Resource Center 

Summary

Action Research is mixed methods research focusing on enacting immediate changes in the research settings. It may produce quick changes as the researchers carry out the research in their own work settings. There are two major types of action research: critical action research and practical action research. The purpose of critical action research is liberation through gathering knowledge. Critical Action researchers focus on enhancing individuals' lives, particularly marginalized individuals who do not have power to improve their own lives. Examples of issues that critical action researchers focus are racism, sexism, or prejudice in their workplaces. The practical action research also aims to improve individuals’ lives but with more practical orientation focusing on everyday practices and making minor changes.

“Action research involves a systematic process of examining the evidence. The results of this type of research are practical, relevant, and can inform theory. Action research is different than other forms of research as there is less concern for universality of findings, and more value is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher and the local collaborators” ("Guides: Action research: Getting started," 1028).

References

Guides: Action research: Getting started. (1028, June). Guides at University of Central Missouri

Related websites

• Action Research, Sage Publications
• Action Research for Professional Development
  
• Brown University-Action Research

Related publications

• Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihen, A. (2007) Studying Your Own School: An Educator’s Guide to Practitioner Action Research. Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin Press.
• Carr, W., Kemmis, S. (2005) Staying critical. Educational Action Research. 13(3) pp. 347–57. 

Further resources

• What is Action Research (YouTube video)
• Dr. Andrew Johnson-Minnesota State University-The Basics of Action Research (YouTube video)
• University of Sussex-Dr. Danny Burns (YouTube video)

Summary

For those interested in this alternative research method, its roots generally go back to the humanities and study of journalism, media, and society. This can encompass a broad range of studies in business, communications, and education. More than 20 years ago under the tutelage of Stephen Lacy, Ph.D. at Michigan State University, Erik conducted a thesis study to compare a published environmental priorities state report and the degree of newspaper coverage devoted to the most dangerous health risks it reported. Lacy, who has co-authored content analysis textbooks and who has amassed dozens upon dozens of rigorous such studies maintains that this quantitative method of analysis is most successful when a carefully defined coding book of definitions is set up prior to any investigation.

Often confused as just qualitative research method, content analysis is also quantitative since instances of words, images, measurements, and published pieces, for example, are counted and compared to one another based on size, frequency, prominence (how likely they would be seen by the target audience) and by whatever research question is posed.

“Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data (i.e. text). Using content analysis, researchers can quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of certain words, themes, or concepts. As an example, researchers can evaluate language used within a news article to search for bias or partiality. Researchers can then make inferences about the messages within the texts, the writer(s), the audience, and even the culture and time of surrounding the text” (Content Analysis, n.d.).

References

Content Analysis. (n.d.). 

Related publications

• Scribbr-Content Analysis | Guide, Methods & Examples
• Writing@CSU - Using Content Analysis
• National Library of Medicine - Demystifying Content Analysis

Further resources

• Content analysis (YouTube video)
• Content analysis in social research (YouTube video)
• What is content analysis? (YouTube video)

Summary

Introduction - The Delphi technique is a research design, usually considered a qualitative method, which was designed to forecast viable solutions to problems where data was missing or incomplete.  The object “is to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts” (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963, p. 458) as to the best workable solutions to the problem.  The Delphi technique originated in the 1950’s as a research project funded by the United States Air Force and developed by the RAND Corporation. The original research was a classified military effort involving a group of multi-disciplinary experts whose goal was to try and forecast the effects of future warfare on the United States (Gordon & Helmer, 1964).

The defining characteristics of the Delphi technique are as follows:

• Participants are experts in their field.
• The technique uses a series of rounds or iterations where information is given back to the participants for review.
• Participants work anonymously.  They do not know who the other participants might be.

The Delphi technique is a “consensus” research method.  In most cases, the goal is to approach a consensus among the expert panel as to future “best” solutions.  There are, however, exceptions to this, notably the Policy Delphi. From that early beginning in the 1950’s and 60’s, the Delphi technique has evolved and grown significantly. Use of the Delphi method in medical research is the most common field of application, based on the number of articles published. In searching the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database, the growth in Delphi studies has been almost exponential.

References

• Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi Method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467. 
• Gordon, T. J., & Helmer-Hirschberg, O. (1964). Report on a long-range forecasting study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Download report (PDF)

Related websites

• Evidenced-based nursing- What are Delphi studies?
• National Library of Medicine- Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness
• Science Direct-Delphi Method
  

Related publications

• Baker, J., Lovell, K., & Harris, N. (2006). How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of 'expert' within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher, 14(1), 59-70.
  
• Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. Download report (PDF)
  

Further resources

• What is the Delphi Method?  (YouTube video)
• The Delphi Technique  (YouTube video)
• Shorts in Psychology-The Delphi  (YouTube video)

Summary

Ethnography is the study of culture and has at its roots the field of anthropology but has branched out to study the cultures of peoples and how cultures influence the lives of the people that live within social setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). There are two schools of ethnography whose origins were taken from aspects of society.  They are social and cultural anthropology. The field of social ethnography explores the social aspects of people living within a society.  In cultural ethnography attention is centered more on the cultural aspects of the people in a society.  In both social and cultural ethnography, the premise is that the researcher works within a community, understanding their culture, and letting the participants in the study present their thoughts and ideas in their own words. One misconception is that an ethnographic study, due in part to its basis in anthropology, takes place in remote areas involving indigenous peoples.  While this is plausible it is so much more.  Ethnographic studies can take place in urban, rural, and remote areas.

References

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative research:  A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Related websites

• University of Virginia-Ethnographic Research
• Scribbr- What Is Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples
• Sage Journals-Ethnography

Related publications

• Emerson, R. M, Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  
• Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Further resources

• Dr. Lorin Mayo-Ethnography (YouTube video)
  
• Ethnography: Ellen Isaacs at TEDxBroadway (YouTube video)
• What is Ethnography in User Research? (YouTube video)

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to develop theories of understanding based on data from the real world. Grounded Theory (Strauss, Corbin, 1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2008) has its origins in symbolic interactionism, taking the perspective that reality is negotiated between people, always changing, and constantly evolving. The key word is “theory,” which in science means an explanatory statement or model based on research evidence. Unlike some other forms of qualitative inquiry, grounded theory attempts to go beyond rich description (which it also strives for) to an explanation of the phenomena of interest.

The second key word is grounded. This implies that the explanation is derived from the “ground,” the actual experiences, words, behaviors, and other data obtained from people directly involved or engaged in the topic. For example, if one wished to derive a grounded theory about the effects of childhood abuse on adult functioning, one would gather many kinds of data from persons who had grown up amid child abuse and would build the theory of how it affects adult development on the information obtained from those people. Another unique feature of grounded theory is its tendency to “return” to the ground by taking preliminary insights back to the participants and asking them to further comment on and refine the researcher’s conclusions. The primary tools of discovery are interviews and observations. However, grounded theory goes beyond the descriptive and interpretive goals and is aimed at building theories. 

References

• Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  
• Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  
• Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and theory for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  

Related websites

• Grounded Theory Online- What is Grounded Theory?
  
• National Library of Medicine- Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers
  
• Qualtrics- Your complete guide to grounded theory research
  

Related publications

• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  

Further resources

• Grounded Theory Introduction (YouTube video)
  
• 5.6 Versions of Grounded Theory (YouTube video)
  
• Grounded Theory Explained in Simple Terms (YouTube video)
  

Summary

Mixed methods studies are unique in that they combine qualitative [QUAL] and quantitative [QUANT] research within a single study. The emphasis on qualitative or quantitative research methods, when each data set is collected, and the relationship between the sets of data all determine the type of mixed method one may utilize. “According to the National Institutes of Health, mixed methods strategically integrates or combines rigorous quantitative and qualitative research methods to draw on the strengths of each” (Harvard Catalyst, 2022). 

While mixed methods may also combine various ontologies and epistemologies, often the study follows a pragmatic perspective, using the appropriate research tools to meet the study's needs. Often one goal found within a mixed method study is triangulation, or the understanding of a given phenomenon from different vantage points. The basic belief is that by using both QUANT and QUAL, a researcher may expand, deepen, or further explain the topic at hand. However, a cautionary note for researchers in a time crunch (such as doctoral students), a mixed methods study often takes longer to conduct, and one must have skills in both QUANT and QUAL research methods.

References

Harvard Catalyst. (2022). Mixed Methods Research. Catalyst.harvard.edu. 

‌Related websites

• BMJ Journal-Research made simple- Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base
  
• Scribbr- Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide & Examples
  
• Johns Hopkins-Why Mixed Methods?
  

Related publications

• Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research (sage mixed methods research). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  
• DeCuir-Gunby, J., & Schutz, P. A. (2016). Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical guide for beginning researchers (mixed methods research series). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  

Further resources

• Creswell, J. (2013). What is Mixed Methods Research (YouTube video)
  
• Creswell, J. (2013). What skills are needed for mixed methods research? (YouTube video)
  
• Sage Publishing- Developing Mixed Methods Research with Dr. John W. Creswell (YouTube video)
  

Summary

Narrative research methods are exemplified by studies which focus on a participant’s narrative, or story. “Narrative inquiry is relatively new among the qualitative research designs compared to qualitative case study” (DeMarco, n.d.). While housed within the overarching label ‘narrative research’ there are many diverse types of narrative research (NR). Some NR focuses on analyzing the elements of a participant’s story, while others focus on creating a meta-narrative, or even identifying themes within the different participants’ narratives. Some narrative research may include art (an element of art-based research) to help flesh out the verbal narratives. These creative elements may include poetry, visual art, movement, or expressions through many different media. However, the more traditional narrative research focuses on interviews with study participants.

As a group, narrative research methods align well with a constructivist worldview, which asserts that we as humans create, or co-create, our reality. This creative aspect may focus more on perception of reality and the ability to change our personal narratives, or it may focus on a belief that verification of an external reality (if it exists) is limited due to inherent subjective experience of reality (i.e., we can only experience the world through our own perceptions). Either way, the basic goal is to obtain a participant’s personal narrative regarding a specific lived experience so as to better understand how the narrative, and perceptions of the experience, unfold. Those studying organizational or personal identity often utilize NR to understand how the identity came to be. More activist-oriented narrative research may go a step further and invite the participant to re-Story her or his narrative (as is seen in narrative-based psychotherapy) as a way of promoting transformation and change through the research process itself.

References

DeMarco, C. (n.d.). LibGuides: Section 2: Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research. Resources.nu.edu. 

‌Related websites

• Deakin University-Narrative Inquiry
  
• Science Direct-Narrative Inquiry
  
• American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science- A Narrative Approach to Qualitative Inquiry
  

Related publications

• Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1991). Listening for voice in narrative of relationship. New Directions for Child Development, 54, 43-62.
  
• Chase, S. (2018). Narrative inquiry: Toward theoretical and methodological maturity.” In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln(eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed, pp. 546-560), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  

Further resources

• Sage Research Methods-Jean Clandinin (University Professor) Discusses Narrative Inquiry (YouTube video)
  
• Dr. Rudman- Narrative Inquiry: What’s Your Story? (YouTube video)
  
• Webinar: The Art and Science of Narrative Inquiry (YouTube video)
  

Summary

According to the Smith of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016), phenomenology “…is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view [lived experiences]. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object.”  It is important to note that phenomenology is considered a branch of philosophy along with ontology, epistemology, logic, and ethics.  It is not just a research design or methodology.  The researcher must understand the philosophical background of phenomenology from 20th Century philosophers including Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Sarte.  In addition, there are several sub designs that can be used in a phenomenology study including hermeneutic, transcendental, and interpretative phenomenological analysis (aka IPA) that must also be considered.

References

• Smith, D. W. (2013, November 16). Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. 
  

Related websites

• National Library of Medicine-How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others
  
• University of Warwick- What is phenomenology?
  
• Springer link- How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others
  

Related publications

• Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/
  
• Vagle, M. (2014). Crafting phenomenologic research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  

Further resources

• Phenomenology [Types, Process, Researcher Role & Data analysis] (YouTube video)
  
• How to Write a Phenomenological Dissertation (YouTube video)
  
• Phenomenological Research Model & Examples 
  

Summary

According to Royse, Thyer, and Padgett (2016) program evaluation is similar to basic research but focuses on evaluating some intervention or process within an organization which is meant to have a specific outcome. The program evaluation is used by upstream and downstream constituents (i.e., managers, providers, and clients who use the program) to see if the program is doing what it is intended to do, and having positive outcomes or impacts on the factors which are the focus of the program (Chyung, Inderbitzen, & Campbell, 2013). For example, if a program is created to reduce opiate abuse among chronic back pain patients in a clinic, then the clinic who creates the program will want to know if they are effective in addressing opiate abuse. The clinic directors and funders (the upstream constituents) want to know if the money is well spent, if processes are working, and if they are having an impact on their patients. The patients themselves (the downstream constituents) should be appraised of whether the program in which they are encouraged to attend actually works or not (actually decreases opiate abuse).

References

• Chyung, S. Y., Wisniewski, A., Inderbitzen, B., & Campbell, D. (2013). An improvement- and accountability-oriented program evaluation: An evaluation of the Adventure Scouts program. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(3), 87-115.
  
• Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (Eds.). (2016). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage. E-Book version.
  

Related websites

• StateUniversity.com- Program Evaluation
  
• The National Library of Medicine-The Program Evaluation Context
  
• Delve-What is Qualitative Program Evaluation?
  

Related publications

• Barrett, N. F. (2015). Program evaluation: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Sunnycrest Press.
  
• Prosavac, E. J. (2010). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (8th ed.). Routledge.
  

Further resources

• What is a program evaluation?: A brief introduction (YouTube video)
  
• Dr. Chumney- Program Evaluation: Introduction (YouTube video)
  
• Dr. Adu- Program Evaluation: Simplifying the Program Evaluation Process (YouTube video)