Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 28 Number 5

Edited by Diane McGrath

Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996

Technology, Multimedia, and Qualitative Research in Education

Kansas State University

Abstract

The role of technology and multimedia in enhancing research is illustrated through the use of examples from more qualitative approaches to inquiry. The author makes reference to key characteristics of qualitative techniques and emphasizes implications for data collection, data analysis, and the presentation of findings. Articles appearing in this issue of the Journal of Research On Computing In Education serve as illustrations of both the characteristics of qualitative research and examples of the impact of technology and multimedia on the research process.

Introduction

Advances in technology are changing the way teaching and learning occur. Schools now have the capacity to offer a wider range of courses through distance education, more practical experiences through simulated laboratory settings, and access to almost unlimited sources of information through the internet. Students are able to communicate directly with other learners in a variety of settings, teachers are able to structure a learning environment which promotes inquiry, and administrators may process large databases efficiently to better inform decisions affecting the learning community. But course offerings, access to information, and increased communication are not the only areas which will be affected by the use of multimedia in the schools. Technology and multimedia also have great potential for enhancing the role of research in influencing educational practices. To better understand how this potential may be realized, qualitative approaches to research have been selected for illustration. Through a discussion of the characteristics associated with qualitative investigations, examples of current and potential uses of technology and multimedia to promote the conduct and use of educational research will be presented.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

The characteristics of qualitative research are frequently presented as dichotomies or contrasts to more traditional quantitative approaches (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Creswell, 1994; Firestone, 1987; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Purists argue that they are essentially different paradigms with unique perspectives on how inquiry should be conducted. Qualitative research is primarily viewed as an inquiry process based on building a holistic, complex understanding of a social problem. It is characterized by data collection in a natural setting where the researcher acts as a key instrument. Furthermore, the research contains deep, rich description and is more concerned with process than specifying outcomes or products. Generally, the data are analyzed in an inductive process to provide meaning to the research consumer.

Qualitative researchers assume reality is socially constructed and that variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure. The researcher seeks the insider's point of view and is personally involved in the process. Generally, these types of studies end with hypotheses (assertions, themes, patterns) or grounded theory. Even the presentation of the findings differs. In this case, much more descriptive, often first person accounts are common.

In contrast, quantitative approaches to research seek to show causality, to predict, or to generalize findings to other populations. Quantitative researchers select variables that can be identified and relationships that can be measured because there is an assumption that social facts have an objective reality. The outsider's point of view is sought and the researcher is to remain detached and impartial to avoid contaminating the data. The methods are generally deductive and experimental in nature and reduces data to numerical indices. The presentation of the findings uses more formal, abstract language in a attempt to provide and objective portrayal.

Peshkin (1993) summarizes the range of outcomes emanating from four basic categories of analysis in qualitative research studies: description, interpretation, verification, and evaluation. Descriptive analyses yield information on processes, relationships, systems, people, and the setting or situations. Bier, Gallo, Nucklos, Sherblom & Pennick [this issue], for example, investigated the use of information technology use in private homes by individual families. The participants in the study were provided home access to the Internet and reported an integration of technology into their daily lives. They were able to seek information about health concerns and to help their children raise their grades in school through extra credit assignments improved by the use of the information on the Internet. More interpretive analyses provide explanations or even help to create some generalizations. New concepts may be developed or extended. Interpretive studies help provide insights that have the power to change behavior, refine knowledge, or to identify problems. Harris [this issue] reports a type of interpretive study designed to expand and generalize theories related to children's drawings as psychological assessment tools. Some analyses take on the task of verifying assumptions, theories or generalizations. Christie's [this issue] work approaches this type of analysis when she challenges the nature of gender stereotypes and how pedagogy impacts both confirmation and defiance of those stereotypes. Finally, evaluative efforts yield information on policies, practices, or innovations. The NIE Project (Whelan, Frantz, Guerin & Bienvenu) [this issue] is a pilot state program to infuse Internet use into K-12 classrooms. Details on the project, the evaluation process, and recommendations offer readers valuable insights into issues surrounding technical problems, participants' perceptions, and use and access policies.

