Research into Methods for Social Research

There are four main types of methods that can be used in gathering information they are questionnaires, surveys, observations and documents. Each of these methods provides tools to the collection of empirical data that can be later analysed and conclusions made. these methods allow research is the tools to gain a clearer picture of things, an accurate measurements of things and facts and evaluations about the subject matter. Before choosing a method it is important to consider these five key points:

• It has become synonymous with some research strategies that a certain research method must be used this is not the case and the researchers should not rule out the possibility of choice when deciding on a research method or strategie.
• Each method approaches the collection of data with a certain set of assumptions and produces a type of data whose usefulness depends on what the researcher is trying to achieve.
• When choosing a research methods researchers should they based a decision on the criteria of usefulness.
• Research methods do not need to be seen as mutually exclusive.
• The use of more than one method allows the researcher to use triangulation.

Questionnaires

What is a questionnaire?

There are many types of questionnaires they can vary enormously in their purpose, their size and their appearance. Research questionnaires do the following:

• Be designed to collect information which can be used subsequently as data for analysis.
• Consist of a written list of questions. The important point here is that each person who answers the particular questionnaire reads an identical set of questions. 
• Gather information by asking people directly about the points concerned with the research.

Questionnaires are at their most productive:

• when used with large numbers of respondents in many locations;
• when what is required tends to be fairly straightforward information - relatively brief and uncontroversial;
• when there is a need for standardized data from identical questions-  without requiring personal, face-to-face interaction;
• when the respondents can be expected to be able to read and understand the questions - the implications of age, intellect, language, and eyesight need to be considered;
• when the social climate is open enough to allow full and honest answers.

Advantages

1. Questionnaires are economical, in the sense that they can supply a consider- able amount of research data for a relatively low cost in terms of materials, money and time.
2. Relatively easy to arrange. Questionnaires are easier to arrange than, for example, personal interviews.
3. Questionnaires supply standardized answers, to the extent that all respondents are posed with exactly the same questions.
4. Pre-coded answers. A further, and important, advantage of the questionnaire is that it encourages pre-coded answers.
5. Data accuracy. Surveys using the Internet can be designed so that the data contained in the completed questionnaires can be fed straight into a data file, thus automating the process of data entry. This effectively eliminates the human error factor.

Disadvantages

1. Pre-coded questions can be frustrating for respondents and, thus, deter them from answering.
  While the respondents might find it less demanding merely to tick appropriate boxes they might, equally, find this restricting and frustrating.
2. Pre-coded questions can bias the findings towards the researcher's, rather than the respondent's, way of seeing things. Questionnaires, by their very nature, can start to impose a structure on the answers and shape the nature of the responses in a way that reflects the researcher's thinking rather than the respondent's.
3. Questionnaires offer little opportunity for the researcher to check the truthfulness of the answers given by the respondents. Because the researcher does not meet the respondent and because the answers are given 'at a distance', the researcher cannot rely on a number of clues that an interviewer might have about whether the answers are genuine or not.

Interviews

What is an interviews?

The interview message is more than having a conversation with a person, and interview involved a set of assumptions and understanding about a situation. When someone takes part in a research interview:

• There is consent to take part.
• Interviewees' words can be treated as 'on the record' and 'for the record'.
• The agenda for the discussion is set by the researcher.

The interviews potential as a data collection method is better exploited when they are applied to the exploration of more complex and subtle occurrences. When a researchers decides to use an interview method they need to gain insight into things such as peoples opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences. Interviews lend themselves to the collection of data based on:

• Opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences.
• Sensitive issues.
• Privileged information.

Before embarking on a programme of interviews the researcher needs to feel assured that:

• It is possible to gain direct access to the prospective interviewees.
• The interviews are viable in terms of the costs in time and travel involved. 

Advantages

• Depth of information. Interviews are particularly good at producing data which deal with topics in depth and in detail.
• Insights. The researcher is likely to gain valuable insights based on the depth of the information gathered and the wisdom of 'key informants'.
• Equipment. Interviews require only simple equipment and build on conversation skills which researchers already have.
• Informants' priorities. Interviews are a good method for producing data based on informants' priorities, opinions and ideas.
• Flexibility. As a method for data collection, interviews are probably the most flexible.
• High response rate. Interviews are generally prearranged and scheduled for a convenient time and location.
• Validity. Direct contact at the point of the interview means that data can be checked for accuracy and relevance as they are collected.
• Therapeutic. Interviews can be a rewarding experience for the informant.

