Oleh Eddy Satriya
Menarik sekali menyimak pernyataan Rektor Universitas Indonesia (UI) Usman Chatib Warsa tentang minimnya kehadiran dosen utama dalam program kuliah Strata Satu (S-1) di universitas terkemuka tersebut. Dosen utama yang dimaksudkan adalah dosen berpengalaman yang memiliki tambahan gelar akademik S-2 dan S-3, termasuk para guru besar.
Sang Rektor menyatakan bahwa masalah ekonomi, yaitu kurangnya gaji yang diterima dosen dari pemerintah merupakan penyebab utama, di samping masih belum seimbangnya rasio dosen dan mahasiswa.
Kekurangan gaji akhirnya ditutupi dengan mengajar atau bahkan juga terlibat dalam pelaksanaan proyek di berbagai perguruan tinggi lain. Padatnya jadwal tambahan mengakibatkan dosen bersangkutan mengalami kesulitan dalam membagi waktunya untuk mahasiswa UI sendiri.
Walaupun minimnya kehadiran dosen utama tidak terjadi pada seluruh fakultas, pengakuan jujur oleh rektor yang baru terpilih ini tentu saja mencuatkan keprihatinan yang mendalam bagi kita semua. Keprihatinan yang patut dan wajar karena kondisi ini ternyata masih saja berlangsung di saat berbagai krisis masih bercokol di bumi Indonesia. Sementara era globalisasi dan perubahan tatanan ekonomi baru dunia dewasa ini semakin menuntut sumber daya manusia (SDM) Indonesia yang berdaya saing tinggi.
Bagi sebagian rakyat Indonesia yang pernah beruntung mendapat kesempatan sekolah ataupun menjalani pelatihan di luar negeri, terutama di negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat (AS), tentulah dapat merasakan perbedaan dosen di sana dengan dosen di Tanah Air dalam menjalankan tugasnya.
Mereka memang lebih mampu membagi waktunya untuk tugas mengajar, menghadiri konferensi, tugas administrasi, tugas penelitian serta tugas-tugas lain di negara bagian dimana universitas tersebut berada. Sudah menjadi kebiasaan dosen di AS untuk memampangkan sebuah board yang berisikan informasi tentang telepon dan e-mail dosen bersangkutan guna kemudahan komunikasi serta informasi jam kerja atau office hour di pintu kamarnya.
Jam kerja tersebut tidak saja memuat jadwal kuliah dan praktikum untuk semester berjalan, tetapi juga memuat slot waktunya yang disediakan untuk mahasiswanya. Di atas segalanya, jadwal atau janji yang sudah disepakati biasanya ditepati sang dosen dengan kehadiran kadang-kadang di atas 100 persen.
Jika sang dosen berhalangan, biasanya ia akan berusaha memberitahukan jauh-jauh hari. Tidak jarang mahasiswa menerima telepon bernada minta maaf dari seorang dosen yang karena berhalangan mendadak terpaksa harus membatalkan janji. Saya pribadi pernah mengalami hal tersebut.
Membicarakan perbedaan antara dosen di AS dengan koleganya di Indonesia pada saat-saat sekarang ini untuk sebagian orang mungkin tidak relevan, tidak populer atau bisa dianggap mengada-ada. Namun pengakuan jujur dari rektor baru UI itu dalam upaya memajukan universitasnya dan mewujudkan misi akademiknya di era otonomi kampus, tentu saja merupakan suatu moment yang sangat penting dan perlu ditindaklanjuti. Ada beberapa alasan untuk itu.
Pertama, permasalahan mangkirnya dosen utama dari tugasnya jarang ditindaklanjuti secara nyata. Kasus ini bukanlah masalah UI semata, tapi juga terjadi di berbagai perguruan tinggi negeri (PTN) terkemuka.
Dengan menyebutkan alasan ekonomi, secara implisit Rektor UI telah mengakui terjadinya penyalahgunaan waktu oleh oknum dosen utama atau dosen senior untuk menutupi kekurangan gajinya. Jika tidak ditangani secara serius dan bertahap tentulah hal ini akan dapat menghambat program reformasi di perguruan tinggi. Kedua, dosen senior dengan jam terbang tinggi biasanya mahir menyampaikan informasi yang sangat dibutuhkan untuk membuka wawasan mahasiswa yang kadang-kadang menjadi lebih penting ketimbang bahan kuliah semata.
Seorang teman dekat saya yang lulusan Planologi ITB, pernah menyatakan kekagumannya kepada salah seorang profesornya. Sedikit berlebihan, ia berkomentar bahwa dengan sekali saja menghadiri kuliah sang profesor tersebut, ia merasa sudah mendapatkan pengetahuan luas yang bisa merangkum berbagai bahan kuliah yang diperoleh selama dua sampai tiga tahun di ITB.
Pengalaman saya menjadi dosen tamu di UI dan beberapa PTS di Jakarta menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa kita memang sebaiknya dibekali dengan berbagai perkembangan aktual yang terjadi di masyarakat dan dunia usaha. Selain itu, sudah selayaknya universitas memberikan perkuliahan yang berkualitas dan tertib administrasi, mengingat mahasiswa di era reformasi ini membayar biaya pendidikan relatif lebih mahal dibandingkan zaman Orde Baru.
Terlebih lagi berbagai insentif, fasilitas dan tunjangan untuk mahasiswa seperti bea siswa, keringanan biaya kuliah (SPP), asrama yang bersubsidi, tunjangan percepatan kelulusan dan kredit mahasiswa (KMI) sudah semakin berkurang. Fasilitas tertentu malah telah dihilangkan karena alasan yang kadang-kadang tidak masuk akal.
Terakhir, proses seleksi mahasiswa baru khususnya untuk program S-1 yang konsisten dilaksanakan sejak tahun 1970-an melalui SKALU, PP I, Sipenmaru dan lain-lain, harus diakui telah mampu manjaring calon-calon mahasiswa terbaik di republik ini. Alangkah sia-sianya jika bibit yang bagus tertanam di tanah yang gersang.
Sebenarnya disamping alasan untuk mencukupi kekurangan gaji dan belum optimalnya rasio dosen-mahasiswa, tentu masih ada beberapa alasan lain yang menjadi penyebab mangkirnya oknum dosen senior dari ruang kuliah. Salah satunya adalah menjadi birokrat pada waktu yang bersamaan.
Tatkala sudah memasuki zona birokrasi di negeri yang berperingkat ”sangat meyakinkan” dalam hal korupsi, masalah ini tentu menjadi semakin serius dan memprihatinkan. Sayangnya kondisi ini terlupakan seiring hiruk pikuk berbagai persoalan bangsa terutama sejak memasuki era reformasi dan sejak dimulainya tahap inisiasi pelaksanaan otonomi daerah. Padahal mantan Presiden Abdurrahman Wahid secara gamblang sudah mengingatkan bahwa, ”Banyak Profesor dan Doktor Menjadi Maling.”
Jika dilihat kembali ke masa awal orde baru berkuasa, memang banyak dosen utama yang diminta membantu pelaksanaan tugas pemerintah. Hal ini bisa dipahami karena pada masa itu jumlah SDM dengan kemampuan akademik dan intelektual yang memadai memang masih terbatas.
