1

Running head: MURKY WATERS

Murky Waters: Defining Good Research

Nancy P. Meier
University of the Pacific, Stockton

MURKY WATERS

Murky Waters: Defining Good Research

As I delve into the question of what constitutes good research, the waters have continued
to become murkier and murkier. Prior to beginning my doctoral studies, I believed that the
answer to this question was quite clear. Now, this question almost inevitably leads to
philosophical questions about ontology and epistemology that depend on the worldview of the
researcher. There are so many facets to consider, including ethics, transparency, reflexivity,
significance, the research questions, methodology, writing style and structure. These each exist
on a spectrum between extremes, as does the question of what constitutes good research. There
are no simple answers. Researchers must develop their own conception of what good research is
and then examine how closely a research study matches this ideal. This individual perspective,
however, should be firmly grounded in an extensive knowledge of the field and the issues
involved, as well as any potential land mines.
After considering these areas, my personal definition of good research has continued to
evolve. On a more holistic level, I think that good research is research that illuminates a certain
area in a field of study. It may start with a predetermined research question or not. It may follow
one of any number of research paradigms. Perhaps the best research looks at an area of study
from a variety of paradigms. This would allow for a more complete and richly textured line of
inquiry and raise more interesting and meaningful questions. Finally, good research should also
adhere to the overarching imperative to do no harm.
When defining good research, there are many aspects that need to be examined. Of real
concern are the ethical questions raised. Hostetler (2005) states that good educational research
should serve peoples well-being (p. 16). He does not, however, provide support for this

MURKY WATERS

position, rather states it as an axiom. Given the service nature of the field of education, I do
believe that this is an important goal of educational research. Yet, I also think that research could
be carried out in education with the sole aim of increasing our knowledge base, just as occurs in
other fields (e.g., the hard sciences). It may take many years for the value of a particular study
to be realized, or the study may lead to further studies that are of great benefit.
Ethical questions surrounding the methodology of the study also arise when engaging in
research. Some of these questions must be answered at the individual researcher level, some at
the institutional level through the IRB process, and others at the level of federal regulations. I do
agree with the general guidelines of do no harm and minimizing risk, but this is certainly an area
open to debate (Hemmings, 2006). The two articles by Wolcott (1983, 2009) definitely put this
question front and center. Even before reading the second article, I had questions about the
possibly coercive nature of the relationship between Wolcott and Brad. After reading the second
article, even more concerns were raised.
This brings up another important consideration regarding ethics: transparency. Clearly,
the first Wolcott article was not transparent, and the second was brutally so (Wolcott, 1983,
2009). Many of my fellow students found Halletts article (2013) to be good research because
they found that it had greater apparent transparency. It is essential, however, to keep in mind that
every writer writes his or her own story. Even with quantitative researchers, the reader can never
be sure of the degree of transparency. The only way to evaluate this may be to look at the
writers body of work and professional reputation. Even then, there are no guarantees. I do find
transparency to be an important characteristic of good research, but not an absolute. This was
illustrated in the Scheper-Hughes article (2004) where the author employed covert methods to
obtain data that she claims she would not have been able to get in any other way. Whatever the

MURKY WATERS

concerns raised about transparency, Scheper-Hughes definitely illuminated an important area of

study.
The ontological and epistemological stances of the researcher are also important elements
to consider when evaluating research. They have an enormous impact on all aspects of research,
particularly the analysis of the findings. The authors perspective should be made clear to the
reader in order to allow for a better understanding and interpretation of the results. As I continue
to read a wider range of research articles, it becomes more apparent just how important this
knowledge is for me as the consumer of research. The reflexivity exhibited by the researcher will
further assist the reader in interpreting the research. Explicit reflexivity contextualizes the
research and increases transparency. The methodology employed by Mauthner and Doucet
(2003) had a built-in mechanism for reflexivity that I found to be effective.
Investigation of a significant topic and the development of compelling research questions
are also important aspects of good research. As I scanned various research articles, I found that
some spoke to me because of the importance of the topic discussed and the nature of the research
questions asked. Others seemed to have a very narrow, almost trivial, focus. Researchers often
have some idea of a research question as they embark on their work. However, being open to
emerging questions and avenues of research is also crucial. Otherwise, researchers may impose
their own questions when other inherent questions are clamoring to be answered. By listening to
what emerges, researchers may secure results that are more authentic.
The literature review should be thoughtfully and carefully done. It should provide the
necessary context that situates the research presented and explicates what is missing from the
body of research. It is interesting to note that there are a variety of ways to approach a literature
review, each with advantages and limitations (Kennedy, 2007). How a literature review is

