35 Qualitative Research

Dr. Neeru Tandon

The students will grasp the basic essentials about qualitative research in English language teaching. They will identify key issues regarding research in current English language studies and develop skills to search online and offline sources to carry out literature review. They will come to know various aspects of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research in English studies. Multiple-choice exercises will help them in assessing their knowledge and understanding of the work. Bibliography, list of websites and YouTube videos will help them in their in-depth study and further reading.

Aims

The chapter aims to enable students to:

1. Understand various research paradigms and become aware of theoretical and practical issues related to humanities research especially in contemporary English language studies
2. Review previously published work in the field; select an appropriate research topic with an awareness of principles in research design
3. Demonstrate knowledge required to plan and conduct research with an understanding of appropriate research methods for a particular domain
4. Familiarize themselves with skills to analyze different types of research data and explore various tools and software for the analyses
5. Consolidate their research and academic skills to present research findings in both spoken and written forms.

INTRODUCTION

There are many approaches to dealing with research. Two of the most common are known as quantitative and qualitative, although this distinction is somewhat simplistic as the relationship is best thought of as a continuum of research types. The term qualitative research is an imprecise term that creates at least two problems. One problem arises because qualitative refers to a type of data, not a type of research design. This makes the idea of qualitative research illogical–even impossible since it ignores the possibility of triangulation using multiple types of data, some of which might be qualitative and some of which might be quantitative. Furthermore, the term assumes the type of data determines the type of research. Nevertheless, despite these problems, many researchers and editors continue to use the term qualitative to refer to a type of research instead of restricting its use to a type of data. A second and related problem is that the general term qualitative research can refer to any number of research designs, for example case study, ethnography, or grounded theory. In these research designs, none of the assumptions of experimental design, such as variables and hypothesis testing are operative.

DEFINING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

One of the most common ways to classify research is by categorizing them according to the data (gathered and analyzed). According to the data gathered, research can be classified into two kinds: quantitative and qualitative research. To put it simply, quantitative research deals with numbers whereas qualitative research deals with words.

The term qualitative research is associated with a range of different methods, perspectives, and approaches. As Mason (1996) pointed out, “qualitative research—whatever it might be—

certainly does not represent a unified set of techniques or philosophies, and indeed has grown out of a wide range of intellectual and disciplinary traditions”.

To give a general definition of qualitative research in the second language field the term qualitative research can be taken to refer to research that is based on descriptive data that does not make (regular) use of statistical procedures.

Scollon (2001) argued that critical discourse analysis, a form of qualitative research, is “a program of social analysis that critically analyzes discourse—that is to say language in use—as a means of addressing social change”.

Describing quantitative research has been a relatively straightforward task because there is a general agreement amongst QUAN practitioners about the main features and principles of the approach. This is not at all the case with QUAL research. In a recent overview of the field, two of the most influential qualitative researchers, Denzin and Lincoln (2oo5a), concluded that ‘qualitative research is difficult to define clearly. It has no theory or paradigm that is distinctly shown. Nor does qualitative research have a: distinct set of methods or practices that are entirely its own, (p. 6-7). And later they added, ‘Qualitative research is many things to many people’ (p~ IO). Denzin and Lincoln’s view is not at all exaggerated and is shared throughout the profession. For example, another well-known proponent of qualitative research, Silverman (I997), expressed a similar conclusion when he stated that ‘there is no agreed doctrine underlying all qualitative social research’ (p. I4). Furthermore, Holliday (2004: 73I) has added that ‘boundaries in current qualitative research are crumbling, and researchers are increasingly doing whatever they can to find out what they want to know’. As seen earlier, the lack of uniformity goes back to the genesis of the qualitative approach when scholars of diverse beliefs united under the qualitative label in their fight against the quantitative paradigm. Luckily, the overall picture is not as gloomy and fragmented as the above quotes would suggest. Qualitative research is in fact a thriving discipline, and while it is true that some issues have been subject to a lot of, and sometimes heated, discussion, there exists a core set of features that would universally characterize a properly conducted qualitative study.

