Qualitative Research Anchors

In line with the recommendations of Sutton (1993), four themes were employed as anchor points to this study. These were significant considerations in the choice of a qualitative methodology and each of them remained central throughout the data collection and analysis sections of the research. The first of these anchor points is contextualization. Many forms of qualitative research emphasise the importance of not only understanding the data, but also understanding the context from which the data are derived. Despite this fact, as Sutton points out, failure to attend to context has been a recurring problem in social science. The qualitative methodology employed in this study, through the use of open questions, will enable a stronger focus on the contextualization that is central to the understanding of adolescent cyberbullying and will concentrate on capturing the unique narratives of the study participants.

Understanding is the second anchor point for this research. As Sutton notes, acquiring useful knowledge means moving beyond the data and achieving some level of understanding to make sense and constitute that life in order to make them scientifically usable [p. 125]. Whilst verbally articulated concepts relating to cyberbullying will retain their identity with respect to context and derive their meaning from that context, it is recognised that it will be necessary to progress from that descriptive level to the second order level and this requires involvement of some type of explanatory device such as a model that has been previously applied in other settings. Bearing this mind, in this study, a number of relevant behavioural explanatory models will be considered in order to provide a meaningful shape to observed detail.

The third anchor to this research is pluralism. Qualitative research deals with uncertainty, in that a diversity of meaning may exist even within a specific setting and yet remain equally valid. Sutton suggests that this should in fact be considered a positive as the constant juxtaposition of conflicting realities tends to 'unfreeze' thinking, and so the process has the potential to generate theory with less researcher bias than theory built from incremental studies or armchair, axiomatic deduction" [31, p. 547]. Therefore, in this study, the personal point of view and diversity of both experience and meaning attributed to specific issues such as cyberbullying is not perceived as a weakness but rather as an extremely valuable source of insight that contributes to the overall goal of understanding.

The final anchor to this research is expression or conveying of the results. As Sutton notes, the ultimate test of research is its truth, and "telling the truth" has been the elusive but enduring goal of social research. There is a growing awareness of the social nature of knowledge itself and that the importance of language as the original source of theoretical perspective, as the agent of understanding, as the tool of analysis, and as the medium of reporting. This research bears in mind that reality is constituted by language and seeks to retain the qualitative character of the data by presenting results as representations of the researcher's observations, rather than absolute conclusions.

Quantitative research designs tend to focus on establishing associations between variables or on establishing causality. They assume that it is possible to objectively control and measure data in order to determine causes of behaviour. Such designs are particularly suitable for contexts with a focus on capturing numerical data. However, results obtained through this methodology are frequently criticized as being narrow and superficial as they are not capable of capturing detailed narrative or varying human perception and consequently lack contextual detail, particularly in relation to behaviour, attitudes and motivation. Moreover, the development of narrow research questions may result in structural bias with data that reflects the view of the researcher instead of the participating subject. One obvious consequence of this is that results may be obtained which may be statistically significant but humanly insignificant. In contrast, this study seeks to understand a research problem taking into account the contextual perspective of those who have knowledge or experience of the issue. As a consequence, whilst the qualitative interviews will set a general direction using open-ended questions, they will also allow the participant to raise and discuss specific issues relevant to their experience, enabling the internal perspective of the participant to become the main focus of the interview (Babbie & Mouton, 1998). This approach will allow the participant to answer in their own words, providing a more meaningful individual narrative with the opportunity for unanticipated insights.

Despite the attractiveness of qualitative data collection in providing richness and depth of data, it also has been subject to some criticism and these were taken into account when deciding on the research methodology. One of the more common concerns relates to the subjectivity of the researcher, in comparison to the perceived objectivity of quantitative research. However, whereas the sense of precision and accuracy conveyed by statistical data in quantitative studies might indicate detachment, in fact the construction of questionnaires to produce the raw data on which the statistical calculations are based is no less open to the intrusion of bias than asking questions at an interview. As Patton (1990) posits, ‘numbers do not protect against bias; they sometimes merely disguise it. All statistical data are based on someone’s definition of what to measure and how to measure it.’ (p.480). Hence, while qualitative studies may give rise to concerns about

subjectivity, in reality these concerns may equally apply to quantitative studies, where the subjective element may not be as apparent, as it is distanced from the final statistical outcome. Qualitative studies may not lend themselves to generalisations, but as generalisations are limited in both time and context, this is not seen as a major drawback. Furthermore, as previously outlined, a quantitative methodology would not allow for an in-depth exploration of causal factors influencing non-reporting responses, which is the express aim of this research. Therefore, having considered the above, a qualitative approach was deemed the most suitable approach to achieve the aims of this study.