The studies that a literature review presents inform the research problem not just in terms of the phenomenon, group, and setting under investigation, but also the methodology that may be used to examine the phenomenon within the group and at the setting. In some cases, researchers adopt the same or similar research methodology that appears in studies in a literature review, while in others the application of a different methodology is appropriate. For instance, if a researcher reproduces a previous study in similar contexts with the same group, she or he will likely need look at the problem from a different methodological lens. Similarly, situating an existing study in a new setting while focusing on the same phenomenon and group and using a similar methodological approach would work equally well. These approaches would qualify as a fresh perspective or novel twist on the existing literature and set up the study to examine the phenomenon in a new way—making a strong contribution to what we know.
A study’s research problem, purpose, and question also generally present a methodological approach to investigate the problem and evaluate the questions. While sometimes more subtle than more direct references to the literature, the focus of a question and terms used in a question often reflect dimensions of a study’s research methodology. For example, the use of the term experiences may point to the use of ethnography in the study’s approach to gathering and making sense of information. Likewise, when a question focuses on interaction, the study may use a phenomenological approach. While you can find a more in-depth discussion of research question–methodology connections in Chapter 3, you can note here that qualitative methodology may be embedded in research questions, purposes, and problems—reflecting decisions about how to collect, analyze, and interpret data.
Qualitative Dissertation Methodology in Doctoral Program Contexts
Can I do a survey and interview? Can I use mixed methods? Can I just use interviews? How many participants do I need? Where do I find them? How do I recruit them? Can I do the study at my school? Should I do an ethnography, or can I just use a case study? Or how about an ethnographic case study or a case study that borrow principles from ethnography? An educational ethnography appeals to me—what about that one for my study? I’ve read a bit about phenomenology—what would that look like with my topic? Some of the very first questions from prospective and assigned dissertation advisees that I hear relate to research methodology. These questions generally focus on overall approaches to gather information in studies—through research traditions—to the nuts and bolts of fieldwork—sampling and recruitment procedures and data collection and analysis procedures.
While we tend to situate systematic and rigorous investigations in an evaluation and synthesis of empirical and conceptual literature, a natural place to start—even before or as you articulate a research problem, develop a research purpose, or formulate research questions—relates to what you will do in your study. Asking and seeking answers to questions about what will happen—how you will get from research topic and questions to results, findings, and recommendations—mitigate concerns about logistical details in executing a study and reduce anxiety related to unknown, uncontrollable elements in social science research generally and qualitative research in particular. And these questions are well suited to discussions with faculty advisors, who ultimately—later with dissertation committee member support—approve of the methodological framework that you will use in your study.
Conventionally, the methodological framework of a study emerges from the broader research framework—the research problem associated with a review of the empirical literature that informs the research purpose and questions. While this approach has been tested and used historically, early-stage doctoral students may be intimidated by more advanced steps in the research process—and a clear, articulate, well-conceptualized methodological framework is one giant step. What is more, the early use of research conventions in the initial phase of a study can sometimes feel rigid and overly structured, stymieing initial progress to make sense of a topic and test evolving ideas.
In many advising contexts, sometimes it is more of a chicken-egg scenario in the early research process where you are not quite sure what the formulaic components of the study will be: phenomena, population (group), and site (context). For example, one of my former students had an interest in examining the experiences of African American collegiate swim coaches who competed as collegiate swimmers. With an interest in exploring the experiences of African American collegiate swim coaches, some of the initial questions that this student asked were: Should I use ethnography or phenomenology? If I use ethnography, is a holistic or contextualized approach better? Can I approach a few folks I know from my collegiate swim career and current USA Swim coaching roles? The first two times that she and I met to discuss dissertation research, considerations related to the literature review arose only near the end of the second meeting. Instead, we talked about what interested her, what she would like to explore in her study, what the goals for her study were, and how she would achieve them. These discussions naturally led to the how of her research work in which she strategized about the procedural details of fieldwork, including when, where, and with whom she would collect data. This focus seemed liked a more organic process for her—as her initial questions drove the direction of the conversation.
Source: © iStockphoto.com/avierarnau
How to talk about qualitative methodology in dissertation advising contexts.
In the next chapter, I will discuss with you dissertation methodology as a discrete lens with methodological assumptions, principles, and guidelines. Here, the focus is on how to successfully negotiate a methodological framework that works for your chair and for you. Given that your chair approves dissertation work, the need to present and support your ideas, argue and defend your interests, and ensure an outcome with which you can live is important. While you may not necessarily need to engage in intense debates about what you want or need to do to structure your research design, data sources, data collection and analysis procedures, and discuss your researcher roles, the use of qualitative methodology in dissertations requires a sense of the objections that faculty advisors or instructors may raise and strategies to overcome these objections. These strategies include pragmatic approaches to connect dissertation research to substantive activities of doctoral student work and a general understanding of social science research applied within dissertation contexts. Here are some common areas where dissertation advisors and student advisees may disagree:
The need to use mixed methods or to include a survey in your qualitative dissertation. I sometimes hear an argument from students in my qualitative methods and action research classes that goes like this: “I need (or have) to do a survey because my chair (or instructor or fill in the blank) said that my study needs one.” Sometimes students seem intent on “doing a survey” themselves; other times, the claim emerges from a discussion with students’ dissertation chairs or previous course instructors. Whatever the source, the rationale for this approach tends to run along similar lines: What counts as empirical research is an experimental or observational survey research design. While such a design may be appealing and an argument about what constitutes empirical research may be attractive, there is little need to adopt an explicitly quantitative research design when a study’s research problem, purpose, and questions all relate to a qualitative research design that meets the standards for a rigorous, systematic empirical