See this attached list of research goals and research questions.
1) Match the research goal to the research question(s) and
2) identify them as either qualitative or quantitative (no mixed methods yet), and
3) explain WHY it is so.
Use the (attached) table to cut/paste the goals and questions into and provide your answers.
Look for specific keywords to help you differentiate between qualitative and quantitative, and remember that the “why” answer is vital.
Look at Pages 10, and 14-15 of the McGregor document attached for some of the "why's", but use short sentences to explain them (don't just copy and paste the why's).
SAGE Research Methods
Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical
Guide
Author: Sue L. T. McGregor
Pub. Date: 2019
Product: SAGE Research Methods
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Methods: Theory, Research questions, Mixed methods
Disciplines: Anthropology, Education, Geography, Health, Political Science and International Relations,
Psychology, Social Policy and Public Policy, Social Work, Sociology
Access Date: January 11, 2023
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc
City: Thousand Oaks
Online ISBN: 9781071802656
© 2019 SAGE Publications, Inc All Rights Reserved.
Overview of Research Design and Methods
Learning Objectives
• Distinguish between methodology, method, and research design
• Compare and contrast research design as logical and as logistical
• Appreciate the difference between reconstructed logic (quantitative) and logic-in-use (qualitative), es-
pecially an emergent research design
• Explain the five logics of mixed methods research designs
• Appreciate the link between research inquiry and research design
• Describe the purpose and importance of the Methods section of a research report
• Compare and contrast qualitative and quantitative intellectual inquiries
• Identify the major reporting components (subheadings) of qualitative and quantitative research re-
ports
• Compare and contrast the most agreed-to approaches and terms about research integrity, rigor, and
quality that are used in each of the three methodologies, and learn the attendant strategies to meet
the standard for the specific research methodology
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the constructs of research design and the Methods section in a research paper. Re-
search design is a larger construct than methods, to be explained shortly. But within a research paper, once
the authors have stated the research question, developed an introduction to the study, and presented a re-
view of the literature (and maybe a theoretical framework), their next step is to provide a description of the
strategies used to collect and analyze data pursuant to the research question—that is, their methods. This
chapter provides a generic discussion of methods, followed with much more detail in Chapter 9 (qualitative
methods) and in Chapter 10 (quantitative and mixed methods).
As a caveat, a detailed discussion of how to use specific methods is beyond the scope of this overview chap-
ter, or even this book. There is no attempt to explain how to do a survey, conduct a scientific experiment, pre-
pare a case study, or engage in ethnographic research where researchers immerse themselves in the lives of
the participants. That being said, the general discussions in Chapters 9 (qualitative) and 10 (quantitative and
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 2 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
mixed methods) will address the basic conventions pursuant to preparing, conducting, and reporting these
types of research, which entails identifying common methods.
This generic chapter will begin with a discussion of the larger construct of research design, including the link
between research design and research inquiry, research design as logic and logistical, and the most common
research designs organized by the three methodologies: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. The
conversation then shifts to a general overview of methods (distinguished from methodology). The purposes of
the Methods section are identified followed with general introductions to the major differences between qual-
itative and quantitative inquiries, the major reporting components (subheadings) of each of these research
reports, and the topic of rigor and quality in each of the three methodologies.
Etymology and Definition of Methods and Research Design
Method is Greek methodus, “for mode of inquiry or investigation.” It stems from meta, “after,” and hodos, “a
travelling, a pursuit, a way of teaching or going” (Harper, 2016). In effect, method refers to investigating or
inquiring into something by going after or pursuing it, especially in accordance with a plan. It involves tech-
niques, procedures, and tasks used in a systematic, logical, and orderly way (Anderson, 2014). Within the
context of conducting and reporting research, it is the stage wherein researchers design instruments, appa-
ratus, or procedures or gain site access (if relevant), obtain a sample, and then collect and analyze data from
that sample (or entire population) (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). As was discussed in Chapter 2, this book
distinguishes between method and methodology, with the latter connoting the philosophical underpinnings of
the study.