Ada nama-nama besar seperti Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, Widjojo Nitisastro, Sumarlin, dan Emil Salim yang pernah menduduki berbagai jabatan penting terutama di bidang ekonomi seperti Menteri Keuangan, Kepala Bappenas dan Menko Ekuin.
Namun jika diamati lebih saksama di masa-masa akhir berkuasanya Presiden Suharto, jumlah dosen, termasuk yang belum senior, yang menduduki jabatan di birokrasi pemerintah masih relatif besar. Para dosen ini bukan saja menduduki jabatan politis menjadi pejabat negara seperti Menteri,
Gubernur, dan pimpinan di berbagai Departemen dan Lembaga Pemerintah Non Departemen (LPND) tetapi juga menduduki jabatan-jabatan struktural yang seyogianya diperuntukan bagi pejabat karier.
Jumlah ini hanya mungkin dapat disaingi oleh aparat militer yang berdwifungsi dan menduduki jabatan serupa di birokrasi. Ironisnya hal ini terus berlangsung sampai sekarang, malah semakin menjadi-jadi seiring dengan banyaknya tambahan Departemen dan LPND baru. Sementara TNI, di sisi lain, sudah mulai mereposisi diri.
Tentu wajar saja kalau timbul pertanyaan. Apakah SDM di Departemen dan LPND saat ini memang tidak berkualitas dan sama kondisinya dengan 30 tahun lalu? Atau bahkan lebih buruk? Presiden Megawati pernah menyebut birokrasinya sebagai birokrasi ”keranjang sampah”.
Patut kiranya menjadi pengetahuan kita bahwa sejak 1980-an telah cukup banyak dana yang digunakan untuk membiayai pengiriman pegawai negeri sipil (PNS) melanjutkan pendidikannya ke jenjang yang lebih tinggi, yaitu S-2 dan S-3, baik di dalam maupun di luar negeri.
Biaya tersebut umumnya berasal dari pinjaman luar negeri yang jika dijumlahkan dari berbagai sumber bisa mencapai ratusan juta dollar. Tidak terhitung pula PNS yang memperoleh beasiswa dari berbagai lembaga atau foundation internasional lainnya. Perlu pula diingat bahwa biasanya selama bersekolah, gaji PNS tetap dibayarkan oleh negara.
Apakah mereka memang tidak berkualitas atau tidak memperoleh kesempatan sehingga pantas mengisi birokrasi ”keranjang sampah”? Wallahualam. Yang pasti hampir 90 % dari mereka yang disekolahkan tersebut adalah putera puteri bangsa terpilih yang lulus saringan SKALU, PP I dan Sipenmaru.
Dosen yang memasuki birokrasi biasanya akan mengalami ”cultural shock”. Pengalaman yang diperoleh selama mengerjakan proyek-proyek pemerintah di berbagai lembaga penelitian dan konsultan di kampus tidak pernah cukup untuk menghadapi masalah dan tantangan birokrasi yang luar biasa kompleksnya.
Di samping substansi dan teknis, pejabat sehari-harinya juga harus memikirkan masalah manajemen, keuangan, administrasi, kepegawaian, organisasi dan keproyekan. Tugas berat ini tentu saja menuntut dedikasi dan jam terbang tinggi mengingat pelaksanaan reinventing government masih jauh dari memuaskan. Sayangnya hal ini sering dipungkiri dan terkadang di anggap sepele.
Hal terberat akan dihadapi manakala sang dosen berurusan dengan keproyekan. Inilah yang menjadi pusat keprihatinan kita. Pekerjaan management proyek yang meliputi proses penyusunan Daftar Usulan Proyek (DUP), Satuan-2, Satuan-3, pembahasan Daftar Isian Proyek (DIP), revisi serta monitoring pelaksanaannya sangatlah kompleks.
Terkadang pekerjaan ini, khususnya pembahasan DIP di Departemen Keuangan, untuk sebagian orang bisa dikategorikan intellectually harassing. Kemuliaan intelektual yang begitu tinggi dan idealisme yang dimiliki di kampus harus berhadapan dengan permainan ”mark up”, ”kongkalingkong”, nepotisme, intrik dan berbagai bentuk praktik suap menyuap yang sering disingkat dengan KKN yang terkenal itu.
Idealisme tinggi yang biasanya masih terpelihara dan mengkristal dalam sanubari sang dosen pelan-pelan akan ikut lebur, meleleh, mencair dan menguap setelah masuk ”sarang penyamun”. Tekanan keproyekan kadang bukan hanya datang dari bawah dan samping, tetapi juga dari atas. Baik dalam suatu kantor, maupun dari kantor pemerintah lainnya. Hal yang memang kerap terjadi di masa Presiden Gus Dur dan Megawati yang sarat dengan muatan politik partai.
Seiring dengan jabatan di pemerintahan, berbagai jabatan susulan juga akan bermunculan. Yang paling sering adalah tawaran menjadi komisaris di puluhan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) atau perusahaan swasta. Menjadi komisaris, biasanya sang dosen akan terbuai dengan berbagai fasilitas yang memang ”enak tenan” yang bisa melupakan mahasiswa atau rencana untuk menerbitkan buku teks kuliah. Terkadang jabatan komisaris terasa dipaksakan.
Sebagai contoh, seorang profesor ahli pertanian yang menduduki jabatan setingkat direktur atau direktur jenderal bisa saja menduduki jabatan komisaris suatu perusahaan di bidang jasa yang tidak ada kaitannya sama sekali dengan dengan pertanian. Jam terbang? Itu bisa diatur.
Di zaman orde baru, di saat proses privatisasi dan restrukturisasi yang dimotori Bank Dunia melanda banyak BUMN vital, banyak pula direksi BUMN secara cerdik berhasil ”mendudukkan” sang dosen, yang juga pejabat yang berwenang di sektor terkait, menjadi komisaris BUMN yang dipimpinnya. Taktis memang, karena akan memuluskan urusan direksi disatu sisi, tapi biasanya meninggalkan banyak pemasalahan dengan bawahan sang komisaris di sisi lain.
Sebenarnya ada pekerjaan lain yang berpotensi menyita waktu dosen dan membuatnya mangkir dari tugas. Antara lain sebagai peneliti yang mengerjakan proyek di lembaga penelitian yang ada dilingkungan universitas maupun di luar, dan yang sekarang sedang ”naik daun” adalah menjadi presenter dan pembicara di berbagai acara talk show.
Namun dibandingkan dengan menjadi birokrat, pekerjaan jenis ini tidak terlalu berpotensi KKN dan terkadang memang diperlukan untuk kematangan diri. Namun ketatnya jadwal atau buruknya time management terkadang membuat mereka kurang konsentrasi dan terpaksa mangkir dari tugasnya.
Dengan berbagai kesibukan sang dosen di luar kampus, tidak heran banyak mahasiswa saat ini terlihat bolak balik ke kantor pemerintah untuk berkonsultasi. Bahkan tidak jarang pula mahasiswa terpaksa kuliah di kantor pemerintah tempat sang dosen menjabat. Di pihak lain, dosen utama atau profesor yang berhasil menulis buku atau menerbitkan artikel di jurnal tingkat nasional apalagi internasional selama menjabat di birokrasi, bisa dihitung jari.
