How to Do Your Research Project A Guide for Students in Education and Applied Social Sciences

foolish thoughts. … Modern English, especially written English, is full of
bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is
willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can
think more clearly. (Orwell, 1969)

Given that one of Orwell’s targets is academic language (and you will have
come across plenty of examples of bad writing in your own reading), his essay is
well worth reading. He comes up with a checklist of what to do and what not to
do:

1 Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to
seeing in print. (In other words, avoid clichés.)

2 Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3 If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4 Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5 Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can
think of an everyday English equivalent.

6 Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

It is worth reiterating that your design frame and approach determine to a great
extent the register that you adopt in your write-up. The examples of ethnography
that I have given show, I hope, that the kind of writing, the register, that you use
in this sort of work will be very different from the write-up of an experiment.
The former may be more like a newspaper article or even a novel, while the
latter will demand more of the structure and strictures of formal academic
writing.

One last point:

Q. Can I say ‘I’?

A. Yes. ‘I’ is a good word, though you should try to steer clear of using it
repeatedly. The main thing is to avoid using silly constructions such as ‘The
researcher selected 25 students …’ instead of ‘I selected 25 students …’. (See
also p. 272.)

Non-sexist and non-discriminatory writing

Quite rightly, there is the expectation that your writing should not engender or
perpetuate stereotypes of any kind, and there are some basic rules here. Do not
use any gender-based language (e.g. using ‘he’ when you mean ‘he or she’). To
avoid it, try using the plural, or if that really won’t work, use ‘they’ as a non-
gendered singular pronoun. Some people get very exercised about this (‘But it’s
not correct grammar!’), but it has now become an acceptable form of use to
avoid sexist writing. Don’t use a gendered form if a neutral form is available
(e.g. don’t use ‘headmistress’ in preference to ‘headteacher’).

At the time of writing ‘disability’ is acceptable, though ‘impairment’ is
preferred by some authorities. ‘Handicap’ is not acceptable.

In the UK, the term ‘black and minority ethnic’ (BME) is used by the Home
Office to refer to all people who are not white.

Presentation

Draft, proofread and edit; re-draft, re-proofread and re-edit; then re-re-draft, re-
re-proofread and re-re-edit … and so on. Get it right. Perhaps I’m oversensitive,
but when I am marking and I read something that clearly has not been proofread
even once I feel a little insulted. It puts me in a bad mood, and you don’t want to
put your marker in a bad mood.

Use word-processor tools to check your spelling and grammar, but be aware
that they are not foolproof. Words such as ‘practice’, which in UK English
change their spelling depending on their use (‘practice’ when a noun, ‘practise’
when a verb), may not be picked up by your spellchecker. So ask someone who
is good at spelling to proofread for you. If English is not your first language, ask
someone for whom it is if they will read it through for you.

Get your apostrophes right. I know it shouldn’t matter to your markers, but
sadly it does. When they see childrens’ it jumps out at them and puts them
instantly off their lunch. Given that more than half of students use apostrophes
incorrectly, here is my half-page guide. It is not comprehensive: it is based on
my experience of the most common apostrophe mistakes made in students’
work.

Apostrophes I: it’s or its?

Use it’s only as an abbreviation for it is, or, less often, it has. For example:

• It’s a nice day today.

• I’m going because it’s necessary.
• It’s [it has] been a long time.

Use its for everything else. For example:
• Its colour is blue.
• The dog was cross because its dinner was late.

(In other words, its is an exception to the general rule that a possessive s takes an
apostrophe.) And note that there is no such construction as its’.

Apostrophes II: ownership

The apostrophe shows that something is ‘owned’.
Singular nouns – like cat, tree, Piaget, nut – take an apostrophe before the s

when you want to indicate ownership. For example:
• Piaget’s theories have been used for many years in education.
• The cat’s fur is falling out.

But when those singular nouns have an s added to make them plural – like cats,
trees, nuts – they take an apostrophe after the s to show ownership. For
example:
• Trees’ leaves fall in the autumn.
• Three students’ ethics forms were sent for scrutiny by the ethics panel.

However, nouns with special plural forms – like people, women, children – take
an apostrophe before the s. For example:
• The women’s group met on Wednesdays.
• Children’s clothes are not subject to VAT.

There are a few other things to consider – but that’s for the advanced course.

Other points

There will be regulations and guidelines about the presentation of your thesis
produced by your university department. Clearly you must conform to these, so

look them up on your department or university website. Here are a few all-
purpose ones:

• Numbering. Make sure your pages are numbered. Go to Insert in Word, then
click on ‘Page Numbers’. The bottom right is the best place for a page
number in my opinion.

