Search results

Observation is a neglected data collection method in higher education research. Yet observation holds out the promise of seeing what people actually do, rather than what they say they do (in interviews or surveys) or write down that they do (in documents). It may also be pursued quantitatively and/or qualitatively, using a highly structured data collection instrument or in an open-ended and flexible fashion, carried out live or using recorded material. This chapter explores the limited existing literature on the use of observation in higher education research, speculates on the reasons for its lack of use, and argues for its greater usage in the future.

We evaluated the best-available evidence for the effects of receiving business-as-usual or naturally delivered special education services in K-12 US schools. Our best-evidence synthesis of 44 empirical studies evaluated which outcome domains and disability types have been investigated and whether findings varied by the rigor of the study design and methods. Regression-based studies comparing students with educational disabilities (SWED) to students without disabilities (SWOD) yielded mostly negative associations of receiving special education with academic achievement, behavior, and long-term or other outcomes. In contrast, regression-based studies that contrasted SWED receiving special education to other SWED not receiving special education produced a pattern of estimates similar to quasi-experimental designs that contrast SWED to SWOD. The most rigorous designs utilized quasi-experimental methods that compared SWED receiving special education services with SWED not receiving special education services, and generally reported more positive than negative evidence of receiving special education services across most outcome domains. Future research that utilizes rigorous quasi-experimental methodology and appropriate comparison groups to investigate the effectiveness of special education is needed, particularly for nonachievement outcome domains.

Why does the idea of marketing generate such negative reactions from many in the academic library world? Research on the word “marketing” in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) reveals that usage of the term can be traced back to 1561 when it meant simply “to buy or sell” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2004, http://dictionary.oed.com/). As early as 1884, the meaning began to change to “bringing or sending (a commodity) to market,” which encompasses not just the selling of a product, but the “systematic study of all the factors involved in marketing a product” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2004, http://dictionary.oed.com/). Is it the idea of “selling” that offends so many in libraries? Or do some dislike the suggestion of libraries having “products” much as companies do?

In this paper, we provide a practical example of how ethnographic insight is obtained in the field. In so doing, we demonstrate multiple ways in which ethnographic approaches can be adapted during on-going research processes to develop rich and multiple emic/etic perspectives.

This paper is based upon the first author’s reflective experience of undertaking ethnographic field work. The discussion draws from a multi-method, longitudinal and adaptive ethnographic research design, which aimed to capture the process of new family identity formation in Sri Lanka.

Existing research gives us excellent insight into various methods used in contemporary ethnographic research and the kinds of insight generated by these methods. With few exceptions, these studies do not give significant insight into the specifics of the ethnographic research process and the adaption practice. Thus, we provide a practical example of how ethnographic insight is obtained in the research field.

Our discussion elaborates the ways in which we integrated multiple research methods such as participant observations, semi-structured in-depth interviews, informal sessions, Facebook interactions, adaptations of performative exercises and elicitation methods to overcome complexities in cultural, mundane and personal consumption meanings. We also discuss how closer friendships with informants emerged as a consequence of the ethnographic research adaption practice and how this influenced trust and confidence in researcher-informant relationship, presenting us with a privileged access to their everyday and personal lives.

The received wisdom underlying many guides to ethical research is that information is private, and research is consequently seen as a trespass on the private sphere. Privacy demands control; control requires consent; consent protects privacy. This is not wrong in every case, but it is over-generalised. The distorted perspective leads to some striking misinterpretations of the rights of research participants, and the duties of researchers. Privacy is not the same thing as data protection; consent is not adequate as a defence of privacy; seeking consent is not always required or appropriate. Beyond that, the misinterpretation can lead to conduct which is unethical, limiting the scope of research activity, obstructing the flow of information in a free society, and failing to recognise what researchers’ real duties are.

In the field of behavioral disabilities, systematic direct observation (SDO) has been an integral tool for describing and explaining relationships between student and teacher behavior in authentic classroom settings. However, this method of measurement can be resource-intensive and presents a series of complex decisions for investigators. The purpose of this chapter is to review a series of critical decisions investigators must make when developing SDO protocols to address their research questions. After describing each decision point and its relevance to the measurement system, we identify trends and special considerations in the field of behavioral disabilities with respect to each decision. We organize content according to deciding what to measure, deciding how to measure it, and critical steps to prevent system breakdowns. Finally, we identify avenues for research to further the impact of SDO in the field of behavioral disabilities.

The scholarly conversation about insider and outsider positionality in observational research is long, rich, and often contentious. Debates about the benefits and challenges of studying sites where researchers share insider identities with participants, in particular, have yielded insights about power, inequality, and the uniquely relational character of observational research. In this chapter, we enter this conversation by relating our experiences with outsider-ness and insider-ness while studying social movements. We draw on two ethnographic case studies of social movement organizations within higher education settings. We identify some of the challenges faced while qualitatively studying identity-based movements embedded within institutions, specifically (1) being mindful of and negotiating the impact of researcher identity and how it relates to those of the subjects; (2) determining one's level of participation within the movement being studied; and (3) securing research approval and access to data. We offer suggestions for how researchers might think through these challenges in their own work.

This chapter aims to offer a focussed critical discussion of the combination of two qualitative data-collection methods used in a longitudinal multiple case study investigating the impact of intra-European mobility on the students' linguistic and intercultural development. The participant being the main (and often the only) source of data in higher education research, this chapter will centre on the use of shadowing as a data-collection strategy and on how this offered an other-report that favoured the co-construction and negotiation of meaning between the researcher and the research participant(s) in the narrative interview. Based on our experience shadowing and interviewing undergraduate students, we will stress: (1) the advantages of combining the direct and first-hand nature of the experience of the researcher with the participants' accounts of their experiences and (2) the need to not only rely on the participants' self-report(s) but also obtain an other-report about the phenomena being studied.