See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282689691

Research Projects in Early Childhood Studies

Chapter · January 2015

DOI: 10.4135/9781473922310.n19

CITATION READS

1 4,580

2 authors:

Christoforos Mamas Ulrike Hohmann

University of California, San Diego University of Plymouth
41 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

key person in English ECEC settings View project

Comparing and Analysing Teaching in Europe (CATE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrike Hohmann on 10 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The final, definitive version of this chapter has been published (2015) in R. Parker-Rees and C.
Leeson (eds) Early Childhood Studies: An introduction to the study of children’s lives and
children’s worlds, 4th edn. London: Learning Matters / SAGE.

Research projects in early childhood

studies
Ulrike Hohmann and Christoforos Mamas

Anyone interested in early childhood will come into contact with research. Advice given to
you as practitioner, student or parent may be based on research studies, you may read
about findings, you may be required to compare and contrast literature on any theme
connected to the first years of children’s lives and you will be required to undertake research
for your undergraduate dissertation. You will come into contact with research both as a
consumer, for example when writing assignments or changing your practice, but also as a
producer, when you are asked to produce new knowledge by researching a particular topic
or question. In this chapter we introduce you to some of the bigger and more theoretical
questions around research in early childhood studies and some of the methods employed in
this type of research. We will highlight the implications for the design of your study, for the
generation and analysis of data and the steps leading towards a written account.

What is research
In everyday language research refers to a more or less systematic exploration of a topic or
question by making use of information. Libraries, on-line portals and other forms of media
contain the material to work with for research purposes. However, in this chapter we focus
on empirical research, which means that information or data is collected from or generated
with people. You may be asked to develop a research project and to write it up as your
undergraduate dissertation. This opportunity allows you to follow up a question you have
been interested in for a long time, a conundrum that niggles in the back of your mind or to
find a solution to a problem you encounter at work. Once you start formulating your research
question complex relationships between people, policies and structures become more visible.
The quest for accurate expression of the research focus and sub-questions will reveal more
than just interesting areas of inquiry.

Paradigms
The approach to research projects and the wording of questions is intimately linked to
ontology, as it encompasses philosophical positions towards what there is to know about the
world. Different schools of thought, also called paradigms, lead to different sets of ideas
about how to gain knowledge about the world and how people relate to each other.
Epistemology is concerned with what counts as knowledge and how people can know about
the world. Social research, and with it educational research, has developed over time and
can only be understood and evaluated in its historical context (Hammersley, 1995). For

1
example, making use of modern information technology has thrown up new questions,
involves working with novel forms of data and opens up fresh ways of conducting research.

It is useful to think about what you hope to gain through doing a research project and the
answers will point to a particular paradigm. Do you aim to uncover facts that ultimately result
in ‘correct’ practice or are you more interested in gaining a deeper understanding of
processes and meanings? The answer leads you to the debate between positivist and
interpretivist paradigms. The former relies on objectivism grounded in the assumption that
the social world can and should be observed without interference by the researcher. The
ontological implication is that meticulous observations of facts result in the discovery of ‘truth’.
People are seen like molecules observed by natural scientists. In experiments they are
subjected to controlled conditions and consequently it is assumed to be possible to find
consistent patterns in their reactions. The aim is to discover what causes particular
behaviour. Here the starting point is a theory, which will be tested (deduction). The technical
language involves hypothesis and null-hypothesis. It is also possible in the objective world to
take the starting point from data. A careful analysis of a large number of observations will
result in the discovery of patterns leading to a theory (induction). Both approaches rely on
the world out there, independent from how it is interpreted by people. Often these
approaches to research involve quantitative data (data that can be expressed in numbers
which can be further analysed by statistical tests).

There are two problems with the paradigm linked to objectivism. One problem is that people
do not tend to react like molecules. Human beings do not form homogeneous groups of
identical people and individuals have agency. The same or similar situations may not always
trigger identical reactions. The meanings human beings attach to other people, things and
situations are important. The second problem is that, according to the interpretivist paradigm,
it is not possible to study the world outside directly. Instead of the wish to identify the causes
of a certain kind of behaviour the interest moves to what kind of interpretations are possible,
what processes and relationships are involved and how agency and power relationships
influence behaviours.