• Tables and diagrams. Label tables ‘Table 1’, ‘Table 2’, etc., and the same
with diagrams and pictures, which are called ‘Figures’. It is best to label these
by chapter, so the fourth table in Chapter 3 would be called ‘Table 3.4’. Refer
to tables and figures by their numbers, not as ‘in the following table’.

• Margins. Use at least 33 mm (1.25 inches) on the left and 25 mm (1 inch) on
the right, top and bottom. Your university may have its own specification, but
I’ve never seen any of my colleagues actually get out a tape measure when
marking. The main thing is to ensure that the margins are ample so markers
can write in them, with a bit more on the left to allow for binding.

• Spacing. University regulations usually specify double spacing, though I’m
not actually sure why. I think it is a hangover from the days when typesetters
needed to write between lines. I personally prefer single spacing – and there
is a green issue here as well – but of course you must follow the guidelines
set by your university or department. I think 1.5 spacing would usually be
acceptable (and it’s what I use whenever ordered to use double spacing).

• Quotations. If you use a quotation, make sure you put it in quotation marks. If
you use a quotation of 40 words or longer, indent it. Otherwise, keep it in the
text. (If it is indented you don’t need to put quotation marks around it.)

• References. There is a distinction between references and a bibliography.
References are the works that you have actually referred to in the text. A
bibliography, by contrast, is a list of works that you may have read but not
necessarily mentioned by name. In an academic work of this kind it is
references that you need (see the Harvard method, pp. 83–85).

• Hyphens and en dashes. When you type a hyphen between spaces – often as a
way of making a parenthetic remark like this – Word autocorrects it into
something called an ‘en dash’. It looks like this –. It’s a bit longer than a
hyphen and is a ‘proper’ dash. The only problem is that when you go back to
edit material and want to put in a dash and type the hyphen, Word doesn’t
‘know’ what you are doing, so it just puts in a hyphen. This looks messy. To
avoid it, use the en dash direct entry when editing (i.e. press Ctrl and the
minus sign on the number pad).

Coda

Coda is a pretentious word meaning ‘nearly at the end’. I’m using it because I
don’t want to end the book on anything as dull as a discussion of the use of the
hyphen versus the use of the en dash.

I said at the beginning that research can give you a buzz, and I am sure that
you will have felt that buzz. You will have emerged from doing a research
project with greatly enhanced skills. You will have acquired detailed knowledge
about one aspect of education, healthcare, medicine, business, law, dentistry,
social work or whatever, and you will be something of an authority on this
aspect of your subject. You may even have insights on policy and practice that
will be valuable in local discussions. But perhaps more importantly, you will
have acquired knowledge about how to inquire and do research, having
developed a healthy scepticism about the claims of research to be able to
discover the truth. You will be able to set different kinds of research against each
other and against other kinds of inquiry, and evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of each. And, by doing all of this in your own research, you will be
able to understand better the research that you read.

I hope you have enjoyed the journey. Good luck.

Further reading

Writing
AERA (1999) Publishing educational research: guidelines and tips. Available at:

http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/pubtip.pdf
(accessed 12 October 2008).
This is mainly intended for junior researchers trying to get published and
contains some good advice on writing.

Becker, H.S. (2008) Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your
Thesis, Book, or Article (2nd revised edn). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Excellent on writing, and how to communicate rather than sound clever.

Thomson, A. (2005) Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction. London:

Routledge.
See especially Chapters 4 and 5 on writing and reasoning. Good especially on
how to summarise.

Wolcott, H.E. (2009) Writing Up Qualitative Research (3rd edn). London:
SAGE.

Does what it says on the tin, and Wolcott is a good writer to use as a model.

APPENDIX: CRITICAL VALUES
FOR CHI-SQUARE



REFERENCES

Alderson, P. (2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and
Young People (2nd edn). London: Barnardo’s.

Andreski, S. (1972) Social Sciences as Sorcery. London: André Deutsch.
Ball, S. (1981) Beachside Comprehensive: A Case-Study of Secondary

Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, H.S. (1992) Cases, causes, conjunctures, stories, and imagery. In C.C.

Ragin and H.S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of
Social Inquiry, pp. 205–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1998) Tricks of the Trade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bliss, J., Monk, M. and Ogborn, J. (1983) Qualitative Data Analysis for
Educational Research. London: Croom Helm.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.C. and Williams, J.M. (2003) The Craft of Research
(2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Browne, E., Mehra, S., Rattan, R. and Thomas, G. (2004) Comparing lecture and
e-learning as pedagogies for new and experienced professionals in dentistry.
British Dental Journal, 197 (2), 95–9.
Bruner, J. (1997) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bryman, A. (1998) Quantitative and qualitative research strategies in knowing
the social world. In T. May and M. Williams (eds), Knowing in the Social
World. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Burgess, R.G. (1982) Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London:
Routledge.
Burgess, R.G. (1984) In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London:
Routledge.
Butterfield, H. (1931/1973) The Whig Interpretation of History. London:
Pelican.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Coady, C.A.J. (1994) Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Coles, G. (2000) Misreading Reading: The Bad Science that Hurts Children.
Boston: Heinemann.

