Qualitative research skills acquisition within social work doctoral education using project-based learning

Abstract

The future of social work research relies on the intellect and competence of current doctoral students. These future scholars who receive doctoral education that values qualitative inquiry will create a system where qualitative research traditions receive the same privilege as quantitative research traditions. Project-based learning provides learning opportunities that can challenge assumptions about what academia considers “real” research. This descriptive qualitative study explored key attributes of using project-based learning within two consecutive social work doctoral courses to encourage qualitative research skill development. Students and instructors participated in ideawriting and focus groups to assess the usefulness of PBL within these courses. The findings suggested that PBL may be useful for deepening knowledge about qualitative inquiry and reducing epistemological unconsciousness.

Keywords

Social work education peer support groupwork project-based learning doctoral education

Introduction

Despite a global increase in enrollments of students in graduate education programs (Personal communication 2017), scholars have expressed concerns about the quality and status of doctoral education worldwide. These concerns, including a disparity in skills acquisition and mentorship amongst graduate programs and an increase in student attrition (Lovitts and Nelson, 2000), extend the observation of Spriestersbach and Henry (1978) that “the standards of PhD education remain unexplained and the appropriateness of existing practices in PhD education largely undemonstrated” (p. 54). In terms of doctoral programs in social work, researchers have reported the particular concerns that social work PhD programs fail to fully address the core goals of the profession, including a de-emphasis of leadership and professional skill training compared to research preparation. Pollio (2012) further emphasizes that the goal of social work doctoral education is to generate social work scientists capable of designing real-world research to solve practice problems. He opines how social work education must help students develop real-world research skills while educating on the use of critical thinking in real-world problem solving.

A broad skill set of both qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches should be emphasized in order to prepare students to address the multitude of social and systemic issues present internationally. While there is a standard emphasis on statistics (100% of schools report such a requirement), qualitative methods, however, are de-emphasized with only 33% of programs offering qualitative methods courses, usually as electives (Drisko et al., 2015). This reflects what Staller (2013), citing Steinmetz (2005), deems the “epistemological unconsciousness” of the academy, an often unchecked bias toward quantitative epistemologies at the expense of qualitative despite research demonstrating the utility of qualitative methods to address real-world problems through policy and program evaluation (Drisko, 2001, 2008; Rodwell and Woody, 1994). Improving students’ qualitative research skill attainment, therefore, enhances students’ abilities to solve real-world problems, thus improving the quality of social work doctoral education.

Compared to quantitative research where the researchers’ values are considered biased, qualitative research is descriptive and interpretative with researchers intensively involved in the study to provide interpretations. In addition, qualitative inquirers serve as key instruments. These characteristics of qualitative research determine the importance of active involvement of learners. Therefore, students’ learning experiences in qualitative research may be enhanced through experiential education which fosters active involvement (Cooper et al., 2012). Project-based learning (PBL) is a widely adopted teaching strategy that offers a path to such enhancement, where students can acquire knowledge by actively conducting a project (Barron et al., 1998; Tascı, 2015). Rooted in Dewey's theory of constructivism (1916/1966) and using a “Learn by Project” philosophy, PBL positions students in the center of the learning and prepares them to practice real world skills by exposing them to real-life problems (Wilson, 1997). In a PBL class, students work in groups to solve curriculum-related and authentic problems in the form of projects. Instructors incorporate a system of checks and balances within the project to ascertain student progress and understand course content. Students are the center of learning, while the teacher provides guidance and advice. PBL empowers students to learn while engaging with a project guided by four basic principles: “(1) learning-appropriate goals, (2) scaffolds that support both student and teacher learning, (3) frequent opportunities for formative self-assessment and revision, and (4) social organization that promotes participation and results in a sense of agency” (Barron et al., 1998: 273). These four principles illustrate the essential characteristics of PBL and can therefore be used to measure the quality of a PBL class.