Disadvantages

• Time-consuming. Analysis of data can be difficult and time-consuming.
• Data analysis. The interview method tends to produce non-standard responses.
• Reliability. The impact of the interviewer and of the context means that consistency and objectivity are hard to achieve.
• Interviewer effect. The data from interviews are based on what people say rather than what they do. 
• Inhibitions. In the case of face-to-face interviews, the audio recorder (or video recorder) can inhibit the informant.
• Invasion of privacy. Tactless interviewing can be an invasion of privacy and/ or upsetting for the informant.
• Resources. With face-to-face interviews the costs of interviewer's time and travel can be relatively high, particularly if the informants are geographically dispersed.

Observations

What is observational research?

Observations do not rely on what people say they do or what they say they think,  observations rely on what these reset chair sees first hands or what actually happens. There are two types of observation research systematic observations, that produces quantitate data and statistical analysis and participant observations that provides qualitative data. However both methods share some common characteristics, they are:

• Direct observation. The obvious connection is that they both rely on direct observation.
• Fieldwork. The second common factor is their dedication to collecting data in real-life situations.
• Natural settings. Fieldwork observation - distinct from laboratory observations - occurs in situations which would have occurred whether or not the research had taken place.
• The issue of perception. Systematic observation and participant observation both recognize that the process of observing is far from straightforward.

Systematic Observations
The problem with observations are twofold the first being how do you measure the observation and secondly memory of the resector. It is systematic observations that try and resolve this problem, through the use of an observation schedule. The schedule is to minimize, possibly eliminate, the variations that will arise from data based on individual perceptions of events and situations. The schedule should enable the research to do the following:

• be alert to the same activities and be looking out for the same things;
• record data systematically and thoroughly;
• produce data which are consistent between observers, with two or more researchers who witness the same event recording the same data.

The researcher should use the observation schedule like a checklist to record specific events that take place. The process of systematic observation then becomes a matter of measuring and recording how many times an event occurs, or how long some event continues.

Advantages

1. Direct data collection.
It directly records what people do, as distinct from what they say they do.
2. Systematic and rigorous. The use of an observation schedule provides an answer to the problems associated with the selective perception of observers, and it appears to produce objective observations. 
3. Efficient. It provides a means for collecting substantial amounts of data in a relatively short timespan.
4. Pre-coded data. It produces quantitative data which are pre-coded and ready for analysis.
5. Reliability. When properly established, it should achieve high levels of inter-observer reliability in the sense that two or more observers using a schedule should record very similar data.

Disadvantages

1. Behaviour, not intentions.
Its focus on overt behaviour describes what happens, but not why it happens.
2. Oversimplifies. It assumes that overt behaviours can be measured in terms of categories that are fairly straightforward and unproblematic. 
3. Contextual information. Observation schedules, by themselves, tend to miss contextual information which has a bearing on the behaviours recorded. It is not a holistic approach.
4. Naturalness of the setting. Despite the confidence arising from experience, there remains a question mark about the observer's ability to fade into the background. 

Participant Observations

A participant observations is when the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, They observing things that happen, listening to what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time. If no one knows about the research except the researcher, the logic is that no one will act in anything but a normal way. The principal concern is to minimize disruption so as to be able to see things as they normally occur. A participant observation emphasis is placed on gaining a holistic understanding on a specific area. There are three main types of participant observations they are:

• Total participation, where the researcher's role is kept secret. The researcher assumes the role of someone who normally participates in the setting. 
• Participation in the normal setting, where the researcher's role may be known to certain 'gatekeepers', but may be hidden from most of those in the setting.
• Participation as observer, where the researcher's identity as a researcher is openly recognized .

Advantages

1. Basic equipment. Participant observation uses the researcher's 'self' as the main instrument of research, and therefore requires little by way of technical/statistical support.
2. Non-interference. It stands a better chance of retaining the naturalness of the setting than other social research methods.
3. Insights. It provides a good platform for gaining rich insights into social processes and is suited to dealing with complex realities.
4. Ecological validity. The data produced by participant observation have the potential to be particularly context sensitive and ecologically valid.
5. Holistic. Participant observation studies offer holistic explanations incorporating the relationships between various factors.
6. Subjects' points of view. As a method of social research, participant observation is good for getting at actors' meanings as they see them.

