Does the problem under investigation dictate the methods of investigation?

Trow (1970, p.33), in his famous response to the paper by Becker & Geer (1957, pp.28–32), argued that “the problem under investigation properly dictates the methods of investigation”. Becker & Geer (1957, p.28) proclaimed that the “most complete form of the sociological datum […] is the form in which the participant observer gathers it”, sparking an interesting debate. In this short article, we reflect on the above debate and refer to the broader question of “problems determining the methods” or “methods in search of problems” (Robson 2011). This is mainly governed by the establishment of relationships between epistemological positions and the methods available to explore that relationship (Bryman 1984, p.75; Mayer 2015, p.65).

The selection of methods is based on “what kind of information is sought, from whom, and under what circumstances” (Trow 1970, p.33). This suggests that no method is superior to other, but rather than one is more useful in some contexts (Bryman 1984, p.80). The rational approach is to understand, given your research questions and research strategy choice (Flick 2009, p.25), what methods are most suitable (Creswell 2013, pp.18–21). However, in practise, the choice of methods may well precede the choice of research problem (Robson 2011; Walker 1985).

There are several data gathering methods, available to the researcher. Using these methods the researcher seeks an understanding of the social world, through an exploration of social phenomena. Nandhakumar & Jones (1997, p.109) explored the distance-engagement relationship between data gathering methods. They argued that data gathering methods vary to the extent in which they offer opportunities for interaction between the researcher and the research phenomena. The choice of which data gathering method to use depends on many factors. Factors such as the resource availability (Robson 2011), time availability for a research study (Snape & Spencer 2003, p.47), ethical questions and ethical framework (Ellis 1995, pp.69–70; Flick 2009, pp.35–43), access to a research setting (Saunders et al. 2008, pp.168–174), should always be taken into consideration before the commencing of a study. The debate about these methods is meant simply to draw attention on what the researcher needs to consider, if there is a genuine opportunity to use any method in a study.

Furthermore, the debate about the choice between different types of qualitative research methods broadens to touch basis on the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research methods (Bryman 1984, pp.80–90; Nandhakumar & Jones 1997, p.122). Recent discussions around the choice of data gathering methods have made reference to knowledge bases and the underlying epistemological positions that the methods are linked to (Bryman 1984, pp.80–84; Mayer 2015, p.65). Some scholars argued that qualitative methods are sensitive to the complexity of social phenomena, where the relationship, the researcher builds with his subjects, yields rich data (Chism et al. 2008, pp.16–21; Mason 2002, pp.51–60; Snape & Spencer 2003, pp.26–38; Thomas 2010, pp.300–309). However, sometimes researchers get too involved with their subjects, and are unable to take a step back and critically reflect on the data.

Reflecting on “the problem under investigation properly dictates the methods of investigation” (Trow 1970, p.33), we conclude that some problems require certain methods to be understood, with a proper research design (Creswell 2013, pp.18–21). Several methods have both advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of such methods depends on many factors and should be made in accordance of how suitable they are to research certain phenomena. It is important to keep in mind what the end achievement should be without compromising objectivity (Gaukroger 2012, pp.54–56). One method can never be superior from another, but could be more useful in a certain context; it is important to draw attention from multiple factors when deciding on the choice of data gathering methods.

References:

Becker, H. & Geer, B., 1957. Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Comparison. Human Organization, 16(3), pp.28–32.

Bryman, A., 1984. The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), pp.75–92.

Chism, N.V.N., Douglas, E. & Hilson, W.J., 2008. Qualitative Research Basics: A Guide for Engineering Educators. Engineering Education, pp.1–65.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 4th Edition

Ellis, C., 1995. Emotional and Ethical Quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(1), pp.68–98.

Flick, U., 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage, 4th, p.529.

Gaukroger, S., 2012. Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative Researching 2nd editio., SAGE Publications.

Mayer, I., 2015. Qualitative Research with a Focus on Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 4(9), pp.53–67.

Nandhakumar, J. & Jones, M., 1997. Too close for comfort? Distance and engagement in interpretive information systems research. Information Systems Journal, 7(2), pp.109–131.

Robson, C., 2011. Real world research. Edition. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, pp.1–608.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2008. Research Methods for Business Students,

Snape, D. & Spencer, L., 2003. The Foundations of Qualitative Research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, pp.2–10.

Thomas, P.., 2010. Research Methodology and Design. Research Methodology and Design, pp.291–334.

Trow, M., 1970. Comment on “Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Comparison.” Qualitative Research, pp.143–149.

Walker, R., 1985. Doing research: A handbook for teachers, London, Metheun.