PBL has been applied at many educational levels, from preschool to primary and secondary education (Tascı, 2015). However, despite the goal of generating real-world problem solvers of social work doctoral education and the fact that PBL could be a promising teaching tool to reach this goal, PBL in social work doctoral education has, to date, received little attention in the literature. Although PBL has been adopted to increase the learning outcomes in areas such as law, medicine, engineering, journalism, and foreign language training (Knoll, 1997), a paucity of literature exists on using PBL in social work doctoral education. As critiqued by Pollio (2012), social work doctoral education is challenged by preparing students with real-world problem-solving ability. PBL presents a potentially powerful teaching tool by allowing students to internalize knowledge through hands-on problem-solving projects and relate theory to real-world application (Tascı, 2015).

The present study used descriptive qualitative research to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the key attributes of using a PBL activity within two consecutive social work doctoral-level qualitative research courses with the aim of developing students’ qualitative research skills. Qualitative evaluation research is particularly well suited to answering “how” and “why” types of questions (James Bell Associates, 2009) and can play a powerful role in understanding the impact of a program by uncovering the information and stories behind quantitative measures. Qualitative evaluation research can open the black box of program effectiveness by documenting the experiences of participants, examining context and environment that might affect outcomes, exploring the meaning of these outcomes to participants, or detecting unintended programmatic side effects (James Bell Associates, 2009; Puddy and Wilkins, 2011).

The project identified here, as the learning tool to foster qualitative research skill attainment, was a qualitative research project where students used real-world data obtained from social service agency staff to define and clarify their job duties, priorities, and training needs. The aim of this project was to understand the job duties and training needs of social service agency staff. In the context of the class, this project served to facilitate qualitative research skill development. Through this project, students applied knowledge gained from readings and lectures into practice. The outcomes of this project included understandings about the job duties and training needs of social service agency staff, a manuscript, and conference presentations.

The aim of the current evaluation study was to explore key attributes of using PBL within social work doctoral courses to encourage qualitative research skill development. The study addressed the question “what are the key attributes of using project-based learning to encourage qualitative research skill attainment within a social work doctoral program?” The present evaluation study examines the effect of PBL on the qualitative research skill attainment of doctoral-level social work students. We intended the current study to demonstrate the utility of this pedagogical approach to support the teaching of qualitative research knowledge and skills and thus improve the quality of doctoral social work education.

Methods

Participants

Our participants included eight people who were involved in the PBL class. Six participants were doctoral-level graduate students. The course instructor and a secondary instructor, who was a recent graduate of the doctoral program and collected the data, comprised the remainder of the sample. We consulted a research compliance specialist associated with the University’s Institutional Review Board and that person stated that the study did not require IRB approval because all participants were researchers associated with the current study. We acknowledged the potential bias of having participants as researchers. Being aware of this bias, we strengthened our research design by multiple strategies. Persons outside of the class facilitated the evaluation project data collection process to avoid bias, conducted part of data analysis, and reconciled with insiders to reach agreement on the final codebook. We used multiple data sources to facilitate triangulation and ensure validation through cross-verification. We make this bias transparent to help readers better interpret the findings and transfer them to other settings.

Procedures

Qualitative description, also called generic or pragmatic qualitative research method, was used in the present evaluation study to provide a comprehensive description of the PBL experience and its effect on the qualitative research skill attainment (Chenail, 2011; Savin-Baden and Major, 2013). Many qualitative researchers have used phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, or narrative methods and language to describe their research methods. Chenail (2011) suggested their research might be better described as qualitative description with overtones of various other research methodologies.

The researchers included the six students in the PBL class, the teacher who taught the class, the co-teacher who assisted the teaching and provided the data used in the PBL project, and two outsiders who were not part of the PBL class but involved in the evaluation study. These researchers took different roles in the evaluation study including conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, draft preparation, and project administration. This evaluation study was conducted after the PBL class was finished, so there might not be bias caused by the pressure of grades.

