Choosing Your Research Methodology: Core Question: What is the knowledge focus of your dissertation?

Your first step is to define the primary genre of your work, which will determine your entire approach to methods. The three fundamental genres are:

Practice: Focused on applying knowledge in a real-world context.
Research: Focused on empirical investigation and discovery.
Theory: Focused on developing or critiquing conceptual frameworks.

Your choice here sets the stage for everything that follows.

The Principle of Critical Awareness

A key part of your methodology is to demonstrate that you understand no single method is perfect. For every approach you consider, there exists a body of scholarly criticism pointing out its limitations—some may even argue it’s fundamentally flawed.

Your task is not to find a “perfect” method, but to adopt a methodology with a keen awareness of its critics and its epistemological limitations. This shows intellectual maturity and rigor.

The Three Canonical Methodological Approaches

You will primarily work with one or more of these three families of methods:

Qualitative: Methods that generate non-numerical data (e.g., interviews, observations, textual analysis).
Quantitative: Methods that generate numerical data for statistical analysis (e.g., surveys, experiments).
Interpretive: Methods focused on understanding meaning, context, and social constructs.

It is very common to use Mixed Methods—for instance, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to triangulate your findings, using the strengths of one to support the other.

The Central Role of Interpretation

This is a critical concept: All high-quality empirical research is interpretive. “Facts” never just speak for themselves.

Question Selection: The questions you choose to ask are themselves an interpretive act, as you’ve selected them from an infinite number of possibilities.
Data Categories: How you collect and categorize your data (both quantitative and qualitative) must be explained and justified—an interpretive task.
Framing Results: The meaning you draw from your data requires interpretation.

If you neglect this interpretive layer and simply present data as raw, self-evident truth, your work risks being dismissed as “empiricism”—a unreflective and uncritical reportage that lacks depth. Your interpretation is what gives your data its significance and connects it to your research goals.

REFERENCES – GENERAL

Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G. , Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W.T.. (2016). The craft of research. University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J/W. &J. Creswell. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine Transaction.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational research: An integrated approach. Longman.

QUALITATIVE METHODS

General

Denzin, N. K. 2001. Interpretive Interactionism. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S.. (2007). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guildford.

Ethnography

Agar, Michael H. 1996. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. Cambridge MA: Academic Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Fontana.
Hammersley, Martyn and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London UK: Routledge.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London UK: Routledge.
Heath, Shirley Brice, Brian V. Street and Molly Mills. 2008. On Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York NY: Teachers College Press.

Case Study

Stake, Robert E. 2005. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Interview

Kvale. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Seidman, I.E. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York NY: Teachers College Press.

Design Research

Lankshear, Colin and Michele Knobel. 2004. A Handbook for Teacher Research: From Design to Implementation. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press.
Reinking, David and Barbara A. Bradley. 2008. Formative and Design Experiments: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Action Research

Kemmis, Stephen and Robin McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, Stephen and Mervyn Wilkinson. 1988. “Participatory Action Research and the Study of Practice ” in Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, edited by B. Atweh, S. Kemmis and P. Weeks. London: Routledge.
Stevenson, Robert B. and Susan E. Noffke, eds. 1995. Educational Action Research: Becoming Practically Critical. New York NY: Teachers College Press.

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Survey

Andres, Lesley. 2012. Designing and Doing Survey Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Controlled Intervention

Erikson, Frederick and Kris Gutierrez. 2002. “Culture, Rigor and Science in Educational Research.” Educational Researcher 31(8):21-24.
O’Donnell, Carol L. 2008. “Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Fidelity of Implementation and Its Relationship to Outcomes in K–12 Curriculum Intervention Research “. Review of Educational Research 78(1):33-84.
Torgerson, David J. and Carole J. Torgerson. 2008. Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. London UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Computational

Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis. 2015. “Interpreting Evidence-of-Learning: Educational Research in the Era of Big Data.” Open Review of Educational Research 2(1):218–39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2015.1074870.
Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis. 2016. “Big Data Comes to School: Implications for Learning, Assessment and Research.” AERA Open 2(2):1-19

INTERPRETIVE METHODS

Discourse Analysis

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman. 2015. Language and Power. London: Longmans.
Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge.
Gee, James Paul. 2011. How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. New York: Routledge.

