Objective 1 – Explain the research process in general and its stages.
Objective 2 – Highlight the difference between research paradigms.
Objective 3 – Emphasise the difference between the method and technique.
Objective 4 – Discuss the role of research methods in the scientific research process.
Objective 5 – Define the research design.
Objective 6 – Explain the difference between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods designs.
A research process represents a specific way of accumulating knowledge, which is supposed to be the guarantee of truth, based on logical principles and criteria, instruments and actions. However, society cannot be covered in its entirety by experiential research. The human spirit, for example, will never be fully explored.
Speaking about scientific research, there is a rule that one should never try to explore each segment of a phenomenon separately. Instead, all the segments should be explored together. By exploring one segment, we also explore the other ones, and then make connections between them. There is a feedback loop between the parts and the whole, and researchers move from the former to the latter, and backwards. This is actually the essence of research, and this is how the connections between phenomena are made, and understanding achieved.
If we explore reality only as a whole, we might not understand it properly. Each scientist can extract from the whole what is important to him/her, but only when one starts dealing with what reality is made of, with its parts, the horizons of reality will broaden, and one will manage to get out of a single frame. One’s opinion about something can change significantly once one becomes familiar with its parts, and especially when a majority of them become familiar. This is like a circle, which can hardly be closed. ‘Research resembles a man trying in vain to quench the thirst by drinking seawater’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 44).
Even if we manage to collect all the facts, we will not get to know reality in its entirety. The knowledge which we discover gradually is only a tiny fraction of the light which illuminates the darkness of ignorance. Society as a whole is very well regulated. It has a logical structure, where everything is interwoven. Getting to know reality is like getting to know a person. At first glance, and based on the first impression, only a general opinion can be made. And later, after we spend some time with the person, we become familiar with their traits, personality, their reactions in specific situations, and our opinion changes over time until we manage to become fully familiar with the person’s character, and form our final opinion. But even then, we cannot be completely sure we are right. What is on the outer side will never perfectly match what is inside. When exploring reality, certain facts and parts of a whole are taken into consideration. When making a selection, it is important to select those parts that will help us reveal as much as possible. This does not imply that the right selection will always be made. Some facts may help us reveal the true character of reality much better than the ones we have already selected. It all depends on how researchers position themselves, on their own understanding of what they have discovered.
‘The dialectic of society as a whole, its understanding, is always our ultimate goal, the ultimate object of our research. But unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, there is no direct way to it. It can be reached only by exploring a more specific object, which represents our immediate and specific research assignment’ (Pečujlič, 1982, p. 44).
The theoretical frame is wide, and definitely nothing can be checked precisely, everything can be as it seems, and does not have to be so. What is needed is time and experience. Life is the best test of any theory that may be developed.
As mentioned above, in order to gain the true knowledge of reality, facts have to be collected and analysed, and the more the facts the better, because it is the facts that illuminate the path, helping us discover reality. It is very important to take all the facts that will help to reveal reality into consideration, and reality itself can help to understand the facts. A fact reveals certain parts, but it itself becomes revealed with the help of other parts. ‘Facts are the codes of reality, but they are decoded by means of a whole to which they belong’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 45). A collection of facts will be understood once we discover their role and place in reality.
When carrying out some research, there is an order to be followed and therefore there are some stages that any research has to pass through. The first stage implies defining the object, and it can be theoretical and practical. Theoretical defining is done using mental terms. Practical defining implies certain indicators, which have to be tested and examined. Once the object is defined, a hypothesis, i.e. an assumption, is formulated. A hypothesis has a guiding role throughout the research process – it connects all research stages. At the next stage, data are collected, and classified. The classification is followed by the next stage, and that is the scientific explanation. ’Scientific explanation generally narrows down to determining the types of correlation, functional, and causal relationships’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 45). The final research stage implies testing the scientific explanation.
When carrying out some research, a multivariate analysis is used to check if a phenomenon has been actually caused by what is thought to have caused it, or by something completely different. A researcher comes across a large number of indicators, and there is always a dilemma as to which one to select, and how the selection should be made. In his doctrine of interchangeable indices, Lazarsfeld (1966, p. 190) claims that it does not matter which indicator is taken into consideration, but science would not agree with that because each indicator is different, and will not necessarily provide representative data about the essence of something. For example, the degree of power or the attitude towards the means of production is a more important indicator of the class structure than of the degree of prestige.
