Sunday, 28 April 2013
Friday, 26 April 2013
My Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) has finally arrived - time to conduct some interviews!
.jpeg)
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.
Friday, 19 April 2013
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).
Sunday, 14 April 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:
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:
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.
Week 3
Theoretical Framework:
Hypothesised Theoretical Process:
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:
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)
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.
Thursday, 28 March 2013
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:
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.
Monday, 18 March 2013
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.
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.
Monday, 11 March 2013
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:
(3) The last step is to assign proper headings to the elements identified in step (2):
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.
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:
- What is my key academic paper?
- What is the problem (mistake/gap) in that paper?
- 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?
- 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)
- Proposed Outcome(s)
- Limitation(s)
- Dissemination
- Timeline
- Resources
- References
- Appendices
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)