Merriam
(2009) describes qualitative research as the process of uncovering the meaning
of a phenomenon (p. 5). Merriam (2009) expresses it’s design as desire to understand
how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds and
what meaning they attribute to their experiences. As this type of research has
spread across multiple disciplines, various approaches have been identified to
further describe this interest in understanding phenomenon. Creswell (2013)
discusses five approaches to describe and organize the different strategies and
approaches to qualitative research – ethnography, narrative, grounded theory,
case study and phenomenology. Merriam (2009) adds to this list by including
basic qualitative research and critical qualitative research. Additional
authors have added numerous approaches to this few, however, for the purposes
of this paper only two traditional approaches will be discussed; phenomenology
and case study.
Researchers choose phenomenology when it is important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon to develop practices or polices or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon. (Creswell, 2013). The phenomenological approach allows the researcher to examine a phenomenon and the meaning it holds for individuals by seeking out individual subjective views (Seidman, 2012). This is primarily done through interviewing where researchers “strive to understand a person’s experience from their point of view by studying affective, emotional and intense human experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 26).
Essentially this approach is a philosophical discussion. It relies on more than selecting a coding scheme and constant-comparative methods. The researcher must understand the some of the underlying philosophical assumptions (Lichtman, 2012). Creswell (2013) extends this to the researcher bracketing out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon, setting aside personal beliefs feelings and perceptions. Phenomenology’s approach is to “suspend all judgements about what is real until they are founded on a more certain basis” (Creswell, 2013, p. 77).
Phenomenology primarily uses interviewing to collect data on the individuals who have lived the experience. And although a several interviews may be asked on each participant, Creswell (2013) suggest two broad interviewing questions: “What have you experienced in terms of this phenomenon? What contexts or situation have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?” (p. 81). For some individuals this question may be answered with alternative methods such as documents, observations, journals, art work or other documentation, however, the process of collecting information is primarily in-depth interviews (Creswell, 2013). The intention is to gather information from several individuals, that unit of analysis, to develop descriptions of essences and not to provide explanations. These descriptions consist of what Moustakas (1994) simplifies as “what” individuals experienced and “how” they experienced it (Creswell, 2013).
The collection of data from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon culminates in a description of the essence of the phenomenon through the analysis of the data. An approach which Creswell (2013) details as “a systematic procedure that moves from the narrow units of analysis (the significant statements) to broader units (meaning units) and then the detailed descriptions that summarize what individuals have experienced and how they have experienced it” (p. 79). The result of phenomenological research is feeling like “I understand better what it is like for someone to experience that” (Merriam, 2009, p. 26).
In summary, the phenomenological approach requires the researcher to interview the individuals, ground the study in philosophical tenets of phenomenology, follow set procedures and end with the essence of the meaning. (Creswell, 2013, p. 124)
Phenomenology
Drawing from a philosophical background, phenomenology
is described by Lichtman (2012) as “a way to research the gaps in a discipline,
those areas that previously were not considered important to research” (p. 86).
The focus of phenomenology is on a phenomenon and the essence of the lived experience;
not on an individual. Creswell (2013) quotes Melau-Pony as “the researcher
transcending past knowledge and experience to understand a phenomenon at a
deeper level” (p. 331). Phenomenology is not interested in modern science’s
efforts to categorize, simplify and reduce phenomena to abstract laws (Merriam,
2009, p. 24). The intent suggested by Creswell (2013) is to describe the common
meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences with phenomenon
elicit rich and descriptive data.Researchers choose phenomenology when it is important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon to develop practices or polices or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon. (Creswell, 2013). The phenomenological approach allows the researcher to examine a phenomenon and the meaning it holds for individuals by seeking out individual subjective views (Seidman, 2012). This is primarily done through interviewing where researchers “strive to understand a person’s experience from their point of view by studying affective, emotional and intense human experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 26).
