Contents

Week 2-3 1

Introduction – Your own Research Projects *

Asking Questions *

Week 4 *

What kind of researcher to be? *

Week 5 *

Research Decisions *

Week 6 *

Analysis of qualitative data *

Week 7 *

Preparing interviews *

Interview Transcript *

Week 8 *

Practice interviews - education and opportunity *

Week 10-17 *

Planning your project *

Week 13 *

1 Introduction *

2 Relationship of the project to ideas in the course *

3 The methods used and evaluation of them *

4 Findings *

5 Conclusions *

6 References *

Bibliography *

Handout *

The purpose of this first activity is to give you the opportunity to discuss your initial ideas about your research (both topic and method).

Say a little bit about your proposed research topic and the suitability of your proposed research methods.

You will have been given a questionnaire. Let us imagine that a research body is investigating motivation at work and you have been chosen as a respondent. Please complete the questionnaire just as if you were a volunteer contributing to a research project. There is no need to put your name on the form, but bear in mind that the information you give will be used for group work in a later session. If there are things you would prefer not to reveal, please do not include them.

Complete the questionnaire now.

The aim of this week is to examine the experience of answering a questionnaire, to investigate some of the difficulties which arise in questionnaire design, to think about different kinds of questioning, and to think about the implications of asking questions as a means of collecting data.

In this exercise you are asked to reflect on the experience of answering the questionnaire. You will certainly have found fault with it. Which questions were difficult to answer and why? Some possible reasons are suggested in the right hand column below, but of course you may add your own.

The questions vary considerably. What mental activity are you being asked to perform? Is this different for different questions?

Your tutor will gather the responses to Activity 2.

It is likely that you will have commented on the contrast between closed questions such as 1-9 and open questions like 10. Closed questions are those which specifically limit the potential replies - the respondent has to recognise the appropriate answer from a given range. The choice may be reduced to a simple dichotomy - male or female, say - or may, by using checklists or rating scales, allow a respondent to give a simplified answer to a wider question.

It is obvious with closed questions that the researcher is setting the agenda. This can be a reason why filling in questionnaires is so irritating. But even when you are answering open questions the researcher is the one who ‘knows’ what the answer will ‘mean’. As respondent you inevitably wonder how the answer will be read.

Researchers choose their type of questioning for both practical and theoretical reasons. Using closed or open questions is very different from the point of view of analysis.

Pause to think and jot down some of the implications - advantages and disadvantages - for analysis of using

The aims of this week are to look at difference styles of research and to explore the consequences of choosing one style rather than another.

In the previous week you looked at questioning in relation to respondents’ experience. Asking questions is a way of extracting data from the flow of experience, identifying and isolating elements and thereby converting phenomena into data. There is a continuum of choices available to the researcher involving varying degrees of intervention. Participant observation involves the least intervention, multiple choice questionnaires the most.

participant observation - the researcher lives or works alongside the subjects of the research, recording, usually in notes or a journal, a detailed account of the experience and what subjects say about it. Subjects may well be aware of the researcher’s interests and her presence as an outsider is likely to lead to explicit explanations.

informal interview - in this case a researcher presents himself as having a particular interest but allows subjects to speak freely about it in their own terms. The interview is usually recorded in notes written afterwards. Researchers using participant observation will almost inevitably also use informal interviews as well because there are very many situations where it is easier and perhaps more revealing for the researcher to talk to participants about events in an informal way rather than taking part in them. There will be questions and answers but these are not necessarily pre-planned.

semi-structured interview - using a list of the topics to be covered is a slightly more planned and controlled way of conducting an interview. What is required is simply an outline, a series of headings, which provide a map for the researcher to ensure that the ground is covered as necessary. The researcher will be guiding the conversation quite explicitly and thus will probably have had the opportunity to ask permission to make a tape recording. Otherwise notes can be made relatively unobtrusively at the time. Apart from obtaining basic details, questioning is likely to be open. The informants will still be using their own terminology and it is usually valuable to record quite precisely how they express themselves.

