SELECTING A RESEARCH METHODS

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
The major feature that distinguishes experimental research from other types of research is that the researcher
manipulates the independent variable. There are a number of experimental group designs in experimental
research. Some of these qualify as experimental research, others do not.
In true experimental research, the researcher not only manipulates the independent variable, he or she also
randomly assigned individuals to the various treatment categories (i.e., control and treatment).
In quasi experimental research, the researcher does not randomly assign subjects to treatment and control
groups. In other words, the treatment is not distributed among participants randomly. In some cases, a
researcher may randomly assign one whole group to treatment and one whole group to control. In this case,
quasi-experimental research involves using intact groups in an experiment, rather than assigning individuals at
random to research conditions. (Some researchers define this latter situation differently. For our course, we will
allow this definition).
In causal comparative (ex post facto) research, the groups are already formed. It does not meet the standards of
an experiment because the independent variable in not manipulated.
The statistics by themselves have no meaning. They only take on meaning within the design of your study. If
we just examine statistics.
The term validity is used three ways in research…
In the sampling unit, we learn about external validity (generalizability).
In the survey unit, we learn about instrument validity.
In this unit, we learn about internal validity and external validity. Internal validity means that the differences
that we were found between groups on the dependent variable in an experiment were directly related to what the
researcher did to the independent variable, and not due to some other unintended variable (confounding
variable). Simply stated, the question addressed by internal validity is “Was the study done well?” Once the
researcher is satisfied that the study was done well and the independent variable caused the dependent variable
(internal validity), then the research examines external validity (under what conditions [ecological] and with
whom [population] can these results be replicated [Will I get the same results with a different group of people
or under different circumstances?]). If a study is not internally valid, then considering external validity is a moot
point (If the independent did not cause the dependent, then there is no point in applying the results [generalizing
the results] to other situations.). Interestingly, as one tightens a study to control for treats to internal validity,
one decreases the generalizability of the study (to whom and under what conditions one can generalize the
results).
There are several common threats to internal validity in experimental research.
Subject Characteristics (Selection Bias/Differential Selection) — The groups may have been different from the
start. If you were testing instructional strategies to improve reading and one group enjoyed reading more than
the other group, they may improve more in their reading because they enjoy it, rather than the instructional
strategy you used.
Loss of Subjects (Mortality) — All of the high or low scoring subject may have dropped out or were missing
from one of the groups. If we collected post-test data on a day when the honor society was on field trip at the
treatment school, the mean for the treatment group would probably be much lower than it really should have
been.
Location — Perhaps one group was at a disadvantage because of their location. The city may have been
demolishing a building next to one of the schools in our study and there are constant distractions which
interferes with our treatment.
Instrumentation Instrument Decay — The testing instruments may not be scores similarly. Perhaps the person
grading the post test is fatigued and pays less attention to the last set of papers reviewed. It may be that those
papers are from one of our groups and will received different scores than the earlier group’s papers
Data Collector Characteristics — The subjects of one group may react differently to the data collector than the
other group. A male interviewing males and females about their attitudes toward a type of math instruction may
not receive the same responses from females as a female interviewing females would.
Data Collector Bias — The person collecting data my favors one group, or some characteristic some subject
possess, over another. A principal who favors strict classroom management may rate students’ attention under
different teaching conditions with a bias toward one of the teaching conditions.
Testing — The act of taking a pre-test or post-test may influence the results of the experiment. Suppose we
were conducting a unit to increase student sensitivity to prejudice. As a pre-test we have the control and
treatment groups watch Shindler’s List and write a reaction essay. The pre-test may have actually increased
both groups’ sensitivity and we find that our treatment groups didn’t score any higher on a post-test given later
than the control group did. If we hadn’t given the pre-test, we might have seen differences in the groups at the
end of the study.
History — Something may happen at one site during our study that influences the results. Perhaps a classmate
dies in a car accident at the control site for a study teaching children bike safety. The control group may actually
demonstrate more concern about bike safety than the treatment group.
Maturation –There may be natural changes in the subjects that can account for the changes found in a study. A
critical thinking unit may appear more effective if it taught during a time when children are developing abstract
reasoning.
Hawthorne Effect — The subjects may respond differently just because they are being studied. The name comes
from a classic study in which researchers were studying the effect of lighting on worker productivity. As the
intensity of the factor lights increased, so did the work productivity. One researcher suggested that they reverse
the treatment and lower the lights. The productivity of the workers continued to increase. It appears that being
observed by the researchers was increasing productivity, not the intensity of the lights.
John Henry Effect — One group may view that it is competition with the other group and may work harder than
than they would under normal circumstances. This generally is applied to the control group “taking on” the
treatment group. The terms refers to the classic story of John Henry laying railroad track.
Resentful Demoralization of the Control Group — The control group may become discouraged because it is not
receiving the special attention that is given to the treatment group. They may perform lower than usual because
of this.
Regression (Statistical Regression) — A class that scores particularly low can be expected to score slightly
higher just by chance. Likewise, a class that scores particularly high, will have a tendency to score slightly
lower by chance. The change in these scores may have nothing to do with the treatment.
Implementation –The treatment may not be implemented as intended. A study where teachers are asked to use
student modelling techniques may not show positive results, not because modeling techniques don’t work, but
because the teacher didn’t implement them or didn’t implement them as they were designed.
Compensatory Equalization of Treatment — Someone may feel sorry for the control group because they are not
receiving much attention and give them special treatment. For example, a researcher could be studying the
effect of laptop computers on students’ attitudes toward math. The teacher feels sorry for the class that doesn’t
have computers and sponsors a popcorn party during math class. The control group begins to develop a more
positive attitude about mathematics.
Experimental Treatment Diffusion — Sometimes the control group actually implements the treatment. If two
different techniques are being tested in two different third grades in the same building, the teachers may share
what they are doing. Unconsciously, the control may use of the techniques she or he learned from the treatment
teacher.
When planning a study, it is important to consider the threats to interval validity as we finalize the study design.
After we complete our study, we should reconsider each of the threats to internal validity as we review our data
and draw conclusions.