Essentially this approach is a philosophical discussion. It relies on more than selecting a coding scheme and constant-comparative methods. The researcher must understand the some of the underlying philosophical assumptions (Lichtman, 2012). Creswell (2013) extends this to the researcher bracketing out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon, setting aside personal beliefs feelings and perceptions. Phenomenology’s approach is to “suspend all judgements about what is real until they are founded on a more certain basis” (Creswell, 2013, p. 77).
Phenomenology primarily uses interviewing to collect data on the individuals who have lived the experience. And although a several interviews may be asked on each participant, Creswell (2013) suggest two broad interviewing questions: “What have you experienced in terms of this phenomenon? What contexts or situation have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?” (p. 81). For some individuals this question may be answered with alternative methods such as documents, observations, journals, art work or other documentation, however, the process of collecting information is primarily in-depth interviews (Creswell, 2013). The intention is to gather information from several individuals, that unit of analysis, to develop descriptions of essences and not to provide explanations. These descriptions consist of what Moustakas (1994) simplifies as “what” individuals experienced and “how” they experienced it (Creswell, 2013).
The collection of data from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon culminates in a description of the essence of the phenomenon through the analysis of the data. An approach which Creswell (2013) details as “a systematic procedure that moves from the narrow units of analysis (the significant statements) to broader units (meaning units) and then the detailed descriptions that summarize what individuals have experienced and how they have experienced it” (p. 79). The result of phenomenological research is feeling like “I understand better what it is like for someone to experience that” (Merriam, 2009, p. 26).
In summary, the phenomenological approach requires the researcher to interview the individuals, ground the study in philosophical tenets of phenomenology, follow set procedures and end with the essence of the meaning. (Creswell, 2013, p. 124)
Case Study
Drawing from a psychology, Creswell (2013) uses a
case study to develop and in-depth description and analysis of a case or
multiple cases with the intent to understand a specific issue, problem or
concern. Specifically, an instrumental case or cases is selected to best
illustrate the complexity of the issue and understand the problem (Creswell,
2013). Intrinsic case studies may also be used where they illustrate a unique
case that has unusual interest in and of itself and needs to be described and
detailed (Creswell, 2013). Case studies are identified by Creswell (2013) as
being “a good approach when a clearly identifiable case with boundaries has
been identified and the researcher seeks to provide an in-depth understanding
of the cases or a comparison of several cases” (p. 100).
Creswell (2013) recognizes that a case study begins
with the identification of a specific case, which can be an individual, several
individuals, a program, an event or an activity. A case can even be “limited to
a characteristic, trait or behavior” (Lichtman, 2012, p. 91). “If the
researcher has a specific entity, program, or project and the questions being
asked are involved with asking what happened when the program was developed, or
how did an individual behave then the researcher can probably do a case
study" (Lichtman, 2012, p. 93). The challenge is to study a case with
clear boundaries (Creswell, 2013)
“A good case study presents an in-depth
understanding of the case, which is accomplished through various forms of data;
relying on one source of data is not enough to develop an in-depth
understanding” (Creswell, 2013, p. 98). These multiple sources may include
documents, interviews, observations and artifacts but are not limited to one
source. The data collection process involves a wide array of procedures to
build an in-depth picture of the study, which includes contextual material to
describe the setting of each case (Creswell, 2013).
Case studies can be identified according to Merriam
(2009) as particularistic (focused on a particular even, program or
phenomenon), descriptive (the end product is a rich, thick description of the
phenomenon under study) or heuristic (brings about the discovery of new
meaning, extends the reader’s experience or confirms what is know). Creswell
(2013) further types case studies by intent: intrinsic with the focus is on the
case itself because the case presents an unusual or unique situation,
instrumental which focuses on an issue or concern and then selects one bounded
case to illustrate this issue or as multiple case where one issue or concern is
selected but the researcher selects multiple case studies to illustrate the
issue. As a result, the unit of analysis in a case study may be multiple cases
(a multi-site study) or a single case (a within-site study).