Disadvantages

1. Access. There are limited options open to the researcher about which roles to adopt or settings to participate in.
2. Commitment. Participant observation can be a very demanding method in terms of personal commitment and personal resources.
3. Danger. Participant observation can be potentially hazardous for the researcher; physically, legally, socially and psychologically risky.
4. Reliability. Dependence on the 'self' of the researcher and on the use of field notes as data leads to a lack of verifiable data.
5. Representativeness of the data. There are problems of generalizing from the research. 
6. Deception. When researchers opt to conduct full participation, keeping their true identity and purpose secret from others in the setting, there are ethical problems arising from the absence of consent on the part of those being observed, and of deception by the researcher.

Documents

Sources of documentary data 
Documents can be treated as a source of data in there own right. There are traditional documents such as prints documents but they are also visual documents such as photographs and artefacts, as well as sound documents such as music and visual documents such as video, film etc. Here are a few types of traditional documentation:

Government publications and official statistics:

They appear to provide a documentary source of information that is:

• Authoritative. Since the data have been produced by the state, employing large resources and expert professionals, they tend to have credibility.
• Objective. Since the data have been produced by officials, they might be regarded as impartial.
• Factual. In the case of the statistics, they take the form of numbers that are amenable to computer storage/analysis, and constitute 'hard facts' over which there can be no ambiguity.

Newspapers and magazines:

Magazines and newspapers are suitably good fuck up to date information however it should be noted that some newspapers and magazines are more work to go and worth more value for research than others. The value of a magazine on newspaper can stem from one of the following:

• the expertise of the journalists;
• the specialism of the publication;
• the insider information which the correspondents can uncover.

Records of meetings:
The purpose of records of meetings documentation is to enhance accountability. This means that the records need to have two qualities, both of which happen to be of particular value for research.

1. They need to contain a fairly systematic picture of things that have happened.
2. They should be publicly available.

Letters and memos:

Letters and memos can come in many different types of formats. Because they are written to specific people, rather than for a broader public, their contents are likely to rely far more on assumptions about what the other person already knows or what that person feels. They can be expected to be from a personal point of view rather than be impartial.

Diaries:

We are not talking about the kind of diaries which act as a planner, noting commitments in the future that need to be scheduled. For research purposes, the diary is normally a retrospective account of things that have happened.There are three crucial elements to this kind of diary:

• factual data: a log of things that happened, decisions made and people involved;
• significant incidents: the identification of things seen as particularly important and a description of the diary-writer's priorities;
• personal interpretation: a personal reflection and interpretation of happenings, plus an account of the personal feelings and emotions surrounding the events described.

Advantages

1. Access to data. Vast amounts of information are held in documents. Depend- ing on the nature of the documents, most researchers will find access to the sources relatively easy and inexpensive.
2. Cost-effective. Documentary research provides a cost-effective method of getting data, particularly large-scale data such as those provided by official statistics.
3. Permanence of data. Documents generally provide a source of data which is permanent and available in a form that can be checked by others. The data are open to public scrutiny.

Disadvantages

Credibility of the source. The researcher needs to be discerning about the information they use. Researchers need to evaluate the authority of the source and the procedures used to produce the original data in order to gauge the credibility of the documents.
Secondary data. When researchers use documents as a source of data, they generally rely on something which has been produced for other purposes and not for the specific aims of the investigation.
Social constructions. Documents can owe more to the interpretations of those who produce them than to an objective picture of reality.

Research into Strategies for Social Research

There are two types of research, strategies and methods. In this blog post I will try to outlined a few of the strategies that I am considering undertaking in my own primary research.

What are research strategies?
A strategy is concerned with creating a action plan that is designed to achieve a specific goal. There are three parts to a strategy they are:

• A research paradigm, an overview of the whole project to act as a basis for deciding on how to approach the research.
• A research design, a carefully considered action plan that offers the best possible success.
• A research problem, a specific goal that can be achieved which has been carefully considered and outlined before research has started.

A research method is concerned with the collection of data, I will be exploring this in a later blog post. It should be understood that the research strategy does not dictate the choice of research methods and any strategy and method will work perfectly with each other, it is all to do with the goal that wants to be achieved.

What to consider when choosing a strategy?

When choosing a preset strategy one must consider it didn't fit for purpose, there are three questions that need to be asked before choosing a strategy these are:

• Is it suitable?
• Is it feasible?
• Is it ethical?

Is it suitable?
Every research strategy has its advantage and disadvantage. Every strategy is not perfect and it depends on the goal and outcome that wants to be achieved. There is no such thing as a good or bad strategy it is all relational to how they are used that defines whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. Specifically strategies must have a clear vision and purpose for which they are being used and then how useful and how appropriate they are for the purpose can be determined.

Strategy	Purpose of research
Surveys	• measure some aspect of a social phenomenon or trend • gather facts in order to test a theory
Case Studies	• understand the complex relationship between factors as they operate within a particular social setting
Experiments	• identify the cause of something • observe the influence of specific factors
Ethnography	• describe cultural practices and traditions • interpret social interaction within a culture
Phenomenology	• describe the essence of specific types of personal experience • understand things through the eyes of someone else
Grounded Theory	• clarify concepts or produce new theories • explore a new topic and provide new insights
Action Research	• solve a practical problem • produce guidelines for best practice
Mixed Methods	• evaluate a new policy and gauge its impact • compare alternative perspectives on a phenomenon • combine aspects of the other strategies

Is it feasible?
Each strategy has its own restrictions to how successful they are at gathering information required for the investigation. Some strategies will acquire the researcher to obtain data sources, be able to speak to people to gain access to the context of events and documents that all would need to be required to complete successful research. These factors need to be taken into account to understand how feasible each strategy is.

Also my investigation has a tight timespan specific deadlines need to be completed which means that research needs to be completed in a specific time constraint. This is another factor that needs to be considered when choosing a research strategy as some strategies will acquire less of a timespan and with some strategies their timespan cannot be predicted and others take a long time to complete. Also I need to be mindful of the audience for my research as it will affect which strategy I will choose to undertake.


Is it ethical?

No matter the benefits of any strategy if the ethical are implications impeded in any manner the research strategy should not be used, as research ethics of the most important. The research strategy cannot be chosen if it harmed any individual who participates in the research and impaired all these credits the researcher. There are four elements that the research should put in place to minimise the risk of harm to the individuals and they are:

• participants will remain anonymous;
• data will be treated as confidential;
• participants understand the nature of the research and their involvement;
• participants voluntarily consent to being involved.

Also researchers you should act professionally and with integrity therefore there are a set of code and conducts that should be abided by. These are:

• researchers must operate within the law;
• in their dealings with participants they are expected to be open and honest and not to engage in deception;
• in their dealings with colleagues and the research community they are expected to uphold good standards of science and not 'fiddle the results';
• in the collection of data they are expected to take matters of personal safety seriously and not expose themselves or eo-workers to unacceptable danger in the pursuit of data.

Surveys

What is a surveys?

Survey is a strategy in which it is used to view comprehensively and in detail a specific area and the purpose of doing this is to generate and obtain data for mapping. This principle however have been used effectively to map out the social world as well and the physical world. It has become one of the most popular and commonplace aspects to social research. There are three critical characteristics to a survey, they are:

1. Wide and inclusive coverage. Implicit in the notion of 'survey' is the idea that the research should have a wide coverage - a breadth of view. A survey, in principle, should take a panoramic view and 'take it all in'.
2. At a specific point in time. Surveys provide a snapshot of how things are at a specific point in time. In most cases this is useful for 'bringing things up to date' and providing information about the current state of affairs. However, there are also occasions when researchers do an historical survey to show how things used to be at a particular point in the past, or even use a sequence of surveys as the basis for tracking changes over a period of time.
3. Empirical research. Because 'to survey' carries with it the meaning 'to look', survey work inevitably brings with it the idea of empirical research. It involves the idea of getting out of the chair, going out of the office and purposefully seeking the necessary information 'out there'.

A survey is most effective on gathering information on a range of people or specific group of people: what they do, what they think, who they are. A survey is suited to the collection of mass data from a large number of people. A survey works best with it clear and narrow target in terms of information that is needed to be gathered. This approach works best when the researcher understands specific issues and practices that are important and what kind of information needs to be collected. Finally a survey is best suited to gathering information that is relatively straightforward, relatively uncomplicated in terms of fact, thoughts, feelings or behaviours. When using a survey approach it is goods when looking for  patterns of actions in a group or category of people and creating links with social classes such as age groups, sex or ethnic backgrounds etc.

The survey approach is less useful when considering sensitive and complicated matters. steadying individuals index teasing out the intricacies and subtleties of certain facets of social life. some other approaches may be better with doing these types of investigations;

• complex issues or sensitive subjects (interviews, ethnography);
• depth insights or holistic overviews (case studies);
• practical problems (action research, experiments);
• personal experiences (phenomenology);
• developing theories (grounded theory).

Advantages

1. A focus on empirical data. Surveys are associated with getting information 'straight from the horse's mouth'.
2. Can collect both quantitative data and qualitative data. The survey approach lends itself to being used with particular methods, such as the self- completion questionnaire, which can generate large volumes of quantitative data that can be subject to statistical analysis.
3. Wide and inclusive coverage. The notion of a survey involves the idea of a span of vision which is wide and inclusive.
4. Costs and time. Surveys can prove to be an efficient and relatively inexpensive means of collecting data. 

Disadvantages

1. Tendency to focus on data more than theory. With its emphasis on collecting empirical data there is a danger that the 'data are left to speak for themselves' without an adequate account of the implications of those data for relevant issues, problems or theories. 
2. Detail and depth of the data. The data produced through large-scale surveys are likely to lack detail or depth on the topic being investigated. This is almost inevitable.
3. Easily ignored. Response rates from surveys are of ten quite low and getting a reasonable response rate can be quite a challenge for the researcher. 

Case Studies

What is a case studies approach?

A case study focuses on one or  a few instances of a particular occurrence with a view to providing an in-depth account of events, relationships, experiences or processes occurring in that particular instance. And signing characteristic of the case study is that it focuses on one instance of a sink that is to be investigated. The aim is to illuminate the general are you looking at the specific, what a case study must study things in detail to unravel the complexities of a given situation. Thus a case studies tend to be 'holistic' rather than deal with 'isolated factors'. The true purpose of the case study is any offers the opportunity to explain why certain outcomes might happen.

The basis that forms the case study is normally something that already exists. It is not an experiment where the research design is dedicated to imposing controls on variables so that the impact can be specifically measured. The case study approach allows the researcher to use a wide variety of sources, types of data and research methods as part of the investigation.

The characteristics of a case study are:

• Depth of study rather than breadth of study
• The particular rather than the general
• Relationships/processes rather than outcomes and end-products
• Holistic view rather than isolated factor
• Natural setting rather than artificial situations
• Multiple source rather than one research method

The case study approach works best when the researcher and wants to investigate an issue in depth and provide an explanation that copes with the complicated issues and situations of real life.
The uses of a case study are:

Discovery led
Description	Describes what is happening in a case study setting (e.g. events, processes and relationships).
Exploration	Explores the key issues affecting those in a case study setting (e.g. problems or opportunities).
Comparison	Compares settings to learn from the similarities and differences between them.
Theory led
Explanation	Explains the causes of events, processes or relationships within a setting.
Illustration	Uses a case study as an illustration of how a particular theory applies in a real-life setting.
Experiment	Uses a case study as a test-bed for experimenting with changes to specific factors (or variables).

For a subject to lend itself to a case study it needs to have certain boundaries which are define. Without some sort of notion of boundaries it becomes impossible to state or the case study is. If the case study has no endpoints then it blends into other social occurrence and ceases to have any distinct identity. Fundamentally:

• a 'case' needs to be a fairly self-contained entity;
• a 'case' needs to have fairly distinct boundaries.

Advantages

1. The main benefit of using a case study approach is that the focus on one or a few instances allows the researcher to deal with the subtleties and intricacies of complex social situations.
2. The case study approach allows the use of a variety of research methods.
3. The case study approach fosters the use of multiple sources of data. This, in turn the validation of data through triangulation.
4. The case study approach is particularly suitable where the researcher has little control over events.
5. The case study approach can fit in well with the needs of small-scale research through concentrating effort on one research site or a few sites.
6. Theory-building and theory-testing research can both use the case study approach to good effect.

Disadvantages

1. The point at which the case study approach is most vulnerable to criticism is in relation to the credibility of generalizations made from its findings. 
2. Case studies are often perceived as producing 'soft' data. The approach gets accused of lacking the degree of rigour expected of social science research.
3. On the technical side, the boundaries of the case can prove difficult to define in an absolute and clear-cut fashion. 
4. Negotiating access to case study settings can be a demanding part of the research process.
5. It is hard for case study researchers to achieve their aim of investigating situations as they naturally occur without any effect arising from their presence. 

Experiments

What is an experiments?

The experiments approach is an empirical investigation under controlled conditions designed to examine the properties of, and relationship between, specific factors. An experiment is commonplace research in the physical science and is regarded by many social researchers as a good method of practice. The purpose of an experiment is to discover new relationships or properties associated with the materials being investigated or to existent theories through the use of isolating individual factors and observing their effect in detail. There are some really significant characteristics to an investigation:

• The identification of causal factors.
• Controls. Experiments involve the manipulation of key variables.
• Empirical observation and measurement.