Keprihatinan Rektor UI tentang minimnya kehadiran dosen utama di universitasnya tentu juga menjadi keprihatinan rektor-rektor PTN dan PTS lainnya di seluruh Indonesia serta keprihatinan kita semua yang sangat ingin pendidikan tinggi di Indonesia maju secara lebih berarti.
Tulisan ini bertujuan hanyalah untuk menggugah rasa keprihatinan itu untuk kemudian ditindaklanjutinya secara bijak. Tidak lebih tidak kurang.
Mengharapkan regulasi maupun aturan tertulis dari PTN dan berbagai instansi terkait dalam situasi sekarang ini, tentulah akan memakan waktu dan menunda proses perbaikan bangsa. Karenanya menjadi penting sekali mewujudkan kesadaran di dalam hati kita untuk bertindak profesional di dalam tugas, memulai budaya malu KKN dalam arti sebenarnya serta tepo seliro terhadap 40-an juta penganggur terdidik dan tidak terdidik yang juga harus menghidupi keluarganya. Namun, kita tentulah tidak melupakan bahwa masih banyak dosen utama yang sangat menjunjung tinggi profesinya. Salut untuk mereka.
Sebagai penutup, tidak ada salahnya kita simak pertanyaan dari salah seorang profesor ITB yang saya jumpai dalam satu seminar di Bandung beberapa tahun lalu. Beliau menanyakan tentang perbedaan profesor (dosen), peneliti dan birokrat.
Seperti biasa, profesor yang sudah cukup sepuh tidak akan sabar untuk menasihati kita dan tidak perlu menunggu jawaban. Pertanyaan itupun dijawabnya sendiri. Pelan meluncur dari bibirnya, ”Dalam tugasnya, profesor tidak boleh salah dan tidak boleh bohong. Peneliti boleh salah, tetapi tetap tidak boleh bohong. Sedangkan birokrat, boleh salah, boleh bohong!”.
Astaga! Nah, bagaimana jika guru besar menjadi politisi?
Penulis adalah dosen tamu Program Magister Teknologi Informasi di Fasilkom-UI,
tinggal di Sawangan, Depok.
Selasa, 02 September 2008
Dosen, Peneliti, dan Birokrat
Diposting oleh Ristu hasriandi Khoo di 14.34 0 komentar
Label: About Research
Minggu, 24 Agustus 2008
SEKILAS TENTANG METODOLOGI RISET
| (Dihin Septyanto, SE, ME)
I. Latar Belakang Penelitian Pada bagian ini minimal memperhatikan 2 hal penting, yaitu :
Identifikasi Masalah, yaitu temuan-temuan yang dapat diteliti, pada umumnya merupakan "ekstrak" dari latar belakang masalah. Dalam mengidentifikasi masalah, perlu dibedakan mana yang merupakan akar permasalahan dan bedanya dengan gejala dari suatu permasalahan. Kadang-kadang apa yang kita anggap sebagai masalah itu sebenarnya hanyalah merupakan gejalanya saja. Misalnya dalam suatu ruangan ternyata gelap, lampu tidak menyala. Jadi kegelapan dan lampu tidak menyala itu hanyalah gejala dari suatu masalah. Ternyata gelap dan lampu mati itu disebabkan oleh bohlamnya mati/ putus aliran listriknya. Jadi bohlam mati itu merupakan akar permasalahan yang menyebabkan timbulnya kegelapan, sehingga kita dapat mencari solusi untuk memecahkan permasalahan tersebut. Dalam proses mengidentifikasi masalah perlu diperhatikan beberapa hal, yaitu :
Batasan Masalah Untuk menyederhanakan riset, tetapi menjadi fokus dan efisien, maka masalah tersebut perlu dibatasi. Dalam paper di jurnal, hal tersebut tidak menjadi keharusan, karena dari latar belakang berupa survey literatur telah diidentifikasi masalahnya
II. Perumusan Masalah Rumusan masalah dapat ditulis dengan kalimat tanya, bisa satu masalah, dua masalah dan seterusnya. Kriteria masalah dalam penelitian yang baik adalah :
III. Hipotesa
V. Kerangka penelitian
VI. Teknik Pengumpulan Data dan Pengambilan Sampel Pada suatu penelitian pada umumnya observasi atau eksperimentasi dilakukan tidak terhadap populasi, melainkan dilakukan terhadap sampel. Oleh karena itu, persyaratan tahap sampling harus dipenuhi agar generalisasi dapat menjadi maksimal. Beberapa persyaratan tersebut antara lain :
Teknik Sampling Cara pengambilan sampel dari populasi secara garis besar dibedakan menjadi dua cara, yaitu random sampling (probability sampling) dan non-random sampling (non-probability sampling). Random sampling adalah tiap unit atau individu dalam populasi mempunyai kesempatan yang sama untuk menjadi sampel. Random sampling merupakan asumsi pemakaian statistik inferensial atau induktif. Pada non-random sampling, tiap unit atau individu dalam populasi tidak mempunyai kesempatan yang sama untuk menjadi sampel. Beberapa metode random sampling :
VII. Uji kualitas Data.
VIII. Metode Analisis
IX. Kuesioner Sebagai Alat Pengumpul Data
BAGAIMANA MEMULAI RISET ? Cara I. Cara II. Cara III.
Referensi : 1. Uma Sekaran, Research Method for Business-A Skill Building Approach,4th ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, USA, 2003. 2. Asep Hermawan, Penelitian Bisnis - Paradigma Kuantitatif, PT. Grasindo, 3. Ronny Kountur, D.M.S., Ph.D, Menguasai Riset Pemasaran, Ppm Manajemen, 4. Program Pascasarjana UIEU, Pedoman Penyusunan Tesis, |
http://www.indonusa.ac.id/newsite/pascasites/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159%3Asekilas-tentang-metodologi-riset&catid=57%3Aartikel&Itemid=80 24/08/08 22:08 PM WIB
Diposting oleh Eddy Syahrizal di 22.07 0 komentar
Kamis, 21 Agustus 2008
Models of Research Methods (and supporting information)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/ATPSMPA/researchmethodmodels.htm 21/08/08 06:52 AM WIB
Books, manuals and guides to research methods and evaluation http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/books.htm
Resources for Research Methods and Evaluation, multiple sites to scroll through http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/
Social Science Information System based at the University of Amsterdam http://www.sociosite.net/index.php
Large list of social science research resources, Scroll down to the list of resources starting with "Sociosite" http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Sociology/
Recommended Research Books on Methods http://research.mlanet.org/resbib.html
DocsCite (cite govt. documents using APA and MLA formats) http://www.asu.edu/lib/hayden/govdocs/docscite/docscite.htm
Graphics Tutorial: Click here to view power point presentation about graphics
A Method for Evaluating & Selecting Data Mining Software http://www.insight.nau.edu/downloads/hicss%20paper.pdf
Survey Research
Survey research method key definitions http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/survey.htm
Designing Public Opinion Surveys: Tutorial Click here to view powerpoint presentation
Pew Research Center: Information in the public interest http://pewresearch.org/
Survey Constructionhttp://www.apssa.uiuc.edu/content/conducting_surveys/conducting_surveys.html
University of Michigan Survey Research Center (sample projects) http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/projects.html
Why select the survey method? http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survey.htm
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (surveys of Higher Education) http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/freshman.html
Conducting Surveys http://www.managementhelp.org/commskls/surveys/surveys.htm
A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr03-857/chapt5.htm
Southern Opinion Research http://www.southernopinion.com/surveyresearch/surveyresearch.html
Georgia State Poll Phone Survey http://aysps.gsu.edu/srp/georgiastatepoll/index.htm
Annotated Survey Research Bibliography http://www.bettycjung.net/Surveys.htm
Professor's survey method opens 'windows of consciousness' http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=111
Comparing Probability and Nonprobability Survey Sample Surveys http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/research/survey_quality_project_files/AAPORPresentation2005.pdf
Focus Groups
Focus group method key definitions http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/focusgroups.htm
Focus Group Research in American Politics http://www.pollingreport.com/focus.htm
Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/aggressive/aggressive%20capital%20beltway/introduction.html
Veterans Benefits Administration--Refreshments for Focus Groups http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/304718.htm
The Use & Misuse of Focus Groups http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html
Conducting Focus Groups http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/focusgrp/focusgrp.htm
Focus Groups Tips for Beginners http://www-tcall.tamu.edu/orp/orp1.htm
Types of Focus Groups http://www.focus-research.com/methods.htm
On-line Focus Group Software http://www.gmi-mr.com/net-mr/online-focus-groups.phtml
Case Studies
Case Studies in Science (really good site) http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/teaching/teaching.html
Case Study Method Term Definitions http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/cases.htm
Basics of Developing Case Studies & Samples http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/casestdy.htm
Case Study Texts http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/case.htm
Introduction to Case Study http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
Assessing Student Learning and Skills Using the Case Study Method http://www.cecc.com.au/programs/resource_manager/accounts/jnbit/Issue5Paper4.pdf
The Case Study as Research Method http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/%7Essoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr03-857/chapt6.htm
Analysis of State Efforts to Mitigate Regulatory Burdens on Small Businesses http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs219tot.pdf
Research Design Tasks in Case Study Methods http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bennetta/RESDES.htm
Process Tracing in Case Study Research http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bennetta/PROTCG.htm
Case Study Methods and Research on the Democratic Peace http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bennetta/APSA97.htm
Content Analysis
Content analysis method key definitions http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/content.htm
A Media Performance Analysis of the Community-Wide Education and Information Service Initiative http://www.bee.net/panthony/research/ProspMeth3.html
Content Analysis: Annotated Bibliography http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/pop2f.cfm
Secondary Data Analysis
Secondary Analysis of the NESARC and NSPY Datasets http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-05-005.html
Unobtrusive research http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/unobtrus.htm
Grounded Theory Method
Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html
The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the Grounded Theory Method http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
References on Grounded Theory http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/grndrefs.htm
Introduction to Grounded Theory http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm
Developing Grounded Theory: Qualitative Analysis for Hard-Nosed Researchers http://www.langrust.com/grounded.htm
Using Grounded Theory in Nursing (book order form) http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=14067
Grounded Theory Research Design ~ Royal Windsor Society of Nurse Researchers http://www.research-nurses.com/grounded_theory_research_design.html
Sororities at Kenyon:Grounded Theory http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/WMNS/Projects/Wmns331/Methods/gtheory.htm
The use of a co-operative student model of learner characteristics to configure a multimedia application http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqtb/Contents.htm
Scanning the business environment for information: a grounded theory approach http://informationr.net/ir/2-4/paper21.html
Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Grounded Theory and Grounded Action http://home.mindspring.com/~tagregory/id3.html
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD AND ACCOUNTING RESEARCH http://aweb.bham.ac.uk//EAA/eaa97/abstracts/LYE.HTM and http://aaahq.org/abo/reporter/summer95/siegel.htm
Ethnography
Ethnographic research method key definitions http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/ethno.htm
GIS and Human-centered Systems Design: Using Ethnographic Data Collection and Analysis Methods to Design a Utility Permitting Support System http://www.urisa.org/Journal/Vol15No2/Ellis.pdf
REFLECTIONS Ethnographic Content Analysis http://www.public.asu.edu/~atdla/ethnographiccontentanalysis.pdf
Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica: An Ethnographic Study http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm
Exploring the Future of the Digital Divide Through Ethnographic Furtures Research http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/mitchell/index.html
Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html
Participatory Action Research
Not to be confused with participant observation http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/particip.htm
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING http://www.interweb-tech.com/nsmnet/docs/sohng.htm
Participatory Action Research: From Within and Beyond Prison Bars http://www.wnmu.org/gap/fine.htm
Responsible Research with Communities: Participatory Research in Primary Care http://napcrg.org/responsibleresearch.pdf
References on Action Research http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/action.htm
Advocacy Research
Community Toolbox (very useful site with examples and manuals) http://ctb.ku.edu/tools/tk/en/tools_tk_10.jsp
USA Freedom Corps and the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/newsroom/announcements_dynamic.asp?ID=1201
Mixed Mode
Toward a Public Lane on the Information Superhighway:
A Media Performance Analysis of the Community-Wide Education and Information Service Initiative
http://www.bee.net/panthony/research/ProspMeth2.html
Diposting oleh Eddy Syahrizal di 06.53 1 komentar
Label: About Research
Research Methods: Qualitative and Ethnographic
http://www.answers.com/topic/research-methods-qualitative-and-ethnographic 21/08/08 06:44 AM WIB
A qualitative approach to research generally involves the researcher in contact with participants in their natural setting to answer questions related to how the participants make sense of their lives. Qualitative researchers may observe the participants and conduct formal and informal interviews to further an understanding of what is going on in the setting from the point of view of those involved in the study. Ethnographic research shares these qualitative traits, but ethnographers more specifically seek understanding of what participants do to create the culture in which they live, and how the culture develops over time. This article further explores what it means to conduct qualitative and ethnographic research by looking at them historically and then by describing key characteristics of these approaches.
The Context in Education
Qualitative and ethnographic research developed in education in the late 1970s. Ethnographic researchers drew on theory and methods in anthropology and sociology, creating a distinction between ethnography of education (work undertaken by anthropologists and sociologists) and ethnography in education (work undertaken by educators to address educational issues). Other forms of qualitative research drew on theories from the humanities and other social and behavioral sciences, adapting this work to educational goals and concerns, often creating new forms (e.g., connoisseurship, a field method approach, interview approaches, and some forms of action research).
In the early development of these traditions, educational researchers struggled for acceptance by both other professionals and policymakers. This phase was characterized by arguments over the value of qualitative methods in contrast to the dominant paradigms of the time - quantitative and experimental approaches. Qualitative and ethnographic researchers argued that questions important to education were left unexamined by the dominant paradigms. Some qualitative researchers argued for the need to include and represent the voices of people in their research, particularly voices not heard in other forms of research involving large-scale studies.