Examples from past research by Ulrike (Gelder, 2002; Gelder, 2003) serve to illuminate
these two paradigms, moving from objectivism to interpretivism. With careful attention to
detail, it is possible to work out how much money childminders earn. It requires information
on fees and other financial contributions parents make, expenses and taxes paid, children
enrolled and hours worked. Further analysis of these figures allows conclusions to be drawn
about average ‘take home’ pay, which can be compared with the ‘take home’ pay of other
Early Years practitioners. All of this is useful information. However, do these findings explain
why, for a long time, childminding was the form of childcare with the majority of registered
places in England? Can these figures now explain why there are fewer and fewer people
setting up as childminders? The interpretivist lense reveals the meaning of the money to
childminders and how they used it. For many it was an important contribution to family
finances and was earmarked for food shopping or children’s clothes. Only a minority of
interviewed childminders treated it as pin money.

The example shows that the differences between the above paradigms are not incompatible
although each of them links to particular strategies influencing judgements about the quality
of data, the approach to analysis, the relationship between theory and data and claims that
can be made. The research focus and the way research questions are asked will link to one

2
or the other paradigm and there may be instances of bridge building (Bryman, 2008; May,
2011). Research strategies may draw on methods loosely linked to one or the other
paradigm (i.e. quantitative data and analysis are often linked to positivism and qualitative
data and analysis to the interpretivist paradigm). However, starting with the research
question itself can result in adopting one of the many research strategies, including, surveys,
case studies, ethnography and action research (Denscombe, 2014), each of which may
include both quantitative and qualitative data. Any study may start with either a theory that
can be tested or data that can be examined to form new theories, and the focus of interest
can be found on a continuum from ‘truths’ to meanings. Many studies make use of mixed
methods (Bryman, 2008) and the preparation of research projects often includes insights
from qualitative pilot studies or is informed by the secondary analysis of statistical data.

Your decisions about how to conduct your research project will be guided by your interest
and by the feasibility of conducting the study in the given timeframe with the resources
available. Before you settle on a particular strategy and are in a position to fine-tune the
research design you have to review relevant literature. The context for your unique study is
what is already known about the phenomenon in question. In this way you can avoid to
simply repeat what has been done before and by critically engaging with literature you can
identify unanswered questions, find new angles and perhaps the recognise the benefits of
applying different methods. The topic of your interest may be well researched from the
perspective of adults, like parents and early years practitioners, but may be barely informed
by the perspectives of children. You will have to develop strategies for judging the quality of
literature, for structuring the writing of a review for addressing the conventions of academic
writing (Oliver, 2012).

The review of the literature and your formulation of research focus and sub-questions may
lead to research that emphasises the description of a phenomenon or a focus on the
processes involved. Reading up on past research shows whether theory or data were
treated as starting points and a closer look will show that these are like flipsides of a coin.
What and how you observe (generate data) is influenced by theories you hold and, on the
other hand, observations motivate you to revise your ideas and explanations. Keeping track
of these links results in an iterative process employing both theory and observations and it
supports a systematic inquiry which includes you as the researching agent.

Values and ethical behaviour

Every element of the research process is directly or indirectly influenced by value judgments.
Values held by people guide and reflect social life and in this sense construct the issues that
can be explored. Regarding the researcher, they span from dispositions and characteristics
to practical considerations (Pring, 2000). Values you hold guide your research interest and
what you view as a problem that deserves investigation. For example, an interest in two-year
old children in schools or in the effects of making corporal punishment of children illegal may
initially be driven by the researcher’s approval or disapproval of the current situation. These
value judgements continue throughout the whole research process, influencing the questions
asked, the analytical paths taken and ways or writing up. On the practical side, there are a
number of ethical principles which guide the purpose of research and how people involved
should be treated. Formal aspects include drawing up an ethics protocol, drafting consent

3
forms and information for participants, obtaining permission to go ahead with your research
from your tutor or an ethics committee. However, these cannot be treated as box-ticking
procedures which can be forgotten once approved. As you proceed through the various
stages of your research project decisions have to be made, often ad hoc, all working towards
‘do no harm’ and the potential to benefit participants, and all requiring continuous reflection
on how personal and social values influence these decisions (May, 2011; Pring, 2000).

