QUALITATIVE DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

RESEARCH

“… is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase

our understanding of a topic or issue… consists of three steps: 1. Pose a
question, 2. Collect data to answer the question, 3. Present an answer to the
question. (Creswell, 2012, hal. 3)

“… research is a systematic process of inquiry consisting of three elements or

components: (1) a question, problem, or hypothesis, (2) data, (3) analysis and
interpretation of data” (Nunan, 1992, p. 3).

“Questions are posed in an effort to fill a gap in existing knowledge or to seek

new knowledge, to pursue the identification of the cause or causes of some
phenomena, to describe phenomena, to solve a practical problem, or to
formally test a hypothesis” (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, hal. 55).

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
What?

 “a strict and systematic set of procedures for the rigorous analysis,

examination and verification of the contents of written data (Flick 1998:
192; Mayring 2004:266) (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, hal. 475)
 ‘a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts
(or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use’ Krippendorp
(2004: 18). through reanalysis and replication is possible. (Cohen, Manion,
& Morrison, 2007, hal. 475)
 a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents.
(Bowen, 2009, p. 29)
 … in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical
knowledge (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; see also Rapley, 2007) (Bowen, 2009,
p. 29)

Object: Documents/Texts

 “any written communicative materials which are intended to be read,

interpreted and understood by people other than the analysts
(Krippendorp 2004: 30)” through reanalysis and replication is possible.
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, hal. 475)
 social facts’, which are produced, shared, and used in socially organised
ways (Atkinson and Coffey, 1997, p. 47) (Bowen, 2009, p. 29)
 … both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-
transmitted) material. (Bowen, 2009, p. 29)
  a variety of forms: agendas, attendance registers, and minutes of
meetings; manuals; background papers; books and brochures; diaries and
journals; event programs (i.e., printed outlines); letters and memoranda;
maps and charts; newspapers (clippings/art-icles); press releases; program
proposals, application forms, and summaries; radio and television program
scripts; organisational or institutional reports; survey data; and various
public records. Scrapbooks and photo albums can also furnish documentary
material for research purposes. (Bowen, 2009, pp. 29-30)

“Qualitative analysis therefore pursues a double strategy: it forces the

object of analysis to reveal its structure in a de-totalizing approach which
inquires into the relationship between individual aspects and general
appearance, but does this with the aim of achieving a conscious re-
totalization, so as not to lose sight of the overall social core content of
every statement” (Rust 1980a, p. 21). Rust himself calls this a theoretical
outline, and admits that concrete procedures are missing entirely (Rust,
1981, p. 201). This is characteristic of the situation in which qualitative
content analysis finds itself. (Mayring, 2014, hal. 21)

Why?

 “an unobtrusive technique” (Krippendorp 2004: 40) in that one can

observe without being observed (Robson 1993: 280). through reanalysis
and replication is possible. (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, hal. 476)
 focuses on language and linguistic features, meaning in context, is systematic
and verifiable (e.g. in its use of codes and categories), as the rules for
analysis are explicit, transparent and public (Mayring 2004:267–9).
 as the data are in a permanent form (texts), verification through reanalysis
and replication is possible. (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, hal. 475)
 yields excerpts, quotations, or entire passages from records,
correspondence, official reports and open-ended surveys. (Labuschagne,
2003, hal. 101)

How?

content analysis process’ essential features:

 breaking down text into units of analysis

 undertaking statistical analysis of the units
 presenting the analysis in as economical a form as possible.
 examination of the interconnectedness of units of analysis (categories),
 the emergent nature of themes and the testing,
 development and generation of theory. (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007,
hal. 476)
 The whole process of content analysis can follow eleven steps (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2007, hal. 476-483)

Step 1: Define the research questions to be addressed by the content analysis

Step 2: Define the population from which units of text are to be sampled
Step 3: Define the sample to be included
Step 4: Define the context of the generation of the document
Step 5: Define the units of analysis
Step 6: Decide the codes to be used in the analysis
Step 7: Construct the categories for analysis
Step 8: Conduct the coding and categorizing of the data
Step 9: Conduct the data analysis
Step 10: Summarizing
Step 11: Making speculative inferences

