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.