Acknowledgments

Researching Education:
Perspectives and Techniques
Gajendra K.Verma
and Kanka Mallick
UK Falmer Press, 1 Gunpowder Square, London, EC4A 3DE
USA Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc., 325 Chestnut Street, 8th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19106
© G.K.Verma and K.Mallick, 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
First published in 1999
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection
of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0-203-98036-0 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0 7507 0530 2 cased
ISBN 0 7507 0531 0 paper
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available on
request
Jacket design by Caroline Archer
Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders for their
permission to reprint material in this book. The publishers would be
grateful to hear from any copyright holder who is not here acknowledged
and will undertake to rectify any errors or omissions in future editions of
this book.
Researching Education
Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
List of Figures and Tables
vii
Preface
viii
Acknowledgments
x
Introduction to Research
1
Methods of Research
3
Theory, Construct and Model
6
Research in the Social Sciences and the Natural Sciences
8
Types of Research
10
References
13
Educational Research: Mapping the Domain
15
The Subject Matter
16
Perspectives
22
References
31
Educational Research: Nature and Process
32
Definitions
32
Operational Strategies in Educational Research
41
Classification of Educational Research
44
Audiences
49
Evaluation of Educational Research
52
References
53
Educational Research: A Short History
56
The Historical Development of Educational Research
56
Modern Educational Research
61
v
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Educational Research Today
64
References
73
Approaches to Researching Education
75
The Historical Method of Research
75
The Descriptive Method of Research
78
The Experimental Method of Research
95
References
108
Research Tools in Education
112
Documentary and Content Analysis
112
Case Study
115
Surveys
116
Questionnaires
118
Interviews
123
Observation Techniques
130
Other Devices
133
References
137
Educational Research Planning
138
Selection and Definition of the Problem
138
Literature Review
142
Preparation of the Research Plan
144
Ethics and the Research Process
147
References
152
Statistical Concepts and Educational Research
154
The Normal Distribution and the Normal Curve
154
Testing Populations and Large Samples
160
Sampling from a Population
163
Other Theoretical Distributions
168
Non-parametric Distribution and Tests
170
Correlation Regression
174
vi
Chapter 9
References
179
Educational Research and the Teacher
180
Research and the Teacher
180
The Teacher as Researcher
184
The Teacher Researcher and the Research Community
187
The Value of School-based Research
189
References
192
Glossary of Educational Research Terms
194
Index
206
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 6.1
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
Figure 8.5
Figure 8.6
Figure 8.7
Figure 8.8
Figure 8.9
Figure 8.10
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 8.6
Table 8.7
Table 8.8
Table 8.9
Table 8.10
Table 8.11
Table 8.12
Table 8.13
Table 8.14
Table 8.15
Table 8.16
Table 8.17
Extract from an interview schedule
Probability and the 6-coin test
Normal distribution and the 10-coin test
Normal distribution and the standard deviation
Grid for a sampling frame
Choice of friends: Distribution profile
Comparison of marks in pure mathematics and physics
Correlating reading and reasoning test scores
Plot of reading and reasoning test scores
Age and arithmetic test performance
Anxiety level scores and speeded test performance
Probability and the 6-coin test
Probability and frequency and the 6-coin test
Probability and frequency and the 10-coin test
IQ scores and mental age
Standard scores and the Normal distribution
Confidence levels and sampling
Cell size and sample grid
Test scores: Inter-marker variations
t-test table values
F-ratio table values
χ2 distribution
Choice of friends: Distribution
Examination performance in 2 subjects
Probability and frequency
Inter-class comparison: IQ scores
Inter-class comparison: IQ distributions
‘A’ level performance and degree results
126
155
157
158
163
171
172
175
176
177
178
155
156
156
159
160
164
165
165
166
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
Preface
When Falmer Press approached me with the suggestion that I might revise the book that
Ruth Beard and I wrote on Educational Research, my immediate impulse was to agree.
It was, after all, nearly 20 years ago that it first appeared and the worlds of both
education and research had moved on. I imagined that it would be very much a case of
up-dating the original text by inserting new references and mapping the changes that
had occurred over the intervening years without having to engage in much re-writing.
However, when Kanka Mallick joined me in this enterprise, and we started to re-read
the book with a critical eye, we soon came to the conclusion that we wanted to attempt
something more radical than simply up-dating the original text. Not only had research
and education changed over the years, I had changed, my co-author had changed, and
so had the book’s potential readers. Indeed, looking at the first edition, we became less
and less certain about who it had been intended for. The more we thought about it, the
more convinced we became that some fundamental restructuring was the only answer.
The result of all this may be found in the following pages.
The influence of the first book upon the present one is unmistakable, and perhaps
inevitable: what still holds true and is useful has been retained. The major differences
arise, we think, because this time we had a clearer idea of the audience for which it was
intended. Whereas the first research book was, subconsciously perhaps, intended for
students who had already made up their minds to undertake research and were looking
for a kind of guide which would conduct them on the journey on which they had already
embarked; this one made no such assumption. Whilst we would hope—and do believe—
that the first book will still be of help to them, this new book Researching Education is
intended for people—you the readers—who may be standing, anxiously perhaps, outside
a door marked ‘EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH’ and wondering whether to knock on it,
push it open and see what is on the other side. What this book seeks to do is to
encourage you to push that door open, enter that world beyond it and explore.
Like any traveller in unknown territory, the process can be very arduous but the
rewards for discovering something new can be great. For some, one voyage of exploration
is enough. The explorer returns home and takes up his or her life, enriched by the
experience. For others, perhaps you, it is the beginning of a lifetime of intellectual
adventure as one quest leads, inevitably it seems, to the next.
ix
If this little book arouses your interest, encourages you to book your passage on that
journey, it will have succeeded in its aim. Good luck! Bring back treasure with which to
enrich the world of education.
G.K.V.
K.M.
Acknowledgments
We would like to take the opportunity to thank colleagues who have helped in writing
this book. First, we must mention Douglas Darby who has helped greatly in organizing
the materials, both old and new, and providing very valuable suggestions and comments;
and Tony Neasham, for his perceptive and valuable comments and suggestions at all
stages from inception to completion. One chapter in particular, Chapter 8: ‘Statistical
Concepts and Educational Research’, seemed particularly difficult to get right. In its
original form, it seemed mathematically daunting to the readers for whom it was
intended. The attempt to reduce the mathematical content and to focus on the concepts
which underlay it was a particular challenge. We would like to thank Peter Pumfrey and
Nicholas Boreham who read successive drafts of Chapter 8 and were, as always,
generous with their time and helpful with their comments. Preparing a manuscript for
publication is an arduous business which never gets any easier, however many times it
has been done before. Janet Grimshaw, who was responsible for this (as well as for
many earlier ones), has again been invaluable in the care and attention to detail that
she has brought to the task.
Gajendra K.Verma
Kanka Mallick
Chapter 1
Introduction to Research
The term ‘research’ is often defined in terms of ‘systematic inquiry’. Simply expressed,
research involves finding out something which was previously not known, or shedding
fresh light on an issue or problem. People often seem to regard research as something
mystifying which is only conducted by professional researchers. In practice, we are all
engaged in one form of research or another in our everyday lives without being
necessarily conscious that we are doing it. Many attempts have been made to provide
formal definitions of the activity of which the following are but a few.
The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (1934) defined research as being the:
…manipulation of things, concepts or symbols for the purpose of generalising and
to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that knowledge aids in the
construction of a theory or in the practice of an art. The mechanic or physician is a
research worker only when he attempts to generalise about all automobiles or all
patients in a given class. (pp. 330–4)
A rather broader meaning of research was proposed by Wise, Nordberg and Reitz (1967):
…it is characteristically and inevitably a systematic inquiry for verified knowledge.
In that simple description is implied the whole syntax of research.
This description clearly suggests that the purpose of research is to gain new, or to verify
existing knowledge.
The Penguin English Dictionary (1965) defined research as ‘scholarly investigation and
study aiming at adding to the sum of knowledge of a specific branch.’
According to the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987), research means
the ‘detailed study of a subject’. It further suggests: ‘when you do research you collect
and analyse facts and information and try to gain new knowledge or new
understanding.’
Kerlinger (1983) defined research as the ‘systematic, controlled, empirical and critical
investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among natural
phenomena’. Similar views were expressed by Best (1970) who suggested that ‘Research
is a more systematic activity directed toward discovery and the development of an
organised body of knowledge.’ These characteristics obviously apply in the main to the
2
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
natural sciences, and not to the social sciences within which education falls. In social
science research, it is difficult, though by no means impossible, to establish cause and
effect relations (see, for example, Lawrence, 1973). The main differences in the nature of
research between the natural sciences and the social sciences may lie in the conduct
and methods of research rather than its rationale which is the acquisition of knowledge/
information.