Brief Historical Overview

Research that can be considered ‘qualitative’ in retrospect has been around for about- a century in the social sciences. Qualitative-like methods were Research Methods in Applied Linguistics introduced into sociology at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century through the work of the Chicago School for the study of human group life, and during the first third of the century anthropology also produced some seminal qualitative studies by renowned scholars such as Boas and Malinowski, defining the outlines of the fieldwork method . Thus, the basic QUAL ideas and principles are not new at-all, yet the first text that tried to define ‘qualitative methodology’ -Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research – did not appear until the late sixties. In this highly influential book the authors described the use of qualitative procedures by the QUAL pointers as ‘nonsystematic and nonrigorous’, and opposed that early monographs based on qualitative data consisted of ‘lengthy, detailed descriptions, which resulted in very small amounts of theory, if any’. After the I930s and particularly after World War 1, quantitative research methodology produced substantial advances and qualitative research was relegated to preliminary, exploratory work whose role was seen to provide the ‘more serious’ quantitative studies with an adequate starting point. The middle of the twentieth century was undoubtedly subjugated by quantitative research, and the invaluable merit of Glaset’ and Strauss’f (1967) book was to offer a worthwhile challenge to this domination.

In applied linguistics there has been an increasing visibility and acceptance of qualitative research since the mid-I990s. This is related to the growing recognition that almost every aspect of language acquisition and use is determined or significantly shaped by social, cultural, and situational factors, and qualitative research is ideal for providing insights into such contextual conditions and influences. Accordingly, applied linguistics has been offering an increasingly level playing field for both QUAN and QUAL approaches.

Although the frequency of published QUAL studies is still relatively low, the impact of qualitative research in applied linguistics over the past three decades has been profound. Early case studies of the I970S and I980s generated many of the prevailing principles and models. With regard to contemporary research, we find qualitative studies focusing on topics across the whole research spectrum, even including core quantitative areas such as language testing, and several key areas of applied linguistics (for example, the study of gender, race, ethnicity, and identity) are being driven by qualitative research.

Ideally, qualitative researchers enter the research process with a completely open mind and without setting out to test preconceived hypotheses. In their seminal work, Glaser and Strauss (I967) actively encouraged qualitative researchers to ignore the literature before the investigation in order to assure that ‘the emergence of categories will not be contaminated by concepts more suited to different areas’.

The Nature of Qualitative Data

Qualitative research works with a wide range of data including recorded interviews, various types of texts (for example, field notes, journal and diary entries, and documents) and images. During data processing most data are transformed into a textual form (for example, interview recordings are transcribed) because most qualitative data analysis is done with words. Although qualitative data is not gathered with the purpose of being directly counted or measured in art objective way, subsequent analysis can define categories through which certain aspects of qualitative data can be quantified. Because the common objective of all the different types of qualitative methods is to make sense of a set of (cultural or personal) meanings in the observed phenomena, it is indispensable that the data should capture rich and complex details. Therefore, in order to achieve such a ‘thick’ description, almost any relevant information can be admitted as QUAL data.

Because of the QUAL objective to describe social phenomena as they occur naturally, qualitative research takes place in the natural setting, without any attempts to manipulate the situation under study.

Qualitative research is concerned with subjective opinions, experiences and feelings of individuals and thus the overt target of research is to discover the participants’ views of the situation being studied. This approach follows from the way qualitative researchers perceive meaning: it is a fundamental QUAL principle that human behaviour is based upon meanings which people attribute to and bring to situations (Punch 2005) and it is only the actual participants themselves who can reveal the meanings and interpretations of their experiences and actions. Therefore, qualitative researchers struggle to view social phenomena from the perspectives of the ‘insiders’ and the term ‘insider perspective’ has a special place in the qualitative dogma.

