Research designs

SYED RIZWAN SHABBIR
M.Phill SEMESTER 1
NCBA&E
GUJRAT

 The research design refers to the overall
strategy that you choose to integrate the
different components of the study in a
coherent and logical way, thereby, ensuring
you will effectively address the research
problem; it constitutes the blueprint for the
collection, measurement, and analysis of
data. Note that your research problem
determines the type of design you can use,
not the other way around!

General Structure and Writing Style
The function of a research design is to ensure that the evidence obtained
enables you to effectively address the research problem as unambiguously as
possible. In social sciences research, obtaining evidence relevant to the
research problem generally entails specifying the type of evidence needed to
test a theory, to evaluate a program, or to accurately describe a phenomenon.
Given this, the length and complexity of research designs can vary
considerably, but any sound design will do the following things:
1. Identify the research problem clearly and justify its selection,
2. Review previously published literature associated with the problem area,
3. Clearly and explicitly specify hypotheses [i.e., research questions] central
to the problem selected,
4. Effectively describe the data which will be necessary for an adequate test
of the hypotheses and explain how such data will be obtained, and
5. Describe the methods of analysis which will be applied to the data in
determining whether or not the hypotheses are true or false.

 The word qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of
entities and on processes and meanings that are not
experimentally examined or measured (if measured at all) in
terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative
researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the
intimate relationship between the researcher and what is
studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such
researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry. They
seek answers to questions that stress how ocial experience is
created and given meaning. In contrast, quantitative studies
emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships
between variables, not processes. Proponents of such studies
claim that their work is done from within a value-free
framework.*
 Qualitative forms of inquiry are considered by many social and
behavioral scientists to be as much a perspective on how to
approach investigating a research problem as it is a metho

 The advantage of using qualitative methods is that they generate rich, detailed
data that leave the participants' perspectives intact and provide multiple
contexts for understanding the phenomenon under study.
 Among the specific strengths of using qualitative methods to study social
science research problems is the ability to:
 Obtain a more realistic view of the lived world that cannot be understood or
experienced in numerical data and statistical analysis;
 Provide the researcher with the perspective of the participants of the study
through immersion in a culture or situation and as a result of direct interaction
with them;
 Allow the researcher to describe existing phenomena and current situations;
 Develop flexible ways to perform data collection, subsequent analysis, and
interpretation of collected information;
 Yield results that can be helpful in pioneering new ways of understanding;
 Provide a holistic view of the phenomena under investigation;
 Interact with the research subjects in their own language and on their own terms;
and,
 Create a descriptive capability based on primary and unstructured data.

 Some specific limitations associated with using qualitative
methods to study research problems in the social sciences
include:
 Drifting away from the original objectives of the research in
response to the changing nature of the context;
 Arriving at different conclusions based on the same information
depending on the personal characteristics of the researcher;
 An inability to investigate causality between different research
phenomena;
 Difficulty in explaining the difference in the quality and
quantity of information obtained from different respondents
and arriving at different, non-consistent conclusions;
 Requires a high level of experience from the researcher to
obtain the targeted information from the respondent;
 May lack consistency and reliability because the researcher can
employ different probing techniques and the respondent can
choose to tell some particular stories and ignore others; and,
 Generation of a signficant amount of data that cannot be
randomized into managable parts for analysis.

 In quantitative research, your goal is to
determine the relationship between one thing
(an independent variable) and another (a
dependent or outcome variable) in a
population. Quantitative research designs are
either descriptive (subjects usually measured
once) or experimental (subjects measured
before and after a treatment). A descriptive
study establishes only associations between
variables. An experiment establishes causality.
 Quantitative research deals in numbers, logic
and the objective, focusing on logic, numbers,
and unchanging static data and detailed,
convergent reasoning rather than divergent
reasoning.

 Allows for a broader study, involving a greater number
of subjects, and enhancing the generalization of the
results;
 Allows for greater objectivity and accuracy of results.
Generally, quantitative methods are designed to provide
summaries of data that support generalizations about
the phenomenon under study. In order to accomplish
this, quantitative research usually involves few variables
and many cases, and employs prescribed procedures to
ensure validity and reliability;
 Applying well-establshed standards means that the
research can be replicated, and then analyzed and
compared with similar studies;
 You can summarize vast sources of information and
make comparisons across categories and over time; and,
 Personal bias can be avoided by researchers by keeping
a 'distance' from participating subjects and employing
subjects unknown to them.

