Types of Research

Some useful definitions

If you take a quick look at some of the more popular textbooks on how to do research, particularly
research in the human sciences, you will usually find an attempt to categorise research into different
broad types and groupings.

Martyn Denscombe, in his introduction to the basics of social research, The Good Research Guide,
classifies research according to its appropriateness (a) for particular kinds of investigation and (b) for
addressing particular kinds of theoretical or practical problem. He describes good research in terms of
'fitness for purpose'. He then outlines the following types of strategic approach to research:

Surveys

Surveys are also known as mapping exercises which provide an empirical snapshot of how things are
at the specific time at which the data were collected. The emphasis is on breadth of coverage and
representativeness of the population being studied in order to give credibility to any generalisations
made on the basis of the research

Case studies

Case-studies focus on one or a very limited number of instances or examples of a particular

phenomenon in order to construct an in-depth account of what happens or happened during that
instance. The emphasis here is on depth rather than breadth of study. But there is also an emphasis on
studying things as they naturally occur rather than manipulating the situation by introducing specific
changes and controlling certain variables, as in an experiment.

Internet research

Internet research is used by some social researchers because it is a fast and relatively inexpensive way
of gaining access to a wider range of sources of data than most conventional research approaches
could manage. This can include not only internet searches for existing databases and sources but also
using the internet to collect new data through e-mail and web-based enquiries and questionnaires. The
potential advantages have to be weighed against the potential problems: biased samples, lack of
quality control, difficulties in checking the provenance and trustworthiness of some of the data
available on the net, ethical issues associated with plagiarism, guaranteeing confidentiality to
providers of data, ensuring that those who contribute data have a clear understanding of what your
research is about, etc

Experiments

Experiments are where an artificial situation is created so that the multiple causes of a particular
phenomenon can be controlled by excluding some potential influences, standardising others and
allowing others to vary in order to identify the causes of an observed change. The emphasis here is on
observation and measurement of changes and effects, identifying the causal factors and controlling the
factors which might otherwise interfere in the identification of the cause and effect chain.

Action research
Action research is where practitioners in their workplace, whether they be teachers, lecturers, social
workers, nurses, doctors, public health staff, managers, etc., engage in research in order (a) to improve
their understanding of their practice and (b) to change or improve their practice in a systematic way.
The key elements here are practitioners as researchers, researching their own practice and introducing
and evaluating changes in that practice in a cyclical process of intervention (or action), evaluation of
its impact, revisions to the intervention, further evaluation, further revisions, and so on until the
practitioner is satisfied with the improvements that have been introduced.

Ethnography

Ethnography is an approach to research which was developed initially by anthropologists but is also
increasingly used by other social researchers as well. It relies heavily on participant observation by
researchers who are seeking to be partially or wholly integrated into the group, community or social
situation which they are observing. The emphasis here is on trying to understand why people do what
they do or perceive things and situations in the ways that they do through sharing their experiences to
some extent.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology focuses on how people experience facets of their everyday lives and try to make sense
of them. It requires detailed description of these experiences from the point of view of those who are
living through them; it is less concerned with collecting data to enable the researcher to interpret what
is happening and more concerned with describing how the events get interpreted by those who are
directly involved. To do this the researcher needs to approach the situation they are researching
without predispositions based on their own experience and on existing theories about the phenomenon
being studied. As an approach it can be particularly useful in trying to understand how people cope
with particular kinds of life experience: being a patient, being a student teacher, being a parent caring
for a child on the autistic spectrum, being a trainee, being a student, etc.

Grounded theory

Rather than do research to 'test' existing theories the researcher here starts out with an open (but
informed) mind. This is akin to what is sometimes called exploratory research. But the main aim of
grounded theory is to analyse the data in order to generate theories where the hypotheses, research
questions and key concepts emerge from the analysis of the data not the other way round. It shares
some common ground with ethnography and phenomenology in that it tends to be used in small-scale
social settings such as institutions, classrooms, workplaces, offices, etc. in order to describe and
understand how people perceive and interpret the situation they find themselves in and act within it.

A number of other textbooks on research design have come up with similar typologies. For example,
compare Denscombe's list with the classification proposed by Judith Bell, who omits phenomenology
and grounded theory but adds narrative inquiry, which involves the researcher in collecting people's
stories about particular experiences and concerns through conversations in which these people (the
subjects of the research) take the lead in the structuring of those conversations. Robson's classification
(1997) is shorter than those proposed by Denscombe and Bell but does include evaluation, research
which assesses the impact and effectiveness of an innovation, intervention, policy, practice or service.

The point that these authors stress is that these approaches to research are strategic. They are not
research methods. A survey is a strategy for investigating some aspect of social behaviour or living. It
could use a number of different research methods such as postal questionnaires, face-to-face
interviews, and observations.

Research paradigms
Another point which also needs to be stressed here is that the different research traditions listed above
reflect different ways of looking at social reality: the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms or
frameworks.