The other term used in this chapter is research design. Research is French recercher, “to search.” In the con-
text of this book, it refers to the accumulation of data that are interpreted, leading to new knowledge. Design
is Latin designare, “to mark out, devise, choose, designate.” A design can be defined as a plan used to show
the workings of something before it is made or created. It can also mean the underlying purpose of some-
thing, in this case, the search for knowledge (Anderson, 2014; Harper, 2016). From a technical stance, the
research design refers to the overall strategy that researchers choose to integrate the different components of
their study in a coherent and logical way, thereby ensuring they can effectively address the research question
using the new knowledge created from the study (Labaree, 2016). Research design also entails logic (Yin,
1984), to be discussed shortly.
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 3 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Research Design
Many disciplines mistake research design for methods (de Vaus, 2001). This section explains how this book
distinguishes between these terms, respecting the lack of a consensus in the scholarly arena for their usage.
Research design is a larger construct than method. Per above, methods refer to technical procedures, tech-
niques, or steps taken to obtain information and analyze data for a study. A design is a plan made before
something is done (Anderson, 2014). Designing research is a process that entails both logic (thinking and
reasoned judgments) and logistics (doing), with logic coming first, inherently shaping logistics (methods) (Yin,
1984).
Research Inquiry and Research Design
The logic and thinking that researchers use to design their research is affected both by the (a) methodology
(which shapes the research questions and all assumptions underlying the effort), and (b) type of research
inquiry they are conducting. In short, (a) exploratory research strives to reach a greater understanding of a
problem, usually laying the groundwork for future studies; (b) descriptive research seeks more information
so as to accurately describe something in more detail, creating a fuller picture by mapping the terrain; and
(c) explanatory research seeks to connect ideas to understand causal inferences (explain relationships) (de
Vaus, 2001; Suter, 2012; Yin, 1984). These approaches apply to both quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies (except explanatory), with qualitative also seeking to (d) illuminate meaning and subjective
experiences and (e) understand processes and structures (Blaxter, 2013; Shank & Brown, 2007).
Articulating Research Purpose in Research Design
Each of these five types of research inquiry represents the deeper purpose of the study (the problem), or the
reasons for doing it, which is why Yin (1984) said research design is logical (i.e., it entails reasoned judg-
ments). Each type of inquiry offers a different reason for why the study is needed (e.g., to describe, explore,
find meaning, or theorize). Authors must not confuse research purpose (reason for inquiry) with methodolo-
gy, research design, research question, or methods (see example 8.1). When identifying the nature of their
research inquiry, they can use headings in their paper such as Justification for the Study, Importance of the
Study, or Objectives of the Study (Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & DeMarco, 2003). A clearly stated research
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 4 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
purpose will help readers formulate a realistic set of expectations about a study and better ensure they eval-
uate the quality of the study’s design within the context of the author’s purpose (Knafl & Howard, 1984) (see
Chapter 6).
Example 8.1 Research purpose versus question The problem is the deeper, more complex rea-
son why the researcher is conducting the study (e.g., to explore, describe, explain, or find meaning).
Newman et al. (2003) recounted a quantitative study in which the research question was incorrectly
presented as the research problem: “What is the effect of making a substantial reduction in class
size on student achievement?” The researchers erroneously characterized class size as the problem
when in fact students’ lack of achievement was the problem and the reason why this explanatory
study was needed (i.e., to explain). In this study, reducing class size was but one solution to in-
creasing student achievement. By losing focus on what the real problem was (lack of achievement),
the researchers designed an inappropriate study if they wanted to explain it. An unfortunate conse-
quence of authors neglecting to clearly state their purpose and problem is that some readers may
uncritically accept their results and change their practice when they should not.
Research Design as Logical and Logistical
Research designs guide the methods decisions that researchers must make during their studies, and they
set the logic by which interpretations are made at the end of studies (Creswell, 2008). To further appreciate
the link between research design logic and method, authors can consider this metaphor. Before builders or
architects can develop a work plan or order building materials, they must first establish the type of building
required, its uses, and the needs of the occupants; that is, they must think about their entire build and justify
any design decisions they make. Their work plans (methods) to construct the building then flow from this logic
(i.e., their reasoned judgments about the build). The same idea holds for a study’s research design (de Vaus,
2001).
