23rd May: Kerry's last lecture - Reiteration of main concepts and some concluding thoughts

Kerry held his last lecture today and reinforced several main concepts which he wants us to keep in mind for the rest of our research journey.

(1) Elements of a good proposal and good write-up

Research Problem (Motivation)
- Debate/Confusion in “specific” literature

Theory (Theorisation)
- Proposed explanation/solution to research problem

Method (How?)
- Approach to “get evidence” to support theory

Data/evidence/argument (Argumentation)
- Evidence “mobilised” to argue for (against) theory (theorisation)
- What do the quotes bring to your solution? You need many quotes to make a good argument.
- With quotes (as opposed to stories), you would have to introduce the interviewee first before using the quotes. 

Conclude (Come up with best solution)
- Resolve problem
- Look forward

The above points were being mentioned in most of Kerry's lectures, so by this time of the year, I'm more or less familiar with what they are and their importance. Nevertheless, this is a good reminder, since I'm starting on my write-up soon. 

(2) Difference between academic contribution and practical contribution

Kerry also mentioned that researchers (experienced/PhD students/Honours students/etc.) tend to confuse academic contribution and practical contribution. To have a clearer idea of the key difference between both, he explained that more often than not, academics seek to resolve an on-going debate in their area of research, while practical implications are on a much larger scale that are applicable to the real world. This is a trap that I often fall into - I often write theoretical contribution from a practical point of view, neglecting the academic approach. Kerry also mentioned that in most cases, an academic contribution is made first, and it'll usually be extended and made applicable to the real world. Given that I have always been quite casual about theoretical contribution (in fact, I never quite saw its importance!), I will certainly be more careful with the way I pen my theoretical contribution from now on.

Research is a never-ending journey

 
So what have I learnt as a budding researcher?  

I guess the most important lesson which I've learnt is, research is a continuous process. Even though this is my last entry for Kerry's course, I don't think this blog will be dropped off the radar just because it will no longer be assessed for the purpose of BUSN8018. The journey to learn more about research, good research, qualitative research, and qualitative research methods has been extremely revealing. Even though my thesis will be a quantitative one, the exploration of the qualitative aspect of self-efficacy has brought colours to the quantitative research which I'm working on currently. Additionally, it has given me greater insights into the process of how self-efficacy beliefs are formed and their impact on several outcomes. 

In a nutshell, these are my key take-aways from Kerry's course: 

Rules of the game for good research

• Good research = good argument, bad research = lousy argument
• Research is all about creating good arguments, and not conceptualising absolute "truth"
• Ontology - Epistemology - Methodology
• Kerry's Good Proposal Template ©
• What is my key academic paper?
• What is the problem (mistake/gap) in that paper? (research based on "gap")
• What is the "model" of the process you are looking at?
• What is my "best guess"/theory for how I would expect the gap to work?
• Why is the gap important for cause-and-effect issues?
• What evidence do I need to "fill the gap"?
• What is a reasonable way to gather the evidence I need?
• How will my case site/location/area provide the evidence I need?

Find a gap (safe approach) vs. Make a gap (unsafe approach)

• Case study (what you're looking at) ≠ Research question (what reader wants to know)
• Position yourself as the reader: What do you want to know?/What doesn't make sense?
• Identify audience, and motivate them
• Gap: Extend knowledge/What is new, novel, and surprising?/Paradox/Contradictions
• Summarise existing pool of knowledge: find a break or make a break
• Essentially, no gap > no motivation > no research paper. Hence, research problem (based on research gap) is extremely important for good research!

Theory and theorisation

• Knowledge > Generalisable knowledge > Theory (Contribution back to literature)
• Research Purpose: To generalise to theory, as research without theory is journalism! 
• In research, we are always trying to extend theoretical understanding by making arguments and using theoretical tools
• Two competing theories: Choose the one that you recognise/resonate with
• Nature of qualitative research particularly apt for theorisation, which involves exploring relationships and dynamics 
• Jacobs' Six Step Approach © on how to use theory
• Start with an important problem (why and to whom is it important?)
• Demonstrate shortcoming in existing approach
• Re-construct with theoretical bridge (argument), introduce and explain theory
• Carry out study with acceptable method, which depends on the theory chosen
• Show the contribution to knowledge/existing theories
• Reflect on what you have found (new theory/model)

Research design - Case studies

• A case is a strategy (method) rather than a genre, it can be applied to any setting
• Essential questions that shapre research design
• (1) What? (Research gap/problem)
• (2) Why? (Significance of research)
• (3) Theorise the problem (Theory)
• (4) How? (Proposed approach to gather evidence/collect data, research design!) 
•  Positivist approach/Interpretive approach (preferred)/Critical approach
• Positivist: testing/refining a hypothesis
• Interpretive: understand meaning and process
• Critical: critical reflection on practice

 Interviews and fieldwork

• Advantages of interviews: flexibility, observe non-verbal cues, controlled environment, ensure interviewee answers, complex and sensitive questions
• Disadvantages of interviews: time-consuming, interviewer bias, verbal claims differ from actual behaviour (social desirability bias) 
• Interview process: (1) Start-up, (2) Conduct interviews, (3) Recording, (4) Problems, (5) Group interviews or focus groups
• Start-up: Background, Motivation, Confidentiality, Permission, Break the ice
• Conducting interviews: Don't speak too much, Don't agree/disagree, Reflective listening
• Recording: Ask for permission, do pre-recording to see if device is functioning
• Interview problems: Don't lead interviewee, Don't offend interviewee, Don't go off-topic
• Group interviews/focus groups: Facilitate discussion, dynamic setting
• Getting in, getting on, getting out, and getting back (Buchanan, Boddy, & McCalman, 1988)
• Negotiate research access to organisations (Getting in)
• Establish effective relationships with respondents (Getting on)
• Withdraw from the relationships (Getting out)
• Return to organisation for follow-up (Getting back)  

Data analysis

• (1) What do you expect to find? (based on prior/existing literature and theory)
• (2) Who are the players and what are the relationships? (based on these, formulate design)
• (3) Analyse data (in my case, interviews) in relation to expecations and design
• (4) Challenge/Extend/Reject/Develop theory
• When data is different from what you're expecting, adjust theory
• When doing qualitative research, never separate the analysis and discussion
•  Group exercise on ANU-CBE international students' experience: A good interview analysis strikes a balance between having too much data/too little theory and having too much theory/too little data
• Can you support the proposition?
• Mobilise evidence to support proposition and theory

Write-up

• Write every day from the beginning, even when you're not in the mood
• Have a structure before writing, but be flexible with the structure 
• Write the conclusions first - to provide focus for the write-up    
• Be parsimonious: write clearly and succinctly
• Claim(s), evidence to support claim(s), warrant (explain why evidence is relevant to the claim), and qualification

From the points above, one certainly is able to tell that I have had so much to learn and gain from this course. Special mention to Kerry who's always been so supportive - challenging us intellectually, joking when we're feeling tired and stressed, and entertaining us with your stories and quotes. William Sanderson, an American actor, once famously said, "one of the joys about acting is researching", I'd like to modify it and end off with - "one of the joys about studying is researching."

