Introduction to Research Methods: Scientific and Social Approaches

In this research methods we will discuss about rock of natural scientific and below are the summaries point:- Undertaking research is like an experiment or investigation. The scientific method emerged in the 17th century and was applied to new areas of study such as sociology and psychology in the 18th and 19th centuries. Social scientists have tried to adopt the scientific method but have faced difficulties due to the subjective nature of their fields, leading to the development of new scientific approaches based on philosophical positions.

1
Research Methods
A brief Introduction
“Between the rock of natural scientific and a hard place of
social science”
Peter Carroll
March 08

2
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 “The scientific method”
3.0 Deductive/Inductive reasoning
4.0 From natural science to social science
5.0 Positivism versus Interpretivism
6.0 Research Philosophies
7.0 Grounded theory
8.0 Phenomenology
9.0 Ethnography
10.0 The purpose of research
11.0 The Research Process
References

3
1.0 Introduction
This is intended to be a short guide to the process of undertaking a small
scale research project. Undertaking research may be thought of as some kind
of experiment or investigation. The word experiment evokes images of
science whilst an investigation may lead to thoughts of detectives.
In general science tries to make sense of the natural world; it provides us with
theories that can be generally applied in solving problems of a similar kind.
Criminal investigations examine evidence and provide a theory to explain
what may have happened so that judgements can be made.
Interest in science and experimentation has been of interest to mankind since
at least the time of the ancient Greeks. Since ancient times mankind has also
sought to understand the nature of life and human interactions. This has given
rise to a branch of academic study known as philosophy and given fame to
the likes of Aristotle and Plato.
The Seventeenth Century saw a re-birth or renaissance in scientific interest
and discovery, giving rise to what is often referred to as “the scientific
method” The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century saw the emergence of new
areas of academic study such as sociology and psychology. The study of
chemistry and physics has often been referred to as “real science” whilst
sociology is often regarded as a “pseudo science”. It would appear that
making discoveries about electricity and atoms involve the gathering of hard
evidence leading to concrete conclusions. Social scientists have also sought
to analyse data and provide explanations between cause and effect. Their
purpose has been to help us make sense of the everyday world so that we
can understand whether “prison works” or what is the best method to teach
children how to read.
The social scientists have tended to try to adopt “the scientific method” as it
is perceived to have rigour and therefore legitimacy. However the challenge to
the scientist looking through the lens of a microscope at a virus is perhaps
different to the view taken by a sociologist, when observing the impact of the
welfare state.
Over time therefore difficulties have arisen in adopting “the scientific
method” in areas such as education, economics, politics and the general
area of humanities and social science. This has led to the development of
scientific approaches or methodologies rooted is some philosophical position
based upon “the scientific method” The scientific approach has been
adapted so that subjects coloured by human values and emotions can be
studied and analysed. This has been done in order to advance the study of
phenomena perhaps less tangible than forces or electricity..
In attempting to understand the range of “orthodox” methodologies that have
emerged such as epistemology or grounded theory, it is first necessary to
have a grasp of the classical “scientific method”.

4
This guide therefore begins by looking at ideas connected with undertaking
research, discusses “the scientific method” and then seeks to provide a
thumbnail sketch of “orthodox” methodologies commonly used in social
science.
2.0 “The scientific method”
To understand “the scientific method”, consider Newton, as legend has it
standing in his garden observing apples falling from a tree. He evidently
wondered why it was that this happened. He seems to have recognised that
there was some force of attraction between the apple and the ground. He may
have similarly observed that most if not all objects seem to possess the
uncanny knack of falling to earth. This by itself is not a proof of a gravitational
force but it does provide persuasive evidence rooted in experience. Such
knowledge is known as empirical as it is based on experience; Newton then
developed his experience into a hypothesis from which he developed his
theory of gravitational attraction. Newton devised equations from which he
was able to make predictions of the force of gravitational attraction; this has
been tested found valid and reliable. This gave rise to a branch of physics
known as “Newtonian Mechanics” which was not contradicted until the early
Twentieth Century when scientists developed the study of quantum
mechanics and proved that in certain circumstances Newton’s prediction
doesn’t always hold true. This demonstrate the “the scientific method”, and
it also shows how it is difficult to ever say something is universally true for all
time. Hence theories are advanced tested and used until new evidence and
theories emerge.
Denscombe (2002; 7) comments
“The “natural science model” of research methodology provides the
best starting point for understanding the various issues and
controversies that surround social research. The debates about “good
practice” in social research sometimes favour the natural science
model. Either way, they do not ignore the natural science model and
more or less explicitly the arguments assume a basic knowledge of
what the principles are.”