Readers of research will recognize a wide range of research strategies commonly used to arrive at the outcomes previously discussed (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). When the purpose of the study is exploratory in nature, case or field studies are conducted. In case studies, the researcher explores a single phenomenon (person, activity, site, group) which is defined or bounded by specified conditions. Over a sustained period of time, detailed information is collected through a variety of data sources (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1989). Bier et al. [this issue] selected an elementary school site and identified six families typically underserved by school processes. These families were provided Internet access and training for electronic communication. Over a period of six months they collected data through weekly home interviews, monthly group interviews, intermittent technical support visits, telephone and e-mail interactions, and actual participant sharing sessions. Explanatory or descriptive studies generally require multisite case studies to search for patterns or themes, and histories and ethnographies to understand the meaning of the experiences of the participants in the culture.

McGrath, Cumaranatunge, Ji, Chen, Broce & Wright [this issue] conducted seven case studies of multimedia science projects to search for patterns in how learners connect with important science issues in their communities. The term "ethnography" is frequently seen in the research literature. Wolcott (1980) calls ethnography the science of cultural description. It is important to note that an ethnography differs from a case study in its depth and detail and is not as frequently conducted given the length of the field study needed to complete such an investigation.

The Impact of Technology and Multimedia on Qualitative Research

Data Collection

One potential for technology and multimedia to contribute to research exists during data collection. The need for detailed description and multiple sources of data encourages the use of many forms of media and technology. Marshall and Rossman (1995) provide a comprehensive list of data collection methods along with their relative strengths and weaknesses. The primary data sources are those which include some form of interview (informal, formal, ethnographic, elite, focus groups), observation (participant as an observer, observer as a participant, or observer as a non-participant), document or artifact collections (written materials, films, photos, questionnaires) or any combination of these methods. With any method there are characteristics to consider. The work of Turner and Dipinto (1996) [this issue] illustrates common data sources. In their study of peer collaboration in a hypermedia learning environment, they observed individuals and pairs of students as they interacted with each other, with the software, and with the teacher. They also videotaped and transcribed selected sessions. A second set of data were brief, informal interviews of the teaching that the researcher conducted several times during the unit identified for the study. A third data set focused on student reflections. Once every two or three weeks the teachers asked the students to write a paragraph reflecting on what they had learned that week as they worked on the HyperCard project. Students also wrote a final reflective essay after the project completion. All of these data were collected each year during the four-year study.

As noted earlier, with any method there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with the various forms of data collection. For example, interviews allow the researcher to obtain large amounts of expansive and contextual data quickly but data are open to misinterpretation because of cultural differences. Bier, Gallo, Nucklos, Sherblom & Pennick [this issue] were troubled by what they heard in their interviews of participants who were given access to the Internet. Their participants had integrated technology into their daily lives to the degree they became very dependent on the access and reported growing fear of the time when they would be expected to return the borrowed equipment. Listen to Andy in Christie's study [this issue] as he interacts with his teacher. He has learned over the years he can engage in demanding irresponsible behavior because he is bright and male. Participant observations facilitate cooperation from the research subjects yet they could be fraught with ethical dilemmas. In this case, the teacher felt compelled to discuss this inappropriate behavior with the student. Document reviews yield data which are easy to manipulate and categorize for analysis but can lead the researcher to "miss the forest while observing the trees."

Qualitative research is generally language intense. Language provides a source for understanding cultures and the viewpoints of the participants. By constantly asking natives for the names of things, ethnographers, for example, arrive at the cognitive system of the identified culture (Frake, 1968). For many years, researchers have been able to capture natural language or speech through the use of both video and audio tapes. Many details both verbal and nonverbal are preserved. More recently, rapid data entry (e.g., recording each instance of an identified speech event and the conditions under which it took place) at the site has been enhanced by the use of laptop computers, a tool not available just a few years ago. Computer forms can be developed for more accurate records of dates, locations, times and people interviewed (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Computers also facilitate the accounts of progress in the field work and point out gaps in the data collection. Field notes and journal entries may be recorded more systematically and reflection becomes an integral part of data collection as interviews are transcribed into text files. In fact, during data collection preliminary analysis actually begins (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Researchers are encouraged to make decisions about narrowing the study, developing analytic questions, revising data collection procedures, and playing with metaphors, analogies, and concepts relevant to the study. All of these tasks are made more efficient through the use of technology and assist in the reflective process so critical to final analysis.