Experimental research designs are the primary approach used to investigate causal (cause/effect) relationships
and to study the relationship between one variable and another. This is a traditional type of research that is
quantitative in nature. In short, researchers use experimental research to compare two or more groups on one or
more measures. In these designs, one variable is manipulated to see if it has an effect on the other variable.
Experimental designs are used in this way to answer hypotheses. A hypothesis is a testable statement that is
formulated by the researcher to address a specific question. The researcher designs an experimental study which
will then support or disprove the hypothesis.
Independent Variable – This is the variable that will be manipulated, the “cause” or treatment variable. This
variable may be an activity or characteristic that the researcher believes will make a difference.
Dependent Variable – This variable is the “effect” or outcome of manipulating the independent variable. The
only constraint is that the outcome must be measurable.
Experimental Group – The group that receives the treatment being investigated.
Control Group – The group that remains the same in order to have something to compare the experimental
group against.
Experimental research is based on a methodology that meets three criteria that are important if the results are to
be meaningful. These criteria are as follows:
Random Assignment – Test subjects must be randomly assigned to the treatment groups to control for creation
of groups that may systematically differ in another way that impacts the outcome of the treatment.
Experimental Control – All aspects of the treatments are identical except for the independent variable. If all
other factors are controlled and kept constant, then if measurable differences are found in the outcomes, the
researcher can be assured that the difference is due the independent variable (treatment).
Appropriate Measures – The measures or outcomes must appropriate for testing the hypothesis. The outcome
measured must represent the idea being tested in the hypothesis in order for the results to be valid.
Considering the definitions and criteria from above, it is now to time to explore an example of experimental
research using those concepts. Let’s say that a researcher wanted to investigate the effects of using flipped
classroom teaching techniques in an American history course. The hypothesis being tested is that the flipped
classroom teaching style will result in higher test scores among the students. The researcher will begin by
randomly assigning students into two different sections of the course. The first section will be taught using the
traditional lecture format. The second section will be taught used flipped classroom teaching techniques. The
learning objectives and content for both sections will be identical. Both sections will be given identical exams
throughout the semester and the scores between the two sections will be compared to assess student learning.
The flipped classroom teaching style is the independent variable. The dependent variable is the test scores. The
experimental group is the section of the course where the flipped classroom technique is being used and the
control group is the section that continues to utilize the traditional lecture format. This is a classic example of
the use of experimental research design. The following modules will delve deeper into various aspects of
experimental research.
 QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL AND SINGLE CASE DESIGN
Quasi-experimental research design is the use of methods and procedures to make observation in a study that is
structured similar to an experiment, but the conditions and experiences of participants lack some control
because the study lacks random assignment, includes a pre-existing factor (i.e., a variable that is not
manipulated), or does not include a comparison /control group. It resembles an experiment but includes a quasi-
independent variable and/or lacks a control group.
Single-case research designs are a diverse and powerful set of procedures useful for demonstrating causal
relations among clinical phenomena. Although such designs are flexible, efficient, and have been used to
psychological science, they are currently extremely underused by psychological scientists and clinicians. We
review the historical and theoretical foundations of single-case research designs, including case studies, quasi-
experimental designs, and experimental designs used in single-case or small–group studies. We also summarize
the methodological requirements, primary design options, and challenges and limitations of each approach.
Recent examples of each design are provided to illustrate the usefulness of these valuable-albeit somewhat
forsaken-research methods for scientific and clinical advancement. Single case research designs have a long and
distinguished history in psychological science, which demonstrates the enduring value of such approaches.
The in-depth study of the single case was also the primary method of investigation in the ear-liest days of
modern clinical psychology. For instance, the most influential figures in psycho-analytic psychology used
naturalistic case studies to convey their ideas about the etiologies, assessment, and treatment of
psychopathology (Freud & Breuer, 1895). Although working from a very different theoretical and
methodological orientation, the founders of behavioral psychology also used single-case research designs to
inform research and practice in psychology and psychopathology (Skinner, 1938; Watson, 1925).
If single-case research designs have led to such broad and significant advances since the earliest days of
psychological science, why has their use declined so markedly over the past several decades? While there are
many possible explanations, the most compelling may be the development of increasingly sophisticated
methods for collecting and analyzing large amounts of data. Indeed, with the development of statistical
techniques appropriate for use with large samples (e.g., t test, analysis of variance, correlation), as well as the
creation of computer programs that facilitate the evaluation of these data, researchers began to favor large
sample designs that focused on statistical evaluation over single-case designs that relied primarily on
experimentation and visual inspection of data. This focus continues to the present day, and research studies that
examine aggregate data from large groups of subjects continue to compose the vast majority of studies reported
in the mainstream, high-impact clinical psychology journals such as the Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, while single-case research designs represent the majority
of reports published in specialty journals such as the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

