C 203: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TECHNIQUES

Asif Mohammad ShahanLecturerDept. of Development StudiesUniversity of Dhaka

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE Course Objective Course Description Grading Structure Lesson Plan

Week 1 Approach and methods of knowing Science and scientific knowledge

Week 2 Research: definition, objective, motivation Types and approaches to research: Introducing qualitative

research Week 3

Approaches to research and the place of theory Overview of the research process

(By the end of week 3, each student will have a clear idea about research problem, research question, formulating hypothesis and literature review. Each student has to identify a research problem and will start working on literature review and developing a research proposal)

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE Week 4

Epistemology Week 5

Key schools of thoughts: Objectivity, Positivism, Constructionism

Week 6 Key schools of thoughts: Interpretivism, Critical

Inquiry, Feminism, Post-modernism Submission of a preliminary version of literature

review and research proposal Week 7

Qualitative research methods: History and Epistemological Stances

Week 8

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

Week 9 Qualitative research techniques: ethnography

Week 10 Case Studies, Grounded theory

Week 11 Observation, participatory action research

Week 12 Conducting qualitative field research: qualitative

interviewing Week 13

Focus group

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

Week 14 Research ethics in qualitative field Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative field

Week 15 Submission of research project Review and feedback

HUMAN INQUIRY

How do we know? The earth is round Before crossing the road, you should take a look

around you Agreement, belief, experience What happens when experience conflicts

with agreement?

EXAMPLE- HOW DO WE KNOW?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

ORDINARY HUMAN INQUIRY All people exhibit a desire to predict their future

circumstances This task is undertaken through using causal and

probabilistic reasoning Future depends on present Cause and effects are probabilistic

Distinction between prediction and understanding Ability to prediction comes from observation This leads to the recognition of regularities People seek to expand the recognition of regularities

through understanding Sources of understanding

Tradition Authority

ERRORS IN INQUIRY

Inaccurate observation Overgeneralization Selective observation Illogical reasoning Defining reality

FROM HUMAN INQUIRY TO KNOWLEDGE Four methods of knowing (Charles Peirce)

Tenacity A Priori Authority Science

Tenacity The method of tenacity says that humans hold firmly

to the truth, and know it is the truth because they hold firmly to it. The more often they repeat something (even though it may not be truthful) the more truthful it becomes.

A Priori According to the a priori method of knowing, through

free communication and rational thought, humans can arrive at the truth. Things are true because they are self evident. It just stands to reason that they are true.

METHODS OF KNOWING Authority

The method of authority is the method of established belief. If an authority says something is so, then it must be. Using the method of authority as a belief system is as good as the authority. Often knowledge and beliefs from authorities have the weight of tradition and public sanction behind them.

Science The scientific method of knowing states that through

research and empirical science we will come to know the truth. Science believes that nothing is obviously truthful. We must support our beliefs through observation, measurement, and experiment. This is what is called empiricism. Both proper research methods (research design) and numbers and their manipulation (statistics) are involved. This course and learning environment are concerned with the latter.

The first three methods are generally considered as common sense

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE Use of Conceptual Schemes

Science uses conceptual schemes and theoretical structures in a very systematic way. Common sense methods use theories in a very loosely structured manner.

Use of Empirical Tests Scientists systematically and empirically test ideas

about the truth. These ideas, depending upon the detail of their development, are called theories and/or hypotheses. Common sense notions are often believed because they agree with a previously held position.

Use of Scientific Control Scientists control variables in studies which may

change the results of their investigations if these variables are not controlled. Lay persons using common sense methods of knowing seldom control for these extraneous variables.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE

Use of Consistency or Repeatability Scientists look for relationships which are

consistent over time. A scientist must replicate his or her study. Just seeing something happen in a particular way once doesn't mean it always happens that way. Lay persons using common sense methods often link together two events which are related in only a single instance.

the Sauce Béarnaise Syndrome. Use of Metaphysical Explanations

In science, explanations which can't be tested are automatically ruled out. Untestable explanations are called metaphysical explanations.

SUMMARY OF SCIENCE VS. COMMON SENSE

Does it have Science Common Sense

Systematic definition of theory

Yes No

Systematic test of theory Yes No

Control outside variables Yes No

Metaphysical explanations ruled out

Yes No

Self-correction Yes No

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN RESEARCH Scientific method is the discipline which forms

the foundation of modern scientific inquiry. Basic assumptions of scientific method in in

inquiry Order External reality Reliability Parsimony Generality

Flowchart of scientific research: Interest spurred by observed inconsistency Engagement in a logical, theoretical exercise aimed at

identifying the relevant aspects of the phenomenon Hypothesis building Operationalizing the hypothesis Experimentation