Questions asked by qualitative and ethnographic researchers generally focus on understanding the local experiences of people as they engage in their everyday worlds (e.g., classrooms, peer groups, homes, communities). For example, some researchers explore questions about ways in which people gain, or fail to gain, access to ways of learning in a diverse world; others focus on beliefs people hold about education and learning; while still others examine how patterns learned within a group are consequential for participation in other groups and situations.
A broad range of perspectives and approaches exist, each with its own historical tradition and theoretical orientation. A number of common dimensions can be identified across these perspectives and approaches. Qualitative and ethnographic researchers in education are concerned with the positions they take relative to participants and data collected. For example, many qualitative and ethnographic researchers engage in observations over a period of time to identify patterns of life in a particular group.
The theoretical orientation chosen guides the design and implementation of the research, including the tools used to collect (e.g., participant observation, interviewing, and collecting artifacts) and analyze data (e.g., discourse analysis, document analysis, content analysis, and transcribing video/audio data). Theory also guides other decisions, including how to enter the field (e.g., the social group, classroom, home, and/or community center), what types and how much data to collect and records to make (e.g., videotape, audiotape, and/or field notes), who to interview (formally and/or informally), how long to remain in the field (e.g., for ethnography, one or more years), and what literature is relevant. It also influences relationships researchers establish with people in local settings, which in turn influences what can be known. Some theoretical perspectives guide researchers to observe what is occurring from a distance by taking the role of passive observer, recording information for analysis once they leave the field. Such researchers often do not interview participants, preferring to "ground" their observations in patterns in the data, without concern for what members understand. These descriptions are called etic, or outsider descriptions, because the observer is not concerned with members' understandings.
This approach is in contrast with ones in which researchers join the group and become active participant-observers, at times participating directly in events. Such researchers also make videotape records that enable them to step back from what they thought was occurring to examine closely what resulted from those actions. Those not using video or audio records reconstruct events by constructing retrospective field notes, drawing on their memories of what occurred to create a written record to analyze when they leave the field. Just which type of approach and position researchers take depends on their research goal (s) and theoretical orientation (s) as well as what participants permit.
Approaches to Research Questions
Research questions in a qualitative study are generated as part of the research process. Qualitative and ethnographic researchers often begin a study with one or more initiating question (s) or an issue they want to examine. Qualitative and ethnographic research approaches involve a process of interacting with data, reflecting on what is important to members in the local setting, and using this to generate new questions and refine the initial questions. This interactive and responsive process also influences the data that are collected and analyzed throughout the study. Therefore, it is common for researchers to construct more detailed questions that are generated as part of the analysis as they proceed throughout the study, or to abandon questions and generate ones more relevant to the local group or issues being studied.
For example, in one study of a fifth-grade classroom, the initial research questions were open ended and general: (1) What counts as community to the students and teacher in this classroom? (2) How do the participants construct community in this classroom? and (3) How is participating in this classroom consequential for students and the teacher? As the study unfolded, the research questions became more directed toward what the researcher was beginning to understand about this classroom in particular. After first developing an understanding of patterns of interactions among participants, the researcher began to formulate more specific questions: (1) What patterns of practice does the teacher construct to offer opportunities for learning? (2) What roles do the social and academic practices play in the construction of community in this classroom? and (3) What are the consequences for individuals and the collective when a member leaves and reenters the classroom community? This last question was one that could not have been anticipated but was important to understanding what students learned and when student learning occurred as well as what supported and constrained that learning. The shifts in questions constitute this researcher's logic of inquiry and need to be reported as part of the dynamic design of the study.
Approaches to Design and Data Collection
In designing qualitative studies, researchers consider ways of collecting data to represent the multiple voices and actions constituting the research setting. Typical techniques used in qualitative research for collecting data include observing in the particular setting, conducting interviews with various participants, and reviewing documents or artifacts. The degree to which these techniques are used depends on the nature of the particular research study and what occurs in the local group.
Some studies involve in-depth analysis of one setting or interviews of one group of people. Others involve a contrastive design from the beginning, seeking to understand how the practices of one group are similar to or different from another group. Others seek to study multiple communities to test hypotheses from the research literature (e.g., child-rearing practices are the same in all communities). What is common to all of these studies is that they are examining the qualities of life and experiences within a local situation. This is often called a situated perspective.
Entering the Field and Gaining Access to Insider Knowledge
Entering the research setting is one of the first phases of conducting fieldwork. Gaining access to the site is ongoing and negotiated with the participants throughout the study. As new questions arise, the researcher has to renegotiate access. For example, a researcher may find that the outcomes of standardized tests become an important issue for the teachers and students. The researcher may not have obtained permission to collect these data at the beginning of the study and must then negotiate permission from parents, students, teachers, and district personnel to gain access to these scores.
Qualitative research involves a social contract with those participating in the study, and informed consent is negotiated at each phase of the research when new information is needed or new areas of study are undertaken. At such points of renegotiation, researchers need to consider the tools necessary and the ways to participate within the group (e.g., as participant-observer and/or observer-participant, as interviewer of one person or as a facilitator of a focus group, or as analyst of district data or student products). How the researcher conducts observations, collects new forms of data, and analyzes such data is related to shifts in questions and/or theoretical stance (s) necessary to understand what is occurring.
Research Tools
One of the most frequently used tools, in addition to participant observation, is interviewing. For ethnography and other types of field research, interviews occur within the context of the ongoing observations and collection of artifacts. These interviews are grounded in what is occurring in the local context, both within and across time. Some interviews are undertaken to gain insider information about what the researcher is observing or to test out the developing theory that the researcher is constructing.
In contrast, other forms of qualitative research may use interviews as the sole form of data collection. Such interviews also seek meanings that individuals or groups have for their own experience or of observed phenomena. These interviews, however, form the basis for analysis and do not require contextual information from observations. What the people say becomes the basis for exploration, not what was observed.
Other tools used by qualitative and ethnographic researchers include artifact and document analysis (artifacts being anything people make and use). The researcher in a field-based study collects artifacts produced and/or used by members of the group, identifies how these artifacts function for the individual and/or the group, and explores how members talk about and name these artifacts. For some theoretical positions, the artifacts may be viewed as a type of participant in the local event (e.g., computer programs as participants). Some artifacts, such as documents, are examined for links to other events or artifacts. This form of analysis builds on the understanding that the past (and future) is present in these artifacts and that intertextual links between and among events are often inscribed in such documents. In some cases, qualitative researchers may focus solely on a set of artifacts (e.g., student work, linked sets of laws, a photograph collection, or written texts in the environment - environmental print). Such studies seek to examine the range of texts or materials constructed, the patterned ways in which the texts are constructed, and how the choices of focus or discourse inscribe the views that members have of self and others as well as what is possible in their worlds.
Although some qualitative studies focus solely on the documents, field-based researchers generally move between document analysis and an exploration of the relationship of the document to past, present, and future actions of individuals and/or groups. These studies seek to understand the importance of the artifact or document within the lives of those being studied.