Guided by the research question, participants participated in ideawriting and a focus group to describe their perception of the effectiveness and utility of PBL within doctoral education. Ideawriting is a technique that facilitates synthesis and analysis of information and relationships within and between information through writing the ideas down in a structured format (Smyth, 2004). Participants respond in writing to structured questions listed on a worksheet that supports analytical, critical, and logical thinking. The idea writing responses are then circulated, and each participant comments on the idea writing content completed by all the other participants (Moore, 1994). The prompt on each worksheet used in the current study was derived directly from the principles of PBL (Barron et al., 1998). Participants completed four separate worksheets by providing initial comments to each prompt build on the written ideas of other participants (Table 1). Following the ideawriting session, participants attended a 90-minute focus group to elicit additional information about PBL and qualitative research skill attainment. A focus group provided follow-up to the somewhat “individual” experience of ideawriting to provide an opportunity to expand thinking through the power of group discussion (Krueger and Casey, 2000). Focus group questions explored the in-depth perceptions of PBL by allowing the discussion to go deeper and beyond the four principles. A colleague, not involved in the PBL project, led the focus group. Relying upon an outside facilitator allowed students and instructors to be focus group participants, ensuring the completeness of the information.

Table 1.

List of idea writing worksheet prompts.

1. What were the teaching and learning goals of the qualitative coding project from SW 623 (Qualitative Research) and SW 629 (Seminar in Mixed Methods Research) as you understood them?

2. How, if at all, did the project offer guidelines, clarity and boundaries to facilitate your teaching and/or learning of qualitative coding?

3. In what ways, if at all, did the project provide opportunities for self-assessment?

4. In what ways, if at all, did the project provide opportunities for participation and a sense of agency?

Two digital devices recorded the discussions that occurred during the idea writing sessions and focus group sessions. The researchers transcribed the handwritten idea writing sheets and audio recordings verbatim into a word processing document. At least two researchers independently reviewed the verbatim transcription by comparing it to the recording for accuracy.

The researchers engaged in two rounds of coding using QSR NVivo (version 10) in this evaluation study. Three researchers were assigned the task of coding, and conducted initial provisional coding and open coding independently (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Saldana, 2013). The basic principles of PBL guided the initial provisional codes. Provisional coding establishes a predetermined “start list” set of codes. In the present study, the provisional list was generated from the four principles of PBL to best grasp the characteristics of PBL. Researchers added subcodes under each provisional code and created additional codes that did not fit within the principles of PBL. After the initial independent coding, three researchers met to reconcile differences in the presence or definition of codes. This process led to the development of and consensus on a final codebook. One researcher conducted the second round coding with the final codebook, which the other two researchers then audited. The original coder incorporated their feedback into the findings.

Using this generic qualitative research method, researchers worked to stay “closer to the data and to the surface of words” (Chenail, 2011: 1180), being less interpretive and transformative. Therefore, instead of making their own interpretation, the researchers described the findings by directly selecting the most frequent and unique codes within each category. Using the four principles of PBL to frame the description allowed for a clear understanding of the experience of using PBL for qualitative research skill attainment within social work doctoral education.

Trustworthiness

The use of multiple data collection methods helped facilitate triangulation of the data. Ideawriting and focus groups captured different aspects of information. Using two data collection techniques facilitates validation through cross-verification and enhances the trustworthiness of the study. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that some participants would be more comfortable writing their thoughts, while others were comfortable verbalizing. Therefore, we used two methods, ideawriting and a focus group, to capitalize on those preferences. The researchers who conceptualized the study chose not to lead the initial conversation in order to reduce bias. Two researchers reviewed the transcripts to assure the accuracy and completeness. This aided researchers to become fully immersed in the data.

Findings

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the findings from the perspective of PBL principles and the manner in which PBL can encourage the development of qualitative research skills.

Guidelines, clarity, and boundaries

Guidelines, clarity, and boundaries are essential to PBL (Barron et al., 1998). They provide a clear distinction between the activity and the broader classroom tasks, and guide student roles and responsibilities. Several factors were identified to facilitate guidelines, clarity, and boundaries. These include: authorship for potential publication, technology, and the role of the instructor.

One of the topics that helped students negotiate boundaries and seek clarity revolved around authorship that resulted from coding the actual data used in the class exercises. Students mentioned how knowing the authorship order helped to naturally determine responsibility for the tasks. This activity apparently helped students learn more about the process of determining manuscript authorship as a research team member, as evidenced by this quote: “Yeah. I think the working together and negotiating, say, authorship responsibilities, like who does what when. I think that was really beneficial.”

The use of different technologies seemed to both help and complicate the project’s guidelines, clarity, and boundaries. The class together used a file-sharing and organizing platform called Evernote. One participant referred to Evernote as “working memory storage,” and several participants commented that it was user-friendly and enhanced learning. Multiple software, along with hand-coding data, were used so the students could practice coding (such as NVivo, Atlas.ti, and Excel). This appeared to have mixed results on guidelines, clarity, and boundaries. One participant recognized that there was an opportunity to learn from multiple formats and experiences, while another participant felt that multiple software programs were confusing.

Participants commented several times that the two instructors played an important role in setting boundaries, clarifying tasks, and providing guidance. The instructors were “transparent” in the process of deciding manuscript authorship, and this was met with favorable reaction by the students. They were also approachable and encouraged questions throughout the process. One participant commented in the idea writing session: “[Instructor #1] and [Instructor #2] were available if we had questions.” To which someone responded: “Perhaps this allowed students to feel comfortable clarifying boundaries?”

It appears that the lead instructor cultivated a classroom atmosphere that allowed students to feel “safe,” which enhanced the key component of seeking guidelines, clarity, and boundaries within PBL. Several participants described the primary instructor as a “role model” and someone willing to be “both a teacher and a learner” and have a positive impact on the classroom.

Opportunities for participation and sense of agency

Opportunities for participation and sense of agency with the project are also essential elements of a PBL activity (Barron et al., 1998). These opportunities foster student ownership of the project, and a sense of agency that can spark a deeper engagement with the project. Several factors provided opportunities for participation and fostered a sense of agency. Most notably, these included empowerment and a clear division of labor.

Empowerment was a theme that emerged from the data in two ways. First, participants felt an individual sense of empowerment to ask questions, research answers to the questions they had, and share knowledge among themselves. One participant remarked the following during the idea writing session: “Everyone helped each other and did not belittle others when we [were] confused.” To which a participant responded: “I agree—I felt like I got a lot of help from everyone. It was okay to ask [for help].”

Second, it appeared that students felt empowered to participate at the level where they felt a sense of expertise and comfort. Several students mentioned that they did not feel pressured to take on tasks where they did not have either the time or the knowledge to complete them, as exemplified by this quote: “We were able to (and encouraged to) participate at the level that we wanted and felt comfortable.”

Related to the sense of empowerment was the theme of a clear division of labor and its importance in helping students feel a sense of agency in managing tasks. One person remarked during the idea writing session: “Groups of two worked on and coded each question. The whole group worked on tasks together.” To which someone expanded this idea by saying: “This helped make the project more manageable, I think.” It seemed that learning to code by giving each small group a portion of the dataset to practice on helped make the tasks manageable, and allowed for each group to make decisions about how to code. These lessons learned from the process were shared with the whole group, thus enhancing the learning of everyone involved.

Opportunities for self-assessment

Opportunities for self-assessment are essential for a PBL activity (Barron et al., 1998). The ability to ask questions was an important component for participants to assess their knowledge and qualitative skill attainment.

So people were asking questions like “how are we defining a code in the first place? What does that mean?” And I think I had taken knowledge for granted. When somebody raises that question, because of the environment that [the instructor] created, because of the willingness [the secondary instructor] had to share her data and her expertise, somebody could ask questions. I don’t know how to answer that and it forced me to think deeper.

It seems that in addition to providing the opportunity to self-assess one’s research knowledge, the ability to ask questions also deepened qualitative research knowledge within this classroom setting.

The ability to provide feedback to others was another important component of self-assessment for many of the students. This appeared to extend to the ability for peers to teach each other specific research skills while sharing their knowledge in a way that was not limited only to instructors providing feedback to students. Information on the idea writing worksheet supported this:

Participant 1: Being able to teach others what I know helped me self-assess.

