First in a series of short articles describing the ideas and methods of research in clear, understandable language. Each article will address a segment of research in a way that clinicians, prevention specialists, supervisors, and administrators will find useful and friendly. Collectively, the articles will provide a "refresher course" that can be referred to as needed.

For many in our field, the very mention of research sends shivers down the spine, and the brain goes into some kind of vapor lock. I, too, have felt those sensations. The byproduct of those negative feelings is that legions of fine professionals are intimidated out of going to libraries and finding the neat data that exist in the addictions field. It is the client who suffers when we fail to take advantage of useful information; an unread journal article may hold the key to a difficult case.

 Once the fear factor becomes manageable, you can start examining the fine literature available to you. Imagine what a difference that will make in your daily work.

The Big Picture

We will begin this anti-intimidation journey with a broad view of research, to get a handle on the big ideas before we work our way into the specifics. Once you know the terms used in research and how they fit in, you can sort through research information more comfortably.

Research is nothing but an attempt to answer questions (Shontz, 1986). For example, you may want to ask, "Does my program have a positive effect on the clients sent to this facility?" But you can't frivolously answer yes or no; you need to do a little work. It's not hard, but it does require some effort. 

This work consists of four steps:

• You must make observations on or about a phenomenon. The observation might be the behavior of clients after they leave your program.
• Then you must form some kind of provisional explanation of what is going on. This could be something like, "The clients in my program are doing well, and I would like to believe that is because of the influence of my program."
• Now you must do more observing and begin experimenting. Here is where you begin to think about a study design to find out what is really going on.
• The last step is to refine and retest any conclusions and explanations you found. This is the confirmation stage. At this point, any good researcher is thinking, "I need to further explore my findings and perhaps repeat my study to confirm those findings. I don't want inaccurate information."

So the work of research is: observe, explain, experiment, and refine. Those four steps make up the scientific method.

We will begin our excursion with the third step. Experimentation marks the boundary between science-authority-based methods of investigation-and pseudoscience (Bordens & Abbott, 1996).

Designing a Study

 Arguably, research designs may be classified into two broad methods: quantitative and qualitative (Polit & Hungler, 1995). It's too bad these words look so much alike; that is the source of much confusion. 

We will not get into the "which is better" debate, for both kinds of research have value. But it is important to know the differences. 

Quantitative research (from "quantity") has to do with objective information like numbers and statistical procedures. This is a "hard science" approach and uses deductive or logical reasoning. It often:

• Uses structured and formal procedures, such as proven tests and instruments.
• Collects information under controlled conditions.
• Emphasizes objectivity.
• Focuses on specific concepts rather than the big picture.
• Starts with a hunch or guess.

Qualitative research (from "quality") is the collection and analysis of more subjective information. This is the "softer" side of science, and the emphasis is on holism, dynamics, and the individual aspects of the human adventure. It usually:

• Collects information without a formal structure, tests, or instruments.
• Uses the subjective and personal as a means of understanding.
• Focuses not on the specific but on the totality of something.
• Captures the totality rather than controlled variables.
• Focuses more on individual interpretations than on a preconceived hunch.
• Analyzes narrative or story information.

Essentially, one approach is structured and uses a lot of numbers and formulas (statistics), while the other is open and much less structured and uses hardly any statistics. 

One way to tell the difference is to think of the letter "n" in "quantitative" as standing for "number," a reminder of the math used in this method. The letter "l" in "qualitative" stands for "lax," which signifies the laid-back style of this method. 

If you understand the difference, you are already well on the way to understanding research about addiction. Before you know it, you'll be wondering what's so hard about research!

Next: A look at some of the research designs of the quantitative approach, in easy-to-digest steps.

Michael J. Taleff, PhD, CAC, MAC, is assistant professor in the Counselor Education Department and project director of Chemical Dependency Programs at Pennsylvania State University. He is also a member of the NAADAC Research Committee.

References
Bordens, K.S., & Abbott, B.B. (1996). Research design and methods: A process approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Polit, D.F., & Hungler, B.P. (1995). Nursing research: Principles and methods (5th ed.), Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

Shontz, F.C. (1986). Fundamentals of research in the behavioral sciences. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

---

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."