In-class Exercise: Writing Up (16th May)

(1) Select three quotes to defend a point ("Quotes")
- Write a paragraph to position and another to analyse quotes
- claim → quotes → argument

While current literature suggests that gender remains a primary factor that affects a person’s perceived career choice(s), I suggest that owing to the evolvement of gender roles over the past few decades, social capital has replaced gender to be the most influential demographic factor that determines the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and subsequently his or her perceived career options.

For example, one of the female interviewees stated:

… from a young age, I knew about my parents’ careers and I think this contributed to the scope of careers that I wanted and knew I was able to achieve. The range of careers which I considered is somewhat similar to theirs, in that they were mostly middle- to upper-class occupations, mainly because I was exposed to my parents’ jobs, and because my parents sought to ensure that my siblings and I have the same level of education (or higher) as what they achieved and enjoyed.

Additionally, another male interviewee responded:

… if your mom is an accountant, you’ll be more confident about being an accounting (parental occupation).

Clearly, from both of the above responses, it can be seen that parental occupation plays a highly influential role in a person’s perceived career choice(s). There was no mention of race/ethnicity and gender affecting their perceived career choices. Hence, among race/ethnicity, gender, and social capital, social capital is shown to influence a person’s perceived career option(s) to the largest extent.

(2) Select an individual to defend a point ("Story")
- Structure narrative of individual – highlight key issues 
- Prepare an analysis of the narrative 
- claim → quotes → argument

Mark*, the male interviewee whose views differed slightly from the rest, stressed that in addition to social capital, a person’s self-efficacy beliefs, personality, and other personal motivations would also affect his or her perceived career options. He opined that:

(because) I’m quite risk-averse, I am not that keen to start my own business or become an entrepreneur […] I have a friend (a Hong Konger) who is relatively wealthy and whose parents are business people, he started his own real estate business in Australia after he graduated from an Australian university. I think that one’s own career choice is related to one’s family background and exposure. For my friend, because his family owns a business and is naturally more risk-taking than the average family, he is thus more risk-taking that others like myself. Coupled with the network of contacts that his family has, there are more opportunities for him to establish a business than others.

While many interviews did mention personality as one other factor that may affect a person’s perceived career options, Mark* went into detail by suggesting that the level of risk a person is willing to take on will also influence his or her perceived career choice greatly. The distinction he drew between his friend (risk-loving) and himself (risk-averse) is one other area that is worth exploring, since prior research has shown that personality is another influential factor that shapes a person’s perceived career choice(s).

Mark*’s parents were not highly-educated – in fact, both of his parents did not complete secondary education. However, because his father had a skill that was in demand, he was able to set up his own electrical engineering business, which gave him a decent income that was enough to support Mark*’s and his siblings’ overseas tertiary education. Note that to send all three siblings overseas for an education is quite a hefty sum even for a typical Hong Konger family by today’s standards.

Mark* also stated that:

No, I don’t think (my social capital) affected my career choices. I think even if I came from a lower-class or upper-class family, I will still choose the same career choice.

 But he did acknowledge that:

… my social class (as someone from a middle-class family) has given me a lot of exposure and opportunities. Most importantly, because my parents were able to pay for my tertiary education both in Hong Kong and Australia, this gave me more choices than a lot of my peers back in Hong Kong.

Mark* provided a more complete picture of a person’s self-efficacy beliefs and how they influence his or her perceived career options, which are both subjected to a person’s social capital, personality, and personal motivations. Hence, from Mark's story, we are able to understand the various factors (in addition to a person's social capital and demographic background) that influence a person's perceived career options. Essentially, it is not just about a person's social capital and demographic background.

What works best - tell a story or get straight to the point by using quotes? 

Personally, I found writing up using quotes much faster and easier than telling a story. At the same time, I also realised that while telling a story requires far more details and takes up a longer period of time, it essentially converts knowing into telling. Initially, I preferred using quotes because I could easily mobilise the quotes to either support or defend my claims. Because I was clear with the end goal in mind, I knew which particular quote I wanted to be included in the write-up and was able to utlise the quotes to back-up my argument and dismiss other claims. With stories, mobilisation became much harder. First, within the story alone, I had to consider the introduction, the background, the views and actions, and lastly the interpretation of the story. I then had to position the story in such a way that it is relevant to and supports my claim.

It was only after I've produced two versions of the write-up that I realised that story-telling manages to capture the emotions, goals, and decision-making thought processes that quotes tend to miss out on. When using quotes to defend my claim, I did feel as though I had more control of how I went about managing and using the data, but I felt that I was putting too much of myself into the write-up. Instead of letting the stories speak for themselves, I was making assumptions and operating them in a way that fits my write-up. On the other hand, story-telling was a detailed approach which enabled me to decipher what exactly the interviewee meant, with his/her careful choice of words which brought out different emotions, meanings, attitudes, and experiences. With quotes, my write up was straight-to-the-point, they represented the outcomes and conclusion. But herein lies the issue, in research (especially qualitative research), we are not only interested in the outcomes, we are also interested in the processes that led to the outcomes. How did the researcher arrive at this conclusion? Why did he interpret it in this manner? It is only through story-telling that we are able to answer these crucial questions, and thus developing a story for the purpose of research is definitely worth the extra effort and time. 