interview with specific questions - Here the interviewer uses pre-prepared questions in a specific format. This allows consistency and comparability between subjects. The presence of the interviewer ensures that interviewees understand what is asked for, can be guided through a complex structure (selecting relevant questions, for example) and the terms of the answer can be agreed upon. There is still scope for some flexibility and open questioning. The order may be varied in response to the interviewee’s sense of priorities.

questionnaire - in this case the questions have to be simple and unambiguous and designed to elicit an unambiguous response as there is no interviewer to interpret at the time. It is still possible to use some open questions, but since this kind of questionnaire allows administration on a large scale, open questions can create problems of analysis. Qualitative and subjective attitudinal questions can still be asked by offering a range of options.

multiple choice questionnaire - some questionnaires are designed to be immediately codable by computer and sometimes directly read by computer (as those who complete CMAs for the OU are well aware). The respondent chooses from a range of specific options which should cover all possible answers. At this end of the range, analysis is relatively straightforward as the questionnaire is designed with this in mind. This may be at the price of user friendliness, as respondents may find it difficult, or be unwilling, to adapt themselves to the limited categories allowed. It also means that the researcher’s model and terminology is imposed at the outset.

Think of examples of these types of research.

The researcher has a choice, then, of intervening to a greater or lesser extent and of imposing a framework upon the data as it is obtained. The method of data collection has considerable consequences for subsequent analysis.

Imagine you have carried out one of the research projects in the list below. Prepare notes on your method of data collection (selected from the descriptions just read) ready to present an account of your ‘research’ to the rest of the group. Justify your choice but also explain any difficulties you had with it.

Use this checklist for your presentation of your imaginary research (no more than five minutes)

There are many constraints upon researchers restricting the choice of method. Constraints upon your project include strict time limits which means that very informal methods such as participant observation are unlikely to yield the information you need fast enough. On the other hand the aim of this module is to give you experience of the use of qualitative data, so you will be using methods from the middle part of the spectrum. What follows is an account of research done using semi-structured interviews.

The research was undertaken against the background of a shift of employment from the manufacturing to the service sector. There is clear shift in statistical terms between the two sectors, but have there been individuals moving between the two types of employment? In order to go beyond the statistics George Callaghan chose to use qualitative data from two Bristol firms. A laminating firm represents manufacturing and an insurance firm represents the service sector.

As you read the account highlight or underline the research decisions that George Callaghan made - about strategy, method and technique.

The method chosen as the most appropriate to complement the quantitative picture of the labour market and investigate the potential for mobility was that of the comparative case study. […] The aim […] of case studies is not to make valid statistical inferences but to use the analysis of micro data to investigate, inform, expand and explain general theories.

Interviews were conducted in two case study firms - a large insurance company and a large manufacturing company, both located in Bristol. In order to preserve anonymity, neither the real names of the companies nor the real names of the people interviewed are used.

My access to Bristol Insurance was through a contact and access to Bristol Laminated was achieved speculatively. In total 28 workers and managers were interviewed in a semi-structured manner, 18 at Bristol Insurance and 10 in Bristol Laminated. The original intention had been to interview 10 people in each research setting, with interviewees from across the occupational spectrum. However, given that access to Bristol Insurance was through a manager in the marketing division the original interviews were all in this section. In order, therefore, to broaden the occupational spectrum of those employed in the office, I returned to interview employees in the largest, administration, section. All of the interviews were used in the final analysis. The interviews were semi-structured, lasted from one and a half to two hours and were taped. In addition to recording the interviews a research diary was kept which noted additional points about the personalities of those interviewed, the setting of the interview and any comments made when the tape recorder was switched off.