5
Jose Wudka (2006;5) offers a version of “the scientific method” although it
has to be said there are perhaps as many versions of the “the scientific
method” as there are text books, With that in mind we proceed to Wudka’s
version depicted in figure.1 supported by notes 1 to 5.
Fig.1 “the scientific method”
The steps in the method as follows:
1. Observe some aspect of the Universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, which is consistent
with what you have observed. This might range from a fine tuning of
existing ideas to a complete revamping of accepted knowledge
(sometimes called a ‘‘paradigm shift’’).
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.5
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations, and
modify the hypothesis n the light of these results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation. Once this type of consistency is
achieved the hypothesis is validated and accepted as a new theory.

6
3.0 Deductive/Inductive reasoning
In applying “the scientific method” you may start with a theory i.e. a set of
scientific principles and then deduce whether an established set of principles
is valid in some defined context under particular circumstances.
Wudka (2006; 3) defines deductive reasoning as:
“Argument is based on a rule, law, principle, or generalization. In other
words, ‘‘I’m right because I said so.’’ Aristotle conducted some of the
earliest studies of the world around us, interpreting his observations
using this deductive approach. He did this by choosing a set of first
principles, which he considered eminently clear, obvious and natural”
In a sense the reverse of deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning which begins
with observation and then proceeds to rationalise observations into a coherent theory
that can be generally applied.
Wudka (2006; 3) defines Inductive reasoning
“Arguments are based on experience or observation. In other words,
‘‘I’m right and I can do an experiment to prove it.’’ The shift in science
from deductive to inductive reasoning was prompted by the various
writings of Francis Bacon, and perhaps more forcefully by the results
obtained by Galileo and Newton. The same basic approach used then
(with minor alterations) is still followed today in most research. The
reliability of scientific results we have come to expect is due to the
inductive approach.”
Wudka (2006;3) goes on to warn us that even Aristotle was capable of making
deductions based upon apparently logical observation leading to faulty
theories.
“In his work ‘‘The History of Animals’’ the Greek philosopher Aristotle
claimed that men and women had a different number of teeth, and that
their internal organs were also different.”
“A good example of the sort of logical traps hiding in deductive
reasoning can be seen in what is known as a syllogism. A syllogism is
a logically incorrect generalization. For example, one might state ‘‘All
cats have fur,’’ and then state ‘‘A dog has fur; therefore a dog is a cat.’’
Though it may seem silly to us now, this type of argument resulting
from the deductive approach formed the basis of science for centuries.”