Tensions exist between the deontological or principled approach and the consequentialist
approach to ethics (May, 2011). The former emphasises principles that should be applied in
all circumstances. Principles include the right to informed consent, the right to withdraw
without being penalised in any form and confidentiality. The latter approach emphasises the
benefits of research findings that may sometimes outweigh discomfort felt by individual
research participants or covert observation. Doing research with children sharpens the focus
on particular dilemmas. How can you make sure that children understand what the project is
about and why you are interested in it? How can children withdraw from research, when the
research activity also places them in your care? Do parents have the right to learn what their
child said in a research interview or would this breech confidentiality? Can parents or
teachers in loco parentis withdraw children from research projects, even when children are
keen to participate?

It is not always possible to gain an understanding of what is appropriate ethical research

behaviour from past research. Concepts of childhood have changed considerably and
research ethics in education have clearly moved to more principled and rights-based
positions. Harm is not just understood as physical harm, but relates to psychological impact,
like undue provocation of fear or embarrassment (Alderson, 2004). There is also more
awareness of researchers’ need for protection from harm, for example, when researching
into distressing aspects of social life (Wiles, 2013). To complicate things further, it is also not
possible to plan for every possible situation or to rely on a fine-meshed net of rules
specifying how to behave in the field. Ultimately it is the researcher who has to make tough
ethical decisions based on their values and value judgements (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) and
an open and honest discussion of it improves the quality of the research report.

Strategies
The combination of the purpose reflected in your research question, your value judgements
and ethical considerations, and availability of resources (including suitable research settings)
will lead you towards the most appropriate research strategy. If your research project is the
basis for an undergraduate dissertation is likely that you will choose to conduct case study
research, ethnography, mixed methods or action research. Other strategies may be less
suitable because they require more time, equipment and skills, as is the case, for example,
with large survey research. In this section we look at some important differences between a
selection of strategies.

Case study research

The case study strategy is particularly useful for small scale research. The name indicates
the focus on a distinctive case with clear boundaries in a natural setting (Yin, 2009). The
boundaries are often physical and have to be well defined. You may be interested in a

4
particular practice in one nursery room or you may want to investigate how Children’s
Centres support parents in the first few years of their child’s life. This strategy allows you to
take a holistic approach, observing many relevant factors within these boundaries. It is
possible to concentrate on one case or to compare a small number of cases. The advantage
lies in the flexibility to address suitable questions, the potential to reveal complex
relationships and to uphold good research ethics. However, it may be more difficult to
generalise findings.

Ethnographies
In contrast to a case study where the researcher may or may not participate, ethnographies
rely on the gathering of information by participation in natural settings. The dilemma to be
solved concerns how to get as close as possible to people, activities and meanings that are
forming patterns of relationships without disturbing the normal dynamics of the setting.
Ethnographic research can include covert observations, which demands carefully worked out
ethical approaches. The question of whether and how the researcher may influence the
phenomena in question by their presence in the context leads to a focus on reflection and
the influence of personal values on data generated, analysed and reported. The advantages
of these rich and often personal accounts may justify the challenges involved in getting
access, dealing with ethical problems and recognising the potential risks involved in focusing
on description instead of analysis and generalizable statements.

Action research
The role of the researcher changes drastically in action research (see chapter xyz). Here the
researcher does not aim to avoid influencing the behaviour and patterns under observation
but purposefully takes action in order to improve professional practice. The advantages of
this approach can include contributing to greater recognition of practitioners’ knowledge and
the democratization of research (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). Reflection is a necessary part
of this research process, especially in order to counteract effects associated with the
resercher’s inability to remain detached and impartial.