 Some specific limitations associated with using quantitative methods to study
research problems in the social sciences include:
 Quantitative data is more efficient and able to test hypotheses, but may miss
contextual detail;
 Uses a static and rigid approach and so employs an inflexible process of discovery;
 The development of standard questions by researchers can lead to "structural
bias" and false representation, where the data actually reflects the view of the
researcher instead of the participating subject;
 Results provide less detail on behavior, attitudes, and motivation;
 Researcher may collect a much narrower and sometimes superficial dataset;
 Results are limited as they provide numerical descriptions rather than detailed
narrative and generally provide less elaborate accounts of human perception;
 The research is often carried out in an unnatural, artificial environment so that a
level of control can be applied to the exercise. This level of control might not
normally be in place in the real world thus yielding "laboratory results" as
opposed to "real world results"; and,
 Preset answers will not necessarily reflect how people really feel about a subject
and in some cases might just be the closest match to preconceived hypothesis.

Action Research Design
Definition and Purpose
The essentials of action research design follow a
characteristic cycle whereby initially an exploratory stance
is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is
developed and plans are made for some form of
interventionary strategy. Then the intervention is carried out
(the action in Action Research) during which time, pertinent
observations are collected in various forms. The new
interventional strategies are carried out, and the cyclic
process repeats, continuing until a sufficient understanding
of (or implement able solution for) the problem is achieved.
The protocol is iterative or cyclical in nature and is intended
to foster deeper understanding of a given situation, starting
with conceptualizing and particularizing the problem and
moving through several interventions and evaluations.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. A collaborative and adaptive
research design that lends itself
to use in work or community
situations.
 2. Design focuses on pragmatic
and solution-driven research
rather than testing theories.
 3. When practitioners use action
research it has the potential to
increase the amount they learn
consciously from their
experience. The action research
cycle can also be
 regarded as a learning cycle.
 4. Action search studies often
have direct and obvious
relevance to practice.
 5. There are no hidden controls
or preemption of direction by
the researcher.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. It is harder to do than
conducting conventional studies
because the researcher takes
on responsibilities for
encouraging change as well as
for research.
 2. Action research is much
harder to write up because you
probably can’t use a standard
format to report your findings
effectively.
 3. Personal over-involvement of
the researcher may bias
research results.
 4. The cyclic nature of action
research to achieve its twin
outcomes of action (e.g.
change) and research (e.g.
understanding) is time-
consuming and complex to
conduct.

Case Study Design
A case study is an in-depth study of a particular
research problem rather than a sweeping statistical
survey. It is often used to narrow down a very broad
field of research into
one or a few easily researchable examples. The case
study research design is also useful for testing
whether a specific theory and model actually applies
to phenomena in
the real world. It is a useful design when not much is
known about a phenomenon.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. Approach excels at bringing us to an
understanding of a complex issue
through detailed contextual analysis of
a limited number of events or
conditions and their relationships.
 2. A researcher using a case study
design can apply a vaiety of
methodologies and rely on a variety of
sources to investigate a research
problem.
 3. Design can extend experience or
add strength to what is already known
through previous research.
 4. Social scientists, in particular, make
wide use of this research design to
examine contemporary real-life
situations and provide the basis for the
application of concepts and theories
and extension of methods.
 5. The design can provide detailed
descriptions of specific and rare cases.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. A single or small number of cases
offers little basis for establishing
reliability or to generalize the findings
to a wider population of people,
places, or things.
 2. The intense exposure to study of
the case may bias a researcher's
interpretation of the findings.
 3. Design does not facilitate
assessment of cause and effect
relationships.
 4. Vital information may be missing,
making the case hard to interpret.
 5. The case may not be representative
or typical of the larger problem being
investigated.
 6. If the criteria for selecting a case is
because it represents a very unusual or
unique phenomenon or problem for
study, then your intepretation of the
findings can only apply to that
particular case.