In quantitative study, data is usually analyzed using computer software (e.g. t-test) and presented in numerical forms (by using percentage, for example). Quantitative studies usually start with a (written) hypothesis that needs to be “tested” by conducting the research. In contrast, qualitative studies start with the assumption that the research topic must be understood “holistically”

(McKay, 2006, )

Interpretive analysis of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is fundamentally interpretive, which means that the research outcome is ultimately the product of the researcher’s subjective interpretation of the data. Several alternative interpretations are possible for each dataset, and because QUAL studies utilize relatively limited harmonized equipment or diagnostic methods, finally the researcher will decide it. As Miles and Huberman (I994: 7) conclude, ‘The researcher is essentially the main “measurement device” in the study’. Accordingly, in qualitative research, the researcher’s own values, personal history, and ‘position’ on characteristics such as gender, culture, class, and age become integral part of the inquiry

(Haverkamp 2005).

One of the most challenging issues amongst qualitative researchers concerns the question as to whether researchers need to enter a QUAL project with only nominal background knowledge so as not to ‘contaminate’ the developing nature of the study. Glaser and Strauss (I967) were explicit about this requirement and it has ‘become one of the main tenets of the qualitative inquiry that the results ’emerge’ naturally, without any biased interference of the researcher. The researcher, therefore, needs to adopt a ‘tabula rasa’ orientation and Glaser and Strauss proposed that the researcher’s ‘theoretical sensitivity’ is only to appear when the data has already been collected and partially analyzed so that the concepts and hypotheses that have emerged from the data can be combined with existing knowledge.’ Miles and Huberman (I994) go one step further when they claim that it is the researchers’ background knowledge that helps them to see and decipher details, complexities, and subtleties, as well as to decide what kind of questions to ask or which incidents to attend to closely.

The topics of greatest interest for qualitative researchers are human behaviors and socio-cultural patterns and norms, which underlie the behaviors. Data are viewed in a “holistic” fashion, without attempting to separate them into their components, and preferably following the interpretations of the people who are the object of the research (“emic” interpretations) In data collection, ethnographic research (as the most typical and concrete example of qualitative research) doesn’t usually use “instruments,” rather “processes” that are supposedly free of bias and prior assumptions: free, prolonged observation, at times “participant observation,” open- ended interviews, “triangulation” of information and interpretation, “informant checking,” access to existing documents.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research: Qualitative research has traditionally been seen as a successful way of discovering new, unexplored spaces. If a fact is not so popular, the detailed study of a few cases is principally suitable because it does not depend on previous literature or first-hand findings received previously (Eisenhardt I989). Qualitative methods are useful for making sense of highly complex situations. In such cases there is a real danger for researchers in general to produce reduced and simplified interpretations that distort the bigger picture; the participant-sensitivity of qualitative research is very helpful in deciding what aspects of the data require special attention because it offers priority guidelines that are validated by the main actors themselves.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative research

Qualitative research can be best understood through the meanings in subjective experiences. The relation between subjective experience and language is a collaborative process; language is used to explain meaning, but the other way round, language influences how meaning is formed. Voicing experiences is a complex procedure as the meaning of experiences is often not completely comprehensible or user -friendly and difficult to express in language. Because interpretation and understanding meanings are central in qualitative research and text is the ‘vehicle’ with which meaning is ultimately transferred to the reader, language differences generate additional challenges that might hamper the transfer of meaning and might result in loss of meaning and thus loss of the authority of the qualitative study.

Qualitative research is often process-oriented or open ended. Qualitative researchers aim to study individuals and events in their natural settings (Tetnowski & Damico, 2001). That is, rather than trying to control circumstantial factors through the use of laboratories or other artificial environments, qualitative researchers tend to be more interested in presenting a natural and holistic picture of the phenomena being studied. In contrast, quantitative research usually begins with a carefully defined research question that guides the process of data collection and analysis. Thus, whereas quantitative researchers set out to test specific hypotheses, qualitative researchers tend to approach the research context with the purpose of observing whatever may be present there, and letting further questions occur from the context.