Research design as logic concerns researchers thinking about what sorts of data are needed to answer the
research question, including what methods might be most appropriate to generate those data. The type of
research inquiry (i.e., the purpose behind the research) shapes the overall structure of the study, especial-
ly the methods (Kotler, 2000; Newman et al., 2003). Research design as logical equates to a blueprint with
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 5 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
specific, sequenced (sometimes iterative) steps that are be completed to bring the plan to closure (i.e., the
methods, which are the focus of this chapter). Research design as logistical refers to the work plan developed
by the researcher to collect evidence and analyze data to answer the research question and respect the type
of research inquiry (the logic). Logistical means planning and organizing to make sure things are where they
need to be so an activity or process can happen effectively (Anderson, 2014). The logic affects the logistics
(methods), and the logistics reflect the logic (Yin, 1984) (see Figure 8.1).
Quantitative Research Design Logic
Quantitative research uses a predetermined, fixed research plan based mostly on reconstructed logic. This
logic of research is based on organizing, standardizing, and codifying research into explicit rules, formal pro-
cedures, and techniques so others can follow the same linear plan and reconstruct the study. This is the logic
of “how to do research” and is highly organized and systematic (Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2009; Neuman, 2000).
The type of research inquiry determines the research design created using this logic (see Table 8.1). Should
they create a cross-sectional design (collect data once from one sample), a repeated cross-sectional design
(collect data once from different samples), a longitudinal design (collect data from one sample over time), a
one-subject design, an experimental design, a case study, or some other design (Kotler, 2000)?
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 6 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Figure 8.1 Research Design as Logic and Logistical
Table 8.1 Three Types of Research Inquiries, With Examples of Quantitative Research Designs
Exploratory Research Inquiry Descriptive Research Inquiry Explanatory Research Inquiry
Cross-sectional design
Case study design
Cross-sectional design
Longitudinal design
Case study design
Cross-sectional design
Experimental design
Case study design
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 7 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Qualitative Research Design Logic
The research designs included in Table 8.1 (based on only reconstructed logic) do not adequately represent
“the logic and processes of qualitative research [which] lacks such an elaborate typology into which studies
can be pigeonholed” (Maxwell, 2008, p. 214). Maxwell (2008) said “this does not mean that qualitative re-
search lacks design” (p. 215). Instead, qualitative research requires a broader and less restrictive concept of
research design, in which researchers use “‘logic-in-use’ [as well as] ‘reconstructed logic’ [to accommodate
the] ‘design in use’ [principle]” (p. 216). This is called an emergent research design wherein the original plan
changes as the research unfolds, meaning it is nonlinear (Creswell, 2009) (discussed in Chapter 9). Regard-
less, the end result is data that are then analyzed, interpreted, and discussed, leading to conclusions, impli-
cations, and recommendations (de Vaus, 2001; Suter, 2012; Yin, 1984).
As a final caveat, de Vaus (2001) explained that researchers should not equate a particular logistical method
with a particular research design logic. It is also erroneous to equate a particular research design with either
quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches. Instead, authors need to bear in mind the link be-
tween (a) the purpose of the research (logical inquiry) and (b) their research design (both logic and logistics)
(Yin, 1984) and then introduce their Methods section accordingly (see examples 8.2 and 8.3).
Example 8.2 Quantitative research design and method This exploratory, quantitative research
inquiry employed a cross-sectional research design. Data were collected from a purposive sample
using the survey method, specifically a piloted questionnaire designed for this study. Descriptive sta-
tistics were used to analyze the data using Minitab software, and the results were reported using
frequencies, percentages, and means (averages).
Example 8.3 Qualitative research design and method This qualitative research inquiry employed
an emergent research design, using the phenomenological method. Data were collected from a
snowball sample of individual participants by way of interviews. The data were thematically ana-
lyzed, and findings were reported using quotes and a supportive narrative.
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 8 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Mixed Methods Research Design Logic
Authors of mixed methods studies should avoid rhetorical logic, meaning they should not assume that one
strand of data is only there to embellish their analysis of the other strand and is not really considered to be
a necessary part of their analytical interpretation or argument. Mixed methods explanations and interpreta-
tions require more challenging logics. Mason (2006) identified five logics, one being rhetorical. Parallel logic
assumes each strand has its own logic (see above), and authors would run these in parallel and report two
different sections, one for each strand. A third approach is corroborative logic, which concerns itself with data
triangulation. Researchers would strive to use data from each strand to corroborate each other (confirm or
give support). If researchers use an integrative logic, they likely choose this at the beginning of the research
design process so they can intentionally link insights from both data streams to get a better picture of the
whole phenomenon (see Chapter 10).