Participant 2: Yes! Also helped to nurture the good dynamic of the team.

Participant 3: Interesting! I learned a lot from you two. You both process skills I want to develop.

The ability to discuss challenges and lessons learned allowed students not only to share ideas, but to self-assess their research skills by reflecting on their strengths as it related to the content in questions.

One unique aspect of this particular classroom environment brought together doctoral students from a variety of cohorts with a variety of experiences in conducting, analyzing, and coding qualitative data and research. This mix of doctoral students at various stages (from second year to fourth year and a recent graduate of the program) allowed students to compare one’s knowledge to students in different cohorts. One fourth year doctoral student felt that this diversity enhanced the classroom environment and her ability to self-assess according to PBL tenants:

I feel like we could build upon each other’s' knowledge and quite frankly I think some of the second year students were able to raise questions that made my thinking deeper. I think that probably force[d] me to teach things in a way that I wouldn't have had if nobody had questioned in the first place … . It wouldn't have happened if I keep in the same cohort.

The mix of doctoral students at a variety of levels of qualitative research knowledge enhanced the learning environment in a way that was “unique” in the PhD curriculum according to this participant.

Finally, PBL provided the opportunity for students to compare their current knowledge to their knowledge in previous years in the doctoral program. A few participants mentioned that they could tell they had increased their qualitative data analysis skills, and one student in particular expanded this idea:

As a 4th year student (who took [the first course in the sequence] in my 2nd year) I was able to compare learning over the two years, and honestly felt confident that I have grown. This was a unique opportunity.

Participants noted a variety of opportunities for self-assessment, which typically occurred through interactions with others. These interactions allowed students to gauge their strengths and weaknesses within the research process.

Teaching and learning goals

Clear teaching and learning goals help ground PBL activities (Barron et al., 1998). These goals, when implemented effectively, help ground students and draw focus to crucial outcomes that result from the PBL activity. Several teaching and learning goals had this effect on students, most notably: coding real data, learning about being on a research team, and generating a manuscript as a result of PBL.

PBL centered on the coding of a dataset collected by the secondary instructor. As several students mentioned, the notion of coding “real” data was a valuable learning experience. From the primary instructor’s perspective, she had the following teaching goal: “I wanted the experience to be a ‘real’ one, in other words not ‘just’ an academic exercise.” The students seemed to recognize this goal inherently, and appreciate it. One student commented that the exercise, using “real data,” was relevant to the discipline and learning goals: “I’m noticing this was wildly popular but the idea of a real world example … that’s applicable to social work …”

Another student commented that the hands-on activity made the class more engaging: “Four[th goal], make the Qual class more interesting through experiential learning activities.”

Students and instructors recognized how the teaching and learning goals extended beyond the concrete goals of analyzing the dataset. In particular, several participants mentioned an associated goal of learning to work as a research team. Students were able to observe and participate in collaborative relationships: “We did learn more than just qual[itative] coding—I enjoyed the development of collaborative relationships; I learned to identify ways I think that will help me be a self-aware researcher.” In addition to learning about collaboration, students were able to learn how their portion of a research project fit into a research whole: “Teach students how to function as co-investigators using qualitative data [how to collaborate and how what they found fits into entire picture].”

Finally, this project was able to model healthy and functional group collaboration that one participant commented:

I also think, that how do you create a manuscript with 10 people, like how the hell do you do that, was a really valuable thing for me because all of the experience I have had with that prior have been me and faculty members. And just the idea of having me, faculty members, and peers, creating something together … I’ll take that with me and I will remember this experience as something useful, as something that can be done, because if you were to ask me before if ten people could come up with a manuscript while coding, I would have said no, like please don’t involve me in that, that sounds like drama …

This coding project and the collaboration it encouraged had a positive experience on students in lasting ways.

One tangible goal as a result of the PBL activity was the generation of manuscripts from this course. One instructor stated that the manuscript, and her ability to mentor students toward a manuscript, was a goal personally meaningful for her:

Well, I am gonna get a manuscript out of it right? That’s wonderful. I will do a dossier for promotion this fall and I will be able to say in my letter I mentored a group of students toward manuscript production and that's a benefit for, from, a very concrete benefit right?

