Second Creswell Posting

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. Print.

(Blog entry based on 129-226.)

I appreciated the pragmatic approach of this book. Creswell’s suggestions and plans for the different research designs made research seem all the more approachable and possible, though he was often quick to point out the amount labor involved. Furthermore, I found the discussions here quite generative. I began thinking ahead to what I want to accomplish with my dissertation and which research designs may help in this.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

As I want to emphasize the procedures for research designs, I only will raise two questions on this chapter. Creswell is seems rather adamant about what to use (research questions or hypotheses) in what types of studies. In his discussion of qualitative studies, he only addresses the use of research questions, stating that hypotheses are not to be used (129). I understand that qualitative studies are exploratory in nature, but does making some assumptions about possible outcomes necessarily constrain the study and limit its ability to be exploratory? Quantitative studies, he says, can use both research questions and hypotheses but only if the hypotheses build from the research questions (133). What strikes me here is that I understood hypotheses as natural outgrowths of a study’s research questions. Are there instances in which the hypotheses are not extensions of the research questions?

Quantitative Procedures

I was glad to see half of the chapter on quantitative procedures dedicated to advice on survey methods. I have been considering a survey for my dissertation, so learning about some issues to consider prompted me to begin considering the forms and questions my survey(s) may take. In terms of population samples, Creswell suggests that random sampling yields more generalizable data (148), but I think I might be more likely to use the purposeful selection common in qualitative studies (178). This will allow me to craft targeted questions/prompts and receive some richer data. As my survey develops, I will undoubtedly be returning to Creswell’s discussions on validity (the possibility to draw reasonable inferences from the data) and reliability (the consistency of the results) of my instruments. At this point, I’m not entirely sure what validity and reliability issues I will have to address, but this section will be a useful reference point for me.

Also helpful in my thinking about research design were the steps on data analysis and interpretation, especially when considering response bias. This refers to the bias created because of non-respondents. Creswell suggests using wave analysis to mitigate response bias—i.e., analyzing returns weekly (or at least frequently) to see how the responses are affecting the outcomes and then using this to determine what the non-responses might have contributed (151-52). Prior to reading this, I expected to deal with non-responses, but I hadn’t considered how it might bias the study or how to respond to it.

Questions on Quantitative Procedures

I am still a little fuzzy about some of the terminology and statistical methods used in quantitative procedures, and given Creswell’s goals here, I didn’t expect him to detail these at length. But I am wondering a little bit about the power analysis model (157). How does one establish values for the three elements (alpha, power, effect size)? This may not play into my work, but some more knowledge of these types of determinations may be of use in my own reading.

Qualitative Procedures

These I am a little more comfortable with—at least in terms of documentary studies. Creswell identifies nine characteristics of qualitative studies. I’ll not cover them all here, but some characteristics include a “natural setting” (i.e., not a lab), the researcher as the tool to interpret data, numerous types of data, and inductive analysis (175-76). These fit quite well with my experiences and strengths regarding research. Again, Creswell does well to provide a series of steps one might use to interpret and analyze the data collected. These are clear and valuable to anyone engaging in this process. Most meaning to me is his discussion on coding data. This is a process I have engaged with only in some unsystematic ways (in terms of how I understood approaching the process at least), so his explanation of the coding process (186), will be something that will be of considerable importance as I move ahead in my dissertation work (and it will help me organize my thoughts as I go along).

Question on Qualitative Procedures

This question has less to do with procedures and perhaps more to do with where Creswell locates some discussions. He discusses IRB considerations in the chapter on qualitative procedures but does not mention them in relation to quantitative procedures. Is there any particular reason for this?

Mixed Methods Procedures

As I stated in my previous posting on Creswell, a mixed methods research approach seemed most appealing and sensible to me, and this has not changed after reading more detailed accounts of all three research designs. To me, exploring my dissertation topic through a combination of survey results, interviews, and documentary research seems to be the most probable and most comprehensive approach.

What I have yet to determine is the type of mixed method model this will take. Creswell identifies six types of mixed methods designs:  

• sequential explanatory: a quantitative study followed by a qualitative study that extends the quantitative data; 
• sequential exploratory: a qualitative study followed by a quantitative one that builds on the qualitative data;
• sequential transformative: one type of study followed by another, both framed by a particular theory; 
• concurrent triangulation: both types conducted at once with comparisons between the data sets; 
• concurrent embedded: both types conducted at once but with one method more prominent than the other;
• concurrent transformative: both types conducted at once with a particular theory guiding the data collection and interpretation (211-16).

Here again, I think Creswell explains the possibilities clearly—I just need to begin thinking about which of these might best suit my needs. My hunch at this point is that I will lean more toward a concurrent model because of time constraints that I may experience.