To capture the richness of experience in language, people commonly use narratives and metaphors (Polkinghorne 2005). Metaphors vary from culture to culture and are language- specific (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Language also influences what can be expressed, and some linguists even state that social reality as experience is unique to one’s own language; those who speak different languages would perceive the world differently (Chapman 2006).Qualitative research is considered valid when the distance between the meanings as experienced by the participants and the meanings as interpreted in the findings is as close as possible (Polkinghorne 2007). The importance and utility of qualitative methods is increasingly being recognized in the field of second language research. Next, commonly used methods for gathering qualitative data are outlined, including case studies, ethnographies, interviews, observational techniques, verbal protocols, and diaries/journals.

Whereas most quantitative researchers consider impartiality to be a goal of their research, some qualitative researchers may consciously take ideological positions. This sort of research is sometimes described as ‘critical,’ meaning that the research may have particular social or political goals.

Quantitative research generally begins with an experimental design in which a hypothesis is followed by the quantification of data and statistical investigation. ‘The observations in quantitative research (whether tests, attitudes scales of the subjects observed, behaviors categorized and counted according to instruments, etc.) usually are based on an observation scheme or descriptive categories that have been developed prior to the research.’ Moreover, these observations are made in a planned way, according to an order determined by the design of the research, and with categories that cannot be changed once the research is ongoing.

Qualitative studies, on the other hand, generally are not set up as experiments; the data cannot be easily quantified, and the analysis is interpretive rather than statistical. Quantitative research can be conceptually divided into two types: associational and experimental. What is common in both types is that researchers are attempting to determine a relationship between or within variables. The goal of associational research is to determine whether a relationship exists between variables and, if so, the strength of that relationship. This is often tested statistically through correlations, which allow a researcher to determine how closely two variables (e.g., motivation and language ability) are related in a given population. Associational research is not concerned with causation, only with co-occurrence. In experimental studies, researchers deliberately manipulate one or more variables (independent variables) to determine the effect on another variable (dependent variable). Many types of experimental research involve a comparison of pretreatment and post treatment performance.

Despite the fact that dissimilarities can be drawn between qualitative and quantitative research, these two research types are by no means as dichotomous as they sometimes appear to be. Compounding this confusion, it is increasingly common for researchers to present and discuss both quantitative and qualitative data in the same report, or to use methods associated with both types of research in a process sometimes known as split methods or multiple methods.

For example, Sullivan and Pratt (1996) used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to investigate the effects of computer technology on ESL student writers. The researchers used quantitative approaches to compare student essays in two types of writing environments (classes using computer technology and traditional oral classrooms); qualitative analyses were then used to compare the types and patterns of discourse in those environments.

By combining these approaches, Sullivan and Pratt were able to present a more detailed picture of how the computer technology affected the quality of the students’ writing, their patterns of discourse, and their perspectives on the value of the technology.

The growing practice of utilizing qualitative and quantitative data illustrates the fact that these two research approaches should not be viewed as opposing poles in a dichotomy, but rather as complementary means of investigating the complex phenomena at work in second language acquisition.

GATHERING QUALITATIVE DATA

A wide variety of different techniques are used in the collection of qualitative data. Each approach and method can be seen as contributing its own piece of the puzzle in qualitative researchers’ attempts to obtain rich, detailed, participant-oriented pictures of the phenomena under study. Murcott (1997) argues that the key questions for the qualitative methodology chapter are: How did you go about your research? What overall strategy did you adopt and why? What design and techniques did you use? Why those and not others?