One student mentioned how the generation of manuscripts was a satisfying and useful goal as she headed toward entering the job market:

Thinking about entering the job market, one of the real pluses is that not only are there going to be products that come out of this, which I value, and honestly have never had come out of a class before so this was wonderful.

Adding to the benefits of increasing the desirability of students as job candidates was the notion that manuscripts were being generated independently by the students, which seemed satisfying:

“Participant 1: The third goal is definitely to generate manuscripts, which are very important for us in the job market.”

Participant 2: “Yes and we are drafting manuscripts now with limited supervision.” It seems that the generation of manuscripts benefitted both instructors and students alike, which may make this classroom-based activity unique compared to other doctoral assignments across the curriculum.

Learning qualitative research

Several additional themes that went beyond the four principles of PBL demonstrated the manner in which PBL can encourage qualitative research skills. Role modeling and group dynamics, motivation, and data and coding incorporate the most notable themes that reflect how PBL can facilitate the learning of qualitative research. The participants reported that role modeling and group dynamics were essential to the success of PBL. The multi-year cohort provided participants not only with support but also with the role models that allowed them to explore the content to a depth that may not have occurred in a classroom with a single cohort.

In addition, participants reported that the group dynamic is an important part of the learning process. Participants described the group dynamic as “cohesive,” “open and accepting,” “safe,” “respect[ful],” and “diverse.” The participants did not provide detailed definitions of these concepts, but based on common knowledge, the participants were illustrating a group dynamic in which members were encouraged to learn and communicate, and felt accepted and comfortable to be different. The group dynamic was not only important to the completion of the project and each team member’s ability to “follow through” but also to provide emotional and functional support. For example, one participant discussed perceptions about the dissertation process and how the PBL activity provided a safe place to confront vulnerability. “In your dissertation it probably feels very lonely, very frustrating. You have committee members that maybe not as collegial as you have in the classroom environment. So I emotionally I just feel very good and safe.”

The motivations for students to engage the project ranged from professional aspirations to genuine curiosity about the course content. One student discussed the impact PBL had on engagement with a research tradition he would not have considered otherwise:

My experiences in all the other classes that I have taken [in the doctoral program] is they teach you what to do, not really how to do things. I came in the class thinking “Who cares about qualitative research, I’m never gonna do it!” I got to learn how to do it and … you know, … I became a little more engaged. So I think this whole topic was just that forcing you [to] do it, encouraging is a better word, I felt it really gave me the opportunity to learn more.

This exposure to a different research tradition highlighted the range of emotions associated with learning qualitative research, while allowing students to address their epistemological unconsciousness.

Participants expressed that the instructions were, at times, vague causing frustration with the project. This frustration revolved around the lack of continuity in coding methods and procedures. When asked about the coding process, one participant said:

So, I have a codebook and I’m looking at it and I was like, these codes really don’t make sense. I had to call (second year student) and (second year student) was like just revise it the best you can. Whatever you revise put it in a memo. So, I did what (second year student) said and I made my memo.

While frustrating for students, the instructor discussed that vague instructions reflected the tension between “process and product.” This struggle fostered genuine learning of and experimentation with the course content, an experience that may not have occurred had the instructor provided more direction. For example, after one participant discussed her desire to have an established coding protocol, the instructor replied:

From a clarity of product point of view, I would absolutely positively agree with you. From a learning point of view, I don’t know, because [several students] talked about … making mistakes as part of the learning, and if you script too much it takes away the self-correcting part of the … learning. [Y]ou’re … engaging with it and you’re learning from the mistakes. So, there’s this inherent tension between using real world data to produce a real world manuscript and the goal of learning.

The data and coding imbedded in the PBL course facilitated opportunities to learn about the real-world qualitative research process, beyond learning to code qualitative data. For example, learning to negotiate the different coding styles between participants and how individual worldviews shape coding and interpretation of the data. One participant reported that the project helped deconstruct the underlying assumptions of qualitative research:

There [are] assumptions underlying a language that if you don’t know these assumptions you may not be able to know what the person is saying … I’m totally going into constructivism … Because it’s like how can I know anybody else’s reality? The only reality I can know is my own.