Qualitative Content Analysis as Mixed Methods Approach with Seven steps are
differentiated (Mayring, 2014)

Step 1: Concrete research question (relevance to praxis; eventually hypotheses;

formulation and explication of the researcher’s standpoint)
Step 2: Linking research question to theory (state of the art, theoretical approach,
preconceptions for interpretations)
Step 3: Definition of the research design (explorative, descriptive, relational,
causal, mixed)
Step 4: Defining of the (even small) sample or material and the sampling
strategy
Step 5: Methods of data collection and analysis, pilot tested
Step 6: Processing of the study, presentation of results in respect to the
research question
Step 7: Discussion in respect to quality criteria

Advantages of Document Analysis1

 Efficient method: Document analysis is less time-consuming and therefore

more efficient than other research methods. It requires data selection,
instead of data collection.
 Availability: Many documents are in the public domain, especially since the
advent of the Internet, and are obtainable without the authors’ permission.
This makes document analysis an attractive option for qualitative
researchers. As Merriam (1988) argued, locating public records is limited
only by one’s imagination and industriousness. An important maxim to keep
in mind is that if a public event happened, some official record of it most
likely exists.
 Cost-effectiveness: Document analysis is less costly than other research
methods and is often the method of choice when the collection of new

1
 data is not feasible. The data (contained in documents) have already been
gathered; what remains is for the content and quality of the documents to
be evaluated.
 Lack of obtrusiveness and reactivity: Documents are ‘unobtrusive’ and
‘non-reactive’—that is, they are unaffected by the research process.
(Previous studies found in documents are not being considered here.)
Therefore, document analysis counters the concerns related to reflexivity
(or the lack of it) inherent in other qualitative research methods. With
regard to observation, for instance, an event may proceed differently
because it is being observed. Reflexivity—which requires an awareness of
the researcher’s contribution to the construction of meanings attached to
social interactions and acknowledgment of the possibility of the
investigator’s influence on the research—is usually not an issue in using
documents for research purposes.
 Stability: As a corollary to being non-reactive, documents are stable. The
investigator’s presence does not alter what is being studied (Merriam,
1988). Documents, then, are suitable for repeated reviews.
 Exactness: The inclusion of exact names, references, and details of events
makes documents advantageous in the research process (Yin, 1994).
 Coverage: Documents provide broad coverage; they cover a long span of
time, many events, and many settings (Yin, 1994).

Limitations of Document Analysis

 Insufficient detail: Documents are produced for some purpose other than
research; they are created independent of a research agenda. (Again,
previous studies located in documents are not being considered here.)
Consequently, they usually do not provide sufficient detail to answer a
research question.
 Low retrievability: Documentation is sometimes not retrievable, or
retrievability is difficult. As Yin (1994) has noted, access to documents may
be deliberately blocked.
 Biased selectivity: An incomplete collection of documents suggests ‘biased
selectivity’ (Yin, 1994, p. 80). In an organisational context, the available
(selected) documents are likely to be aligned with corporate policies and
procedures and with the agenda of the organisation’s principals. However,
they may also reflect the emphasis of the particular organisational unit that
handles record-keeping (e.g., Human Resources).

Analisis Isi

Document analysis involves skimming (superficial examination), reading

(thorough examination), and interpretation. This iterative process combines
elements of content analysis and thematic analysis. (Bowen, 2009, p. 32)

Content analysis is the process of organising information into categories

related to the central questions of the research (Bowen, 2009, p. 32)
Qualitative Content Analysis2
as Mixed Methods Approach, Following Common Research Standards3

The central idea of Qualitative Content Analysis is to start from the methodological
basis of Quantitative Content Analysis (cf. chapter 3.1) but to conceptualize the
process of assigning categories to text passages as a qualitative-interpretive act,
following content-analytical rules (will be further explained in chapter 4 and 6). In this
respect, the Qualitative Content Analysis is a mixed methods approach: assignment of
categories to text as qualitative step, working through many text passages and analysis
of frequencies of categories as quantitative step.

