‘Rhetorical’ research

Two traditional approaches to research are:

Hypothesis testing

To test a hypothesis (a form of confirmatory research) in which case it is important to operationalise in advance what is to be looked for to ensure that the data collected fit the criteria for the variable(s) being explored. Thus a firm research design (including a sampling frame and analytical framework)  is needed before entering the field to collect the data. The weakness of this kind of research is that it can only ever find in a situation what we are looking for, even if it may not be the most important element of the situation being studied.

Exploratory research

To explore and better understand a phenomenon (a form of discovery research) in which case it is important to be as open as possible to what might be most relevant without being prejudiced by any particular hypothesis or preferred conceptualisation (with the danger of ‘confirmation bias’ - being more likely to notice what is expected in advance). This approach requires a more flexible research design with some scope for emergent features - i.e. some detailed research decisions are only made once gathering data in the field led by initial insights form data collected. This approach also requires an open-ended approach to data analysis, to find ways of reducing and reconstructing the data most in keeping with the insights offered by close engagement with the data set. The weakness of this kind of research is that it relies on the creative imagination of the analyst (and so on the idiosyncratic repertoire of interpretive resources the individual has available) to find patterns, and so is inevitably somewhat subjective.

Finding what you are looking for research

These approaches can be compared with what might be considered ‘rhetorical’ research. which, like a rhetorical question, is not open to the full possibilities of response. The logic of rhetorical research is:

1. a)Some theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.) could apply to some context of interest;
   

2. b)Collect some data form the context which can be used to test the relevance of the theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.)
   

3. c)Analayse the data to see if it can be understood/offer instances of/is consistent with the theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.)
   

This type of study  follows some of the steps of discovery research, without the safeguards built into such research to ensure quality:

The imitations of rhetorical research is that is only shows us that human ingenuity can find some instances within a data set which we can make sense of through this theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.) - it does not show us that this theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.) is the most, or even an especially, productive way to understand the situation/phenomenon/context. Rhetorical research manages to combine the weakness of confirmatory research (by only exploring one predetermined possibility for making sense of the phenomenon/research context) with the limitations of exploratory research (that there is no objective measure of the significance of any match between data and theory/perspective/concept/typology (etc.) that is found). Surprisingly, despite this, examples of such research do sometimes get published!

Index of topics