Advantages

1. Repeatability. The experiment approach is in line with the scientific research this lends it to be able to be checked by repeating the same processes by other researchers.
2. Precision. The context of the research permits the highest possible level of precision when it comes to the measurement that forms the basis of the data.
3. Convenience. The research it does not need to go outside of their fields and incurred travelling costs and the loss of time spent going to research site.
4. Credibility. The use of experiments is regarded by many people, including some social scientists, as the most scientific and therefore the most credible approach to research.

Disadvantages

1. Deception and ethics. There are a number of ethical considerations to be borne in mind when one is considering the use of experimental research. 
2. Artificial settings. With laboratory experiments there are question marks about whether the experimental situation creates conditions comparable with the 'real-world'.
3. Representativeness of the research subjects. For most purposes, experimental researchers will want to use a control group. They need to be very closely matched in terms of those features which are relevant to the experiment and to the broader population from which the research subjects are drawn.
4. Control of the relevant variables. Being able to control the relevant variables lies at the heart of the experimental method.

Ethnography

What is ethnography?

The term ethnography a description of people or cultures - their lifestyle, understanding and beliefs. The emphasis within ethnography tends to be more important to understanding things the point of view of those involved. The most popular development of ethnography in recent times has been its application to lifestyles, understandings and beliefs within 'our own' society. The element of comparison and contrast, though, is retained as an underlying facet of ethnographic research.

Ethnography, based on the early anthropological origins of the term and on subsequent developments by influential classics in the field, has the following characteristics:

• It requires the researcher to spend considerable time in the field among the people whose lives and culture are being studied. 
• Routine and normal aspects of everyday life are regarded as worthy of consideration as research data. 
• There is special attention given to the way the people being studied see their world. The ethnographer is generally concerned to find out how the members of the group/ culture being studied understand things, the meanings they attach to happenings, the way they perceive their reality.
• There is an emphasis on the need to look at the interlinkages between the various features of the culture and to avoid isolating facets of the culture from the wider context within which it exists. Ethnography generally prefers a holistic approach.
• There is some acknowledgement that the ethnographer's final account of the culture or group being studied is more than just a description - it is a construction.

Advantages

1. Direct observation. As a research strategy it is based on direct observation via fieldwork, rather than relying on second-hand data or statements made by research subjects.
2. Empirical. It is essentially grounded in empirical research involving direct contact with relevant people and places.
3. Links with theory. It can be used as a means for developing theory, and it can also be used for testing theories.
4. Detailed data. It provides data which are relatively rich in depth and detail. Potentially, it can deal with intricate and subtle realities.
5. Holistic. Ethnography aspires to holistic explanations which focus on processes and relationships that lie behind the surface events.
6. Contrast and comparison. There is an element of contrast and comparison built into ethnographic research in the way the distinct culture or events being studied are different from other cultures or events which the researcher and his or her audience to some degree share.
7. Actors' perceptions. Ethnographic research is particularly well suited to dealing with the way members of a culture see events.
8. Self-awareness. It has an open and explicit awareness of the role of the researcher's selfing the choice of topic, process of research and construction of the findings/conclusions. 
9. Ecological validity. It is strong in terms of ecological validity, to the extent that the act of researching should have relatively little impact on the setting.

Disadvantages

1. Tensions within the approach. Ethnographies generally attempt to accommodate an internal contradiction between (1) 'realist' aspirations to provide full and detailed descriptions of events or cultures as they naturally exist, and (2) a 'relativist' awareness of the reflexive nature of social knowledge and the inevitable influence of the researcher's 'self' on the whole research endeavour. 
2. Stand-alone descriptions. Ethnographic research has the potential to produce an array of 'pictures' which coexist, but which tend to remain as separate, isolated stories. 
3. Story-telling. There is the potential to provide detailed descriptive accounts at the expense of developing an analytic insight or contributing to a theoretical position.
4. Reliability. There is a potential weakness of poor reliability and little prospect of generalizing from the ethnographic account of the culture or event.
5. Ethics. There is also a greater potential than with most other approaches to face ethical problems associated with intrusions upon privacy and with gaining informed consent from research subjects.
6. Access. Ethnographic research can pose particularly acute difficulties of gaining access to settings, access which avoids disrupting the naturalness of the setting.
7. Insider knowledge,  rather than being a straight advantage, can also cause a 'blind spot', obscuring a vision of 'the obvious'.

Phenomenology

What is the phenomenological approach?

