Understanding Research (6 page)
Read Understanding Research Online
Authors: Marianne Franklin
First-timers may well notice early on that
thinking
and
talking
about the nuts and bolts of academic research often diverge from the daily grind of
doing
it. It is cold comfort to hear that this goes with the territory or that like other endeavours in life full understanding comes with hindsight. Nonetheless, a first step in acquiring the skills you need to deal with this disconnect when it creates tensions in your own work is to have a sense of what lies ahead. Rather than taking a leap in the dark with your eyes closed and your fingers crossed, time taken getting a sense of the larger terrain early on is well-spent.
With this aim in mind, this chapter addresses some of the themes and terminology that underwrite initial decisions we take on getting a research project off the ground. This, and the next chapter will not be giving a blow-by-blow account of all the
epistemological
and
ontological
issues – about knowing and existence respectively – at stake in different takes on these matters. Indeed many of these shuttle to-and-fro across the quantitative–qualitative divide if not seek to redefine this very term of reference. Moreover, not all of them are pertinent at the outset.
1
Whilst the debates discussed here have a timeless quality to them – are endless debates in effect – all projects have an end-point in mind. Here we look at how these issues inflect the everyday practicalities of getting started on a project that will unfold over a given time period; the road ahead in other words, which means certain milestones to pass, whether officially or informally, in order to complete the journey and do so
successfully
, as Martin Davies (2007) notes.
In tandem with
Chapter 3
, this chapter gets to grips with one of the most difficult aspects of this journey – getting started on the right foot (completion is the next hardest part). This chapter looks at some basic questions, often questions many students hesitate to ask for fear of being seen as a ‘dummy’. We then move on to ways of choosing a topic, how to get a better sense of the distinction between the ways the ‘theory’ and ‘method’ parts of formal academic projects work together and separately. This puts us in good stead by the next chapter where we tackle formulating a ‘doable’
research question
; a moment that confronts all researchers. There are common pitfalls involved in research (question) formulation, planning, and use of various literatures. This is having to tailor our ambitions to available resources, knowledge and skills, as well as the time available.
Because details create pressure points and tunnel vision of their own – e.g. the best size, or randomness of your
sample
, how many (or how few)
focus groups
you need to organize, how many books you should read – the aim here is to provide a wider perspective on how details have abstract, philosophical and practical, puzzle-solving dimensions. Any readers who prefer to grapple with practicalities, get to the how-to before considering more abstract matters, are free to browse. That said, philosophical concerns create their own pressure points in a project as well; so no time like the present.
First though we need to address how these initial practicalities relate to the specific form and substance of academic research projects (see
Chapter 1
).
Students often ask themselves, and then their supervisors even several months into the time allotted to complete their research project, ‘Where do I begin?’ As a student, you may have attended a workshop or module on how to write a dissertation or thesis and the instructor put up a slide with
x
number (fill in the blank) of steps to the research process. And then looking at this slide it may appear that the research process is simply a matter of ticking the boxes and crossing off tasks on the to-do list: research question – done, lit review – done, data – done; collect your diploma at the exit, and move on. However, you may well find yourself asking the question, ‘Where do I
begin?’
after
you have already ticked some boxes.
2
This section takes a look at the research process as whole.
Instead of setting out along this path, one way to keep your bearings is to consider a research project in spatial, rather than temporal terms.
Box 2.1
provides an overview of the key – compulsory –
elements
that research projects from all approaches have in common. They also are core elements in developing a plan of work, and then presenting this as a research proposal. Take a look and isolate which of these elements are already familiar to you, echoed by those around you? Which are not? Which elements do you currently rate as the most important; the ones you see as your top priority?
BOX 2.1
KEY ELEMENTS OF AN ACADEMIC RESEARCH PROJECT
- The WHAT: (i) general topic-area; (ii) specific object of analysis; (iii) research question/hypothesis.
- The WHY: (i) aims and objectives; (ii) researcher’s motivations (personal) or project brief (funded research).
- The HOW: (i) conceptually – theory/key concepts; (ii) practically – method/s; (iii) rationale (methodology).
- The WHERE and WHEN: (i) time and place; (ii) intellectual context – theoretical debates/research literature; (iii) sociocultural, political and economic dimensions.
- The WHO and FOR WHOM: (i) implications; (ii) consequences; (iii) applications.
