Writing up social research

Mixed-methods research is justified on the basis of the research questions, whereby the integration of the two approaches becomes the key point of interest. It follows from this that integrating the findings is the only appropriate course to follow. Examples can be found for answer (b) but do not impress Bryman very much.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 677, Tips and skills

This last chapter is concerned with writing up research reports, including dissertations. Whilst we are naturally preoccupied with the content of our work, we must also pay close attention to the quality of the presentation. Getting feedback from others on the same degree programme is a form of peer assessment, after all. Feedback from supervisors may be a bit discouraging, at first sight, but remember that your supervisor will almost certainly be one of your assessors, so respond gratefully to the comments made! This feedback may also help you to remove inadvertent comments that might otherwise have caused offence. Finally, using a spell-checker seems almost too obvious to deserve mentioning it….or is it? Marks are lost regularly through careless presentation. Assessors may make an uncritical inference of attributing carelessness to the research methodology as well.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 684-687

Reports of both quantitative and qualitative research usually contain an introductory section that sets out the main arguments of the paper. This section also helps to attract the reader’s attention by providing a clear focus for the research and identifying some of the key debates in which it can be contextualized. Simply saying you wrote about something because you were interested in it is not enough. You must locate your interest within a body of theory, or at least an area of general concern. This is also the place to show your research questions.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 664, 669-670, 673, 678

The stages of a report of a piece of qualitative research are broadly similar to those of a quantitative report, but there are some noticeable differences. In particular, the presentation and discussion of the results tend to be more interwoven, and the author will discuss the findings in relation to more open-ended research questions rather than hypotheses. Much qualitative research is inductive, meaning hypotheses are more likely to emerge as conclusions than to have been set in advance for testing.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 672-674

Well written research articles will have a lot of common structural features. Answer (d) shows the structure of the Kelley and De Graaf (1997) article (see page 669); answer (c) shows that of Jones et al (2010); answer (b) is an incomplete generic structure; the correct answer (a) highlights the importance of discussing the reasons for mixing the methods.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 678

Almost all written accounts of social research end with a conclusion, either as a separate section or as part of the discussion section. The purpose is to remind the reader of the key findings of the research and relate these back to the original research questions or hypotheses. The conclusion serves as a bridge between this piece of work and anything that may follow. It points directions for further research, therefore, partly through reflecting on the limitations of the work in the light of hindsight.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 667-668, 671-672, 674, 678

In his general introduction (p664), Bryman argues in favour of outlining the research questions at an early stage. He says that a “totally open-ended research focus is risky” and can lead to a lack of focus. Later, he demonstrates the care with which Kelly and De Graaf (1997) articulate their hypotheses, derived from a reflection on existing ideas and research (p669-670). He concludes that the “research questions are spelled out in a very specific way” (p672), which helps to underpin the entire argument of the article.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 664,669-670,672

Structured interviewing is a quantitative method, so is not applicable to a qualitative research strategy like that followed by Jones et al (2010). They don’t give a rationale for their choice of semi-structured interviewing but it is possible that they saw a benefit in extended one-to-one discussions over the somewhat free-for-all nature of a focus group. CAQDAS is computer software (like NVivo) used by Jones et al, among others, to help with the analysis of the voluminous interview data.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 672-674

It is sometimes argued that writing about social science research is inevitably rhetorical, as writers aim to persuade or convince readers of the legitimacy of their knowledge claims. Key concept 28.1, p662, points out that although writing is often criticised negatively as being “mere rhetoric”, rhetoric itself is an essential feature of writing. We should try to avoid sweeping statements and common expressions like “as everyone knows”, for example, in order to concentrate the reader’s attention on what it is we actually claim for our research findings.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 662

Poortinga et al (2004, cited on page 678) wished to investigate the foot and mouth disease crisis in the UK while it was actually being experienced, rather than after the event as had been the case for most risk perception studies. They used a quantitative survey at the height of the epidemic, followed by focus groups made up of people who had participated in the survey. They believed this mixture of methods could give a more comprehensive view of risk issues than just using one method alone.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 678-679