Scanners now allow copies of documents to be placed in computer text files, quickly increasing the likelihood of more systematic and in depth uses. Photos or video of artifacts allow the collection of additional data sources commonly overlooked or considered too cumbersome. Wolcott (1988) colorfully illustrates the importance of gathering nonwritten sources of data when he asks us to envision a scene in which colleagues eagerly assemble to see what a quantitatively oriented researcher has brought back to the office after an intense interlude of data gathering. This scene is much more difficult to imagine than that of the ethnographer who has collected pictures, maps, or examples of local handiwork for us to admire even when the field site was a nearby classroom. Student-generated cards from hyperstacks from the McGrath et al. (1996) study [this issue] illustrate the understanding to be gained from having access to less traditional forms of data. Technology and multimedia allow researchers to extend the range and depth of materials invaluable in analysis.

Data Analysis

A second contribution of technology and multimedia to research occurs during the data analysis. "Analytic procedures fall into five modes: organizing the data; generating categories, themes, and patterns; testing the emergent hypotheses against the data; searching for alternative explanations of the data; and writing the report." (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 113) Each phase of the process requires reduction of the massive amounts of data for the purpose of interpreting or assigning meaning to the words and actions of the members of the culture or site being studied.

Historically, researchers used a "cut and paste" method for separating chunks of information. Units of text would be pasted on index cards or highlighted using a color coding system. The colors or cards could then be used to sort and resort as categories and themes were created and revised. Word processors or data base managers have certainly allowed a more efficient "cut and paste" process to occur but more recently, the development and use of software specifically designed for qualitative analysis shows great promise (Qualitative Research Management, 1995). Programs for MS-DOS (e.g., Textbase Alpha, QUALPRO, The Ethnograph, KWALITAN, AQUAD, ATLAS/ti, and MAX) and programs for Microsoft WINDOWS (HyperRESEARCH, WINMAX) are capable of assisting in data analysis. The ability to import text from narratives, field notes, interview transcripts, diaries, open-ended questionnaires, and documents has already been noted. For coding, researchers are now able to indicate the boundaries of text segments in their data, assign project information to the text segments for retrieval, and assign subcategories for sorting them. In fact, a single segment of data may be nested within a larger segment (multiple coding) and codes may be altered in successive rounds of sorting as themes or patterns continue to emerge or are refined. Finally, the results of the analysis can then be placed in an ASCII file and stored for use in most word processors as the final report is being written. This capacity greatly facilitates the inclusion of verbatim quotes from participants to illustrate key themes.

Researchers must be aware that selection of software for qualitative analysis should be based on the methodological approach most suited to the study: descriptive/interpretive analysis and theory-building analysis. When the researcher works to provide detailed narrative accounts to allow others to better understand the phenomenon under study, coding according to themes and retrieving segments in various combinations of coding categories is common. Most software programs allow these functions. When the task is one of building theory, a more sophisticated process takes place. In this instance, "a code, rather than signaling that a segment is about the reaction to a particular experience, for instance, indicates the nature of the reaction (examples: "negative attitude towards X:," or "optimistic expectations about future"). Analysis is now taking place on a more abstract level, at the level of concepts and their relationships to each other. For theory building, programs such as HyperRESEARCH and AQUAD might be more appropriate.

There are some cautions to be mentioned when using the computer programs for analysis (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). There is no question using the computer increases efficiency and may even lead to greater depth and consistency in exploring issues or themes (Becker, 1984). In addition, the process of using the computer requires the researcher to clarify thinking and carefully attend to coding decisions (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Yet, the use of software programs may contribute to analyses being shaped by what is convenient or compatible to the program rather than what is appropriate to the data. There may also be a question of confidentiality depending on security measures governing computer files and access. Finally, as with any technology, there is a potential for data to be lost due to operator error or equipment malfunction.