Although the advances that have resulted from the proliferation of large sample studies is undeniable, single-
case research designs continue to be underutilized by researchers and clinicians alike. We believe efforts to
reincorporate such designs into the clinical research armamentarium will facilitate significant advances in
psychological science.
In this chapter, we provide a brief review of the three types of single-case research designs most commonly
used by clinical researchers: the case study, quasi-experimental designs, and experimental designs. It is
probably more appropriate to think of these three design options not as distinct types but more accurately as
points on a continuum. These designs all share common features, such as the examination of a single or small
group of subjects; however, they are characterized by increasing levels of scientific rigor, and, as an effect, by
the strength of the inferences that can be made with their use. For each design, we describe the basic
characteristics, primary research design options, recent advances, and challenges and limitations. Our depth of
cover-age of this material is limited by the length of this chapter; the reader interested in more extensive
coverage of each should consult several excellent sources on these topics (Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984;
Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Franklin, Allison, & Gorman, 1997; Kazdin, 1982, 2003

 NON-EXPERIMENTAL QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Non-experimental designs include research designs in which an experimenter simply either describes a group or
examines relationships between pre-existing groups. The members of the groups are not randomly assigned and
an independent variable is not manipulated by the experimenter, thus, no conclusions about causal relationships
between variables in the study can be drawn. Generally, little attempt is made to control for threats to internal
validity in non-experimental designs. Non-experimental designs are used simply to answer questions about
groups or about whether group differences exist. The conclusions drawn from non-experimental research are
primarily descriptive in nature. Any attempts to draw conclusions about causal relationships based on non-
experimental research are done so post hoc.
Non-experimental research is research that lacks the manipulation of an independent variable, random
assignment of participants to conditions or orders of conditions, or both.
In a sense, it is unfair to define this large and diverse set of approaches collectively by what they are not. But
doing so reflects the fact that most researchers in psychology consider the distinction between experimental and
non-experimental research to be an extremely important one. This distinction is because although experimental
research can provide strong evidence that changes in an independent variable cause differences in a dependent
variable, non-experimental research generally cannot. As we will see, however, this inability does not mean that
non-experimental research is less important than experimental research or inferior to it in any general sense.
Types of Non-experimental Research
Non-experimental research falls into three broad categories: single-variable research, correlational and quasi-
experimental research, and qualitative research. First, research can be non-experimental because it focuses on a
single variable rather than a statistical relationship between two variables. Although there is no widely shared
term for this kind of research, we will call it single-variable research. Milgram’s original obedience study was
non-experimental in this way. He was primarily interested in one variable—the extent to which participants
obeyed the researcher when he told them to shock the confederate—and he observed all participants performing
the same task under the same conditions. The study by Loftus and Pickrell described at the beginning of this
chapter is also a good example of single-variable research. The variable was whether participants
“remembered” having experienced mildly traumatic childhood events (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall) that
they had not actually experienced but that the research asked them about repeatedly. In this particular study,
nearly a third of the participants “remembered” at least one event. (As with Milgram’s original study, this study
inspired several later experiments on the factors that affect false memories.)
As these examples make clear, single-variable research can answer interesting and important questions. What it
cannot do, however, is answer questions about statistical relationships between variables. This detail is a point
that beginning researchers sometimes miss. Imagine, for example, a group of research methods students
interested in the relationship between children’s being the victim of bullying and the children’s self-esteem. The
first thing that is likely to occur to these researchers is to obtain a sample of middle-school students who have
been bullied and then to measure their self-esteem. But this design would be a single-variable study with self-
esteem as the only variable. Although it would tell the researchers something about the self-esteem of children