The most commonly used qualitative data collection methods, include:

• Ethnographies
• Interviews
• Case studies
• Diaries/journals
• Observational techniques

Ethnographies: It can be said from a second language research perspective that ethnographic research aims “to describe and interpret the cultural behavior, including communicative behavior, of a group” (Johnson, 1992, p. 134) or, in other words, to carry out research from the participants’ point of view, using categories relevant to a particular group and cultural system. Another important principle of ethnographic research is the holistic approach taken to describing and explaining a particular pattern in relation to a whole system of patterns. One advantage of using an ethnographic approach is that the research questions employed in these studies can be dynamic, subject to constant revision, and refined as the research continues to uncover new knowledge. For example, an ethnographer studying second language writing classrooms may enter the research process with the aim of describing the patterns of interaction between teachers and students and illustrating how those patterns are related to the writing process. Ethnographic approaches are particularly valuable when not enough is known about the context or situation to establish narrowly defined questions or develop formal hypotheses. Because ethnographies typically employ multiple methods for gathering data, such as participant observations and open- ended interviews as well as written products, ethnographic research may be able to provide an holistic, culturally grounded, and emic (using categories of people studied) perspective of the phenomena under investigation.

In embarking on an ethnographic study, researchers need to be aware of some potential challenges and sensitive issues. First of all, ethnographies involve intensive research over an extended period of time. They require a commitment to long-term data collection, detailed and continuous record keeping, and repeated and careful analysis of data obtained from multiple sources. It is also important for the researcher to realize that ethnographic approaches to research may create potential conflicts between the researcher’s roles as an observer and a participant. If the researcher participates in an event he or she is observing, this may leave little time for the carefully detailed field notes that ethnographies may require. This can be rectified to a certain extent by audio and video tape recording. However, and more seriously, the researcher’s participation may change the nature of the event. Researchers thus need to be aware of how they can supplement and triangulate ethnographic data obtained through participant observation, and they must carefully consider how their dual roles might influence the data collected. In addition to these practical concerns, there are theoretical issues that the researcher should take into consideration. First of all, it has been argued that an ethnographer’s focus on describing a culture is problematic, because “there is no such thing as a social group that is not constantly destabilized by both outside influences and personal idiosyncrasy and agency” (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999, p. 45). In its strong form, this criticism implies that any attempt to describe a group is to some extent misguided on the part of the ethnographer. A second theoretical concern about ethnographies concerns the act of writing up the research. Because research reports adhere to certain (culturally influenced) standards of writing, the otherwise accurate picture an ethnographer has recorded may come out skewed. Finally, it is often difficult to generalize the findings of ethnographic research to other problems or settings because of the highly specific nature of such work.

Interviews A number of different interview types can be employed to gather data for qualitative research. Interviews are often associated with survey-based research, as well as being a technique used by many qualitative researchers. Structured interviews resemble verbal questionnaires and allow researchers to compare answers from different participants. Less rigid are semi-structured interviews, in which the researcher uses a written list of questions as a guide, while still having the freedom to digress and probe for more information. In unstructured interviews, on the other hand, no list of questions is used. Instead, interviewers develop and adapt their own questions, helping respondents to open up and express themselves in their own terms and at their own speed. Unstructured interviews are more similar to natural conversations, and the outcomes are not limited by the researcher’s preconceived ideas about the area of interest. Some interviews can also be based around a stimulus—for example, a completed questionnaire or a videotape of a lesson. Focus-group sessions are related to such interviews, and usually involve several participants in a group discussion, often with a facilitator whose goal it is to keep the group discussion targeted on specific topics, again often using a stimulus for discussion, such as a videotape or previously elicited data.

Interviews can allow researchers to investigate phenomena that are not directly observable, such as learners’ self-reported perceptions or attitudes. Also, because interviews are interactive, researchers can elicit additional data if initial answers are vague, incomplete, off-topic, or not specific enough. Another advantage of interviews is that they can be used to produce data from learners who are not comfortable in other modes. Depending on the research question and the resources available, interviews can also be conducted in the learner’s Ll, thus removing concerns about the proficiency of the learner impacting the quality and quantity of the data provided.

Researchers must also take note of the potential drawbacks of interviews. For example, Hall and Rist (1999) made the point that interviews may involve “selective recall, self-delusion, perceptual distortions, memory loss from the respondent, and subjectivity in the researcher’s recording and interpreting of the data”.