Working these pieces of the research puzzle into a coherent whole is integral to successful research, in theory and in practice; from choosing a topic, formulating and then refining a research question so that you don’t bite off more than you can chew, plotting how to get the information you will need, presenting the project before it’s begun in a formal research proposal form, gathering the information (
data
for the sake of argument, see
Chapter 1
), assembling and then analysing it, right through to writing it all up and presenting your findings in such a way that you can account for, and defend the decisions you made and, thereby, the analysis and conclusions you make from the eventual outcome.
As counter-intuitive as it may seem in competitive and international classrooms, doing research is not the same as competing in sport as such; it is not a speed-race. You are not going for a personal best, world record, or gold medal. Deadlines have their uses nonetheless; they create an end-point for a piece of work and in larger projects this is a comforting thought. You will, indeed you must finish this work at some point; for communal deadlines (dissertation hand-ins for instance) everyone is working against the clock. Nonetheless how the results are assessed does not depend on who was quickest off the mark all those months back, nor who claims to have got their final version printed out first. The tendency for students to judge their progress by how much further along their classmates may be along the way is the source of much anxiety, precipitous decisions, and demoralization.
Whatever your response to where you are ‘at’ with regard to these elements, it bears repeating that they do not unfold in a neat and tidy sequence. Whilst they all need to be present in some form in the research proposal and adequately covered in the final report/dissertation, they do need to be attended to in some sort of order of appearance; one that consists of overlapping, cyclical chunks of time as well as in the sense of moving forwards. As research projects are completed within certain timeframes, respective delivery dates and
deliverables
within the one project create stress at different points and in different measures. At any one stage, you may need to return to an earlier stage and revise text or remind yourself of the main objectives of the study, reformulate the research question if need be. At other times you, and your brain may need to take a break. Here intellectual effort does bear similarities to sport; the human mind, where ‘reason’ and thinking resides can improve its fitness levels as well.
All well and good but there are a couple of other, more pressing questions that tend to go begging as supervisors, mentors, and classmates urge us to put our ‘best foot forward’.
Many students, even those with research projects (bachelor level or work-related) behind them are reluctant to ask three fundamental questions; often taken as read by supervisors and mentors.
- (a) What exactly is expected in producing a
thesis
, or
dissertation
?
3 - (b) If the dissertation is the destination, then what exactly is expected when having to submit a formal
research proposal
, or (often less formal) research
outline
? How are (a) and (b) related (see
Chapter 3
)? - (c) What is meant by
originality
, or
independent research component
? How does this fit what is expected in mandatory literature reviews (see
Chapter 4
)?
Let’s pin each of these down one by one.
This document is a formalized presentation of the whole process, as a completed project. As an integral part of degree awards, the particular features of a dissertation and what distinguishes it from other work in a degree programme, such as an exam, presentation, or term-paper, is usually seldom talked about beyond references to university regulations. Even though the actual dissertation may seem far away and its exact contours are still hazy, getting a sense at least of what the end-goal, the deliverable, involves in formal terms can help allay initial anxieties. This section will, at the very least, indicate the destination point, even if the way you will take to get there is still unclear.
The short answer to the question, ‘what exactly is a dissertation?’, is that a master-level or Ph.D. academic degree, and certain bachelor degrees, require the successful
completion of a substantial piece of written work based on the outcome of a personally designed and carried-out piece of original research. This is what is being referred to by the terms
dissertation
, or
thesis
. Below is a generic definition:
A dissertation is a formal written presentation of an original piece of individual research undertaken on an approved topic and completed under the supervision of a [assigned or approved] supervisor/s; of a [specified] length, according to the general and specific criteria of academic excellence of the degree-awarding institution/department where stipulated, submitted no later than [specified date] according to the [specified or recommended] formats of the respective institution or department.
It pays to check out your course handbook, degree regulations, and other official sources from your institution to be sure what is expected of you for your degree qualification. That said, these specifications are technical rather than substantive. So, what do they actually mean in practice?
A dissertation is more complex in substance (content), organizational, and formatting terms than a term-paper or essay. In the UK it is less than a book yet more than a research proposal, research paper, or research report/work report even though it shares elements with all of the above. It is a record of the process and outcome of time spent doing research on a project, which requires you to work independently on conceptual (theoretical), practical (methodological), and formal (written and analytical) levels. Some of the skills and aptitudes needed you may well already have. Some will be new to you; e.g. organizing and sustaining the writing of a considerably longer piece of work for instance; 12,000 words and upwards depending on your location.
The dissertation proper is the end-phase of a research project; a piece of academic writing in its own right with all the issues of style and presentation and expression that any specific sort of writing task entails. In this respect, not only planning but writing, and rewriting this document, in part or as a whole, is integral to the process of completing the
dissertation
part of the research project as a whole. As process and product the dissertation is a substantial part of the degree programme; comprised of mandatory and optional elements.
So a more comprehensive response to this foundational question would take the following distinctions into account: that between
- a research plan and process; the dissertation as the outcome of both;
- an initial idea, larger debates in the literature underscoring an eventual topic, and how all these emerge as a specific research question;
- different sorts of research procedures in their own right, role in schools of thought, dissertation formats, and institutional requirements;
- expectations in depth and breadth of knowledge for undergraduate, postgraduate, and Ph.D. levels of work; including the total number of chapters, word-lengths, chapter titles, section headings, and other formalities;
- argumentation as/in writing vis-à-vis substantiating evidence in the form of graphics, images, calculations, and other sorts of non-textual material (e.g. audio, multimedia);
- eventual evaluation criteria and marking schemes (e.g. double credits), formatting requirements, depending on department, institution, or geographical area.
That said, there are general elements common to all dissertations whatever the level; bachelor, master, on up to a Ph.D. dissertation. Irrespective of how you characterize the general and specific research path you take, or whether you opt for a ‘classic’ or alternative dissertation format (Blaxter et al. 2006: 236; M. Davies 2007: 211
passim
) these are:
- The ‘head’: a title (and sub-title if desired); a list of contents (that tells the reader something substantive about this dissertation); an abstract (200–300 words); 5–6 keywords (optional and terms that are not in your title).
- The ‘middle’: the ‘chapters’ or chapter sections in terms of their function; these
can be given other, more substantive and informative titles
:- Introduction: aims and objectives, research question, argument, chapter outline.
- Review of the background literature/theoretical framework.
- Overview of the research design: methods used/methodological discussion of these choices.
- Background (historical) of
case study
where applicable. - Presentation of the findings.
- Analysis of the findings.
- Comment on findings in light of theory/literature and methodological considerations.
- Summary and conclusion.
- Introduction: aims and objectives, research question, argument, chapter outline.
- The ‘tail’: references (endnotes/footnotes); literature list; appendices and/or glossary (optional).
In sum all the above ideally add up to a dissertation that presents
- a well-formed research question/problem or hypothesis; this is the
heart
; - evidence of previous knowledge about the field; in the literature review/theoretical framework; this is the
brain
; - evidence of ‘empirical’ work that involves a creative application of concepts or analytical tools to make sense of the data gathered, material or ideas being addressed; the
eyes and hands
; - has an argument, substantiates that argument, and understands opposing views; this is the
backbone
.
4
A second term of reference is the form, timing, and eventual role played by a formal
research proposal
– or
outline
– in the larger dissertation project. Although self-contained, the latter piece of work does have a bearing on the eventual outcome of your project if not part of a course assessment. For this reason research proposals and outlines need some separate treatment.
Chapter 3
looks more closely at this first milestone in many departments and its role in various sorts of research designs. In light of how both dissertation and research outline go about organizing the main elements of academic research projects (
Box 2.1
above) for their respective audiences, the following points will suffice for the time being:
- A research outline is a plan of work for a
proposed
piece of research; a roadmap, or feasibility study. Proposals also include the academic equivalent of a sales pitch. - Paradoxically given the increasing emphasis laid on research planning and proposal writing in academe, the most coherent articulation of a research project as a proposal and work-plan often crystallizes once the research and analysis has been completed. Our best proposal-writing is in retrospect.
- However, the working reality is otherwise; research projects need to be planned and presented before we know what the outcome is. Students in particular are planning and designing research in unfamiliar terrains, with assessment and awarding of a degree as an arbiter.
What is the difference?
Basically, the final product – the dissertation or report in the case of funded work – can and will differ from any outline, or formal proposal. Indeed it can in some cases emerge as quite different in key respects. After all, this document is the outcome of the research once it has been completed and writing up these results, making sense of them conceptually as well is a process in itself. This is why the future-tense use of the proposal form changes, indeed needs to be changed to past tense. It is also why results, analysis, and eventual conclusions may well differ from initial claims presented in earlier outlines.
A third question that students often are afraid to ask is ‘what counts as
original
, or
independent
research?’
Highly original research is very unusual, and you are probably setting your sights far too high if you try aiming for it. The corollary of this is that your research is almost certainly original in some way, always providing, that is, that you are not slavishly copying someone else’s earlier research.
(Blaxter et al. 2006: 12)
Reference to dissertations being assessed for evidence of ‘original’ if not ‘independent’ work beg the question of what exactly amounts to originality. Is there anything new under the sun, as the saying goes? As the authors cited above point out, coming up with something 100 per cent ‘new’ is a once-in-a-lifetime event, if that, for anyone. For students starting out, exhortations of originality can create anxiety about the ‘worth’ of their chosen topic or ability to undertake research under their own steam.
To all intents and purposes, in practice notions of originality (not ‘slavishly’ replicating others’ work) and independent (autonomous) work operate in tandem;
5
discovering or understanding something yourself, on your own terms, in your own time and in your own words is, in itself, something original. By the same token, an
academic research project requires you to understand something about what has been done before, if not being done at the moment as you come up with your own ideas; gather your own findings with reference to theory and research literature already ‘out there’, by whatever means or reasons you have for doing so. The analysis you make and conclusions you draw emerge out of work that, ideally, is something you want to ‘own’ rather than disown! In terms of those setting out on the quantitative path, originality can be construed as adding some new data, or a new case to an existing body of research on a topic. You may find a way of adding a new variable (see
Chapter 3
on research topics) or new concept as part of the hypothesis to be tested; in other words set up a new relationship between concepts from research that treats them in another relationship. References to originality and by association ‘contribution to knowledge’ are not an issue of quantity alone.
So, originality on both sides of the divide is a relative term as, indeed, is ‘newness’; both are claimed more often than they are substantiated. For instance, Blaxter et al. (2006: 13) list fifteen definitions of originality that span from ‘setting down new information in writing for the first time’ to ‘adding to knowledge in a way that hasn’t previously been done before’, passing by ‘using already known material but with a new interpretation’ (ibid.).
Perhaps start with what is ‘new’ to you; rather than the whole of humankind. Striving to do your own thing, being innovative, and ticking the boxes, that is completing the required elements to the best of your ability, and then being satisfied with the final product as a whole is, clearly, a tall task and so more than enough in itself. As Martin Davies notes, the learning curve of the process you are embarking upon straddles the fine line between overly cautious and over-ambitious expectations, learning the tricks of the trade, and settling on ‘a question that is realistically answerable and will enable you to make a
modest
contribution to your discipline’s knowledge-base’ (M. Davies 2007: 18, emphasis added; see also Blaxter et al. 2006: 249).
That said, anyone reading your work or assessing it will more often than not react warmly to something that is innovative, adventurous, and engaged rather than the ‘same old song’ Baxter et al. 2006: 236); sometimes, like modesty, a little brashness goes a long way. So, for those readers who feel that all these caveats and words of caution are too restrictive or stultifying creativity then go for it. Innovation and originality do emerge by bucking the norm; a calculated risk that once again is not impossible to bring off. By the same token, originality does not always reside in the level of emphasis we might lay on our research project’s claims to be doing something unequivocally ‘new’. Remember too that different research communities send different, if not mixed messages about the limits of possibility in terms of how far terms like innovativeness, creativity, and risk-taking are encouraged or tolerated. What is ‘new’ in one department is old hat in another.
**TIP: when beginning a research project or even a conversation with your supervisor or peer-group about a research project, start with an idea of what
you
are interested in doing or, if you are really stumped and open to all possibilities you could also ask your supervisor, or others, what they would consider an interesting topic or line of inquiry.
In some research cultures, students are effectively completing projects as research assistants for work being done by their professors. In other cases, in the US and Canada for example, research proposals are not part of the admission process for the Ph.D. degree. The eventual project and its form (along the lines conveyed above) take shape as the student works in consultation with supervisors, mentors, and seminar groups. Finally, just how individual the idea of originality is depends on these sociocultural inflections of your research community.
The next part of this chapter turns to the task in hand; getting started by coming up with a viable research idea and then turning it into a doable research project. After that it is time to broach an even thornier, albeit no less fascinating distinction that has implications for how an initial idea is fashioned into a research question, or hypothesis: what is meant by references to
theory
and
method
, and by association,
methodology
. These three terms are the sources of confusion and misunderstanding between supervisors and supervisees particularly. But, first let’s get the ball rolling.