Mixed methods research

The three strategies introduced above are most likely to use entirely or mainly qualitative
data and associated procedures of analysis. A stronger emphasis on quantitative data is
introduced in the mixed methods approach, in which elements of qualitative and quantitative
research approaches are combined in a single project ‘for the broad purpose of breadth and
depth of understanding’ (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007, p.123). Mixed methods
have particular value when a researcher is trying to approach a phenomenon or problem that
is present in a complex educational or social context (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Likewise,
because mixed methods designs incorporate techniques from both the quantitative and
qualitative research traditions, they can be used to answer questions that could not be
answered in any other way. The issue is not simply how to use methods from two paradigms
alongside each other but how to integrate these methods into a coherent study (Bryman,
2012; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). The debates about
exploiting the strength of both research paradigms are reflected in the terms used, such as
integrating, quantitative and qualitative methods, synthesis, multiple methods, and multi-
methods, although most writers have settled on the term ‘mixed methods’ (Bryman, 2012;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).

5
Mixed methods include a variety of combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches
and the choice depends on the research question. Findings gained by different methods can
be compared and findings may be strengthened by triangulation, such as improved accuracy
(validation of findings, checking for bias, development of research instruments). It is also
possible to build up findings by a specific sequence of quantitative and qualitative methods.
Richer findings are achieved through an iterative process of exploration and explanation.
The rationale for these approaches is the aim to enhancement of insights which is confirmed
by practice (Bryman, 2006).

The use of mixed methods can neutralise or cancel out some of the disadvantages of certain
methods. For example, O’Farrelly and Hennessy (2014) employed structured observations
of children, child consultations and parent interviews to research transitions of children within
an early childhood education and care setting. By combining the methods in a particular
study, we are able to ‘broaden the dimensions and hence the scope of our project and
obtain a more complete picture of human behaviour and experience’ (Morse, 2003, p.189).
However, mixed methods are neither a panacea nor necessarily able to provide a full and
multi-perspective picture of an educational phenomenon and there is a danger of diluting
findings because available resources are spread too thinly (Bryman, 2012; Denscombe,
2014). The approach is tempting because it may seem to give students a fuller picture or
because it gives the illusion of justifying not making firm decisions about methodological
issues. Additionally the impact of this strategy on feasibility has to be considered. If you
choose the mixed methods strategy you should be or become familiar with both quantitative
and qualitative forms of research. Multiple sources of data require more time to collect the
data, broader data analysis skills and an understanding about the integration of the different
elements. You have to be aware that a high number of methods does not automatically
translates into a good quality study.

Methods
It is likely that you will use one, two or all of the three main methods of social research:
interviews, observations and questionnaires. Despite some overlaps, each of them demands
particular skills in data generation, handling and analysis.

Interviews
Interviews focus on what people say, what the researcher hears and, in face-to-face
interviews, non-verbal communication plays a part, too. It is a flexible tool regarding the
relationship between researcher and participant, the media used (face-to-face, online or by
phone) and tools for analysis. Interviews enable participants to offer their interpretations of
the world in which they live and to express their own point of view (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2011). Interviews can approximate how people communicate in their everyday
contexts ‘is one of the most common and powerful ways in which we try to understand our
fellow human beings’ (Fontana & Frey, 2000, p.645). However, asking questions and getting
answers in an interview is not an easy task because, as in any conversation, there is always
room for ambiguity.

Decisions on the structure of the interview, choice of participants and formulation of

questions aim to minimize the ambiguity inherent in human communication. At the same
time care has to be taken not to tip the balance towards manipulating participants and

6
affecting negatively the validity and trustworthiness of the data. Designs range from highly
structured to completely unstructured. Structured interviews have a set of predetermined
questions that are asked in a set order (Denscombe, 2014). The aim of this style of interview
is ‘for all interviewees to be given exactly the same context of questioning’ and to ‘ensure
that interviewees’ replies can be aggregated’ (Bryman, 2012, p.210). In a semi-structured or
unstructured interview the focus is on the issues and interests of the research participant
(Roberts-Holmes, 2011). The interviewer has a series of questions, commonly in the form of
an interview schedule but the sequence of questions may vary and follow-up questions may
be asked by the interviewer. Unstructured interviews are supported by an interview guide,
which typically consists of a list of topics or issues to be covered usually in an informal style
of questioning or conversation. Being informal, freewheeling and not rushing participants into
responding prematurely are useful practical strategies (Adler & Adler, 2002). A
‘nonhierarchical, dynamic and fluid frame to the interviews’ helps to establish rapport and
trust with the interviewees (Levinson & Sparkes, 2005, p.14) and open ended interviews
enable participants to show their unique way of looking at the specific phenomenon
(Silverman, 2000). As the structure of interviews is reduced the time and flexibility required
(and the difficulty of analysing the resulting data) are likely to increase.

