Research Methodology: Mutlu

924 Words4 Pages

Research Methodology
Mutlu argued that research method and methodology should be open and transparent as much as possible so that other students or scholars can learn from it. What Mutlu suggested is the pedagogical potential of learning process from failure because the scholars tend to hide their unpredicted incidents that happened during the process and to be professional. However, this kind of omission of failure and covering the process eliminate the learning opportunity for other scholars. Making methodology transparent contributes it's reproducibility.

1. Differences between quantitative method and qualitative method
One of the large characteristics of the quantitative research is that it uses numbers to analyze the data in order to …show more content…

Gerring argued about what is a case study. He defined a case study as an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to generalize across a larger set f …show more content…

Thus, it cannot totally fit into a case study that Gerring defined. When the researcher deals with data, s/he needs to care about three points, 1) validity, 2) reliability, and 3) replicability. According to Hancke, validity is about whether the concepts that the researcher defined are correctly expressed in the measurements. For instance, our project team created pre and post test that the training participants do before and after the training. The test is about 1) gender stereo types, 2) various kinds of violence and 3) understanding of peaceful communication. All questions of the test have indicators and validity so that the questions asked in the test can indicate what the project team wants to know. For instance, the question is “Men and women have equal power in the house”. The indicator is awareness of gender stereotype and validity is that this indicator helps to measure the participants' perception of gender role. Hancke illustrated an example that GDP might not be a right indicator to understand affluence of the community because some communities rely on the livelihood and have no problem with living. In this case, the validity of using GDP to understand how communities make their living

Open Document