The aim of the interviews was to gather data on respondent’s views and values on three key issues relating to the potential for industrial mobility: methods of recruitment, perceptions of skill and perceptions of each other and each other’s type of work. The aim was to conduct a series of interviews which, while allowing respondents the freedom to expand on any particular topic, retained certain themes common to all the interviews. In the first two interviews I used a quite detailed questionnaire but it quickly became apparent that such an approach stifled confidence and self expression, and this was changed to an aide-memoir which listed the main themes. Thus while not every interviewee was asked exactly the same question, the same themes (recruitment channels, skill perceptions and perceptions of each other and of each other’s work) were covered. In addition, if some interviewees were more animated and articulate on certain themes (for example some gave considerable time to the relationship between physical strength and gender), the interviews followed this lead. One of the most positive features of such a method, allowing respondents the freedom to influence the research agenda, also presents the researcher with problems - how to maintain certain ‘boundaries’ to the interview which facilitates wide ranging discussion while continually focusing on certain themes […] The technique is to remember points made or missed which one wishes to explore at a deeper level and to return to these later in the interview. Turning to the actual structure of the interviews, each started with an explanation of the aims of the research project, the idea being that interviewees would be more relaxed and positive if they understood the purpose of the research. The next step was to [as]sure confidentiality and then go on to ask interviewees what they thought of the problematic under study, whether they thought it mattered if people found difficulty moving between different industries and occupations. The aim here was immediately to ‘empower’ the interviewee, to make each person feel part of the project and be conscious of the fact that while their views and values would both be reflected in and influence the research they would remain anonymous. Following this discussion of the broad aims of the research my first question tended to relate to the job done by those interviewed; I found that interviewees were eager to discuss their own job and that this served to set them at ease and create a confident and comfortable atmosphere for the remainder of the interview. Another tactic I employed was to vary my style of dress depending on the research environment, thus a shirt and tie was worn in Bristol Insurance but not at Bristol Laminated. The effectiveness of such a tactic is demonstrated by the comments one respondent from Bristol Laminated made in discussions on the differences between office and factory workers:

An additional element of this process of creating an atmosphere which is conducive to communication is the establishment of an informal contract, whereby the interviewer listens attentively to whatever the interviewee is saying, even if it is not within the ‘direct’ focus of the research.

Working in small groups, identify what you think are the four most important decisions made in the course this research.

Turn Callaghan’s account of how he conducted his interviews into a list of guidelines for someone intending to use semi-structured interviews.

In this week you will be practising the analysis of qualitative data. Your research will be pointless if you can’t make some sense of the data you collect and you want to do so in such a way as to make the most of its complexity. Qualitative data is multi-faceted, with many different scraps of information seeming to lead you off in a number of different directions at once. It is essential to keep track of what you are doing and to be methodical.

The method introduced here is based on the grounded theory method originating with Glaser and Strauss (1967), but it is very much simplified. You have already encountered a description of it in the Project Guide 4.

The broad aim of the analysis, and of your own small scale research project, is to be able to explore the application of particular theoretical concepts to particular contexts. You may find that you illustrate or exemplify a concept such as, for example, transactions costs, but equally, you may adapt or refine the understanding of that concept, or generate new categories.

The process of analysis begins with combing through the data line by line, asking, in effect, ‘What is going on here?’ or ‘What do we call this?’ You need to allocate a descriptive label to each scrap of data. By labelling the data you have conceptualised it and begun to give an account of it place in the bigger picture. So, when looking at the answers to Questions 10 and 11 on the questionnaire you might come across the statement ‘I am paid well’ and attach a label ‘Types of satisfaction with work’. But there is more to be said than this. The process can be developed by looking at each detail of the data from as many points of view as possible, particularly noting any interpretations which come from within the data (participants’ own words and phrases). In the case of this fragment, you can relate it to the structure of employment by giving it the label ‘terms of payment’, ‘levels of payment’, ‘evaluation of own work’. Logically the number of connections you can make is enormous - this is the richness of qualitative data. The labels are provisional and at first the only aim is to find a good number of concepts which accurately fit the data. This can be done, therefore, in a free and easy brainstorming style. At a later stage there is integration and systematisation, and at that point you need to be more critical. Remember, though, that the labelling process is achieving more than an immediate description of events or experiences. You are stepping away from the phenomena themselves - that particular person in that particular situation - and finding the elements of a conceptual structure. In other words, your categories have to be potentially relevant to other times and places.