The analysis of data requires the description of the
case and themes of the case as well as cross-case themes. Creswell (2013)
recognizes the four specific formats of data analysis. Categorical aggregation
seeks a collection of instances from the data hoping that the issue-relevant
meanings will emerge, direct interpretation looks at a single instance and
draws meaning from it without looking for multiple instances, the establishment
of patterns which looks for a correspondence between two or more categories and
naturalistic generalizations which is the development of generalizations that
people can learn from the case either for themselves or to apply to a
population of cases (Creswell, 2013).
The culmination of the analysis is the development
of a detailed analysis of one or more cases where the researcher details the
history of the case, the chronology of events or a day-by-day rendering of the
activities of the case (Creswell, 2013). The researcher then focuses on a few
key issues (the analysis of themes) not for generalizing but for understanding
the complexity of the case (Creswell, 2013). When multiple cases are chosen a
typical format is to provide a detailed description of each case and themes
within the case, followed by a thematic analysis across the cases as well as
assertions of the meaning of the case. However, the final phase is the conclusion
which Creswell (2013) reports as “the meaning of the case, whether the meaning
comes from learning about the issue of the case (an instrumental case) or
learning about an unusual situation (an intrinsic case)” (p. 101). It is here
where the researcher includes a description of the case and themes/issues that
were uncovered in the study as well as general lessons learned; assertions, patterns
or explanations (Creswell, 2013).
“Case studies are particularly appealing for applied
fields of study such as education” (Merriam, 2009, p. 51). Researchers may
choose a case study for what it can reveal about a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
When a researcher needs information about the characteristics of a given
population or an area of interest, a descriptive case study is a good choice. The
results should not be used to predict behavior however insights from the
research can be construed as tentative hypotheses that help structure future
research; case studies plan an important role in advancing a field’s knowledge
base (Merriam, 2009, p. 51). Merriam (2009) states that “what researchers learn
in a particular case can be transferred to similar situations and bring about
understanding that in turn can affect and may even improve practice” (p. 51).
Case studies are intensive descriptions and
explanations, which require the analysis of a single entity, phenomenon or
social unit called a case. Researchers choose the case study approach to
examine a case, bounded in time or place and look for contextual material about
the setting of the case. They gather extensive material from multiple sources
of information to provide and in-depth picture of the case (Creswell, 201).
Researchers explore a case or cases over time though detailed, in-depth data
collection involving multiple sources of information and report a case
description and case themes (Creswell, 2013). Creswell (2013) describes the focus
of a case study as the development of an in-depth understanding of a singe case
or exploration of an issue or problem using the case as a specific illustration.
It is ultimately up to the researcher to describe the case in detail and
mentions several issues or focus on a single issue that emerged when examining
the case (Creswell, 2013).
In the end, case studies explore an issue or problem
and a detailed understanding emerges from examining a case or several cases
(Creswell, 2013). It is necessary, to use multiple data collection strategies
to collect a wide array of information about the case to provide an in-depth
picture so generalizations that can be learned from studying the case or cases
end the case study report (Creswell, 2013).
Although Creswell (2013) defines each of these
approaches as flexible there are considerable differences between the two. One difference
between the two approaches is the strategies, which are used to collect data. Phenomenology
primarily uses interviews, and several interviews per participant, with the
option of using alternate documents. A case study approach requires the use of
multiple data collection strategies and looks down upon the use of one primary
format. A second difference between the two approaches is in the area of
describing the data. Within phenomenology personal experiences are shared
through epoche, which is not seen in a case study. The case study describes the
case and its context, however, lacks in the directive to include an epoche as
described by Creswell (2013). An additional difference is the way in which the
data is interpreted for these traditional approaches. Within phenomenology a
reader will find a textural description, which describes what happened, a
structural description, which describes how the phenomenon was experienced and
a conclusion which develops the essence of the phenomena. Within a case study
there great reliance on description in direct interpretation and the
development generalizations of what was learned from the research (Creswell,
2013). A third defining difference can be found within the basic defining
factors of each approach. Phenomenology is defined by the focus of the study
while a case study is defined by the unit of analysis. Merriam (2009) points
out the fact that case studies are focused on the unit of analysis or the
bounded case while phenomenology is focused on the understanding of the essence
of the phenomena. This difference allows for some overlapping of approaches and
provides a backing for research methodologies, which combine these approaches.