Earlier views on the purpose of research focus on its use of systematic enquiry. This
raises the question whether systematic enquiry is the main process of research, both in
the natural and in the social sciences. For example, social research refers to both the
collection and analysis of information on the social world, in order to understand and
explain it better. Educational research refers to both the collection and analysis of
information on the world of education (see Chapters 2 and 3 for further discussion).
Classroom research refers to the kind of research that not only professional researchers
but practising teachers are able to conduct within the context of their professional lives.
This type of research attempts to utilize the insights and procedures of social and
educational research in schools. The concept of research does not have the same
meaning in all academic disciplines because of the diverse natures of activity. Thus,
there is no universally accepted meaning of research. In one instance, research may
appear to be a simple activity while, in another, an extremely complex one. It may take
place in the laboratory, library, classroom or in the community. It may be local, national
or international. Research may be conducted by a single researcher, or by a group of
researchers. Whatever the research framework, the one thing common to all research
activities is that they are supposed to be a thorough and systematic search for
trustworthy and meaningful knowledge.
If the research is of an applied nature, its goal is to provide us with sound information
for making decisions. There are, of course, theoretically oriented studies which may not
have immediate practical application.
Cronbach and Suppes (1969), for example, have drawn a distinction between ‘decisionoriented’ studies and ‘conclusion-oriented’ studies. According to them, the goal of
‘decision-oriented’ research is to provide information for decision-makers, and
‘conclusion-oriented’ research follows the interests of the researcher. Thus, in decisionoriented research theory would be less important than conclusion-oriented research in
which the goal may range from development of basic theory to applied and nontheoretical research, depending upon the interests of the researcher.
Whatever the orientation of their work, researchers should have the necessary skills
and training to identify the precise research issues/problems, design a sound research
framework, use appropriate techniques to collect information and present the findings
clearly and concisely for relevant audiences to understand the message and, if
appropriate, make decisions. The modern use of the term ‘research’ is broader than the
traditional one, allowing it to be applied to the acquisition of any form of knowledge or
information (Travers, 1978).
Opinions about the nature and purpose of research in most disciplines have changed
over the last 40 years because of technological progress. Research as a human
RESEARCHING EDUCATION
3
endeavour is often characterized by its persistent and organized effort to extend our
knowledge and understanding about the world in which we live. The scope of research
and its impact on our everyday life has now become wider than before because of the
fact that we live in a global village. Whether research is conducted in a controlled
situation or in a natural setting, its impact can be felt in seconds because of the faster
communication system.
It is clear from the foregoing brief discussion that the quest for knowledge is an essential
aspect of any form of research. Sometimes, information obtained from research may be
inconclusive, unclear or apparently illogical, not helping us to reduce the areas of our
ignorance. However, in the last 40 or 50 years, research has attained a great deal of
respectability amongst educators, politicians, business people and others who often turn
to researchers in the quest for reliable and valid information for making decisions.
Today, every aspect of human life is affected by research technology. In fact, most
advanced societies have evolved a research-oriented culture, or are in the process of
moving in that direction.
What, then, are the characteristics of research? Some of its essential characteristics
may be summarized as follows:
• Research is an organized and deliberate effort to collect new information or to utilize
existing knowledge for a new purpose.
• Research seeks to answer worthwhile and fundamental questions, by utilizing valid
and reliable techniques.
• Research is logical and objective, using the most appropriate test/s to justify the
methods employed, data collected, and the conclusions drawn.
• The final outcome of research contributes to the gaining of new knowledge and a
better appreciation of the issues involved.
Methods of Research
Considerable changes have occurred over the last few decades in the ways that
researchers have sought to pursue plausible and objective explanations of problems or
to address issues of concern. Those ways are properly referred to as methodology, that
is, the particular methods or techniques employed in the conduct of the research. The
selection of the most appropriate methods and techniques, whether in sampling, data
collection or analysis, is part of the art of the researcher who must find the best way of
tackling the topic under study and providing answers that are reliable and valid
(Silverman, 1993). The tools and procedures for gathering and analysing data have also
been refined in the last 30 years or so, not least because of technological progress in the
field of computing. It also seems to be the case that research in the physical and
biological sciences has developed faster than research in the social sciences because of
the fact that external factors are less amenable to controlled scrutiny in the social
sciences than in the natural sciences.
4
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
Research methods do not seem to be isolated; they overlap. Investigators need to
reflect on their own understanding and thinking when using any systematic research
method for obtaining reliable knowledge or for getting at what some writers describe as
the ‘truth’. In the early 1930s, Dewey gave an impetus of major importance to the socalled scientific method. He described the five main stages of thought or
conceptualization when researchers attempt to acquire new knowledge:
1 Recognition and definition of the problem;
2 Observations, collection and classification of data considered relevant to the problem;
3 Formulation of a tentative hypothesis concerning these observations or the
phenomena;
4 Verification of this hypothesis against all the obtained facts. This might involve the
collection of additional/new data and the modification of the original hypothesis;
5 Formulation of conclusion/conclusions in terms of general principles concerning the
problem or the phenomena. (Dewey, 1933)
While the above stages are a useful general guide in the construction and
implementation of research, the researchers do not always need to follow these steps in
a rigid way. In a practical situation, their thinking frequently moves to and fro across
these basic steps. The exact formulation of a research strategy varies according to the
nature and purpose of the research. The method of acquiring knowledge needs to be
more flexible than is often the case.
It is also true that what has been broadly called in the literature the ‘scientific
method’ has proved valuable in the study of the natural sciences, and has also helped
social scientists to gain insight into many problems/issues. This method provides result
which are quantifiable. The researcher is able to say, for example, that a particular
technique of teaching reading applied to a group of children resulted in their having a
reading age 7 months in advance of a similar group who were taught by another
method. The apparent precision of the results obtained in quantitative studies makes
the approach very attractive. However, the quantitative is not the only knowledge of
reality, and all things do not exist in quantities that lend themselves readily to
measurement (see Chapter 5). There are other research techniques to explore reality,
such as those used by Piaget (1926; 1932) in his investigations of the beginnings of a
child’s concepts. Further, there are many qualities, behaviours and events that cannot
yet be measured—because no instrument, tool or technique has been devised which can,
by general consent, accurately and repeatedly be applied to measure them. An example
of this might be beauty: no way of measuring this exists though the writer recollects
listening to a radio game in which the members of the panel were asked to devise a new
and useful unit of measurement. Denis Norden proposed the ‘millihelen’ which he
defined as ‘the quantity of beauty required to launch one ship’.
The research methods in the social sciences in particular have become closely bound
up with the values, attitudes and perceptions of the researcher. This is not the same as
suggesting that research is subjective. Inevitably, no researcher can claim to be value-
RESEARCHING EDUCATION
5
neutral, free from assumptions, unbiased and objective in viewing the world. Scientific
knowledge exists within a particular framework of expectation; the work of Kuhn
challenged the existing belief that science is a rational and objective enquiry (Kuhn,
1970, 1972). Another point to remember is that there are many questions, particularly
in the social sciences, which cannot be answered by the controlled method of enquiry
which is often described as the scientific method. The planning of a research programme
may include a great deal of exploratory work which is often intuitive or speculative, and
at times fragmented. Although the investigator has to define the problem/issue in a
precise manner at some stage, concepts and ideas might initially be vague and illdefined. It may be necessary to observe and study the situations and even collect some
preliminary data in order to establish the relevance of vaguely conceived ideas. In this
process, reading around the field of study, intuition, speculation, hunch or intelligent
guess becomes necessary for the formulation of a clearly defined problem. It should also
be emphasized that problem recognition is one of the most difficult as well as the crucial
part of the research process. Thus, research should not be regarded as a rigid activity.
A clearly defined problem may generate one or several hypotheses or research
questions. The hypothesis/research question must be stated clearly in order to test its
logical or empirical consequences. The use of hypothesis or research question may
prevent an investigation from becoming too broad in scope or disorderly in the
construction of the research design. Writing about the need for carefully formulated
hypotheses, Van Dalen (1966) stated that ‘No scientific undertaking can proceed
effectively without well-conceived hypotheses…. Without hypotheses, research is
unfocused, haphazard and accidental’ (p. 457). Hypotheses, according to Van Dalen, are
important because they tell the researcher what should be done to get an answer, and
how it should be done. Thus, the focusing of research towards testing specific
hypotheses or seeking the answer to questions guides the researcher to arrive at valid
conclusions.
