Dr Alana James and Dr Bob Zenhaursern will each look at an example from research and discuss for both qualitative (Alana) quantitative (Bob) design how the research framework interact with your data collection decisions and how they lead to argumentation. By focusing on the subtle interactions we find in these examples we should illuminate the bigger issues everyone faces. As with all Sunday conferences we start at 3pm GMT, 9AM CST or 10 EST. Join our Sunday group but we also suggest anyone interested in the topic, but who cannot make it live, RSVP yes as we will send you the recording.

1. Research Frameworks, Argument
and Data: What is enough?
Based on actual research
A conference by Dr. E. Alana
James and Dr. Bob Zenhausern
www.doctoralnet.com

2. For more conferences like this
RSVP @
https://www.bigmarker.com/co
mmunities/doctoralnet/confere
nces
Can’t make the conference?
We’ll send you the recording.
Definition of Terms: Basic Research Framework

3. Expanded Research Framework

4. Student Example of Their Research Framework

5. Definition: Argument
Has four parts:
1. Your claim
2. The evidence you
have that this claim
is true
3. The warrant or
connection between
the evidence and the
claim
4. Your data

6. Argument
1. Claim: The right side is
heavier
2. The evidence you have = the
right side is lower
3. The warrant = the idea that
there is a connection between
weight and the lower side
4. Now you have to have data
that backs up the warrant – in
this case you would measure
the weight

7. Topic
Observation
or
Start with Google (e.g.) for the ecology of
the topic. Look for recurring and opposing
themes.
Dyslexia: Definition, symptoms, causes,
treatments.

8. Literature
Starting with topics focus the literature
search on them and develop more specific
problems.
Types of dyslexia
Causes
Treatments

9. Problem Statement
What are types of dyslexia? What are
causes of dyslexia? What is the best
treatment for dyslexia?
Can they be combined? Do the different
types of dyslexia have different causes? Are
different treatments effective for different
types.

10. Hypotheses
Type 1 dyslexia will show improvement with
treatment 1 more than treatment 2.
Type 2 dyslexia will show improvement with
treatment 2 more than treatment 1.

11. Methodology
• Operationally define the two types of
dyslexia and create a measure to
separate them.
• Based on the symptoms of the two types
create specific treatments
• Use both methods on the two types and
measure improvement.

12. Analysis
Measure the improvement in mean
performance for each type of dyslexia for
each treatment.
Independent Variables:
Pre and Post Treatment
Dyslexia Type 1 and Type 2
Treatment 1 and 2.
Analysis of Variance

13. Quantitative Argument
Claim
Different types of dyslexia need different treatment
Evidence
We see varied results when we analyze outcomes for different
treatments
Warrant
Since we see varied results we must need different treatments
Data
85% or reading disable could not convert the printed word to
its sound but still were able to get the meaning - - for the
other 15% they could get the sound but not the meaning.

14. Quantitative
Topic/Question
• A student who worked with reading disabled students
came to me with an observation. Most of the students
with reading issues had a problem with reading aloud
and phonetic decoding. But a smaller percentage
could read aloud and do phonetic decoding but they
had no comprehension and were actually further
behind. The question the student was asking was what
were the differences between these two groups.

15. Quantitative
Literature
The literature showed a consistent finding of at least two
types of reading disability. Those who had issues with
phonetics and those who had a more semantic issue.
Previous research had shown that 85% of reading
disabled showed a right hemisphere orientation. Since
speech is a left hemisphere process it was consistent with
a problem in phonetic decoding which is dependent on
speech production. The first question that needed to be
addressed was whether the remaining 15% had a left
hemisphere orientation. A pilot study indicated that this
indeed was the case.

16. Developing Hypotheses
The literature indicated that those reading disabled
students with a right hemisphere orientation would have
an issue with phonetic decoding, but not those students
with a left hemisphere orientation. This was the first
hypothesis.
The second hypothesis is that reading disabled students
with a left hemisphere orientation would not have an
issue with phonetic decoding.

17. Experimental Design
The first step was to design a task that depended on
phonetic decoding and a rhyme task was chosen.
Rhyming, especially for words like buy/tie and bone/gone
demands phonetic decoding. Unless you can say the
words, you cannot say whether they rhyme.
The second step was to design a task that depended on
meaning. Word pairs were developed from the same
words used in the rhyme condition, but and the task was
to say whether the two words meant the same.
Under both conditions, the word were the same, but what
was required from those words was different.

18. Quantitative
Findings
What we found was that the right hemisphere reading
disabled were significantly lower than the control group
of normal readers and the left hemisphere reading
disabled on the rhyme task.
These right hemisphere reading disabled did not differ on
from the control group on the semantic task, but the left
hemisphere reading disabled were inferior to both other
groups.

19. Interpretation
We teach reading using a phonetic decoding approach.
Convert the printed word to its sound and from that
sound get the meaning.
85% of reading disabled could not convert the printed
word to its sound, but still were able to get the meaning.
15% of reading disabled could convert the printed word
to is sound, but that did not give meaning.

20. Discussion:
Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts?
Make sense?
Does the argument have all the parts
Is it (are they) enough?
Are the results credible?
Would you want to see more under other conditions?
What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study?
What else might they have considered?

21. Qualitative
Topic/Inquiry/Theoretical Base
• Topic dominant narratives experienced throughout
educational journey by Mexican American PhDs
• Education as a social construct both empowers and
marginalizes
• Theoretically perfect for critical race
• 1% of MA children will earn PhD – lowest of all Latino
groups in US
• Studied what helped those who had succeeded rather
than barriers experienced
• Master narrative legitimize the dominant culture and
marginalize the minority culture
• Counter narrative expose and then oppose the master
narrative

22. Qualitative Literature

23. Qualitative Research
Questions
Research Question #1: To what extent has racism, sexism, and/or classism surfaced in
Mexican American Ph.D.s’ journeys to the doctorate?
Supporting Question A: To what extent do Mexican American Ph.D.s reproduce
master narratives that support racism, sexism, and/or classism?
Supporting Question B: To what extent do Mexican American Ph.D.s craft
counter-narratives against racism, sexism, and/or classism?
Research Question #2: To what extent do the ways in which Mexican American Ph.D.s
share their narratives reflect the intersections of race, gender, and social class?
Research Question #3: What structures or mechanisms (e.g., kinship and social
networks, academic/professional socialization) are employed in Mexican American
Ph.D.s’ journeys to the doctorate?
Supporting Question A: To what extent are structures or mechanisms activated
differently by gender?
Supporting Question B: To what extent are structures or mechanisms activated
differently by socio-economic status?

24. Qualitative
Methodology
Narrative inquiry with a critical race methodological focus
Examination of power, multiple facets of oppression, and
the intersections of race, social class and gender
“particularly in relation to reproducing or resisting master
narratives that justified low Mexican American
educational attainment.”

25. Qualitative
Results/ Findings

26. Qualitative Results/ Findings

27. Qualitative
Discussion
1. The discussions during the intersections are somewhat conflicted – no clear
numerical help that would allow the reader to understand the majority/minority
opinions she is discussing.
2. I believe that the collective consciousness of this community of scholars,
researchers, and administrators carries a new form of resistance. Successfully
navigating through a system that is inherently oppressive is resistance.
Understanding how to strategize, enact diplomacy, and develop a small group of
allies is resistance. Finding a way to work from within systems to change them is
resistance.
3. As a constructionist, I contend that a dominant culture exists, that the realities in
which all members of U.S. society live are constructed by the dominant culture as
a means for maintaining power, and that institutions such as education and the
legal system utilize sorting mechanisms to keep certain communities in lower,
labor intensive social positions and occupations.

28. Argument
Claim
Oppression as seen in the dominant narratives has a
significant effect on keeping MA youth out of the
education system. It works for the dominant culture to
keep the MA in lower class jobs.
Evidence
1% PhD rate and other data make it clear MA students have
difficulty in standard US educational system
Warrant
Therefore when we investigated MA PhDs we’ll find the ways in
which they countered those dominant narratives.
Data
Various narratives throughout point to dominant narratives
within the MA culture that reproduce the effect of…
1) Keeping women out of tertiary education
2) Fighting to get ahead – to get an education
3) Failing at first because their background didn’t prepare
them
4) Stories of resiliency – etc.

29. Discussion:
Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts?
Make sense?
Does the argument have all the parts
Is it (are they) enough?
Are the results credible?
Would you want to see more under other conditions?
What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study?
What else might they have considered?

30. Mixed Methods
Topic/Question

31. Mixed Methods
Literature

32. Mixed Methods
Research Questions

33. Mixed Methods Methodology

34. Mixed Methods Results and Findings

35. Mixed Methods Argument
Claim
There needs to be formalized sex education in Thailand
because it is behind the world in many health issues such
as STDs
Evidence
Showed that children understand reproduction but not the
health issues involved in sexuality.
Warrant
Because Thailand is in transition as to the relative
sophistication and knowledge of the people it is important not
to assume what children know and to give them the
information they need.
Data
Explored the knowledge and attitudes of teenagers, parents,
teachers and policy makers. Data from semi structured
interviews and surveys showed that policy in the country was
confused, that there was no national instruction guidelines.
Data from teenagers confirmed what they do and do not
know.

36. Discussion:
Research Design Framework – Do you see all the parts?
Make sense?
Does the argument have all the parts
Is it (are they) enough?
Are the results credible?
Would you want to see more under other conditions?
What questions come to mind if you were to “judge” this study?
What else might they have considered?

37. Q&A

38. Upcoming
News/Events
1. March 1 Starts 2 months of our
focus on academic writing – sign
into the site for free resources +
three conferences at end of month
on #acwri
2. Are you logging in? If not at least
once a month you miss out on a
selection of extra content , videos,
checklists, etc aimed at the topic
area of the month.
3. Taking names of interested parties
for possible writing group with
professorial help starting soon–
cost $40 month if we get 5 or
more signed up. One of
conferences is a trial writing group
for those who want to see if it
would be a helpful strategy.