7
4.0 From natural science to social science
Having gained a rudimentary idea of “the scientific method” we can look at
the way social scientist have developed this model for tackling research more
sociological in nature.
It is worth however noting Denscombe’s caution (2002; 5)
“Theoretical debates have been deep, complicated and, sometimes,
abrasive between researches who hold different beliefs about the
nature of social reality (“ontology”) and competing visions about the
ways that humans create their knowledge about the social world in
which they live (“epistemology”). “
Immediately this quotation demonstrates how jargon laden the study of
research methods becomes. It is necessary to gain some grasp of this jargon
unfortunately it is difficult to find concise definitions which are free from further
reference to yet more jargon. Therefore other terms need to be understood
before you can sensibly proceed. The further one delves the more jargon
emerges and inevitably you are drawn into a deep philosophical world in
which religion and notions of being are discussed. In order to maintain a
practical perspective it is necessary to realise that only a basic understanding
is needed and as a result you are likely to fall into some semantic trap at
some point. Console yourself in what Denscombe has to say, particularly that
expert researchers constantly disagree even to the point of being abrasive!
Leaving aside for the time being ontology and epistemology we proceed by
comparing positivism with interpretivism.
5.0 Positivism versus Interpretivism
At the heart of the debate is whether the “the scientific method” provides an
adequate approach to studying and analysing the cause and effect of human
interaction. To understand this it is necessary to separate the “natural world”
from the “social world”. That is to say a world unaffected by the value
judgements of the people involved, as distinct from one where the feelings of
people are seen as affecting the collection of data and resulting analysis.
In the study of the “natural world” the researcher may be more likely to
observe and collect data in an unbiased and unobtrusive manner. The social
scientist however may lack detachment from his/her subject and indeed the
subject may be significantly affected by being observed. Moreover it may be
argued that atoms and molecules behave in a predictable and regular
manner. By contrast the study of social interaction is far less predictable;
hence it is not so easily analysed in order to produce some generalised
theory. The natural scientist is not so constrained by ethical issues as the
social scientist. When observing the behaviour of human beings the social

8
scientist must take into consideration the feelings and privacy of his/her
subject(s).
Denscombe (2002; 14) defines positivism as:
“Positivism is an approach to social research that seeks to apply the
natural science model to investigations of social phenomena and
explanations of the social world.”
Positivism is about making empirical observations from which theories can
be deduced. The position of positivism is to contend that the social world
functions in a given way independently of the conciseness of the subject
being observed and that of the researcher. Further that reality can be
measured objectively and the reality of a situation can be established. This
raises issues about what people know or what they believe to be true and
whether something is objectively true i.e. free of feeling or emotion.
By contrast interpretivism recognises that when people are being observed
that their behaviour will change and thus observations will be consequently
affected. Furthermore the values of the researcher will also impact on the
validity of the research. Researchers following this tradition have developed
research philosophies that seek to remedy what they see as defects in the
“the scientific method”.
By nature positivism tends towards being objective whereas interpretivism
calls for greater subjectivity. It follows therefore that positivism is more likely
to use statistical analysis than interpretivism. In consequence the data
associated with positivism is more likely to be quantitative whereas the
qualitative data is associated with interpretivism.
6.0 Research Philosophies
There are a number of research philosophies but only epistemology and
ontology will be considered here. Seeking a simple concise definition of
these terms is almost impossible and indeed there appears to be once again
a sea of academic debate over their meaning and more critically their
application.
Chambers Dictionary (1988:337: 729) defines epistemology as study or
theory of knowledge and ontology as Philosophy, study of being.
In part it would seem that epistemology asks questions about knowledge in
relation to perception or belief. Greek philosophers equated knowledge with
absolute truth. In other words something that is absolutely true with complete
certainty can be considered knowledge. Conducting research often involves
asking people their opinions or what they know. Frequently what they say they
know they truly believe. Often though deeply held views falls short of what is
actually true. It was commonly believed before Galileo that the earth was flat.