Ongoing Data Analysis
While conducting fieldwork, researchers reread their field notes and add to them any relevant information that they were not able to include at the time of first writing the notes. While reviewing their field notes, researchers look for themes and information relevant to the research questions. They note this information in the form of theoretical notes (or write theoretical memos to themselves) that may include questions about repeated patterns, links to other theories, and conceptual ideas they are beginning to develop. They also make methodological notes to reconstruct their thinking and their logic of inquiry. Sometimes they make personal notes that reflect their thoughts and feelings about what they are observing or experiencing. These notes allow them to keep from imposing their own opinion on data, helping them to focus on what is meaningful or important to those with whom they are working.
Researchers constantly use contrast to build interpretations that are grounded in the data, within and across actors, events, times, actions, and activities that constitute the social situations of everyday life. Many qualitative (particularly ethnographic) researchers examine material, activity, semiotic (meaning-carrying), and/or social dimensions of everyday life and its consequences for members. The analytic principles of practice that they use include comparing and contrasting data, methods, theories, and perspectives; examining part-whole relationships between and among actions, events, and actors; seeking insider (emic) understandings of experiences, actions, practices, and events; and identifying through these what is relevant to the local group.
Reporting Research Findings
The final step in qualitative and ethnographic research is writing an account. The researchers make choices about how to represent the data that illustrate what was typical about the particular group being studied. Another choice might be to highlight actions of the group that were illustrative of their particular patterns of beliefs. In some studies, several cases are chosen to make visible comparisons across different activities within the group, or across different groups that may have some activities in common. For example, researchers who study classroom interactions might bring together data from different classrooms to make visible principles of practice that are similar in general terms such as asking students to understand various points of view. However, in each classroom, the actions of juxtaposing points of view will be carried out differently due to the different experiences within each classroom.
Researchers also select genres for writing the report that best enable the intended audience to understand what the study made visible that was not previously known or that extended previous knowledge. The researcher does not seek to generalize from the specific case. Rather, qualitative or ethnographic researchers provide in-depth descriptions that lead to general patterns. These patterns are then examined in other situations to see if, when, and how they occur and what consequences they have for what members in the new setting can know, do, understand, and/or produce. In qualitative and ethnographic studies this is often referred to as transferability, in contrast to generalizability.
Bibliography
Denzin, Norman, and Lincoln, Yvonna, eds. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erickson, Fredrick. 1986. "Qualitative Research." In The Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edition, ed. Merle Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.
Flood, James; Jensen, Julie; Lapp, Diane; and Squire, James, eds. 1990. Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. New York: Macmillan.
Gee, James, and Green, Judith. 1998. "Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A Methodological Study." Review of Research in Education 23:119 - 169.
Gillmore, Perry, and Glatthorn, Alan, eds. Children In and Out of School: Ethnography and Education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Green, Judith; Dixon, Carol; and Zaharlick, Amy. 2002. "Ethnography as a Logic of Inquiry." In Handbook for Methods of Research on English Language Arts Teaching, ed. James Flood, Julie Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James Squire. New York: Macmillan.
Hammersley, Martin, and Atkinson, Paul. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LeCompte, Margaret; Millroy, Wendy; and Preissle, Judith, eds. 1992. The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Linde, Charlotte. 1993. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. "Transcription as Theory." In Developmental Pragmatics, ed. Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin. New York: Academic Press.
Putney, LeAnn; Green, Judith; Dixon, Carol; and Kelly, Gregory. 1999. "Evolution of Qualitative Research Methodology: Looking beyond Defense to Possibilities." Reading Research Quarterly 34:368 - 377.
Richardson, Virginia. 2002. Handbook for Research on Teaching, 4th edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spradley, James. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Strike, Kenneth. 1974. "On the Expressive Potential of Behaviorist Language." American Educational Research Journal 11:103 - 120.
Van Maanen, John. 1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolcott, Harry. 1992. "Posturing in Qualitative Research." In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, ed. Margaret LeCompte, Wendy Millroy, and Judith Preissle. New York: Academic Press.
— TAMMY BOURG
Diposting oleh Eddy Syahrizal di 06.46 0 komentar
Label: About Research
Overview of Research Methods
| http://www.answers.com/topic/overview-of-research-methods 21/08/08 06:41 AM WIB |
How do people learn to be effective teachers? What percentage of American students has access to computers at home? What types of assessments best measure learning in science classes? Do college admission tests place certain groups at a disadvantage? Can students who are at risk for dropping out of high school be identified? What is the impact of new technologies on school performance? These are some of the many questions that can be informed by the results of research.
Although research is not the only source used for seeking answers to such questions, it is an important one and the most reliable if executed well. Research is a process in which measurements are taken of individuals or organizations and the resulting data are subjected to analysis and interpretation. Special care is taken to provide as accurate an answer as possible to the posed question by subjecting "beliefs, conjectures, policies, positions, sources of ideas, traditions, and the like … to maximum criticism, in order to counteract and eliminate as much intellectual error as possible" (Bartley, pp. 139 - 140). In collecting the necessary information, a variety of methodologies and procedures can be used, many of which are shared by such disciplines as education, psychology, sociology, cognitive science, anthropology, history, and economics.
Evidence - the Foundation of Research
In education, research is approached from two distinct perspectives on how knowledge should be acquired. Research using quantitative methods rests on the belief that individuals, groups, organizations, and the environments in which they operate have an objective reality that is relatively constant across time and settings. Consequently, it is possible to construct measures that yield numerical data on this reality, which can then be further probed and interpreted by statistical analyses. In contrast, qualitative research methods are rooted in the conviction that "features of the social environment are constructed as interpretations by individuals and that these interpretations tend to be transitory and situational" (Gall, Borg, and Gall, p. 28). It is only through intensive study of specific cases in natural settings that these meanings and interpretations can be revealed and common themes educed. Although debate over which perspective is "right" continues, qualitative and quantitative research share a common feature - data are at the center of all forms of inquiry.
Fundamentally, data gathering boils down to two basic activities: Researchers either ask individuals (or other units) questions or observe behavior. More specifically, individuals can be asked about their attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about past or current behaviors or experiences. Questions can also tap personality traits and other hypothetical constructs associated with individuals. Similarly, observations can take on a number of forms: (1) the observer can be a passive transducer of information or an active participant in the group being observed;(2) those being observed may or may not be aware that their behavior is being chronicled for research purposes; and (3) data gathering can be done by a human recorder or through the use of technology (e.g., video cameras or other electronic devices). Another distinction that is applicable to both forms of data gathering is whether the data are developed afresh within the study (i.e., primary data) or stem from secondary sources (e.g., data archives; written documents such as academic transcripts, individualized educational plans, or teacher notes; and artifacts that are found in natural settings). Artifacts can be very telling about naturally occurring phenomena. These can involve trace and accretion measures - that is, "residue" that individuals leave behind in the course of their daily lives. Examples include carpet wear in front of exhibits at children's museums (showing which exhibits are the most popular), graffiti written on school buildings, and websites visited by students.
What should be clear from this discussion so far is that there exists a vast array of approaches to gathering evidence about educational and social phenomena. Although reliance on empirical data distinguishes research-based disciplines from other modes of knowing, decisions about what to gather and how to structure the data gathering process need to be governed by the purpose of the research. In addition, a thoughtful combination of data gathering approaches has the greater chance of producing the most accurate answer.
