist and Post-Positivist Paradigms:
Ontology:
Positivism: Assumes a singular, objective reality that exists independently of human
perception.
Post-Positivism: Acknowledges reality's existence but recognizes that it can only be
understood imperfectly due to human limitations.

Epistemology:

Positivism: Emphasizes empirical evidence and scientific methods as the basis for valid
knowledge. It believes in objective observation and verification.
Post-Positivism: Values empirical evidence but accepts that knowledge is probabilistic and
influenced by subjectivity. It advocates for rigorous methods while acknowledging the role of
interpretation.

Axiology:
Positivism: Strives for value-neutrality, emphasizing objectivity and detachment from
personal biases or values.
Post-Positivism: Recognizes the influence of values and biases but aims for objectivity by
acknowledging and minimizing their impact.
Methodology:
Positivism: Favors quantitative methods, controlled experiments, and statistical analyses to
test hypotheses and derive general laws.
Post-Positivism: Allows for a broader range of methods, including qualitative approaches. It
values rigorous research but acknowledges the role of interpretation and context in
understanding phenomena.
While both paradigms emphasize empirical evidence, positivism tends to focus on
objectivity, generalizability, and quantitative methods, while post-positivism allows for more
flexibility, acknowledging the limitations of strict objectivity and the subjectivity inherent in
the research process.

Discuss the differences between qualitative and quantitative methods. What is the point of
convergence of the two?
Quantitative research is a systematic approach focused on collecting and analyzing
numerical data to uncover patterns, relationships, and trends within a specific context. Its
core lies in structured methodologies, employing instruments like surveys or standardized
tests to gather data from a sample population. These methods often involve experimental or
observational designs, allowing researchers to manipulate and measure variables,
distinguishing between dependent and independent factors. The collected data undergoes
rigorous statistical analysis, utilizing various tests and software tools to derive conclusions
and test hypotheses. This approach prioritizes objectivity, precision, and statistical rigor,
enabling researchers to generalize findings to larger populations and present them through
numerical representations like tables, graphs, or statistical summaries. While quantitative
research offers empirical insights and enhances the understanding of phenomena across
diverse fields, it may sometimes limit the exploration of contextual nuances and less
quantifiable aspects, emphasizing numerical data over qualitative depth.
Qualitative research is a systematic, exploratory approach that delves into understanding
and interpreting complex phenomena through non-numeric data. This method emphasizes
gathering rich, detailed insights into individuals' experiences, perspectives, and behaviors. It
often involves techniques such as interviews, observations, focus groups, or open-ended
surveys, aiming to capture the depth, context, and meaning behind participants' responses.
Researchers immerse themselves in the data, employing thematic analysis, coding, and
interpretation to identify patterns, themes, or narratives within the collected information.
Unlike quantitative research, qualitative methods prioritize subjective interpretations,
allowing for flexibility and adaptability during data collection and analysis. Findings are often
presented using descriptive language, quotes, or stories to convey the richness and depth of
participants' experiences. While qualitative research provides in-depth understanding,
contextual insights, and the exploration of complex social phenomena, its subjective nature
and potential for researcher bias might pose challenges in generalizing findings or ensuring
replicability compared to quantitative approaches.
Qualitative and quantitative methods represent distinct approaches in research, differing
significantly in their philosophies, data collection techniques, analysis, and intended
outcomes. Qualitative research focuses on understanding the depth, context, and richness of
human experiences, employing methods such as interviews, observations, or open-ended
surveys. It emphasizes subjective interpretations, aiming to uncover meanings, patterns, or
themes within non-numeric data. In contrast, quantitative research deals with numerical
data and statistical analysis, employing structured surveys, experiments, or measurements
to uncover patterns, relationships, and frequencies. It aims for objectivity, statistical rigor,
and generalizability of findings. Qualitative research provides rich, contextual insights and in-
depth understanding but might lack generalizability, while quantitative research offers
statistical precision, objectivity, and generalizability but might overlook contextual nuances
and depth. The two methods often complement each other in mixed methods research,
converging to provide a more comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena.

The point of convergence between qualitative and quantitative methods lies in mixed
methods research, where researchers combine both approaches to achieve a more
comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. In mixed methods studies, researchers
integrate qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis, or interpretation within a
single research project. This convergence allows for triangulation, where data from different
methods are used to corroborate or validate each other, strengthening the overall findings.
By merging qualitative depth with quantitative breadth, researchers can overcome the
limitations inherent in each method alone, addressing research questions more holistically
and gaining a more nuanced understanding of complex phenomena. The integration of both
approaches in mixed methods research enhances the rigor, depth, and breadth of the
findings, providing a richer and more comprehensive view than either method could offer in
isolation.

Critically evaluate quantitative and qualitative research approaches.