who have been bullied, it would not tell them what they really want to know, which is how the self-esteem of
children who have been bullied compares with the self-esteem of children who have not. Is it lower? Is it the
same? Could it even be higher? To answer this question, their sample would also have to include middle-school
students who have not been bullied thereby introducing another variable.
Research can also be nonexperimental because it focuses on a statistical relationship between two variables but
does not include the manipulation of an independent variable, random assignment of participants to conditions
or orders of conditions, or both. This kind of research takes two basic forms: correlational research and quasi-
experimental research. In correlational research, the researcher measures the two variables of interest with little
or no attempt to control extraneous variables and then assesses the relationship between them. A research
methods student who finds out whether each of several middle-school students has been bullied and then
measures each student’s self-esteem is conducting correlational research. In quasi-experimental research, the
researcher manipulates an independent variable but does not randomly assign participants to conditions or
orders of conditions. For example, a researcher might start an anti-bullying program (a kind of treatment) at one
school and compare the incidence of bullying at that school with the incidence at a similar school that has no
antibullying program.
The final way in which research can be non-experimental is that it can be qualitative. The types of research we
have discussed so far are all quantitative, referring to the fact that the data consist of numbers that are analyzed
using statistical techniques. In qualitative research, the data are usually nonnumerical and therefore cannot be
analyzed using statistical techniques. Rosenhan’s study of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward was
primarily qualitative. The data were the notes taken by the “pseudo patients”—the people pretending to have
heard voices—along with their hospital records. Rosenhan’s analysis consists mainly of a written description of
the experiences of the pseudo patients, supported by several concrete examples. To illustrate the hospital staff’s
tendency to “depersonalize” their patients, he noted, “Upon being admitted, I and other pseudopatients took the
initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we
were not there” (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 256). Qualitative data has a separate set of analysis tools depending on the
research question. For example, thematic analysis would focus on themes that emerge in the data or
conversation analysis would focus on the way the words were said in an interview or focus group.

Internal Validity Revisited

Recall that internal validity is the extent to which the design of a study supports the conclusion that changes in
the independent variable caused any observed differences in the dependent variable. Figure 7.1 shows how
experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational research vary in terms of internal validity. Experimental
research tends to be highest because it addresses the directionality and third-variable problems through
manipulation and the control of extraneous variables through random assignment. If the average score on the
dependent variable in an experiment differs across conditions, it is quite likely that the independent variable is
responsible for that difference. Correlational research is lowest because it fails to address either problem. If the
average score on the dependent variable differs across levels of the independent variable, it could be that the
independent variable is responsible, but there are other interpretations. In some situations, the direction of
causality could be reversed. In others, there could be a third variable that is causing differences in both the
independent and dependent variables. Quasi-experimental research is in the middle because the manipulation of
the independent variable addresses some problems, but the lack of random assignment and experimental control
fails to address others. Imagine, for example, that a researcher finds two similar schools, starts an antibullying
program in one, and then finds fewer bullying incidents in that “treatment school” than in the “control school.”
There is no directionality problem because clearly the number of bullying incidents did not determine which
school got the program. However, the lack of random assignment of children to schools could still mean that
students in the treatment school differed from students in the control school in some other way that could
explain the difference in bullying.
Figure 7.1 Internal Validity of Correlation, Quasi-Experimental, and Experimental Studies. Experiments are
generally high in internal validity, quasi-experiments lower, and correlation studies lower still.
Notice also in Figure 7.1 that there is some overlap in the internal validity of experiments, quasi-experiments,
and correlational studies. For example, a poorly designed experiment that includes many confounding variables
can be lower in internal validity than a well-designed quasi-experiment with no obvious confounding variables.
Internal validity is also only one of several validities that one might consider.

