RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Unit 1 - Research Process (12 hours)

Definitions of research, science and scientific methods, limitations of
scientific research. Steps involved in research process (Formulation of a
problem, Literature review, Development of a hypothesis, Research design,
Sampling design, Research proposal, Collecting data, Data analysis, Report
writing/ thesis writing).
Research problem-source, selection criteria, defining, statement,
delimitation
Ethical issues for research.

SCIENCE

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

 "knowledge attained through study or practice," or

 "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as
obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical
world."

The branches of science (also referred to as "sciences", "scientific fields", or

"scientific disciplines") are commonly divided into four major groups:

 Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including fundamental

forces and biological life)
 Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a priori,
as opposed to factual,methodology)
 Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies
 Applied sciences: to apply existing scientific knowledge to develop more
practical applications (like healthcare, technology or inventions).

Natural and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge
must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified
by other researchers working under the same conditions.

Natural, social, and formal science make up the fundamental sciences, which
form the basis of interdisciplinary and applied sciences such
as engineering and medicine. Specialized scientific disciplines that exist in
multiple categories may include parts of other scientific disciplines but often
possess their own terminologies and expertises.

The social sciences are the fields of scholarship that study society. "Social
science" is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields
outside of the natural sciences. These
include: anthropology, archaeology, business
administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, governmen
t, linguistics, international relations, political
science, psychology (especially social psychology), sociology and, in some
contexts, geography, history and law.

WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Some people are surprised to learn that psychology is a science. They generally
agree that astronomy, biology, and chemistry are sciences but wonder what
psychology has in common with these other fields. Before answering this
question, however, it is worth reflecting on what astronomy, biology, and
chemistry have in common with each other.
It is clearly not their subject matter.
Astronomers study celestial bodies, biologists study living organisms, and
chemists study matter and its properties.
It is also not the equipment and techniques that they use. Few biologists would
know what to do with a radio telescope, for example, and few chemists would
know how to track a moose population in the wild.

For these and other reasons, philosophers and scientists who have thought
deeply about this question have concluded that what the sciences have in
common is a general approach to understanding the natural world.
Psychology is a science because it takes this same general approach to
understanding one aspect of the natural world: human behavior.

FEATURES OF SCIENCE
The general scientific approach has three fundamental features (Stanovich,
2010).
The first is systematic empiricism.
Empiricism refers to learning based on observation, and scientists learn about
the natural world systematically, by carefully planning, making, recording, and
analyzing observations of it.
As we will see, logical reasoning and even creativity play important roles in
science too, but scientists are unique in their insistence on checking their ideas
about the way the world is against their systematic observations.

Notice, for example, that Mehl and his colleagues did not trust other people’s
stereotypes (women talk more than men) or even their own informal
observations. Instead, they systematically recorded, counted, and compared the
number of words spoken by a large sample of women and men. Furthermore,
when their systematic observations turned out to conflict with people’s
stereotypes, they trusted their systematic observations.
The second feature of the scientific approach—which follows in a
straightforward way from the first—is that it is concerned
with empirical questions. These are questions about the way the world actually
is and, therefore, can be answered by systematically observing it.
The question of whether women talk more than men is empirical in this way.
Either women really do talk more than men or they do not, and this can be
determined by systematically observing how much women and men actually
talk.
There are many interesting and important questions that are not empirically
testable and that science cannot answer. Among them are questions about
values—whether things are good or bad, just or unjust, or beautiful or ugly, and
how the world ought to be.
So although the question of whether a stereotype is accurate or inaccurate is an
empirically testable one that science can answer, the question of whether it is
wrong for people to hold inaccurate stereotypes is not. Similarly, the question of
whether criminal behavior has a genetic component is an empirical question, but
the question of what should be done with people who commit crimes is not. It is
especially important for researchers in psychology to be mindful of this
distinction.
The third feature of science is that it creates public knowledge. After asking
their empirical questions, making their systematic observations, and drawing
their conclusions, scientists publish their work. This usually means writing an
article for publication in a professional journal, in which they put their research
question in the context of previous research, describe in detail the methods they
used to answer their question, and clearly present their results and conclusions.