Another reason for establishing carefully formulated hypotheses or research questions
is that at some stage the investigator might need to examine relationships and trends
between the variables. Kerlinger (1983) remarks, ‘The scientist cannot tell positive from
negative evidence unless he uses hypotheses.’ Hypotheses/questions are at the core of
research activity and should, consequently, not be based on wild speculation. Moreover,
they should be framed in such a way that they are capable of standing up to the rigours
of testing in the course of the research.
It should be noted that many hypotheses, particularly in behavioural research, cannot
be tested directly because they may deal with abstractions. The investigator therefore
must choose a sample of behaviour, thought or feeling that can be tested or observed
directly either by the researcher or the research subject. The sample of observable
behaviours and feelings and their correlates may then be evaluated in terms of their
consistency or inconsistency with the formulated hypothesis. On the basis of obtained
evidence, the researcher may deduce the logical consequences of the hypothesis. For
example, a research worker might formulate a hypothesis that mixed ability teaching
provides greater intellectual stimulation for less able children than if taught in a
6
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
streamed class. Two classes can be carefully selected—one containing mixed ability
pupils and the other with less able pupils. A test of scholastic achievement can be
administered at the end of the school academic year to both the groups. If the
hypothesis were true, less able children in the mixed ability group would show
significantly higher achievement scores as compared with those less able children who
were taught in a segregated class. Thus, the researcher draws the consequences of the
hypothesis. Some research studies may require the formulation of research questions
rather than a specific hypothesis if there is very little previous knowledge about aspects
of the issue to be researched. In some qualitative studies, there is no specific hypothesis
at the outset but hypotheses are generated during the early stages of research
(Silverman, 1993).
Theory, Construct and Model
At this point in mapping the domain of research, a brief description of the concepts of
theory, construct and model would seem appropriate. The term ‘theory’ has a
multiplicity of meanings (Snow, 1973). Its main role is to help guide the investigator/
researcher. In the social sciences, it usually implies a set of statements describing and
explaining the relationship between human behaviour and the factors that affect or
explain it. Best (1970) wrote that ‘a theory establishes a cause-effect relationship
between variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena’ (p. 6).
Kerlinger, also writing in 1970, arrived at a similar definition when he suggested that a
theory was ‘a set of interrelated constructs, definitions and propositions that presents a
systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables with the purpose
of explaining and predicting phenomena’. It may be thought that these definitions would
be of questionable validity in the social sciences, including education, where it is
notoriously difficult to establish cause and effect relationships, let alone predict events.
Cohen and Manion (1995) cite Mouly’s (1978) definition which has general applicability:
‘If nothing else, a theory is a convenience—a necessity, really—organising a whole slough
of unassorted facts, laws, concepts, constructs, principles, into a meaningful and
manageable form. It constitutes an attempt to make sense out of what we know
concerning a given phenomenon.’
However, the role of theory as a framework for research is not in dispute. Silverman
(1993), highlighting the importance of theory, writes that ‘…theories provide a set of
explanatory concepts. These concepts offer ways of looking at the world which are
essential in defining a research problem…without a theory, there is nothing to research’.
Thus, a theoretical framework helps the investigator summarize previous information
and guide the future course of action. Sometimes the formulation of a theory may indicate
missing ideas or links and the kinds of additional data required. Thus, a theory is an
essential tool of research in stimulating the advancement of knowledge still further. It is
also true to say that not all research is designed to test existing theories or generate new
ones. Theories can range from the very simple to the extremely complicated ones. In
fact, some researchers prefer to avoid complex theorizing as much as possible.
RESEARCHING EDUCATION
7
In its simplest form, theory may mean a speculation, a hunch or an idea. For
example, a teacher concerned with practical problems in the classroom has some idea
about the best method of teaching humanities. A more complicated theory may be a
synthesis of facts, an analysis of a set of variables to demonstrate their
relationships with one another, or a plausible general principle to explain and predict
certain phenomena. Examples of such theories may include studies which attempt to
explain pupils’ motivation, their learning patterns or self-concept.