Furthermore, we formulate strict content-analytical rules for the whole process and
for the specific steps of analysis. In this respect, our approach is dedicated to the
common research criteria approach formulated above. But the Qualitative Content
Analysis itself is to be understood as a data analysis technique within a rule guided
research process, and this research process is bound to common (qualitative and
quantitative) research standards as shown in the next chapter.

1.5 Basic Research Steps4

On this basis we try to develop a step-by-step model of the research process which
is valuable for qualitative and quantitative (and mixed methods) research. The model
starts from traditional research processes of quantitative approaches and reformulates
and expands them for qualitative approaches. Seven steps are differentiated (cf.
Mayring 2001; 2012).

Step 1: Concrete research question (relevance to praxis; eventually

hypotheses; formulation and explication of the researcher’s standpoint)
(hal. 10-11)
Step 2: Linking research question to theory (state of the art, theoretical
approach, preconceptions for interpretations) (hal. 11)
Step 3: Definition of the research design (explorative, descriptive, relational,
causal, mixed) (hal. 11-12)
Step 4: Defining of the (even small) sample or material and the sampling
strategy (hal. 12)
Step 5: Methods of data collection and analysis, pilot tested (hal. 12)
Step 6: Processing of the study, presentation of results in respect to the
research question (hal. 12)
Step 7: Discussion in respect to quality criteria

2
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007)
3
(Mayring, hal. 9-10)
4
(Mayring, 2014, hal. 10-13)
 Step 1:
Concrete research question
(relevance to praxis; eventually
hypotheses; formulation and
explication of the researcher’s
standpoint)
Step 2:
Linking research question to
theory (state of the art,
theoretical approach,
preconceptions for
interpretations)
Step 3
Definition of the research design
(explorative, descriptive,
relational, causal, mixed)

Step 4 Step 6
Step 5
Defining of the (even small) Processing of the study,
Methods of data collection and
sample or material and the presentation of results in respect
analysis, pilot tested
sampling strategy to the research question

Step 7:
Discussion in respect to quality
criteria

Figure 1: Step-by-step model for the research process5

6.5 Structuring – Deductive Category Assignment

This is the content-analytical method which is probably most central. It has the goal of
extracting a certain structure from the material. This structure is brought to bear on the
material in the form of a category system. All text components addressed by the categories
are then extracted from the material systematically. If one wishes to describe the structuring
procedure quite generally, a few points, it seems to me, are especially important. The
fundamental structuring dimensions must be exactly determined. They must derive from the
issue/statement of the problem concerned, and must be theoretically based. These structuring
dimensions are then, as a rule, further subdivided, being resolved or split up into individual
features or values. Subsequently, the dimensions and values are brought together to form a
category system.
The particular categorization of a given material component is something that must be
determined precisely. A procedure for this has proven useful (cf. Ulich, Hausser, Mayring,
Strehmel, Kandler, Degenhardt, 1985; Hausser, Mayring & Strehmel, 1982). It can be justified
by the approach of multiple systems in the categorization theory (see chapter 3.5). We have
shown in chapter 3.5 that the theories of categorization from General Psychology could be
the basis for this process, which operates in three stages:
1. Definition of the Categories
It is precisely determined which text components belong in a given category.