Begin to look at your data, in small groups, and suggest as many categories or labels as you can. Do this as a brainstorm - don’t be too critical, but let one idea lead to another. Note them down.

Although you must not go off into a realm of fantasy, it is valuable to think beyond the words on the page to their context - the situation in which they arise, the institutions, interactions, status and strategies they imply. This will expand the number of categories arising from a statement.

Look again at the segment of data which you have already worked on. Can you enrich the analysis by asking more questions or identifying more variables? Go over your list of labels and be critical this time, rejecting or adapting those which have no general meaning or which are just not accurate.

The researcher also needs to keep track of the relationships between categories. This allows re-labelling or other modification of the labels (such as collapsing two categories into one), comparisons, and identification of the central or ‘core’ categories. This will be much more important when you are analysing the somewhat larger amount of data for your project than it is in this small exercise. Go through your list of categories and write systematic notes about the relationships between the categories. This means writing about the categories, not about the events and people - remember you are talking about relationships between concepts. This is the point at which you will be able to comment on the meaning and content of particular theoretical categories and note relationships and contrasts between interviewees’ categories and theoretical ones.

At this stage of the present exercise you should have accumulated a number of categories which break down the concept of motivation at work into many fragments which can then be regrouped under headings such as ‘Pay’ or ‘Self-fulfilment’ or ‘Level of risk/security’ (for example).

Are there any comments you could make about the relationships between your categories? Working together, set out your categories in a diagram showing the relationships between them. Group them, classify them, mark arrows between them, jot down any questions which emerge as a result of the relationships. Make sure that you are letting the data, through your categories, speak to you and not imposing the structure of a theory you are already assuming upon the data. Every suggestion at this stage needs to be vetted and questioned.

It should be possible now to evaluate which are the more important concepts which hold your categories together. It should also be possible to point out areas which would merit further exploration - what do people mean when they say they are motivated by ‘interest’ in their job? Does prioritisation of security mean people are more or less motivated?

Finally, prepare a very brief account of your analysis to present to the whole group, pointing out your main categories and, as far as you can, conclusions. Also indicate areas which would merit further research.

The purpose of this week is to introduce you to the kind of interviewing you would need to use for your project. Firstly, you will be doing an exercise related to a transcript, and then preparing to carry out interviews in the next week.

The transcript contains extracts from an interview carried out in 1995. The interviewer was comparing four companies in the field of information technology and was interested in how information technologies influenced and were influenced by routines, structures and culture within the firms. This interviewee works for a company called Multiplex. She is being asked about her role in the organisation.

Find the following in the transcript:

Interviewer. All I want to use the recording for is to check my notes, but also, I’ve not done this before, but for the colleague who is transcribing. And when she’s transcribed I’m going to run them through some software that tells me, what does word counts and things like that and tells me things the sorts of words that people use and whether other people in Multiplex use the same words as each other. And then it does the same thing at Digital and, its going to be interesting how you all describe your organisations. It may or may not work. It’s called discourse theory.

I’ve not been involved with that before but it sounds interesting and the software is available, so I had a go.

Right, so, so how long have you been with Multiplex?

Angela. I’ve been with Multiplex since May 1991.

I. And what do you do?

A. I’m now an internal sales executive.

I. Right. And what does mean?

A. Basically, I’m an internal source for sales so that means I phone companies and tell them about our software. I don’t go out on the road and I haven’t attended any seminars at all. Erm, basically I look after the accounts from an internal point of view.

I. Right, so you would be - if there were an advert in the press, for example, which produced responses on a fact sheet or whatever - you’d be the person who then responded to those things, would you?

A. Yes. Well, it would go through the Leads Generation Unit first. Anything which is mailed out from our marketing department is first passed through to the Leads Generation Unit and then that would, in turn, be passed on to the internal sales people to follow up after literature has gone out or an evaluation is needed, then the internal person would then ring them.