MURKY WATERS

undertaken can have a significant impact on the research itself. Writers need to look carefully at
the approach they use and what is included and excluded by their approach.
The methodology used should be clearly laid out and discussed in detail. The approach
chosen should be one that best explores the research question being asked or allows important
questions to emerge. Sampling size and characteristics may be an important factor to consider
depending on the nature of the study. The results should be carefully reported and discussed in
depth. Conclusions and implications should follow logically from the results obtained. Good
research should also explain the limitations of the research completed and potential areas for
further research. It is also helpful for the writer to attach copies of interview questions and any
other relevant documents to the article in order for the reader to evaluate them firsthand.
The structure and writing style of a good research article is extremely important. As we
discussed in class, education is a field with a wide variety of players. If educational researchers
intend to serve the public good, then it is imperative that they present their findings in a format
that can be read and understood by many people, not just a select few. Writers should express
their ideas in a clear and concise manner that uses a minimal amount of jargon. They should also
use an engaging title, section headings that lead the reader through the article, and logical
organization. Writers should clearly explicate, thoroughly discuss, and then connect each section
back to the purpose of the research. Graphics that help clarify concepts, results, or analyses can
be especially helpful.
I chose the article Mindful Leaders in Highly Effective Schools: A Mixed-Method
Application of Hoys M-scale (Kearney, Kelsey, & Herrington, 2013) as an example of good
research. This is not in the area of my research interests, but it does address an issue that I am
very interested in: educational leadership. There were many aspects of this article that spoke to

MURKY WATERS

me. The title caught my attention immediately since it covered a topic and methodological
approach that appeals strongly to me. How educational leaders can impact student achievement
is a sufficiently broad and important topic. I also think that the best research should study an
issue from a variety of perspectives. Quantitative studies often oversimplify an issue, while
qualitative approaches add the context, complexity, and richness inherent in education.
Combining both seems a more comprehensive and nuanced way of engaging in research.
The purpose and importance of the research were explicitly discussed at the beginning of
the article. The literature review provided a historical perspective on the development of the
concept of mindfulness. It also included very precise definitions of the different types of
mindfulness discussed in the literature, including: individual mindfulness, collective
mindfulness, and school mindfulness. The historical background and clear definitions help lay
the foundation for the research.
Though somewhat complex, the methodology was very clearly outlined. Both
quantitative and qualitative approaches were carefully explained in detail. The sample size for
the quantitative portion of the study was large and demographically diverse. The qualitative
study involved carefully selected participant principals. Both these factors added to the weight of
the findings. In the quantitative portion, I appreciated that they discussed the reliability of the
instruments they used and the limitations of their method. Additionally, in the qualitative portion,
the authors discussed how the interview questions were developed. They also presented a logical
argument for the conceptual map they developed from their findings.
The article itself was well organized with simple, but effective, headings. This made it
easy for the reader to follow the authors discussion and arguments. The research questions were
clearly laid out at the beginning, and the interview questions used were attached in an appendix.

MURKY WATERS

The quantitative and the qualitative portions of the study were presented separately, but were
synthesized in the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. The article was well written, with the
authors carefully explaining the theoretical frameworks used in the study. I particularly
appreciated the graphic they developed to illustrate their concept map of the three emergent
themes. As an educational leader, I found that this map helped the reader to understand the
conceptual framework while providing a practical model that could be used in the field.
Quotations from participating principals were used effectively to support and deepen the authors
discussion of the qualitative research findings.
In their discussion and conclusions, the authors addressed many areas that good research
should cover. There was a discussion of the other variables, both demographic and school
climate, which can impact student success but were not studied in this research. The authors also
addressed the limitations of their study and possibilities for additional research. Finally, they
discussed what their findings add to the knowledge base of the field and the relevance for the
practitioner.
As I examined all the various elements of good research and then attempted to apply
them to a particular research article, I was struck by how difficult it is to evaluate some important
aspects. It was quite clear that the aim of this particular research was to benefit others, and the
methodology appeared to follow ethical guidelines. But how was I to judge the degree of
transparency involved? No red flags were apparent, but how does the reader know what may
have occurred under the surface of the written account.
There was also little indication of the ontological or epistemological stances of the
authors. All are professors at Texas A&M University and appear to have healthy curricula vitae.
The article was written using a relatively objective voice. Like many articles, there was very

MURKY WATERS

little explicit reflexivity discussed. It is therefore very difficult to evaluate how the authors
perspectives may have influenced the research.
So, what then is the definition of good research? We must all grapple with the answer to
this question on an individual basis. Because education is a field that is so context dependent, the
answer may even vary from case to case. For me, good research must investigate an important
question, preferably using a variety of schema. It should throw some light on an area that had
previously remained hidden. It may provide a benefit to some people but should definitely cause
no harm to any. Given this broad definition, good research may assume a variety of incarnations,
all of which can provide a unique perspective on the world. As researchers, we must continue to
navigate these murky waters throughout our careers.

MURKY WATERS

References
Hallett, R. E. (2013). Interrupting life history: Evolution of a relationship within the research
process. The Qualitative Report, 18(14), 1-16.
Hemmings, A. (2006). Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between institutional review
boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 12-18.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is good education research? Educational Researcher, 34, 16-21.
Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective
schools: A mixed-method application of Hoys m-scale. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 316-335.
Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139-147.
Mauthner, N. S. & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity
in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413-431.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004). Parts unknown: Undercover ethnography of organs-trafficking
underworld. Ethnography, 5(1), 29-73.
Wolcott, H. F. (1983). Adequate schools and inadequate education: The life history of a sneaky
kid. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 14(1), 3-32.
Wolcott, H. F. (2009). Overdetermined behavior, unforeseen consequences. Qualitative Inquiry,
16(1), 10-20.

10