5
P. Mayring, Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.
(Klagenfurt, Austria: Philipp Mayring, 2014), h. 15. (hal. 15)
2. Anchor samples
Concrete passages belonging in particular categories are cited as typical examples
to illustrate the character of those categories.
3. Coding rules
Where there are problems of delineation between categories, rules are formulated
for the purpose of unambiguous assignment to a particular category.
Test extracts are taken from the material to check whether the categories are at
all applicable and whether the definitions, anchor samples and encoding rules make
categorical assignment possible.
This trial run-through, like the proper main run-through, is sub-divided into two
steps of operation. First of all the text passages in the material are marked in which the
category concerned is addressed. These "points of discovery" (cf. Hausser, Mayring &
Strehmel, 1982) can be marked by noting the category number in the margin of the text
or through differently colored underlining or marks in the text itself. In the second step
the material thus marked is processed in accordance with the structuring intention (see
below) and copied out of the text.
As a rule this trial run-through results in a revision and partial reformulation of the
category system and its definitions.
Now the main material run-through can finally begin, again split up into the two
stages of marking the points of discovery and extracting and processing them. In
accordance with the type of structuring (see below), the results of this run-through must
then be summarized and analyzed.
This general description of a structuring content analysis can be shown in a
procedural model as follows:
DESIGN

“In discussing design, we have to be true to our admonition that the research
question drives the design, not vice versa. To simplify matters, the committee
recognized that a great number of education research questions fall into three
(interrelated) types: description—What is happening? cause—Is there a
systematic effect? and process or mechanism—Why or how is it happening?”
 … The first question —What is happening?— invites description of various
kinds, … to properly characterize a population of students, understand the
scope and severity of a problem, develop a theory or conjecture, or identify
changes over time among different educational indicators ... Description also
can include associations among variables, such as the characteristics of schools
...” (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, hal. 99)

“Descriptive scientific research in education can make generalizable statements

about the national scope of a problem, student achievement levels across the
states, or the demographics of children, teachers, or schools. Methods that
enable the collection of data from a randomly selected sample of the population
provide the best way of addressing such questions” (Shavelson & Towne, 2002,
hal. 102) .

“To yield credible results, such data collection usually depends on a random
sample (alternatively called a probability sample) of the target population. The
validity of inferences about population characteristics based on sample data
depends heavily on response rates, that is, the percentage of those randomly
selected for whom data are collected. The measures used must have known
reliability—that is, the extent to which they reproduce results. Finally, the value
of a data collection instrument hinges not only on the sampling method,
participation rate, and reliability, but also on their validity: that the
questionnaire or survey items measure what they are supposed to measure”
(Shavelson & Towne, 2002, hal. 102-103) .

Emilia (2005, hal. 74-75)

Relevant to the purpose and research question above, a qualitative study which
embraced characteristics of several research methods was employed. Based on the
classification of research designs from Nunan (1992), this research can be
characterised as a qualitative program evaluation because in this study the researcher
created and then implemented a teaching program. In the course of the program, she
evaluated the value and the effectiveness of the program, through ongoing assessment
of students’ achievements (done by herself and her colleague who was involved in this
study) relevant to the objectives of the program. This assessment was valuable “to
assist the researcher in deciding whether the teaching program needed to be modified
or altered in any way so that objectives may be achieved more effectively” (Nunan,
1992, p. 185).

However, this research also has similar characteristics to a case study. First, like a case
study, it was carried out in “a small scale, a single case” (Stake, 1985, p. 278). It
“focused on one particular instance of educational experience or practice” (Freebody,
2003, p. 81), that is, a teaching program, where “the researcher acted as teacher”
(Stake, 1995, p. 91). The second characteristic, which constitutes the important aspect
of case study, as Yin (1993, p. 32) suggests, is that this research employed “multiple
sources of evidence – converging from the same set of issues” (Yin, 1993, p. 32) or
“multiple data collections and analytic procedures” (Freebody, 2003, p. 83) to allow
for “in-depth study” (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh 1972; Connole, 1993) or “down to
earth” study (Cohen and Manion, 1985, see also Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000).
Multiple data gatherings aimed to enhance the construct validity of the study (Yin,
1993, p. 39-40) and to gain more rounded and complete accounts to test the values
and effectiveness of the teaching program implemented in this study, as mentioned in
the purpose of the study above. The third characteristic is that this study used text
analysis, which is another method of qualitative case study (Travern, 2001; Freebody,
2003), using SFG, which provides a powerful analytical tool, and constitutes “one of a
variety of linguistic approaches that have been well developed in the area of education”
(Freebody, 2003, p. 185).