This emphasized the benefits of learning the course content by doing qualitative research, and its impact on the cognitive domain.

Limitations

There are several notable limitations of the current study. The data collected reflects only one sequence of the research courses within this particular doctoral social work program, so the transferability to other research courses or cohorts remains unknown. The dynamic among students in this specific cohort was conducive to positive social and professional interactions. However, the dynamic of other doctoral cohorts may vary considerably. The findings suggest that group dynamic is important to the utility of PBL in social work doctoral education, and this specific cohort and environment were described as collegial.

Another limitation is that several participant researchers conceptualized this evaluation study of the PBL course. The process of conceptualization allowed these participant researchers more time to consider their own responses to the research questions. While this may be problematic in other research paradigms, qualitative research encourages and requires researcher interpretation and involvement in the research process.

Discussion

Participants described PBL as an effective learning experience within their doctoral education, supported by PBL literature in doctoral education (Tascı, 2015). The perceived uniqueness of the activity highlighted the disconnection between research skill attainment achieved in a qualitative research course and the need to apply knowledge within the context of the profession of social work (Goodman, 2015; Pollio, 2012). This study indicated that inclusion of PBL may be one way, in addition to others, to achieve the goal of applying research knowledge to solve real-world challenges.

Supported by a previous study (Barron et al., 1998), this study also found that clear teaching and learning goals can ground learners in the steps of learning and draw attention to the learning outcome. Much to the delight of many participants, this project had the goals of providing real data working experience instead of academic exercises, learning about being on a research team, and bringing a manuscript to fruition. Our study demonstrated that integrating PBL within the context of a doctoral qualitative research course and implementing the goals effectively may be a promising practice to address the gulf, perceived by our team and highlighted by the literature, between research knowledge and the ability to apply it (Pollio, 2012).

Consistent with the PBL literature, clear guidelines, clarity, and boundaries were essential to the success of PBL (Barron et al., 1998). The negotiation of authorship and the fact that the authorship order naturally determined responsibilities set the boundaries and guided participants in the process. One disadvantage of using PBL identified by participants resulted from unclear guidelines. The usage of multiple technologies, including document storage platforms and coding software, was reported to be confusing and negatively impacted the learning effects. In order to establish guidelines, clarity, and boundaries, it is important for future PBL activity designers to find a balanced cut-off point between providing multiple learning tools and overwhelming learners. We also found that the teacher played important roles in setting boundaries and providing clarity and guidelines, which is in line with literature. The quality of teachers may be important to recreate effective PBL. Therefore, when transferring our findings into a different setting, one should keep in mind that a teacher demonstrating the merit of being fair, easily communicable, and “safe” to students can enhance the seeking of guidelines, clarity, and boundaries.

In terms of opportunities for participation and a sense of agency, participants reported PBL sparked a sense of ownership of the project and facilitated intense involvement. Empowerment and a clear division of labor fostered opportunities for participation and sense of agency

Educators who wish to adopt PBL should empower learners to ask questions and share knowledge. Consistent with the existing literature, if students are empowered to participate at a level that is appropriate for their expertise and have a sense of management based on a clear division of labor, they will have a better ownership which can result in a deeper engagement with learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991a).

Opportunities for self-assessment, an essential principle for PBL, were found in this study to help students reflect on their mistakes and development. Participants reported that asking questions, providing feedback, and comparing self to others and themselves provided opportunities for self-assessment. Thinking about and questioning others in comparison to one’s own thoughts offers the opportunity to reflect on the similarities and differences and a natural way to self-reflect. Providing feedback can share knowledge among peers. One uniqueness about this study was a mixed cohort of students. It warrants a further examination of how this intergenerational cohort results in the success of the PBL activity.

