本文使用的方法的一个关键优势是它例证了研究者的“反身性”。这表明，研究人员必须意识到他们选择的收集数据的工具的局限性，并对可能非常重要的沟通的未说出口的方面保持敏感。在这种情况下，数据收集方法的问题在早期就被发现了，并采取了可识别的步骤来理解所发生的事情，并找到评估如采访者的实施和设置等元素的影响的方法。同样重要的是，作者赞同教育研究需要灵活性和多种方法，并显示出对权力结构不平衡的认识，以及它们如何能够抑制某些人或群体，并为其他人提供特权平台。事实上，研究人员所使用的方法是有优势的。然而,限制发生。这种方法和抽样策略也应该被包括在小组访谈参与者的选择中。社会学研究的一个基本要求是确保参与者清楚地了解研究的性质和目的，并在任何访谈之前给予他们的事先知情同意(Israel and Hay, 2006)。在这种情况下，学生被征召入伍，实际上是被要求参加他们的常规课堂活动的一部分。作者承认“知情同意因此是有问题的”(Nairn, Munro和Smith, 2005年，第227页)，最好是与高级学生研究人员一起招募参与者。这是一种保守的说法，事实上，可以说整个研究项目由于未能保证“知情同意”而无效。此外，抽样策略的另一个弱点是，采访者没有主动招募参与者。相反，对9名学生的抽样调查是在一位老师的帮助下进行的。我们可以主张的基本元素偏见可能导致研究结果不代表和有效的学校的老师可能只选择参与者的基础上她认为适用于研究,而不是依赖如何代表学生的反映研究的主要目标。
A key strength in the methodology used in this article is the way in which it exemplifies the researcher’s ‘reflexivity’. It shows that researchers must be aware of the limitations of their chosen instruments for gathering data and be sensitive to the unspoken dimensions of communication which may be highly significant. In this case, a problem with the data collection method was identified early on, and identifiable steps were taken to understand what had happened and find ways of evaluating the impact of elements such as the interviewer’s embodiment and the setting. It is important also that the authors endorse the need for flexibility and multiple methods in educational research and show awareness of power structures imbalances and how they can inhibit some people or groups and provide a platform of privilege for others.Indeed, there are strengths to the methodology used by the researcher. However, limitations occur. Such that the methodology and sampling strategy should also have been made aware of this is included in the selection of participants for the group interview. A fundamental requirement for sociological research is to guarantee that participants are plainly informed about the nature and purpose of the study and give their prior informed consent in advance of any interviews (Israel and Hay, 2006). In this case, students were conscripted and in effect required to participate as part of their regular class activity. The authors concede that “informed consent was therefore problematic” (Nairn, Munro and Smith, 2005, p.227) and it would have been better to work with the senior student researchers to recruit participants. This is something of an understatement, and in fact it could be argued that the whole research project is invalidated by its failure to guarantee ‘informed consent’. Furthermore, another weakness which lies within the sampling strategy was that the interviewer did not recruit participants through her own accord. Instead, the sampling of the nine students was mediated by the help of a teacher. We could argue for the underlying element of bias which may potentially lead to the results of the study to be less representative and valid as the school teacher may only select participants on the basis of who she believe is suitable for the research, instead of relying on how representative the students are in terms of reflecting the primary objectives of the research.
本段内容来自网络 并不是Excellentdue的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃，查重100%，造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文代写请记得联系我们。