Presentation of Findings

Just as the designs of qualitative research vary, the write-up takes on different formats depending on the purpose of the study and the targeted audience. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) highlight three common approaches or foci for writing up the research: thesis (a proposition you put forth and then argue), theme (a concept or theory that emerges from your data), and topic (a unit of a particular aspect of what you were studying). Taylor and Bogdan (1984) report on five different approaches, including descriptive life histories, presentations of participants' perspectives, relating practice and theory, and extending or creating theory. Van Maanen (1988) identifies three different genres in the writing: realist tales of the culture under study, confessional tales or personalized accounts, and impressionist tales of the field workers displaying their experiences in the field. Read what Christie [in this issue] has to say about her study. She indicates her study tells a story. She is the storyteller and the story reflects her beliefs, biases and world view. She is, in a sense, providing impressionist tales of experiences in the classroom. The key factor is that writing up qualitative research is an "interpretive craft and that the text can take a variety of forms, researchers can be liberated from some of the conventions that inhibited their creative expressions" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 197).

With the use of technology and multimedia, some practical problems of presentating the findings are somewhat resolved. Ethnographers, for example, used to wrestle with the amount of field data to include in the report (Chilcott, 1987). How does one provide enough information from the field to illustrate, yet not overwhelm the reader? Publishing on the computer could allow for access (through buttons created in some form of hypermedia program) to extensive background and data at the choice of the reader. Manuscripts are frequently limited to a specified number of pages which do not allow for adequate description. Again, electronic publications would allow for lengthier, more detailed reporting more consistent with qualitative research.

The creativity of the writer is also enhanced by the use of technology and multimedia. With the inclusion of sound, video, graphics, and animation writers have a multisensory approach to publication to extend readership. "With multimedia, we can not only write a poem, but have our audience hear our reading of it, and with on-screen video, perform dramatic portions for them as well." (d'Ignazio, Madian & Wagner, 1994, p. 32). This approach to writing and publishing is clearly consistent with Gardner's (1983) thoughts on multiple intelligences and learning environments that are sensitive to the diversity of learners.

Implications and Conclusions

While there are numerous examples of how technology and multimedia impact the processes of research from data collection to analysis and finally to presentation of the results of those analyses, there are other concerns which go beyond the individual steps or stages of the process. These concerns involve the use of research for influencing changes in schools and how research practices could be improved.

Using Research for Change

Why do we conduct research in education? The most common defense (Borg & Gall, 1983) has been that it contributes to the knowledge about education for the continual development and improvement of educational practice. Yet, talk to any group of teachers or administrators and you are likely to hear complaints that research is primarily written for other researchers. The language, the statistics, and the problems are not applicable or understandable for many practitioners. On the other hand, we are told that significant changes in schools will likely occur at the classroom level, school by school (Fullan, 1992).

One promising approach to school improvement or change may be an old concept, action research (Corey, 1953). In action research, systematic inquiry to resolve day to day problems of the schools and to assist in decision making are goals. Generally, the method is less rigorous than traditional experimental designs which makes it easier for teachers and administrators to conduct. In addition, action research employs many of the techniques and characteristics of qualitative research (e.g., classroom observations, interviews, open ended questionnaires, artifact and document collections, focus groups, natural settings). The benefits of action research are numerous (Calhoun, 1993). Educators report the process allows them to experience and model problem solving to their students as well as creating a professional environment which values this approach. It can revitalize the entire learning community as participants assume ownership through conducting the steps of the inquiry process. Those most likely to implement changes based on the findings are those conducting the research. Furthermore, valuable insights are gained when the voices of the members of the 'culture" are heard.

Technology and multimedia certainly play a role in facilitating the use of research. First, research is more likely to be read and key ideas reinforced when it contains multisensory components. Second, technology and multimedia allow the researcher to express ideas in more creative, artistic ways rather than being trapped into a traditional text with scholarly language and little personality. Third, more school change agents are likely to engage in research when tools like the computer facilitate data collection and technology expands definitions of what constitutes viable data (photos, videos, scanned documents, artifacts). Finally, the ease of access to research via the internet and the World Wide Web increases dialog about problems needing resolution as well as providing multiple perspectives or resources for detailed information. Thurston, Secaras and Levin [in this issue] noted the use of sample teaching units developed by undergraduate elementary education students included 1301 computer "hits" in one month from seven countries outside the United States and at least fifteen states within the U.S. Fewer than 10% of the hits came internally from the university where the lesson plans were created.

