Research is, by its default nature, cyclical; or more specifically, spiral. The research journey in most cases faithfully follows a cycle and starts simply. It consists of logical, developmental steps: A questioning researcher ponders over a particular situation and raises the question, why? What? How? (That is the subjective basis of research.) A problem may be formally stated by answering these questions. (This is the overt beginning of research.) Data are gathered that seem to bear on the problem. The data seem to point to a tentative solution of the problem. A guess is made; a hypothesis or guiding question is raised. The search for more information continues. The structure of information is analyzed and interpreted, a discovery is done; a conclusion is formed. The tentative hypothesis is either supported by the available information or is unsupported; the query is partially / fully answered or not (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988).
The cycle is complete. At every cycle the researchers challenge the developing findings by judiciously pursuing solid evidence. The only valid justification for research methods is that they can be responsive to the situation in a way that many other research methods can not be, at least in the short term. On these basis we can conclude that research will mostly, though perhaps not often, be cyclic in nature, although all methodologies are interrelated. In the view of asperity, each cycle will consist of critical reflection. In most instances the research will mostly have a qualitative and participative approach (even though it is cyclic) up to an extent.