 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
There are two main approaches to a research problem - quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative
methods are used to examine the relationship between variables with the primary goal being to analyze and
represent that relationship mathematically through statistical analysis. This is the type of research approach
most commonly used in scientific research problems. Qualitative methods are chosen when the goal of the
research problem is to examine, understand and describe a phenomenon. These methods are a common choice
in social science research problems and are often used to study ideas, beliefs, human behaviors and other
research questions that do not involve studying the relationship between variables. Therefore, it is often said
that quantitative research seeks to explain and qualitative research seeks to understand.
The advantage of qualitative research is that it can be used describe how people experience an issue and allows
for the studying the "human" side of an issue. It focuses on the "perceptions" of the participants which can be
highly variable and influenced by other factors. Therefore, qualitative methods are often used to study and
identify intangible factors such as opinions, prejudices, values, cultural influences and social contexts just to
name a few.
Qualitative research methods are a robust tool for chaplaincy research questions. Similar too much of
chaplaincy clinical care, qualitative research generally works with written texts, often transcriptions of
individual interviews or focus group conversations and seeks to understand the meaning of experience in a
study sample. This article describes three common methodologies: ethnography, grounded theory, and
phenomenology. Issues to consider relating to the study sample, design, and analysis are discussed. Enhancing
the validity of the data, as well reliability and ethical issues in qualitative research are described. Qualitative
research is an accessible way for chaplains to contribute new knowledge about the sacred dimension of people's
lived experience.
Qualitative research methods are designed in a manner that they help reveal the behavior and perception of a
target audience with reference to a particular topic. There are different types of qualitative research methods
like an in-depth interview, focus groups, ethnographic research, content analysis, case study research that are
usually used.
The results of qualitative methods are more descriptive and the inferences can be drawn quite easily from the
data that is obtained.

Qualitative research methods originated in the social and behavioral sciences. Today our world is more
complicated and it is difficult to understand what people think and perceive. Qualitative research methods make
it easier to understand that as it is more communicative and descriptive.

The following are the qualitative research methods that are frequently used:

1. One-on-One Interview: Conducting in-depth interviews is one of the most common qualitative research
methods. It is a personal interview that is carried out with one respondent at a time. This is purely a
conversational method and invites opportunities to get details in depth from the respondent.

One of the advantages of this method provides great opportunity to gather precise data about what people
believe and what their motivations are. If the researcher is well experienced asking the right questions can help
him/her collect meaningful data. If they should need more information the researchers should ask such follow
up questions that will help them collect more information.

These interviews can be performed face-to-face or on phone and usually can last between half an hour to two
hours or even more. When the in-depth interview is conducted face to face it gives a better opportunity to read
the body language of the respondents and match the responses.

2. Focus groups: A focus group is also one of the commonly used qualitative research methods, used in data
collection. A focus group usually includes a limited number of respondents (6-10) from within your target
market.

The main aim of the focus group is to find answers to the why what and how questions. One advantage of focus
groups is, you don’t necessarily need to interact with the group in person. Nowadays focus groups can be sent
an online survey on various devices and responses can be collected at the click of a button.

Focus groups are an expensive method as compared to the other qualitative research methods. Typically they
are used to explain complex processes. This method is very useful when it comes to market research of new
products and testing new concepts.

3. Ethnographic research: Ethnographic research is the most in-depth observational method that studies
people in their naturally occurring environment.
This method requires the researchers to adapt to the target audiences’ environments which could be anywhere
from an organization to a city or any remote location. Here geographical constraints can be an issue while
collecting data.

This research design aims to understand the cultures, challenges, motivations, and settings that occur. Instead of
relying on interviews and discussions, you experience the natural settings first hand.

This type of research method can last from a few days to a few years, as it involves in-depth observation and
collecting data on those grounds. It’s a challenging and a time-consuming method and solely depends on the
expertise of the researcher to be able to analyze, observe and infer the data.

4. Text Analysis: Text analysis is a research method that is a bit different from other qualitative research
methods as this method uses researchers to analyze the social life by decoding the words and images from a
piece of the document or other similar forms like film, music etc.