Purposes of Research
The array of questions listed in the introductory paragraph suggests that research is done for a variety of purposes. These include exploring, describing, predicting, explaining, or evaluating some phenomenon or set of phenomena. Some research is aimed at replicating results from previous studies; other research is focused on quantitatively synthesizing a body of research. These two types of efforts are directed at strengthening a theory, verifying predictions, or probing the robustness of explanations by seeing if they hold true for different types of individuals, organizations, or settings.
Exploration. Very little may be known about some phenomena such as new types of settings, practices, or groups. Here, the research question focuses on identifying salient characteristics or features that merit further and more concerted examination in additional studies.
Description. Often, research is initiated to carefully describe a phenomenon or problem in terms of its structure, form, key ingredients, magnitude, and/or changes over time. The resulting profiles can either be qualitative or narrative, quantitative (e.g., x number of people have this characteristic), or a mixture of both. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics collects statistical information about several aspects of education and monitors changes in these indicators over time. The information covers a broad range of topics, most of which are chosen because of their interest to policymakers and educational personnel.
Prediction. Some questions seek to predict the occurrence of specific phenomena or states on the basis of one or more other characteristics. Short-and long-term planning are often the main rationale for this type of research.
Explanation. It is possible to be able to predict the occurrence of a certain phenomenon but not to know exactly why this relationship exists. In explanatory research, the aim is to not only predict the out-come or state of interest but also understand the mechanisms and processes that result in one variable causing another.
Evaluation. Questions of this nature focus on evaluating or judging the worth of something, typically an intervention or program. Of primary interest is to learn whether an organized set of activities that is aimed at correcting some problem (e.g., poor academic skills, low self-esteem, disruptive behavior) is effective. When these efforts are targeted at evaluating the potential or actual success of policies, regulations, and laws, this is often known as policy analysis.
Replication. Some questions revolve around whether a demonstrated relationship between two variables (e.g., predictive value of the SAT in college persistence) can be again found in different populations or different types of settings. Because few studies can incorporate all relevant populations and settings, it is important to determine how generalizable the results of a study to a particular group or program are.
Synthesis. Taking stock of what is known and what is not known is a major function of research. "Summing-up" a body of prior research can take quantitative (e.g., meta-analysis) and qualitative (narrative summaries) forms.
Types of Research Methods
The purpose or purposes underlying a research study guide the choice of the specific research methods that are used. Any individual research study may address multiple questions, not all of which share the same purpose. Consequently, more than one research method may be incorporated into a particular research effort. Because methods of investigation are not pure (i.e., free of bias), several types of data and methods of gathering data are often used to "triangulate" on the answer to a specific question.
Measurement development. At the root of most inquiry is the act of measuring key conceptual variables of interest (e.g., learning strategies, intrinsic motivation, learning with understanding). When the outcomes being measured are important (e.g., grade placement, speech therapy, college admission), considerable research is often needed prior to conducting the main research study to ensure that the measure accurately describes individuals' status or performance. This can require substantial data collection and analysis in order to determine the measure's reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change; for some measures, additional data from a variety of diverse groups must be gathered for establishing norms that can assist in interpretation. With the exception of exploratory research, the quality of most studies relies heavily upon the degree to which the data-collection instruments provide reliable and valid information on the variables of interest.
Survey methodology. Survey research is primarily aimed at collecting self-report information about a population by asking questions directly of some sample of it. The members of the target population can be individuals (e.g., local teachers), organizations (e.g., parent - teacher associations), or other recognized bodies (e.g., school districts or states). The questions can be directed at examining attitudes and preferences, facts, previous behaviors, and past experiences. Such questions can be asked by interviewers either face-to-face or on the telephone; they can also be self-administered by distributing them to groups (e.g., students in classrooms) or delivering them via the mail, e-mail, or the Internet.
High-quality surveys devote considerable attention to reducing as much as possible the major sources of error that can bias the results. For example, the target population needs to be completely enumerated so that important segments or groups are not unintentionally excluded from being eligible to participate. The sample is chosen in a way as to be representative of the population of interest, which is best accomplished through the use of probability sampling. Substantial time is given to constructing survey questions, pilot testing them, and training interviewers so that item wording, question presentation and format, and interviewing styles are likely to encourage thoughtful and accurate responses. Finally, concerted efforts are used to encourage all sampled individuals to complete the interview or questionnaire.
Surveys are mainly designed for description and prediction. Because they rarely involve the manipulation of independent variables or random assignment of individuals (or units) to conditions, they generally are less useful by themselves for answering explanatory and effects-oriented evaluative questions. If survey research is separated into its two fundamental components - sampling and data gathering through the use of questionnaires - it is easy to see that survey methods are embedded within experimental and quasi-experimental studies. For example, comparing learning outcome among students enrolled in traditional classroom-based college courses with those of students completing the course through distance learning would likely involve the administration of surveys that assess student views of the instructor and their satisfaction with how the course was taught. As another illustration, a major evaluation of Sesame Street that randomly assigned classrooms to in-class viewing of the program involved not only administering standardized reading tests to the students participating but also surveys of teachers and parents. So, in this sense, many forms of inquiry can be improved by using state-of-the-art methods in questionnaire construction and measurement.
Observational methods. Instead of relying on individuals' self-reports of events, researchers can conduct their own observations. This is often preferable when there is a concern that individuals may misreport the requested information, either deliberately or inadvertently (e.g., they cannot remember). In addition, some variables are better measured by direct observation. For example, in comparing direct observations of how long teachers lecture in a class as opposed to asking teachers to self-report the time they spent lecturing; it should be obvious that the latter could be influenced (biased upward or downward) by how the teachers believe the researcher wants them to respond.
Observational methods are typically used in natural settings, although, as with survey methods, observations can be made of behaviors even in experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Both quantitative and qualitative observation strategies are possible. Quantitative strategies involve either training observers to record the information of interest in a systematic fashion or employing audiotape recorders, video cameras, and other electronic devices. When observers are used, they must be trained and monitored as to what should be observed and how it should be recorded (e.g., the number of times that a target behavior occurs during an agreed-upon time period).
Qualitative observational methods are distinctly different in several ways. First, rather than coding a prescribed set of behaviors, the focus of the observations is deliberately left more open-ended. By using open-ended observation schemes, the full range of individuals' responses to an environment can be recorded. That is, observations are much broader in contrast to quantitative observational strategies that focus on specific behaviors. Second, observers do not necessarily strive to remain neutral about what they are observing and may include their own feelings and experiences in interpreting what happened. Also, observers who employ quantitative methods do not participate in the situations that they are observing. In contrast, observers in qualitative research are not typically detached from the setting being studied; rather, they are more likely to be complete participants where the researcher is a member of the setting that is being observed.
Qualitative strategies are typically used to answer exploratory questions as they help identify important variables and hypotheses about them. They also are commonly used to answer descriptive questions because they can provide in-depth information about groups and situations. Although qualitative strategies have been used to answer predictive, explanatory, and evaluative questions, they are less able to yield results that can eliminate all rival explanations for causal relationships.