Good theories are built upon facts, sound evidence and previous research evidence,
and not on mere speculation. The work of most natural and social scientists can be
related to the use or construction of theories of some kind. However, the distinction can
be made in at least two ways. Those whose work is primarily concerned with the
development of theories are often called rationalists (Travers, 1978); those who focus their
attention on the collection of data or facts are often referred to empiricists. Skinner’s
(1959) work, for example, can be described as an empirically oriented approach to
research. In practice, however, most social scientists are both rationalists and
empiricists. Another broad distinction can be drawn: some researchers spend a great
deal of time in the formulation of theories and may not be concerned with their practical
application, while others are primarily concerned with the application of new knowledge
for the solution of everyday problems. However, even in pure research, a theory, once
established, may suggest many applications of practical value. Thus, the status of
theory varies considerably according to the discipline or aspect of knowledge under
study. Some theories are highly sophisticated and complex while others are
characterized by unevenness and simplicity.
Many teachers are often suspicious of theories developed by educational researchers.
They seek practical ‘advice’ and ‘guidance’ for the solution of classroom problems. They
want to know why a child is poorly motivated rather than what the relations are among
various elements contributing to that behaviour. Teachers, also, have their views, ideas
or opinions about low motivation that are based on many years of experience or
observation. Their main concern, however, is with practicalities, that is, with techniques
for solving specific problems in the context of things as they are. The product of all
research in the social sciences is a set of conclusions that indicate or imply a theoretical
model, which may be quite different to the theory from which it began.
Teachers, on the other hand, develop their theories primarily from observations which
can be unsystematic. Such ‘theories’ are not based upon rigorous analysis of interrelationships between fragmented facts and observations. One of the advantages of
teachers’ theories, however, is that they are easily communicated to other professional
colleagues in layman’s terminology. It is also true to say that many educational
practices and policies are based on teachers’ judgments. There is the need to increase
the understanding of educational researchers to further the relationship between theory
and practice. The challenge for the research process in education is to relate theory and
practice in such a way that meaningful answers to questions are provided on the basis of
scrupulously gathered, evaluated and reported evidence.
8
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
The term ‘construct’ is often used in the social sciences. The concept is a construction
of social scientists’ imagination which helps them to understand the underlying
mechanisms of an individual’s thought and behaviour. For example, many theories of
learning refer to a motivational factor in human behaviour. Motivation is not directly
observable—it is a theoretical construct—and hence social scientists describe the term
‘motivation’ as a construct. Constructs are used to provide a plausible explanation of
consistency in human behaviour.
Another term frequently used by both natural and social scientists is model. This
means a close representation of certain aspects of complex phenomena used in order to
gain insights into the phenomena that scientists wish to explain. Models are essentially
analogies (Chapanis, 1961). For example, a teacher can help pupils to conceptualize the
Earth by showing them a globe with countries, continents, mountains and oceans
marked on it in different colours. Thus, the globe is a convenient model representing the
important features of the earth in a way that can be easily understood by pupils. Models
may also be symbolic. An example of a symbolic model is an engineer’s plan for a house
construction. In the field of education, Piaget’s model of the intellect is a good example.
Simulation, one of the procedures used by behavioural scientists for the development
of ideas within the context of discovery, is based on the idea of a ‘model’. The use of
models is quite common in the teaching-learning situation. Models may consist of words,
mathematical symbols, pictures or physical objects, and can be very useful in thinking
about complex phenomena. A model can provide a very simple representation of quite
complex events and make them more intelligible. Models are simply tools that are used
in the construction and testing of theories.
Both ‘model’ and ‘theory’ may be regarded as
explanatory devices or schemes having a broadly conceptual framework, though
models are often characterised by the use of analogies to give a more graphic or
visual representation of a particular phenomenon. Providing they are accurate and
do not misrepresent the facts, models can be of great help in achieving clarity and
focusing key issues in the nature of phenomena. (Cohen and Manion, 1980)
Research in the Social Sciences and the Natural Sciences
Research in the social sciences has become an important activity in most advanced
societies. Although the social sciences are not perceived as having the same ‘scientific’
status as the natural sciences (in terms of explanation, control and prediction) a great
deal of progress has been made in the systematic study of human behaviour since the
beginning of this century. Such knowledge of human behaviour has provided the basis
for a variety of social technologies. The importance of research in the social sciences
such as education, anthropology, economics and social psychology cannot easily be
overestimated.
