SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges Implementing Qualitative Research Methods in a Study of Instructional Design Practice

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies of instructional design (ID) practices do not always highlight the inner workings of the research method and can leave readers without a clear understanding of how the study was actually carried out, particularly if it encompassed some complexity in process. As a team of researchers with different levels of scholarly expertise and knowledge, as well as multicultural backgrounds, we recognized the challenges of research methods we were employing as we studied instructional designers’ core judgment - their tacit beliefs and values relevant to their design practice (Nelson and Stolterman 2012). This recognition motivated us to share the nuts and bolts of this recent research study, and we highlight here the practical and conceptual challenges we faced, as well as the strategies we used to overcome those challenges. We share the lessons learned from our challenges and hope the scholarly community may agree that sharing experiences can contribute to improving inquiry practices in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AlKhateeb, M. (2018). Using Skype as a qualitative interview medium within the context of Saudi Arabia. The Qualitative Report, 23(10), 2253–2260 https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss10/1/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, M. (1995). Against good advice: reflections on conducting research in a country where you don’t speak the language. The Oral History Review, 22(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ohr/22.2.75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagshaw, D., Lepp, M., & Zorn, C. R. (2007). International research collaboration: Building teams and managing conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.183

  • Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2014). Design: The topic that should not be closed. TechTrends, 58(6), 17–19.

  • Boling, E., Gray, C. M., Modell, M. G., Altuwaijri, A., & Jung, J. (2014). Learners interpreting instructional images: Meaning-making and decision-making strategies. Journal of Visual Literacy, 33(2), 27-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2014.11674716.

  • Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., ... & Techawitthayachinda, R. I. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21250.

  • Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.

  • Chapman, E., & Smith, J. A. (2002). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and the new genetics. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105302007002397.

  • Clarke, J., & Turner, P. (2002). Critical reflection in IS research methodology: Considerations for research design selection and deployment. ACIS 2002 Proceedings, 19. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2002/19

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.

  • Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2015). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198527565.003.0011.

  • Englander, M. (2012). The interview: data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209351

  • Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., ... & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198.

  • Gray, C. M., Toombs, A. L., & McKay, C. (2016). Meaning reconstruction as an approach to analyze critical dimensions of HCI research. In C.B. Halverson & S.A. Tirmizi (Eds.), Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems: Proceedings of the CHI 2016 Conference (pp. 328–340). Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. Guilford Press.

  • Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2014). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors, students, and instructional designers. In Design in educational technology (pp. 161–184). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_10.

  • Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2018). Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Reis, C. (2004). Language and languages in cross-cultural interviewing. In R. Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 224–244). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781954331.

  • Mikecz, R. (2012). Interviewing elites: addressing methodological issues. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(6), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412442818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Inc: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34, 1189–1208 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089059/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell.

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1995). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books.

  • Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275.

  • Tirmizi, S. A. (2008). Towards understanding multicultural teams. In C. B. Halverson & S. A. Tirmizi (Eds.), Effective multicultural teams: Theory and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 1–20). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6957-4

  • Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 653–660). Springer.

  • Ward, K., Gott, M., & Hoare, K. (2015). Participants’ views of telephone interviews within a grounded theory study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(12), 2775–2785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing language boundaries: qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review, 46(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-006-0099-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kennesaw State University, 1100 South Marietta Pkwy DM 9045, Marietta, GA, 30060, USA

    Kei Tomita

  2. Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Airport Road, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, 11564, Saudi Arabia

    Husa Alangari

  3. Wayne State University, 365 Education Bldg, 5425 Gullen Mall, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Meina Zhu

  4. Indiana University-Bloomington, Wendell W. Wright Education Building, 201 N Rose Ave, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Fatih Ergulec, Ahmed Lachheb & Elizabeth Boling

Authors
  1. Kei Tomita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Husa Alangari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meina Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fatih Ergulec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmed Lachheb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth Boling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kei Tomita.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomita, K., Alangari, H., Zhu, M. et al. Challenges Implementing Qualitative Research Methods in a Study of Instructional Design Practice. TechTrends 65, 144–151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00569-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00569-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation