Importance of Structured Research Methods

Introduction

Ultimately, every researchers seeks to achieve stipulated research aim and objectives in addition to finding answers to the research questions. However, the quality of the research is measured by the extent to which a research adequately employs certain principles and procedures in answering the said questions and achieving the objectives. As pointed by Bryman (2016) and Williams (2007), a research with purpose and goals to achieve without clear and structured roadmap of achieving the same is bound to attain unsatisfactory findings and considerable questionable. Indeed, a research is considerable a success if answers to the questions have been found (Collins, 2010). This procedures and schemes are usually planned to be neutral and value-neutral. Essentially, these methods aids in collecting samples, data, and finding solution to the stipulated research problem and answers to the questions, with data analysis dissertation help being a crucial component (Bryman, 2016; Bell, Bryman, and Harley, 2018; Walliman, 2017). In academic research, it is important to use relevant and rigorous methods in order to get credible answers as well as achieving reliable goals. For instance, in scientific research, the methods followed takes precedence in the findings and solution in way that the facts, observation, or measurements were made not just the reasoning. The purpose of this essay is to compare two different research methodologies. This essay will not discuss the research results, but will focus on the methods used to get to the results. The methods used will be analysed in order to find out if their use is relevant in the context of the respective studies.

Both studies chosen for the purpose of this essay compare the analog and digital recordings. However, the research methods used for the comparisons are very different. The first research is a peer-reviewed journal article called Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings. John M. Geringer at the University of Florida and Patrick Dunnigan at the Florida State University conducted the study. The second article is titled Spectral Analysis and Comparison of Analog and Digital Recordings. Hannah N. Frosch at the University of Southern Mississippi conducted this research.

Research families

There are two main research families, which are qualitative and quantitative methods (Hughes, 2014). The difference between qualitative and quantitative methods comes from the form of the data collected. Quantitative researches seek facts and try to “establish general laws or principles” (Blaxter et al, 2010). This research family gather data in form of “numerical entities” (Dean and Smith, 2009). Qualitative researches are set up to measure smaller amounts of data, but gather insights that are more detailed on a field (Blaxter et al, 2010, p. 65). Qualitative researchers allow the subjects to express “their thoughts in their own way” (Dean and Smith, 2009).

An alternative research family is called mixed research. It involves collection of both, qualitative and quantitative data. Many researches use mixed methods, as it seems to be a good way to get the best out of both research families by quantifying while at the same time developing deeper understanding of research underlying factors.

Another dichotomie is referred as deskwork and fieldwork (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 2010). This distinction is more pragmatic. This distinction takes into account the location where the study is conducted. A deskwork study implies that the researcher stays in a laboratory, library, or office while conducting a study (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 2010). On the other hand, a fieldwork study takes place outside the locations mentioned above. Fieldwork studies tend to be conducted outside. It is worth mentioning that the distinction between deskwork and fieldwork is not always clear. For instance, sending an e-mail can be done from the researcher’s office. However, “at least electronically“, the researcher is into the field (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 2010).

Research categories

Once the research question has been defined, a relevant method category has to be chosen. The most common research categories can be divided into four: case studies, experiments, action research, and surveys (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2010).

Case studies investigate individual units or specific cases (Creswell, 2004) and tend to expose an in-depth examination of a field (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2010). The purpose of case studies is often to lead to “a generalisation about the wider population to which that unit belongs” (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2010). Whereas, experiments tend to be used in a scientific context. The purpose of experiments is to find out if a variable has an influence on an outcome (Creswell, 2004). The idea is to test hypotheses “through carefully designed and controlled tests” (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2010). Action researches are studies, which focus on a specific workplace with the purpose of improving its performance (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2002; Stringer, 2013) and solve practical problems (Wisker, 2008). On the other hand, surveys collect and analyse data from participants through either interviews or questionnaire. The same questions are asked to a population. Results are then analysed and observed by the researchers (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 2010).

Study one: ‘Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings’ by Geringer and Dunnigan (2000)

This first study focuses on listeners’ perception and preference on analogue vs digital live recordings of a concert. Firstly, the researchers recorded three ensembles and a solo piano. With the help of a professional sound engineer, analog and digital recordings were produced simultaneously during the performances using high quality microphones. Then, the researchers asked participants (all music majors students) to listen to the digital and analog versions. The participants were able to alternate between the synchronised analog and digital versions whenever they wanted. The listening were conducted using high quality headphones and loudspeakers. Then, the listeners were asked to rate each version separately with a “Likert-type rating scales”. Participants had to specifically rate the “perceived quality of the bass, the quality of the treble, whether the instruments or voices sounded blended or distance, and the overall quality of the recording” (Geringer and Dunnigan, 2000). In addition, researchers conducted “a series of spectrographic analyses” in order to compare the two formats.

This study is a mixed method. From one hand, the approach to collect data is a quantitative survey (questionnaire) where the participants were asked to rate based on their judgements of bass, treble, and recording quality as well as separation of voices. The rating is a quantifiable factors, however, it associable to individual preferences, beliefs, social background, and values. Indeed, eventually, music is consumed by human beings. It is therefore relevant to measure human subjects’ perceptions about different types of recordings. In this sense, the qualitative survey is a relevant choice.

The spectrographic analyses was an experiment where researchers were trying to find out if a variable (the use of a different recording technique; analog or digital) has an influence on the visual analyser. In this case, use of an experiment captures the participants’ perception and point of view on analogue and digital recording while controlling research variables for more reliable findings. For instance, survey’s results show that “differences in perceived bass quality in the two formats” (Geringer and Dunnigan, 2000) is smaller than for the other rating scales (treble and overall). The use of the experiment (spectrographic analysis) is useful as it attests that there is visually no difference in the bass frequencies between the digital and analog versions.

Before measuring participants’ perceptions and visually analysing the waveforms of the two formats, the researchers used peer-reviewed researches in order to contextualise their study. Research methodology dictates conceptualising a belief or reasoning behind methods taken by linking to knowledge held and existing literature (Kothari, 2004; Kumar, 2019; Novikov, A. and Novikov, D., 2013). The use of secondary researches shows why the research question is important in the music industry. For instance, by citing credible artists like Keith Jarret who stated that the digital format is inferior in terms of expression, the research show that the question is worth being asked. Indeed, a switch from analog to digital might have an influence on music expressivity. The researchers also cited a study from Kirk (1956), which showed that listeners tend to prefer the sound systems they are used to. As a result, by citing this study, the research put into perspective the results of their study and the debate between analog and digital formats. The difference in perception between the two formats might simply come from listeners habits.

The survey and the experiment have been conducted in a studio. In this sense, it is a deskwork study, as the researchers did not go out to meet participants. The choice of conducting the study in a controlled environment like a studio is relevant. Indeed, the listening conditions are optimal. However, the recording has been conducted in a concert hall. In this sense, this study is also a fieldwork research. Indeed, the author also went out of the laboratory, office, or library to conduct its research. Different techniques are possible for the same study (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 2010). Another approach would be a questionnaire with open-ended questions rather than a Likert-type rating scale. Psychologically, human perceptions and emotions are complex. As such, according to Hughes and Sharrock (2016), it is critical to take into consideration the multifaceted nature of individual opinions and preferences while conducted a research where humans are subjects. By using a preliminary study, the research increased likelihood of success by providing valuable insights and setting groundwork for the main study

In the case of the study, a Liker-type rating scale does not show all the subtleties of participants’ perceptions. A relevant way to get answers that are more detailed and complete overview of perceptions differences between digital and audio would be to conduct an in-depth interview. Open-ended questions like “why do you prefer digital over analog?” or “What are the main difference you perceive between digital and analog recordings?” would be relevant in understanding in details the complexity of human perceptions. In this sense, allowing subjects to express “their thoughts in their own way” (Dean and Smith, 2009) would be a good complement to the study.

In addition, the main study was conducted on only 40 participants. It would have been more reliable having more participants that in return would have exerted more weight on the findings. In addition, it would have been interesting to conduct the study not only with music majors. Dividing the participants into three categories like: audiophiles/sound engineer, music major students, and occasional listener would be a relevant way to get more representative data. One can argue that difference between experienced listeners and other listeners might be significant. In addition, the study would have been useful for music producers who might know what are the relevant formats (analog or digital) depending on their target audience.

Study two: Spectral analysis Spectral Analysis and Comparison of Analog and Digital Recordings

The second article is a study on spectral analysis and comparison of analog and digital recordings conducted by Frosch (2017). The researcher recorded vocals and acoustic guitars in a recording studio at the University of Southern Mississippi. The audio was captured by a set of high quality microphones and the signal has been split into one digital and one analogue recordings. Then, the two recordings were analysed by a plug-in (SpectraFoo from Metric Halo) in order to compare them. The method used in this study is an experiment. The researcher tries to find out if the variable of recording techniques used has an influence on the spectral analyser. As a result, this study is considered as a quantitative research: the only data collected are numerical entities.