Table 1. Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Methods (Kendall & Kendall, 2012)


For my research project, I will be using a mix of quotes and stories to defend my argument(s). I think quotes and stories are particularly appropriate for interpreting interviews, since they do not attempt to alter the underlying meanings of the interviewees' responses and are able to complement one another well. Given the limited time-frame for this course, a research write-up filled with stories will be overwhelming on the part of the researcher. Essentially, while the researcher aims to represent the data as accurately as possible, he or she doesn't need to include everything that's being said and recorded. Throughout this exercise, Kerry provided us with constructive feedback and comments which I found to be extremely useful in not just honing my writing skills, but informing me what a proper qualitative research write-up entails. With this, I feel more confident and prepared for the actual write-up of my research project.

References

Kendall, J. E., & Kendall, K. E. (2012). Storytelling as a qualitative method for IS research: Heralding the heroic and echoing the mythic. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 161-187.

Reflections on "Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out and Getting Back - The art of the possible"

This article by Buchanan, Boddy, and McCalman (1988) provided a behind-the-scenes perspective of how they go about carrying out their qualitative research, elaborating on the painstaking process of research (in particular, data collection) that is not well-understood by the general public. The most important message that I got after reading this article is that when embarking on a qualitative research project, it is important that the researcher remains flexible, reflective, and open-minded throughout the research process.

Drawing on their experience in conducting fieldwork in organisations, Buchanan et al. (1988) proposed a four-stage process in which researchers go through when trying to gain access to organisations for data collection purposes. The four stages are: (1) getting in, (2) getting on, (3) getting out, and (4) getting back. To summarise, at the "getting in" stage, researchers are expected to be clear about their objectives, time, and resources, and with those in mind, negotiate their way through to the organisation to gain research access. Once access has been granted to the researcher, it becomes necessary to establish connections with members of the organisation, so having basic interpersonal skills and procedures such as good appearance, verbal, and non-verbal communication will play an important role at the "getting on" stage. This subsequently determines the quantity and quality of the data provided by respondents. Having collected the necessary data, the researcher will now embark on the "getting out" stage. Buchanan et al. (1988) suggested that the best way for a researcher to proceed with his/her own research is to agree on a deadline with the organisation, so as to bring the data collection process to a closure. Finally, the option of "getting back" (returning) to the organisation for further fieldwork should be kept, and this requires the researcher to manage the process of withdrawal from the organisation favourably.

I read the article three times, and gained new insights each time I read it. I can't help but agree with Kerry that each time the researcher reads the article, he/she will find the points mentioned more and more salient and relevant to his/her own research. Because I have mainly conducted interviews with university students (for convenience sampling), I may not be able to relate to the article entirely. Nevertheless, the authors brought up certain issues and incidents which I did encounter, and I'd like to reflect on two obstacles which I've encountered in data collection

(1) I totally agree with the authors that not all research projects will progress according to plan, even if the researcher(s) has closely followed the process of theory development and data collection methods, is highly conscientious, meticulous, and well-prepared. For instance, I planned to interview Indigenous students studying at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre in the ANU and I had assumed that with the help of Kerry and Stuart, I would definitely be able to interview one or two Indigenous students. However, the Manager of the Centre did not like the idea of making the decision herself, and this is rightly so, since he/she does not represent the students, and merely manages the Centre and deals with the administrative issues. In performing research, there are always unavoidable realities, which instead of tackling them, it's sometimes best to not continue pursuing those interests and embark on the other alternatives. Because I could not gain access to Indigenous students at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre, I sought the help of peers who I thought may have access to the Indigenous community within ANU. As luck would have it, my fellow Honours coursemate (Luke) recommended some Indigenous students to me, and Kerry along with the Manager of the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre referred me to the President of the Indigenous Students' Association, and suggested that I contact him directly to gain access to Indigenous students in ANU. I have since conducted one interview with a second-year CBE Indigenous male student, and will be carrying out another interview with a first-year CBE Indigenous female student over the weekends.

(2) One downside of conducting structured interviews is that the researcher, who is the one facilitating the interview-conversation, might fall into the trap of becoming overly mechanical, thereby impeding the process of eliciting personal, sensitive information which may play a crucial role in addressing the research question. Being overly mechanical may lead the researcher to "ignore many apparently trivial remarks and passing comments in the interview which if pursued could lead to further insights and improved understanding". In my case, I realised that when I was uncomfortable with the setting of the interview (e.g. a noisy cafe), I tended to be more mechanical and maintained a psychological distance with the respondent. This comprised on the quality and the quantity of the interview responses. Hence, I would like to think of the interview as more of a conversation, which can only be sustained through input from both the researcher and the respondent, via little gestures like being genuinely interested and showing genuine interest in the responses and life of the respondent. Another way is to use ice-breakers such as "how has your day been?", "have you got a lot of work to do?", and "have you heard about the latest (fashion/news/trends/cafes/store/etc.)" just to get the respondent into a relaxed mode and ease him/her into the interview. As Burgess (1988) puts it, qualitative research interviews, as opposed to structured survey interviews, are usually taken to involve some form of "conversation with a purpose". Hence, when carrying out interviews, I try my best to keep them conversational, dynamic, and flexible, so that I can engage effectively with the interviewee, and in the process, learn more about their opinions with regards to the research issues and their experiences.

Summary: The four stages a researcher has to go through when collecting data from an organisation

Stage 1: Getting In - Negotiate research access to organisations
Stage 2: Getting On - Establish effective relationships with respondents
Stage 3: Getting Out - Withdraw from those relationships
Stage 4: Getting Back - Returning to the organisation to follow up aspects of previous findings

Buchanan et al. (1988)

References

Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., and McCalman, J. (1988), "Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back", in A. Bryman (Ed.), Doing Research in Organizations, Routledge, London, pp. 53-67.

Burgess, R. (1988), "Conversations with a purpose: the ethnographic interview in educational research", Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 137-155.

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis

Kerry introduced the triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis to assist us in forming good arguments and developing reasoning based on evidence. He mentioned that thinking or writing in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis can also help us position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse regarding our topic. Additionally, he mentioned that existing literature is essentially an on-going argument, so if we can show such a pattern of thought in a literature review, the literature review is likely to be comprehensive, thorough, and sophisticated.