Positivism assumes that the world 'out there' can be apprehended directly through the systematic
application of scientific methods based on controlled, replicable and objective observation and
experiment. It is recognised that the subjectivity of the researcher and of their human subjects (their
personal concerns and values, etc) can interfere and threaten the objectivity of the observations but
positivists believe (a) that human behaviour is characterized by underlying regularities and (b) that
research methods can be designed to limit the effects of both the subjectivity of the researcher and his
or her research subjects.

Interpretivism, by contrast, argues that instead of seeing people's personal perceptions, interpretations,
judgements and values as potential forms of contamination in the research, and therefore something to
be controlled, this subjectivity should be seen as the starting point for the research. In terms of
research in education, social care and health care the interpretivist argues that you cannot just judge
the effectiveness of an intervention or change in terms of its outcomes, you also need to examine what
those outcomes mean to the people involved. That is, the interpretivist argues that you need to
understand why the intervention or policy may work as intended for some but not for others and why
some people would reject the policy or intervention on grounds other than effectiveness (i.e. rejecting
it instead on the basis of their personal values, their past experience, and so forth).

For a more detailed discussion of these two positions see Cohen, Mannion and Morrison (2002 Ch.1)
or Brechin & Siddell in Gomm & Davies (2000 Ch. 1).

Other authors and agencies have proposed quite different kinds of research classification to the
approach adopted by Denscombe. In particular they have tended to focus on the nature of the research
rather than its purpose, although in practice the boundary line between the two seems to be blurred.
This is apparent in the classification adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC).

Every four to five years the HEFC considers how research funding should be distributed among the
Universities and this is based on the research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in which panels of senior
academics drawn from different universities assess the quality of the research output from each
institution of higher education. At the last RAE, carried out in 2001, they classified academic research
according to whether it was:

 Basic research: making an original contribution to knowledge and/or making a contribution to

the development of theory.
 Strategic research: tests the generalisations and theories emerging from basic research to see if
they have any potential applications for policy or practice and to see if findings emerging in
one context might be transferable to another. This kind of research will still be of interest to
the academic community but it may also be perceived as relevant to government, professionals
working in public services, commerce and industry.
 Applied research: research which is carried out with a specific practical objective in mind such
as the development of a new process, testing a solution to a specific practical problem,
improving one's own or others' practice, etc.

In some fields and disciplines the boundary lines between these three categories have become quite
blurred. This is particularly the case in those disciplines which are also professions, such as teaching,
medicine, nursing and social work. It is also the case in those disciplines which are closely linked to
industry and commerce.
For useful discussions of these kinds of classifications, which basically emerge from perspectives on
the nature of research see HEFCE (2001) and Sharp, Peters & Howard (2002).

Do you need to be aware of these typologies in order to undertake a research project for undergraduate
and taught Masters courses. Sharp, Peters & Howard suggest that most students at these levels give
very little thought to how their research might be classified or categorised by the research community
in their discipline or field of study. They choose a topic or focus for their research; do some
background reading; think of appropriate research methodologies and then get on with it. As Judith
Bell points out in her guide for first-time researchers in education and the social sciences:

It is perfectly possible to carry out a worthwhile investigation without having detailed knowledge of
the various approaches to or styles of [educational or social scientific] research. [Bell, 2001, p.7]

However, you should check the module descriptor for your dissertation to see whether or not you are
required to demonstrate knowledge of research traditions or approaches in your research report. If
after that you are still not clear about this talk to the module leader or your supervisor and get more
details about the criteria specified in the marking scheme for assessing your dissertation.

But, as Bell goes on to point out, whilst it is possible to do worthwhile research without it, some
knowledge of different research approaches and paradigms can give useful insights into different ways
of planning an investigation, enhance your understanding of the literature and help to clarify the use of
key terms and concepts. In particular it is useful to recognise that the way in which you set about your
research will owe something to a specific research tradition which:

 has evolved over time;

 may dominate research in a particular discipline or field of study or may still be seen by many
in that discipline to be controversial;
 has its own internal logic and rationale;
 has its own strengths and weaknesses; and
 may well have developed in the way that it has because of perceived weaknesses in other
research traditions.

We will assume at this point that your course tutor or project supervisor has already presented you
with a reading list which identifies key texts on the main research approaches and paradigms in your
particular discipline or field of study; and that during the taught element of your course you will have
looked at some studies which have employed these approaches. Our concern here, following Bell, is
with how thinking about different types of research might help you with the planning of your own
project.

It is not enough simply to adopt an approach because it is widely used in your academic discipline.
You also have to ask yourself why is it so widely used? Why have so many researchers opted for this
approach and the research methods which may be associated with it?

Why is the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), regarded as the 'gold standard' in bio-medical
research? (e.g. Lawrence et al 1989) Why, for example, is it regarded as the best means of testing new
drugs?