I. Follow up once the literature has been sent out?

A. Yes.

I. So, it’s more to do with sales than technology?

A. Yeah.

I. But how much do you need to know about the technology?

A. Oh, quite a lot because you are taking people’s first calls. They may not know anything about what the software does so in that sense you need to know quite a bit. You need to know roughly what the software does, what it includes. Well that’s all you need to know really.

It’s all I know, anyway (chuckle).

There’s other sales people that know everything you need to know but I don’t personally know everything.

I. But you don’t get caught out by questions you don’t understand.

A. Yes.

I. You do occasionally?

A. Oh, I do, yeah. Yes but luckily I’ve got people round me who know what they are talking about. So I’ve only actually been up in sales now since June 1st. I’ve done other jobs within Multiplex and I’ve gradually got into sales.

I. I see, slowly crept up the system?

A. (chuckle) Yes. So I don’t actually know as much as I should know about the software but I know enough for the customers to deal with them.

I. Right. You’ve been a sales assistant junior for six months?

A. Yeah.

I. How have things changed as a result of the growth?

A. I think communication lapse. I think since we’ve - since the company has grown there isn’t as much communication as there used to be. But that’s not necessarily from management to me but within the other departments as well. I think that’s the main thing which has got a kind of hole in it.

I. Right. And when would you date that from?

A. Erm. About two years I’d say.

I. Is that around the time when Powercomp came along?

A. No. No I think it was probably just after then, but it wouldn’t have been - there wouldn’t have been much in it.

I. Right. And what was that, what do you think? Was it the company got to a particular size? Or was there some other reason for it?

A. Well I think as the company began to grow people started to join ten to the dozen and there was none of this - this is what I need to know if I’m doing something, you obviously need to tell me what I need to know. It was just everyone came in, they sat at their little desk and had their own thing to do and not necessarily realise that other parts of the company needed to know certain aspects of their job.

I. Right. No overall view of the system?

A. No.

I. What was your background prior to coming here?

A. Well I actually did a secretarial course for a year after leaving school, so, that was it really. Then I got a job here as an office junior.

I. So everything you know about computing you’ve picked up from here?

A Oh yeah. I had no computer back ground whatsoever.

I. Good place to get a job.

A. It was and there were no jobs in ‘91, I can tell you.

I. Right. So you feel there’s a hole in the communication systems, particularly since it has grown in the two years or so?

A. Yeap. I think it’s actually now, over the past two months that people have started to communicate. A few people have joined who have sort of seen these holes and have tried to help along with them. So I think that things are actually starting to become less holy. So...

I. What kinds of things? What sorts of examples have you got of where the holes appeared?

A. Well, there’s actually been a task force set up now which deals with sort of basic things around the company. Things like changes within Multiplex. I don’t exactly know what obviously because it’s management. It is actually management level, but I know that there - it’s been set up to try and change some of the things in Multiplex. I don’t know what though.

I. When you were observing that there were holes, though, what - how did you know there was a hole?

A. Because there were always things going wrong. It’s not … I mean I’m not looking at sort of higher levels but I’m looking at it from my point of view. You can see orders would come in and people didn’t know things about them. Operations wouldn’t know about what they had to do with that order. It was holes like that where - well maybe there was a new product out but operations didn’t know how to order or how much it was. Really silly things like that which can stop that order being processed to the customers.

I. Right. And that, now that there’s been this task force and people have started to think about it.

A. Yeah, yeah. And people have seen that it has taken a long time because it’s, it’s happened from when I was actually in operations, that I found out these problems. And it’s now just coming in so that when a new product comes out the sales people know what it is and what it does. And the operations people know how much to buy it for, who they buy it from and who the contact is. So things are starting to sort of close those gaps, now. So it’s not as bad as it was.

