Notes on Methods and Methodology in MA unit writings from a living theory perspective.
Jack Whitehead, Visiting Fellow University of Bath 28 May 2010.
In assessing the quality of your MA writings it is prudent to bear in mind the language that the University uses in its assessment elements and level statements in the 8 pages at the end of these notes.
You will see the words, scholarship, perspective and coherence in the overall judgments. The words content, structure, presentation, analysis and use of resources are also used. Because there is a section on Methodology and Methods for writings based on empirical study, and that many submitted writings could be strengthened by more attention to:
ŌMethodology: The explanation of the kind of study undertaken and the justification of the methodology.
Design: The explanation and justification of the chosen methods and the overall design.
Critique: The consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of methodology, design and underpinning theories,
I am hoping that you will find these notes helpful in your writings.
IÕd like you to be familiar with 6 different methodologies so that
you feel confident about their meanings. Cresswell has described 5 of these methodologies as narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory research,
ethnographic research and case study research. I have responded to CresswellÕs
point that one chooses between these methodologies with a living theory
methodology in which one can draw insights from these 5 methodologies in the creation of oneÕs
own living theory methodology, at:
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/arsup/Cresswellqualitativemethods.htm
Do please read carefully the point by Dadds and Hart (2001) about
methodological inventiveness because a living theory methodology is grounded in
the individualÕs methodological inventiveness. You can consider the strengths
and weaknesses of a living theory methodology in terms of CresswellÕs
descriptions of narrative, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnographic and
case study research. A methodology is usually understood in terms of the philosophical
principles that organize how you
have explored the implications of your research question.
Be careful that you do not confuse methods with methodology.
A method for example could be your use of an action reflection
cycle of expressing concerns when your values are not being fully lived,
imagining ways forward and choosing one in an action plan, acting and gathering
data to help you make a judgment of the effectiveness of your actions,
evaluating your actions and modifying your concerns, ideas and actions in the
light of your evaluations.
A method could be your use of an interview, a questionnaire,
an observation schedule, an
attitude scale or a visual narrative to reveal the meanings of your embodied
expression of your energy-flowing values.
A method could be your use of a validation group to strengthen the
validity of your account by submitting it for responses from a group of your
peers in terms of its comprehensibility, the adequacy of the evidence to
justify your assertions, your explicit awareness of the normative background
from which you are writing, your authenticity in terms of sustaining your
commitment to live your values as fully as you can over time in the context of
your enquiries.
If you would like to read more about a living theory methodology
here are two articles:
Whitehead, J. (2008) Using A Living Theory Methodology In Improving Practice And Generating Educational Knowledge in Living Theories. Educational Journal of Living Theories, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 104-126 . Retrieved 8 December 2008 from http://ejolts.net/node/80 .
Whitehead, J. (2009) How Do I Influence the Generation of Living Educational Theories for Personal and Social Accountability in Improving Practice? Using a Living Theory Methodology in Improving Educational Practice, pp. 173-194 in Tidwell, Deborah L.; Heston, Melissa L.; Fitzgerald, Linda M. (Eds.) (2009) Research Methods for the Self-study of Practice, Dordrecht; Springer. Retrieved 28 May 2010 from
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/jwltm194-173ok.pdf
Scholarship: The extent of knowledge and depth of analysis.
Perspective: The breadth of view, critical perception and insight.
Coherence: The synthesis and control of material and the persuasiveness of arguments.
Clarity: Communication of ideas, use of syntax and typographical presentation.
Style: Use of language.
Appearance: Visual impression and clarity of layout.
Length Number of words specified for the assignment.
Argument: The line of argument within an appropriate conceptual framework.
Interpretation: The development of a perspective through a reflective consideration within an appropriate conceptual framework.
Evaluation: The weighing of evidence, exploration of other options, and the basis of judgements.
Application Where appropriate, the application of findings and arguments in a reflective manner to the improvement of educational practices.
Scope and number: Familiarity with a range of literature germane to the topic.
Types of sources: The range of different types of sources used.
Methodology and methods (For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study)
Methodology: The explanation of the kind of study undertaken and the justification of the methodology.
Design: The explanation and justification of the chosen methods and the overall design.
Critique: The consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of methodology, design and underpinning theories.
70% -100% (Distinction):
Overall. The assignment shows extensive knowledge and considerable depth of analysis. It clearly demonstrates breadth of view and shows significant insight. Material is controlled well and is synthesised effectively and creatively. Arguments are sound and persuasive. Shows originality.
Content. The topic identified is clearly and directly relevant to the content of the module and the participantÕs experience. An appropriate and well grounded conceptual framework is securely established. A sophisticated discussion takes place within the conceptual framework and, in the better assignments, the discussion develops the framework.
Structure. The assignment is well structured so that arguments develop logically and lead to a well-reasoned and original conclusion.
Presentation. Ideas are communicated exceptionally clearly. Appropriate syntax is consistently used. There are very few if any typographical errors. The writing is fluent and succinct which together with the prudent use of language gives scholarly style. The length of the assignment is acceptable. The visual presentation is of a high standard and the layout is clear. Referencing is accurate in citation and attribution. There is consistent application of academic conventions.
Analysis. The assignment develops a well-reasoned line of argument and a perspective clearly develops through significant reflective consideration. Evidence is thoughtfully marshalled and weighed, a wide range of other options is explored, and judgements are soundly based on critical appraisal. Where appropriate, findings and arguments are applied reflectively and with considerable insight and explicit evidence is presented that shows improvement of educational practices.
Use of sources. The assignment clearly demonstrates considerable familiarity with and uses a wide range of literature germane to the topic.
Methodology and methods. For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study, it is clear what kind of study was undertaken. The methodology is fully justified. There is a thorough explanation and justification of the chosen methods. There is a full consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, design and underpinning theories.
60% - 69% (Merit):
Overall. The assignment shows a broad knowledge and considerable depth of analysis. It clearly demonstrates breadth of view and shows considerable insight. Material is synthesised effectively and controlled well. Arguments are sound.
Content. The topic identified is relevant to the content of the unit and the participantÕs experience. An appropriate and well-grounded conceptual framework is established. A thoughtful discussion takes place within the conceptual framework.
Structure. The assignment is well structured so that arguments develop logically and lead to a well-reasoned conclusion.
Presentation. Ideas are communicated clearly. Appropriate syntax is consistently used. There are very few typographical errors. The writing is fluent and succinct and has a scholarly style. The length of the assignment is acceptable. The visual presentation is of a high standard and the layout is clear. Referencing is accurate in citation and attribution. There is consistent application of academic conventions.
Analysis. The assignment develops a well-reasoned line of argument and a perspective clearly develops through substantial reflective consideration. Evidence is thoughtfully marshalled and weighed, a range of other options is explored, and judgements are based on critical appraisal. Where appropriate, findings and arguments are applied reflectively and with some insight and there is evidence showing improvement of educational practices.
Use of sources. The assignment demonstrates familiarity with and uses a wide range of literature germane to the topic.
Methodology and methods. For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study, it is clear
what kind of study was undertaken. The methodology is well-justified.
There is a sound explanation and justification of the chosen methods.
There is a wide-ranging consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of
the methodology, design and underpinning theories.
50% - 59% (Good Pass):
Overall. The assignment shows knowledge and a depth of analysis. It demonstrates a breadth of view and shows insight. Material is controlled well. Arguments are sound.
Content. The topic identified is relevant to the content of the unit and the participantÕs experience. An appropriate conceptual framework is established that is adequately grounded. A discussion takes place within the conceptual framework.
Structure. The assignment is adequately structured and arguments develop logically and lead to a reasoned conclusion.
Presentation. Ideas are communicated clearly. Appropriate syntax is generally consistently used with very few typographical errors. There are only a small number of typographical errors. The writing is fluent and succinct and generally has an appropriately scholarly style. The length of the assignment is acceptable. The visual presentation is of good standard and the layout is clear. Referencing is accurate in citation and attribution. There is consistent application of academic conventions.
Analysis. The assignment develops a well-reasoned line of argument and a perspective develops through sufficient reflective consideration. Evidence is thoughtfully marshalled and weighed, some other options are explored, and judgements are based on critical appraisal. Where appropriate, findings and arguments are applied reflectively and there is evidence showing improvement of educational practices.
Use of sources. The assignment demonstrates familiarity with and uses a range of literature germane to the topic.
Methodology and methods. For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study, it is clear
what kind of study was undertaken. The methodology is adequately
justified. The chosen methods are adequately explained and justified.
There is a sound consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the
methodology, design and underpinning theories.
40% - 49% (Pass):
Overall. The assignment displays sufficient knowledge and an adequate depth of analysis. It shows sufficient breadth of view and insight. Material is generally controlled adequately. Arguments are generally sound.
Content. The topic identified is relevant to the content of the module and to the participantÕs experience. A conceptual framework is established that is in the main adequately grounded. The discussion draws upon the conceptual framework.
Structure. The assignment is generally soundly structured. Arguments develop and there is an appropriate conclusion.
Presentation. Generally, ideas are communicated clearly. Appropriate syntax is generally used. There are some typographical errors but not a significant number. The writing is generally fluent and succinct and the style is appropriate. The length of the assignment is acceptable. The visual presentation is adequate. The layout is sufficiently clear. Referencing is generally accurate in citation and attribution. Application of academic conventions is generally consistent.
Analysis. The assignment develops an adequately reasoned line of argument and a perspective develops through some reflective consideration. Evidence is marshalled and weighed with some thought, and some other options are explored, and judgements are generally based on critical appraisal. Where appropriate, findings and arguments are applied reflectively to the improvement of educational practices.
Use of sources. The assignment demonstrates sufficient familiarity with and uses of a range of literature germane to the topic.
Methodology and methods. For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study, it is more or less clear what kind of study was undertaken. The methodology is adequately justified. The chosen methods are explained and justified. The strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, design and underpinning theories are adequately considered.
Less than 40% (Fail):
The assignment may have strengths but in one or more ways, it has significant weaknesses.
Overall. Significantly, the assignment displays limited knowledge and lacks analysis. It shows little breadth of view and does not display insight. Material is poorly used and the arguments lack persuasion. The assignment is largely descriptive.
Content. The topic identified may not be directly relevant to the content of the module and to the participantÕs experience. An appropriate conceptual framework may not be established and discussion is therefore weak and lacking in focus.
Structure. The assignment may be poorly structured so that arguments fail to develop logically and there is no reasoned conclusion.
Presentation. Ideas may not be communicated clearly. The syntax may be weak and there may be a significant number of typographical errors. The writing may not flow and the style and use of language may be inappropriate. The length of the assignment may not be acceptable. The visual impression may be inadequate and the layout unclear. Referencing may be inaccurate in citation and attribution and there may be inconsistent application of academic conventions.
Analysis. The assignment may not develop a reasoned line of argument. A perspective may fail to develop because there is little or no reflective consideration. Evidence may be neither marshalled nor weighed and other options may not be explored. Judgements may not be adequately based on critical appraisal. Even where appropriate, findings and arguments may not be applied reflectively to the improvement of educational practices. The assignment may be largely descriptive
Use of sources. The assignment may not demonstrate familiarity with a range literature germane to the topic, or inappropriate literature may be analysed. It may inappropriately use only a narrow range of literature.
Methodology and methods. For dissertations and assignments based on empirical study, it may not be clear what kind of study was undertaken and the methodology may not be adequately justified. The explanation and justification of the chosen methods may be inadequate. The strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, design and underpinning theories may not be considered.