EVALUATOR/PENELITI

“Perhaps the only person who could satisfy demands of both credibility and
competence is the L2 specialist who devotes her energies to external
evaluation” (Beretta, 1989, hal. 159).

DOCUMENT

A document is a possible data instrument that is written and likely prepared by

the institution where the case is located. Examples include email. Syllabuses,
reports, letters, calendars, schedules, textbooks, newspapers, and minutes of
meetings. See Brown (995) and Yin (2003). (Bowen, 2009, p. 105)

“analisis isi kualitatif” (Qualitative Content Analysis)6 dari Mayring untuk “menggali
permasalahan … dan mengembangkan pemahaman mendalam”7 atas fenomena ‘tingkat
berpikir’ yang menjadi fokus perhatian dalam kajian ini. Analisis isi adalah sebuah “proses
pengorganisasian informasi dalam kategori terkait dengan pertanyaan utama penelitian,”8 dan
merupakan sebuah metode penelitian yang berada di bawah payung kajian analisis dokumen
(document analysis).9
Metode penelitian analisis dokumen merupakan seperangkat prosedur sistematik yang
bertujuan mereview ataupun mengevaluasi dokumen, baik dalam bentuk materi cetak maupun
elektronik, untuk memahami makna, memperoleh pemahaman, serta mengembangkan
pengetahuan empirik tentang objek kajian tersebut10.
Metode penelitian analisis isi kualitatif merupakan kajian dokumen yang berada di
bawah payung penelitian mix-methods di mana pendekatan kualitatif akan digunakan untuk
menetapkan kategori dari satuan analisis dalam teks yang menjadi objek penelitian dan
pendekatan kuantitatif digunakan untuk menganalisis frekuensi kemunculan kategori-kategori
tersebut11.

6
P. Mayring, Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.
(Klagenfurt, Austria: Philipp Mayring, 2014).
7
Creswell, op. cit., h. 16.
8
G. A. Bowen, Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 2009, Vol. 9(2),
h. 32.
9
Ibid, h. 27-40.
10
Ibid, h. 29.
11
Mayring, op. cit., h. 10.
 Metode Analisis Isi Kualitatif dari Mayring mencakup langkah-langkah penelitian
berikut12:

1. Pertanyaan penelitian yang konkrit (relevan dengan praksis, akhirnya

hipotesis; formulasi dan penjelasan dari sudut pandang peneliti) (HAL 10-
11.)
2. Menghubungkan pertanyaan penelitian teori (keadaan seni, pendekatan
teoritis, prasangka untuk interpretasi) (HAL 11.)
3. Definisi desain penelitian (eksploratif, deskriptif, relasional, kausal,
campuran) (HAL 11-12.)
4. Mendefinisikan dari (bahkan kecil) sampel atau bahan dan strategi sampling
(. HAL 12)
5. Metode pengumpulan data dan analisis, diuji coba (HAL 12.)
6. Pengolahan penelitian, presentasi hasil sehubungan dengan pertanyaan
penelitian (. HAL 12)
7. Diskusi dalam hal kriteria kualitas (Mayring, Qualitative content analysis.
Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution., 2014)

1. Menentukan objek atau fokus penelitian

2. Mengajukan pertanyaan penelitian
3. Merumuskan definisi dari setiap kategori yang diteliti berdasarkan teori
yang relavan
4. Membuat kategari-kategori atau parameter dari tiap tiap subfakus
penelitian berdasarkan teori
5. Melakukan pengkodean dari data berupa teks wacana yang terkumpul
berdasarkan subfokus penelitian
6. Merevisi kategori dan melakukan cek formatif tentang keabsahan data
7. Menganalisis data penelitian dan melakukan keabsahan data.
8. Mengintegrasikan hasil analisis penelitian13.

