Our third week of the research summer began with a talk by Catherine Day, co-founder and civil servant, followed by a talk on research methods and methodology. Though I was unable to attend these sessions, reading the accompanying material was insightful and interesting - I learned about different philosophical lenses through which social science research can be conducted and why a mixed methods approach can be highly effective in bringing greater depth and breadth in discussions. For me, the highlight of this week was definitely the 'Uncomfortable Oxford' tour; it was fascinating to uncover the university's history and how it has shaped tradition, architectural design and current efforts to overcome inequalities. I was surprised to finish the tour with such a different perspective of the city!
Progress was made this week in developing our project further: I acted on feedback from our programme manager, Ben, and edited the stakeholder map with an attempt to improve cohesion and include more evaluation. With another group member, I also worked on writing up our methods and methodology whilst the remaining team looked through data for both pilots and the accompanying code. This week, we were more proactive in asking our impact advisor questions and seeking her guidance and advice. Something we misjudged was that a literature review would not be needed for our project at this stage - we were encouraged by our advisor to start compiling secondary sources related to the wider aims of our project and why our project can be useful in contributing to existing research.
Looking ahead to next week, we aim to continue developing our data analysis and potential qualitative research in the form of surveys/interviews for student ambassadors. As a more personal goal, I would like to be more efficient and critical in any write-ups we produce.
Please sign in
If you are a registered user on Laidlaw Scholars Network, please sign in
Dear Muskaan,
This is a thoughtful reflection on a week in which the group’s project became more methodologically developed. I was pleased to see that, although you could not attend the opening sessions, you engaged independently with the accompanying material and began considering how philosophical assumptions and methodological choices shape social research.
Your recognition that the project requires a literature review is important. Try not to treat this simply as evidence that the project is worthwhile: the literature should help you define the outcomes being investigated, decide what the available data can reveal, develop any survey questions, and interpret the patterns you eventually identify.
Similarly, adding qualitative research will not automatically make the study mixed methods. What does the pilot data leave unexplained, and how could student ambassadors’ accounts address that gap? Being explicit about how one strand informs, tests or explains another will help prevent the methods from sitting alongside one another without genuine integration.
Your goal of becoming more efficient and critical is a good one. I would encourage you to make it measurable next week: perhaps require each section you draft to identify its central claim, supporting evidence, limitations and at least one alternative interpretation.
The Uncomfortable Oxford tour clearly made an impression on you. As the project develops, you might also consider how the University’s relationship with the city shapes who enrichment or ambassador programmes reach, whose participation is made visible in the data and whose experiences may remain absent.