Learning Blog Four: 02/04/10

From reading briefly into research I methods I had formed my own plan on how I would collect my primary data, performing what I had classed as an experiment. This involved me introducing a creative dance exercise into one of the Jazz classes and then observe the effect this had on the students modern syllabus work (approximately half the modern class did jazz and therefore I thought the half that didn’t would be my control group however when reading further into the realm of experiments I found that my idea was not matching the criteria of any of the types of experiments that I had discovered (The static group comparison, The pretest- posttest control group design (True experimental design), The nonequivilent control group design (quasi-experiment) and the Time series design (quasi-experiment). I then pondered on whether there was such a thing as I mixing an experiment with ethnography and continued to mix various research methods in order to fit defined research methods to what I was trying to accomplish, confusing myself in the process by trying to blur the boundaries between methods. Following a conversation with my academic adviser I concluded that I was over complicating the process and following advice, my concept was simply the standard qualitative research method. Following this experience I must ensure that in future I do not over complicate the information I collate regarding research methods and do not so absorbed into the information that I am reading, attempting to make links that are simply not there. It is often productive to take a step back from your literature research so that you do not become over-whelmed by all the information that you have discovered otherwise you can create more barriers rather than informed solutions.