Even though student-centered orientation is the advantage of PBL learning, the impact on teachers does not receive much attention. While much of the literature, as well as this research project, focus on the impact of PBL on the students, it is worth noting that both instructors mentioned explicit benefits to their own careers including the generation of a tangible manuscript and an enhancement of their career. It may be worth exploring in future research how PBL impacts and incentivizes instructors. A deeper understanding of incentives, such as manuscripts, enhancements to tenure, and promotion packets, may help instructors overcome any risks (in terms of time, planning, and coordination) in implementing PBL activities at the doctoral level.

Conclusion

The current study evaluated the experiences of students and instructors involved in a PBL project. While PBL has been used in other professional programs, we note a paucity of PBL literature in social work doctoral education. PBL can benefit future scholars, as well as the social work profession in general. Pollio (2012) purported that goal of social work doctoral education is to train social work scientists who use professional values to build a knowledge base that addresses “real-world” social problems. A variety of research methods, qualitative traditions included, can be employed to build this knowledge base. Using PBL to teach qualitative research within social work doctoral education can lead to the formation of social work researchers who can address the broad range of social problems.

The future of social work research, and perhaps ultimately the profession, relies on the competence of future scholars. If we train our future scholars, those who will become “the academy,” to value qualitative inquiry, we will create a system where the qualitative research traditions receive the same privilege as quantitative research traditions. This can broaden the tools researchers use to maximize their research abilities. PBL provides learning opportunities that can challenge assumptions about what academia considers “real” research, a notion with major implications for social work. PBL and other experiential education pedagogies allow students and their instructors to learn the content and utility of qualitative research in an organic fashion. If they (we) ascribe positive value to qualitative inquiry, the culture of academia should follow suit because we will, in time, be “the academy.”

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Barron

BJS

Schwartz

Vye

, et al. (1998) Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7(3&4): 271–311.

Chenail

(2011) The qualitative report how to conduct qualitative research on the patient’s experience. The Qualitative Report 16(4): 1172–1189.

Cooper

Chenail

Fleming

(2012) A grounded theory of inductive qualitative research education: Results of a meta-data-analysis. Qualitative Report 17: 8.

Dewey

(1916/1966) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Free Press.

Drisko

(2001) How do clinical social workers evaluate practice? Smith College Studies in Social Work 71(3): 419–439.

Drisko

(2008) How is qualitative research taught at the master's level? Journal of Social Work Education 44(1): 85–101.

Goodman

(2015) Current issues in social work doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 35(1–2): 29–45.

James Bell Associates (2009) Evaluation Brief: Common Evaluation Myths and Misconceptions. Arlington, VA: Author.

Knoll

(1997) The project method: Its vocational education origin and ınternational development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 34(3): 59–80.

10.

Krueger

Casey

(2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Lovitts

Nelson

(2000) The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs. Academe 86(6): 44–50

12.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Moore

(1994) Group Techniques for Idea Building. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

14.

Office of Data, Analysis, Research & Evaluation (2016) Qualitative research methods in program evaluation: Considerations for Federal Staff. Available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/…/qualitative_research_methods_in_program_evaluation.pdf (accessed 25 September 2019).

15.

Puddy

Wilkins

(2011) Understanding the Evidence, Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

16.

Rodwell

Woody

(1994) Constructivist evaluation: The policy/practice context. In: Sherman

Reid

(eds) Qualitative Research in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press, pp.315–372.

17.

Saldana

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

18.

Savin-Baden

Major

(2013) Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

19.

Smyth

(2004) An Overview of Essays and Literature Reviews. In: The Principles of Writing in Psychology. London: Macmillan Study Skills. London: Red Globe Press, pp.113–115.

20.

Spriestersbach

Henry

(1978) The PhD dissertation: Servant or master. Improving College and University Teaching 26(1): 52–55.

21.

Staller

(2013) Epistemological boot camp: The politics of science and what every qualitative researcher needs to know to survive in the academy. Qualitative Social Work 12(4): 395–413.

22.

Tascı

(2015) Project based learning from elementary school to college, tool: Architecture. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 186: 770–775.

23.

Wilson

(1997) Reflections on Constructivism and Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.