{"id":21,"date":"2014-02-03T16:54:31","date_gmt":"2014-02-03T16:54:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.researchunbound.org.uk\/self-directed-support\/?page_id=21"},"modified":"2019-04-10T16:02:59","modified_gmt":"2019-04-10T15:02:59","slug":"research-design-and-methods","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.researchunbound.org.uk\/self-directed-support\/research-design-and-methods\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 2. Research design and methods"},"content":{"rendered":"

A research design is a plan for collecting evidence that will be used to answer a research question. \u00a0Selecting the design is the most important choice in planning a research project, because it determines all subsequent choices of methods. \u00a0The design should be selected principally on the basis of how well it addresses the research question and enables the researcher to resolve a research problem. \u00a0(Vogt, 2008, p. xxiv)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The aims of the research study were to explore the phenomenon of informed choice for disabled young people in transition to adult services\/supports. \u00a0This information has developed our understanding of informed choice in the context of self-directed support, especially with regard to perceived facilitators and barriers to informed choice.<\/p>\n

The research strategy was based on a two phase qualitative exploratory sequential design. \u00a0The first phase involved the secondary analysis of qualitative longitudinal data with the aim of identifying key themes that were used to inform the research questions for the primary stakeholder interviews. \u00a0This strategy allowed the researcher to further explore the phenomenon of informed choice with a range of stakeholders to elicit multiple perspectives and identify emerging theories. \u00a0The study explored the phenomenon of informed choice and has begun to develop broad hypotheses (\u2018folk theories\u2019) based on the accounts (\u2018folk wisdom\u2019) of key participants.<\/p>\n

Theoretical approach<\/h3>\n

To ensure a strong research design, researchers must choose a research paradigm that is congruent with their beliefs about the nature of reality.\u201d (Mills et al, 2006)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

My own ontological and epistemological position is best represented by critical realism and the chosen research design is influenced by realistic evaluation (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). \u00a0Realism accepts that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, whilst acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition. Critical realism aims to identify structures that generate the social world in order to challenge inequalities and injustices. \u00a0Advocates of critical realism describe it as the \u2018third way\u2019 beyond the limitations of positivism and interpretivism (Bergin et al, 2008). \u00a0There are also claims as to its \u2018double inclusiveness\u2019:<\/p>\n

[\u2026] critical realism is [\u2026] the ontologically least restrictive perspective, insofar as it is maximally inclusive as to causally relevant levels of reality and additionally maximally inclusive insofar as it can accommodate the insights of other metatheoretical perspectives.\u201d (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006, p. 294)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Realism seeks to position itself as a model of scientific explanation which avoids the traditional epistemological poles of positivism and interpretivism. \u00a0The researcher needs to be able to move between the different research paradigms in response to the situation. Realism\u2019s key feature is its stress on the mechanics of explanation. \u00a0Critical realism is an integration of realist ontology (there is a real world that exists independently of our perceptions and theories) with an interpretivist epistemology (our understanding of this world is inevitably a construction from our own perspective). \u00a0Some realists describe their approach as being neither inductive or deductive, but \u2018retroductive\u2019 in that realists ask why things happen including the impact of the researcher on the production of the data (Olsen, 2007).<\/p>\n

Realistic evaluation argues that it is not \u2018programs\u2019 per se that \u2018work\u2019; rather they contain certain ideas and resources which work for certain individuals in certain situations, and it is the task of the researcher to test theories to identify what works for whom in what circumstances. \u00a0The basic model is: Context + Mechanism = Outcome. \u00a0The realist evaluation cycle starts with theories about how mechanisms are fired in contexts to produce outcomes; specific hypotheses are derived from these theories in terms of what might work for whom in what circumstances; these hypotheses are tested through observations; and these observations lead to empirical generalisations (program specification) about what actually works; and these feed back into theory refinement (figure 1).<\/p>\n

