The main differences between the two research papers I will be discussing are; the role of the researcher; were they immersed in the situation or were they an objective observer? The form the data takes; is it informal or formal? The feasibility of replicating both these studies and the reasons for this. Was the research questions formulated in advance or after the observations and if the format of the observation was unstructured or structured prior to its collection. The main similarities I will be observing will be; that the researcher chose small-scale research studies. That they both used observation as their method of choice. That they both faced similar ethical challenges due to the fact that their research involved children. And finally I will discuss the similarities in regards to the researchers’ own backgrounds.
I will now discuss the main differences in regards to Coates’ and Takei’s research papers. Takei took an organised, formal (quantitative) approach to his research into the ways in which deaf children acquire sign language. He did this by first videoing his observations and then coding the results. To do this successfully Takei had to transcribe all the hand movements he observed during these parent-child free-play sessions and assigned them to four different categories. This information enabled him to devise an observation schedule (a formal list of the hand movements) which then informs the researcher which behaviours were to be coded. The coding involved counting the occurrence of each hand movement during the observations. He set this up in a very formal manner ensuring that by reading through his paper the method could be replicated if necessary. In comparison, Coates used much less formal (qualitative) methods during her research into the link between children’s drawings and their verbal behaviour. She did not use a pre-determined observation schedule instead, her observations took place in the shape of informal anecdotal notes which she took during her observations of the children drawing. The theory of this study could be copied, but in reality it would be much harder to replicate than the more organised methods involved in Takei’s quantitative research.
Another difference between Takei’s quantitative research and Coates’ qualitative research is that in Takei’s case he formulated his hypothesis (research question) before the research took place and this remained unchanged throughout his research. In comparison, although Coates also had a hypothesis at the start of her research she refined it at the final stage of her research and even suggested new possible research questions.
Even though Takei and Coates both used the same method (observation), the ways in which they structured their observations is evidence of the differences between Coates qualitative and Takei’s quantitative approach to research. Takei’s study took place in the homes of the children he was observing where he took the role of objective observer and not by immerse himself in the environment or influence what was being studied. His method involved video-taping the observations in order to analyse the findings at a later point. In contrast Coates’ chosen method of observation was to become immersed within the classroom environment, with the hope that by participating in the observations she would be able to get a better understanding of the links between the children’s language and drawing while she sat observing and make anecdotal notes of the language used by the children (between the ages of 3 and 7) while they were at the drawing area. She ruled out being an objective observer as she viewed video recorders to be far too disruptive in the classroom environment (Cotes, pg 23).
Now, I will consider the main similarities within Cotes’ and Takei’s research papers. The most obvious similarities between Coates and Takei’s research are that they were both small-scale research studies and that their chosen method was observation. Takei and Coates also faced similar ethical challenges due to the fact that their research involved the need to work with children. Ethical research involves ‘having a regard and a concern for the interests and needs of participants and those whom the research might have an impact.’ (Reader, Pg 19) One of the main ethical issues that both Takei and Coates were confronted with during their research was how to go about gaining permission to observe the children. Both researchers obtained permission from the adults responsible for the children’s care and well being. In Takei’s case it was the parents and in Coates’ case it was the parents and teachers.
They also both took into account the potential issue of violating the children’s right to privacy and violating the children’s space during their observations. To do this they weighed up the options of being obtrusive or becoming immersed within the observatons. Takei decided that being obtrusive was the best method for his research and used video recordings of the observations to achieve this. Coates felt that becoming immersed in her observations gave her the ability to better understand the children’s language. This was swayed by her belief that the use of a video camera could violate the children’s right to remain anonymous.
They also both considered the benefits of using naturalistic settings for the observations to take place rather than using a more experimental setting such as a formal observation room. They both felt that a formal observation room may cause the children to feel nervous and unsettled. Naturalistic observations take place when the observer ‘neither manipulated nor simulated the behaviour of those whom they were observing’. (Punch, 2005, Pg. 179) In other words, Takei or Coates did not make any changes to the environments in which their observations took place. Takei’s observations took place in the children’s own homes and Coates’ observations took place in the children’s familiar classroom setting.
Another similarity of these research papers is in the researchers backgrounds. Both the researchers were very familiar with the key issues they were observing and also the environments their observations took place in. For example; Coates had been a teacher for many years working with the same age group as her subjects and she had actually taught in the schools where her observations took place and Takei came from a background of deaf parents and because of this he was fluent in Japanese sign language.
In conclusion, after examining the similarities and the differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches to research taken by Takei and Cotes it is my opinion that both types of research are valid in their own right, and that neither approach is superior to the other. Quantitative and qualitative are both valuable methods of research and I feel that the main difference between the two is in the way the researcher has decided to record and then present their findings, this is either as numerical data as in Takei’s quantitative research or as written data as in Coates qualitative research. A research approach should be chosen by taking into account which is the most appropriate method in terms of the area to be studied, therefore in other words the research method should be determined by what the researcher is trying to find out. (Punch, 2005, p.5)
It also needs to be acknowledged that both sets of research, quantitative and qualitative can actually work together in alliance and it is possible that this alliance may result in forming a stronger set of results. I am now of the understanding that there is no 'right' way to conduct social research and that both approaches have their strengths and their weaknesses, because of this view I feel it would be a mistake for social scientists to become reliant on only one of these research methods.
Word count
1636
References
Coates, E. (2004) ‘I forgot the sky!’ Children’s stories contained within their drawings? The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Punch, K. F. (2005) An Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Fraser, et al (2004) Doing Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open
University
Takei , W. (2004) How Do Deaf Infants Attain First Signs? The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open
University.