9
People believed this presumably because it squared with their every day
experiences, that it is to say it was a belief based upon empirical data.
Much of natural science relies upon empirical evidence with few things in
life being certain. However the value a theory lies in its ability to predict
outcomes with certainty. The problem of what constitutes knowledge in the
“social world” is substantially more difficult to ascertain The Government
frequently claim that fear of crime amongst the population is substantially
greater than the reality.
When epistemology is considered in relation to positivism and
interpretivism it can be seen that positivism is linked more to the collection
of quantitative data whist interpretivism is connected more with qualitative
data. Facts and figures tend to be regarded as more reliable than feelings or
opinions. The difficulty with social science is that research often delves into
areas where only subjective assessments can be made. For example you can
objectively count the number of people sent to prison however assessing the
impact of custodial sentences on criminals and attitudes of the threat of crime
amongst the public is deeply subjective. At a certain point perception
becomes reality whether it is a belief is rooted in truth or not. That it s to say,
that a strongly held belief can become a “self fulfilling prophecy”. This can
then affect people’s behaviour and an unfounded belief can become an
observable reality. Hence if a section of society is perceived in a certain way
they ultimately conform to the stereo-type imposed upon it by the broader
society. So if for example if a section of workers are perceived by
management to be lazy and untrustworthy they will ultimately conform to this
expectation. (See McGregor’s Theories X & Y)
Saunders et al (2007: 108) draw a distinction between epistemology and
ontology as follows:
“We noted earlier that epistemology concerns what constitutes
acceptable knowledge in a field of study. The key epistemological
question is “can the approach to the study of the social world including
that of management and business, be the same as to the approach to
studying the natural sciences?” The answer to that question points the
way to the acceptability of the knowledge developed from the research
process. Ontology on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of
reality. To a greater extent than epistemological considerations, this
raises questions of the assumptions researchers have about the world
operates and the commitment made to particular views.”
It may be noted that Saunders et al are somewhat cagey about drawing
categorical differences. It can be seen that epistemology and ontology
represent different schools of thought on the position that a researcher might
adopt in undertaking their research.
Whilst there maybe no clear definitions of what epistemology and ontology
are; it would seem that the main difference concerns the dynamic effects
people have on the situation in which they exist including the effect the
researcher has in influencing research findings.

10
Social science researchers adopting an ontological position recognise that
the influence people have in changing the circumstance under investigation.
So people may change their behaviour simply because they are being
observed, something which has come to be known as the “Hawthorn Effect”
In 1933 Elton Mayo studied a group of workers at the Hawthorne works of the
Western Electric Company in Chicago. He noted that a group of workers
became more productive whilst being the subject of an experiment in which
levels of illumination were changed. He concluded that the workers became
more motivated simply because they were flattered by the researcher’s
attention.
[http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/] [~steve] accessed 3rd July 07
So an ontological position would not only consider the effect that the
researcher has on affecting the behaviour of the study group but also the
social dynamics that exist between people who are the subject of the study. It
also recognises the researcher can not approach a social situation without
being free from their own beliefs and values; this may also impact on the
value of the research. It follows that the “the scientific method” is seen as
inadequate under certain circumstances and hence different philosophical
stances have been developed.
Denscombe (2002; 18) explains:
“Social reality is something that is constructed and interpreted by
people – rather than something that exists objectively “out there”. From
the interpretivists’ point of view the social world does not have the
tangible, material qualities that allow it to be measured, touched or
observed in some way. It is a social creation, constructed in the minds
of people and reinforced through their interactions with each other. It is
a reality that only exists through the way people believe in it, relate to it
and interpret it. And for this reason, interpretivists tend to focus their
attention on the way people make sense of the world and how they
create their social world through their actions and interpretations of the
world. Whereas positivism focuses on the way the social reality exists
externally to people, acting as a constraining force on values and
behaviour. Interpretivist approaches stress the way people shape
society.”
Simplistically this appears to construct a spectrum from positivism to
interpretivism reflecting a range of philosophical positions from
epistemology to ontology.
Regrettably this is a gross simplification and indeed whist the impression that
epistemology and ontology are philosophies in the singular it appears that
there are multiple epistemologies and ontologies. So within these broad
philosophical categories, subcategories exist that have been developed by
different schools of thought that can be applied in a range to different fields of
study.

