STRATEGIES OF RESEARCH DESIGNWhen using the linear research path, we fol-
low a fixed sequence of steps that are like a stair-
case that leads upward in one direction. By following
a linear path, we move in a direct, narrow, and
straight way toward a conclusion. This pathway
toward task completion is the dominant approach
in western European and North American cultures.
It is most widely used in quantitative research. By
contrast, a nonlinear research pathrequires us to
make successive passes through the steps. We may
move forward, backward, and sideways before
advancing again. It is more of a spiral than a straight
staircase. We move upward but slowly and indi-
rectly. With each cycle or repetition, we may col-
lect new data and gain new insights.
People who are accustomed to a direct, linear
approach often become impatient with a less direct
cyclical path. Although a nonlinear path is not dis-
organized, undefined chaos, the cyclical path appears
inefficient and without rigor. People who are used
to a nonlinear path often feel stifled and “boxed in”
by a linear approach. To them, a linear path feels
artificial or rigid. They believe that this approach
prevents them from being naturally creative and
spontaneous.
Each path has its strengths. The linear path is
logical, easy to follow, and efficient. The nonlinear
path can be highly effective in creating an authen-
tic feeling for understanding an entire setting, for
grasping subtle shades of meaning, for integrating
divergent bits of information, and for switching
perspectives. Each path has its own discipline and
rigor. The linear path borrows from the natural
sciences with their emphasis on logic and preci-
sion. A nonlinear path borrows devices from the
humanities (e.g., metaphor, analogy, theme, motif,
and irony) and is suited for tasks such as translat-
ing languages, a process in which delicate shades
of meaning, subtle connotations, or contextual dis-
tinctions can be important (see Figure 2 for a
graphic representation of each path).Objectivity and Integrity
We try to be fair, honest, truthful, and unbiased in
our research activity, yet, we also have opportu-
nities to be biased, dishonest, or unethical in all
knowledge production including social research.
The two major research approaches address the
issue of reducing difficulties and ensuring honest,
truthful studies in different ways.
In qualitative research, we often try to acquire
intimate, firsthand knowledge of the research set-
ting. Thus, we do not want to distance ourselves
from the people or events we are studying. Acquir-
ing an intimate understanding of a setting does
not mean that we can arbitrarily interject personal
opinion, be sloppy about data collection, or use evi-
dence selectively to support our prejudices. Rather,
we take maximum advantage of personal insight,
inner feelings, and life perspective to understand
social life. We “walk a fine line” between intimacy
and detachment and place personal integrity and
honesty at the forefront. Some techniques may help
us walk a fine line. One technique is to become
highly sensitive to our own views, preconceptions,
and prior assumptions and then “bracket” them, or
put them aside, so we can see beyond them better.
Instead of trying to bury or deny our assumptions,
viewpoints, and values, we find that acknowledg-
ing them and being open about them is best. We can
then recognize how they might influence us. We try
to be forthright and candid in our involvement in
the research setting, in dealing with the people in
the study, and with any relevant issues that arise.
We do this in the way that we conduct the study and
report on the findings.
Personal openness and integrity by the indi-
vidual researcher are central to a qualitative study.
By contrast, in a quantitative study, we stress neu-
trality and objectivity. In a quantitative study, we
rely on the principle of replication, adhere to stan-
dardized procedures, measure with numbers, and
analyze the data with statistics.^4 In a sense, we
try to minimize or eliminate the subjective humanNonlinear research path Research that proceeds in
a cyclical, iterative, or back-and-forth pattern and is
often used in qualitative research.Linear research path Research that proceeds in a
clear, logical, step-by-step straight line; often used in
quantitative research.