Managing your

data and results

Week 7
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• The main aim of chapter 4 is to tell the story of the research in a coherent
way; this is done by presenting the data gathered and by showing how this
was done.
• The chapter has to comprise two aspects:
a) descriptions of data (what happened) and
b) interpretations of data (your interpretations, what you think was the
significance of what happened).
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• Further advice is given in the literature (Mackey & Grass, 2005: 312) to
develop this chapter, and the following questions addressing how the data
were gathered can be taken in consideration:
• “Is it clear that the choice of sample [participants] was appropriate given the
purpose of the study?
• Is it clear that the means for gathering data [instruments used] [were]
appropriate for the research question?
• Was evidence of the validity and reliability of the instruments provided in the
write-up?
• Is sufficient and detailed information provided about how, when, and where
the data were gathered?
• Was the status of the researcher made explicit in the data-gathering process?
(Was the researcher an observer? A participant? What, if any, was the
relationship of the researcher to the participants?)”.
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• Regarding to the data analysis Mackey & Grass (2005) suggest thinking
about the way the information was transcribed (in case needed) and/or
coded. For instance:
• As yourself…
…if it was necessary to transcribe the entire dataset for coding, or if it was enough
with a partial transcription.
…if your report explains how reliability checks on transcriptions and results
reported were carried out.
…if you have given details on how many transcriptions and/or hours of data were
used.
…if the transcription conventions were appropriate.
…If the report provides sample instruments, notes and/or examples used in the
appendix.
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• About the coding system, Mackey & Grass (2005) explain that researchers
have to question themselves when reporting coding:
…whether it was necessary to code the entire database, or if it was enough with a
partial sample.
…whether it is clearly reported the way the data were coded.
…whether coding guidelines were available/followed.
…whether the coding categories were clearly defined and if examples are given.
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• Respecting to the reliability and validity of the project, it is also necessary
to question whether this has been described in the chapter, Mackey &
Grass (2005) suggest thinking if…
...it was necessary to work with a critical friend/colleague to revise and organise the
data. If so, was the method used clearly reported?
...the rationale for choosing a particular method was explained.

• With respect to the way data were organised and described, Mackey &
Grass (2005) propose to ask yourself:
• Have the variables considered in the study clearly explained? Were these
appropriate for the research? That is, does the report provide enough
information so readers can determine how you analysed, organised, and
presented the data?
Chapter 4: The project (investigation).
• More specifically, Mackey & Grass (2005) add that when presenting the
data in the results section, researchers can reflect on:
• Have the data been clearly summarised and presented in the report (e.g.,
charts, appendixes, figures, tables)?
• Have descriptions and/or graphical representations of data been included
where necessary?
• Have the clearest/most effective method of presenting the data been used?
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings and
Conclusions.
• Now, to review the main aim of the chapter five it is necessary to have a
look at what Stringer (2007), Mackey & Grass (2005) and McNiff et al.
(2003) recommend:
• Summarise the outcomes of the research.
• Compare and contrast findings with perspectives presented within the
literature review chapter.
• Suggest actions to be initiated or extended, modifications of activities, or
procedures to have an impact on the situational context.
• Indicate limitations of the study and proposing ways of remediating them.
• Draw up conclusions highlighting whether the study has helped to come to an
understanding of teaching practices, has contributed to promote organisational
changes, and has been useful to the development of an educational theory.
• Locate research gaps and suggesting further research to extend the outcomes of
the study.
References
• Mackey, A., & Grass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research:
Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (2003). You and Your Action
Research Project (2nd edition). USA: Routledge Falmer.
• Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action Research. Third Edition. London: SAGE
Publications.