11
It can be seen that the occasional researcher could easily drown in a sea
academic debate and it is worth reflecting on what Denscombe (2002; 22) has
to say.
“There is, though, a more practical reason why the world of social
research does not involve a simple dichotomy between positivists and
interpretivists. This is that both positions have their strengths and
weaknesses and that in the maturing field of social research people are
becoming increasingly willing to acknowledge that neither position has
all the answers. There have been influential attempts to integrate the
two positions and get the best of both worlds but, at the beginning of
the twenty first century, it is fair to say that there is no theoretical
stance that has managed to successfully to combine the strong points
of either approach and avoid criticisms linked to their weaknesses.”
As there are debates, disagreement and perhaps lack of clarity amongst
academics it leaves researchers in need of some compromise. Pragmatism
is a position which seeks to steer a course through the methodological debate
whilst adopting some rigor in addressing a research question.
Saunders et al (2007; 110) confirm:
.
“Pragmatism argues that the most important determinant of the
research philosophy adopted is the research question – one approach
may be “better” than the other for answering particular questions.
Moreover, if the research question does not unambiguously state that
either a positivist or an Interpretivist philosophy is adopted, this
confirms the pragmatist’s view that it is perfectly possible to work with
both philosophies.”
Furthermore it can be seen that maintaining a sense of perspective between
following an “orthodox” philosophy and actually doing some practical research
is highly important. Julia Brannen (2005; 5) in her paper on mixed methods
research cautions:
“However, in putting more emphasis on methodology, we need also to
be mindful of Lewis Coser’s admonition to the American Sociological
Association made in 1975 against producing new generations of
researchers ‘with superior research skills but with a trained incapacity
to think in theoretically innovative ways’ (Coser 1975).”
7.0 Grounded theory
Grounded theory is a methodological approach pioneered in the 1960s by
sociologists Barney Glaser and Anslem Strauss. In general it is an inductive
approach based upon “the scientific method” That is to say that the
researcher commences their research without reference to an established
theory and seeks to gather data grounded in within the study. This tends to
suggest that the data is quantitative in nature; however interviews may be
used, which are perhaps coded and categorised afterwards.

12
Denscombe (2002; 33) tells us:
“Where the research is more exploratory, setting on a journey of
discovery in which the researcher follows up leads and avenues of
enquiry as they emerge during the course of an investigation, it
becomes effectively impossible to be precise at the start about exactly
when and how many who and what will be the focus of the study.”
It follows therefore that this practice is used in more experimental research
where it is inevitable that the research question may lack definition. However
as the research proceeds a body theory may emerge which can then form the
basis for more research. As theory emerges and is subsequently tested
research moves from being inductive to deductive.
Saunders et al (2007; 142) confirms this view:
“Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss) is often thought of the best
example of the inductive approach, although this conclusion would be
too simplistic. It s better think of it as “theory building” through a
combination of induction and deduction.”
8.0 Phenomenology
Myron Orleans defines phenomenology as:
“Phenomenology is a movement in philosophy that has been adapted
by certain sociologists to promote an understanding of the relationship
between states of individual consciousness and social life. As an
approach within sociology, phenomenology seeks to reveal how human
awareness is implicated in the production of social action, social
situations and social worlds (Natanson 1970).”
shttp://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/phenomenology.htm accessed 3rd
July 07
Phenomenology was developed by a German mathematician Edmund
Husserl (1859-1938). He felt that “the scientific method” was inadequate
when applied to the way humans make sense of their social situation.
The challenge for the researcher when researching the social world of others
is to remain objective.
Denscombe (2002; 168) states:
“Objectivity in social research calls for detachment. Such a
detachment, though need not involve the impossible demand for the
researcher to somehow to cease to be a social person with views of his
or her own, with emotions or preferences, with a lifetime of experiences

