Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2008 Disciplinary differences in preferred research methods: a comparison of groups in the Biglan classification scheme Mark A. Alise Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Alise, Mark A., "Disciplinary differences in preferred research methods: a comparison of groups in the Biglan classification scheme" (2008). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2052. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2052 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERRED RESEARCH METHODS: A COMPARISON OF GROUPS IN THE BIGLAN CLASSIFICATION SCHEME A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Educational Theory, Policy, and Practice by Mark A. Alise B.S., Louisiana State University, 1980 S.T.B., Pontifical Gregorian University, 1984 S.T.L., Pontifical Gregorian University, 1986 M.B.A., Louisiana State University, 1997 May 2008 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my daughter, Juliet Irene Alise, my shining light and inspiration. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………ii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….……….v ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY……………………………………………...…1 Overview……………………………………………………………………………...1 Rationale for a Disciplinary Classification Scheme………………………………….1 Purpose and Significance of the Study……………………………………………….7 Key Constructs and Research Questions……………………………………………10 The Research Plan………………………………………................………………..14 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………………17 Areas of Review……………………………………………………………………..17 Understanding Academic Disciplines……………………………………………….18 Empirical Studies into the Validity of Disciplinary Classification Schemes…….…33 Research Methodology and Research Paradigms in the Social and Behavioral Sciences……………………………………………………………………………...55 Summary…………………………………………………………………………….68 3 METHODS………………………………………………………………………….72 Research Design……………………………………………………………………..72 Sampling Methods…………………………………………………………………..73 Data Collection Procedures Using the Content Analysis Code Sheet…...………….82 Pilot Study………………………………………………………………………….114 Data Analysis Methods…………………………………………………………….115 The Inference Process and Issues of Trustworthiness………………………..……116 4 FINDINGS................................................................................................................120 Overview……………………………………………………………...……………120 Disciplinary Journal Composition…………………………………………...…….120 Preferred Research Methodologies………………………………………………...122 Differences in Methodological Components………………………………………125 Paradigms and Paradigmatic Differences………………………………………….133 Summary………………………………...…………………………………………136 5 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................137 Validating the Biglan Classification Scheme……………………………………...137 The Biglan Classification System as a Tool for Promoting Interdisciplinary Discourse on Research……………………………………………………………..144 Conclusion and Directions for Future Research…………………………………...149 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...…….156 iii APPENDIX: CODE SHEET FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF METHODS USED IN RESEARCH ARTICLES……………………………………………………………………....167 VITA…………………………………………………………………………………………....169 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Biglan’s Clustering of Academic Disciplines in Three Dimensions…….…..……….11 Table 2.1: Becher’s Taxonomy of Disciplinary Cultures………………………………………..29 Table 2.2: Teddlie and Tashakkori’s Classification of Methodological Distinctions………...…69 Table 3.1: Disciplinary Journals Ranked by Multiple Factor…………..………………………..78 Table 3.2: Years Sampled and Publishers of Disciplinary Journals………………………….….79 Table 3.3: The Methods-Strands Matrix: A Typology of Research Designs Featuring Mixed Methods…………...…………………………………………………………………..94 Table 4.1: Percentage Composition by Journal Article Type……………….…………………121 Table 4.2: Preferred Methodologies by Discipline and Group…………….…………………..123 Table 4.3: Preferred Methodologies Standardized Residuals……………………………..…...124 Table 4.4: Quantitative Research Design Frequencies………….……………………………..126 Table 4.5: Mixed Methods Research Design Frequencies………...…………………….…...…128 Table 4.6: Qualitative Research Design Frequencies……………………………………..……129 Table 4.7: Sampling Methods Frequencies………...…………………………………………..130 Table 4.8: Data Collection Frequencies………………...………………………...……………132 Table 4.9: Paradigms Frequencies…………...…………………………………………………135 Table 4.10: Paradigms Standardized Residuals….……………………………..………………135 Table 5.1: Future Research Questions and Possible Data Sources………………………….…151 v ABSTRACT The Biglan system of classifying disciplines in groups based on similarities and differences in their subject matter has been validated in numerous empirical studies. The present study sought to expand that validation by comparing two Biglan groups that include disciplines representing the social and behavioral sciences. As a unique point of comparison, preferred research methods were contrasted between Psychology and Sociology forming one group of pure disciplines and Education and Nursing forming another group of applied disciplines. A code sheet was developed to categorize the various components of published research, distinguishing at the most basic level quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods type articles. Data was collected from research articles published in high impact journals from each discipline. The complete data set consisted of the codes from 150 randomly selected articles from journals in each discipline, or 300 articles per group. These codes were converted into frequencies and analyzed using the Chi-Square statistic. Findings showed there are significant differences in preferences for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research approaches between the two Biglan groups. Significant differences were also found in certain methodological components of the basic research approaches including research designs, sampling methods, and data collection methods. Evidence was also found of the philosophical paradigms underlying methodological choices, and analysis revealed significant differences in the paradigms preferred by the two groups. All of these findings support the validity of the Biglan scheme of classifying disciplines based on differences in the preferred approach to research methodology. These findings also suggest that the Biglan system represents a useful tool for promoting interdisciplinary discourse on research. Directions for future research are indicated that would further confirm the findings of the present study, move towards a wider validation of the Biglan vi system, and explore more deeply the philosophical underpinnings of the paradigmatic differences founding diverse research methodologies. vii CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Overview Higher education witnessed a significant evolution of its organizational structures throughout the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, and an expanding substructure of disciplinary foundations significantly influenced this process (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). In particular the growth of scientific and technical knowledge resulted in a proliferation of academic disciplines, which have continued to grow and subdivide. Before 1850 most colleges and universities taught only a few basic fields like classical languages, mathematics, and philosophy; by the end of the twentieth century some colleges and universities were offering students choices from as many as 149 fields of study (Braxton & Hargens, 1996). The largest and most visible effect of the growth and expansion of disciplines in higher education is the way colleges and universities are functionally organized (e.g., into colleges, schools, and departments) (Faricy, 1974). Disciplinary growth and variation also impact colleges and universities in their exercise of two of their key missions: instruction (Neumann, 2001) and research (Becher, 1994). This study focuses on the impact of disciplinary variation in the area of research. Specifically, within the context of a particular disciplinary classification system (Biglan 1973a, 1973b), the study investigates how disciplinary variation affects dominant research methodologies as represented in articles published in research journals. In this process, the investigation tests the validity of groupings in the Biglan (1973a, 1973b) scheme. Based on the findings, the study discusses the implications of a system of classification of disciplinary variation for the higher education enterprise in the exercise of its research mission. Rationale for a Disciplinary Classification Scheme Academic disciplines represent a logical source of differentiation in organizational structure because each discipline possesses some common cognitive or social rationale that 1 defines its boundaries (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Del Favero, 2003). From