It is also acknowledged that the greatest obstacle to progress in the social sciences is
the extreme complexity and variability of human behaviour. Many people argue that it is
RESEARCHING EDUCATION
9
much more difficult to develop sound theories of human behaviour from which
predictions can be made than it is to develop theories that predict events in the physical
sciences. Similarly, in the field of psychology, it is far more difficult to understand and
explain the development of an individual’s personality or the processes involved in
human thought and problem-solving than the forces operating in physics and
chemistry. In the natural sciences, rigorous controls of systematic observation and
analysis are often applied, whereas such control is often not possible with human
subjects.
Despite the difficulties outlined above, the social sciences have made a significant
contribution to our understanding of the society in which we live. It would now seem
appropriate to attempt a brief examination of some of the crucial differences between the
two broad groups of sciences.
• In the social sciences, many researchers deal with events or occurrences which are
unique in time or in individual development. Historical and many descriptive
studies, for example, are concerned with unique and non-repeatable phenomena.
Also, there are many social events which cannot be observed directly. For example,
an individual’s past experience cannot be observed directly; the researcher has to
rely upon written information or a person’s recall of past events. It may be possible
to assess children’s reading levels and vocabulary but it will be difficult to
determine the motives or the intensity of the feelings of individual children
objectively. On the other hand, a pathologist can test a blood sample and the
findings can easily be reproduced by other pathologists.
• In the social sciences, it is often impossible to control the factor or factors being
studied. For example, in a classroom situation there are very few factors which can
be identified and controlled (e.g. age, sex, and height of pupils), others can be
identified but not controlled (e.g. hobbies), and many other significant factors can
neither be identified nor controlled. The natural scientist is rarely confronted with
the same kind of problem.
• In most cases, natural science has to deal with a limited number of variables that
are amenable to manipulation and precise measurements. The social scientist, on
the other hand, may have to deal with a large number of variables simultaneously
in order to explain phenomena satisfactorily. Another difficulty for the social
scientist is the complex nature of variables such as temperament, attitude,
motivational and personality characteristics which are not only difficult to assess
but they interact in subtle ways.
• In the social sciences it is difficult to make wide generalizations, because no two
individuals are exactly alike in feelings, drives or emotions. What may be a
reasonable explanation for one may be irrelevant for another. Furthermore, no one
person is normally consistent from one situation to another because of intervening
experiences. For example, if a student took psychological tests for the second time
his or her behaviour would not be quite the same as that of the one who had not
taken the tests previously. The response is likely to be influenced by the interaction
10
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
with various elements in his or her environment. In the natural sciences it is often,
though not always, possible to repeat the situation, without prejudicing the
outcome.
• The behaviour of an individual is influenced by the research process itself. The
knowledge of being involved in an investigation makes individuals conscious that
their behaviour is being observed or studied, and this can affect their response to
the situation. However, natural scientists face similar problems. Heisenberg in the
1920s formulated the uncertainty principle which demonstrated that it was
impossible to determine the velocity and position of a sub-atomic particle because
the process of measurement changed its velocity in ways that could not be
predicted. This led to the development of quantum mechanics theory which does
not predict a single definite result for an observation but provides for a number of
possible outcomes and says how likely each one of these is. Quantum mechanics
theory therefore creates an unavoidable element of unpredictability in science. It is
important to stress that it is an extremely successful theory and underlies nearly
all of modern science and technology (Hawking, 1988).
• In the social sciences the researcher’s interests, background, ability, prejudices,
attitudes and values are likely to affect the research process and consequently its
outcome. In the natural sciences, however, this situation is less likely to occur.
• In the natural sciences, complex constructs are defined in operational terms
whereas the social sciences have been limited by a lack of adequate definitions.
Many human characteristics (e.g. anxiety, hostility, motivation) are not directly
observable. As constructs they can only be postulated, and inferred on the basis of
test scores. Furthermore, there is a poverty of tools or instruments for ‘accurate’
measurement in the social sciences which makes it more difficult to describe many
of the constructs.
It must be stressed, however, that the researcher working in the field of social sciences
must exercise great caution in making generalizations from the findings. There is a need
to adopt a research strategy incorporating qualitative judgments and quantitative
measurements. By using a variety of techniques or tools, it may be possible to generate
sound theories to explain human behaviour.