Mason (2006) identified multidimensional logic as the most challenging type of mixed methods logic. “The
argument is that different methods and approaches have distinctive strengths and potential which, if allowed
to flourish, can help [researchers] understand multi-dimensionality and social complexity. . . . The logic imag-
ines ‘multi-nodal’ and ‘dialogic’ explanations which are based on the dynamic relation of more than one way
of seeing and researching. This logic requires that researchers factor into their accounts the different ways of
asking questions and of answering them” (pp. 9–10). It differs from the other logics, which assume data inte-
gration rather than a data intersection. The latter “involves a creative tension between the different methods
and approaches, which depends on a dialogue between them” (p. 10). This dialogue cannot occur without
everyone involved embracing a logic that respects multiple dimensions and points of view (researchers them-
selves and research methodologies, with attendant assumptions, as discussed in Chapter 2).
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Ascertain whether the authors used the term research design when introducing their methods, with-
out confusing the two concepts
□ Make sure they shared their thinking and reasoning about how best to answer their research ques-
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 9 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
tions (i.e., explained the logic used when creating their research design, especially what type of data
were needed to answer their research questions)
□ Per the above, determine if they included a section titled Justification for or Importance of the Study
□ Determine if they properly referred to reconstructed (deductive) logic (quantitative) or logic-in-use
(qualitative emergent research design) or if they referenced mixed methods logics
□ Determine if they clarified their research design (see Table 8.2)
□ Determine if they explicitly stated the type of research inquiry they employed (exploratory, descrip-
tive, explanatory, meaning seeking, or understanding processes and structures)
Most Common Research Designs
Table 8.2 summarizes the most common research designs for each of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods studies, discussed in much more detail in Chapters 9 and 10. These approaches to designing re-
search differ because of methodological distinctions, discussed in more detail in the second part of this
overview chapter.
Table 8.2 Main Types of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Designs
Qualitative Research Designs (in-
volve changing tactics over the
course of the study)
Quantitative Research Designs (involve adhering to a formal
plan with no deviation)
Mixed Methods Research Designs (in-
volve some prioritized combination of
strategy and tactics)
• Interpretive—insights from inter-
preting data change the research
design
• Investigative—traces out a phe-
nomenon in its natural field set-
ting
• Participatory—research design
is codeveloped with participants
• Descriptive—describes what actually exists, as well as its fre-
quency, and then categorizes the information
• Correlational—examines whether a change in a variable (no
manipulation) is related to change in another
• Comparative—measures variables that occur naturally in ex-
isting groups, then compares them to determine their influence
on the dependent variable
• Experimental—manipulates independent variables, measures
• Use qualitative methods to explain
quantitative data (words to explain
numbers)
• Use quantitative methods to further
explain qualitative data (numbers to
explain words)
• Use both methods to achieve trian-
gulation
SAGE
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Research Methods
Page 10 of 27 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Methods
The discussion now turns from the construct of research design to that of methods, which are understood
to include instrument development and apparatus, sampling, data collection, and data analysis, differing for
each of the three methodologies used to shape this book: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. This
chapter provides a generic discussion of methods, followed with Chapter 9 (qualitative methods) and Chapter
10 (quantitative and mixed methods).
Methodology Versus Methods
Many disciplines use the word methodology to refer to methods (Schneider, 2014). This section explains how
this book uses these terms, respecting the lack of a consensus in the scholarly arena for their usage. This
book clearly distinguishes between methodology and methods (see Chapter 2). Methodology (ology) is fo-
cused on what is involved in creating new knowledge and refers to the branch of philosophy that analyzes the
principles and axioms of research. The word method refers to a system of strategies used to obtain informa-
tion for a study.
Many disciplines’ use of the word methodology to refer to methods (Schneider, 2014) most likely occurs be-
cause the empirical (quantitative) research paradigm is so prevalent. Given its dominance, authors tend to
• Illuminative—strategically focus-
es on one aspect of research de- </p