Group Dynamics and Research Methodology Report (Assessment)

Individual Learning

One of the main problems that I had during the individual learning experience was mastering the methods of data analysis presented to us. The material seemed easy to understand as the use of graphs was not confusing till the teacher started delving into areas related to statistics, such as means, standard deviation, and multivariate analysis. Mathematical analysis has never been one of my strengths; during the various discussions, I concluded that the use of qualitative research would be something that would be more in line with what I was capable of doing as compared to other forms of research. After the presentation on qualitative analysis, I became aware that it relied more on observations, academic literature, and personal views than quantitative research. As such, it immediately dawned on me that this particular research method should have been utilized by the group when it came to developing the research proposal¹. If the group utilized a qualitative research basis rather than a quantitative one, I would be able to be a more active participant rather than a passive observer as prescribed by this particular type of research methodology. Fortunately, the others within the group shared the same sentiment, resulting in the research proposal that was distinctly qualitative though we added some minor quantitative elements to clarify the data.

Group Develop and Group Dynamics

After a brief examination of the various processes in the creation of the research proposal, the hardest aspect was related to coming up with a sufficiently adequate topic to research in the first place. Initially, it was perceived that developing a topic would have been easy in comparison to the main bulk of the research proposal which would involve considerable research and developing the necessary methods of data collection and analysis². Unfortunately, it was quickly determined that a proper research topic should not have been answered by a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’, rather, it must come in form of a relevant academic explanation which combines both the views of the researcher and the academic literature in a form of a succinct explanation³. Developing a topic took longer than expected since it was repeatedly met with conflict among members of the group. Various alternatives were suggested and constant debates ensued regarding the viability of particular topics. Unfortunately, as a direct result of internal disagreements on how to properly develop the research topic, it showed that the group nearly missed the deadline for the submission of the initial research proposal. During this particular stage, I came to realize that group dynamics was an important aspect when taking part in any activity involving academic research⁴. If the members of the group could not get along when it comes to a simple matter, such as creating a research topic, it affected the rest of the research experience. While we were able to develop the proposal at a sufficient rate, due to the continued information and assistance provided to us by our teacher, it came to a point that our internal disagreements resulted in delays in the research process and considerable conflict when it came to combining our work. Overall, I have to say that the main issue we had as a group was that we could not get along and preferred individual rather than teamwork⁵.

Bibliography

Cooney, A, ‘Rigour and grounded theory’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 18, no. 4, 2011, pp. 17-22.

Griffin, A, ‘Legitimizing Academic Research in Design: Lessons from Research on New Product Development and Innovation’, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3, 2011, pp. 428-433.

‘Evaluating a team-based approach to research capacity building using a matched-pairs study design’ BMC Family Practice, vol. 13, no. 1, 2012,pp. 16-25.

Kuechler, W & Vaishnavi, V, ‘A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspectives’, Journal Of The Association For Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 6, 2012, pp. 395-423.

Licqurish, S & Seibold, C, ‘Applying a contemporary grounded theory methodology’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 18, no. 4, 2011, pp. 11-16.

Roworth-Stokes, S, ‘The Design Research Society and Emerging Themes in Design Research’, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3,2011, pp. 419-424

Shepley, M, ‘Research Methods for Design Practitioners To Evaluate Facilities’, Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), vol. 4, no. 3,2011, pp. 7-13.

Timmermans, S & Tavory, I, ‘Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis’, Sociological Theory, vol. 30, no. 3, 2012, pp. 167-186.

Footnotes

1. S Roworth-Stokes, ‘The Design Research Society and Emerging Themes in Design Research’, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3, 2011, pp. 419-424.
2. A Griffin, ‘Legitimizing Academic Research in Design: Lessons from Research on New Product Development and Innovation’, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3, 2011, pp. 428-433.
3. W Kuechler & V Vaishnavi, ‘A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspectives’, Journal Of The Association For Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 6,2012, pp. 395-423.
4. M Shepley, ‘Research Methods for Design Practitioners To Evaluate Facilities’, Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), vol. 4, no. 3,2011, pp. 7-13.
5. ‘Evaluating a team-based approach to research capacity building using a matched-pairs study design’ 2012, BMC Family Practice, 13, 1, pp. 16-25, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.