13
– an either/or situation. Detachment, instead, can be seen as a matter
of degree. Objectivity in this sense consists of achieving a level of
detachment…”
Saunders et al (2007; 107) identifies phenomenology as:
“Crucial to the interpretivist epistemology is that the researcher has to
adopt an empathetic stance. The challenge here is to enter the social
world of our research subjects and understand their world from their
point of view.”
It is clear that phenomenology is highly appropriate when undertaking
management research as it involves observing the behaviour of others. It is
essential therefore that researchers appreciate both the effect they have on
the people they observe and the way their preconceived values affect their
research.
9.0 Ethnography
Ethnography is literally concerned with study groups of people within a
particular culture. It is an inductive approach which seeks to describe and
explain the social world of a particular social group by close observation.
See http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/ethno.htm#hraf accessed
3rdJuly 07
“Ethnography is a form of research focusing on the sociology of
meaning through close field observation of sociocultural phenomena.
Typically, the ethnographer focuses on a community (not necessarily
geographic, considering also work, leisure, and other communities),
selecting informants who are known to have an overview of the
activities of the community. Such informants are asked to identify other
informants representative of the community, using chain sampling to
obtain a saturation of informants in all empirical areas of investigation.
Informants are interviewed multiple times, using information from
previous informants to elicit clarification and deeper responses upon
re-interview. This process is intended to reveal common cultural
understandings related to the phenomena under study.”

14
10.0 The purpose of research
Research is undertaken to either:
o make sense of something which is observable but not understood
o or to investigate the validity of a theory established under certain
circumstances and examine if it is still valid when applied in a different
context.
For example it may be known that in a certain geographical area,
absenteeism is higher amongst public service workers than employees in the
private sector. Therefore there may be knowledge in the form of statistical
data taken from say a hospital and a car factory but there is a lack
understanding to explain the observations made.
Research may then be undertaken to compare the working lives of the two
groups of workers in seeking to establish the route cause of the problem.
Having identified the cause a theory may be developed in curing the problem
of absenteeism.
Once a theory is identified it may then be applied in either a different
geographical area and/or different organisations such as local authorities or
financial institutions. It may of course be found that the theory is partially valid
or perhaps invalid. The researcher may conclude that the circumstances that
applied in the initial study did not apply in other localities or different
organisations. This may lead to a development of the theory in order to
provide a more generalised approach.
11.0 The Research Process
It is useful to be able to conceptualise a research process however there is no
definitive recipe.
Saunders et al (2007; 8) reflect
“While research is often depicted as moving through each of the stages
……… one after the other, this is unlikely to be the case. In reality you
will often revisit each stage more than once. Each time you revisit a
stage you will need to reflect on the associated issues and refine your
ideas”
With this in mind the process outlined below is a guide not a rule and also it
should be borne in mind that the process will operate on an iterative basis
which is not depicted.

15
Below is list of stages that may be undertaken in undertaking research:
o Identify a problem or an area of study
o Ask a question
o Develop an aim(s) and objectives
o Establish what is already known
o Design a method
o Collect data
o Analyse data & Present findings
o Draw conclusions
o Make recommendations
Taking each in turn they can be analysed as follows:
11.1 Identify a problem or an area of study
A general area of interest needs to be established which is of interest and
value to both the researcher and others. Research is frequently carried out for
academic reasons and therefore needs to satisfy academic criteria. Research
may be carried out to satisfy the needs of an employer. In many cases there
may be a mutual interest between the researcher, an academic institution and
an employer. There is no point in carrying meaningless or pointless research.
It is therefore meaningless to carry out research which doesn’t extend
knowledge and understanding; further it is pointless to set about proving
something which is already known. However it is unlikely that research
undertaken for a project as a part of an academic study programme is going
to be ground breaking. It is much more likely that some aspect of a theory or
practice will be investigated to assess its validity when applied in specific
circumstances.
For example ISO 9000 proposes the adoption of a “process approach”. The
general application “process approach” can be researched and then its
application to a specific company may be assessed.
11.2 Ask a question
A question needs to be framed i.e. a hypothesis needs to be established that
is capable of being tested.
For example “Is business efficiency and certification to ISO 9000 linked”
Establishing a clear question will clarify the establishment of aims and
objectives that will provide discipline in undertaking the project. Critically it will
lead the researcher to examine the feasibility and scope of the project.
The question posed here does perhaps have validity in the sense that it is a
good question that perhaps interests many.