The researcher looks at the context in which the images are used and then tries to draw inferences from the
same. In the last decade or so, content analysis through what is shared on social media and other online
platforms has become more prominent.

Researchers take into consideration the activities on social media and follow the pattern that relates to their
related topic of study. This is how data is collected in modern times. The aim of content analysis is to identify
important characteristics of the content being researched and present it in a simplified manner so that it can be
easily understood.

5. Case study research: The case study method has evolved over the past few years and developed as into a
valuable qualitative research method. As the name suggests it is used for explaining an organization or an
entity.

This type of research method is used within a number of areas like education, social sciences and similar. This
method may look difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it
involves a deep dive and thorough understanding the data collection methods and inferring the data.

 HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical research or historiography, "attempts to systematically recapture the complex nuances, the people,
meanings, events, and even ideas of the past that have influenced and shaped the present". (Berg & Lure, 2012,
p. 305 )
 Historical research relies on a wide variety of sources, both primary & secondary including unpublished
material.
 Primary Sources
 Eyewitness accounts of events
 Can be oral or written testimony
 Found in public records & legal documents, minutes of meetings, corporate records, recordings, letters,
diaries, journals, drawings.
 Located in university archives, libraries or privately run collections such as local historical society.
 Secondary Sources
 Can be oral or written
 Second hand accounts of events
  Found in textbooks, encyclopaedias, journal articles, newspapers, biographies and other media such as
films or tape recordings.

Historical research involves the following steps:

1. Identify an idea, topic or research question
2. Conduct a background literature review
3. Refine the research idea and questions
4. Determine that historical methods will be the method used
5. Identify and locate primary and secondary data sources
6. Evaluate the authenticity and accuarcy of source materials
7. Analyze the date and develop a narrative exposition of the findings. (Berg & Lune, 2012, p.311)

History usually refers simply to an account of the past of human societies. It is the study of what “can be
known…(to the historian)… through the surviving record.” Gottschalk referred to this as ‘history as record’, He
further stated that “The process of critically examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past is …
called historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is
called historiography (the writing of history)”.
Historical research has been defined as the systematic and objective location, evaluation and synthesis of
evidence in order to establish facts and draw conclusions about past events. It involves a critical inquiry of a
previous age with the aim of reconstructing a faithful representation of the past. In historical research, the
investigator studies documents and other sources that contain facts concerning the research theme with the
objective of achieving better understanding of present policies, practices, problems and institutions. An attempt
is made to examine past events or combinations of events and establish facts in order to arrive at conclusions
concerning past events or predict future events. Historical research is a type of analytical research. Its common
methodological characteristics include (i) identifying a research topic that addresses past events, (ii) review of
primary and secondary data, (iii) systematic collection and objective evaluation of data related to past
occurrences with the help of techniques of criticism for historical searches and evaluation of the information
and (iv) synthesis and explanation of findings in order to test hypotheses concerning causes, effects or trends of
these events that may help to explain present events and anticipate future events. Historical studies attempt to
provide information and understanding of past historical, legal and policy events. The historical method consists
of the techniques and guidelines by which historians use historical sources and other evidences to research and
then to write history.
THE PURPOSE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Conducting historical research in education can serve several purposes as follows:
 It enables educationists to find out solutions to contemporary problems which have their roots in the
past. i.e. it serves the purpose of bringing about reforms in education. The work of a historical researcher
sometimes sensitizes educators to unjust or misguided practices in the past which may have
unknowingly continued into the present and require reform. A historical researcher studies the past with
a detached perspective and without any ego-involvement with the past practices. Hence it could be
easier for educationists to identify misguided practices thus enabling them to bring about reforms.
 It throws light on present trends and can help in predicting future trends. If we understand how an
educationist or a group of
 educationists acted in the past, we can predict how they will act in future. Similarly, studying the past
enables a researcher to understand the factors / causes affecting present trends. In order to make such
future predictions reliable and trustworthy, the historical researcher needs to identify and clearly
describe in which ways the past differs from the present context and how the present social, economic
and political situations and policies could have an impact on the present and the future.
 It enables a researcher to re-evaluate data in relation to selected hypotheses, theories and generalizations
that are presently held about the past.
 It emphasizes and analyzes the relative importance and the effect of the various interactions in the
prevailing cultures.
 It enables us to understand how and why educational theories and practices developed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
These are as follows:
 It is not a mere accumulation of facts and data or even a portrayal of past events.
 It is a flowing, vibrant report of past events which involves an analysis and explanation of these
occurrences with the objective of recapturing the nuances, personalities and ideas that influenced these
events.
 Conducting historical research involves the process of collecting and reading the research material
collected and writing the manuscript from the data collected. The researcher often goes back-and-forth
between collecting, reading, and writing. i.e. the process of data collection and analysis are done
simultaneously are not two distinct phases of research.
 It deals with discovery of data that already exists and does not involve creation of data using structured
tools.
 It is analytical in that it uses logical induction.
 It has a variety of foci such as issues, events, movements and concepts.
 It records and evaluates the accomplishments of individuals, agencies or institutions