But why do some researchers also use RCTs as a means of obtaining evidence about the effectiveness
of health and social care interventions (e.g. Shepperd et al, 1997) and why have some researchers
found that it is difficult to generalise from an RCT carried out in one context to other similar contexts?
When looking at human interactions and communications, such as between teachers and pupils or
doctors and patients or social workers and their clients, why are researchers increasingly turning to
more naturalistic and qualitative forms of research rather than the experimental paradigm or the
survey?

Why are more and more professionals, particularly in the caring and teaching professions, turning to
various forms of practitioner research, such as action research, rather than the experimental paradigm
or the large-scale survey in order to find out how various practices and processes impact on their
students, patients or clients?

There are a number of answers to these questions. Firstly, people trained in particular research
traditions have a preference for using the approaches and methods that are most commonly used in
their profession. Secondly, every research approach has its weaknesses as well as it strengths. Some of
the large-scale research methods are sometimes thought to ignore or gloss over important differences
in diverse populations. The RCT may be the ideal way of trialling a new drug or identifying the causal
factors and the effects of a particular treatment or intervention but in highly complex social settings it
is not always possible to isolate, control and manipulate each variable and factor. Thirdly, people who
use research evidence to inform their practice sometimes become disillusioned with the value of a
particular approach. The interest in practitioner research, for example, reflects a growing feeling that
research carried out by people who are outside the profession or have become distanced from it is not
always as useful to the practitioner as it might be.

Finally, we also need to keep in mind what Denscombe called 'fitness for purpose'. In the end your
decision about which research approach or paradigm to adopt will depend to a large degree on whether
or not it is appropriate for what you want to do. A lot depends on the kinds of questions for which you
want to get answers.

We will come on to the issue of designing research questions and hypotheses later in the Handbook.
At this point it is sufficient to note, as David de Vaus points out, that researchers working in the
human sciences tend to be concerned with two fundamental types of question:

 What is going on? (description)

 Why is it going on? (explanation).

Some types of research tend to focus more on explanation than description and others tend to focus
more on description than explanation. As noted earlier, the experimental tradition is primarily
concerned with measuring cause and effect, whilst the survey is mainly concerned with mapping what
is going on. But the former is not exclusively concerned with explanation and the later is not simply
descriptive. The experiment is also concerned with accurate description and measurement of effects
(i.e. what is happening) and the social researchers undertaking a survey will usually also collect data
that might help them to explain why some people are different form others in their behaviour, opinions
and views.

Also, as De Vaus says, "Good description also provokes the 'why questions'". So, for instance,
research designed to find out whether the crime rate is rising, falling or remaining stable will beg the
question 'Why is it rising, falling or remaining stable?'

So the first task for a researcher once she or he has selected a topic, theme or focus for the research is
to decide whether the questions they will be seeking answers to will require description, explanation or
both. It is important to be clear about this before you make decisions about the specific research
methods you are going to use!
The next thing you need to decide is whether you can do this most effectively through direct
observation and measurement of what people do or say they do or indirectly by trying to understand
and interpret how they perceive themselves and their lifer experiences.

Third, you need to ask yourself what your role as a researcher is going to be. Will you be the detached
observer or the participant observer, and, if you opt to be the latter, will you also be the subject of your
research as well as the researcher?

Fourth, you also need to ask yourself whether you want to learn a little about a lot or a lot about a
little. In other words, what is going to be most useful in answering the questions that interest you: a
study that provides you with a breadth of information and evidence or a study in depth.

But above all remember that you can also opt for a research design which mixes research methods
from different research traditions. That is why you are recommended to think about your research
design before you choose your specific research methods.

References

 BELL, J. (2001), Doing your Research Project, Buckingham, Open University Press
 BRECHIN, A. & SIDDELL, M. 'Ways of Knowing' in GOMM & DAVIES (2000).
 DENSCOMBE, M. (2003), The Good Research Guide, Maidenhead, Open University
Press.
 DeVAUS, D. (2001), Research Design and Social Research, London, Sage.
 GOMM, R. & DAVIES, C. (2000) Using Evidence in Health and Social Care, London,
Sage.
 HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL for ENGLAND, (1999) Assessment Panels:
criteria and working methods, RAE Circular 5/99, Bristol.
 LAWRENCE, R., FRIEDMAN, G. & DeFRIESE, G. (1989) Guide to Clinical Preventative
Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169 Interventions, Maryland, Williams &
Wilkins.
 ROBSON, C. (1993), Real World Research, Oxford, Blackwell.
 SHARP, J.A., PETERS, J. & HOWARD, K. (2002), The Management of a Student
Research Project, Aldershot, Gower.
 SHEPPERD, S., DOLL, H. & JENKINSON, C. (1997), 'Randomized controlled trials' in
Jenkinson, C. (ed) Assessment and Evaluation of Health and Medical Care: A Methods
Text, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp.6-30.