Improving Research Practices

Finally, technology and multimedia provide additional avenues for establishing standards of quality and raising questions to guide researchers toward more ethical practices when conducting qualitative research. Lincoln & Guba (1985) discuss quality when they address the question of how we can face the charges of "sloppy" research. Several techniques are described for establishing "trustworthiness". In more conventional paradigms, researchers sought validity, generalizability, reliability, replicability, and objectivity. More naturalistic paradigms seek credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. A specific technique for establishing credibility includes triangulation (use of multiple sources, methods, and investigators). Transferability of the findings rests on thick description. Dependability and confirmability are achieved through the use of an inquiry audit (a process similar to a financial audit where the steps of the research are verified through examination of such items as raw data, data reduction products, and process notes). Clearly, the computer has increased systematic collection and analysis of data. Triangulation is made easier by the use of technology; for example, audio and video taping are less cumbersome. Writing and reporting findings can now be expanded to include "thick description" through hypermedia programs.

The issue of ethics surfaces in many forms. Although Bier et al. [this issue] attended to more traditional concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of the participants, use and ownership of the data, and sensitivity to the special needs of the participants, an unanticipated dilemma surfaced. Participants described the researchers as being "worse than the dope peddlers" for their role in creating a dependency on the technology that would be removed at the end of the study. These unanticipated consequences appear to be more problematic when qualitative researchers follow ethical codes established for quantitative approaches. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) suggest that the relationship between researcher and subject is so different for qualitative investigations that a new code of ethics may need to be written. In qualitative research, the relationship with participants is ongoing and evolves over time. The design of the research is not precise and participants often affect its creation. This makes proposals to human-subjects committees less complete and leaves room for changes that might involve ethical questions.

Certainly, ethics are not ignored and principles have been established. Generally these principles of ethical behavior include protection of the identities of informants with special attention to sharing sensitive information at the research site. In addition, researchers must take care to treat their participants with respect and seek their cooperation. The terms of the agreement to participate must always be clear and finally, the researcher has an obligation to tell the truth when presenting the findings (even when there is pressure to report results not revealed by the data). Attention to ethical concerns are imperative to future access to sites and candid portrayal of participants' perspectives.

References

Becker, H. (1984). Field work with the computer: Criteria for assessing systems. Qualitative Sociology, 7 (1-2), 16-33.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research. An introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Calhoun, E. F. (1983, October). Action research: Three approaches. Educational Leadership , 51(2), 62-65.

Chilcott, J. H. (1987, Summer). Where are you coming from and where are you going? The reporting of ethnographic research. American Educational Research Journal , 24(2), 199-218.

Corey, S.M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

D'Ignazio, F., Madian, J., Wagner, R. (November/December, 1994). The (in)sane person's guide to multimedia in education. Electronic Learning, 28-40.

Firestone, W. (October,1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16 (7), pp. 16-21.

Frake, C. O. (1968). The ethnographic study of cognitive systems. In R.A. Manners & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Theory in anthropology: A sourcebook (pp. 507-514). Chicago: Aldine.

Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd edition). Newbury Park: Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). The case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Peshkin, A. (1993, March). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 23-29.

Qualitative Research Management. (1995, Sprin). MS-DOS Software for the computer-assisted analysis of qualitative data. Desert Hot Springs, CA: Author.

Taylor, S. J. & Bogdan, R. C. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research and methods: The search for meaning. New York: Wiley.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolcott, H. (Fall, 1980). Culture, community, and school. Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. The Journal of Thought, 15(3), pp. 23-44.

Wolcott, H. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 187-249). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications.

Contributor

Trudy A. Campbell
Trudy A. Campbell is an assistant professor at Kansas State University in the Department of Educational Administration and Leadership. Her research focuses on diversity in leadership and school improvement. She teaches graduate courses on qualitative research and strategies for school change. Address: Dr. Trudy A. Campbell, Kansas State University, 311 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. E-mail: tac@coe.educ.ksu.edu. [Note: Since 1996 Dr. Campbell Salsberry has been promoted to associate professor, and her new e-mail address is: tac@ksu.edu.]

Design Team

Ellen Larsen
At the time of the project, Ellen was a doctoral student in Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications at Kansas State University. She has since received her Ph.D. (December, 1998).

Peggy Minneman
Margaret Minneman is a doctoral student in Educational Computing, Design, and Telecommunications at Kansas State University. She is Research Associate in Allied Health Projects and Dental Hygiene at Wichita State University.

Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.