Experimental methods. Experimental research methods are ideally suited for examining explanatory questions that seek to ascertain whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists among two or more variables. In experiments, the researcher directly manipulates the cause (the independent variable), assigns individuals randomly to various levels of the independent variable, and measures their responses (the expected effect). Ideally, the researcher has a high degree of control over the presentation of the purported cause - where, when, and in what form it is delivered; who receives it; and when and how the effect is measured. This level of control helps rule out alternative or rival explanations for the observed results. Exercising this control typically requires that the research be done under laboratory or contrived conditions rather than in natural settings. Experimental methods, however, can also be used in real-world settings - these are commonly referred to as field experiments.
Conducting experiments in the field is more difficult inasmuch as the chances increase that integral parts of the experimental method will be compromised. Participants may be more likely to leave the study and thus be unavailable for measurement of the outcomes of interest. Subjects who are randomly assigned to the control group, which may receive no tutoring, may decide to obtain help on their own - assistance that resembles the intervention being tested. Such problems essentially work against controlling for rival explanations and the key elements of the experimental method are sacrificed. Excellent discussions of procedures for conducting field experiments can be found in the 2002 book Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, written by William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell, and in Robert F. Boruch's 1997 book Randomized Field Experiments for Planning and Evaluation: A Practical Guide.
Quasi-experimental methods. As suggested by its name, the methods that comprise quasi-experimental research approximate experimental methodologies. They are directed at fulfilling the same purposes - explanation and evaluation - but may provide more equivocal answers than experimental designs. The key characteristic that distinguishes quasi experiments from experiments is the lack of random assignment. Because of this, researchers must make concerted efforts to rule out the plausible rival hypotheses that random assignment is designed to eliminate.
Quasi-experimental designs constitute a core set of research strategies because there are many instances in which it is impossible to successfully assign participants randomly to different conditions or levels of the independent variable. For example, the first evaluation of Sesame Street that was conducted by Samuel Ball and Gerry Bogatz in 1970 was designed as a randomized experiment where individual children in five locations were randomly assigned to either be encouraged to watch the television program (and be observed in their homes doing it) or not encouraged. Classrooms in these locations were also either given television sets or not, and teachers in classrooms with television sets were encouraged to allow the children to view the show at least three days per week. The study, however, turned into a quasi experiment because Sesame Street became so popular that children in the control group (who were not encouraged to watch) ended up watching a considerable number of shows.
The two most frequently used quasi-experimental strategies are time-series designs and nonequivalent comparison group designs, each of which has some variations. In time-series designs, the dependent variable or expected effect is measured several times before and after the independent variable is introduced. For example, in a study of a zero tolerance policy, the number of school incidents related to violence and substance use are recorded on a monthly basis for twelve months before the policy is introduced and twelve or more months after its implementation. If a noticeable reduction in incidents occurs soon after the new policy is introduced and the reduction persists, one can be reasonably confident that the new policy was responsible for the observed increase if no other events occurred that could have resulted in a decline and there was evidence that the policy was actually enforced. This confidence may be even stronger if data are collected on schools that have similar student populations and characteristics but no zero tolerance policies during the same period and there is no reduction in illegal substance and violence-related incidents.
Establishing causal relationships with the nonequivalent comparison group design is typically more difficult. This is because when groups are formed in ways other than random assignment (e.g., participant choice), this often means that they differ in other ways that affect the outcome of interest. For example, suppose that students who are having problems academically are identified and allowed to choose to be involved or not involved in an after-school tutoring program. Those who decide to enroll are also those who may be more motivated to do well, who may have parents who are willing to help their children improve, and who may differ in other ways from those who choose not to stay after school. They may also have less-serious academic problems. Such factors all may contribute to these students exhibiting higher academic gains than their nontutored counterparts do when after-tutoring testing has been completed. It is difficult, however, to disen-tangle the role that tutoring contributed to any observed improvement from these other features. The use of well-validated measures of these characteristics for both groups prior to receiving or not receiving tutoring can help in this process, but the difficulty is to identify and measure all the key variables other than tutoring receipt that can influence the observed outcomes.
Secondary analysis and meta-analysis. Both secondary analysis and meta-analysis are part of the arsenal of quantitative research methods, and both rely on research data already collected by other studies. They are invaluable tools for informing questions that seek descriptive, predictive, explanatory, or evaluative answers. Studies that rely on secondary analysis focus on examining and reanalyzing the raw data from prior surveys, experiments, and quasi experiments. In some cases, the questions prompting the analysis are ones that were not examined by the original investigator; in other cases, secondary analysis is performed because the researcher disagrees to some extent with the original conclusions and wants to probe the data, using different statistical techniques.
Secondary analyses occupy a distinct place in educational research. Since the 1960s federal agencies have sponsored several large-scale survey and evaluation efforts relevant to education, which have been analyzed by other researchers to re-examine the reported results or answer additional questions not addressed by the original researchers. Two examples, both conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, include the High School and Beyond Survey, which tracks seniors and sophomores as they progress through high school and college and enter the workplace; and the Schools and Staffing Survey, which regularly collects data on the characteristics and qualifications of teachers and principals, class size, and other school conditions.
The primary idea underlying meta-analysis or research synthesis methods is to go beyond the more traditional, narrative literature reviews of research in a given area. The process involves using systematic and comprehensive retrieval practices for accumulating prior studies, quantifying the results by using a common metric (such as the effect size), and statistically combining this collection of results. In general, the reported results that are used from studies involve intermediate statistics such as means, standard deviations, proportions, and correlations.
The use of meta-analysis grew dramatically in the 1990s. Its strength is that it allows one to draw conclusions across multiple studies that addressed the same question (e.g., what have been the effects of bilingual education?) but used different measures, populations, settings, and study designs. The use of both secondary analysis and meta-analysis has increased the longer-term value of individual research efforts, either by increasing the number of questions that can be answered from one large-scale survey or by looking across several small-scale studies that seek answers to the same question. These research methods have contributed much in addressing policymakers' questions in a timely fashion and to advancing theories relevant to translating educational research into recommended practices.
Bibliography
Ball, Samuel, and Bogatz, Gerry A. 1970. The First Year of Sesame Street: An Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bartley, William W., III. 1962. The Retreat to Commitment. New York: Knopf.
Boruch, Robert F. 1997. Randomized Field Experiments for Planning and Evaluation: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bryk, Anthony S., and Raudenbush, Stephen W. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cook, Thomas D.; Cooper, Harrison; Cordray, David S.; Hartmann, Heidi; Hedges, Larryv.; Light, Richard J.; Louis, Thomas A.; and Mosteller, Frederick, eds. 1992. Metaanalysisfor Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cooper, Harrison, and Hedges, Larry V., eds. 1994. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gall, Meridith D.; Borg, Walter R.; and Gall, Joyce P. 1966. Educational Research: An Introduction, 6th edition. White Plains, NY: Long-man
Shadish, William R.; Cook, Thomas D.; and Campbell, Donald T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
— TAMMY BOURG
Diposting oleh Eddy Syahrizal di 06.41 0 komentar
Label: About Research