On the First Half of Creswell

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009. Print.

(Blog entry based on 1-128.)

Having little experience with research methods, I have been finding that the definitions in this text have been improving my understanding of these different methods. I had often thought of numbers versus words as the key distinction between quantitative and qualitative research, but as Creswell notes, the differences lie more in philosophical/theoretical underpinnings as well as in more complex methodological approaches (e.g., Fig. 1.1, 5). I was particularly interested in the different “philosophical worldviews” Creswell discusses in the first chapter, not so much because I found myself fitting into a particular category more than the others but because the four worldviews he presents—postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism—are tools one might use to address different types of research questions. This allowed me to begin viewing research methodologies less as a static set of practices and more as adaptable tools to be applied differently in different contexts.   

In his chapter on literature reviews, Creswell didn’t present any information that I found especially ground-breaking: I am familiar with the uses and purposes of the literature review. However, his discussions of it as a way to explore a topic was a good reminder for me that the literature review is not an end in itself but a component of the larger research process, as a staging process for one’s topic to discover if it should be researched (24). In the past few months, I have been thinking about my dissertation topic in rather broad terms, and the ideas I have on it are all ones that can be researched. But as Creswell reminded me, the topic needs to be one that adds to the existing conversations instead of simply reiterating those conversations. This has forced me to begin looking more deeply into the nuances of my topic in the hopes of finding those angles that will add to the conversations surrounding my topic.

The role of theory is also something I knew I would need to consider in my dissertation project, but I had not yet considered fully what that role would be. Creswell identifies several different uses of theories in the various research methods. One such use in qualitative work is the generation of theory. Given the nature of my project, I doubt theory will be the end, but it will certainly play a role in understanding the potential roles of a composition-rhetoric generalist in a small English department. In the quantitative context, Creswell defines theory as “an interrelated set of constructs (or variables) formed into propositions, or hypotheses, that specify the relationship among variables (typically in terms of magnitude or direction)” (51). Understanding my own variables—including ones like faculty interests and desire for greater development, student goals and needs, departmental resources and goals—and their interconnectedness will be critical to explore my dissertation topic effectively. And as Creswell notes, qualitative use of theory also addresses relationships among variables and serves as a tool to ground other discussions (61). This sense of theory as a tool to understand and explain phenomena or other ideas fits quite well with my sense of how theory will work in my dissertation. Finally, positioning the theory/ies is something I have not attended much to at this point but will now thanks to Creswell’s discussions—but that is some time down the road.

More immediate, though, will be to make writing and work on my dissertation more habitual. I routinely do a good amount of writing as it is, but I am often guilty of procrastinating, finding it easy to put off some smaller work on research when my schedule gets hectic. I also valued his discussion on ethical matters as a reminder of issues to consider early on. Similar to what Creswell suggests here, I have always had the view that the researcher should approach her or his subjects in a Hippocratic fashion, avoiding doing any harm to my subjects first and foremost, and keeping this in mind early on will allow me to limit ethical issues throughout my research process.

Another general discussion I found useful for my ends was his chapter on the purpose statement. Again, Creswell didn’t offer an abundance of new information to me here about the importance of the purpose statement, but he does distinguish it from other, similar parts of the project, including the research problem and research questions. The research problem is “the problem or issue leading to a need for the study” and the research questions represent “those questions that the data will attempt to answer.” The purpose statement, however, “sets the objectives, the intent, or the major idea of a proposal or a study” (111-12). Having such distinctions in mind will help me draw sharper distinctions between these different parts of the project.

The most meaningful concept I have taken from Creswell at this point is the mixed methods approach. As the name suggests, this approach combines quantitative and qualitative methods, including the philosophical assumptions, strategies of inquiry, and methodologies of both (4). A particular study may emphasize one design over the other, but Creswell notes that such mixing may mitigate particular weaknesses in either quantitative or qualitative approaches (14). Creswell categorizes the combinations of quantitative and qualitative methods as sequential mixed methods (using one method to extend or more fully explore what insights came from the other method), concurrent mixed methods (collecting data using both methods at the same time and applying both methods to the findings), and transformative mixed methods (relying on particular theoretical viewpoints to frame and analyze qualitative and quantitative data) (14-15).  The mixed method approaches seem to be the most promising to my work at this point as they allow for some more openness of viewpoints and methods, which is rather liberating to my thinking at this early point in my dissertation work.

At this point, I feel Creswell’s writing is quite straightforward, he defines and explains the concepts clearly, and his examples illustrate the concepts effectively. I do not having any pressing questions after reading this first half of his text.