Discourse Analysis

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman. 2015. Language and Power. London: Longmans.
Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York: Routledge.
Gee, James Paul. 2011. How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. New York: Routledge.
Kalantzis, Mary and Bill Cope. 2019 [forthcoming]. Making Sense: A Grammar of Multimodal Meaning. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.

Semiotics

Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis. 2020. Making Sense: Reference, Agency and Structure in a Grammar of Multimodal Meaning. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, Mary and Bill Cope. 2020. Adding Sense: Context and Interest in a Grammar of Multimodal Meaning. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.

Historical

Anderson, James D. 1998. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Carr, E.H. 1967. What Is History? London UK: Vintage.

Educational Theory/Philosophy

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Iser, Wolfgang. 2006. How to Do Theory. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Kalantzis, Mary and Bill Cope. 2012. New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education (Edn 2). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Michael A. and Nicholas C. Burbules. 2004. Poststructuralism and Educational Research. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Peters, Michael A. 2007. “Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39.

Web Tips

Writing your Dissertation: Methodology
Top 10 tips for Writing a Dissertation Methodology (traditional empirical)
Understanding Research Methods (Coursera MOOC)

Action Items

Action Item #1: Comment: What is your chosen dissertation genre? What methods are you selecting? Why?

Action Item #2: Read the methods chapter of two or three dissertations that you have not already read, reflect on those, and write a description and justification of your own methods.

9. Dissertation Genres and Methodological Approaches

The document outlines the foundational framework for a dissertation, introducing three primary genres of knowledge creation and the research methods commonly associated with them. This is presented as part of a scaffolded “Exam-Dissertation Sequence” (EDS) designed to guide students from their general field of interest to a completed dissertation.

The Three Major Dissertation Genres

1. Empirical Research Approach

Core Idea: The researcher acts as a detached, objective observer of learning processes in formal or informal settings. The goal is to systematically analyze and describe phenomena without influencing them.
Key Principle: Relies on detachment and strategies to ensure impartiality and objectivity (e.g., blinding, controlled conditions, clear protocols).
Contribution: Original contribution comes from revealing new insights or patterns from collected data.
Enhanced Context: This approach is rooted in the positivist and post-positivist paradigms, which hold that reality is observable and can be measured objectively. The term “arms-length” emphasizes the importance of minimizing researcher bias.

2. Practice Research Approach (Often called “Interventionist” or “Design-Based” Research)

Core Idea: The researcher is an active agent who designs, implements, and evaluates an intervention (e.g., a new curriculum, technology, or program) aimed at changing conditions in a learning environment.
Key Principle: Involves active participation and intervention. Rigor is added through methods like control/comparison groups and logic models that trace causation.
Contribution: Original contribution is made by demonstrating the causal or influential relationships between the intervention and its effects.
Enhanced Context: This aligns with pragmatist paradigms, where the value of research is judged by its practical outcomes and problem-solving capacity. It often employs iterative cycles of design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement. The document’s mention of triangulation is crucial here, as the researcher’s active role requires robust validation from multiple sources (e.g., participants, stakeholders, data types) to ensure credibility.

3. Interpretive Research Approach

Core Idea: The researcher analyzes and re-interprets existing knowledge artifacts (texts, theories, historical documents, media, datasets) to create new conceptual understandings, theories, or agendas for action.
Key Principle: Focuses on deriving meaning, deconstructing assumptions, and understanding context. The researcher’s subjective interpretation is a key tool of analysis.
Contribution: Original contribution comes from constructing a new theory, reconceptualizing an existing field, or proposing a new framework for action.
Enhanced Context: This approach is founded in interpretivist and constructivist paradigms, which posit that reality is socially constructed and must be interpreted through the meanings people assign to it. Methods like hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation) and discourse analysis are central to this genre.

The Three Canonical Research Methods

The document distinguishes these from genres, framing them as the “tools” for data collection and analysis.

