Hi All,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to submit a response and help me with my problem.  

Ultimax, unfortunately starting again is not an option, as I no longer live in the country that my thesis is based on. And your comment about reverse engineering the research design is a perfect way to describe my situation. 

It terms of some further information about my thesis so my issue can be better understood, constructivism is my chosen epistemological position, and interpretivism the theoretical perspective. The data is qualitative in nature, which is trying to ascertain the experiences associated with a particular type of employment for disabled people, in addition to the conditions that facilitate and prohibit these experiences. Data collection strategies used were focus groups and semi-structured interviews. There appears to be no research to date on the subject, hence the proposed exploratory framework. 

Elements of GT appear to fit in with the design of my study, but I have not followed all of the processes required by the approach. For this reason I have decided to stay away from GT so as not to put myself in a vulnerable position. 

In terms of research books, I have read Crotty (1998) (Foundations of Social Science Research) and Kumar (2005) (Research Methodology), to name a few, and various other sources on the Internet to try and just map what my options are. Yesterday my supervisor suggested going back to Bryman as a starting point?

Please let me know if you need any further info. 

Thanks again!
RLD

Dear All,

I appear to be having a few issues trying to identify a suitable methodology for the data I've already collected as part of my PhD. Not an ideal situation I know, trying to identify a suitable approach AFTER it's already been executed!

There does not appear to be any clear guidelines of what exactly constitutes a 'methodology' and the different variants that can sit beneath it. I believe that exploratory research (ER) is the methodology most suited to the research process I have followed to date. However, I have come across some writers who list it as a methodology, but others who label it as a 'type' of research and not a methodology!

I wanted to ask people's opinions on whether they have heard ER referred to as a methodology? Has anyone used ER as the methodology for their own PhD?

As you can imagine I am getting awfully confused and a little concerned, as my research approach does not appear to fit in with any of the other methodological approaches I have come across to date.

Any insight would be gratefully received :)

Cheers,
RLD

======= Date Modified 18 Aug 2012 03:14:57 =======
I agree - I'd use a lower case t.

People sometimes use a captial letter when referring to a particular, but you can end up with capital letters scattered all throughout the text! Which, in my opinion, looks strange and disrupts the flow of the text.

Cheers,
RLD

Thanks Mog! I just read the paper and found it really useful. It makes me want to work on my literature review on a Saturday morning! ;-)

Cheers,
RLD

*bump*

Anyone have any advice they can offer or suggest any sources that provide guidance on critiquing theoretical papers?

Cheers,
RLD

Hi Anonymous123,

A prior thread discussing similar recommendations might be of use to you:

http://www.postgraduateforum.com/threadViewer.aspx?TID=18935#repliesTop

Cheers,
RLD

======= Date Modified 26 Jul 2012 09:19:43 =======
Would people mind sharing some light on how they go about being critical with theoretical papers, as opposed to empirical papers? It appears to me that the former already have a number of criticisms highlighted by others in the field prior to me (as if I would have come up with the same responses;-)), and as mentioned by Satchi, I can't seem to find a new 'light' on papers of this sort! 

Lysethia - I hope you don't think that I'm taking over your thread? I thought that it was relevant to what we've been discussing.

Cheers,
RLD

======= Date Modified 25 Jul 2012 09:18:32 =======
Congratulations! I soooo wish I was you right now. But then there's a little (miniscule!) voice inside me saying that I'm going to miss it when it's all done and dusted...doubt it ;-)

* literature ;-)

Hi Lysethia,

Chris Hart's (1998) 'Doing a Literature Review' contains a section on critical analysis that may be of use to you? Also, I came across this website a while back that offered advice on writing critical reviews which may contain some helpful information in relation to a review of lierature:

http://writingcentre.ioe.ac.uk/guides/critical-reviews

Cheers,
RLD

Hi Whoknows,

I found an article online that may of interest to you regarding qualitative sample sizes and practices/concerns surrounding saturation:

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

Cheers,
RLD

======= Date Modified 20 Jul 2012 05:23:58 =======
Hi Whoknows,

You mention the seniority of the people you hope to interview as part of this study. By that comment, are you implying that the population size is small? 

I also conducted semi-structured interviews which lasted between 7 mins and 1.5 hours. Both of my supervisors (one comes from a qualitative stance and the other has a quantitative background) were keen for me to conduct more than the initial 30 interviews proposed. In the end I completed 43 interviews with 3 different population groups. Their reasoning behind carrying out more interviews than the initial 30 was in case someone coming from a quantitative background was present during my viva (as you probably well know, statisticians are partial to large sample sizes!). But of course issues such as the estimated population size, issues around access, etc., have to be considered as part of the methods design.

Thanks guys!

Thanks Batfink27, that's a really good point. Will definitely look into that to get some ideas on the norm approach.

Calling all social science PhD'ers - out of interest, how many chapters/words did you devote to your review of literature?

======= Date Modified 11 Jul 2012 09:46:10 =======
Hi all,

After reading Patrick Dunleavy's (2003) 'Authoring a PhD', I'm keen to adopt his 8 x 10/12,000 word chapter approach, which in my case, would look like the following: introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion x 4, and conclusion.

I have discussed this layout with my supervisor, yet they seem certain on me writing a 20,000 word review of literature chapter than the suggested 10/12,000 word limit proposed by Dunleavy. Their response was not to get too hung up on what Dunleavy has proposed.

I agree with my supervisor in that an extensive review of the literature is required, but also appreciate Dunleavy's comment in that examiners do not want to wait until the 50-100th page for the discussion of empirical data.

I just wondered whether people had any thoughts on the two approaches, and how I'd go about trying to get my supervisor to adopt Dunleavy's approach? ,-)

Cheers in advance!

RLD