The thesis is essentially an idea that we propose (e.g. high social self-efficacy enables a person to be successful in dating). In research, the thesis is the proposition. The antithesis is a response to the thesis asserted, a negation of the thesis (e.g. Z argued that people with high social self-efficacy tend to be flirts instead, hence people tend to avoid dating them). As illustrated in both examples, a conflict exists between the thesis and the antithesis. Based on the antithesis, a person with high social self-efficacy would not be successful in dating since he/she is usually known as a flirt. Perhaps social self-efficacy is one of the necessary traits for a person to be good in dating, but we also have to consider the person's appearance, personality, and experience to determine if he/she will be successful in dating. I have positioned the new idea as a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad. In other words, the synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling both and forming a new thesis, thereby starting a new cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thought process has given me a better idea of how I can go about formulating good, robust, and persuasive arguments. Despite Kerry's constant emphasis on making good arguments, I have struggled considerably in this aspect. This was evident in the first literature review assignment of this course in which Kerry remarked that I have not addressed the gap, even though I have found and indicated that there is a gap in existing self-efficacy literature. Consequently, I decided to practice using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach on my current qualitative research project on self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. The exercise is shown below:

(1) Thesis: Current literature suggests that gender is by far the most important demographic factor that influences a person's self-efficacy beliefs, and his/her subsequent perceived career options.
(2) Antithesis: However, in most of the interviews which I have conducted (which involve full-time ANU CBE students), a person's social capital appears to be the most influential demographic factor that affects his/her self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options.
(3) Synthesis: A possible explanation is that the traditional gender roles have already evolved such that the influence of gender on a person's self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options is diminished. Consequently, a person's social capital has become the most important demographic factor in determine the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and the formulation of his/her perceived career choices (possibly as a result of greater social inequality).

I found this exercise to be extremely useful in helping me understand what is lacking in a salient argument. From now on, I will definitely be using the above approach when constructing arguments!

On Planning and Carrying Out Interviews (Experience of ANU-CBE International Students)

For this interviewing exercise, Luke and I interviewed a total of six international students - each of us conducted two interviews individually and two individuals jointly. On listening to the recordings while transcribing the verbatim, I noticed some differences in interviewing styles between Luke's and my interview style. In addition, I realised that I have a tendency to interrupt and make assumptions during interviews, which greatly compromises on their quality. This indicates that I have to improve my interviewing technique.

Upon further reflection on the exercise, I broke down the interviewing process into three main phases:

(1) Prior to the interview

Before coming up with the interview questions, Luke and I discussed about the theory with regards to the topic that was assigned to us - the experience of CBE international students studying at ANU. Our theory was based on semiotics, which is defined as the study of the structure and meaning of language. We proposed that a person's semiotic background, not just his or her command of English, will play an important role in influencing his or her experience in the ANU. We took some time to develop the interview questions, because we both felt that it was important to first formulate a theory.

Coming from a quantitative background, I also noticed that the way in which we went about theorising and forming interview questions is slightly different for both types of research. For example, Luke (coming for a qualitative background), was sharing with me how certain words (such as describe, can you tell me more about ..., experiences, influences, attitudes, etc.) were preferred in qualitative research when formulating the interview questions.

When constructing the interview questions, we tried to make them as broad and neutral as possible so as to reduce potential interviewer and social desirability bias. The following five questions were part of our interview: 

1. How do you feel as an individual in ANU with regards to your identity?
2. How do you associate with others at ANU?
3. How does your experience at ANU differ from your experience of Australia/home
   country?
4. How satisfied are you with your conduct at ANU and ANU’s conduct of you?
5. Overall, do you find your experience at ANU enjoyable?

All five questions leave open the possibility for interviewees to mention any issues which they consider to be relevant to their experience in ANU-CBE. 

(2) During the interview

Many international students did not fully understand our interview questions, and were only able to respond only after we have clarified the meaning of certain words in the interview questions. This was an oversight on Luke's and my part, because we had assumed that firstly, all ANU-CBE international students will have the same command of English as us, and secondly, they they will understand the meaning of the words "identity", "associate", and "conduct" in the context of semiotics. It is important that interviewees understand and do not misinterpret the questions, otherwise the responses may not help in collecting relevant data. However, the questions that interviewees asked also shed light on certain issues that were new to us, and gave us a better understanding of their cultural backgrounds and customs.

On the whole, I found that having a scribe and an interviewer made it much easier to conduct an interview. The quality of the interview was also maximised. When we conducted the interviews jointly, one of us was in charge of ensuring that the recorder was functioning and taking down observational notes, and the other was in charge of asking the questions and interacting with the interviewee. Having conducted interviews individually most of the time, I found myself less stressed and hectic in the joint interviews.

In terms of interviewing technique and style, I felt that while I could connect with most of the interviewees who came from Asia (Filipinos, Malaysians, and Chinese), I struggled when I had to prompt interviewees for further elaboration of the claims they made. Sometimes, in prompting interviewees to explain in detail, I felt that I have interrupted the conversation and their train of thought, and even imposed my views on their responses. Luke assured me that such incidents usually point to a lack of experience rather than a lack of interviewing skills. I must admit that I'm so used to structured interviews, that semi-structured and unstructured interviews seem a little overwhelming to me at first. Fortunately, after conducting a few more interviews, I slowly got the hang of it and conducted the semi-structured interviews more confidently.

(3) After the interview

Transcribing the interviews verbatim took some time, but having a systematic approach facilitated our subsequent data analysis. Based on our theory, we used coding to analyse the transcribed data. After the entire interviewing process was over, I referred back to the observational notes I took during some of the interviews. Together with the transcripts, I thought that the fieldnotes contributed to the entire data analysis process, especially when we proceeded to code and make sense of the wealth of data that we had collected.

Having gone through this exercise, I would like to thank my groupmate, Luke, for being so wonderful and patient to me. Given that I am still learning the ropes of carrying out qualitative research, I must say that I have learnt a lot from you! I thoroughly enjoyed this exercise.

Fieldwork Methods & Issues - Interviews

Kerry went through a few qualitative data collection techniques today, focusing mainly on interviews, and touching briefly on focus groups, field notes, and participant observation. I found this session to be particularly useful because I will be conducting structured interviews for my research project. While my interview is made up of pre-determined questions and will be replicated for each interviewee, most of them are open-ended, which may lead to unnecessary/additional information since the interviewee is free to respond. Hence, it is necessary that I follow proper interview procedures and keep the conversation centred around the topic of interest.

