6

BREAKOUT SESSION 3:
DISCUSSIONS OF POTENTIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

After identifying theoretical frameworks, participants were randomly assigned to four groups of six to nine persons and turned their attention to identifying research methodologies for the questions raised the preceding day. Researchers in all four groups cautioned that the application of methodologies (and theories) must be driven by specific research questions and overall research design. Rapporteurs presented summaries of the groups’ discussion in the afternoon plenary session, after which there was an opportunity for general discussion.

Breakout Group 3A

Members of this group articulated alternative ways of generating knowledge beyond traditional empirical research. One idea suggested was to combine and amplify quantitative and qualitative methods to get more information about the nuances of experience for men of color in STEM fields compared with many traditional empirical methods.

Breakout Group 3B

The discussion in this group focused on recognizing differences between standard research methodologies (e.g., structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and classroom research) and “grassroots” methodologies (e.g., histories of scientific racism or bias). One idea suggested was to develop a new methodology incorporating both standard research and grassroots methodologies that could (a) be transformative and tied to action; (b) be collaborative, interdisciplinary, inclusive, and innovative; and (c) create new data sources.

Breakout Group 3C

Members of this group discussed the utility of a research design that supports examination of the individual, communal, organizational, and societal factors embedded in a major research area. Methodologies that would support such a broad research design would include many different types of research methods, including life event storytelling and surveying, longitudinal data collection, and ethnographies.

Breakout Group 3D

Participants in this group emphasized the need for new methodologies with appropriate theoretical grounding and pilot study validation. They emphasized the importance of broad diversity—in ethnicity, discipline, and background, as well as research theories and



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 20
6 BREAKOUT SESSION 3: DISCUSSIONS OF POTENTIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES After identifying theoretical frameworks, participants were randomly assigned to four groups of six to nine persons and turned their attention to identifying research methodologies for the questions raised the preceding day. Researchers in all four groups cautioned that the application of methodologies (and theories) must be driven by specific research questions and overall research design. Rapporteurs presented summaries of the groups’ discussion in the afternoon plenary session, after which there was an opportunity for general discussion. Breakout Group 3A Members of this group articulated alternative ways of generating knowledge beyond traditional empirical research. One idea suggested was to combine and amplify quantitative and qualitative methods to get more information about the nuances of experience for men of color in STEM fields compared with many traditional empirical methods. Breakout Group 3B The discussion in this group focused on recognizing differences between standard research methodologies (e.g., structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and classroom research) and “grassroots” methodologies (e.g., histories of scientific racism or bias). One idea suggested was to develop a new methodology incorporating both standard research and grassroots methodologies that could (a) be transformative and tied to action; (b) be collaborative, interdisciplinary, inclusive, and innovative; and (c) create new data sources. Breakout Group 3C Members of this group discussed the utility of a research design that supports examination of the individual, communal, organizational, and societal factors embedded in a major research area. Methodologies that would support such a broad research design would include many different types of research methods, including life event storytelling and surveying, longitudinal data collection, and ethnographies. Breakout Group 3D Participants in this group emphasized the need for new methodologies with appropriate theoretical grounding and pilot study validation. They emphasized the importance of broad diversity—in ethnicity, discipline, and background, as well as research theories and 20

OCR for page 20
methodological experience—in the reviewer pool for any grant program, and suggested that experienced researchers should nominate other experienced researchers for service on review panels. Finally, they stressed that any research program solicitation should communicate that all research methodologies are equally valued and possibly provide examples. 21