Multiple interviews—that is, interviewing the same subject more than once, or interviewing many different subjects—is one potential means of addressing such issues. Another concern is that good interviewing is a skill. It may not be easy for novice researchers to conduct unstructured interviews without practice and / or training in drawing participants out, encouraging them to express themselves, and gathering valuable data on the area of interest. Given that participants’ attitudes toward other people can impact what they say, there is also the danger of the so-called halo effect.

The following suggestions may be useful in interviewing:

• Be sensitive to (and / or match the interviewer’s characteristics with) the age, gender, and cultural background of the interviewee.
• Encourage open-ended discussion—for example, by keeping silent, or by saying ‘Anything else?” rather than accepting a first answer as the interviewee’s final and complete response to a question.
• Develop skills in anticipating and addressing communication problems.
• Try to make the interviewee as comfortable as possible. This can be done by conducting the interview in a familiar place, beginning with small talk to relax the interviewee, and/ or using the Ll if a communication problem arises or if the interviewee so prefers.
• Place the key questions in the middle of the interview, because the interviewee may be nervous in the beginning and tired by the end.
• Mirror the interviewee’s responses by repeating them neutrally to provide an opportunity for reflection and further input.

When appropriate qualitative research methods are chosen to address a particular problem, and when the proper standards of empirical rigor are met through triangulation of research perspectives, consideration of emic perspectives, and cyclical data collection and analysis, qualitative research can reliably help us to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of second language learning.

Case Studies Like ethnographies, case studies generally aim to provide a holistic description of language learning or use within a specific population and setting. However, whereas ethnographies focus on cultural patterns within groups, case studies tend to provide detailed descriptions of specific learners (or sometimes classes) within their learning setting. Case studies are also usually associated with a longitudinal approach, in which observations of the phenomena under investigation are made at periodic intervals for an extended period of time. Case studies have been used in a wide variety of second language research studies.

One main advantage of case studies is that they allow the researcher to focus on the individual in a way that is rarely possible in a group research. Case studies stand in sharp contrast to these approaches by providing insights into the complexities of particular cases in their particular contexts”. In addition, case studies can be conducted with more than one individual learner or more than one existing group of learners for the purpose of comparing and contrasting their behaviors within their particular context. Case studies clearly have the potential for rich contextualization that can shed light on the complexities of the second language learning process.

In the opening sections of reports, qualitative and quantitative research can be quite similar. However, qualitative and quantitative research can be different in their final stages insofar as qualitative research reports can be more varied in terms of organization and in terms of the specific sections. They also demand persuasive and skilled writing in order to effectively summarize large amounts of data and to communicate the significance of the research to the reader.

Qualitative research must also address many other elements that are inherent to non-quantitative research, as Different paradigms of qualitative research potentially involve distinct standards for reporting and stylistic elements. Qualitative research can involve a range of data collection methods, including, for instance, structured and unstructured classroom observations, structured and unstructured informal interviews, case studies, introspective analyses, and diary studies. Because it seems that acceptable reports vary based on the research paradigm and methods that the qualitative researcher adopts, qualitative researchers must decide how to organize their reports so that their ideas are best communicated to the intended audience. Heath (1997) suggested that qualitative reports include introduction, research paradigm, and research method sections, and that they address preliminary biases, suppositions, and hypotheses. The introduction to qualitative reports might begin with a quotation or a vignette before describing the research question and situating it within a theoretical context. The research design section should be used to represent the epistemological, conceptual foundations and assumptions of the qualitative research paradigm chosen and should contain citations of authors who have defined the paradigm, thus increasing the validity of the design. The research methods section should include sufficient detail in order to increase its verisimilitude (i.e., authenticity and credibility). As such, the instrumentation used to collect the data, as well as the specific procedures followed, should be described. Reports should clearly state how the researcher gained access to participants and what kind of relationship was established between the researcher and participants. The nature of the data and how they were collected should also be clearly stated.