Causal Design
Causality studies may be thought of as understanding a
phenomenon in terms of conditional statements in the form,
“If X, then Y.” This type of research is used to measure
what impact a specific change will have on existing norms and
assumptions. Most social scientists seek causal explanations
that reflect tests of hypotheses. Causal effect (nomothetic
perspective) occurs when variation in one phenomenon, an
independent variable, leads to or results, on average, in
variation in another phenomenon, the dependent variable.
Conditions necessary for determining causality:
Empirical association--a valid conclusion is based on finding an
association between the independent variable and the
dependent variable.
Appropriate time order--to conclude that causation was
involved, one must see that cases were exposed to variation in
the independent variable before variation in the dependent
variable.
Nonspuriousness--a relationship between two variables that is
not due to variation in a third variable.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. Causality research designs
helps researchers understand
why the world works the way
it does through the process of
proving a causal link between
variables and eliminating
other possibilities.
 2. Replication is possible.
 3. There is greater
confidence the study has
internal validity due to the
systematic subject selection
and equity of groups being
compared
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. Not all relationships are casual! The
possibility always exists that, by sheer
coincidence, two unrelated events
appear to be related [e.g.,
Punxatawney Phil could accurately
predict the duration of Winter for five
consecutive years but, the fact
remains, he's just a big, furry rodent].
 2. Conclusions about causal
relationships are difficult to determine
due to a variety of extraneous and
confounding variables that exist in a
social environment. This means
causality can only be inferred, never
proven.
 3. If two variables are correlated, the
cause must come before the effect.
However, even though two variables
might be causally related, it can
sometimes be difficult to determine
which variable comes first and
therefore to establish which variable is
the actual cause and which is the
actual effect.

Cohort Design
Often used in the medical sciences, but also found in the applied social sciences,
a cohort study generally refers to a study conducted over a period of time
involving members of a population which the subject or representative member
comes from, and who are united by some commonality or similarity. Using a
quantitative framework, a cohort study makes note of statistical occurrence
within a specialized subgroup, united by same or similar characteristics that are
relevant to the research problem being investigated, rather than studying
statistical occurrence within the general population. Using a qualitative
framework, cohort studies generally gather data using methods of observation.
Cohorts can be either "open" or "closed.“ Open Cohort Studies [dynamic
populations, such as the population of Los Angeles] involve a population that is
defined just by the state of being a part of the study in question (and being
monitored for the outcome). Date of entry and exit from the study is individually
defined, therefore, the size of the study population is not constant. In open
cohort studies, researchers can only calculate rate based data, such as,
incidence rates and variants thereof.
Closed Cohort Studies [static populations, such as patients entered into a clinical
trial] involve participants who enter into the study at one defining point in time
and where it is presumed that no new participants can enter the cohort. Given
this, the number of study participants remains constant (or can only decrease).

 ADVANTAGES
 1. The use of cohorts is often mandatory
because a randomized control study may be
unethical. For example, you cannot
deliberately expose people to asbestos, you
can only study its effects on those who have
already been exposed. Research that measures
risk factors often relies on cohort designs.
 2. Because cohort studies measure potential
causes before the outcome has occurred, they
can demonstrate that these “causes” preceded
the outcome, thereby avoiding the debate as
to which is the cause and which is the effect.
 3. Cohort analysis is highly flexible and can
provide insight into effects over time and
related to a variety of different types of
changes [e.g., social, cultural,
political,economic, etc.].
 4. Either original data or secondary data can
be used in this design.
 LIMITATIONS
 1. In cases where a comparative analysis of two
cohorts is made [e.g., studying the effects of
one group exposed to asbestos and one that
has not], a researcher cannot
 control for all other factors that might differ
between the two groups. These factors are
known as confounding variables.
 2. Cohort studies can end up taking a long time
to complete if the researcher must wait for the
conditions of interest to develop within the
group. This also increases the
 chance that key variables change during the
course of the study, potentially impacting the
validity of the findings.
 3. Because of the lack of randominization in
the cohort design, its external validity is lower
than that of study designs where the
researcher randomly assigns
 participants.

Cross-Sectional Design
Cross-sectional research designs have three distinctive
features: no time dimension, a reliance on existing
differences rather than change following intervention;
and, groups
are selected based on existing differences rather than
random allocation. The cross-sectional design can only
measure diffrerences between or from among a
variety of people, subjects, or phenomena rather than
change. As such, researchers using this design can
only employ a relative passive approach to making
causal inferences based on findings.
.