I. What do think is likely to happen within the next six months or so? This is the last area of questioning, okay. It’s difficult to say, I know, you are not Peter Goodfellow sitting up there scanning the market place, seeing what’s going on. But Multiplex has grown incredibly fast, there’s been lots and lots of changes. You’ve been here a long time, you’ve been in other departments, you’ve got a good sense of what’s going on and what might change. What’s your best guess over the next six months?

A. I think Multiplex - it’s really strange to describe because I think Mulitplex has changed a lot more over last six months than what I can see forward. I honestly can’t see any changes at the moment because I really don’t honestly know. I really don’t. I think the business will continue to improve because there is a lot of places out there which, not necessarily need our products but need the product and if you’ve got the right sales teams then you can sell the product. So I think business will continue to improve. I don’t think it will go down hill at all. Strange to say, I think Powercom, who at the moment are like on their own. Well I don’t know but maybe they will merge with Multiplex and become one company.

It can seem difficult to launch into the process of interviewing, particularly if you choose a relatively informal style where, in effect, you make up the questions as you go along. Good interviewing habits are not difficult to acquire, though it is a good idea to practice. If an interview goes wrong for any reason you may find you have ‘used up’ a promising interviewee without achieving what you need. To prevent losing track of an interview you need to prepare well and keep your aims clearly in mind. It is always a good idea to have a plan in front of you, showing the areas you need to cover. There will be moments when you need to take a lead and start the conversation off again.

You will, as interviewer, be in charge, and you will need to establish your own style. Remember your aim is to collect rich qualitative data, so your purpose will not be served by imitating one of the interviewers on Newsnight savaging a politician, nor a market researcher ticking boxes in the street. You will get best results if an interview feels like a fairly natural conversation for the interviewee, so don’t be afraid to respond. There are many ways of doing this silently. Take the lead as necessary but avoid talking too much as this distracts you from listening. Having a sketch plan in front of you will mean that when one area is exhausted you can move to a fresh topic.

In pairs or small groups devise a list of five or six guidelines for interviewers. Direct them towards the goals of making sure the interview does the job you want it to and making sure the experience is pleasant for the interviewee.

In order to be able to improvise your way through an interview you need to have a clear view of what you’re interested in. This enables you to recognise openings when they appear.

The interview extract you have read is only a part of a longer interview. However, it is still possible to look at it in terms of the areas of enquiry which are covered. Using the transcript, and also the brief account of what the researcher’s interests were, given in the notes for the beginning of this session, sketch out the plan the interviewer might have had in front of him when beginning this interview.

For the interview practice you will be working in groups of three so that there will be an interviewer, an interviewee and an observer. These roles will be switched round so everybody has had a go at each by the end of the practice. Your tutor will number you 1, 2 or 3, to allocate turns.

Grouped with those with the same number as you, start working on an interview plan. The topic is education and opportunity.

The first step is to work out what would be interesting within this topic. What issues could be raised, which concepts do you want to explore? Think back over the course for relevant ideas. You might, for example, be interested in gender differences, household strategies in the labour market or investment in human capital. Each of you will only be doing one interview, with one of the members of your original small group, but you can imagine that it is one of a set of interviews which together would explore an issue, and design it accordingly.

Decide together what your areas of enquiry will be. Sketch out a page of headings and questions to ask. You will have a theoretical starting point - but you won’t necessarily go head on for an answer: ‘What has been your household’s strategy in the labour market?’ The questions you ask are about peoples’ experiences and perceptions. That is their expertise and the reason why you’re talking to them. Sometimes it is important that your respondents are not explicitly conscious of your theoretical aims, that they do not become self-conscious or analytical but answer in terms of their direct experience. It is a matter of some delicacy to openly and honestly involve your respondent in the research process while at the same time being careful about how you describe it in order to avoid setting the terms of the discussion in advance. It is often best to ask what may seem rather simple-minded questions.

You will certainly need to improvise, but it is also helpful to think about the wording of some important questions. Are you asking in a way which is open, allowing a full range of response? Is it easy for the interviewee to answer - i.e. you are not asking for impossible feats of memory or for information beyond their knowledge? Is it sensitive, unintrusive?