The phenomenological approach is sometimes presented as being alternative to the positive approach that is concerned with the assumption that there are patterns and regularities, causes and consequences in the social world just as there are in the natural world. In the phenomenological approach it does not rely on measurements, statistics or other things generally aspects of the scientific method. It is seen as an approach which emphasises the subjectivity, description, interpretation and agency. Phenomenology generally it deals with people's perceptions all meanings, people's attitudes and beliefs and people's feelings and emotions. Areas where phenomenology is usually used for research purposes is in health, education and business who want to understand the thinking of patients, pupils or employees. Phenomenology is an approach which focuses on how life is experienced, not primarily concerned with explaining the causes of things but tries, instead, to provide a description of how things are experienced at first hand by those involved.

Advantages

1. Suited to small-scale research. Phenomenological research generally relies on in-depth interviews and does not call for technologically sophisticated or expensive equipment for the purposes of data collection and analysis.
2. The description of experiences can tell an interesting story. There is an inherent potential within (new) phenomenology to describe experiences in a way that is immediately accessible and interesting to a wide range of readers.
3. Offers the prospect of authentic accounts of complex phenomena. The social world is complex and rarely straightforward. A phenomenological approach allows the researcher to deal with that complexity. 
4. A humanistic style of research. There is a respect for people built into the phenomenological approach. It carries an aura of humanism and, in its efforts to base its enquiry on the lived experiences of people in the everyday world, it represents a style of research that is far removed from any high-minded, abstract theorizing.

Disadvantages

1. Lacks scientific rigour. The emphasis of phenomenology on subjectivity, description and interpretation contrasts with the scientific emphasis on objectivity, analysis and measurement. 
2. Associated with description and no analysis. The importance attached to providing a detailed and accurate description of the events and experiences being studied can lead to accusations that phenomenology does nothing but provide descriptions.
3. Generalizations from phenomenological studies. Phenomenological research does not normally involve large numbers or instances of the phenomenon being studied. 
4. Attention to the mundane features of life. For phenomenologists the study of routine aspects of everyday life occurs because it is fundamental for understanding the nature of the social world. For others it might be (mis)interpreted as dealing with things that are mundane, trivial and relatively unimportant compared with the big issues of the day.
5. Feasibility of suspending common sense. In principle, suspending presuppositions about the way things work might seem a reasonable way of trying to get a clearer view of them. However, it is doubtful indeed if it is ever possible to rid ourselves entirely of such presuppositions.

Grounded Theory

What is the grounded theory approach?

The grounded theory approach is a popular choice with researchers who are undertaking and engaging in small-scale projects using qualitative data for the study of human interaction and by those whose research is exploratory and focuses on particular settings. Grounded theory provides a well recognized, authoritative rationale for the adoption of an approach that does not necessarily involve statistical analysis, quantitative data or the quest for representative samples. There has been a trained for research is to adopt and adapt grounded research and to use it selectively for their own purposes. The grounded theory approach is dedicated to generating theories which is in contrast to other approaches the shopping centre testing series. However the approach also emphasises the importance of empirical fieldwork and the need to link any explanations very closely to what happens in the practical situations in the real world.

Advantages

1. Suited to small-scale research. From a project researcher's point of view, use of the grounded theory approach can be appealing because it lends itself to being conducted by lone researchers working on a limited budget.
2. Recognized rationale for qualitative research. Grounded theory provides a standard justification that can fend off potential criticism from those who might otherwise question the rigour of small-scale qualitative research.
3. Adaptable. The approach is fairly adaptable, lending itself to use with a variety of qualitative data collection methods and forms of data.
4. Pragmatic. There is a focus on practice (human interaction) and what is practical (pragmatic philosophy), which makes the approach well suited to studies in areas, such as health, business and 
5. education.
6. Systematic way of analysing qualitative data. This can be helpful to the newcomer who might wonder how on earth he or she can make sense of the data and how he or she can move towards developing concepts and ultimately theories.
7. Theory development. The approach includes the means for developing theoretical propositions from data, and should boost project researchers' confidence in the realms of theorizing.
8. Explanations are grounded in reality. Concepts and theories are developed with constant reference to the empirical data and this means that, unlike speculative, abstract theory, they are built on a sound foundation of evidence.
9. Well suited to the exploratory research. The approach permits a degree of flexibility in both the selection of instances for inclusion in the sample and the analysis of the data.