Good rapport between the researcher and participants and appropriate wording of questions
can make interviews feel more relaxed, resulting in better data. Pitfalls to be avoided include
asking about things people cannot possibly know or cannot be expected to remember,
leading questions, confusing participants by asking two or more question in one sentence,
and not adapting language to the ability of participants. It can be tricky to create a space in
which participants do not feel obliged to give socially desirable answers or the ‘answers the
researcher want to hear’ (Bryman, 2012; de Vaus, 2014). A trusting relationship between
researcher and interviewee will be supported by appropriately ethical behaviour, setting out
principles of confidentiality and the right to withdraw without needing to give a reason and
outlining the structure of questions.

Practical concerns which may affect the quality of interviews include choosing a place that is
comfortable and that allows confidentiality to be maintained. Interviews should not be
overheard by others if this was agreed. Sometimes it is useful to keep participation
confidential, for example in research with several practitioners from one setting. The
influence of the place on openness by participants ought to be considered. For example,
children approached for participation on school premises may not feel able to decline, since
this is not an appropriate response to an adult’s request in this context (Mayall, 2002). A
digital voice recorder can be used to record the interviews allowing you to obtain a more
accurate account of what was said. You must inform all interviewees that you intend to
record the interviews and ask for their informed consent.

Focus groups
Due to unequal power relationships, children and adults can feel intimidated by participating
in an individual interview with a researcher (Roberts-Holmes, 2014). Focus group
conversations with children may be more appropriate because the power imbalance
between adults and children can shift in favour of children. As Folque (2010) argues,
children are not used to their views and experiences being sought by unknown researchers,
so developing rapport with them is necessary. To become familiar with the children you hope
to interview you should spend time with them ahead of the focus group meeting. In principle
qualitative work with groups can range from heavily structured group interviews to

7
unstructured focus groups and for research with children a flexible approach is appropriate
(Scott, 2008). This kind of conversation can empower children by building up their
confidence, supporting interaction between children and respecting children as experts in
their setting (Lancester and Broadbent, 2010 in Roberts-Holmes, 2014). Limitations of focus
group work include that individual children may dominate the conversation and that the
responsibility to maintain confidentiality is now shared with all participants. An additional
practical aspect is that individual children may be hard to hear and transcribing recorded
group interviews can be problematic.

Observation
Observation is a frequently used method of data collection for early childhood research. It
allows you to explore familiar and routine events in early childhood settings in a new way
(Roberts-Holmes, 2014) by ‘looking critically, looking openly, looking sometimes knowing
what we are looking for, looking for evidence, looking to be persuaded, looking for
information’ (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012, p.54). Observations enable you to look at different
aspects of children’s development, including emotional, social, physical and cognitive
development, as well as their relationships to other children and adults and include
considerations of the natural context within which these occur. This form of data collection is
attractive due to its directness, avoiding the transformations which occur when behaviour
and emotions are described and explained in words to the researcher (Robson, 2011).

Specific forms of observations are characterised by structure, level of participation of the

researcher and participants’ knowledge about the research activities. Structured
observations are systematic and may lead to the generation of numerical data. They are
aided by observation schedules which set out, for example, the frequency and length of
observations or require the observer to tick boxes indicating particular kinds of behaviour for
each participant (Bryman, 2012). By contrast, unstructured observations do not have a tight
focus. Early childhood researchers can take notes about different activities that are taking
place in the setting, often before they begin to refine the focus of their study. These
observations result in qualitative data, which are not easily analysed with statistical methods.

Another decision you have to make is whether you will participate in the activities you aim to
explore and consequently seek to become member of the observed group. This method is
characterised by the researcher’s immersion in the context and is closely linked to
ethnography. It requires time to observe, listen to and find opportunities to ask questions
without disturbing the normally occurring behaviours (Bryman, 2012). However, not all
participant observations have to or can involve the researcher so deeply. Forms of
participation may include ‘the complete participant’, ‘the participant as observer’, ‘the
marginal participant’ to ‘the observer-as-participant’ (Robson, 2011). For example, when
observing children’s interaction in a nursery context your participation as an adult will be
different from your involvement in play with the children.