Qualitative Methods: Aim to understand the “why” and “how” of phenomena. They produce rich, narrative data about human experiences, behaviors, and social contexts (e.g., interviews, ethnography, case studies).
Quantitative Methods: Aim to quantify problems by generating numerical data that can be transformed into statistics. They focus on the “what,” “where,” and “when,” seeking to identify patterns and test hypotheses (e.g., surveys, experiments, statistical analysis).
Interpretive Methods: Focus on the critical analysis of texts and artifacts to derive meaning, critique power structures, and build conceptual models. While all research has an interpretive element, this category highlights methods where interpretation is the primary activity (e.g., critical theory, philosophical analysis, conceptual mapping).

Examples

1. Qualitative Methods (e.g. Qualitative Sociology, Anthropology)

Narratives of the world. These research tools might be helpful:

Open-ended survey
Action research or qualitative experiment
Interview
Focus group
Recorded interaction analysis
Document analysis
Immersive participation
Ethnographic observation
Case study
Single subject cases
Insider research
Narrative research
Grounded theory

2. Quantitative Methods (e.g. Quantitative Sociology, Psychology, Computer Science)

Counting things in the world. These can be captured with the following research tools:

Item-based or select response survey
Experiments with quantifiable effects
Quantifiable data collection
Statistical analysis
Data mining
Digital humanities
Data change: longitudinal studies

3. Interpretive Methods (e.g. History, Philosophy, Semiotics, Cultural Studies, Social Theory)

Modelling, explaining and arguing the world. These research tools can be used:

Re-reading and re-analyzing existing scholarly and documentary resources
Reading and writing theories, agendas, plans
Defining terms with greater precision than ordinary language
Linking terms into conceptual schemas (ontologies)
Diagramming and visual modelling
Explanation and argument
Critique, critical theory
Developing action agendas

Connection Between Genres and Methods: Enhanced Analysis

The document provides a simple matrix, but the relationship is more nuanced:

Empirical Research most commonly uses quantitative or qualitative methods, but the data must be interpreted. Without a strong interpretive layer, it risks being dismissed as shallow “empiricism.”
Practice Research almost always uses a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data may measure the scale of an effect, while qualitative data helps explain the mechanisms and context behind it. The interpretive element is vital for understanding why the intervention worked or didn’t.
Interpretive Research primarily uses interpretive methods but can be enhanced by quantitative techniques (e.g., text mining or quantitative meta-analysis to identify patterns in a large corpus of literature before a deep qualitative interpretation).

The most common configuration in contemporary research is Mixed Methods, combining two or more methods to provide a more comprehensive answer to the research question.

Key Enhanced Takeaways and Recommendations

Paradigm First: Your chosen genre often reflects your underlying research paradigm (e.g., positivist, interpretivist, pragmatist). It is helpful to understand these philosophical starting points, as they inform every subsequent choice.
Alignment is Crucial: The most important task is to ensure alignment between your research problem, your genre (approach), and your chosen methods. A practice-based problem about testing an intervention requires a Practice Research approach, not a detached Empirical one.
The Pervasiveness of Interpretation: The document correctly emphasizes that all good research contains a robust interpretive element. This is the stage where you make meaning of your data, connect it to theory, and argue for your original contribution to knowledge.
Beyond the List: The methods listed are common examples but are not exhaustive. For example, Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) could be a method within the Practice genre, and Systematic Reviews are a key method for Interpretive syntheses of existing literature.

This framework provides a strong foundation for conceptualizing your dissertation. The next step is to delve deeper into the specific methods and paradigms that best suit your specific research interests.

References

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M., eds. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Palgrave.
Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M., eds. (2016). E-Learning ecologies: Principles for new learning and assessment. Routledge.
Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B.. (2016). Learner differences in theory and practice. Open Review of Educational Research 3(1):85–132.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E. & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (Edn 2). Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B.. (2020). Making sense: Reference agency and structure in a grammar of multimodal meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2020). Adding sense: Content and interest in a grammar of multimodal meaning. Cambridge University Press.