There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.

Many studies into the process of producing and supervising dissertations exist, yet little research into the ‘product’ of the Masters dissertation, or into how Masters supervision changes over time exist. Drawing on 62 semi-structured interviews with 31 Maths and Computer Science supervisors over a two-year period, this paper explores the Masters dissertation ‘product’ and the temporal nature of its supervision. The paper argues that the UK Masters dissertation is, for supervisors, a ‘chameleon’; i.e. perfect for them to modify and adapt to any student within a diverse body in a short completion time. This, coupled with the evolving nature of supervision, means that although the Masters dissertation possesses a number of ‘core’ characteristics, it is difficult to define; an ‘elusive chameleon’. The paper argues that awareness of this will help counter misassumptions and inform supervision, and that further research into the Masters dissertation product will aid our understanding of supervision.

(2019). Revisiting the ‘third space’ in language and intercultural studies. Language and Intercultural Communication: Vol. 19, Interrogating the 'Third Space': Negotiating meaning and performing 'culture', pp. 1-8.

In this paper, we problematise a competence-oriented reflective approach to intercultural education by drawing on four students’ reflective essays about their experiential learning experiences on an ‘Intercultural Competence’ (IC) module. Their reflections sometimes evidence much-vaunted IC attributes such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘empathy’, but often indicate individually-developed, non-teleologically based IC criteria. Furthermore, reflection was often painful and at times led to a ‘falling back on’ essentialist notions of culture. We suggest that rather than reject essentialism as a ‘simplistic’ starting point, it should be recognised as existing symbiotically with non-essentialist notions and could be used critically throughout intercultural learning.

Higher education institutions worldwide base international student recruitment on the assumption that their preparedness in ‘English’ is assured if they reach a certain level in tests such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). This assumes an abstract, objectivist view of language that sees the ‘English’ as removable for testing in any context. However, in an individual, subjectivist view of language, ‘English’ is inextricably linked with context – that is, subject content which symbiotically connects thought and meaning. In this article, the authors outline these views of language and consider the ‘English’ of IELTS. They then detail interviews and focus groups which they conducted with lecturers in the subject areas of Design, Nursing, Engineering, Business, Computing and Psychology. These researched the ‘English’ required in subjects and the thinking underpinning it. The authors go on to present and discuss results around three themes of ‘How “English” is specific to the content of subjects’, ‘How the “English” of subjects is underpinned by unique ideological and psychological elements’ and ‘How the non-textual elements of different subjects are intertwined with their “English”’. The results illustrate why it is necessary to challenge the power invested in IELTS, and why determining English preparedness needs to be undertaken within the subject context.