A Comparative Analysis of Research Methodologies - Essay Example

A Comparative Analysis of Research Methodologies Introduction The relevance of learning the rudiments of a second language for predefined purposes cannot be overemphasized. There has been an increasing magnitude of literature both on historical and theoretical perspectives that impact contemporary research methodologies aiming to proffer issues on enhancing greater understanding for a foreign language in a variety of settings. Two papers delving into learning foreign languages require a closer evaluation of research methodologies employed by the authors, to wit: Jonathan Culpeper, Robert Crawshaw and Julia Harrison (2008) on Activity types and discourse types: mediating advice in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England published in Multilingua; and Pamela Rogerson-Revell’s (2007) Using English for International Business: A European Case Study, published in English for Specific Purposes. The essay aims to provide a comparative analysis in terms of presentation of hypothesis or research questions, tools to conduct the researches, and the strengths and weaknesses of research, as appropriate. Comparative Analysis 1. Research Questions/Hypothesis The study conducted by Rogerson-Revell (2007) aimed to determine the nature and role of English for International Business (EIB) with the goal of furthering measures to improve communication in international events and to use the findings in the development of effective and appropriate training materials facilitating EIB (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 109). On the other hand, Culpeper, et.al.’s research was designed to address four specific objectives focusing on developing ones “understanding of interactions between French/English Foreign Language Assistants (FLAs) and their school mentors (MEs), and, more specifically, of how ‘advice’ is sought, given and received” (Culpeper, et.al, 2008, p. 297). Thereby, the Rogerson-Revel research clearly identified a concise goal while Culpeper et.al. have four-fold objectives that need to be addressed. 2. Tools to Conduct the Research Rogerson-Revell (2007) used the questionnaire method specifically designed to solicit both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative information focused on the use of EIB, the first language used by participants, and other languages spoken. On the other hand, qualitative data were gathered using open-ended questions on the perceptions and views of participants regarding the use of English in various international and professional meetings. Culpeper, et.al.(2008) likewise solicited both qualitative and quantitative information through audio recorded and transcribed information in case studies which became the basis for gathering the quantitative data needed for the study. Qualitative information was sourced from the recorded dialogues between the French/English Foreign Language Assistants (FLAs) and the school mentors (MEs). The use of pragmatics research, as averred by Liu, show “how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation which is usually a conversation (hence *conversation analysis). It distinguishes two intents or meanings in each utterance or communicative act of verbal communication” (Liu, 1999, par. 1). 3. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Researches The strength in Rogerson-Revell’s study comes in the following terms: (1) effectiveness in achieving its defined objectives; (2) clear presentation and structure of the article with provision for delineation of sub-topics; (3) provided extensive and comprehensive secondary resources and review of literature from about 45 diverse academic sources with the most recent reference dating back two years prior to its publication; (4) background to the study and the impetus for its research was appropriately detailed; (5) findings were clearly indicated supporting the validity of identified research questions; and (6) limitations were likewise, identified to form a basis for future research. As every aspect of the research was appropriately covered including limitations, there was no major weakness identified with this research. On the other hand, Culpeper, et.al’s study showed the following strengths: (1) provision of 27 academic references with the latest secondary resources dating 2 years from date of publication; and (2) subdivisions in topic were provided with illustrations and tables to assist in detailing crucial information. The weaknesses that were observed are as follows: (1) need for clearer structure and presentation for discussion of the research – aside from the identified objectives, the other areas seemed to flow throughout failing to structure on the participants, methods or procedure, and even findings which have been briefly discussed under the conclusion portion; (2) there were no identification of limitations and theoretical and practical applications of the findings in contemporary scenarios or in future research. Conclusion Two of the researchers in the field of linguistics used different research tools in conducting relevant studies on enhancing communication through a greater understanding of a foreign language. Both studies employed an interplay of qualitative and quantitative research methods The effectiveness of the methods was measured in terms of presentation, structure, supportive and varied academic literatures used and the extent to which the identified objectives were achieved. Rogerson-Revell was definite in concluding that validity of the findings were confined on the results of the small-scale questionnaire designed for the study. On the other hand, Culpeper, et.al. even failed to mention limitations of their research and use for future applications, rendering their research fairly ineffective. Depending on the objective of the study, certain approach, methodology and presentation are more effective than others. Factors such as the nature of questions, the sample size, tools, methods and prospects would determine the credibility and validity of the research. Further, researchers endeavor to delve into unexplored areas of inquiries to bring into light new information which could benefit mankind in the future. The quest for innovative methods and techniques aim to improve contemporary processes that would ultimately enhance man’s way of life. Thereby, the question is not only on how accessible research findings are made to practitioners – but also how practitioners use the information and output productively. Reference List Culpeper, J, Crawshaw, R & Harrison, J 2008. “Activity types and discourse types: mediating advice in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England.” Multilingua, 27 (4), pp. 297-324 Liu, S. 1999. What is Pragmatics. Viewed 25 October, 2010, < http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/definition.html> Rogerson-Revell, P 2007. “Using English for International Business: A European Case Study.” English for Specific Purposes, 26, (1), pp. 103-120. Read More