The positivist research is much simpler, but boring to a certain extent, because it requires no thinking as there is a pattern where everything is predefined, and cannot be changed. The analysis of each indicator which provides a true image of a society is what is missing. Research cannot be performed so superficially, without finding out how it affects the society, classes. The percentage of the unemployed can be taken as a general data. But the data does not mean anything if we do not know how it affects the population, how they manage to earn a living.
It is important to determine all the relationships between phenomena. The cause is a phenomenon which is sufficient to produce another phenomenon. Defining the relationships between phenomena is just a step forward to obtaining knowledge. Each phenomenon discovered has to be thoroughly analysed because there are more phenomena hiding behind it. In order to reach to the core, one has to discover everything surrounding it. Even though each phenomenon is analysed separately, it does not mean that each phenomenon is distinct. It means that they are all related to each other, and only if viewed together, can lead to knowledge acquisition. It is worth noting that a phenomenon can reflect a society, but can also be the cause of its changes.
A research process represents a specific way of accumulating knowledge, which is supposed to be the guarantee of truth, based on logical principles and criteria, instruments and actions. However, society cannot be covered in its entirety by experiential research. The human spirit, for example, will never be fully explored.
Speaking about scientific research, there is a rule that one should never try to explore each segment of a phenomenon separately. Instead, all the segments should be explored together. By exploring one segment, we also explore the other ones, and then make connections between them. There is a feedback loop between the parts and the whole, and researchers move from the former to the latter, and backwards. This is actually the essence of research, and this is how the connections between phenomena are made, and understanding achieved.
If we explore reality only as a whole, we might not understand it properly. Each scientist can extract from the whole what is important to him/her, but only when one starts dealing with what reality is made of, with its parts, the horizons of reality will broaden, and one will manage to get out of a single frame. One’s opinion about something can change significantly once one becomes familiar with its parts, and especially when a majority of them become familiar. This is like a circle, which can hardly be closed. ‘Research resembles a man trying in vain to quench the thirst by drinking seawater’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 44).
Even if we manage to collect all the facts, we will not get to know reality in its entirety. The knowledge which we discover gradually is only a tiny fraction of the light which illuminates the darkness of ignorance. Society as a whole is very well regulated. It has a logical structure, where everything is interwoven. Getting to know reality is like getting to know a person. At first glance, and based on the first impression, only a general opinion can be made. And later, after we spend some time with the person, we become familiar with their traits, personality, their reactions in specific situations, and our opinion changes over time until we manage to become fully familiar with the person’s character, and form our final opinion. But even then, we cannot be completely sure we are right. What is on the outer side will never perfectly match what is inside. When exploring reality, certain facts and parts of a whole are taken into consideration. When making a selection, it is important to select those parts that will help us reveal as much as possible. This does not imply that the right selection will always be made. Some facts may help us reveal the true character of reality much better than the ones we have already selected. It all depends on how researchers position themselves, on their own understanding of what they have discovered.
‘The dialectic of society as a whole, its understanding, is always our ultimate goal, the ultimate object of our research. But unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, there is no direct way to it. It can be reached only by exploring a more specific object, which represents our immediate and specific research assignment’ (Pečujlič, 1982, p. 44).
The theoretical frame is wide, and definitely nothing can be checked precisely, everything can be as it seems, and does not have to be so. What is needed is time and experience. Life is the best test of any theory that may be developed.
As mentioned above, in order to gain the true knowledge of reality, facts have to be collected and analysed, and the more the facts the better, because it is the facts that illuminate the path, helping us discover reality. It is very important to take all the facts that will help to reveal reality into consideration, and reality itself can help to understand the facts. A fact reveals certain parts, but it itself becomes revealed with the help of other parts. ‘Facts are the codes of reality, but they are decoded by means of a whole to which they belong’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 45). A collection of facts will be understood once we discover their role and place in reality.
When carrying out some research, there is an order to be followed and therefore there are some stages that any research has to pass through. The first stage implies defining the object, and it can be theoretical and practical. Theoretical defining is done using mental terms. Practical defining implies certain indicators, which have to be tested and examined. Once the object is defined, a hypothesis, i.e. an assumption, is formulated. A hypothesis has a guiding role throughout the research process – it connects all research stages. At the next stage, data are collected, and classified. The classification is followed by the next stage, and that is the scientific explanation. ’Scientific explanation generally narrows down to determining the types of correlation, functional, and causal relationships’ (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 45). The final research stage implies testing the scientific explanation.