Publication is an essential feature of science for two reasons.

One is that science is a social process—a large-scale collaboration among
many researchers distributed across both time and space. Our current scientific
knowledge of most topics is based on many different studies conducted by
many different researchers who have shared their work with each other over the
years.
The second is that publication allows science to be self-correcting. Individual
scientists understand that despite their best efforts, their methods can be flawed
and their conclusions incorrect. Publication allows others in the scientific
community to detect and correct these errors so that, over time, scientific
knowledge increasingly reflects the way the world actually is.

How Psychology is a Science

1. Determinism- Systematic study of events and relationships.
2. Empiricism- Direct observation and testing of experience
3. Invariance- Similar events, similar experiences produce similar
results.
4. Measurement- Abstract concepts such as motivation or depression
may be translated to what they mean so that they can be measured.
5. Objectivity- Objective in collecting and analyzing data.

Science versus Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience refers to activities and beliefs that are claimed to be scientific by
their proponents—and may appear to be scientific at first glance—but are not.
Consider the theory of biorhythms (not to be confused with sleep cycles or other
biological cycles that do have a scientific basis). The idea is that people’s
physical, intellectual, and emotional abilities run in cycles that begin when they
are born and continue until they die. The physical cycle has a period of 23 days,
the intellectual cycle a period of 33 days, and the emotional cycle a period of 28
days. So, for example, if you had the option of when to schedule an exam, you
would want to schedule it for a time when your intellectual cycle will be at a
high point. The theory of biorhythms has been around for more than 100 years,
and you can find numerous popular books and websites about biorhythms, often
containing impressive and scientific-sounding terms like sinusoidal
wave and bioelectricity. The problem with biorhythms, however, is that there is
no good reason to think they exist (Hines, 1998).

A set of beliefs or activities can be said to be pseudoscientific if

(a) Its adherents claim or imply that it is scientific but

(b) It lacks one or more of the three features of science.

It might lack systematic empiricism. Either there is no relevant scientific

research or, as in the case of biorhythms, there is relevant scientific research but
it is ignored. It might also lack public knowledge. People who promote the
beliefs or activities might claim to have conducted scientific research but never
publish that research in a way that allows others to evaluate it.

A set of beliefs and activities might also be pseudoscientific because it does not
address empirical questions. The philosopher Karl Popper was especially
concerned with this idea (Popper, 2002). He argued more specifically that any
scientific claim must be expressed in such a way that there are observations that
would—if they were made—count as evidence against the claim. In other
words, scientific claims must be falsifiable. The claim that women talk more
than men is falsifiable because systematic observations could reveal either that
they do talk more than men or that they do not. As an example of an
unfalsifiable claim, consider that many people who study extrasensory
perception (ESP) and other psychic powers claim that such powers can
disappear when they are observed too closely. This makes it so that no possible
observation would count as evidence against ESP. If a careful test of a self-
proclaimed psychic showed that she predicted the future at better-than-chance
levels, this would be consistent with the claim that she had psychic powers. But
if she failed to predict the future at better-than-chance levels, this would also be
consistent with the claim because her powers can supposedly disappear when
they are observed too closely.
Why should we concern ourselves with pseudoscience? There are at least three
reasons.

One is that learning about pseudoscience helps bring the fundamental features
of science—and their importance—into sharper focus.

A second is that biorhythms, psychic powers, astrology, and many other

pseudoscientific beliefs are widely held and are promoted on the Internet, on
television, and in books and magazines. Learning what makes them
pseudoscientific can help us to identify and evaluate such beliefs and practices
when we encounter them.

A third reason is that many pseudosciences purport to explain some aspect of

human behavior and mental processes, including biorhythms, astrology,
graphology (handwriting analysis), and magnet therapy for pain control. It is
important for students of psychology to distinguish their own field clearly from
this “pseudopsychology.”

The Skeptic’s Dictionary

An excellent source for information on pseudoscience is The Skeptic’s

Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com). Among the pseudoscientific beliefs and
practices you can learn about are the following:
 Cryptozoology. The study of “hidden” creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch
Ness monster, and the chupacabra.
 Pseudoscientific psychotherapies. Past-life regression, rebirthing therapy,
and bioscream therapy, among others.
 Homeopathy. The treatment of medical conditions using natural substances
that have been diluted sometimes to the point of no longer being present.
 Pyramidology. Odd theories about the origin and function of the Egyptian
pyramids (e.g., that they were built by extraterrestrials) and the idea that
pyramids in general have healing and other special powers.

DEFINITIONS

Clarke and Clarke: Research is a careful, systematic and objective

investigation conducted to obtain valid facts, draw conclusions and establish
principles regarding an identifiable problem in some field of knowledge.

John .W. Best: Research is a systematic and objective analysis and recording of
controlled observations that may lead to the development of generalizations,
principles, theories and concepts, resulting in prediction for seeing and possibly
ultimate control of events.
Clifford woody: Research is a careful enquiry or examination in seeking facts
or principles, a diligent investigation to ascertain something.
D.Slesinger and M.Stephenson in the Encyclopaedia of Social sciences
define research as “the manipulation of things, concepts or symbols for the
purpose of generalization to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that
knowledge aids in construction of theory or in the practice of art”

Criteria of good research

a. Purpose of the research should be clearly defined

b. Research procedure should be described in detail to permit another
researcher to report the research
 c. Procedural design of the research should be carefully planned to yield
results that are objective
d. Researcher should report with complete frankness, flaws in procedural
design
e. Analysis if data should be sufficiently adequate to reveal its significance
and the methods of analysis used should be appropriate – validity and
reliability should be checked carefully.
f. Conclusions should be confined to those justified by the data of research
and limited to those for which the data provide an adequate basis.
g. Greater confidence in research is expected if the researcher is
experienced, has a good reputation in research and is a person of
integrity.

A MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY

Figure 1.2 A Simple Model of Scientific Research in Psychology

Figure “A Simple Model of Scientific Research in Psychology” presents a more

specific model of scientific research in psychology. The researcher (who more
often than not is really a small group of researchers) formulates a research
question, conducts a study designed to answer the question, analyzes the
resulting data, draws conclusions about the answer to the question, and
publishes the results so that they become part of the research literature. Because
the research literature is one of the primary sources of new research questions,
this process can be thought of as a cycle. New research leads to new questions,
which lead to new research, and so on.
Figure “A Simple Model of Scientific Research in Psychology” also indicates
that research questions can originate outside of this cycle either with informal
observations or with practical problems that need to be solved. But even in these
cases, the researcher would start by checking the research literature to see if the
question had already been answered and to refine it based on what previous
research had already found.

The research by Mehl and his colleagues is described nicely by this model.
Their question—whether women are more talkative than men—was suggested
to them both by people’s stereotypes and by published claims about the relative
talkativeness of women and men. When they checked the research literature,
however, they found that this question had not been adequately addressed in
scientific studies. They conducted a careful empirical study, analyzed the results
(finding very little difference between women and men), and published their
work so that it became part of the research literature. The publication of their
article is not the end of the story, however, because their work suggests many
new questions (about the reliability of the result, about potential cultural
differences, etc.) that will likely be taken up by them and by other researchers
inspired by their work.

As another example, consider that as cell phones became more widespread

during the 1990s, people began to wonder whether, and to what extent, cell
phone use had a negative effect on driving. Many psychologists decided to
tackle this question scientifically (Collet, Guillot, & Petit, 2010).
It was clear from previously published research that engaging in a simple
verbal task impairs performance on a perceptual or motor task carried out
at the same time, but no one had studied the effect specifically of cell phone
use on driving. Under carefully controlled conditions, these researchers
compared people’s driving performance while using a cell phone with their
performance while not using a cell phone, both in the lab and on the road. They
found that people’s ability to detect road hazards, reaction time, and control of
the vehicle were all impaired by cell phone use. Each new study was published
and became part of the growing research literature on this topic.