 ADVANTAGES
 1. Cross-sectional studies provide a
'snapshot' of the outcome and the
characteristics associated with it, at a
specific point in time.
 2. Unlike the experimental design where
there is an active intervention by the
researcher to produce and measure
change or to create differences, cross-
sectional designs focus on studying and
drawing inferences from existing
differences between people, subjects, or
phenomena.
 3. Entails collecting data at and
concerning one point in time. While
longitudinal studies involve taking
multiple measures over an extended
period of time, crosssectional research is
focused on finding relationships between
variables at one moment in time.
 4. Groups identified for study are
purposely selected based upon existing
differences in the sample rather than
seeking random sampling.
 5. Cross-section studies are capable of
using data from a large number of
subjects and, unlike observational
studies, is not geographically bound.
 6. Can estimate prevalence of an
outcome of interest because the sample
is usually taken from the whole
population.
 7. Because cross-sectional designs
generally use survey techniques to gather
data, they are relatively inexpensive and
take up little time to conduct.
 LIMITATIONS
 1. Finding people, subjects, or
phenomena to study that are
very similar except in one
specific variable can be difficult.
 2. Results are static and time
bound and, therefore, give no
indication of a sequence of
events or reveal historical
contexts.
 3. Studies cannot be utilized to
establish cause and effect
relationships.
 4. Provide only a snapshot of
analysis so there is always the
possibility that a study could
have differing results if another
time-frame had been chosen.
 5. There is no follow up to the
findings

Descriptive Design
Descriptive research designs help provide
answers to the questions of who, what, when,
where, and how associated with a particular
research problem; a descriptive study
cannot conclusively ascertain answers to why.
Descriptive research is used to obtain
information concerning the current status of the
phenomena and to describe "what
exists" with respect to variables or conditions in
a situation.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. The subject is being observed in a
completely natural and unchanged
natural environment. True
experiments, whilst giving analyzable
data, often adversely influence
 the normal behavior of the subject.
 2. Descriptive research is often used as
a pre-cursor to more quantitatively
research designs, the general overview
giving some valuable pointers as to
what variables
 are worth testing quantitatively.
 3. If the limitations are understood,
they can be a useful tool in developing
a more focused study.
 4. Descriptive studies can yield rich
data that lead to important
recommendations.
 5. Appoach collects a large amount of
data for detailed analysis.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. The results from a
descriptive research can
not be used to discover a
definitive answer or to
disprove a hypothesis.
 2. Because descriptive
designs often utilize
observational methods [as
opposed to quantitative
methods], the results
cannot be replicated.
 3. The descriptive
function of research is
heavily dependent on
instrumentation for
measurement and
observation.

Experimental Design
A blueprint of the procedure that enables the researcher to maintain
control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment.
In doing this, the researcher attempts to
determine or predict what may occur. Experimental Research is often
used where there is time priority in a causal relationship (cause
precedes effect), there is consistency in
a causal relationship (a cause will always lead to the same effect),
and the magnitude of the correlation is great. The classic
experimental design specifies an experimental
group and a control group. The independent variable is administered
to the experimental group and not to the control group, and both
groups are measured on the same
dependent variable. Subsequent experimental designs have used
more groups and more measurements over longer periods. True
experiments must have control,
randomization, and manipulation.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. Experimental research allows
the researcher to control the
situation. In so doing, it allows
researchers to answer the
question, “what causes
something to occur?”
 2. Permits the researcher to
identify cause and effect
relationships between variables
and to distinguish placebo
effects from treatment effects.
 3. Experimental research designs
support the ability to limit
alternative explanations and to
infer direct causal relationships
in the study.
 4. Approach provides the highest
level of evidence for single
studies.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. The design is artificial, and
results may not generalize well
to the real world.
 2. The artificial settings of
experiments may alter subject
behaviors or responses.
 3. Experimental designs can be
costly if special equipment or
facilities are needed.
 4. Some research problems
cannot be studied using an
experiment because of ethical or
technical reasons.
 5. Difficult to apply ethnographic
and other qualitative methods to
experimental designed research
studies.

Exploratory Design
An exploratory design is conducted about a research problem
when there are few or no earlier studies to refer to. The focus
is on gaining insights and familiarity for later
investigation or undertaken when problems are in a preliminar
stage of investigation.
The goals of exploratory research are intended to produce the
following possible insights:
Familiarity with basic details, settings and concerns.
Well grounded picture of the situation being developed.
Generation of new ideas and assumption, development of
tentative theories or hypotheses.
Determination about whether a study is feasible in the future.
Issues get refined for more systematic investigation and
formulation of new research questions.
Direction for future research and techniques get developed.

 ADVANTAGES
 1. Design is a useful approach for
gaining background information on a
particular topic.
 2. Exploratory research is flexible and
can address research questions of all
types (what, why, how).
 3. Provides an opportunity to define
new terms and clarify existing
concepts.
 4. Exploratory research is often used
to generate formal hypotheses and
develop more precise research
problems.
 5. Exploratory studies help establish
research priorities.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. Exploratory research generally
utilizes small sample sizes and, thus,
findings are typically not generalizable
to the population at large.
 2. The exploratory nature of the
research inhibits an ability to make
definitive conclusions about the
findings.
 3. The research process underpinning
exploratory studies is flexible but
often unstructured, leading to only
tentative results that have limited
value in decision-making.
 4. Design lacks rigorous standards
applied to methods of data gathering
and analysis because one of the areas
for exploration could be to determine
what method or
 methodologies could best fit the
research problem.