Interviews

There are three fundamental types of research interviews: (1) structured, (2) semi-structured, and (3) unstructured. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of my qualitative research project, I'll be adopting the structured interview approach. I chose interviews as the data collection method because face-to-face interviews are particularly apt when the depth of meaning is of importance and the current research is primarily focused on gaining insights and achieving a better understanding (Gillham, 2000; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Additionally, given the limited time and resources for this course, structured interviews will facilitate the data collection and analysis process. This is because: (1) regulation and standardisation: all respondents are asked the same questions in the same manner, making it easy to replicate the discussion; and (2) since I will be using NVivo 10 to code the collected data, the process of creating a coding structure to subsequently code the data will also be easier.

In the field of self-efficacy beliefs, conducting one-to-one interviews is probably the best way to elicit detailed responses of the interviewee's successes, failures, and experiences which contribute to and sustain his/her self-efficacy beliefs. Researchers in the area of self-efficacy have agreed that studies have mostly been quantitative, hence the need for more qualitative inquiries to provide richer descriptions via narrative (Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares, 2008).

In class, we had a short role-play in which Kerry was the interviewer and I the interviewee. On hindsight, I was very lucky to have been part of the role-play as I got to experience how it felt to be interviewed, which made me aware of the potential issues that an interviewer might overlook. One important aspect which I have never encountered was the fact that as the interviewer/researcher, I am actually the learner and not the expert. In other words, I am interested in the interviewee's opinions, experience, and feelings, so even if they differ from mine, I am not in any position to judge, criticise, or disagree. Kerry first portrayed the role of a "bad" interviewer by interrupting me (the interviewee) as I spoke and then disagreeing with one of my opinions. In both cases, I either stumbled or became very cautious of my subsequent responses - to which Kerry pointed out that because of his insensitivity, the interview has become a tense affair. Consequently, the quality of the data collected  may be comprised, since the interviewee's responses will be affected.

Kerry subsequently went through how we could become "good" interviewers who facilitated interviews and enhanced the quality of the responses, instead of quelling the interviewee's responses and potentially diminishing the quality of discussion. He provided a few tips on how interviewers could go about doing so:

• Don’t speak too much - the interviewer should not be dominating the conversation. He/she should be a listener, since the interviewee's responses are most important.
• Reflective listening - a communication technique involving two steps: (1) seek to understand the interviewee's idea, and (2) offer idea back to interviewee. Both steps help ensure that the response/opinion/idea of the interviewee has been understood.
• Rephrasing - "So you are saying that..." can help to clarify any vague ideas or responses from the interviewee. 

I have carried out two pilot interviews and three actual interviews thus far, but I struggled in one instance when the cafe was too noisy. For a number of questions, I could not hear and understand my interviewee's responses. Additionally, the quality of the recording was muffled. I do not intend to include that interview, and will instead be interviewing an additional person just to compensate for this interview.

References

Opdenakker, R. (2006), "Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research", Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 11.

Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008), "A comparative study of the self‐efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1036—1058.

Other helpful links/references:

For Interviews

Open- versus close-ended questions (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/jrichardson/dis220/openclosed.htm)

5 types of interviews: structured, semi-structured, unstructured, informal, and focus groups (http://www.qualres.org/HomeInte-3595.html)

Strengths and weaknesses of semi-structured interviews (http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semi-structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses)

Gillman, B. (2000), The Research Interview, Continuum, London.

Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage Publications, London.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2004), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

NVivo Tutorials - Data Analysis for Interviews and Thematic Coding

As I'll be making use of the content analysis approach to analyse the data I've collected from the interviews, I thought I'd start learning how to use NVivo 10 that is available in the school computers. NVivo 10 is a qualitative data analysis software that handles virtually any types of data, allows the user to work through his/her gathered information, highlights key points, performs qualitative data analysis, and uncovers subtle trends from the data. As one of the data analysis techniques that I'll be using is coding (descriptive/analytical), NVivo 10 is an appropriate software to use since it allows for both coding and auto-coding.

The first tutorial shows us how to use NVivo 10 to work with interviews, articles, and other documents.

The second tutorial shows us how to use NVivo 10 to organise materials into themes for coding.

The data analysis method might be subjected to changes upon subsequent consultations with Kerry. Nevertheless, I have been told by my peers and Kerry that NVivo is a rather useful software in managing and organising large volumes of data. Should I have the time, I will definitely explore NVivo in greater detail.

Analysing Data: Alan Bryman's Four Stages of Qualitative Analysis

   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7VuQxPfpk

My Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) has finally arrived - time to conduct some interviews!

Finding the best voice recorder for research interviews can be tricky, since the market is saturated with a wide range of models with comparable features, and the only difference differentiating each model is almost always the price (and quality).

If the digital voice recorder is meant for conducting interviews, these are two features you might want to look out for in a voice recorder:

(1) An important issue is the file format, since it will determine what you can do with the recordings once they have been generated. For instance, if you need to edit the recording, then you need to be recording in a more generic format, say .mp3 or .wav. Additionally, for the purpose of my qualitative research project, I will most probably be using coding to analyse the data collected, hence ensuring that the file format is compatible with the analytical software (in my case, NVivo 10).  

(2) The quality of the recorded audio is another issue that is very important when carrying out interviews. In addition to buying a voice recorder that is of a good quality (especially in terms of the sound quality of its recordings), the interviewer can:

• Reduce the amount of background noise by being in a quiet place; and
• Having two voice recorders. 

 I have tested my digital voice recorder and it works pretty well - can't wait to proceed to carry out interviews with my peers!

Collecting Data by Interviewing - Questioning Techniques

 

Ask clear questions

Use words that make sense to the interviewees, and which are sensitive to the respondent’s context and world view. Questions should be easy to understand, straight-to-the-point, and devoid of jargon.

Ask single questions

Researchers should ask one thing at a time, as this will eliminate any unnecessary burden of interpretation on the part of the interviewees.

Ask truly open-ended questions

Such questions do not pre-determine the answers and allow room for the interviewees to respond in their own terms or language. For example, "What do you think about your English?" as opposed to "Do you think your level of English is high, medium, or low?".