Proposed Study
My proposed study is to describe middle
school students’ attitudes and self-concept towards mathematics. At stated in
previously, the mathematical attitudes are generally defined as a student’s
emotions, beliefs and behaviors towards mathematics (Hart, 1989). Mathematical
self-concept is described as a student’s perception or belief to do well in
mathematics and confidence in learning mathematics (Reyes, 1984).
Literature
has identified interventions, which include teacher support, cooperative
learning, classroom tools and technology, modeling, and self-efficacy as having
direct effects on the intrinsic motivation of students. What are factors
students identify with as influencing their attitudes? What factors influence the middle school
students’ self-concept? Is there a direct correlation between their performance
and these concepts? What are other countries doing to positively affect their
students’ attitudes and self-concept? And are these factors lacking in lower
performing countries?
Using the
phenomenological approach would require data collection primarily through
interviews. However, with the intent of interviewing students I recognize that
other forms of data are acceptable and may in actuality be preferable to a
student. This will provide for a richer and more in-depth study. Multiple data collection strategies will
help to understand “what” students
experienced and “how” they experienced it in relation their mathematical
attitudes; a phenomenological approach where I listen to students describe
their experiences, and the events which led to their attitudes. Bromley states
the importance of “getting as close to the subject of interest as possible,
partly by means of direct observation in natural settings, partly by access to
the subjective factors (thoughts, feelings, and desires)” (Merriam, 2009, p.
46).
This focus on
one phenomena, the case, helps to define an instrumental case study where important
themes can by analyzed. However, the boundries of such a case will need to be
clearly defined to gain the appropriate sampling for a case study. Creswell
(2013) suggests maximal sampling or purposefully selecting multiple cases to
show different perspectives; limiting to a maximum of fives cases. Such
sampling will allow me to look at students who have positive as well as
negative attitudes towards mathematics rather than one specific attitude with a
multi-case study.
Choosing a phenomenological
approach would allow me to understand the mathematical experience of middle
school students through their eyes. Such understanding and sharing of
experience would hopefully shed new light on educational practices and develop
a deeper understanding of the attitudes of middle school students towards mathematics
(Creswell, 2013).
As a
mathematics teacher of several years, I have developed biases and assumptions
related to students’ attitudes towards mathematics. As a result, it will be
important to bracket myself from the study, which is a necessity in a
phenomenological study. Remaining absolute and objective is never 100%
guaranteed. A case study does not require the examination of biases and
assumptions in the format of a epoche however Merriam (2009) states that this
process has become common practice for all researchers.
Despite the
fact that these two approaches have several recognizable differences, they both
have been used for educational research. Phenomena can be described using
either research approach. However, Creswell (2013) suggests that consideration
must be taken into what is needed most as contributing to the scholarly
literature in the field of education. The
possibility of overlapping a case study and a phenomenological approach has
crossed my mind as a result of this paper. I can see the usage of a textural
description to describe the students self-concept and the structural
description to describe how they experienced it to further share the overall
experience of what it is like to hate math and the lack of self-concept being
able to do it. Creswell (2013) suggests “designing a study within one of the
approaches to enhance the sophistication of the project and to convey a
methodological expertise for readers of qualitative research” (p. 279). A case
study is the chosen approach.
References
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry
and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Hart, L. E. (1989).
Describing the affective domain: Saying what we mean. In Affect and
mathematical problem solving (pp. 37-45). Springer New York.
Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative
research in education: A user's guide. Sage.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A
Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publications.
Reyes, I., H. (1984).
Affective variables and mathematics education. Elementary School Journal, 84,
558-581.
Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing
as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social
sciences. Teachers college press.
No comments:
Post a Comment