Cremin, H., Thomas, G. and Vincett, K. (2005) Working with teaching

assistants: three models evaluated. Research Papers in Education, 20 (4),

413–32.

DCSF (2007) Education and Training Statistics for the United Kingdom.

London: DCSF. Available at:

www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000761/index.shtml (accessed 22

September 2008).

Denzin, N. (1978) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (2nd edn). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and Difference. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Descartes, R. (1647/1996) Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Devlin, B., Fienberg, S.E., Resnick, D.P. and Roeder, K. (eds) (1997),

Intelligence, Genes and Success: Scientists Respond to the Bell Curve. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Dewey, J. (1920/2004) How We Think. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Dickens, W.T. and Flynn, J.R. (2001) Heritability estimates versus large

environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108,

346–69.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow: Longman.

Flanders, N. (2004) Interaction analysis. In C. Seale (ed.), Social Research

Methods: A Reader, pp. 111–16. London: Routledge.

Galton, M., Simon, B. and Croll, P. (1980) Inside the Primary Classroom.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Geertz, C. (1975) The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Hutchinson.

Georgiades, N.J. and Phillimore, L. (1975) The myth of the hero-innovator and

alternative strategies for organizational change. In C.C. Kiernan and F.P.

Woodford (eds), Behaviour Modification with the Severely Retarded.

Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1956) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh:

University of Edinburgh.

Gorard, S. with Taylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in Educational and Social

Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Gordon, H. (1923) Mental and Scholastic Tests among Retarded Children,

Education Pamphlet 44. London: HMSO.

Gould, S.J. (1996) The Mismeasure of Man. McHenry, IL: Sagebrush Education

Resources.

Haldane, J.B.S. (1928) Possible Worlds and Other Essays. London: Chatto &
Windus.

Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography. London: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (1996) The relationship between qualitative and quantitative

research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In J.T.E.
Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods for Psychology and the
Social Sciences. Leicester: BPS Books.
Holton, G. (1995) The controversy over the end of science. Scientific American,
273 (4), 168.
Hume, D. (1748/1910) An enquiry concerning human understanding. In English
Philosophers of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Locke, Berkeley,
Hume, Harvard Classics Volume 37. New York: P.F. Collier & Son. Also
available at: http://eserver.org/18th/hume-enquiry.html.
ICM (2007) Royal Family and War Survey. Available at:
www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2007_august_daily_mail_royals_poll.pdf
(accessed 10 February 2013).
Jenkins, R. (1992) Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Johnston, R.S. and Watson, J.E. (2003) Accelerating Reading and Spelling with
Synthetic Phonics: A Five Year Follow Up. Insight 4. Scottish Executive.
Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/03/16513/18923
(accessed 10 February 2013).
Jones, L. and Brown, T. (2001) ‘Reading’ the nursery classroom: a Foucauldian
perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14 (6),
713–25.
Jones, S. (1985) The analysis of depth interviews. In R. Walker (ed.), Applied
Qualitative Research. Aldershot: Gower.
Junghans, C., Feder, G., Hemingway, H., Timmis, A. and Jones, M. (2005)
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of ‘opt-
in’ versus ‘opt-out’ strategies. British Medical Journal, 331, 940. Available at:
www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/331/7522/940.pdf (accessed 26 August 2008).
Kellett, M. (2005) How to Develop Children as Researchers. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Kelly G.A. (1955/1991) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. II.
London: Routledge.
Klein, P. (1997) Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: a critique of
Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22 (4), 377–94.
Kounin, J. (1970) Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, C. (1970) Hightown Grammar. Manchester: Manchester University

Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962/1966) The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social

Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.
Lewis, A. (1995) Views of schooling held by children attending schools for

pupils with moderate learning difficulties. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 42 (1), 57–73.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (2000) Researching Children’s Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewis, A. and Porter, J. (2004) Interviewing children and young people with
learning disabilities: guidelines for researchers and multi-professional
practice. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32 (4), 191–7.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE.
MacIntyre, A. (1985) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London:
Duckworth.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research
Project (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
Maslow, A. (1966) Psychology of Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Medawar, P.B. (1982) Pluto’s Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd edn). London: SAGE.
Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67 (4), 371–8.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (1978) Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and
Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Bethesda, MD:
The Commission.
Newman, J.H. (1852/1960) The idea of a university. In M. J. Svaglic (ed.), The
Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, pp. 15–16. San Francisco:
Rinehart Press.
Oakley, A. (2000) Experiments in Knowing: Gender and Method in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Polity.
Orwell, G. (1969) Politics and the English language. In G. Orwell, Inside the
Whale and Other Essays. London: Penguin. Available at:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit (accessed 2 October