When carrying out some research, a multivariate analysis is used to check if a phenomenon has been actually caused by what is thought to have caused it, or by something completely different. A researcher comes across a large number of indicators, and there is always a dilemma as to which one to select, and how the selection should be made. In his doctrine of interchangeable indices, Lazarsfeld (1966, p. 190) claims that it does not matter which indicator is taken into consideration, but science would not agree with that because each indicator is different, and will not necessarily provide representative data about the essence of something. For example, the degree of power or the attitude towards the means of production is a more important indicator of the class structure than of the degree of prestige.
The positivist research is much simpler, but boring to a certain extent, because it requires no thinking as there is a pattern where everything is predefined, and cannot be changed. The analysis of each indicator which provides a true image of a society is what is missing. Research cannot be performed so superficially, without finding out how it affects the society, classes. The percentage of the unemployed can be taken as a general data. But the data does not mean anything if we do not know how it affects the population, how they manage to earn a living.
It is important to determine all the relationships between phenomena. The cause is a phenomenon which is sufficient to produce another phenomenon. Defining the relationships between phenomena is just a step forward to obtaining knowledge. Each phenomenon discovered has to be thoroughly analysed because there are more phenomena hiding behind it. In order to reach to the core, one has to discover everything surrounding it. Even though each phenomenon is analysed separately, it does not mean that each phenomenon is distinct. It means that they are all related to each other, and only if viewed together, can lead to knowledge acquisition. It is worth noting that a phenomenon can reflect a society, but can also be the cause of its changes.
Research paradigms are the theoretical perspectives that shape the way research is formulated and implemented (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). A paradigm represents a worldview, and various philosophical assumptions associated with that point of view. Each paradigm comprises four elements:
1. Epistemology – (from the Greek ‘epistēmē’ meaning ’knowledge’) – describes how we get to know something (the truth, reality), how we know what we know, i.e. it focuses on the nature of human knowledge and comprehension and therefore influences the way of uncovering knowledge in the social context that we investigate. According to Slavin (1984), there are four sources of knowledge or epistemological bases of research. They are as follows:
2. Ontology – (from the Greek compound comprising ‘ὄντος’, meaning 'being' or 'that which is', and ’-λογία’, meaning 'logical discourse') – philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality or essence of the social phenomenon being researched, crucial to understanding how the researcher makes meaning of the collected data (Scotland, 2012).
3. Methodology – (from the Greek ’μέθοδος’, meaning ’pursuit of knowledge’, and ’λόγος’ meaning ’science’) – research designs, methods, approaches and procedures used in the research that is well planned to find out something (Keeves, 1997). It includes data collection, participants, instruments used, as well as data analyses, and focuses on how the researcher gets to know the world or gain knowledge about part of it (Moreno, 1947).
4. Axiology – (from the Greek ’axios’, meaning ’worthy’, and ’logos’, meaning ’science’) – or the Theory of Value: ethical issues, i.e. defining, evaluating, and understanding the concepts of right and wrong behaviour related to the research.
In social sciences, different paradigms can be adopted, such as positivism, interpretivism/constructivism, subjectivism, pragmatism, critical realism.
Positivism is based on the belief that there is only one and single reality, which can be explored scientifically using deductive methodology, and usually quantitative research methods such as experiment or survey. Therefore, it focuses on identifying or testing causal relationships in an objective manner.
Interpretivism/Constructivism is based on the belief that there is no single reality, and reality is socially constructed and reconstructed and therefore cannot be objectively observed from outside. The only way to better understand it is by experiencing it, so it must be observed through the direct experience of people, and therefore knowledge is subjective. Its aim is to explore, not just explain the underlying meanings of reality (Crotty, 1998). So, it uses inductive and usually qualitative methods, such as interviews, and observation, aimed at generating theory.
Realism is based on the belief that reality is independent from the human mind (Saunders et. al., 2012). Direct realism perceives the world through personal, human senses, whereas critical realism argues that senses can be deceptive, and aims at uncovering, understanding and explaining the mechanisms underlying a phenomenon from multiple perspectives. It uses both qualitative and quantitative approach and therefore a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (Sayer, 2000).