Types of Research
Research has been classified in various ways, e.g. by method, by area of academic
discipline (sociological, psychological, anthropological, etc.), by type of data collection
procedure (e.g. psychological tests, observation, questionnaire, and so on) or by purpose
(whether contributing to knowledge or having policy implications). There has been
considerable controversy among decision makers as to which type of research is of most
value. However, if we define science in a broad sense it is possible to produce a
taxonomy of types of research. Hitchcock and Hughes (1989) point out that the term
‘research’ is often prefixed by concepts like ‘pure’, ‘basic’, ‘applied’, or ‘action’. They also
attempt to explore the connections between these types of research. From the various
RESEARCHING EDUCATION
11
combinations available in the literature the following classifications would seem
appropriate, although these do not represent discrete categories:
•
•
•
•
pure or basic research;
applied or field research;
action research;
evaluation research.
This typology has the advantage of highlighting some critical differences between
research that is oriented to the development of theory and that designed to deal with
practical problems.
Pure or Basic Research
This type of research is typically oriented towards the development of theories by
discovering broad generalizations or principles. It has drawn its pattern and initiative
from the physical sciences emphasizing a rigorous, structured type of analysis. The
main purpose of ‘pure’ or ‘basic’ research is to discover facts which are fundamental and
important in the sense that their discovery will extend the boundaries of our knowledge
in a particular area or discipline. Pure research is not primarily concerned with
understanding practical problems. It is usually carried out in a laboratory or other
carefully controlled situation which implies that control and precision are maintained at
the cost of reality. In recent years, most learning theories have been questioned on the
grounds that studies were conducted in a controlled situation with animals as subjects
and therefore the findings cannot be directly applied to human problems. However, the
findings of many basic psychological research studies have been applied to educational
problems—the work of Skinner, for example. It is true to say that the findings from such
work may take some time before they are brought into prominence or become part of the
general stock of knowledge.
Applied or Field Research
This type of research is concerned primarily with the application of new knowledge for
the solution of day-to-day problems. This does not mean that it is less rigorous in its
approach than other forms of research. Although applied or field research has some of
the characteristics of pure research (e.g. the use of sampling techniques, inferences
about the target population) its purpose is to improve a process by testing theoretical
constructs in actual situations. Most educational research is applied research, for it aims
at establishing generalizations about teaching-learning situations. As one would expect,
control is often sacrificed in field research in order to conduct the enquiry in a setting
similar to that in which the findings are applied.
It should be mentioned that sometimes applied research also utilizes experimental
techniques, and hence in such research designs it is difficult to make a clear distinction
12
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH
between basic and applied research. However, applied research needs to be conducted in
order to determine how various theories operate in the actual situation.
Action Research
The term ‘action research’ was first introduced in the fields of social psychology, social
work and education. It is a type of applied social research differing from other types in
the immediacy of the researcher’s involvement in the action process.
Action research is more concerned with the immediate application rather than the
development of theory. It focuses on a specific problem in a particular setting. In other
words, its findings are usually judged in terms of their applicability in a specific
situation. Action research is similar to applied research in many ways but the
fundamental difference is that applied research allows generalizations of its results.
Furthermore, applied research usually involves a large number of cases for studies
whereas action research can be conducted in a modest way by using a very small
sample (e.g. a single classroom or a group of children within it).
In recent years, action research has generated a great deal of interest in the field of
education. It has been employed in curriculum development, professional development,
institutional improvement and policy development. It is now widely acknowledged that
limiting educational research to professional researchers alone is to take a narrow view
of the educator’s role. Classroom teachers can be better decision-makers and more
effective practitioners if they are encouraged to conduct action research. For example, if
it is proposed to alter the organization of a school and its curriculum, it is most useful to
have one or more researchers on the staff who can monitor the effects of the changes.
Thus, action research is usually conducted with the aim of implementing a change in a
given situation (for further discussion, see Chapter 5).
Evaluation Research
The term ‘evaluation research’ is often used to refer to the systematic procedures which
are adopted over a period of time to collect and process data concerning the effectiveness
of a particular programme or set of events. For example, a teaching programme can be
evaluated at several stages. If evaluation is carried out at intermediate stages to
implement changes in the programme, it is called ‘process’ or ‘formative’ evaluation.
Evaluation at the completion of the planning programme is known as ‘summative’
evaluation.
Evaluation research has been widely employed in the last four decades. Many social
action programmes and curriculum innovations have adopted this type of research in
order to monitor the effectiveness of such programmes. Evaluation research highlights
the symbols of measurement and scientific neutrality but attempts to minimize the
influence of the behavioural science perspective. Evaluation research of the summative
type is often used to assess programmes designed to engineer change (see Chapter 5 for
more details).