Each of you will also be taking the role of observer. This will help you all to learn from the process and make you more alert to what works and what doesn’t. The observer could use a checklist for commenting on the way the interview went:

The observer’s role will also include that of timekeeper (giving a warning near the end) and asking the participants what it felt like for them.

This topic is selected as one for which it should be possible to realistically interview Open University students. You are not being asked to role play as interviewees, but to respond as yourselves. You must of course feel able to decline to answer if you wish or to turn the interview away from a particular area of questioning. Almost any topic of enquiry can become intrusive in the wrong circumstances and interviewers must be sensitive to this.

Before you start, remind yourselves of your plans and interests. Observers need to remind themselves of the checklist of points to note. Interviews should take about 15 minutes. You may find you have prepared too much or too little. Much depends on luck, as you could go up a few blind alleys before hitting on something the interviewee has a lot to say about. These interviews will not be recorded, but you don’t need to worry about taking detailed notes.

(Note, though, that recording interviews does give you a few more things to worry about which you need to think about if you are going to use this method. Does the interviewee mind? Have you recorded name and date? Is the tape about to run out? Is there an electric socket in the interview setting? Are your questions audible as well as the answers?)

Many interviewers do like to take sketchy notes at the time in order to see what has been covered, or to jot down reminders of follow-up questions - or just to have a pen to fiddle with! Try to relax into the task of interviewing. If your mind is too occupied with worries about what you ought to be saying you don’t hear properly what the interviewee is saying - leading to missed opportunities for directing the interview the way you want it to go.

There will be a chance to share what you have learnt at the end of the practice.

During these weeks you will have an individual tutorial when you will be able to discuss your project plan, which you set out initially. You should now be in a position to develop and finalise this. It is still not too late to change topic if you need to, but let your tutor know so that you have your tutorial earlier in the course.

The length of your project report should be between 3,500 and 5,000 words.

It should be planned and written in orderly sections, along these lines:

The introduction will explain briefly what you did and why. There will need to be a clear initial statement of your aims.

This will give a context to your research and will help you to explain your aims more fully. This will be where you show why it was interesting to do what you did and which aspects of economic theory it was about. You may need to present relevant ideas and discussions from reading beyond the course materials. Don’t forget to use a proper referencing system when you are writing about other people’s ideas or using their words. This means giving brief details (author, year and page number) in brackets in the text and a full alphabetically arranged list at the end of all works cited.

Your account of what you did needs to be reflective and critical, so include a discussion of why the research was appropriately carried out using qualitative, fieldwork methods. Describe how you carried out the research, showing the decisions you made and why. Indicate where problems arose, if they did. However, there’s no need to undermine your own research by doing this. All research meets problems, but it is usually sufficient just to note that the limitations need to be taken into account.

This section will necessarily be the longest part of the whole report. It is where you demonstrate what you have achieved.

You will have obtained data in text form and then analysed the data. The products of the analysis are your findings. However, in order to write about them convincingly, you will need to illustrate your analysis with examples from the data. Don’t confuse these two things. The data on its own is unfinished, but if you present the analysis without any examples it will be unconvincing.

This makes firm links between the theoretical issues you began with and the findings of the research. You will not have ‘proved’ anything as such because you were not carrying out a test. But your research should have explored theoretical concepts and their relation to actual instances. You will be able to point out issues arising out of that and very likely will have identified further questions.

This means a list, alphabetically arranged, giving full details of all works you have referred to.

[Just to remind you, for books, the routine is Author (or editor), initials, (followed by ed. in brackets for edited volumes) year of publication, title (underlined or italicised), place of publication, publisher. For articles give author, initials, year of publication, title in inverted commas, name of publication (underlined or italicised), volume number and page numbers for the whole article]. For example the book below was referred to earlier in the workbook.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Rogan F, Shimed, Barclay L Everitt, L and Wylie A, 1997 ‘Becoming a Mother – Developing a New Theory of Early Motherhood, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 877-8