2008).
Patrick, J. (1973) A Glasgow Gang Observed. London: Methuen.
Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-Based Policy: A Realistic Perspective. London:

SAGE.
Pólya, G. (1945/2004) How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.
Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum.
Prosser, J. (ed.) (1998) Image-Based Research. London: Routledge.
Prosser, J. and Loxley, A. (2008) Introducing visual methods: ESRC National

Centre for Research Methods review paper. Available at:
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/420/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-010.pdf
(accessed 4 November 2012).
Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6, 65–78.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939) Management and the Worker.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1956) Galileo and scientific method. In A.F. Scott (ed.), Topics and
Opinions. London: Macmillan.
Ryle, G. (1949/1990) The Concept of Mind. London: Penguin.
Sacks, O. (1996) An Anthropologist on Mars. London: Picador.
Schwartz, D. (1992) Waucoma Twilight: Generations of the Farm. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Smith, F. (1992) To Think: In Language Learning and Education. London:
Routledge.
Smith, J. and Heshusius, L. (1986) Closing down the conversation: the end of
the quantitative–qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4–12.
Soothill, K., Francis, B., Ackerley, E. and Fligelstone, R. (2002) Murder and
Serious Sexual Assault: What Criminal Histories Can Reveal about Future
Serious Offending, Police Research Series Paper 144. London: Home Office.
Available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs144.pdf (accessed 24
October 2008).
Spradley, J. P. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Steedman, C. (1990) Childhood, Culture and Class in Britain: Margaret
McMillan, 1860–1931. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tarr, J. and Thomas, G. (1997) The quality of special educational needs policies:

time for review? Support for Learning, 12 (1), 10–14.

Thagard, P. (1998) Ulcers and bacteria I: Discovery and acceptance. Studies in

History and Philosophy of Science. Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy

of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 29: 107–36. Also available at:

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Ulcers.one.html.

Thomas, G. (1992) Effective ClassroomTeamwork: Support or Intrusion.

London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (1994) Write on or write-off ? British Journal of Special Education,

21 (1), 12.

Thomas, G. (2002) Are eggs the right size for egg cups because of good

planning by hens? Where is reading research going? Educational Psychology

in Practice, 18 (2), 157–66.

Thomas, G. (2007) Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Thomas, G. (2011) How to Do Your Case Study – A Guide for Students and

Researchers. London: Sage.

Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006) Re-inventing grounded theory: some questions

about theory, ground and discovery, British Educational Research Journal, 32

(6), 767–95.

Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb. J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive

School. London: Routledge.

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G. and Hall, J. (2006) A systematic review of the

research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and

spelling. Research Report 711. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Vincett, K., Cremin, H. and Thomas, G. (2005) Teachers and Assistants

Working Together. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Wacquant, L.D. (1989) Towards a reflexive sociology: a workshop with Pierre

Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7, 26–63.

Wells, M. (2005) Paxman answers the questions. Guardian Unlimited, 31

January. Available at:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1402324,00.html (accessed

26 August 2007).

Whale, J. (1984) Put it in Writing. London: Dent.

Wheeler, L.R. (1970) A trans-decade comparison of the IQs of Tennessee

mountain children. In I. Al-Issa and W. Dennis (eds), Cross-Cultural Studies

of Behavior, pp. 120–33. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

White, J. (2006) Intelligence, Destiny and Education. London: Routledge.

Wieviorka, M. (1992) Case studies: history or sociology? In C.C. Ragin and H.S.

Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry,

pp. 159–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolcott, H.F. (1992) Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L.

Milroy and J. Preissie (eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Education, pp. 3–52. New York: Academic Press.
Wright Mills, C. (1959/1970) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Holt.

INDEX

A to Z of research topics, 17, 230
abstract, 3, 284, 288
abstraction See theorisation
academic freedom, 38
access, 44, 53–4
accounts, 191, 200
action research, 7, 132, 133, 146–9, 160, 181
Alderson, P., 50, 55
alerts facility (library), 77
Amazon, 57, 78
analysis, 62–4, 87, 88, 115, 116, 234–82
analysis flowchart, 281
anonymity, 47–9, 52, 94, 208, 245, 278
An Anthropologist on Mars, 113
anthropology, 156, 158
apostrophes, 292
apparatus, 134, 142
appearance demeanour in interview, 194–5
appendix, use of, 53, 251
applied social sciences, 104, 110, 129, 242, 272
approaches to research, 102–30
archives, 22, 229
artefacts, 22, 204
Athens, 75, 79
Atlas.ti, 244
attitudes, 125, 127, 154, 194, 199, 203, 207, 213, 266
attrition of participants, 171, 172
audio, 50, 58, 154, 195, 196, 200, 204, 221
authority problems arguing from, 23
autobiographies, 58
averages, 250 See also mean, median, mode