Pragmatism focuses on the belief that there are many different ways of interpreting the world, that knowledge can never be truly representative of reality, and that the combination of different methodological approaches provides a better understanding of the phenomena being researched. It is based on ’what works best’ in finding answers to the questions under investigation and therefore uses all available approaches to understand the problem (Morgan, 2007). Its emphasis is on experience, and instead of focusing on finding the truth, it focuses on what is useful to believe (Dewey, 1941). It is action-based, and advocates human rights and individual freedom. It perceives truth as constantly changing according to practical necessities of the present (Creswell, 2009).
Research paradigms are the theoretical perspectives that shape the way research is formulated and implemented (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). A paradigm represents a worldview, and various philosophical assumptions associated with that point of view. Each paradigm comprises four elements:
1. Epistemology – (from the Greek ‘epistēmē’ meaning ’knowledge’) – describes how we get to know something (the truth, reality), how we know what we know, i.e. it focuses on the nature of human knowledge and comprehension and therefore influences the way of uncovering knowledge in the social context that we investigate. According to Slavin (1984), there are four sources of knowledge or epistemological bases of research. They are as follows:
2. Ontology – (from the Greek compound comprising ‘ὄντος’, meaning 'being' or 'that which is', and ’-λογία’, meaning 'logical discourse') – philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality or essence of the social phenomenon being researched, crucial to understanding how the researcher makes meaning of the collected data (Scotland, 2012).
3. Methodology – (from the Greek ’μέθοδος’, meaning ’pursuit of knowledge’, and ’λόγος’ meaning ’science’) – research designs, methods, approaches and procedures used in the research that is well planned to find out something (Keeves, 1997). It includes data collection, participants, instruments used, as well as data analyses, and focuses on how the researcher gets to know the world or gain knowledge about part of it (Moreno, 1947).
4. Axiology – (from the Greek ’axios’, meaning ’worthy’, and ’logos’, meaning ’science’) – or the Theory of Value: ethical issues, i.e. defining, evaluating, and understanding the concepts of right and wrong behaviour related to the research.
In social sciences, different paradigms can be adopted, such as positivism, interpretivism/constructivism, subjectivism, pragmatism, critical realism.
Positivism is based on the belief that there is only one and single reality, which can be explored scientifically using deductive methodology, and usually quantitative research methods such as experiment or survey. Therefore, it focuses on identifying or testing causal relationships in an objective manner.
Interpretivism/Constructivism is based on the belief that there is no single reality, and reality is socially constructed and reconstructed and therefore cannot be objectively observed from outside. The only way to better understand it is by experiencing it, so it must be observed through the direct experience of people, and therefore knowledge is subjective. Its aim is to explore, not just explain the underlying meanings of reality (Crotty, 1998). So, it uses inductive and usually qualitative methods, such as interviews, and observation, aimed at generating theory.
Realism is based on the belief that reality is independent from the human mind (Saunders et. al., 2012). Direct realism perceives the world through personal, human senses, whereas critical realism argues that senses can be deceptive, and aims at uncovering, understanding and explaining the mechanisms underlying a phenomenon from multiple perspectives. It uses both qualitative and quantitative approach and therefore a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (Sayer, 2000).
Pragmatism focuses on the belief that there are many different ways of interpreting the world, that knowledge can never be truly representative of reality, and that the combination of different methodological approaches provides a better understanding of the phenomena being researched. It is based on ’what works best’ in finding answers to the questions under investigation and therefore uses all available approaches to understand the problem (Morgan, 2007). Its emphasis is on experience, and instead of focusing on finding the truth, it focuses on what is useful to believe (Dewey, 1941). It is action-based, and advocates human rights and individual freedom. It perceives truth as constantly changing according to practical necessities of the present (Creswell, 2009).
A method is a way or manner of discovering the truth. A scientific method is often equalised with the essence of science. The scientific methodology defines logical, technical, organisational, and strategic rules by means of which certain knowledge is obtained. Moreover, the methodology of science provides instructions about what is to be done and how in order to make scientific discoveries. On the other hand, methods can be approached from two points of view, which make a distinction between the essential and technical aspects of the very research:
A method is also the way in which the knowledge about the object of study belonging to a specific scientific field is obtained. The object of study in a specific scientific field is determined by the method. The human body can be taken as an example. Physics studies it from the aspect of the motion of the physical body, biology from the aspect of the functions of the living organism, psychology through conscious behaviour, sociology determines how such behaviour and other people’s behaviour intertwine to form a social phenomenon. However, even when we define the method, we do not know what it comprises, which results in different interpretations of the concept of the scientific method. Basically, the purpose of a method is to ensure obtaining a more profound knowledge on the object of study within a certain scientific field based on the existing knowledge (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 175).