The most important ethical question is whether your observations will be overt or covert. A
principled approach requiring informed consent does not allow covert forms of data
generation. An emphasis on the benefits of the findings to the wider community and the
attempt to avoid influencing the behaviour of the observed group may make covert research
acceptable but you would have to have very good reasons to be allowed to undertake covert

8
research. However, the grey area between the two poles overt and covert deserves attention.
Are you able to explain to children why you want to listen in on their play? Do people who
agree to be video recorded during activities understand fully that the researcher may replay
sequences over and over again to capture every minute detail of their behaviour? Can we
always inform everyone who may float in and out of research projects about our research
aims (for example, the visitor to a children’s centre)? It is also difficult to deny that
researchers often hope that participants will forget that they are being researched and just
behave as they normally would.

Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a useful way to access a wide range of views, relatively fast and in an
economic manner. A popular form of questionnaires collects primarily quantitative data that
cannot provide deep insights and the depth that qualitative methods do. They can be
distributed in person, by post or other media, in paper form or electronically and answers can
be returned by post, e-mail, as on-line response or in a face-to-face situation. This method is
usually used with adults because questionnaires rely on participants’ ability to read,
comprehend and write. Yet the shift in concepts of childhood and research with children
shows that often children’s abilities to participate in research are underestimated and with
appropriate adaptations to research tools, they are capable of offering first-hand information
on their lives and interpretations (O'Kane, 2008; Scott, 2008).

Questionnaires tend to offer a snapshot of a phenomenon in time. In combination with other

methods, for example as part of a mixed methods strategy, they may support the fine-tuning
of a research question, the testing of theories or they can help to identify people who are
willing to contribute further to the research. However, it is common that after analysing your
responses you end up with more questions, though different ones, than when you started
your research project.

The nature of this form of data generation requires careful design. Once the questionnaire is
distributed, participants cannot quickly ask, if they do not understand a question, as in an
interview situation. General format, length, ease of finding one’s way through the questions,
clarity of questions, space to respond and convenience of returning the completed
questionnaire all influence the nature and fullness of answers and the return rate. The
wording of questions deserves meticulous attention against the backdrop of your knowledge
about the group of people you want to survey. Will they understand the questions and
response forms? Will the chosen form capture the information you require? You will need to
consider using closed and open questions. The former presents a set of answers to choose
from – and questions that can be answered with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’ belong to this
category, too. The latter allows the respondent to answer in their own words and are likely to
contain words like ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘why’, ‘how’, etc. Other possibilities are rating scales,
multiple choice, ranking questions and more complex grids and tables (Bryman, 2012; de
Vaus, 2014). Developing effective questions is a challenging process and we encourage you
strongly to discuss drafts of your questionnaire with your peers and tutors and to pilot them.

In this section we have introduced you to the main methods of social and educational
research. They can be used on their own or in combination with each other. Each of them
requires a particular set of skills to generate data and to analyse it, each makes different

9
demands on your (and your participants’) time, each is more or less useful in doing research
with children and each is likely to produce a certain kind of data. If you aim to access
children’s first-hand accounts and experiences other forms of research, for example,
participatory methods, role play, drawings and photography could be more appropriate
(Christensen & James, 2008; Clark et al., 2014).

Data analysis
Data analysis is the point of the research process which is often experienced by researchers
as harrowing and exciting at the same time. Whatever type of data you are working with,
analysis is a process of organising, summarising, describing and discussing your findings.
The decisions you take about this process have to be informed by the underpinning
paradigm guiding your research. In general, quantitative methods of data collection generate
numerical data allowing statistical analysis, whereas, qualitative methods require non-
statistical techniques (Mukherji & Albon, 2010). Depending on your research instrument you
may have to take decisions whether and how you use some qualitative data, for example, as
remarks written into the margins of a questionnaire or answers to open questions, or you
may feel tempted to examine the frequency of particular statements or phrases used across
interviews.