Ball S., 155

bar charts, 250, 255
Beachside Comprehensive, 155
Becker, H., 26, 99, 100, 101, 114, 115, 153, 185, 188, 189, 295
behaviour, 166–8, 220
BEI, British Education Index, 80
Belmont Report, 40, 47, 52
BERA, (British Educational Research Association) 42, 43, 216
Bergson, H., 279
bias, 70, 108, 131, 135, 139, 208
bilingualism, 127, 128, 131
biography, 144
BIS (Background, Issue, Solution), 3–5, 26–7, 44
black and minority ethnic, 198, 291
Booth, W.C., 3, 26
Bourdieu, P., 98, 99
brainstorming, 17, 92, 194
bricolage, 184, 185
Bristol Online Survey (BOS), 215
Bruner, J., 64, 115, 275
Bryman, A., 183, 188
Burgess, R., 55, 157, 220–1

Campbell Collaboration, 17, 59, 88
Campbell, D.T., 140
CAQDAS, 244
Carr, W., 188
case study, 111, 128, 144, 150–5, 183, 186, 187, 188–9
categories, 235–6
causal direction, 141
causation, 14, 110, 114, 141, 163, 175, 181, 258
census data, 229
challenging behaviour, 149
chart tool in Word, 251, 256
chi-square, 260–71
CINAHL, 80
closed questions, 196, 208
Cochrane Collaboration, 17, 62, 88
code of conduct, 42, 55, 100
coding qualitative data, 236, 242, 282

Coffey, A., 282
cohort study, 171, 287
Coles, G., 141
column graphs, 255
comparative research, 153, 177–81, 187
Comte, A., 107, 113
concealment, 46
conclusion, 33, 284–95
conference proceedings, 58, 77, 80
confidentiality, 44, 47–50, 52, 215, 245
Connolly, P., 283
consent, 41, 43, 44, 48–50, 52, 53, 264
constant comparative method, 234–39, 242
constant sum method in questionnaires, 211–12
construct mapping, 235–7
content analysis, 242, 276–7
contingency planning, 36
control group, 41, 164, 166, 169, 258, 287
convenience sample, 136
conversations, 157, 282
correlation, 59, 256–8, 283
corroboration, 22, 146 See also evidence
co-variance, 256
creativity in designing research, 193, 242, 274
criminal justice, 134
criterion- v norm-referenced tests, 226
critical awareness, 63, 69, 71, 87, 124, 146, 285
critical incidents, 162
critical inquiry, 38
critical thinking, 71, 72, 131
Croll, P., 232
cross-sectional studies, 132 –3, 170, 189
crosstabs, 262, 268
Crotty, M., 131
cultural differences, 179, 181
curiosity, 2, 5, 6, 25, 114, 127, 128

data
analysis, 234–82
gathering, 191–32
secondary, 226–33
security and stewardship, 48

debriefing for participants, 46, 47, 50
deception, 40, 46
deduction and deducing, 125
deductive reasoning, 122
Denzin, N., 146, 282
Department for Education, 17, 228, 251, 252
Department of Health, 17, 43
dependent variable, 167
Descartes, R., 69
description, 12, 15, 97, 109, 125, 130, 183 See also thick description

design of research
and method, 102–30,
frames, 146–183
general issues in, 135–45

Dewey, J., 23, 71
diaries, 154, 157, 158, 200–3, 221, 232, 239, 241
dichotomous questions, 209
disability, 52, 109, 110, 171, 172, 248, 258, 291
disaffection, 14
discourse analysis, 242–4, 282
discussion, 15, 31, 103, 271–82

dissertations
structure of, 29–31, 33–4
as a source, 58, 61

document interrogation, 191, 204–7
duty of doubt, 69, 71, 121, 275

ecology of the classroom, 168
edited book, 60
editing, 294
Einstein, A., 114
emails, 35, 36, 194
emergent design, 134
empathy, 130, 195

empirical
study, 20–2, 224
knowledge, 121, 138, 224

EndNote, 81, 85, 86
engagement, 157, 158, 167, 180, 220
epistemology, 118, 120–4, 129, 168, 186
EPPI-Centre, 62, 89
ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), 79–81
error, and reliability, 139

