In reflecting on my exploration of research methods and analysis, particularly after the tutorial and Rachel’s feedback, I’ve realized the importance of embedding more theoretical grounding and literature into these discussions. Taking this step not only strengthens the foundation of my arguments but also enriches the understanding of how these methods intersect and complement one another.
In this post, I revisit the methods discussed in two of my earlier blog posts (linked here and here): surveys, focus groups, observation, journaling, ethnographic research and creative participatory methods. My aim is to link these methods to relevant literature and show how their corresponding analysis approaches align with my own practices.
Bryman (2016) describes surveys as efficient tools for gathering large-scale data, often analysed through statistical methods or thematic approaches for open-ended questions. This was particularly helpful early in the project, providing insights and evidence to shape the rationale for my work (more evidence here). Similarly, focus groups, as Morgan (1997) explains, allow for rich, interactive discussions that capture both collective and individual perspectives. I applied this method with my colleagues who are part of the teaching team (linked here) and with groups of students during classes, as reflected in the presentations post.
When it comes to observation and journaling, Spradley (1980) highlights participant observation an important component of ethnographic research, helping researchers identify and analyse patterns in practices. This resonates deeply with my academic approach, where I consistently document and reflect on students’ experiences during tasks, lessons, and workshops. Incorporating their feedback has been central to refining my teaching methods and played a crucial role in shaping this project to be more responsive and meaningful. Journaling, as Etherington (2004) notes, is invaluable for reflection, offering personal insights that contribute to a deeper analysis. Together, these methods, combined with thematic or narrative analysis, provide a nuanced lens through which both behaviours and reflections can be understood.
Ethnographic research, as discussed by Hammersley and Atkinson (2007), offers a holistic way of studying cultural phenomena, often analysed through narrative approaches (Geertz, 1973). This aligns closely with creative participatory methods I used, where participant engagement leads to co-created knowledge – a theme that also runs throughout my practice outside the university (more examples here).
The integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches – comprehensive mixed methods – has been particularly compelling in this project. Creswell and Plano Clark (2017) provide a useful framework for combining these paradigms, ensuring that different data types inform and complement each other. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) emphasize the importance of a layered analysis strategy, such as using statistical techniques alongside thematic and grounded theory approaches to fully capture the depth of the findings.
To ensure consistency, aligning analysis methods with their respective research approaches is critical. Surveys naturally pair with statistical analysis or thematic coding for open-ended responses, while focus groups benefit from discourse analysis to explore group dynamics and unpack common/shared experiences. Observation lends itself to grounded theory or framework analysis to contextualize behaviors, and ethnographic research integrates well with narrative or visual analysis to bridge creative and scientific perspectives.
Final Reflections
This reflection has highlighted how grounding methods in relevant literature and theory not only enriches my understanding but also strengthens the coherence of my research process. By linking research approaches to specific analytical strategies, I’ve gained a clearer perspective on their connections. Moving forward, I aim to apply these insights more intentionally, ensuring that my methods and analyses are not only theoretically sound but also capable of generating meaningful outcomes.
References
- Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods.
- Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.
- Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation.
- Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher.
- Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture.
- Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative Explorations.
- Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography.
- Rose, G. (2016). Visual Methodologies.
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
- Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures.
- Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A Method of Inquiry.