The connections between each section are meaningful—not only the design elements that permeate chapter sections of the methodology, but also the procedural steps woven together as one activity leads to another and connects to broader developments in research fieldwork. If sections could be grouped together by procedural phase, then the following general set of sections could be considered meaningfully—and often temporally—linked:
research tradition;
research setting and context, data sources, and research sample;
data collection instrument, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures; and
researcher roles.
Here, these sections can be seen as connected by both task and time: You select a research tradition and then move onto selections of a research setting and research participants. You end with the development of data collection instruments and procedures. All the while, you are working out who you are in your study through a reflexive process. Of course, these steps generally do not transpire in a strict order but rather in iterative steps.
An iterative approach to dissertation methodology development.
Developing dissertation methodology through chapter sections generally follows the work of qualitative researchers who use their study’s background—problem, purpose, and question—to direct what they do in the field. While the conceptualization process of systematic approaches to investigations can be messy—first you identify the group or population of interest, then you think about steps in the context of data collection, then the problem or gap in what we know about all of this—when pen goes to paper or fingers to keyboard, the process takes a bit more shape and follows what we see in published journal articles, reports, or monographs. That is, one methodological component leads to and connects with another—flowing logically from one step of gathering and making sense of information to the next.
Source: © iStockphoto.com/ photovideostock
While methodology development is not as neat as what appears in publications or presentations, the evolutionary tendencies of research purpose and questions often inform changes over time and are shaped by and shape methodology. Indeed, if you had access to a researcher’s or researchers’ draft files that lead to a published journal article, for example, you would likely discover previous versions of research questions and purpose and iterations of methodology. In student dissertation contexts, we see this pattern, too, as in the following example, listed by doctoral program year:
Years 1–2: Therefore, the purpose of this study will be to examine the college experiences of African American females in their senior year at a Minority Serving Institution (Wright, September 2012, p. 2).
Years 2–3: Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological case study will be to examine the college experiences of eight African American females who have persisted to their senior year at a minority-serving institution (MSI) that is not a historically Black college or university (Wright, December 2012, p. 2).
Years 3+: This study employs Critical Race Theory and Womanism to guide a qualitative examination of college experiences of African American women who have graduated or successfully persisted at a minority-serving institution (MSI) that is not classified as a historically Black college or university (HBCU) (Wright, 2014, p. x).
Key Points in Dissertation Methodology Development
First year and second years: coursework, faculty advising, topic selection, literature search and review, research framework development
Second and third years: coursework, faculty or dissertation advising, dissertation pilot or proposal development, IRB protocol draft and submission
Third year and beyond: coursework, dissertation advising, and dissertation proposal development and hearing, fieldwork and data collection, data analysis and write up, and final dissertation development and defense
You can see from this example, the student’s research purpose evolves from a more general approach to examining academic entrepreneurialism to an exploration of the factors associated with the patterns of entrepreneurial community college faculty—using a grounded theory case study design.
In my work with doctoral students—including dissertation advisees—the developmental changes that mark dissertation research frameworks tend to happen alongside coursework and faculty advising in the first and second years of a program. During this time, students usually form initial dissertation topics and early versions of research purpose and questions. Once assigned a dissertation advisor and through a significant portion of coursework in the second and third years of a program, dissertation work tends to focus on dissertation pilot research and proposal development, where the study’s background and context come alive and inform work in the methodological framework. In the third program year and beyond, the combination of any outstanding classes needed to fulfill degree requirements, dissertation advising, and dissertation proposal development and hearing, fieldwork and data collection, data analysis and write up, and final dissertation development shape the sections of the methodology chapter.
The curricular and research experiences and ritualistic events are generally associated with substantive growth as student scholars—and changes in dissertation methodology reflect this relationship. In the following example, you can see how the evolution of research questions parallels the students’ progression through the program:
Years 1–2: How is information about academic dishonesty communicated to students? What formal discussion is taking place? What efforts can be taken to address this issue? (Bluestein, September 2010, p. 2).
Years 2–3: How does the faculty–student relationship cultivate shared norms with respect to academic dishonesty? What factors of the faculty–student relationship mitigate academic dishonesty? (Bluestein, December 2010, p. 2).
Years 3+: What are the effects of the student–faculty interaction on student behavior related to academic honesty? What factors of the student–faculty relationship facilitate student academic dishonesty? (Bluestein, 2012, p. 7).
Here, you can see the transition from more general research questions to a set of two questions directly related to the phenomenon under investigation and linked to a qualitative research tradition (in this case, grounded theory). In a final example, you can see the development of a qualitative research tradition over the course of a 3-year doctoral program in educational leadership:
Years 1–2: I am seeking to know the nature of the knowledge that will be discovered through the portraiture methodology. (Bailey, October 2010, p. 1).
Years 2–3: Portraiture as a methodological framework seeks to understand systems of power and differencing aspects of culture by exploring diverse voices. (Bailey, December 2010, p. 4).
Years 3+: Coupled with validation theory, portraiture methodology positions this study to illuminate the voices from underserved and minority populations. (Bailey, 2014, p. 8).
In this case, the student