Quantitative Research
Strengths: Quantitative research boasts objectivity and replicability due to its structured
approach and reliance on numerical data. Its statistical rigor enables researchers to analyze
relationships, test hypotheses, and predict outcomes with precision. Moreover, the
emphasis on quantifiable data allows for generalizability, as findings can often be applied to
larger populations. These strengths make quantitative research particularly useful in fields
requiring empirical evidence and numerical validation.
Limitations:However, this method may lack contextual depth, often overlooking nuances and
the intricate details of human experiences. Its structured nature might restrict the
exploration of unforeseen variables or aspects not easily quantifiable. Additionally, the focus
on statistical analysis might limit flexibility, potentially missing out on emerging insights
during the research process.
Qualitative Research
Strengths: Qualitative research excels in capturing the richness and depth of complex
phenomena by delving into subjective experiences and diverse perspectives. Its flexibility
allows for adaptive data collection and analysis, facilitating a nuanced understanding of
human behavior. This method is ideal for exploring context-specific details and generating
rich, descriptive insights, making it invaluable in fields focusing on human behavior, social
dynamics, and cultural studies.
Limitations: However, qualitative research might be prone to subjectivity and bias due to its
interpretive nature, potentially impacting the credibility of findings. Its time and resource-
intensive nature, including prolonged data collection and analysis, can be limiting.
Furthermore, the limited generalizability of findings due to small sample sizes or context-
specific data might constrain the broader application of qualitative research outcomes.

Critical Evaluation:
The evaluation of quantitative and qualitative approaches should consider their
complementary nature. While quantitative methods offer statistical rigor and
generalizability, qualitative methods provide depth, context, and subjective understanding.
The integration of both approaches in mixed methods research enhances the overall
research quality by addressing the limitations of each method. The choice between these
approaches depends on the research questions, the nature of the phenomenon under study,
and the desired depth or breadth of understanding required for robust and comprehensive
research outcomes.

Discuss observation as a tool of data collection. Highlight the participant and non-
participant observation methods.
Observation serves as a powerful tool for collecting data in research, allowing researchers to
gather firsthand information by systematically watching and recording behaviors,
interactions, or phenomena within a specific context. This method enables the collection of
rich, detailed data that might not be easily obtained through other means, offering insights
into natural behaviors and contexts.
Participant Observation: In participant observation, researchers immerse themselves within
the setting or group being studied, actively participating in activities while observing and
taking notes. This method allows researchers to gain an insider's perspective, fostering
deeper understanding by experiencing firsthand the context, interactions, and dynamics of
the group or environment. By becoming a part of the setting, researchers can build trust and
rapport, gaining access to sensitive or hidden information that might not be accessible
through other methods. However, it poses challenges in maintaining objectivity and might
influence behaviors due to the researcher's involvement.
Non-participant Observation: Conversely, non-participant observation involves researchers
observing a setting or group without actively participating. This method maintains a degree
of detachment, enabling more objective observations without the potential bias introduced
by active involvement. Researchers often use structured observation tools, checklists, or
predefined criteria to systematically record behaviors or events. Non-participant observation
allows for a more distant and unbiased perspective, facilitating the collection of data with a
higher level of objectivity. However, it might limit access to deeper contextual understanding
or nuanced interpretations compared to participant observation
Both participant and non-participant observation methods offer unique strengths and
limitations. While participant observation provides a deeper understanding by immersing
the researcher in the context, it risks bias and subjectivity. On the other hand, non-
participant observation ensures objectivity but might sacrifice contextual richness. The
choice between these methods depends on the research goals, the level of involvement
desired, ethical considerations, and the depth of understanding required to address the
research questions effectively.

Participatory Paradigm:
The participatory paradigm centers on collaborative and empowering research practices
involving active participation from stakeholders, often those affected by the research. It
emphasizes equality among participants, aiming to empower marginalized groups,
communities, or individuals by involving them in the research process. This approach
acknowledges the value of local knowledge and fosters partnerships to address social issues
or bring about social change. Researchers act as facilitators, working alongside participants
to co-create knowledge, encourage dialogue, and implement solutions. The participatory
paradigm prioritizes community engagement, social justice, and collective decision-making,
promoting sustainable change through inclusive research practices.

Critical Paradigm:

The critical paradigm challenges established power structures and social inequalities. It aims
to uncover and critique oppressive systems, ideologies, and social injustices. Rooted in
critical theory, this paradigm examines societal power dynamics, aiming to emancipate
marginalized groups and foster social transformation. Researchers under this paradigm
critically analyze existing power structures, question dominant narratives, and seek to
empower individuals or communities by promoting social change. They often use qualitative
methods to unveil and challenge systemic injustices and advocate for social justice and
equity.
Constructivist/Interpretive Paradigm:
The constructivist/interpretive paradigm focuses on understanding and interpreting the
subjective meanings, perceptions, and interpretations of individuals or groups. It recognizes
that reality is constructed through social interactions and interpretations, emphasizing the
importance of context and multiple perspectives. Researchers using this paradigm aim to
understand how individuals or groups make sense of their experiences, employing
qualitative methods such as interviews, observations, or textual analysis. They acknowledge
the role of the researcher's subjectivity and seek to uncover diverse viewpoints to generate
rich, contextualized understandings of phenomena.