Ask experience/behaviour questions before opinion/feeling questions

It is useful to ask questions about the interviewee's experience or behaviour before asking questions about his/her opinions or feelings as this helps establish a context for the interviewees to express the latter. For example, the interviewer could ask "What happened?" before "How do you feel about this issue?".

Sequence the questions in an appropriate manner

This refers to the use of a special kind of questioning technique called ‘funnelling’, which means asking from general (big picture) to the specific details, from broad to narrow. 

Probe and follow-up questions

The purpose of probing is to deepen the response to a question, to increase the richness of the data being obtained, and to give cues to the interviewee about the level of response that is desired. This can be done through direct questioning of what the interviewee just said - for example, "Could you elaborate more on that?" and "Can you give a more detailed description of what happened?".

Interpret questions

Throughout the interview, the interviewer should clarify and extend the meanings of the interviewee’s statements to avoid misinterpretations on their part. For example, the interviewer may use questions like ‘Is it correct that you feel that……?" and "Does the expression….. cover what you have just expressed?".

Avoid sensitive questions

Avoid deep questions which may irritate the interviewees, possibly resulting in an interruption of the interview.

Encourage a free rein but maintain control

Proficient interviewers should always be in control of a conversation which they guide and bend towards their research interest(s).

Establish rapport

Interviewers should respect the interviewee’s opinions, support his/her feelings, or recognise his/her responses

Reference

Berry, R. S. Y (1999), "Collecting data by in-depth interviewing", paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 2-5 September, University of Sussex at Brighton, available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000001172.htm (accessed 31 March 2013).

Reflections on Week 3 In-class Assigned Task - Present and discuss one theory for your area of research (what do you expect and why?)

Having conducted a few pilot interviews for my research project and attended a series of consultations with Kerry, I have managed to step out of my comfort zone and tread in "unsafe" waters - all in the name of good research. Taking some risks, experiencing uncertainties, and pushing the boundaries have helped me greatly in the process of theorisation. As I was looking through the "theory" (" " because I wouldn't really considered it a theory on hindsight) which I proposed in the maiden draft of my proposal, I decided to revisit it to compare and contrast the progress I have made thus far.

Week 3

Theoretical Framework:

The overarching idea is that mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and psychological state collectively shape an individual's self-efficacy beliefs, which subsequently lead the individual to perceive a range of career options that are suitable for him/her, the influence of which is affected by the indivdual's gender and cultural background. 

Hypothesised Theoretical Process:

Essentially, what I proposed was that an individual's gender and cultural background will influence his/her level of self-efficacy beliefs (high/low level) as well as the range of career options he/she deems suitable and within his/her capabilities (wide/narrow range).

Clearly, in the above example, I have yet to propose a theory which explains how self-efficacy beliefs effect perceived career options. I have merely described the antecedents and outcomes of self-efficacy beliefs, as well as the possible mediators/moderators of the relationship. Kerry remarked that such a theoretical framework is overly quantitative, and neglects the theoretical nuances which account for how self-efficacy beliefs form an individual's perceived career options.

Week 4

After gathering feedback from my peers and Kerry, I made some adjustments to the theoretical model which I have proposed in the previous week, with the primary aim of explaining how self-efficacy beliefs shape an individual's perceived career options.

Theoretical Framework:

Hypothesised Theoretical Process:

Based on the four tenets of self-efficacy beliefs, we know that self-efficacy is developed from external experiences and self-perception, which are influential in determining the outcomes of many events – and among the outcomes, perceived career options. I propose two pathways, based on the two pillars – self-perception and external experiences, that link self-efficacy beliefs to perceived career options:

(1) Self-expansion: The idea of self-perception is that individuals tend to incorporate certain successful attributes relevant to another individual’s behaviour into their own self-concepts, leading participants to then modify their own behaviours. One way through which students may actually expand their range of career options is that they actually include another person’s attributes or choices, and include them as their own career choices.

(2) Boundary-setting: Another way that people form their career choices is based on external experiences which they have encountered or witnessed, and having been scarred by a previous bad experience, they scale back their career options, or set limits to what they believe they can achieve.

Both pathways will be investigated, taking into consideration the interplay of class, gender, and race/ethnicity, as shown here:

The interplay of gender, class, and race/ethnicity yields the following 18 interview cases:

Kerry explained that while I have managed to propose a theory linking self-efficacy beliefs to perceived career options, I have not identified the overarching issue - to which he referred to as the "social-psychological paradox". Both Ann and Kerry pointed out that self-perception is a psychological construct, while external experiences are social constructs. As I had not viewed the research issue from this perspective previously, I decided to read up more about the aforementioned paradox.


Week 8

Fast forward to this week, I now have a better understanding of what constitutes a theory, and what it means to propose a theory within the realm of qualitative research. I have always been more familiar with quantitative research, because my Honours thesis will be adopting quantitative research methods. What I found out later as I delved deeper into qualitative research is that both types are quite similar in their own ways. As with quantitative research, qualitative research relies heavily on theories (usually drawn from the social sciences and humanities) to guide their research process and illuminate their findings (Reeves, 2008).

Literature on self-efficacy suggests that the self-efficacy beliefs–perceived career options relationship is impacted more strongly by socio-economic status (SES) than by gender differences (contrary to many previous studies), and occasionally affected by race/ethnicity if the individual is from a country or background that discriminates against or grants privileges to a certain race/ethnicity (for example, the Malays are the privileged race in Malaysia). In particular, I propose that:

Self-efficacy beliefs: influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and
behave (Bandura, 1993)

Sources of self-efficacy:

• Mastery Experiences
• Vicarious Experiences
• Social Persuasion
• Physiological Factors

lead to

Career self-efficacy: the belief that an individual can accomplish his/her career goals

leads to

Perceived career options

based on a person's socio-economic background. Essentially, an individual's parents' educational background will set a minimum benchmark which the individual hopes to achieve, and his/her parents' income will help determine if the chances of him/her obtaining tertiary education will be higher or lower, which ultimately detemines whether the individual's range of career options is wide, narrow, specific, high-paying, mid-paying, and so on.