16
However it is a very broad question and therefore has potentially global
scope. The question could be limited to a specific context e.g.
“Is business efficiency and certification to ISO 9000 linked for company XYZ”
Whist this greatly reduces the scope it still begs questions as to the data that
may be obtainable in answering the question.
11.3 Develop an aim(s) and objectives
An aim or aims will reflect the research question and clearly identify the clear
purpose of the research e.g.
The aim of this project is to establish whether the implementation of ISO 9000
has aided business efficiency in company XYZ.
It is important to have a clearly defined aim to ensure that the research is
achievable and that it is properly focussed.
Objectives follow from the aim and add definition to it e.g.
1. Investigate criteria for the assessment of business efficiency.
2. Select criteria that is relevant to company XYZ.
3. Establish a method of testing the criteria in company XYZ.
4. Examine feasibility of gathering data.
5. Report findings to the management of company XYZ.
11.4 Establish what is already known
Most projects require a literature review. A literature review involves finding
information relevant to the research question from books, journals, academic
papers and the internet. Whilst the literature review will inevitably start early in
the life of the project it does not necessarily end before the next phase
commences and indeed may be added to as the project unfolds. The literature
may be thought of as an essay on the research topic which culminates in the
identification of a theoretical framework. The framework may then be used to
systematically to address the aims and objectives of the project..
11.5 Design a method

17
If the research is considered as a process of gathering evidence in order to
“test a theory” then the validity of the data collection is crucial. Collection
methods may include use of interviews and questionnaires.
It is therefore crucial that methods are understood and designed properly if
the findings and the conclusions are to be taken seriously. Referring to the
research philosophies identified earlier it is necessary to establish the
approach with reference to “orthodox” philosophies and methodologies. It is
crucial that methods are linked to objectives. Research may involve the
collection of both qualitative and quantitative data and appropriate methods
need to be identified.
11.6 Collect data
Collecting the data is of course when research methods are deployed. It may
be found that unforeseen difficulties arise that result in the reappraisal of the
method employed. For example a questionnaire distributed by email may fail if
the recipients can not receive the questionnaires due to reasons of IT security
or lack of IT knowledge. More fundamental issues may arise which require
that the theoretical model be modified and hence there may be a need to
revise the literature review.
11.7 Analyse data & Present findings
The raw data collected will need to be collated and presented. From this
trends and patterns may be identified which either confirm or deny the validity
or the “theoretical model”.
This may well include graphical presentations such as histograms and pie
charts. It will not necessarily mean that all the raw data is included, indeed it is
more likely that processed data may be tabularised with raw data being
included in an appendix. For example completed questionnaire may be
included in an appendix together with transcripts of interviews. This data may
be processed to provide tables of statistics supported by graphs which are
presented as findings.
11.8 Draw conclusions
Conclusions should be concise statements that address the research
objectives Clear links should be made to the research findings. Conclusions
may be positive, negative or indeed non-conclusive. Conclusions must be
supported by the evidence found during the course of the research and
therefore should always be balanced and considered judgements.
Conclusions also need to be reflective on the method used and hence
conclusions should scrutinise the manner in which the research was
undertaken to identify potential weakness they may call findings into question.
11.9 Make recommendations
Recommendations naturally follow from conclusions and may offer advice as
to whether the theory is a value when applied in a practical situation. There is

18
also need to reflect on how the research method may be improved or how the
research may be developed.

19
References:
Books
Denscombe M. (2002) Ground Rules for Good Research Open University
Press ISBN13: 9780335206513
Saunders M; Lewis P.; Thornhill A. (2007) Research Methods for Business
Students 4th Edition; Prentice Hall ISBN 13-978-0-273-70148-4
Wudka, Jose Space-time, relativity, and cosmology Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0521822807
Excerpt available at: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/22800/excerpt/9780521822800_excerpt.pdf
Chamber Etymological dictionary 1998 Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd
ISBN 0-550-14230-4
Papers
Brannen J. Mixed Methods Research: ERSC National Centre for Research
Methods 2005
Websites
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/ethno.htm#hraf accessed 3rd July
07
http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/phenomenology.htm accessed 3rd
July 07
[http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/] [~steve] accessed 3rd July 07