Mixed Methods:
Mixed methods research integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single study,
offering a comprehensive understanding of research questions by utilizing both data types.
Researchers using mixed methods combine the strengths of qualitative and quantitative
methodologies, allowing for triangulation, complementarity, and expansion of insights. This
approach provides a more holistic understanding, offering depth and breadth in data
analysis and interpretation. Researchers often use qualitative and quantitative data
collection techniques, such as surveys, interviews, observations, and statistical analyses, to
merge diverse data sets and enhance the overall rigor of the study.

Reflexivity:

Reflexivity in research refers to the critical self-awareness and acknowledgment of the

researcher's role, biases, and influence on the research process. It involves a continuous
examination and reflection on one's assumptions, values, and positionality, recognizing their
impact on data collection, analysis, and interpretation. By practicing reflexivity, researchers
aim to minimize bias, enhance transparency, and improve the validity and reliability of their
research findings. This self-awareness allows researchers to navigate their subjective
perspectives and biases, contributing to more ethical and rigorous research practices.

Secondary Data Sources:

Secondary data sources encompass existing data collected by others for purposes other than
the researcher's current study. These sources include published literature, official statistics,
archival records, or previously collected datasets. Researchers utilize secondary data to
conduct meta-analyses, literature reviews, or re-analyze existing data to address new
research questions. This approach offers cost-effective access to extensive datasets, saving
time and resources. However, researchers must critically assess the quality, reliability, and
relevance of secondary data sources to ensure their suitability for the current research.
Case Study:
A case study is an in-depth and detailed investigation of a single individual, group, event, or
phenomenon within its real-life context. Researchers employing case studies aim to
understand complexities, behaviors, or interactions within specific contexts, often using
qualitative methods such as interviews, observations, or document analysis. Case studies
facilitate the exploration of unique or rare occurrences, allowing for rich, contextualized
descriptions and analyses. While they provide detailed insights, case studies may lack
generalizability due to their focus on specific cases.

Focused Group Discussion (FGD):

FGD is a qualitative research technique involving a moderated discussion among a small
group of individuals sharing common characteristics or experiences. It aims to explore
attitudes, perceptions, opinions, or experiences on a specific topic. Typically, participants
engage in open conversations facilitated by a moderator, encouraging interaction and the
exchange of ideas. FGDs generate rich data through group dynamics, allowing participants to
build upon each other's thoughts and experiences. Researchers use this method to explore
diverse perspectives and understand shared perceptions within a group setting.

SAMPLING
Sampling is a fundamental aspect of research methodology involving the selection of a
subset or a sample from a larger group or population for the purpose of study. The goal of
sampling is to gather data and draw conclusions about the entire population based on the
characteristics observed within the sample. It's impractical, and often impossible, to collect
data from an entire population due to constraints like time, resources, and accessibility.
Hence, researchers rely on sampling methods to ensure that the collected sample is
representative and can generalize findings to the broader population.

Probability Sampling Methods: These methods are based on random selection and ensure
every element in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.
Simple Random Sampling: Each member of the population has an equal probability of being
chosen. This can be done through random number generators or picking names out of a hat,
ensuring an unbiased selection.
Systematic Sampling: Involves selecting every nth individual from a list after a random start.
For instance, if every 5th individual is chosen from a list of 100, the sample would consist of
individuals 5, 10, 15, and so on.
Stratified Sampling: The population is divided into distinct subgroups or strata based on
certain characteristics (e.g., age, gender, location). Random samples are then drawn from
each stratum, ensuring representation from all subgroups.
Non-Probability Sampling Methods: These methods don't rely on random selection and
don't guarantee every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in
the sample.

Convenience Sampling: Involves selecting participants based on their availability and

accessibility. This method is convenient but may introduce bias as it does not ensure a
random or representative sample.
Purposive Sampling: Researchers deliberately select participants based on specific criteria
relevant to their research objectives, such as expertise or unique characteristics.
Snowball Sampling: Used when studying hard-to-reach populations, where initial
participants refer or recruit additional participants from their network.

Choosing the appropriate sampling method is crucial as it impacts the reliability, validity, and
generalizability of research findings. Researchers need to consider the nature of their
research, population characteristics, resources available, and the level of accuracy required
when selecting a sampling technique. Regardless of the method chosen, ensuring the
sample is representative and reflects the diversity of the population is essential to draw
accurate conclusions.