Historical Design
The purpose of a historical research design is to
collect, verify, and synthesize evidence from the
past to establish facts that defend or refute your
hypothesis. It uses secondary sources and a
variety of primary documentary evidence, such
as, logs, diaries, official records, reports,
archives, and non-textual information [maps,
pictures, audio and visual recordings]. The
limitation is that the sources must be both
authentic and valid.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. The historical research design
is unobtrusive; the act of
research does not affect the
results of the study.
 2. The historical approach is well
suited for trend analysis.
 3. Historical records can add
important contextual background
required to more fully
understand and interpret a
research problem.
 4. There is no possibility of
researcher-subject interaction
that could affect the findings.
 5. Historical sources can be used
over and over to study different
research problems or to
replicate a previous study.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. The ability to fulfill the aims of your
research are directly related to the amount
and quality of documentation available to
understand the research problem.
 2. Since historical research relies on data
from the past, there is no way to manipulate
it to control for contemporary contexts.
 3. Interpreting historical sources can be very
time consuming.
 4. The sources of historical materials must
be archived consistentally to ensure access.
 5. Original authors bring their own
perspectives and biases to the
interpretation of past events and these
biases are more difficult to ascertain in
historical resources.
 6. Due to the lack of control over external
variables, historical research is very weak
with regard to the demands of internal
validity.
 7. It rare that the entirety of historical
documentation needed to fully address a
research problem is available for
interpretation, therefore, gaps need to be
acknowledged.

Longitudinal Design
A longitudinal study follows the same sample over time and
makes repeated observations. With longitudinal surveys, for
example, the same group of people is interviewed at
regular intervals, enabling researchers to track changes over
time and to relate them to variables that might explain why
the changes occur. Longitudinal research designs
describe patterns of change and help establish the direction
and magnitude of causal relationships. Measurements are
taken on each variable over two or more distinct time
periods. This allows the researcher to measure change in
variables over time. It is a type of observational study and is
sometimes referred to as a panel study.

 ADVANTAGES
 1. Longitudinal data allow the analysis
of duration of a particular
phenomenon.
 2. Enables survey researchers to get
close to the kinds of causal
explanations usually attainable only
with experiments.
 3. The design permits the
measurement of differences or change
in a variable from one period to
another [i.e., the description of
patterns of change over time].
 4. Longitudinal studies facilitate the
prediction of future outcomes based
upon earlier factors.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. The data collection method may
change over time.
 2. Maintaining the integrity of the
original sample can be difficult over an
extended period of time.
 3. It can be difficult to show more
than one variable at a time.
 4. This design often needs qualitative
research to explain fluctuations in the
data.
 5. A longitudinal research design
assumes present trends will continue
unchanged.
 6. It can take a long period of time to
gather results.
 7. There is a need to have a large
sample size and accurate sampling to
reach representativness.

Observational Design
This type of research design draws a conclusion by
comparing subjects against a control group, in cases
where the researcher has no control over the
experiment. There are two general types of
observational designs. In direct observations, people
know that you are watching them. Unobtrusive
measures involve any method for studying behavior
where individuals do not know they are being
observed. An observational study allows a useful
insight into a phenomenon and avoids the ethical and
practical difficulties of setting up a large and
cumbersome research project.

 ADVANTAGES:-
 1. Observational studies are usually
flexible and do not necessarily need to
be structured around a hypothesis
about what you expect to observe
(data is emergent rather than pre-
existing).
 2. The researcher is able to collect a
depth of information about a
particular behavior.
 3. Can reveal interrelationships among
multifaceted dimensions of group
interactions.
 4. You can generalize your results to
real life situations.
 5. Observational research is useful for
discovering what variables may be
important before applying other
methods like experiments.
 6. Observation researchd esigns
account for the complexity of group
behaviors.
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. Reliability of data is low because
seeing behaviors occur over and over
again may be a time consuming task
and difficult to replicate.
 2. In observational research, findings
may only reflect a unique sample
population and, thus, cannot be
generalized to other groups.
 3. There can be problems with bias as
the researcher may only "see what
they want to see."
 4. There is no possiblility to determine
"cause and effect" relationships since
nothing is manipulated.
 5. Sources or subjects may not all be
equally credible.
 6. Any group that is studied is altered
to some degree by the very presence
of the researcher, therefore, skewing
to some degree any data collected
(the Heisenburg
 Uncertainty Principle).

Philosophical Design
Understood more as an broad approach to examining a research problem than a
methodological design, philosophical analysis and argumentation is intended to
challenge
deeply embedded, often intractable, assumptions underpinning an area of study.
This approach uses the tools of argumentation derived from philosophical
traditions,
concepts, models, and theories to critically explore and challenge, for example,
the relevance of logic and evidence in academic debates, to analyze arguments
about
fundamental issues, or to discuss the root of existing discourse about a research
problem. These overarching tools of analysis can be framed in three ways:
Ontology -- the study that describes the nature of reality; for example, what is
real and what is not, what is fundamental and what is derivative?
Epistemology -- the study that explores the nature of knowledge; for example, on
what does knowledge and understanding depend upon and how can we be certain
of what we know?
Axiology -- the study of values; for example, what values does an individual or
group hold and why? How are values related to interest, desire, will, experience,
and means-to-end? And, what is the difference between a matter of fact and a
matter of value?

 ADVANTAGES
 1. Can provide a basis for applying
ethical decision-making to practice.
 2. Functions as a means of gaining
greater self-understanding and self-
knowledge about the purposes of
research.
 3. Brings clarity to general guiding
practices and principles of an
individual or group.
 4. Philosophy informs methodology.
 5. Refine concepts and theories that
are invoked in relatively unreflective
modes of thought and discourse.
 6. Beyond methodology, philosophy
also informs critical thinking about
epistemology and the structure of
reality (metaphysics).
 7. Offers clarity and definition to the
practical and theoretical uses of
terms, concepts, and ideas.
 LIMITATIONS
 1. Limited application to specific
research problems [answering the "So
What?" question in social science
research].
 2. Analysis can be abstract,
argumentative, and limited in its
practical application to real-life
issues.
 3. While a philosophical analysis may
render problematic that which was
once simple or taken-for-granted, the
writing can be dense and subject to
unnecessary jargon,
 overstatement, and/or excessive
quotation and documentation.
 4. There are limitations in the use of
metaphor as a vehicle of philosophical
analysis.
 5. There can be analytical difficulties
in moving from philosophy to advocacy
and between abstract thought and
application to the phenomenal world.

SEQUENTIAL RESEARCH
Sequential research is that which is carried out in a deliberate,
staged approach [i.e. serially] where one stage will be completed,
followed by another, then another, and so on, with the aim that each
stage will build upon the previous one until enough data is gathered
over an interval of time to test your hypothesis. The sample size is
not predetermined. After each sample is analyzed, the researcher can
accept the null hypothesis, accept the alternative hypothesis, or
select another pool of subjects and conduct the study once again.
This means the researcher can obtain a limitless number of subjects
before finally making a decision whether to accept the null or
alternative hypothesis. Using a quantitative framework, a sequential
study generally utilizes sampling techniques to gather data and
applying statistical methods to analze the data.
Using a qualitative framework, sequential studies generally utilize
samples of individuals or groups of individuals [cohorts] and use
qualitative methods, such as interviews or observations, to gather
information from each sample.
.

 ADVANTAGES
 1. The researcher has a limitless
option when it comes to sample size
and the sampling schedule.
 2. Due to the repetitive nature of this
research design, minor changes and
adjustments can be done during the
initial parts of the study to correct and
hone the research
 method. Useful design for exploratory
studies.
 3. There is very little effort on the
part of the researcher when
performing this technique. It is
generally not expensive, time
consuming, or workforce extensive.
 4. Because the study is conducted
serially, the results of one sample are
known before the next sample is taken
and analyzed
 LIMITATIONS:-
 1. The sampling method is not
representative of the entire
population. The only possibility of
approaching representativeness is
when the researcher chooses to use a
 very large sample size significant
enough to represent a significant
portion of the entire population. In
this case, moving on to study a second
or more sample can be
 difficult.
 2. Because the sampling technique is
not randomized, the design cannot be
used to create conclusions and
interpretations that pertain to an
entire population.
 Generalizability from findings is
limited.
 3. Difficult to account for and
interpret variation from one sample to
another over time, particularly when
using qualitative methods of data
collection.

Research designs

More Related Content

Research designs