Disadvantages

1. Planning. The approach does not lend itself to precise planning. 
2. Context. By focusing research on specific instances of behaviour in particular settings, there is a tendency to divorce the explanation of the situation being studied from broader contextual factors.
3. Open-mindedness. The need to approach things with an 'open mind' is a fundamental principle of the grounded theory approach but, in practice, it raises some awkward questions. Researchers are inevitably influenced by prior conceptions based on their own culture and personal experience.
4. Complexity. The systematic way of analysing data can be daunting in terms of the complexity of the process. 
5. Positivism. Interpretivists will be unhappy with any suggestion that substantive theories provide the one correct explanation of things.
6. Empiricism. By looking to fieldwork data as the source of its theories, and by setting itself against the use of general theories, it opens itself to the criticism that it relies too heavily on the empirical data - expecting an explanation to exist within the accumulated data, waiting to be 'discovered' by the researcher.
7. Generalizations. Generalizing from the findings can be misunderstood. It is important for those using the grounded theory approach to be clear that any generalizations derived from the research are theoretical generalizations. 

Action Research

What is the action research approach?
The strategy of active research is associated with the term "hands on", it has close ties between social theory and the solving of imminent social problems. Action research is involved with practical issues, the kind of issues and problems, concerns and needs that arose as a routine part of activity 'in the real world". The strategy is not only to be used to gain a better understanding of the problems which arrives in everyday practice, but actually set out and alter things to do so as part of the research purpose rather than attached on at the end as an afterthought which follows the conclusion of the research. There are four main defining characteristics of active research, they are:

• Practical nature. It is aimed at dealing with real-world problems and issues, typically at work and in organizational settings.
• Change. Both as a way of dealing with practical problems and as a means of discovering more about phenomena, change is regarded as an integral part of research.
• Cyclical process. Research involves a feedback loop in which initial findings generate possibilities for change which are then implemented and evaluated as a prelude to further investigation.
• Participation. Practitioners are the crucial people in the research process. Their participation is active, not passive.

Advantages

• Participation. It involves participation in the research for practitioners.
• Professional development. It has personal benefits for the practitioner, as it contributes to professional self-development.
• Practical. It addresses practical problems in a positive way, feeding the results of research directly back into practice.
• Continuous. It should entail a continuous cycle of development and change via on-site research in the workplace.

Disadvantages

• Scope and scale. The necessary involvement of the practitioner limits the scope and scale of research. 
• Control. The integration of research with practice limits the feasibility of exercising controls over factors of relevance to the research. 
• Ownership. Ownership of the research process becomes contestable within the framework of the partnership relationship between practitioner and researcher.
• Work load. Action research tends to involve an extra burden of work for the practitioners, particularly at the early stages before any benefits feed back into improved effectiveness.
• Impartiality. The action researcher is unlikely to be detached and impartial in his or her approach to the research.

Mixed Methods

What is the mixed methods approach?

The mixed methods approach when applied to research combines alternative approaches within one single project, usually the strategy combines quantitating and qualitative methods. There are three key characteristics to a mixed methods approach, they are:

1. Use of qualitative and quantitative approaches within a single research project. 
2. Explicit focus on the link between approaches (triangulation). 
3. Emphasis on practical approaches to research problems (pragmatism).

Advantages

• A more comprehensive account of the thing being researched. A mixed method approach can provide a fuller description and/or more complete explanation of the phenomenon being studied by providing more than one perspective on it. 
• Clearer links between different methods and the different kinds of data. The mixed methods approach places emphasis on the integration of alternative approaches and encourages the researcher to provide an explicit account of how and why the different methods and data complement each other. 
• Triangulation. Following on from its emphasis on the rationale for combining different approaches, the mixed methods approach involves a heightened sensitivity to the nature of triangulation. 
• A practical, problem-driven approach to research. As a movement, the mixed methods approach is problem-driven rather than theory-driven.

Disadvantages

• The time and costs of the research project can increase. The combination of phases can extend the time-frame for research design and data collection.
• The researcher needs to develop skills with more than one method. The researcher needs to develop and exercise skills covering both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
• The QUAL/QUAN distinction tends to oversimplify matters. Researchers need to be aware that the clarity and simplicity of the terms mask a more complicated reality.
• The mixed methods designs that are generally recommended do not allow for emergent research designs. There is, though, no reason in principle why a mixed methods approach cannot adopt an emergent design.
• The underlying philosophy of the mixed methods approach pragmatism  is open to misinterpretation. There is a common-sense use of the word pragmatic which implies expediency and a certain lack of principles underlying a course of action.
• Findings from different methods might not corroborate one another. If findings from the different methods do not corroborate one another, the researcher can be faced with the need to extend the research to unravel the reasons for this.