See also experimental error
ethical clearance, 28, 37, 38, 42–5, 47
ethics, 18, 28, 37–53, 55, 56, 186–7, 196, 215, 293
ethnicity, 109, 144
ethnography, 132, 133, 155–60, 187, 188, 189, 201, 202, 221, 279, 291
EThOS, 79
evaluation, 125, 132, 133, 142, 148, 160–3, 187, 189, 208
evidence, 20–4, 27, 58–9, 71, 143, 146, 183
Excel, Microsoft, 226–8, 249–71
exclusion, 14, 44, 279
experience, as basis of empirical study,121–24
experiments, 22, 104, 111, 114, 123, 134–5, 137, 140–2, 145, 163–70, 258,

260, 272, 291
experimental design, 104, 134–5, 139, 166, 188
ethics of, 39–41, 45, 46
experimental error, 164–5
experimenter effects, 141
experimenter-expectancy effects, 142
eyeballing of statistics, 167, 208, 234, 249, 252

facilitator in interviews, 203, 204
Fairclough, N., 242, 243, 244
FedStats, 229
feedback to participants, 8, 50, 52, 215, 216
Feyerabend, P., 131, 184
fieldwork, 11, 31, 111, 156, 157, 221, 224
filters in questionnaires, 215
final question, 95–6
findings, analysis of, 234–82
first person (the word ‘I’), 226, 291

Flanders Interaction Analysis, 218
focus groups, 59, 115, 149, 191, 203–4, 232
Foucault, M., 184
frequencies, 260, 267, 269
frequency distribution, 251
Freud, S., 98, 279

Galton, M., 219
gangs, 110
Geertz, C., 109, 110, 131, 157, 189
gender, 131, 144, 263–5, 291
generalisation and generalisability, 142–4, 188
Georgiades, N., 286
gestures, 142, 195, 200
Glaser, B., 137, 138, 239
Glasgow Gang Observed, A, 110, 155
Goffman, E., 241–2
Google, 45, 57, 72–5, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83
Google Books, 72
Google Scholar, 72–5, 77, 81
Gorard, S., xiii, 56, 183, 188, 190
Gould, S.J., 156, 225
grounded theory, 224, 239
group interviews, 203–4

Haldane, J.B.S., 69, 121
harm to participants See Ethics
Harvard referencing system, 83–5, 88, 294
Hawthorne effect, 141–2
Head Start, 73–5
healthcare, 9, 16, 62, 80, 88, 174, 180, 181, 225, 294
Heidegger, M., 184
Hightown Grammar, 155
Hume, D., 107, 108, 113, 116
hypothesis, 16, 84, 108, 164, 165, 271

I, using the word, 226, 291
ICM polling organisation, 70
Idea of a University, The, 38

ideas for research, 5, 26, 57
illumination, 12, 109, 115, 183, 195
image-based methods, 191, 223–4
imagery, 185
imagination, 89, 193, 194
implied consent, 49–50
inclusive education, 5, 179, 278
independent variable, 165
inductive reasoning, 122
inferential statistics, 137, 234, 258, 259
informed consent, 52, 53
insight, 5, 130, 235
institutional review, 42, 45, 55, 100
international comparison See comparative research
interpretation, 11–12, 201–2, 242, 259, 260
interpretative study, 145, 185, 200
interpretivism, 102, 106–17, 129, 220, 235, 239
interview schedule, 198–99
interviews, 94, 139, 146, 154, 158, 162, 183, 194–200, 203–4, 223, 236, 237,

239, 240, 242
interviewing, 22, 125, 139, 157, 194–200, 203, 221, 224
inter-library loan, 79
introduction, 1–25
IQ, 140, 225
IRB See institutional review
isolation as a researcher, 130
iterative investigation, 19

journalism, 25

Kellett, M., 50, 56
knowledge,

approaches to, 104–24
attitude to, 69, 206, 285
correspondence view of, 119
insider, 109, 111, 178
how we know something, 117–24
kinds of, 104–5
and power, 184

provisional, 123
situated, 144
See also epistemology, ontology
Kounin, J., 167, 168
Kuhn, T., 106, 131, 184

Lacey, C., 155, 282
language difficulty of translating, 179
Leakey, L., 114
Lévi-Strauss, C., 184, 185
Lewin, K., 147, 232
Lewis, A., 50, 52, 56, 195
library, 39, 57, 62, 72–81, 85, 88, 136, 208
life histories, 193
Likert Scale, 213
line charts, 255
literacy, 8
literature review, 18, 20, 22, 31–2, 57–88, 91–6, 99, 124, 125, 128, 271, 277,

288
logic, 125, 185
longitudinal study, 146, 170–7, 187
Loxley, A., 223, 224, 232
Luker, K., 27

MacIntyre, A., 131, 164
MacLure, M., 190
managing the project, xvi–xviii, 28–55
margins of the page, 293
Marx, K., 98
Maslow, A., 192, 201
matrix (grid) questions, 212
McCulloch, G., 282
McMillan, M., 168–9, 189
McNiff, J., 148, 188
Mead, G.H., 108
mean, 253–5
Medawar, P., 19
median, 253–5
meta-analyses, 59

methodology
and approach, 102–30
and design, 132–88

methods
for collecting data 191–232
for analysis, 234–82

Miles, M.B., 235, 283
Milgram experiments, 39, 41, 46
Millennium Cohort Study, 171
Mismeasure of Man, The, 156
mode (as average), 253, 254, 255
moderator in interviews, 203
modernism, 183, 184
multiple-choice questions, 209

narrative, 87, 114–5, 127, 272, 282
narrative review, 59
national datasets, 178
network analysis, 235–7
Newman, J.H., 38
Nightingale, F., 182
no design frame, 168, 181
non-discriminatory writing, 291
non-probabilistic sample, 137
null hypothesis, 165, 271
numbers, kinds of, 248–9
NVivo, 244

Oakley, A., 111, 131
observable behaviour, 119
observation, 13, 20, 22, 41, 111, 122, 157, 217–23, 239
observation schedule, 218–9
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 27, 229,

230, 251
Office for National Statistics, 229, 230
official statistics, 14, 125, 191, 228, 233
Ofsted, 145, 173
‘ologies’, 117, 118
ontology, 118–20, 121, 123, 124, 186
open-ended questions, 195, 214
optical character recognition (OCR), 206
ORACLE project, 219

Orwell, G., 290

panel study, 171
paradigm shift, 106, 107
paradigms, 105, 106, 107, 110–24, 168, 169, 182, 183
participant observation, 111, 157, 178, 189, 191, 218, 220, 221, 232
Patrick, J., 110, 155, 221
Pawson, R., 159, 160, 189
Paxman, J., 69, 70, 85
planning the project, xvi–xviii, 28–55
peer review, 39, 59, 60, 61, 63
percentages, 250
personal experience, 6, 22, 151
PGCE, 145, 166
PhD, 65, 202, 288–9
philosophy, 118, 119, 184
photographs, 14, 58, 204, 221, 223, 224
phronesis, 97, 188
pie charts, 250, 255
pilot, 45, 173, 211, 215
plagiarism, 86–7
Plato, 185
population, 135–7
positionality, 54, 109, 139, 144–5, 186
positivism, 106, 107, 111–14, 116, 129
postgraduate study, 3, 14, 31, 44, 45, 48, 89, 139, 149, 161
postmodernism, 129, 183–4
practitioners, 97, 146, 148
prediction, 239
presentation, 290–4
prestige bias, 208
prima facie question, 18–20, 25, 26, 55, 90–1, 95, 99, 100, 128, 180 See also

final question
Pring, R., 27, 131, 183
professional journal, 60, 215
Prosser, J., 223, 224, 232
protocols, ethical, 43, 243
pseudonyms, 47
psychology, 80, 104, 114, 184, 203, 276

psychometrics, 138, 139
PsycINFO, 80
public opinion research, 229
PubMed, 80, 81
purposes of research, 6–7, 128
Putnam, R., 180, 279, 280

Q words, 116
qualitative, 4, 52, 56, 111, 116–7, 129, 131, 190, 194–223, 237, 244, 282–3,

295
collecting qualitative data, 194–223
analysing qualitative data, 235–45
quantitative, 111, 116–7, 129, 131, 190, 224–31
collecting quantitative data, 207–26
analysing quantitative data, 247–71
questionnaires, 172, 174, 175, 207–17, 232, 262

questions
kinds of, 208–12
research See research questions
See also prima facie question; final question

quotations, 86, 87, 222, 236, 237, 239

Ragin, C.C., 188
random allocation to groups, 166
random sample, 135, 136
rank order questions, 210
rapport, 195, 264
rating scale questions, 211
rationalism, 183
readability, 206, 244
reasoning, 23–4, 27, 113, 122–4
reference list, 78, 85
reference management programs, 81
Reference Manager, 81, 85
reflective thinking and thought, 23–4, 71, 97, 115, 130–1, 148, 221, 241,
reliability, 134, 138–40, 183, 226
replicability, 134
representativeness of data, 136, 137, 144
research approach, 26, 27, 110, 116, 124, 102–130
research design, 13, 44, 95, 102–30, 133–4, 192, 207, 221, 288
research idea, 5, 26, 57
research questions, 2–18, 95–6, 102–3, 116, 125, 185
review articles, 59
risk to participants and researcher, 53
risky shift, 203
Rorty, R., 184
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, 213, 256
rules of thumb, 144
Runyan, D., 144
Russell, B., 143, 150
Ryle, G., 84, 110

Sacks, O., 113, 131
samples and sampling, 50, 111, 135–8, 208, 226

convenience, 136

non-probabilistic, 137
problems with the idea of, 137–8
purposive, 137
random, 54, 135–6
snowball, 137
statistical, 137
stratified, 136, 205
theoretical, 137
scales, 213
scatter graph, 255, 256–7
sceptical, importance of being, 24, 71, 117, 124, 184, 244
scepticism, 69, 124, 185, 294

schedule
for your work, 34, 35, 37
interview, 198–99
observation, 218–9

Schön, D., 131
Schweisfurth, M., 189
scientific method, 108, 114
scientific progress, 143, 183
search engines, 81 See also Google
secondary data, 233 See also official statistics
secondary analysis, 178
second-order constructs, 236
selection bias, 135
serendipity, 114
sexist writing, 291
Shibboleth, 75, 79
significance testing, 259–60
Simons, H., 56
situated knowledge, 144
Smith E., 17, 229, 233
Smith F., 274
snowball sample, 137
social capital, 180, 279
social science, 16, 19, 24, 77, 98, 99, 104–7, 114, 115, 118, 121–3, 129, 177,

242, 258, 269, 272, 282
Social Sciences Citation Index, 77
social work 96, 97, 117, 134, 146, 171, 247, 294
sociograms, 244–6
sociology, 80, 118, 184
sociometry, 244, 282
Socratic dialogues, 185
sources, 57–63
spacing, 288, 293
special needs, 5, 14, 158, 179, 204
special schools, 5
speed reading, 66–8
Spradley, J.P., 156
spreadsheets, 250, 262
SPSS, 260, 262–9, 270–1, 283

Stake, R.E., 188
standard deviation, 256
statistics, 113, 116, 125, 137, 225, 247–71, 283

derived, 250
descriptive, 250–6
inferential, 258–71
official, 14, 125, 191, 228–30, 233
and relationships between variables, 256–8
readability, 206, 244
statistical significance, 259–60, 267, 268, 269
storyboard, 24, 57, 64, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 99, 100, 102
Stronach, I., 190

structured observations
duration, 217
frequency count, 217
interval, 218

subject and object (of case study), 151, 152
subjectivity, 109, 145
supervisors, working with, 33, 36–7, 48, 50
survey, 23, 68, 70, 111, 132, 133, 170–8, 183, 215, 216, 217, 229, 277
SurveyMonkey, 215
SwetsWise, 77
synthesis, 63–4, 87, 88, 272–5, 280, 284, 285
systematic reviews, 59, 62, 88

tables and diagrams, 251, 293
taking notes, 13, 157, 272
Teachernet, 206
teaching assistants, 9, 82, 135, 158, 160, 162, 189, 202, 236
techne, 97
temporary constructs, 236
testimony, 22, 206
tests, 225–6
textbooks (as sources), 58, 59, 185, 192, 194, 221, 249
Thagard, P., 114, 115
theme mapping, 237

themes
from constant comparative method, 235–41, 277, 283
from literature review, 64, 66, 99

theory and theorisation, 96–9, 150, 185
drawing out, 275–80
meanings of, 97–8

thick description, 109–10, 157, 158, 186, 223, 239–42, 272, 280
time management, 34–6
thinking critically, 71, 72, 102, 131 See also critical awareness,
Thomas, G., 4, 27, 97, 101, 106, 138, 141, 185, 188, 189, 192, 204, 222, 232,

235, 239, 290
Thomson, A., 27, 131, 295
thought experiments, 185
time sampling, 217–19
timeline, 31–3, 34, 55, 193
title, 24, 288
transcription, 195, 200
transcripts, 139, 236
triangulation, 22, 146, 186, 188
Tuskegee syphilis experiment, 40–1
type I and II errors, 165

undergraduates,
requirements of, 15, 31, 43–4, 48, 54, 81, 139, 161

validity, 139–41
value of a variable, 138
variables, 105, 108, 109, 111, 119, 123, 130, 135, 138, 161, 163, 164, 167,

170, 173, 187, 255, 256, 258, 263, 264, 265, 267
verbal and non-verbal cues, 198, 226
video, 14, 22, 58, 167, 200, 204, 221, 223–4
vulnerable groups, 50

Web of Knowledge (Web of Science), 77, 81
websites, 15, 17, 58, 61, 68, 82, 226, 229
White, P., 27
Wieviorka, M., 150, 151, 188
Wittgenstein, L., 184
Wolcott, H.E., 122, 295

World Health Organization (WHO), 181
Wright Mills, C., 98, 131, 182
writing, 284–94

Zetoc, 77