While Kerry remarked that I have attempted to explain how self-efficacy beliefs effect perceived career options, it was still not considered a theory mainly because what I have theorised is based purely on my assumptions, without reference to literature and theory backing the social-psychological paradox as well as the theoretical process. Hence, Kerry recommended Bordieu's work on classes and classifications, and suggested that I consider social capital as opposed to socio-economic status.

Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) defined social capital as:

... the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.

Based on the above definition, Bourdieu explained the realities of social inequality. He suggested that "it's not what you know, but who you know" that matters. He pointed out that the top jobs tend to go to well-connected and wealthy people, who could afford to attend elite schools. This is ascertained by numerous research on social mobility. Additionally, Bourdieu proposed that the volume of social capital possessed by an individual depends on the size of the network of connections he/she can effectively mobilise and the volume of capital (economic, cultural, or symbolic) possessed by each of those to whom he/she is connected to. There is an emphasis on access to connections, which are considered as resources. The unequal distribution of social capital is the principal source of class struggle/conflict. When applied to educational attainment, Bourdieu explained that the economic or social yield of educational qualifications depends on social capital, which can be inherited and used to support the attainment of educational goals.

Based on the three pilot interviews which I have carried out thus far, the idea that connections play an important role in shaping self-efficacy beliefs and subsequently influencing the individual's perceived career options does not seem like a robust explanation. Two of my interviewees mentioned that they were able to attend university because their parents could afford tuition fees, and their intention to pursue a range of or a few careers after graduation (they have not graduated) has nothing to do with their parents' wishes, although the fact that their parents spent quite a bit of money to send them to college would mean that they would prefer to pursue "decent" careers with mid- to high-salaries. The last interviewee attributed her narrow range of career options (she limited her career options to the insurance industry) to her love for mathematics and numbers, none of her immediate or extended family members were actuaries and both her parents were in Academia.

Despite the weak connection linking social capital to self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options, a deeper exploration of the demographic differences has allowed me to gain a well-rounded and detailed understanding of the complexities linking both constructs. I am quite confident of formulating a good theory within the next two weeks.

References

Bandura, A. (1993), "Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning",
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 28, No. 2: pp. 117—148.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Reeves, S., Albert, M., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008), "Qualitative research: Why use theories in qualitative research?", BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 337, No. 7670: pp. 631—634.

Summary & Review of Article - "What Theory is Not" by R. I. Sutton & B. M. Shaw

The content of this blog post is based primarily on the following article:

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 371-384.

In the article "What theory is not" by Sutton and Staw (1995), it is noted that many researchers mistake references, data, variables/constructs, diagrams, and hypotheses for theory. The authors also urged journals and editors to be more receptive to papers that investigate a part of rather than an entire theory, and utilise illustrative (qualitative) rather than definitive (quantitative) data. 

Sutton and Staw (1995) explained that:

• References are not theory, because researchers need to explain which concepts and arguments are adopted from sources and how they are linked to the theory.  
• Data are not theory, because data merely describes which empirical patterns were observed and theory explains why empirical patterns were observed. It does not constitute a theory. Researchers who use qualitative data must develop causal arguments (theory) to explain why findings are observed. 
• Variables/constructs are not theory. The key issue is why certain variables are more important and thus chosen, not what variables/construct are in the theoretical model. 
•  Diagrams are not theory, because they don't explain why. However, the authors acknowledged that a good theory is often representational and verbal.
•  Hypothesis (or predictions) are not theory, because hypotheses are statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur.

A strong theory answers why and delves into the underlying processes. According to the authors, strong theories are missing in many quantitative research papers, as they seem to be overly concerned with methodology. There is a need to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. However, the authors also noted that theory is often over-emphasized in qualitative research. In light of these findings, the authors argued that the best papers are those that strike a fine balance between theory and method.

Understanding "Unit of Analysis"

I had quite a hard time understanding the entire concept of "unit of analysis" when it was first being introduced by Kerry, but gradually began to grasp the concept when Kerry kept prompting me to change my unit of analysis for my research project on self-efficacy beliefs. Kerry's intention of wanting me to change my unit of analysis wasn't because he felt that the individual level of analysis was inappropriate for the purpose of my research, but he wanted me to understand what the unit of analysis is, and how I could go about using it to analyse a journal article, research, or theory.

Units of analysis are issues we examine to account for differences among separate entities.  The biggest misconception that most people have regarding the unit of analysis is that it refers to the level of observation in a study. I fell into this trap as well. When Kerry mentioned that the unit of analysis could be at the individual, group, organisational, institutional, or societal level, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that the unit of analysis refers to what the researcher is studying. It is not the sample that you're studying which determines your unit of analysis, it is the analysis that you do in your study that determines what the unit is. If one were to liken the unit of analysis to the unit of observation/sampling, then there would only be one "unit of analysis" throughout the study. However, in qualitative research, it is possible for a study to have different units of analysis. In fact, researchers can position their research in different ways based on different units of analysis. For example, I might decide to position my analysis based on individual self-efficacy beliefs. In this case, the unit of analysis is at the individual level. However, when analysing my collected data, I might decide to compare the average level of self-efficacy. In this case, the unit of analysis is at the group level.

In varying the unit of analysis, Kerry urged us to be consistent and anticipate what conclusions we wish to make with regard to each unit of analysis. He has seen many examples of research where statements of a particular unit of analysis are actually based on another unit of analysis. Essentially, in exploring the different units of analysis, we might risk drawing invalid conclusions where the units of analysis do not match.

Elements of a Good Proposal

A research proposal is important because it assesses the researcher's expertise in the area in which he/she is conducting research, his/her knowledge of the existing literature, and how the research project will enhance the current pool of knowledge. Potential supervisors, admissions officers, and/or research funders usually base their decisions on research proposal, and emphasise on the quality and originality of ideas, the researcher's skills in critical thinking, and the feasibility of his/her research project.

With reference to the aims and importance of a research proposal, I will now proceed to discuss "what makes a good proposal"? I will do so in three steps, as shown below:

(1) According to Kerry's good proposal template©, a good proposal addresses the following questions:

1. What is my key academic paper?
2. What is the problem (mistake/gap) in that paper?
3. What is the "model" of the process you are looking at?
4. What is my "best guess" / theory for how I would expect the gap to work?
5. Why is the gap important for cause and effect issues?
6. What evidence do I need to "fill the gap"?
7. What is a reasonable way to gather the evidence I need?

