I am adopting a mixed-methods approach. I have done a qualitative bit first and got some findings that I thought interesting and could help me make a contribution. These findings showed me that there are other perspectives than the ones discussed in the literature. Based on that I found myself writing some statements like:
there are at least tow perspectives of the problem XYZ. Previous research focused on one perspective and gave limited attention to the second one. This research aims to shed some light on the second perspective because the early findings showed that lab lab lab.
I then wrote in the section of hypothesis development:
the variable ABC was used as a moderator. However, the early findings of this research showed that it could be a mediator!
Can I write that?
I really appreciate your help.
Your approach certainly shows a reflexive attitude to the research which can only be good for trustworthiness. The development of new knowledge via inductive methods reflects the realities of an interplay between ‘polished’ narratives and real-world observations. I would be interested to know how ‘mixed’ methods have been applied and the extent to which qualitative/quantitative approaches contribute to decisions within this inductive process.
It is very important to open new exploration spaces and perspectives for scientific research, however be aware that most likely you will find some kind of backlash. Since research and scientific work is done following traditions, presenting a perspective that does not follow a particular tradition might be viewed very negatively.
I recommend you mention explicitly why is this new perspective important and the studies that follow closest what you want to do and how they fail to show what you are presenting.
If this is truly a newly perspective, I also recommend you consider your position as somewhat exploratory. Show that this is a space in need for exploration and propose how this could open new alleyways for future research for other people.
I'm sorry if I speak with metaphors but I would say it this way.
There is a mine everyone is working on. That is your standard view where everyone works in a similar space, doing similar things. You just dug a hole in a different place and found a nice rock. Why not explore there?
I agree Rodrigo Ibarra González drawing from consensus is important. I would have thought, however, that Saleh Ali Ali could 'dig over there', so to speak, and still draw from the consensus literature. It might be that the nuanced perspective shows the alternative context in a new light thereby combining an appreciation of the background and an original contribution. Generally I would agree that peers do not view novelty well and it is safest to commence closer to the consensus view.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing