Developing a Research Method

In order to decide on a research method appropriate to your project, you must study the literature on research methodology as well as that on your topic. You need to understand the various types of research and their suitability for different circumstances. In your dissertation you will need to explain the method you have used and justify the choices you have made. The thought processes involved in developing this rationale will make the way ahead for your project much clearer.

One of the books recommended for purchase on WMG’s Research Methods book list is by David Gray (2009). In Chapter 2, Gray explains some important fundamentals including:

  • inductive and deductive reasoning;
  • research paradigms such as positivism (“the world is external and objective“) and interpretivism (“the world is socially constructed and subjective“);
  • research methodologies such as experimental research, phenomenological research, analytical surveys, action research or heuristic enquiry;
  • how to put these together within a coherent framework that also contains a timeframe and data collection methods.

In Chapter 7, Gray addresses research design based on qualitative methods. He argues that the choice of which strategy or strategies of enquiry to adopt in this approach will depend partly on the research paradigm adopted. He examines the main strategies of enquiry. He discusses various approaches to qualitative design.

An idea put forward by Gray that I find of special value is the use of a conceptual framework. Gray ascribes this idea to Miles and Hyberman (1994). He says that a conceptual framework describes in pictorial and written form “the key factors, constructs and variables being studied – and the presumed relationships amongst them“. The models that my students constructed on the whiteboard in our December tutorial [link1 and link2] were the beginnings of such a conceptual framework. Its power and usefulness lie in helping to establish a boundary for the research, to clarify what is inside and outside that boundary and the relationships which exist, and to enable unambiguous statements about the focus of the research.

Other important points made by Gray concern:

  • the unit of analysis – for example individuals, groups, organisations or communities;
  • types of qualitative data, their characteristics and how they are collected;
  • choice of sampling strategy;
  • when the data analysis processes should be planned.

These ideas merit serious thought. Time devoted to such thought delivers a big pay-back.

References

GRAY, D. E. 2009. Doing research in the real world, Sage Publications Ltd.

MILES, M. B. & HUBERMAN, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, SAGE publications, Inc.

 

Viewpoints on project risk

Krane et al. (2012) explore how “Inherent interest conflicts between a project management team and project owner are often neglected in project risk management. Risk management by the project management team basically focuses on project short-term survival, or project success toward handover to the customer, while for the project owner, strategic success should be more important.”

Reference:
KRANE, H. P., OLSSON, N. O. E. & ROLSTADÅS, A. 2012. How project manager–project owner interaction can work within and influence project risk management. Project Management Journal.

Standing orders

The four governor-committee chairs met to update terms of reference for these committees. We agreed to approach this by following DfE advice to have Standing Orders for the governing body. I volunteered to prepare a first draft of these. Ideas on what they should contain are on this page in the blog.

Leverage the greybeards

My emphasis in the quotation below from the review of project management practitioner development by Crawford et al. (2006).

From a research agenda perspective this review highlights a number of potentially important research initiatives that are needed to support the types of practitioner development initiatives discussed above. First, there is no empirical evidence that project management training of any sort (tactical or reflective) actually improves a practitioner’s capacity to manage projects. Research of this nature exploring what practitioners can get from training vs other development practices is long overdue. Second, given the demographic changes facing organisations today and discussed above, those interested in developing practitioners need to give some thought to how to do this appropriately for the different generations of workers we have today. In particular, how is tacit project management knowledge best developed and transferred and how can we leverage the ‘‘greybeards’’ before we lose them. Cultural research into how to develop a climate and reward system encouraging passing on instead of hoarding of knowledge would also be of benefit. Third, an important foundation for the development of practitioners is the development of a categorisation system for projects or project management roles that would allow training to be appropriately targeted and delivered to relevant audiences.

Reference:
CRAWFORD, L., MORRIS, P., THOMAS, J. & WINTER, M. 2006. Practitioner development: from trained technicians to reflective practitioners. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 722-733.

School inspection regime

The regime for maintained schools is explained here:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/schools/for-schools/inspecting-schools/inspecting-maintained-schools

See also the framework for school inspection from January 2012.

The school inspection handbook provides instructions and guidance for inspectors conducting inspections under section 5 of the Education Act 2005 (as amended). It sets out what inspectors must do and what schools can expect, and provides guidance for inspectors on making their judgements.

There is guidance on the use of evidence forms.

The self-evaluation form (SEF) for maintained schools has been discontinued “in line with the Government’s programme for cost efficiency and reducing bureaucracy. This does not mean that Ofsted no longer values schools’ participation in the inspection process. Self evaluation remains an important aspect of a school’s work, and inspectors will continue to welcome the evaluation of the school’s performance and consider it when making their judgements. However, there will be no set format in which to produce it. For inspections of independent or maintained schools that take place from autumn term 2011, inspectors will accept a self evaluation in any format. Schools may present their SIEF or SEF, or any update thereof, if they wish. However, schools will not be disadvantaged if they choose not to do so.” (Ofsted, 2011)