(2) Translating these questions into specific elements of a good proposal, we get:

• Question 1 refers to the underlying motivation of the research project. 
• Question 2 refers to the research gap present in existing literature.
• Question 3 refers to the cause and effect linkages within the field of research.
• Question 4 refers to the theory proposed by the researcher (theoretical process). 
• Question 5 refers to the link between the research gap and the cause-and-effect linkages. 
• Question 6 refers to evidence that addresses the research gap/problem.
• Question 7 refers to the method used to collect data (methodology) to support the theory proposed earlier.

(3) The last step is to assign proper headings to the elements identified in step (2):

• Introduction
  - Research Issue
  - Literature Review
  - Research Question(s)
• Purpose of Study
• Research Design & Methodology
  - Sample
  - Data Collection
  - Data Analysis
  - Pilot Study
  - Ethical Consideration(s) 

 A PhD or Honours thesis proposal might even include the following items:

• Proposed Outcome(s)
• Limitation(s)
• Dissemination
• Timeline
• Resources
• References
• Appendices

This list is not exhaustive, but it attempts to capture the key elements that researchers usually include in their research proposals. A proper research grant proposal might even include additional sections such as "budget", "project plan", or "staff and institutional qualifications", but for the purpose of this course and my Honours thesis, I will not have to worry about funding.

Instead of giving us strict headings for the proposal, I like how Kerry prompts us with questions that help us to understand the essential components of a research proposal. In particular, the questions "What is my "best guess" / theory for how I would expect the gap to work?" and "Why is the gap important for cause and effect issues?" have constantly reminded me that the theory and the research gap are extremely important for high quality and interesting research. I will now proceed to write a complete proposal for the qualitative research project of this course.

The Ladder of Inference - Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions!

I came across this simple yet insightful TED-Ed video entitled "Rethinking Thinking" by Trevor Maber, and was introduced to the "ladder of inference", an idea developed by American business theoriest Chris Argyris, and subsequently thrust into the corporate world by Peter Senge via his book "The Fifth Disciple: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation".

The ladder is often used as a tool to help an individual understand how and why he/she thinks as he/she does about an issue. It can also help the individual understand why others think differently about an issue and empathise with their perspectives. The conscious use of the ladder of inference has been shown to be a valuable resource for understanding the source of differences in opinions. I identified many similarities between the research process and the steps involved in the ladder of inference, and one of the most important lessons which I learned while comparing both is - never be too quick to jump to conclusions! And one of the ways to avoid jumping to conclusions is to always be clear about the underlying assumptions and conclusions made. 

The steps involved in the ladder of inference, adapted from:
http://gwynteatro.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/climbing-the-ladder-of-inference/

Consultants advocate the use of the ladder to help leaders or management draw better conclusions, make better decisions, or challenge other people's conclusions based on the facts and information available. They also encourage the use of the ladder in analysing hard data, for example, a set of sales figures, the consumption habits of the general populace, or to test assertions. At the individual level, the ladder of inference can also be used to help validate or challenge other people's assertions or conclusions.

In research, although not many researchers or scholars have mentioned the use of the ladder in their thought processes, I have noticed many similarities between the steps expounded in the ladder of inference and how researchers go about doing research.

The first step of the ladder of inference is the data. There is a vast amount of data in the world, and each individual has a limited capacity to absorb them. Hence, the individual selects the data, and proceeds to add meaning to the data he/she has selected. Based on the meaning he/she has added, assumptions are made and conclusions are drawn, and action is taken based on the conclusions made. The cycle repeats when the results/consequences of the actions become data for another round of climbing the ladder. Over time, it is believed that the conclusions formed contribute to the foundation of the individual's beliefs, assumptions, and even values. They also play an influential role in filtering the data selected and adding meaning to the data when the process is repeated time and again.

In fact, I think the reason why the ladder of inference is highly applicable to researchers and their thought processes is because the logic behind the ladder is built on the assumptions about the human behaviour. In general, humans tend to:   

• assume that others see the world as they do. Hence, if there are any disagreements, they are usually concentrated on the conclusions. The issue here is, humans assume that everyone selects the same data and adds the same meaning to the data. Reality is, none of us do.; 
• take short-cuts around the ladder (e.g. jump to conclusions), and are unconscious of the steps they have climbed on the ladder; and
• assume that any conclusions made are the "truth". But what is the truth? 

Similarly, in research, the data at the bottom of the ladder represents the pool of information that may be relevant to the researcher's research interests. Going up the ladder, the researcher then selects the relevant information from the pool of information available. The researcher proceeds to learn what the selected information describes about the phenomenon or issue he/she is studying, and from thereon, interpret and evaluate whatever he/she has noticed. Any assumptions or beliefs that the researcher holds greatly influence whatever he/she notices from the selected information. Following which, the researcher seeks to link the issue he/she is studying to the information he/she has selected, identifying any inconsistencies and consistencies between both, and finally, coming up with a theoretical framework on which the issue will be investigated. Having established a theoretical framework, the researcher then proceeds to investigate the issue and provide explanations and conclusions regarding his findings, and at the end of it, he/she will usually provide some limitations and recommendations for future research.

I found the following questions derived from the ladder of inference extremely useful when doing research:

• What are the facts that I should be using?
• Are the facts relevant?
• Are there other facts I should have considered?
• What data have I chosen to use and why?
• Have I selected data rigorously?
• Why have I chosen this course of action/approach?
• Are there other actions/approaches which I should have considered?
• What belief/assumption led to this particular action?
• Were the beliefs/assumptions well-founded?
• What am I assuming, and why?
• Essentially, are my assumptions valid?
• Why did I draw that conclusion?
• Is the conclusion sound?

The temptation to skip various steps of the ladder and jump straight to making conclusions is something that the ladder of inference would like to remind people about (and prevent them from doing so). In order to address and overcome this temptation, the ladder of inference advocates and emphasises critical thinking in accepting the existence of perceptions, rather than simply trusting any data that one has encountered. The next time you do any form of research, it might be a good idea to go through your thinking process following the steps of the ladder of inference. Having done that, let me know if the ladder of inference did assist you in gaining further insights about your thought processes and how you go about doing research.