\"Chapter<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 1: The realist evaluation cycle (Pawson & Tilley, 1997, p. 85)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Realistic evaluation suggests outcomes are characterised by the equation: C (Context) + M (Mechanism) = O (Outcome) and seeks to answer the question \u2018what works for whom in what circumstances?\u2019 (Pawson & Tilley, 1997, p.109). \u00a0\u2018Realistic evaluation\u2019 is not an evaluation technique as such, but is a framework for programme evaluation (Pawson, 2002). \u00a0Realistic evaluation can be used with any legitimate research method: both quantitative and qualitative, and does not favour any one technique (Pawson & Tilley, 1997).<\/p>\n

The importance of social context in understanding how complex programmes lead to changes in outcomes are emphasised in realistic evaluation (Blamey & Mackenzie, 2007). \u00a0People generate change in social contexts through their actions on the basis of their interpretations, capacities, and liabilities (Bonner, 2003). \u00a0This approach to programme evaluation engages stakeholders in the generation and ownership of theories, requiring a more intensive relationship between researcher and stakeholders than would be found in other some other approaches.<\/p>\n

Pawson & Tilley (1997) do not refer explicitly to grounded theory in their work, but this approach, which attempts to explain as well as describe, can be seen to have influenced realistic evaluation.<\/p>\n

The theoretical approach adopted for this study is in many ways closely related to constructivist grounded theory, but with some distinct differences:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Grounded theorists use theoretical sampling whereas I have sampled on the basis of including all the significant stakeholders in informed choice and self-directed support for disabled young people.<\/li>\n
  2. Constructivist grounded theorists state that all reality is socially constructed whereas critical realists accept that there is an objective reality but we do not have direct access to it.<\/li>\n
  3. \u00a0Grounded theorists tend to use memos (notes) rather than retrospectively study interview transcripts in detail.<\/li>\n
  4. Coding for grounded theorists is emergent and interactive, whereas I have coded after the interviews were completed: emergent but not interactive.<\/li>\n
  5. Realistic evaluation uses the teacher \u2013 learner approach with the researcher articulating his\/her theories to interview subjects and asking participants to share their own theories (\u2018folk wisdom\u2019) and refine or refute the researcher\u2019s theories.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Realistic evaluation is based on theory-led evaluation and such approaches have become increasingly popular way to study partnership evaluations (Dickinson, 2006); with a Theories of Change approach increasingly espoused as an evaluative approach to policy initiatives (Sullivan & Stewart, 2006). \u00a0Both \u2018theories of change\u2019 and \u2018realistic evaluation\u2019 emphasise the importance of programme context in understanding how complex programmes lead to changes in outcomes.<\/p>\n

    Pawson & Tilley (1997) explain that all social programmes are introduced into pre-existing social contexts made up of social rules, norms, values and interrelationships. A key distinction between the two approaches is their interaction with stakeholders: in theories of change approaches, the theory is ideally articulated, owned and approved by a wide range of stakeholders; while the realist evaluator articulates the theory through interviews with a more limited selection of stakeholders, but retains control of the theory (Blamey & Mackenzie, 2007).<\/p>\n

    The research study on which the dissertation is based has included all four categories of key stakeholders distinguished by Pawson & Tilley (1997): subjects, practitioners, evaluators, and policy-makers. \u00a0Each stakeholder group has valuable but partial knowledge and experiences of the phenomenon and it is the researcher\u2019s task to draw on these diverse perspectives in order to refine concepts and develop theories.<\/p>\n

    […] the goal has never been to construct theory per se, rather it has been to develop the theories of practitioners, participants and policy makers. (Pawson & Tilley, 1997, p.214)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Research questions<\/h3>\n

    Given that self-directed support is a recent policy initiative with a lack of an established practice or research literature base, the research questions themselves were open and with the flexibility to explore emerging topics as the interviews progressed. \u00a0Qualitative research questions were focused on developing theories from stakeholder\u2019s knowledge, attitudes and experience. \u00a0Core areas were asked of all participants, such as what they consider to be the facilitators and barriers to informed choice, and some specific questions were asked of individuals depending on their role in the process. \u00a0 As an exploratory study the interviews were semi-structured with fairly open questions to allow the researcher and participants to explore topics as they arose. \u00a0The research questions were broad and based around who influences informed choice and what are the key factors in disabled young people\u2019s decision-making:<\/p>\n