Please respond to the following:
This week’s assignment delves into the comprehensive coverage of key points from Chapters One and 17 of the Creswell and Guetterman textbook. Chapter One thoroughly explores the research process, encompassing qualitative and quantitative approaches, demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject matter. Chapter 17, on the other hand, focuses on action research designs.
Chapter One
Chapter One of the textbook begins with a definition of research and the importance of it. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) define research as a systematic approach to collecting and examining data to enhance our understanding of a particular topic or issue. Because we, as educators, often participate in various aspects of the research process, this chapter reminds us that we are not unfamiliar with the research process. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) assert that research is necessary because it adds to the current body of knowledge, improves practice, and offers input for policy. In this chapter, the authors discuss several challenges that research faces now. Because research accumulates slowly and it may take some time to make sense of it, the authors argue that those who benefit from it should realistically assess it. The authors also discuss the questionability of the data that was used for research. This is because the quality of the procedure used to conduct research or the materials that were utilized could not adhere to the rules that are advised (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
According to Creswell and Gutterman (2019), when comparing traditional and contemporary approaches to research, the authors highlight the fact that in contrast to conventional research, which employed the scientific method of inquiry to carry out research and, as a result, laid the groundwork for research that is carried out today, contemporary research implements a total of six distinct steps. When performing quantitative or qualitative research, researchers conduct their work according to these procedures. There was a notable difference between the two methods presented by the writers. In quantitative research, the investigator identifies a research problem based on field trends or the need to explain why something occurs. On the other hand, in qualitative research, the researcher seeks to address a research problem in which they do not know the variables and need to explore. Both techniques to study may seem utterly distinct from one another; nonetheless, they are comparable in several respects. Both methodologies adhere to the six phases in a comparable manner; however, the variations between them lie in how they begin the study. Within the scope of this chapter, six study designs that investigate quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are identified and explained. These are the precise processes presented in this chapter to perform qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
As discussed in the chapter, ethical standards are essential when conducting research. To direct researchers, they were formed. This is paramount, especially throughout data collection and drafting and distributing reports. Even though research often reflects the practices practiced in daily life and may reflect the general practices that we as educators engage in, it is essential to possess the abilities required to design and carry out research. The chapter concludes with some suggestions that could be helpful for those who research and consume it (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
Chapter 17
An explanation of the practical aspect of action research is provided in Chapter 17, which is devoted to action research designs. It is said in the chapter that action research is beneficial to education since it involves researchers examining their issues, collecting and evaluating data, and putting into action adjustments or a plan of action based on their findings after the completion of the research. According to the theory, action research is used whenever a specific educational problem must be eliminated. Typically, three stages are involved in this product’s manufacturing process. Some individuals opposed to the informal research technique perceive it to be a type of inquiry that is not up to par, even though it is gaining more and more popularity in education. Since it is informal, they think it does not possess the same rigor and systematic approach as other designs (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
The chapter highlights two action research designs typically discussed in the field. According to the chapter, these research designs differ in their use. While practical action research is often used by educational professionals seeking to research workplace problems to improve their students’ clients’ or staff outcomes and professional performance, participatory action research is used to improve the quality of people’s organization, communities, and family lives (Stringer, 2007, as cited in Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
As with other research designs, ethical concerns are at the forefront when doing action research with many participants. Action researchers are required to investigate in a manner that is considerate of the participants’ well-being, collaboratively involves them throughout all stages of the research, and is sensitive to the importance of obtaining consent and advancing the purpose of the study, even when not all the details may be known at the beginning of the study (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
My Understanding of the Nature of Research, both Traditional and Action Research
The reading has taught me that research, whether conventional or action research, is not just about finding answers to questions but also about finding solutions to issues that may arise daily. When writing a research paper, one should adhere to the general framework that guarantees thorough investigation and provides a helpful approach for the design and writing of the paper. Moreover, it needs to adhere to ethical standards and be objective (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
The Differences and Similarities Between Traditional and Action Research
Traditional and action research designs have several commonalities, and there are also some variances between them. Both attempt to discover answers to issues and solutions to situations that they have encountered. Such as how qualitative and quantitative methods are used in executing both designs. Additionally, the designs are carried out in a certain sequence. In the same way that conventional research must adhere to ethical rules, action research must do the same to guarantee participants’ safety. There is a significant distinction between the two designs in that, in contrast to conventional research, action research is conducted more casually, which affects the study’s trustworthiness. In the process of doing the study, action research only follows three processes, in contrast to the six phases that are often followed in conventional research. Moreover, in contrast to conventional research, action research attempts to solve real concerns and take action, which indicates that one should enhance their practice. The practitioners can also reflect on their practices (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).