 MIXED RESEARCH
Mixed methods research is a methodology for conducting research that involves collecting, analysing and
integrating quantitative (e.g., experiments, surveys) and qualitative (e.g., focus groups, interviews)
research. This approach to research is used when this integration provides a better understanding of the research
problem than either of each alone.
 Quantitative data includes close-ended information such as that found to measure attitudes (e.g., rating
scales), behaviours (e.g., observation checklists), and performance instruments. The analysis of this type
of data consists of statistically analysing scores collected on instruments (e.g., questionnaires) or
checklists to answer research questions or to test hypotheses.
 Qualitative data consists of open-ended information that the researcher usually gathers through
interviews, focus groups and observations. The analysis of the qualitative data (words, text or
behaviours) typically follows the path of aggregating it into categories of information and presenting the
diversity of ideas gathered during data collection.
By mixing both quantitative and qualitative research and data, the researcher gains in breadth and depth of
understanding and corroboration, while offsetting the weaknesses inherent to using each approach by itself. One
of the most advantageous characteristics of conducting mixed methods research is the possibility of
triangulation, i.e., the use of several means (methods, data sources and researchers) to examine the same
phenomenon. Triangulation allows one to identify aspects of a phenomenon more accurately by approaching it
from different vantage points using different methods and techniques. Successful triangulation requires careful
analysis of the type of information provided by each method, including its strengths and weaknesses.
MIXED METHODS RESEARCH IS PARTICULARLY SUITED:
 When one wants to validate or corroborate the results obtained from other methods.
  When one needs to use one method to inform another method. For instance, when little is known about a
topic and it is necessary to first learn about what variables to study through qualitative research, and then
study those variables with a large sample of individuals using quantitative research.
 When one wants to continuously look at a research question from different angles, and clarify
unexpected findings and/or potential contradictions.
 When one wants to elaborate, clarify, or build on findings from other methods. For instance, if a causal
relationship has being established through experimental research but one wants to understand and
explain the causal processes involved through qualitative research.
 When one wants to develop a theory about a phenomenon of interest and then test it. Usually, qualitative
research is more suitable to build theory, while quantitative research provides a better way of testing
theories.
 When one wants to generalize findings from qualitative research.
ADVANTAGES
The use of mixed method research provides a number of advantages, namely:
Provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research. For instance,
quantitative research is weak in understanding the context or setting in which people behave, something that
qualitative research makes up for. On the other hand, qualitative research is seen as deficient because of the
potential for biased interpretations made by the researcher and the difficulty in generalizing findings to a large
group. Quantitative research does not have these weaknesses. Thus, by using both types of research, the
strengths of each approach can make up for the weaknesses of the other.
Provides a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the research problem than either quantitative or
qualitative approaches alone.
Provides an approach for developing better, more context specific instruments. For instance, by using
qualitative research it is possible to gather information about a certain topic or construct in order to develop an
instrument with greater construct validity, i.e., that measures the construct that it intends to measure.
Helps to explain findings or how causal processes work.
DISADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
Mixed method research has some disadvantages and limitations, namely:
 The research design can be very complex.
 Takes much more time and resources to plan and implement this type of research.
 It may be difficult to plan and implement one method by drawing on the findings of another.
 It may be unclear how to resolve discrepancies that arise in the interpretation of the findings.

