Sessions 13, 14, 15, 16

1. Sessions 13, 14, 15, 16 Qualitative and quantitative research

2. Session 13 Qualitative vs quantitative research

3. Preparation Prepare your arguments for or against the topic • That qualitative research is better than quantitative research First three speakers: 3 minutes each Final speaker: 4 minutes

4. Audience Your role is • to identify points for clarification, elaboration, further inquiry or debate • To provide feedback to individuals and to the teams

5. Ethics and Publication

6. Ethics in Conducting Research

7. Research Merit • justifiable by potential benefit • appropriate methods • thorough study of current literature • conducted or supervised by persons with suitable experience, qualifications and competence

8. Research Integrity • searching for knowledge and understanding • following recognised principles of research conduct • conducting research honestly, and • disseminating and communicating results, whether favourable or unfavourable, in ways that permit scrutiny and contribute to public knowledge and understanding.

9. Justice • process of recruiting participants is fair • no unfair burden of participation on particular groups • fair distribution of benefits of participation • no exploitation of participants, and • fair access to the benefits of research.

10. Beneficence • Likely benefit must justify any risks of harm or discomfort • Likely benefit may be to participants, the wider community, or both • Where there are no likely benefits to participants, the risk to participants should be lower than would be ethically acceptable where there are such likely benefits.

11. Respect • Due regard for the welfare, beliefs, perceptions, customs and cultural heritage of participants • Respect for privacy, confidentiality and cultural sensitivities of the participants and their communities. • Due scope to the capacity of human beings to make their own decisions. • Empowering and protecting participants unable to make their own decisions/having diminished capacity to do so

12. Minimising Risk • Risk is the potential for harm, discomfort or inconvenience, including: • the likelihood that a harm (or discomfort or inconvenience) will occur and • the severity of the harm, including its consequences.

13. Requirements for Consent • Participationmust be voluntary, and based on adequate understanding of the proposed research and implications of participation. • Consent may be expressed orally, in writing or by some other means (for example, return of a survey, or conduct implying consent), depending on: • the nature, complexity and risk of the research and • the participant’s personal and cultural circumstances.

14. Information Requirements • Participants should be informed of such things as: • alternatives to participation • how the research will be monitored • provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research • how privacy and confidentiality will be protected • their right to withdraw from further participation at any stage, along with any implications of withdrawal

15. Vulnerable Groups • Women who are pregnant and the human foetus • People highly dependent on medical care who may be unable to give consent • People with a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability, or a mental illness • People who may be involved in illegal activities • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples • People in other countries

16. Ethics in Publishing Research Work

17. Intellectual ownership of research work is shared by all not only those who have made significant intellectual or scholarly contributions to that research. • The significance of the contribution made is the only relevant criterion for making such judgments. Status (e.g., student, supervisor), time or effort expended, and other such considerations are irrelevant.

18. Student-supervisor co-authorships constitute a special case (power and research experience differential) • In recognition, a paper co-authored with a student would normally list the student as first author (except in exceptional circumstances)

19. It is unethical for supervisors to accept co-authorship of students’ publications if they have not provided significant intellectual input to the work on which these are based. • Equally, if a student receives significant intellectual input to his/her work from more experienced researchers (e.g., significant guidance on the research aims, design, analysis, or interpretation), it would be unethical for the student to publish the work independently

20. Less experienced researchers can find it difficult to judge whether the contributions made by others to their work is intellectually significant. • The significance of a contribution is generally seen in the impact it has had on a work. Thus, if a contribution has determined, or clearly altered • the rationale for, or research questions addressed in, a study, • the design of the study, • the analyses performed in the study, or • the interpretation of the study outcomes • it is significant regardless of the time invested in making it.

21. Session 14 Mixed methods

22. Session Outline • Strengths and weaknesses of quantitative research and qualitative research (debate) • Mixed methods • Philosophical underpinning • Historical background • Distinguishing feature • Designs

23. Quantitative and qualitative research methods differ in: • their analytical objectives • the types of questions they pose • the types of data collection instruments they use • the forms of data they produce • the degree of flexibility built into study design

24. Historical background • Quantitative research dominated education until 1970s • Qualitative research gradually (very slowly) gained acceptance from 1970s to 2000 • The period 1970-2000 was known as the period of the paradigm wars • By 2005, general acceptance for mixed methods

25. Positioning in the qualitative/quantitative debate • The purist • Qualitative and quantitative methods are incompatible (grounded in different ontologic and epistemologic assumptions) • Advocate mono-method studies • The situationalist • Both approaches have merit for answering different types of research question • Advocate mono-method studies but accept the two approaches as complementary • The pragmatist • Dichotomy is false; many associations with each paradigm erroneous (e.g., experiments must be quantitative) • Advocate mixed-method approaches

26. Mixed methods • Basic idea: combine the methods to maximise strengths and minimise weaknesses • Philosophical underpinning: pragmatism (what works) • Most important point is that the research question(s) drive the paradigm and the method (not vice versa)

27. Distinctions between two approaches Variables vs cases • Variable-oriented analysis: good for finding relationships among variables in large population; based on measurement • Case-oriented analysis: good for finding specific, concrete, patterns in small sets of instances; sensitive to context, process, lived experience, complexity, in-depth and holistic understanding

28. Mixed method designs • Triangulation design • Embedded design • Explanatory design (eg R Watson: survey then interviews) • Exploratory design (eg ISPP; outcomes of drug rehab; standards) These differ in terms of ordering of data collection, balancing of importance and strategy for combining of data

29. Session 15 Writing Research Proposals

30. Purposes of a Research Proposal • Help clarify your interests and objectives • Establish the significance of the proposed research, in light of previous theory and research • Allow supervisors to provide advice

31. Typical Components of a Research Proposal • Title/Abstract • Introduction/Context • Conceptual Framework/Literature Review • Study Rationale and Aims/Questions • Methods • References • Appendices

32. Title and Abstract • Title: concise but thorough statement of the topic or problem to be addressed in the study • Abstract: Concise, coherent summary of proposed study • Statement of the problem or topic addressed • Proposed research design and data collection procedures • Data analysis methods

33. Introduction/Context • Outline your problem/topic area • Establish the importance of the problem/topic (why it is worth pursuing) • Set a meaningful context for the area of investigation (background to current research interest) • Define key terms and concepts

34. Conceptual Framework/Literature Review • Concise summary of previous empirical and theoretical work in the area • Should lead systematically towards your rationale and research aims or hypotheses • Should establish the relation between your research aims to significant literature and recent (or current) research in your field • Explicit rationale should be presented for any conclusions you reach in the literature review

35. Study Rationale and Specific Aims/Questions • The transition from the conclusions you reached in your review to your rationale is smooth and orderly • Aims, questions, and hypotheses (if any) flow logically from your rationale, (a “therefore” statement)

36. Method • Research Approach • Sample • Study Design • Instruments/Protocols • Data Collection Procedures • Data Analysis Procedures • Conformity to Standards for Ethical Research Practice • Proposed Timeline

37. References and Appendices • Use of a consistent referencing style • Notes on APA style • Appendices should include copies of any non-commercial stimulus materials and measures used, and any other information that could not be included in the main body of the proposal • Assignment 1 is designed for you to practice and receive feedback on standards of writing and referencing

38. Session 15

39. Proposal writing • In this session your have an opportunity to seek feedback from each other on your first draft of • Your research question • Your approach • Your proposed method • Your statement of significance

40. Session 16 Closing

41. Next steps Assignment 1 expectations Assignment 2 expectations • Support • Feedback