Utilizing Theory in Research

For the purposes of this discussion, I have analyzed McGrath & Pistrang (2007), which is a qualitative study. This was not a difficult choice to make since the authors noted this fact in the first sentence of the study. Several factors alerted me to this assertion including the lack of statistical analysis or a report with means, standard deviations, and statistically relevant findings (Creswell, 2009b). It contained a narrative report with descriptions and other information from participants, whereas a quantitative report would be a statistical comparison that contained numbers (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009; Lichtman, 2006). It was the study of a whole rather than specific variables that are studied in quantitative design. The data collected included subjective experiences of participants rather than numbers and statistics, and it identified patterns and features rather than statistical relationships (Lichtman, 2006). It was exploratory whereas a quantitative study would have explained and made predictions. The ultimate purpose of the study was to understand human nature and inducing a new theory, whereas a quantitative study would have tested a hypothesis (Creswell, 2008a, 2009b; Lichtman, 2006).

The purpose of the study was to fill the paucity of research on homeless young people. Based on previous research, young homeless individuals encounter a variety of psychological challenges typical for this age group (McGrath & Pistrang, 2007). Preventing and intervening into these issues has not been well understood.

Applying the Use of Theory Checklist, the authors do not identify one overarching theory by name, however, they discussed the literature and a few partially useable theoretical models. The authors discussed psychotherapy research that suggests certain factors contribute to psychotherapy's effectiveness and the therapeutic alliance, and this study determined three such themes central to the relationships studied.

In their data analysis, they implemented Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to develop themes in their research, (identifying themes and patterns are typical in qualitative research (Creswell, 2009)) although they implemented IPA anticipating developing multiple themes rather than one overarching theme (McGrath & Pistrang, 2007). As a result of the study, and typical of the process of induction that takes place in qualitative research, the authors identified three patterns in the relationships of the participants, which they described as core aspects or features (patterns) of the participants' relationships (McGrath & Pistrang, 2007).

This article did not examine independent and independent variables as would be the case in a quantitative study (Creswell, 2009a). A qualitative study is a study of a whole exploration rather than variables (Lichtman, 2006). Because this qualitative article did not examine variables, it did not address associations of variables, or provide a rationale for why the variables are related based on theory. It did, however, associate previous research that describes the qualities of a therapeutic alliance to the three core aspects of the relationships between participants.

References

Creswell, J. (2009a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009b). Chapter three: The use of theory [PPT]. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Theory. Baltimore: Author.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McGrath, L., & Pistrang, N. (2007). Policeman or friend? Dilemmas in working with homeless young people in the United Kingdom. Journal of Social Issues, 63(3), 589-606. doi 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00525.x

Bottoms Up!

I find it helpful to remember that qualitative research is exploratory and uses a bottom-up process (Creswell, 2008). Qualitative research creates new theories from collected data. On the other hand, quantitative research is confirmatory and works from the top-down (Creswell, 2008). In quantitative research, theories are tested with collected data (Lichtman, 2006). Further, deductive reasoning (top-down) begins with the theory, however, in inductive reasoning (bottom-up), we end with the theory (Fox, 2008; Shank, 2008).

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fox, N. (2008). Induction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 430-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n212

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shank, G. (2008). Deduction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 208-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n105

Deduction vs. Induction

Deductive research is the process of taking general statements and making them more specific. The researcher must rely on a general statement or theory to deduct any further information (Shank, 2008). In deductive research, the researcher trusts that the general statement or theory is reasonably accurate. I may do research based on the idea or theory that humans experience support through fellowship with others, and determine that cancer support groups are supportive for cancer patients.

Inductive research is somewhat the reverse of deductive research in that it takes a specific observation and moves toward a more abstract generalizations (Blaikie, 2008). For example, I may look at support groups for cancer patients to determine why they are supportive.

I believe it helps to look at the root words. Deduce means to come to a conclusion based on known information, whereas induce means to establish or bring something about based on observations (Blaikie, 2004; Shank, 2008). To apply these words to research, deductive research comes to a conclusion based on known information or a theory, whereas inductive research induces a new idea based on observations.

The ocean is at the end of my street. Using deduction, if I do not stop at the end of my street, I will drive into the ocean. Alternatively, after watching several cars drive into the ocean, I learn through inductive research or observation, that when cars drive into the ocean, they fill up with water.

The basic difference between deduction and induction is how and where theory is used in the equation. In deductive reasoning, we start (at the top) with the theory, from which we determine a hypothesis, then make observations (Shank, 2008). We would end with a confirmation of the original theory or additional information that contests or disproves the theory.