Particularly important for qualitative research is the inclusion of information about procedures such as how decision-making was carried out and how the researcher implemented data reduction and reconstruction. It is also important for researchers to provide a clear sense of how much data were collected (e.g., how many interviews, and of what length, how many hours of observation, and over what period of time), because this is vital in assessing the strength of the research overall.

The boundaries of the case study must also be clearly described and motivated—for instance, why a particular case was selected, and how and in what contexts data were collected. In addition, although generalizations are seldom made based on case studies, the researcher should not only report findings but also draw conclusions that contribute to an overall understanding of a phenomenon within a theoretical framework. Like case studies of individuals, classroom observation research should make the role of the researcher in the classroom explicit. If surveys or questionnaires are employed to supplement and triangulate qualitative data, the researcher should report issues such as what the response rates were, whether or not there was a nonresponse bias, how analyses were performed, and whether any generalizations can be drawn from the results. It is also common to include copies of survey or interview questions in the appendixes. In summary, then, each qualitative research paradigm requires a unique consideration of its crucial elements when a report is written, in part because there are different research paradigms and many means of collecting and analyzing data. Because of this, researchers need to take particular care to detail (and justify) how they collected and analyzed their data. When reporting the results of a qualitative study, researchers should also take into account the importance of rich or thick description. If the purpose of the research is to describe and classify the observed data, rich description is often utilized. The evidence reported should be detailed, multilayered, and comprehensive. Rather than reporting a limited number of anecdotes that support the conclusions, researchers should try to provide detail about a systematic selection of the data that represents both the central tendencies and variations.

The purpose of some qualitative research, such as ethnographies, is to go beyond mere description and attribute observations to underlying constructs and systems of meaning. An important question in qualitative research write-ups is how much interpretation of the data the writer should provide. Many qualitative researchers suggest that although writers may offer their own interpretations, they should also provide an adequate basis for their readers to construct their own independent interpretations. This may be accomplished by separating presentation of data (e.g., vignettes, interview excepts, etc.) from discussion and analysis.

SUMMING UP :MIXED METHOD: It is becoming the case that quantitative and qualitative research methods are not viewed as dichotomous. Also, survey-based research methods like questionnaires, are often used to triangulate both more quantitative and more qualitatively oriented data. However methods are classified, second language researchers are increasingly taking into account the fact that data can be collected using a wide range and combination of methods. When included in a primarily quantitative report, qualitative data or analytic techniques may provide unique insights that would escape both the researcher and the reader if statistical counts and analyses were used in isolation. For example, graphs representing the data frequency distribution, measures of central tendencies (means, modes, or medians), and range and standard deviation characteristics of the data can help confirm the validity of any trends, patterns, or groupings that the researcher has identified through a qualitative analysis. Hence, it may be best if researchers, even if they identify their research as primarily qualitative or quantitative, not rule out the inclusion of both types of data in their reports. In reporting their studies, researchers need to consider all elements and requirements that will best explain the data to the audience.

Reference

1. Akbari, R. (2008). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641- 652.
2. Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2009). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Davis, K. A. (2011). Critical qualitative research in second language studies: Agency and
4. advocacy. Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publishing.
5. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2007). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston:McGraw-Hill.
6. Fahim, M., Pishghadam, R. (2009). Postmodernism and English Language Teaching. IJALS. 1, 27-54.
7. Gholami, J., Bonyadi, A., Mirzaei, A. (2012). Postmodernism vs. Modernism in Iranian Non- Governmental English Language Institutes. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 128-143.
8. Griffin, G. (2005). Research methods for English studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
9. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). “The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching”. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.
10. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). “Critical classroom discourse analysis”. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 453-484.
11. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). “Toward postmethod pedagogy”. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
12. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). “Critical language pedagogy: A postmethod perspective on English language teaching”. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.
13. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). “TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends”, TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 59-81.
15. Lester, J. D. (2011). Principles of writing research papers. Boston: Longman.
16. Perry, F. L. (2005). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Savignon, S.J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (1), 207-220.
18. Wallwork, A. (2011). English for writing research papers. New York: Springer.