PUBL0054 Research Strategy & Research Design
Research Strategy & Research Design
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
PUBL0054
Research Strategy & Research Design
3Outline of Session 3
1. The supervision process.
2. Developing you research project
3. Thinking about research design and method
1. The supervision process
51. The Supervision Process
Following submission of your research proposals:
• Supervisor allocation: takes place this week (w/c 18th February);
supervisors are notified first, then students.
• 4 x 30 minute supervision meetings before end of June.
• Your first supervision meeting should take place in weeks 9 or
10 (some may be arranged for first week of Easter vacation).
• If you haven’t heard from your supervisor by the end of Week 9,
send a polite email asking if you can arrange to see them for your
first supervision meeting.
61. The Supervision Process
At your first meeting:
• Your supervisor will:
‣ discuss your proposal in more detail to understand more about your project including:
motivations, aims, plans to date, etc.
‣ discuss how the supervision process will work, their expectations of you, etc - including
specific goals for subsequent meetings.
• You should:
‣ use this opportunity to identify where you feel their help will be especially useful - e.g.
topic, methodology, etc).
‣ have a preliminary discussion about possible data protection and ethical issues arising
from your research.
‣ keep a clear, written record of what is agreed at this and subsequent meetings -
outcomes, work to be done etc - and email this summary to your supervisor afterwards.
• Remember: supervisions are a conversation, so ask any questions/raise any concerns
you have, including in this first meeting - and prepare!
• IT’S YOUR PROJECT - BE PROACTIVE.
2. Developing your research project
ESRC definition of research: ‘any form of disciplined inquiry
that aims to contribute to a body of knowledge or theory’
‘Methodology refers to the conduct of inquiry. Among other
things, this involves reflection upon the system of values,
beliefs and rules that guide analysis within a given discipline.
Questions of ontology and epistemology […] are a core part of
this reflection.’
(Halperin & Heath, 2012: 9)
Starting out: you as a researcher
• Your own position on questions of ontology and
epistemology - impact on your approach to research in
general and your dissertation in particular:
➡e.g. positivism, interpretivism, post-structuralism etc; the
possibility (or not) of value-neutral, objective knowledge,
etc - no-one else can decide this but you.
➡will not necessarily form a significant part of your
dissertation - but knowing your own starting point /
positionality is essential.
Your research question and the literature
• What is your research question?
➡Why are you asking it? Why is it important? What are its implications?
• What are the relevant bodies/schools of literature it demands you consider?
• What are the orthodoxies and key debates that emerge from these?
• What do they say about your chosen topic of examination?
➡e.g. what are the potential answers they indicate?
• What hypotheses/arguments do they suggest as answers to your question?
• How can you test these hypotheses/arguments?
• What theoretical approaches emerge from these debates and how will you incorporate them?
Do they offer a model or approach that you could employ?
➡e.g. do they offer a model or approach that you could employ/adapt?
• What is the most appropriate methodological approach: quantitative? qualitative? normative?
etc
For example:
• Research question: why did pre-referendum polls fail to predict the large degree of
support for Leave among the UK’s South Asian Community?
• Relevant bodies/schools of literature to consider: literature on voting behaviour, esp.
among minority groups; literature on Euroscepticism among the UK S Asian
Community; literature on Identity; literature on Cue Theory.
• What they say about the chosen topic of examination: little directly on South Asian
Community but principles and approaches are applicable.
• What hypotheses/arguments they suggest as answers to your question: that identity and
Euroscepticism offer the most plausible explanations for voting behaviour of the
South Asian Community in Brexit referendum.
• How to test these hypotheses/arguments: case study of a London constituency with a
significant S Asian community; textual analysis of local media sources and
referendum campaign literature; interviews with community leaders.
• Project is: qualitative.
• Research gap: analysis of voting behaviour of South Asian voters.
Using the literature
• The foundation of your project: it provides the means to unpack
the key components of your research.
• Forms the basis for your Literature Review and enables you to:
➡demonstrate the relevance / importance of the question you
are asking and your mastery of the topic area
➡highlight the research gap you have identified
➡provide a clear rationale for your subsequent choices - e.g.
hypotheses / assumptions
• Provides the basis for your Research Methodology, choice of
theoretical framework, etc
3. Thinking about research design and
method
Definitions:
• Research Design = your plan to answer your research question.
• Research Method = your strategy to implement that plan.
Remember:
• Every project is different and there is no ‘off-the-shelf’ research
design.
• You need to justify your choices / make clear your rationale for
doing what you are doing in the way you are doing it.
• Refer to / use your methods training modules!
Thinking about Research Design
Research Design
Main forms: experimental / quasi- / non-experimental; cross-sectional / longitudinal; and comparative.
Depends on what type of question are you asking:
1. Empirical questions - focus on how things work, why things happen the way they do/did, etc:
(i) Descriptive - describing characteristics of modelling behaviour; often use case studies to understand a
process, event or situation.
(ii) Explanatory - focus on whether one or more variables cause / affect one or more outcomes and rule out
other feasible explanations.
(iii)Predictive - focus on forecasting future developments by analysing current trends / theories - in certain
conditions / circumstances, a certain outcome is likely, etc
2. Normative questions - focus on determining the most coherent and convincing argument:
• identifies and engages with persuasive arguments that engage with the chosen topic
• develop a ‘reasoned argument in reaction to them’ drawing where appropriate from relevant empirical
or historical evidence.
• objectives could be to: provide conceptual frameworks for deliberation; identify implications of a moral
premise; interpret beliefs; uncover and examine a value, etc.
[adapted from Halperin & Heath, 2012: 173-4]
Research Method
What type of data / empirics / evidence do you need and how will you gather this?
1. Is your project quantitative, qualitative, normative etc?
2. Types of data collection include:
• ethnographic research
• surveys and questionnaires
• interviews and focus groups
• observation
• discourse / content analysis of documents / texts
3. Are you collecting the data yourself or are you using existing sources? - e.g. statistics
available from other organisations, public opinion surveys etc.
4. Be clear on your rationale / justification: why have you chosen to collect / gather the
data that you have in the way that you have?
Research Design
Questions to ask yourself:
1. What are your research objectives?
2. What type of data /empirics / evidence do you need?
3. What is the population /sample etc from which the data / empirics / evidence is to be
drawn?
4. How will you collect your data / empirics/ evidence - ways and procedures?
5. How will you analyse your data /empirics / evidence – what tools or methods will you
use?
6. What are the probable / possible outcomes you expect?
Answers to these will depend on / vary according to whether your project is
positivist / interpretivist / theoretical etc?
• For more positivist research, a reader should be able to
replicate the research.
• For more interpretivist research, you need to explain how
the knowledge you have generated is constituted:
reflexivity and positionality are key.
• Normative and legal work also requires attention to
methods.
• Be clear about how and why you are doing what you are
doing in the way you are doing it.
Research Design
20
• Be proactive not passive during the supervision process - prepare for
meetings, keep a record, set goals.
• Think about your positionality - in terms of epistemology and ontology; in
terms of key debates and arguments in the literature.
• Think about what the literature indicates - in terms of your research puzzle -
e.g. possible answers / arguments / hypotheses, etc.
• Think about your rationale / justifications - not about being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
but having a reason for all your choices, for doing what you are doing the way
you are doing it.
• Start with your question / research puzzle, not the method!
• If you can’t justify / provide a rationale for doing what you are doing, you
haven’t thought it through sufficiently.