Understanding Research (5 page)

Whilst these problems and ensuing debates are relatively easy to pinpoint, getting past them in order to make sense of a project is another matter. This book is organized around such bottlenecks, for student and supervisor alike. The topics covered are grounded in practical research realities yet resonant with tough debates that still resonate in academic corridors and seminar rooms, intermingling with the murmurs of debates from seemingly bygone eras.

Whilst the emphasis is on postgraduate dissertation projects (the
master’s
degree) this trajectory also applies to undergraduate and Ph.D. research levels. In this way the book distinguishes a research project as two broad phases, shared by all traditions more or less.
Part 1
deals with ‘Divides and Designs’.
Chapters 2
to
4
cover topics such as key terms of reference, research design, research question formulation, the role literature reviews play in all of the above.
Part 2
,
Chapters 6
to
8
, is about ‘Coping and Communicating’; concentrating on gathering data, analysing the material, writing it up and going public.

Bridging these two parts is
Chapter 5
which deals with the skills, practicalities, and methodological innovations in what is a particularly fast-moving domain: internet research skills and emerging sorts of
online research
. As most research these days is conducted using the web, or indeed is conducted entirely or partly online, these practicalities and wider implications for understanding research straddle the preceding and subsequent chapters.
Chapter 9
reflects on some underlying themes arising from the previous chapters; signposting an exit for some but also able to work as an entry portal for others.

Successive chapters are organized around two working insights: (1) that each new research project brings with it unforeseen and familiar challenges, for first-timers and more experienced researchers alike; and (2) that all research projects entail a journey of some sort, seldom in a straight, upward line but a journey nonetheless in that any research project has a point of departure and, hopefully, an exit. What happens in between and how a researcher manages, indeed copes, along the way is the heart of the book. For this reason, a distinguishing feature of the book is the way in which themes covered within each chapter are organized along two intertwined strands:

As noted above the discussions, particularly the ‘how to’ sections, trace research paths well-trodden in terms of a sequence of practical considerations along the course of a standard research project; e.g. coming up with a topic, formulating a research question, working up a work-plan or formal proposal, gathering and analysing data, and then writing it all up.

However, instead of front-loading the earlier phases of the enterprise with every conceivable conceptual consideration that students are usually told are integral to successful research projects before or at the point they need to get started, a number of these discussions have been distributed through the book. For instance, a discussion of questions about the
theory–method relationship
comes early on, whilst a look at how
different modes of reasoning impact on analysis is left until
Chapter 7
. Notes on the supervisory relationship, citation formalities, and research ethics span
Parts 1
and
2
; returning as the stresses and strains they exert on the research shift along the way.

This approach departs from conventional treatments, which tend to start with theoretical considerations before moving on to practical ‘how-to’s. This organizational logic is reflected in methods and research skills curricula. In real-life research practice, however, we are often not confronted with some of these more abstract issues until later on.

The advantages of a chapter organization based on a redistribution of the abstract and concrete is twofold: (1) a reader can follow the book from start-to-finish if they choose – the ‘road movie’ dimension; (2) those looking for guidance on specific topics, practical or more conceptual, can browse the contents as need be – the reference dimension. A disadvantage is that the unbundling of all things conceptual and then treating them throughout the book could disrupt the sense of forward momentum that many researchers, ‘newbies’ and old hands, often look to maintain. That said, in increasingly web-based research cultures, this organization allows the reader to browse the contents as they might online material; ‘power-browsing’ and hyperlinking reflect the way successive generations of research students engage with literature and information resources in a digital age.
²¹

To supplement the narrative, text boxes permit some focused discussions for further thought. A glossary is included for quick-reference for italicized terminology, and various figures highlight contentious issues or look to capture a terrain in visual terms. Finally, a note on the role played by cartoons and other illustrations: included to leaven the dough, they remind us all to keep our sense of humour in an endeavour that whilst being a serious matter needn’t always take itself too seriously all the time. Laughter is a great way to learn too, to cope. These images make me chuckle, and groan, so I hope you the reader will also enjoy the insights, wisdom and irony of these illustrations. My thanks to all the artists who have allowed their work to be reproduced here for our enjoyment.

1
   For more on this turn of phrase see Carver (2004); see also Bleiker (2009: 7–13). The term
western
here connotes several centuries of cross-fertilization between Anglo-American and western European societies, and their respective histories of science and scholarship. Together they have come to operate, or have been imposed as the ‘gold standard’ in theory and research.

2
   As students, working researchers, and educators we often differentiate between ‘real thinkers . . . and the rest . . .’; thanks to Zab Franklin for this observation (personal correspondence, 12 August 2011).

3
   The first expression is for arguments that are based on personal attacks (e.g. writing style, religion) rather than a reasoned and fair engagement of the opponent’s point of view (what someone is actually saying); as in sport, the aim is to ‘play the ball’ not the player. According to Aristotle (384–322 BC) in
The Art of Rhetoric, ad hominem
arguments, whilst effective for short-term point-scoring, are weak; ‘fallacies’ based on appeals to the emotions and without supporting evidence. Another fallacious form of argumentation is the ‘strawman’ one, in which the opposing point of view is presented in its weakest
rendition, if not in as caricature; a fallacy of deception and diversion because it misrepresents your opponent’s view in order to make your own look stronger.

4
   Zlatan Krajina (personal correspondence, 22 August 2011) based on his own experience when starting out; ‘I had to accept that the [methods] lit is only there as raw material which doesn’t have the answers I need – I’m looking for those answers, that’s my job’ (Ibid.).

5
   My thanks to Marieke Riethof for this insight. For example, some students only twig right at the end of a project, the writing-up phase, and then ask which methods book they should refer to in order to attach the ‘right’ etiquette to their method. At other times, recommended methods titles remain unread, or misunderstood in terms of how they inform the larger project; ending up as a disjointed mini-literature review after-the-fact or long treatises on meta-level issues. Neither are really substitutes for a clear outline of the specific ways in which evidence, or data has been gathered, and why.

6
   This includes titles such as
Your Research Project: A Step by Step Guide for the First Time Researcher
(Wallman 2000);
Doing a Successful Research Project: Using Qualitative or Quantitative Methods
(M. Davies 2007);
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches
(Creswell 2009);
Doing Research in the Real World
(Gray 2009);
How To Research
(Blaxter et al. 2006);
Conducting Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper
(Fink 2009).

7
   Titles in this category broach topics such as:
Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences
(George and Bennett 2005);
Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory
(Glynos and Howarth 2007);
Interpreting the Political: New Methodologies
(Carver and Hyvarinen 1997);
Methodological Imaginations
(Busfield and Stina Lyon 1996);
Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations
(Elman and Fendius Elman 2001); or
Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research
(Moses and Knutsen 2007).

8
   Take for example, titles such as
Research Methods in Politics
(Burnham et al. 2004);
Political Research: An Introduction
(Harrison 2001);
Theory and Methods in Political Science
(Marsh and Stoker 2002);
Theory and Methods in Sociology
(Hughes and Sharrock 2007); or
Theories of International Relations
(Burchill et al. 2001).

9
   Media and communications methods-based titles tend to straddle this distinction.

10
   For example, titles such as:
Inside Culture: Re-imagining the Method of Cultural Studies
(Couldry 2000);
Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions, Texts
(Bertrand and Hughes 2004);
Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Ourselves and Others
(C. Davies 2007);
Doing and Writing Action Research
(McNiff and Whitehead 2009); Morley (2006).

11
   For instance,
Research Methods in the Social Sciences
(Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996);
Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research
(Pole and Lampard 2001);
The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies
(Ragin 1987);
Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
(Neuman 1997).

12
   Take for instance titles such as:
Statistics Explained
(Hinton 2004);
Qualitative Research Practice
(Ritchie and Lewis 2003);
Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences
(Berg 2007);
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research
(Denzin and Lincoln 2005);
Working with Qualitative Data
(Gibson and Brown 2009);
Qualitative Research
(Silverman 2011).

13
   Useful titles here include ones such as:
Feminist Media Studies
(van Zoonen 1994);
Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era
(di Leonardo 1991);
Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation
(Fierke and Jørgensen 2001);
The Politics of Social Science Research
(Ratcliffe 2001);
Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
(Smith 1999);
Creative Social Research
(Giri 2004);
Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach
(Sayer 1999); or
Against Method
(Feyerabend 1978).

14
   See Wallerstein (1974).

15
   Key titles and more recent ones in this highly volatile area include;
Virtual Ethnography
(Hine 2000);
Qualitative Research and Hypermedia
(Dicks et al. 2005);
Politics on the Internet
(Buckler and Dolowitz 2005);
Internet Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social and Behavioural Sciences
(Hewson et al. 2002);
How To Do Your Literature Search and Find Research Information Online
(Ó Dochartaigh 2009);
Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper
(Fink 2009);
A Guide to Conducting Online Research
(Gaiser and Schreiner 2009).

16
   Thanks to Susan Banducci for this reminder; ‘[no-one would ever] claim 100% accuracy however hard the science there is always a margin of error also in terms of something as complex as human behaviour, attitudes and opinions the objects [of inquiry] are even more mushy’ (private correspondence, October 2010).

17
   The distinction and overlap between the terms scholarly and scientific will be broached in the next two chapters. For now,
scholarly
refers to more inclusive understandings of what constitutes
scientific
knowledge in academe.

18
   That said, there are qualities to research cultures and careers, along with the waxing and waning of their social status that are particular if not peculiar to these settings. The literature in this respect is massive. For humourous and serious commentaries see for instance, Pierre Bourdieu (1984), C. P. Snow (1993 [1959]), Hannah Arendt (1953), and Malcolm Bradbury (1975).

19
   See Smith (1999), Giri (2004), Said (1994), Harding (1987), Ratcliffe (2001).

20
   My thanks to Philippe Rekacewicz for inspiring my students – and me – with this tactic for generating ideas; a ‘blank piece of paper’ approach to refining our own ideas and learning-curve is often more effective than the ‘I have to read everything first’ one.

21
   See UCL (2008), Franklin and Wilkinson (2011), for instance.