TYPES OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH DESIGNS

When deciding what type of mixed methods design to use, it is important to take into account the overall
purpose of the research (e.g., exploration or generalization), the specific research questions, and the strengths
and weaknesses of each design.
The four major mixed methods designs are identified below and compared in terms of their purposes, strengths
and weaknesses. Examples of each design are also described.
SEQUENTIAL EXPLANATORY DESIGN
This design involves the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of
qualitative data. The priority is given to the quantitative data, and the findings are integrated during the
interpretation phase of the study.
WHEN TO USE IT?
 To help explain, interpret or contextualize quantitative findings.
 To examine in more detail unexpected results from a quantitative study.
STRENGTHS:
 Easy to implement because the steps fall into clear separate stages.
 The design is easy to describe and the results easy to report.
WEAKNESSES:
 Requires a substantial length of time to complete all data collection given the two separate phases.
Example:
The researcher collects data about people’s risk and benefit perceptions of red meat using a survey and follows
up with interviews with a few individuals who participated in the survey to learn in more detail about their
survey responses (e.g., to understand the thought process of people with low risk perceptions).
SEQUENTIAL EXPLORATORY DESIGN
In this design, qualitative data collection and analysis is followed by quantitative data collection and
analysis. The priority is given to the qualitative aspect of the study, and the findings are integrated during the
interpretation phase of the study.
WHEN TO USE IT?
 To explore a phenomenon and to expand on qualitative findings.
 To test elements of an emergent theory resulting from the qualitative research.
 To generalize qualitative findings to different samples in order to determine the distribution of a
phenomenon within a chosen population.
 To develop and test a new instrument
STRENGTHS:
 Easy to implement because the steps fall into clear, separate stages.
 The design is easy to describe and the results easy to report.

WEAKNESSES:
 Requires a substantial length of time to complete all data collection given the two separate phases.
 It may be difficult to build from the qualitative analysis to the subsequent data collection.
Example:
The researcher explores people's beliefs and knowledge regarding nutritional information by starting with in-
store interviews and then uses an analysis of the information to develop a survey instrument that is administered
later to a sample from a population.
CONCURRENT TRIANGULATION
In this design only one data collection phase is used, during which quantitative and qualitative data collection
and analysis are conducted separately yet concurrently. The findings are integrated during the interpretation
phase of the study. Usually, equal priority is given to both types of research.
WHEN TO USE IT?
 To develop a more complete understanding of a topic or phenomenon.
 To cross-validate or corroborate findings.
STRENGTHS:
 Provides well-validated and substantiated findings.
 Compared to sequential designs, data collection takes less time.
WEAKNESSES:
 Requires great effort and expertise to adequately use two separate methods at the same time.
 It can be difficult to compare the results of two analysis using data of different forms.
 It may be unclear how to resolve discrepancies that arise while comparing the results.
 Given that data collection is conducted concurrently, results of one method (e.g., interview) cannot be
integrated in the other method (e.g., survey).
Example:
The researcher uses a survey to assess people’s self-reported food safety practices and also observes those
practices in their natural environment. By comparing the two types of data, the researcher can see if there is a
match between what people think they are doing and what they are actually doing in terms of food safety
practices.
CONCURRENT NESTED
In this design only one data collection phase is used, during which a predominant method (quantitative or
qualitative) nests or embeds the other less priority method (qualitative or quantitative, respectively). This
nesting may mean that the embedded method addresses a different question than the dominant method or seeks
information from different levels. The data collected from the two methods are mixed during the analysis phase
of the project.
When to use it?
 To gain broader and in-depth perspectives on a topic.
 To offset possible weaknesses inherent to the predominant method.
STRENGTHS:
 Two types of data are collected simultaneously, reducing time and resources (e.g., number of
participants).
 Provides a study with the advantages of both quantitative and qualitative data.
WEAKNESSES:
The data needs to be transformed in some way so that both types of data can be integrated during the analysis,
which can be difficult.
Inequality between different methods may result in unequal evidence within the study, which can be a
disadvantage when interpreting the results.
Example:
The researcher collects data to assess people’s knowledge and risk perceptions about genetically modified food
by using a survey instrument that mixes qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative (closed-ended) questions, and
both forms of data are integrated and analysed.
Once a mixed methods research design has been selected, one has to decide which specific research
methods and instruments/measures should be incorporated/mixed in the research program. This decision should
be determined by the overall purpose of the research (e.g., exploration, explanation, theory-building, theory-
testing, and generalization), the specific research questions, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
research method.
REFERENCES
https://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/experimental-_research/

https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/experimental/overview

http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyc-of-research-design/n271.xml

https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/overview-of-nonexperimental-research/

https://us.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/19353_Chapter_22.pdf

https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/qualitative/overview

https://www.questionpro.com/blog/qualitative-research-methods/

https://ecu.au.libguides.com/historical-research-method

http://results.mu.ac.in/myweb_test/Research%20Methadology-Paper-3/Chapter-6.pdf

http://resourcecentre.foodrisc.org/mixed-methods-research_185.html