As a first step you will organise and manage the raw data. For example, if you conduct
interviews a transcript for each interview should be produced. Once transcription is complete,
you can then begin to interrogate, read and re-read your data. Many researchers use
thematic analysis, which is defined by Bryman (2012) as the process of examining the data
to extract core themes that can be distinguished both between and within transcripts. These
themes can be identified through careful coding of each transcript. Denscombe (2014)
outlines a number of stages that can be useful, including becoming familiar with your data,
coding the data, categorising the codes, identifying themes, and developing concepts that
relate back to your research questions. You may also organise your data by groups of
respondents, by individuals, by research questions or by research instruments (Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 2011).

A number of software packages can help you to manage and analyse your data and present
your findings. The analysis of quantitative numerical data can be undertaken with the help of
programmes like Microsoft Excel, SPSS, SurveyMonkey or similar facilities, which also can
create tables and charts. These programmes allow you to run tests of data, without
understanding all the mathematics behind statistical methods. It is advisable to be familiar
with the principles of this kind of analysis. For most small scale research projects a basic
understanding of descriptive statistics is sufficient (Denscombe, 2014).

The analysis of qualitative data can be supported by NVivo, ATLAS.ti or similar software
packages. They help you to keep on top of large amounts of data, to retrieve sections of text
that have the same code attached and to annotate data with memos. They can replace
paper methods (multiple copies, different folders, scissors and glue) or systems of colour
coding of text. Apart from the insights you gain from analysing your data, you are also
producing evidence for the claims which you will include in your written report. Data

10
presented in tables, as figures or quotes illustrating your findings help the reader to follow
your arguments and can bring findings to life.

Writing up
No research project is complete until it has been written up. For most students, this is the
longest and most challenging piece of writing they have ever been asked to complete.
Writing is a craft and requires practice. It is important to continue to work on writing skills and
manage your time well. Whether it is an assessed piece of work or not, your research
findings should be available to other researchers, academics and fellow students and to
people who are touched by the findings (Denscombe, 2014).

Each institution will have different requirements for student projects have to be written up
and presented. The conventional structure divides the material into three parts: the
preliminary part (title, abstract, key words, contents, list of tables and figures,
acknowledgements, list of abbreviations), the main text (introduction, literature review,
methods, findings, discussion and analysis, conclusions and recommendations) and the end
matter (appendices, references). The main text will contain a discussion of why you think the
topic is important, the literature review, leading to the research question, a section on
methodology including a discussion of some ethical considerations, the findings and the
conclusions you draw from them. Research projects based on quantitative methods and data
may present findings and discussion separately. Ultimately, you should structure your report
in a way that enables you to tell the story of your research in the most effective manner.

Institutions also differ in the required style of writing. For example, the Early Childhood
Studies team at Plymouth University asks students to write in the first person. We believe
that the use of the ‘Royal We’ or finding ‘neutral’ ways of setting out your position distracts
from your ownership of your piece of research. You should be prepared to stand up for your
findings and be proud of what you have achieved.

Ten top tips

1. Research something you feel passionate about
2. Choose a topic that will expand your professional horizon
3. Decide on your focus, write it up as provisional title and stick to it as a guiding light
4. Draw up a timetable for your research, including some breaks from your work and
buffer zones, for example, when there are delays in data collection
5. Write a research journal
6. Pilot your research instruments
7. Ask yourself ‘why’: Why do I include this literature, choose this methodology? Why do
I want to know this, why am discarding that?
8. Make use of your tutor and come to tutorials prepared with examples of your work
and questions
9. Draft and redraft sections – remember the report does not represent the order of
writing

11
 10. Look after yourself: Have time for your family and friends, sleep and exercises

Activity
Choose one research article related to the topic of your interest and answer the following
questions:

 what is the underpinning research paradigm;

 what was the strategy of the study and which research instruments were employed;
 which ethical questions had to be solved;
 how was the data analysed and
 how accessibly are the findings presented?