Inductive reasoning begins from the bottom with an observation, from which we observe patterns and generalities (Fox, 2008). Then we generate a hypothesis and finish with a theory. The theory is central in both, and the concepts of top-down and bottom-up are based on where the theory functions in the process (Trochim, 2000).

Further, I think of inductive as open-minded and deductive as narrow-minded. Like many diffuse processes in life, it is improbable to think that research should be one or the other. As we have learned, most research processes include both types of reasoning (Creswell, 2008).

Blaikie, N. (2004). Induction. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods. (pp. 487-488). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950589.n422

Fox, N. (2008). Induction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 430-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n212

Shank, G. (2008). Deduction. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 208-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n105

Trochim, W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

 

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) explains reciprocal determinism, or how individuals interact with their environments and the influence each exerts on the other (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). The main concepts of SCT that influence interactions are psychological determinants, observational learning, environmental determinants, self-regulation, and moral disengagement (Glanz et al., 2008).

Psychological and Environmental Determinants

Applying the concept of psychological determinants, Emily's environment perceived her as an aggressor, which caused her to be labeled as a bully. Cognitive constructions and social learning by teachers and other students upheld the mistaken belief that Emily was a bully (Miller, 2008). Because everyone in her school environment perceived her in an aggressive role, no matter what she did, the environment placed her in a position she seemed unable to change. A basic premise of social cognitive theory is that people's values and expectations are subjective and people do not behave according to reality, but their subjective perception of it. In effect, people respond to what they think, not to what is necessarily so.

Observational Learning

Emily was unable to change her perceived behavior because of the influence of social perception(Orbell et al., 2009). The concept of social learning plays a role in this situation because some of the students treated her as a bully and through observational learning, other students as well as the teachers learned to see Emily as a bully. The environment continued to inflict her role upon her and she continued to find herself in situations that reinforced her role as a bully, and the perception of her as a bully became pervasive in her environment. Utilizing social cognitive theory, the goal would be to help others change their perception of Emily. Glanz et al., (2008) explained that outcome expectations contribute to ongoing behavior.

According to Orbell et al. (2009), expectations are antecedent to behavior, and changing expectations will ultimately change behavior. In this case, changing the environmental (student body and teachers) expectations of Emily would change the perception of her behavior. As social cognition changes, entire environments change as well, and modifying beliefs about an environment can provoke change in the environment (Orbell et al., 2009).

According to the concept of collective efficacy and observational learning, if the teacher's begin to perceive and treat Emily fairly and expect her to behave differently, others will begin to perceive her differently (Glanz et al., 2008). In this case, changing one aspect of the reciprocal relationship will discontinue the cycle of reciprocity. Glanz et al., (2008) refers to this concept as changing environmental determinants of behavior.

Moral Disengagement and Self-Regulation

To correct moral disengagement, the school environment would benefit from a campaign that created awareness of the harmful effects of bullying and the deep personal pain associated with being ostracized. If the students understand the personal toll of bullying, they may change their behavior.

The student's behavior may also change as they learn (or are taught) how to conduct themselves, such as refraining from behaviors that will knowingly provoke negative outcomes.

Finally, it may be important to note dramatic pubertal changes in the brain (Burnett & Blakemore, 2009; Roaten & Roaten, 2012; Steinberg, 2011). Social intelligence lacks development compared to adults' norms and expectations for socialization. Likely there are proven methods of contending with social problems in adolescent groups. Perhaps the bigger challenge is changing the perceptions of the teachers and other involved adults.

References

Burnett, S., & Blakemore, S. J. (2009). The development of adolescent social cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 51–56.
Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Academic Search Complete database.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Changing health behavior: Theory and practice, Baltimore, MD: Author.

Miller, T. W. (Ed.). (2008). School violence and primary prevention (5th ed.). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77119-9

Orbell, S., Lidierth, P., Henderson, C. J., Geeraert, N., Uller, C., Uskul, A. K., & Kyriakaki, M. (2009). Social-cognitive beliefs, alcohol, and tobacco use: A prospective community study of change following a ban on smoking in public places. Health Psychology, 28(6), 753–761.

Roaten, G. K., & Roaten, D. J. (2012). Adolescent Brain Development: Current Research and the Impact on Secondary School Counseling Programs. Journal Of School Counseling, 10(18).

Steinberg, L. (2011). Demystifying the adolescent brain. Educational Leadership, 68(7), 42-46.