Untuk menganaiisis atau mendeskripsikan data-data akan digunakan

pendenkatan gender dan feminis teori yaitu pendekatan yang mengkaji,
menafsirkan, rrenilai unsur-unsur kesetaraan gender sesuai teori yang berlaku.
Adapun teknik penefitian yang peneiiti gunakan adalah studi pustaka, teknik
analisis sebagai berikut:

1. Studi pustaka, yaitu kegiatan membaca dan menelaah buku yang

berkaitan erat dengan masalah yang diteliti, yaitu buku-buku pelajaran
bahasa Inggris yang memuat niiai-nilai ketidakkesetaraanan gender.
2. Teknik analisis isi, berupaya menelaah makna-makna tersembunyl dan
samar dart teks, yaitu isi buku pelejaran bahasa Inggris, sebagai upaya
mencari serta menemukan nilai-nilai kesetraan gender yang terdapat
didalamnya. Selanjutnya dari kegiatan tersebut, maka dilakukan
perbandingan dari kedua jenis kelamin; laki-laki dan perempuan untuk

12
Mayring, op. cit., h. 15.
13
Philip Mayring, Qualitative Content Analysis Forum Qualitative Research, (2004), h. 9.
(http://www.qualitativeresearch.Net/fqs-texte/Z-OU4-vAmayring-e-htm ).
 memperoleh makna kesetaraan gender.

REFEENCES
Ary, D. J., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Beretta, A. (1989). Who should evaluate L2 programs? Dalam C. Brumfit, & R. Mitchell
(Penyunt.), Research in the language classroom. ELT Documents 133 (hal. 155-160).
Modern English Publication & The British Council.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Brumfit, C., & Mitchell, R. (Penyunt.). (1989). Research in the language classroom. ELT
Documents 133. Modern English Publication & The British Council.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative
and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oak: SAGE.
Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary EFL
context in in Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Dept of
Language, Literarcy and Arts Education, Melbourne.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in
education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: An Introduction (7th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis
and Applications (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for
Mixed-Method. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Hudson, S. M. (2011). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of their middle schooling teacher
preparation: a sample of the Australian context (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Cross
University). http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57068/1/Hudson_Sue_Thesis.pdf. Southern Cross
University. Diambil kembali dari
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57068/1/Hudson_Sue_Thesis.pdf
KEMENDIKNAS. (2013). Permendiknas Nomor 81A Tahun 2013 Tentang Implementasi
Kurikulum. Jakarta: KEMENDIKNAS. Retrieved from
http://hukor.kemdikbud.go.id/asbodoku/media/peruu/permen_tahun2013_nomor81a.
zip
Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative Research - Airy Fairy or Fundamental? The qualitative
report, 8(1), 100-103. Diambil kembali dari http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss1/7
Mayring, P. (2000, June). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-
line Journal],, 1(2). Diambil kembali dari http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-
00inhalt-e.htm
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and
software solution. Klagenfurt, Austria: Philipp Mayring.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., and Razavieh, A. (1972). Introduction to research in education. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Cohen, L., and Manion, L. (1980). Research methods in education. (1st Ed). London:
Croom Helm.
Cohen, L., and Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education. (2nd Ed). London:
Croom Helm
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. 5th edition.
London: Routledge
Connole, H. (1993). ‘The research enterprise.’ In Connole, H., Smith, J., Wiseman, R.
(1993) (Eds). Research methodology 1: Issues and methods in research. Study guide. Melbourne:
Deakin University
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education. Interaction and practice. London:
SAGE Publications
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge
University Press
Stake, E. (1985). ‘Case study.’ In Nisbet, J., Mergary, J., and Nisbet, S. (1985). (Eds).
World yearbook of education 1985. Research, policy and politics. London: Nicholas Publishing
Company
Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. London: SAGE
Publications in, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, California: SAGE
Publications.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications