Students' Conceptions of Research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis

By Jan H. F. Meyer, M. Shanahan, R. C. Laugksch. 2005

131 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Relatively little is known about students' conceptions of research and, in particular, whether there are conceptually discrete patterns of variation that can be used to model this phenomenon in terms of research‐as‐learning outcomes. The present study explores the dimensionality of students' conceptions of research from two complementary research perspectives. The open‐ended written responses of students (n = 154) to questions aimed at soliciting variations in conceptions of what research is are analysed using a qualitative methodology to isolate “categories of description”. Findings are summarized in terms of eight such main categories, some of which are further internally differentiated. In terms of the main categories, research is conceived in terms of (variation in): (A) information gathering, (B) discovering the truth, (C) insightful exploration and discovery, (D) analytic and systematic enquiry, (E) incompleteness, (F) re‐examining existing knowledge, (G) problem‐based activity, and (H) a set of misconceptions. The substantive verbatim excerpts that formed the units of analysis in the qualitative analysis were used as a basis for item stems which were psychometrically operationalized into a Students' Conceptions of Research Inventory (SCoRI). This inventory was administered to a second heterogeneous sample of postgraduate students (n = 224) and the resultant data were subjected to exploratory factor analyses that provided empirical support (as dimensions of variation) for a smaller subset of the categories isolated in the qualitative analysis. Empirically, and in terms of additional psychometric considerations, there was support for five dimensions of variation (common factors) in terms of categories B, C, F, G, and H. These findings provide an initial conceptual basis for interpreting how students engaged in research activity may differ from one another in terms of their conceptions, as well as what the likely consequences of any such stable differences may be for research‐as‐learning outcomes.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a7d0ff9f11e566eaf743b0841539a094222596a0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Erno Lehtinen
2. Margaret Kiley
3. Päivi Tynjälä
4. Mari Murtonen
5. G. Mullins
6. E. Olkinuora

In Education

1. Mari Murtonen
2. G. Wisker
3. Päivi Tynjälä
4. E. Olkinuora
5. Erno Lehtinen
6. Margaret Kiley
7. G. Mullins
8. Jeffrey Keefer

In General Health Professions

1. Margaret Kiley
2. Päivi Tynjälä
3. Mari Murtonen
4. G. Mullins
5. Jeffrey Keefer

Citations in the corpus

• Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing (2009, background): “, 2004); students’ and supervisors’ conceptions of research (Kiley & Mullins, 2005; Meyer et al., 2005); and examiners’ identification of conceptual-level thinking in doctoral theses (Kiley, 2004; Kiley & Mullins, 2004; Lovitts, 2007; Mullins & Kiley, 2002; Winter, Griffiths, & Green, 2000) suggests”
• Supervisors' Conceptions of Research: What are they? (2005, methodology): “While this paper has a focus on supervisors’ conceptions of research, the paper by Meyer, Shanahan, and Laugksch (2005) (also in this journal) has a focus on students’ conceptions of research.”
• University Students' Research Orientations: Do negative attitudes exist toward quantitative methods? (2005, background): “Meyer, Shanahan, and Laugksch (2005) found that postgraduate students do not have a uniform approach to conceptualizing research or the research process.”
• “Do I need research skills in working life?”: University students’ motivation and difficulties in quantitative methods courses (2008, background): “Students’ conceptions of research have been studied by Meyer et al. (2005) .”
• Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities (2015, unknown): “…to contribute to student decisions to undertake a doctorate (Brailsford, 2010), degree completion, time-to-candidacy, doctoral student well-being and satisfaction with the overall doctoral experience, competences developed while studying (Ives & Rowley, 2005; Meyer, Shanahan, & Laugksch, 2005).”