Further reading
Denscombe, M. (2014) The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects.
5th edn. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2010) Ground Rules for Social Research: Guidelines for Good Practice.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, Open University.
These books complement each other, The good Research Guide sets out the
practical steps and Ground Rules for Social Research explains the underlying
principles
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2014) Doing Your Early Years Research Project: A Step by Step Guide.
3rd edn. London: SAGE.
This accessible book helps you to plan your research, because it gives a good
overview of the whole research process from start to finish
Christensen, P. & James, A. (eds.) (2008) Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices. 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge.
We encourage students to do research with children. Here you will find discussions
of the shifts in the concept of childhood and how adults relate to children, leading to
more direct involvement of children in research projects. The book offers a wealth of
methods appropriate for work with children.
May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. 4th edition edn. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.

If you are interested in deeper, theoretical engagement with social research you find
relevant discussion concisely presented. It shows where bridges can be built
between paradigms and how this impacts on various research methods. The book
contains a useful chapter on comparative research.

12
References
Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (2002) 'The reluctant respondent'. in Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J.
(eds.) Handbook of Interview Research. London: SAGE.

Alderson, P. (2004) 'Ethics'. in Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S., Kellett, M. and Robinson, C.
(eds.) Doing Research with Children and Young People. London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to

Theories and Methods. 5th edn. Boston, London: Pearson.

Bryman, A. (2006) 'Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?'.

Qualitative Research, 6 pp 97-113.

Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. 3rd edition edn. Oxford: Open University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th edn. Oxford: Open University Press.

Christensen, P. & James, A. (eds.) (2008) Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices. 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge.

Clark, A., Flewitt, R., Hammersley, M. & Robb, M. (eds.) (2014) Understanding Research
with Children and Young People. London: SAGE.

Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2012) A Student's Guide to Methodology. 3rd edn. London:
SAGE.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th edn.
Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

de Vaus, D. A. (2014) Surveys in Social Research. 6th edn. Hoboken: Routledge.

Denscombe, M. (2014) The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects.
5th edn. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.

Folque, M. (2010) 'Interviewing young children'. in MacNaughton, G., Rolfe, S.A. and Siraj-
Blatchford, I. (eds.) Doing Early Childhood Research: International Perspectives on Theory
and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000) 'The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text'.
in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research. London:
SAGE.

13
Gelder, U. (2002) Working for Women? Family Day Care Providers' Social and Economic
Experience in England and Germany. unpublished PhD thesis. University of Newcastle.

Gelder, U. (2003) 'Constrained Entrepreneurship: the Business of Family Day Care in

England and Germany'. Northern Economic Review, (33/34). pp 118-133.

Hammersley, M. (1995) The Politics of Social Research. London: SAGE.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Turner, L. A. (2007) 'Toward a definition of mixed

methods research'. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2). pp 112-133.

Levinson, M. P. & Sparkes, A. C. (2005) 'Gypsy children, space and the school environment'.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18 (6). pp 751-772.

May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. 4th edition edn. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.

Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Children's Lives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2011) All you need to know about action research. 2nd edn.
London: SAGE.

Morse, J. M. (2003) 'Principles of mixed- and multi-method research design'. in Tashakkori,

A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Mukherji, P. & Albon, D. (2010) Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory

Guide. London: SAGE.

O'Farrelly, C. & Hennessy, E. (2014) 'Watching transitions unfold: a mixed-method study of

transitions within early childhood care and education settings'. Early Years: An International
Research Journal, online pp. 1-20 [Online]. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.968838.

O'Kane, C. (2008) 'The Development of Participatory Techniques: Facilitating Children's

Views about Decisions which Affect Them'. in Christensen, P. and James, A. (eds.)
Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge.

Oliver, P. (2012) Succeeding With Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research. London, New York: Continuum.

14
 Roberts-Holmes, G. (2014) Doing Your Early Years Research Project: A Step by Step Guide.
3rd edn. London: SAGE.

Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research. 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Scott, J. (2008) 'Children as Respondents: the Challenge for Quantitative Methods'. in

Christensen, P. and James, A. (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices.
2nd edn. Albindon: Routledge.

Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London, Thousand

Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behvioral Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2010) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010) 'Overview of contemporary issues in mixed method

research '. in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in
Social and Behvioral Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Wiles, R. (2013) What are Qualitative Research Ethics? London: Bloomsbury.

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and methods. fourth edition edn. London:
SAGE.

15

View publication stats