Broadly speaking, a method comprises three elements:
The research process implies all the activities necessary to obtain the knowledge about an object. The existing knowledge is usually insufficient. It is later into the research process that the existing knowledge is complemented. The means are something specific (actions and tools) used to study an object. The concept of a method is very often related only to the general rules of the scientific research process, whereas the means are referred to as research techniques (Lukić, 1989 p. 48). A method, as a research practice of a scientific field, always depends on its content and therefore cannot be determined only by general, logical principles and technical means used. Different scientific fields use the same technical means in their research, but not the same methods because of the different object of study, which requires a different approach to reality. So, the specifics of methods of a certain scientfic field can be determined only if the main objectives of its research are taken into account. The contemporary methodological practicism has completely neglected the content-based definition of a sociological method, tending to replace the term sociological method itself with the term social research (Milić, 1996, p. 233).
The progress in sociological methodology mostly involves the improvement of the existing and discovery of new data collection methods, which has improved the exactness of Sociology, and developed it from the scientific perspective so that it can compete with natural sciences. Such sudden development of methods has some disadvantages, too. Most sociologists have started shying away from the scientific explanation of facts exactly because it cannot be reached by the exact methods used for the collection of data. This leaves us without any valuable scientific conclusion. As for the contemporary data collection methods, team work on data collection is important because social phenomena are becoming more complex, and it is impossible for one scientist to notice and collect everything properly. Such work requires a precisely determined, thorough and strict work plan, especially when a wider social entity is explored with regard to all the aspects of its social life. Some examples of this include the study of a settlement, class, stratum (Pečujlić, 1982). Data collection methods, or observation in a broader sense, are divided into six basic types:
As for the methods of knowledge acquisition, we can distinguish between:
General methods are more or less used in all scientific fields. They include the general and specific dialectical method, modelling method, statistical method, and axiomatic method. Besides general methods, there is a range of specific fundamental methods such as analysis and synthesis, classification and generalisation, induction and deduction, as well as basic scientific procedures and cognitive processes such as concept defining, hypothesis setting, proving attitudes, checking the obtained scientific knowledge, etc. (Šešić, 1979, p. 7).
Research designs are plans and procedures for carrying out research that span the decisions from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection and analysis. The overall decision relates to which design should be used to study a topic. The selection of a research design is also based on the nature of the research problem or issue being addressed, the researchers’ personal experiences, and the audiences for the study (Cresswell, 2009, p. 22).
There are three types of designs: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs. The three approaches are not as discrete as they first appear. Qualitative and quantitative approaches should not be viewed as polar opposites or dichotomies; instead, they represent different ends on a continuum (Newman & Benz, 1998). A study tends to be more qualitative than quantitative or vice versa. Mixed methods research resides in the middle of this continuum because it incorporates the elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Quantitative research is a means of testing objective theories by examining the relationships between variables. These variables, in turn, can be objectively measured, typically using some instruments, so as to obtain numerical data, which can be analysed using statistical procedures (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 24). The final written report has a set structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion (Creswell, 2008). Those who engage in this form of inquiry have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings. Quantitative methods include: statistical method, surveys, experiments, measurement scales, etc.
Qualitative research is a means of exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data. The final written report has a flexible structure. Those who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honors an inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (Creswell, 2007). Some examples of qualitative methods are: observation, interview, focus group, case study, etc.
Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative forms. It involves philosophical assumptions, the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and the mix of both approaches in a study. Thus, it is more than the simple collection and analysis of both kinds of data. It also involves the use of both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell et al., 2007). Nowadays, these methods are gaining importance.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. (1st Ed.) London: Sage
Keeves, J. P. (1997). Educational research methodology and measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarsfeld, S. (1966). The courage for imperfection. American Journal of Individual Psychology, 22(2).
Lukić, R. (1989). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 1–15.
Milić, V. (1996). Sociološki metod, Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Moreno, J. (1947). Contribution of sociometry to research methodology in sociology. American Sociological Review, 12(6): 287–292.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Newman, I. & Benz, C. (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum.
Pečujlić, M. (1982). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Savremena administracija.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. (1st ed.), SAGE Publication, London.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Research methods in education: A practical guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Šešić, M. (1979). Opšta metodologija. Beograd: Naučna knjiga.
