Download Understanding Survey Research: Interpretivism vs. Positivism and Techniques and more Study notes Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!
Surveys
The interpretivist paradigm and critical realism Care in gathering perceptions, drawing conclusions and generalizing results Surveys and comparative and correlational research Positivism: The Elephant as an Object of Study O__: Reality exists “out there” apart from my awareness (realism) E__: Through study and experiment, I will discover how reality works “out there” (objectivist) A__: Through technical understanding I can shape and control reality to serve my interests (For the positivist/postpositivist paradigm, the elephant is an object. The realist ontology tells us that the elephant-object has inherent meaning, that meaning lies within the elephant. The objectivist epistemology suggests that we can come to “discover” the meaning in the elephant-object, what the elephant/object is through rigorous and precise measurement, observation, dissection, disassembly, reassembly. This will provide us with universal (generalizable) laws that we can apply to elephants everywhere as the valued end of positivist/postpositivist research is prediction and control so that we can manage the elephant, grow the elephant, master the elephant. The researcher assumes a value-free stance because the interest is in establishing facts, there is no place for the researcher’s values in the research.)
Experimental & Quasi-Exp Research Objectives: Pinpoint a well-specified cause-effect relationship in a sample that will “generalize” to a known population Rationale: If we seek to shape social processes and outcomes in particular ways, experimental research that is both internally and externally valid contribute to efficient and effective control Threats Relationship not valid (Internal validity) Relationship does not generalize (External validity) Causal Comparative & Correlational Research Objectives Research in these forms seek to establish the presence and strength of relationships among characteristics found in society Rationale Experimental designs may be infeasible, impractical and/or unethical. CC& C designs can provide lower cost means to study social processes and outcomes as they occur rather than under conditions of experimental control Recall: Causal Comparative and Correlational Research Can identify presence of a relationship and encourage experimentation Relative to experimentation, a low-cost means to establish a relationship Developed techniques are robust and powerful Well-established procedures: T-tests, Chi-square, ANOVA/MANOVA, Multiple Regression, Logistic Regression, Factor Analysis, Discriminant Analysis) and new procedures (HLM, SEM) CC&C Research: Critiques and challenges While CC&C presents a viable option for research, these are subject to limitations (see M pp. 153-9) B/C independent variables are not strictly controlled, the presence of a relationship does not necessarily imply it is causal. (Correlations is not causation!) In relying on pre-existing characteristics, CC & C may struggle with “unpacking” loaded group labels (e.g. sex v. gender, mixed race categories, etc.) Methodological and publication bias overemphasize difference and underplay commonality
Various versions are similar, and differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes, and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. A wise man explains to them All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.[1] This resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and that truth can be stated in different ways (in Jainist beliefs often said to be seven versions). This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.[1] Again, the realist ontology of interpretivism assumes that there is a reality. However, the interpretivist understands that because we are fallible beings, we can only ever get at approximations of reality. The elephant is, again, an object with inherent meaning “out there.” The elephant’s meaning can be discovered, but the researcher/knower can only know the elephant-object through the many partial interpretations/perceptions of others (the six blind men). Not only does the researcher need to know the perceptions of the six blind men, but also the relative positions of the six blind men and the researcher’s own position relative to them, in order to accurately map out the elephant-object. The interpretivist researcher understands that values cannot be escaped, but in knowing the values he/she brings to the research, the researcher is better able to position him/herself relative to the six blind men and to map out reality. The valued-end of the research is to understand social phenomena, social relations, social codes of conduct, norms, behaviors, value systems in order to get along in the world. This is the paradigm from which much of social science research is conducted.) Interpretivism: The Elephant and Six Blind Men
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Blind Men and an Elephant” The story of the blind men and an elephant appears to have originated in India, but its original source is debated. It has been attributed to the Jainists, Buddhists, and sometimes to the Sufis or Hindus, and has been used by all those groups. The best-known version attributed to an individual in the modern day is the 19th Century poem by John Godfrey Saxe. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, showing how absolute truths may be relative; the deceptive world of half-truths. Various versions are similar, and differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes, and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. A wise man explains to them All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because
Longitudinal: Data gathered on same group at different points in time (e.g. Attitudes toward same sex marriage from 1950s to 2010s). Design Choices: Survey Data in Correlational Designs Descriptive Data: Does the rate of college admissions vary with family income? Cross-sectional Data Do passing rates vary for different ethnic groups? Has the average ISTEP performance increased over time? Longitudinal Controlling for poverty, are graduation rates for migrant workers lower than for their non-migrant peers? Survey Methods Why? Relatively low cost tool to gather information from a substantial number of individuals over a wide area in a relatively unobtrusive manner Allows information gathering to be more or less narrowly targeted Has a substantial knowledge base regarding design and development Concerns Sensitive to bias in sampling May fail to capture information accurately and/or may “push” responses in particular directions