The use of an experiment is relevant in the sense that it provides objective and precise differences between the two recordings. In addition, as quantitative researches try to “establish general laws or principles” (Blaxter et al, 2010). One can assume that the same results would happen to different recordings. As a result, this study would be useful for music producers and studio engineers who want to have a preconception of the tone particularities of each format.

This study is a deskwork as it has been conducted in a recording studio. The choice of a recording studio is relevant as it provides all the equipment to conduct the study (recording and analysis). The research used previous studies in order to describe the two formats and to show their pros and cons. In addition, secondary research was used to explain the implications the shift from analogue to digital had on the music industry. As a result, the use of secondary researches is relevant to contextualise the debate around this question.

One can argue that this study is lacking qualitative data. Unlike the first study, human opinions seem to lack in this study. It would have been relevant to complete this quantitative study with a qualitative survey. In essence, questionnaires and interviews would give a more pragmatic insight. Building from the essence that music is consumed by humans and that individuals have varying preferences, views, and interests regarding music, arguably, delving into underlying factors differentiating analog and digital would have given a better perspective of difference between the two. It is therefore relevant to complete this quantitative study with human perceptions, subjective views in order “to understand experience” (Wisker, 2008).

The study finds out that that “both analog and digital recordings offer unique qualities” (Frosch, 2017). However, it does not provide information about what qualities are preferred by listeners and why. Addition, the research failed to establish the groundwork and reasoning behind the methods adopted and procedures followed in collecting and subsequently analysing the collected data. Arguably, lack of structured procedures and justification of the same in data collection might have skewed the findings. The results are very theoretical and do not relate to the reality of music consumption. In addition, the researcher only conducted the study by recording vocals and acoustic guitar. It would have been relevant to compare different types of recordings with different instruments and tone in order to get more data. Indeed, it might happen that analogue and digital do not behave the same way depending on the original sound source. Such additional data would have been relevant to attest or contest results found by the author.

Conclusion

Comparing both articles shows that research methods used by the authors have a great influence on the relevance of the results. While the first study uses a mixed method, the second one focuses on a qualitative approach. The advantage of the mixed method is to correlate numerical entities with human perceptions. Music is mostly created to be consumed by humans. Therefore a human input is necessary in order to get an answer that can relate to the reality of music listening. The mixed method exerts the quantifiable aspect while developing an insight understanding of research fundamental elements. As such, the results of the first study might be interesting to help music producers to make a choice about what format is more relevant. As a contrast, the second study uses exclusively a quantitative method. Even though some technical engineers or producers might get interested in its results, the results are very theoretical and do not provide useful answers to the vast majority of music producers.

Bibliography:

Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. Oxford university press.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M., 2010. How to research. Maidenhead. Open University Press. Viitattu, 23, p.2019.

Bryman, A., 2016. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Collins, H., 2010. Creative research: The theory and practice for the creative industries. AVA. pp.9-40.

Creswell, J., 2004. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed approaches. SAGE Publication.

Davies, M.B. and Hughes, N., 2014. Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Frosch, H.N., 2017. Spectral Analysis and Comparison of Analog and Digital Recordings.

Geringer, J.M. and Dunnigan, P., 2000. Listener preferences and perception of digital versus analog live concert recordings. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, pp.1-13.

Hughes, J.A. and Sharrock, W.W., 2016. The philosophy of social research. Routledge.

Kothari, C.R., 2004. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.

Kumar, R., 2019. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage Publications Limited.

Novikov, A.M. and Novikov, D.A., 2013. Research methodology: From philosophy of science to research design (Vol. 2). CRC Press.

Smith, H. and Dean, R.T., 2009. Introduction: practice-led research, research-led practice-towards the iterative cyclic web. Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts, pp.1-38.

Stringer, E.T., 2013. Action research. Sage publications.

Walliman, N., 2017. Research methods: The basics. Routledge.

Williams, C., 2007. Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 5(3).

Winter, R. and Munn-Giddings, C. (2002). A handbook for action research in health and social care. London: Routledge, p.72.

Wisker, G. (2008). The postgraduate research handbook. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.22-73.