Who Conducts Scientific Research in Psychology?

Scientific research in psychology is generally conducted by people with
doctoral degrees (usually the doctor of philosophy [PhD]) and master’s degrees
in psychology and related fields, often supported by research assistants with
bachelor’s degrees or other relevant training. Some of them work for
government agencies (e.g., the National Institute of Mental Health), for
nonprofit organizations (e.g., the American Cancer Society), or in the private
sector (e.g., in product development). However, the majority of them are college
and university faculty, who often collaborate with their graduate and
undergraduate students. Although some researchers are trained and licensed as
clinicians—especially those who conduct research in clinical psychology—the
majority are not. Instead, they have expertise in one or more of the many other
subfields of psychology: behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology,
developmental psychology, personality psychology, social psychology, and so
on.
Doctoral-level researchers might be employed to conduct research full-time or,
like many college and university faculty members, to conduct research in
addition to teaching classes and serving their institution and community in other
ways.
Of course, people also conduct research in psychology because they enjoy the
intellectual and technical challenges involved and the satisfaction of
contributing to scientific knowledge of human behavior.

THE BROADER PURPOSES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN

PSYCHOLOGY
People have always been curious about the natural world, including themselves
and their behavior. (In fact, this is probably why you are studying psychology in
the first place.) Science grew out of this natural curiosity and has become the
best way to achieve detailed and accurate knowledge. Keep in mind that most of
the phenomena and theories that fill psychology textbooks are the products of
scientific research. In a typical introductory psychology textbook, for example,
one can learn about specific cortical areas for language and perception,
principles of classical and operant conditioning, biases in reasoning and
judgment, and people’s surprising tendency to obey authority. And scientific
research continues because what we know right now only scratches the surface
of what we can know.
Scientific research is often classified as being either basic or
applied. Basic research in psychology is conducted primarily for the sake of
achieving a more detailed and accurate understanding of human behavior,
without necessarily trying to address any particular practical problem. The
research of Mehl and his colleagues falls into this
category. Applied research is conducted primarily to address some practical
problem. Research on the effects of cell phone use on driving, for example, was
prompted by safety concerns and has led to the enactment of laws to limit this
practice. Although the distinction between basic and applied research is
convenient, it is not always clear-cut. For example, basic research on sex
differences in talkativeness could eventually have an effect on how marriage
therapy is practiced, and applied research on the effect of cell phone use on
driving could produce new insights into basic processes of perception, attention,
and action.

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/18?e=price_1.0-
ch05_s01#price_1.0-ch01_s02

SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE

Some people wonder whether the scientific approach to psychology is

necessary. Can we not reach the same conclusions based on common sense or
intuition? Certainly we all have intuitive beliefs about people’s behavior,
thoughts, and feelings—and these beliefs are collectively referred to
as folk psychology. Although much of our folk psychology is probably
reasonably accurate, it is clear that much of it is not. For example, most people
believe that anger can be relieved by “letting it out”—perhaps by punching
something or screaming loudly. Scientific research, however, has shown that
this approach tends to leave people feeling more angry, not less (Bushman,
2002). Likewise, most people believe that no one would confess to a crime that
he or she had not committed, unless perhaps that person was being physically
tortured. But again, extensive empirical research has shown that false
confessions are surprisingly common and occur for a variety of reasons (Kassin
& Gudjonsson, 2004).
Some Great Myths

In 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and

colleagues discuss several widely held commonsense beliefs about human
behavior that scientific research has shown to be incorrect (Lilienfeld, Lynn,
Ruscio, & Beyerstein, 2010). [3] Here is a short list.
 “People use only 10% of their brain power.”
 “Most people experience a midlife crisis in their 40’s or 50’s.”
 “Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning
styles.”
 “Low self-esteem is a major cause of psychological problems.”
 “Psychiatric admissions and crimes increase during full moons.”

How Could We Be So Wrong?

How can so many of our intuitive beliefs about human behavior be so wrong?
Notice that this is a psychological question, and it just so happens that
psychologists have conducted scientific research on it and identified many
contributing factors (Gilovich, 1991). One is that forming detailed and accurate
beliefs requires powers of observation, memory, and analysis to an extent that
we do not naturally possess. It would be nearly impossible to count the number
of words spoken by the women and men we happen to encounter, estimate the
number of words they spoke per day, average these numbers for both groups,
and compare them—all in our heads. This is why we tend to rely on mental
shortcuts in forming and maintaining our beliefs. For example, if a belief is
widely shared—especially if it is endorsed by “experts”—and it makes intuitive
sense, we tend to assume it is true. This is compounded by the fact that we then
tend to focus on cases that confirm our intuitive beliefs and not on cases that
disconfirm them. This is called confirmation bias. For example, once we begin
to believe that women are more talkative than men, we tend to notice and
remember talkative women and silent men but ignore or forget silent women
and talkative men. We also hold incorrect beliefs in part because it would be
nice if they were true. For example, many people believe that calorie-reducing
diets are an effective long-term treatment for obesity, yet a thorough review of
the scientific evidence has shown that they are not (Mann et al.,
2007). [5] People may continue to believe in the effectiveness of dieting in part
because it gives them hope for losing weight if they are obese or makes them
feel good about their own “self-control” if they are not.
Scientists—especially psychologists—understand that they are just as
susceptible as anyone else to intuitive but incorrect beliefs. This is why they
cultivate an attitude of skepticism. Being skeptical does not mean being cynical
or distrustful, nor does it mean questioning every belief or claim one comes
across (which would be impossible anyway). Instead, it means pausing to
consider alternatives and to search for evidence—especially systematically
collected empirical evidence—when there is enough at stake to justify doing so.
Imagine that you read a magazine article that claims that giving children a
weekly allowance is a good way to help them develop financial responsibility.
This is an interesting and potentially important claim (especially if you have
kids). Taking an attitude of skepticism, however, would mean pausing to ask
whether it might be instead that receiving an allowance merely teaches children
to spend money—perhaps even to be more materialistic. Taking an attitude of
skepticism would also mean asking what evidence supports the original claim.
Is the author a scientific researcher? Is any scientific evidence cited? If the issue
was important enough, it might also mean turning to the research literature to
see if anyone else had studied it.
Because there is often not enough evidence to fully evaluate a belief or claim,
scientists also cultivate tolerance for uncertainty. They accept that there are
many things that they simply do not know. For example, it turns out that there is
no scientific evidence that receiving an allowance causes children to be more
financially responsible, nor is there any scientific evidence that it causes them to
be materialistic. Although this kind of uncertainty can be problematic from a
practical perspective—for example, making it difficult to decide what to do
when our children ask for an allowance—it is exciting from a scientific
perspective. If we do not know the answer to an interesting and empirically
testable question, science may be able to provide the answer.

Science and Clinical Practice

Again, psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. But
it is also the application of scientific research to “help people, organizations,
and communities function better” (American Psychological Association,
2011). By far the most common and widely known application is
theclinical practice of psychology—the diagnosis and treatment of
psychological disorders and related problems. Let us use the term clinical
practice broadly to refer to the activities of clinical and counseling
psychologists, school psychologists, marriage and family therapists, licensed
clinical social workers, and others who work with people individually or in
small groups to identify and solve their psychological problems. It is important
to consider the relationship between scientific research and clinical practice
because many students are especially interested in clinical practice, perhaps
even as a career.
The main point is that psychological disorders and other behavioral problems
are part of the natural world. This means that questions about their nature,
causes, and consequences are empirically testable and therefore subject to
scientific study. As with other questions about human behavior, we cannot rely
on our intuition or common sense for detailed and accurate answers. Consider,
for example, that dozens of popular books and thousands of websites claim that
adult children of alcoholics have a distinct personality profile, including low
self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, and difficulties with intimacy. Although
this sounds plausible, scientific research has demonstrated that adult children of
alcoholics are no more likely to have these problems than anybody else
(Lilienfeld et al., 2010). Similarly, questions about whether a particular
psychotherapy works are empirically testable questions that can be answered by
scientific research. If a new psychotherapy is an effective treatment for
depression, then systematic observation should reveal that depressed people
who receive this psychotherapy improve more than a similar group of depressed
people who do not receive this psychotherapy (or who receive some alternative
treatment). Treatments that have been shown to work in this way are
called empirically supported treatments.
Empirically Supported Treatments

An empirically supported treatment is one that has been studied scientifically

and shown to result in greater improvement than no treatment, a placebo, or
some alternative treatment. These include many forms of psychotherapy, which
can be as effective as standard drug therapies. Among the forms of
psychotherapy with strong empirical support are the following:

 Cognitive behavioral therapy. For depression, panic disorder, bulimia

nervosa, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
 Exposure therapy. For posttraumatic stress disorder.
 Behavioral therapy. For depression.
 Behavioral couples therapy. For alcoholism and substance abuse.
 Exposure therapy with response prevention. For obsessive-compulsive
disorder.
 Family therapy. For schizophrenia.
For a more complete list, see the following website, which is maintained by
Division 12 of the American Psychological Association, the Society for Clinical
Psychology: http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/eklonsky-/division12.

Many in the clinical psychology community have argued that their field has not
paid enough attention to scientific research—for example, by failing to use
empirically supported treatments—and have suggested a variety of changes in
the way clinicians are trained and treatments are evaluated and put into practice.
Others believe that these claims are exaggerated and the suggested changes are
unnecessary (Norcross, Beutler, & Levant, 2005). On both sides of the debate,
however, there is agreement that a scientific approach to clinical psychology is
essential if the goal is to diagnose and treat psychological problems based on
detailed and accurate knowledge about those problems and the most effective
treatments for them. So not only is it important for scientific research in clinical
psychology to continue, but it is also important for clinicians who never conduct
a scientific study themselves to be scientifically literate so that they can read
and evaluate new research and make treatment decisions based on the best
available evidence.

Getting Started in Research

Here is the first paragraph of a 2009 article in the Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied.
Human figure drawings (HFDs) are commonly used by professionals who
interview children about suspected sexual abuse. It is assumed that these
drawings will decrease children’s linguistic and emotional or motivational
limitations, as well as memory problems, and thus will result in the elicitation of
more complete and accurate details of abuse. There is, however, little scientific
information to support claims of their benefits. This article presents the results
of two studies that examined young children’s ability to use HFDs to report
body touches. (Bruck, 2009, p. 361)

Do human figure drawings like this one help children recall information about
being touched—for example, in sexual abuse cases? Unfortunately, initial
research suggests that they do not.
In this paragraph, the researcher has identified a research question—about the
effect of using human figure drawings on the accuracy of children’s memories
of being touched—and begun to make an argument for why it is interesting. In
terms of the general model of scientific research in psychology presented
in Figure 1.2 “A Simple Model of Scientific Research in Psychology”, these are
activities at the “top” of the cycle. In this chapter, we focus on these activities—
finding research ideas, turning them into interesting empirical research
questions, and reviewing the research literature. We begin, however, with some
more basic concepts that are necessary to understand how research questions in
psychology are conceptualized.

Steps in conducting Research

Research is an inquiry into the nature of, the reasons for and the consequences
of any particular set of circumstances, whether these circumstances are
experimentally controlled or recorded just as they occur.

1. Formulation of a problem

2. Literature review

3. Development of a hypothesis

4. Research design

5. Sampling design

6. Research proposal

7. Collecting data

8. Data analysis
9. Report writing/ thesis writing).

A. Formulating research problem: There are two types of research problems

1. Those which relate to states of native

2. Those which relate to relationships between variables

Formulation of general topic into a specific research problem constitutes the

first step in scientific enquiry two steps involved in formulating the research
problem at

(a) understanding the problem thoroughly and

(b) rephrasing the same into meaningful terms from analytical point of view.

Problem should be defined unambiguously as it will help in discriminating the

relevant data from irrelevant ones. The statement of the objective is important
because it determines the data to be collected, the characteristics of the data
which are relevant, relations to be explored. Choices of techniques to be used in
these explorations.

B. Extensive Literature Survey:

Academic journals, conference proceeding, government reports, books should

be tapped. The earlier study, similar to the study should be carefully studied.

C. Development of working hypothesis:

Should state in clear terms the working hypothesis or hypothesis. Working

hypothesis is tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical
or empirical consequences.

 Hypothesis provides the focal point for research

  Affects the manner in which tests must be conducted in the analysis of
data and indirectly the quality of data which is required for analysis
 Hypothesis should be very specific and limited to the research because it
has to be tested
 Role of hypothesis to guide the researcher by delimiting the area of
research and keep him in right track
 Sharpens his thinking and focuses attention to the important aspects of
the problem

D. Preparing the Research design:

Stating the conceptual structure within which research would be conducted.

Collection of relevant evidence with minimal expenditure of effort, time and
money. Preparation of research design involves consideration of the following

 The means of obtaining the information

 Availability and skill of the researcher and his staff
 Explanation of the way in which selected means of obtaining information
will be organised and the reasoning leading to selection
 Time available for research
 The cost factor relating to research

Types of Research Design

 Descriptive (e.g., case-study, naturalistic observation, Survey) •

 Correlational (e.g., case-control study, observational study) •
 Semi-experimental (e.g., field experiment, quasi-experiment) •
 Experimental (Experiment with random assignment) •
 Review (Literature review, Systematic review) •
 Meta-analytic (Meta-analysis, i.e., using statistical methods for
contrasting and combining results from different studies to identify
patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those
results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the
context of multiple studies)

E. Determining the Sample Designs:

Sample design is a definite plan determined before any data is actually

collected for obtaining a sample from a given population.

Polit et al (2001:234) define a sample as “a proportion of a population”.

A carefully selected sample can provide data representative of the

population from which it is drawn.

Sampling is the act, process, or technique of selecting a suitable sample,

or a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining
parameters or characteristics of the whole population.

The larger the sample for your research, the better outcome you can
evaluate at the end of the research process. The larger the sample, the
more likely the sample mean and standard deviation will become a
representation of the population mean and standard deviation

A sample is the sub-unit of the population involved in your research

work.

Advantages: sampling can save cost and human resources during the
process of research work.

Disadvantage: A researcher may not find the information about the

population being studied especially on its characteristics. The research
 can only estimate or predict them. This means that there is a high
possibility of error occurence in the estimation made. Sampling process
only enables a researcher to make estimation about the actual situation
instead of finding the real truth. If you take a piece of information from
your sampling population, and if your reasoning is correct, your findings
should also be accurate to a certain degree.

Types of Sampling: Probability Sampling and Non Probability Sampling

F. Research proposal

The goal of a research proposal is to present and justify the need to study a
research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed
study should be conducted.

The design elements and procedures for conducting the research are
governed by standards within the predominant discipline in which the
problem resides, so guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and
less formal than a general project proposal.

Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews.

They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed
study.

In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed

methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the
professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes
and/or benefits derived from the study's completion.

Research proposal should normally include:

1. Title: This is just a tentative title for your intended research. You will be
able to revise your title during the course of your research if you are
accepted for admission.

2. Abstract: The proposal should include a concise statement of your

intended research of no more than 100 words. This may be a couple of
sentences setting out the problem that you want to examine or the central
question that you wish to address.

3. Research Context :You should explain the broad background against

which you will conduct your research. You should include a brief overview
of the general area of study within which your proposed research falls,
summarising the current state of knowledge and recent debates on the topic.
This will allow you to demonstrate a familiarity with the relevant field as
well as the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.

4. Research Questions: The proposal should set out the central aims and
questions that will guide your research. Before writing your proposal, you
should take time to reflect on the key questions that you are seeking to
answer. Many research proposals are too broad, so reflecting on your key
research questions is a good way to make sure that your project is
sufficiently narrow and feasible

It is helpful to prioritize one or two main questions, from which we can then
derive a number of secondary research questions. The proposal should also
explain our intended approach to answering the questions: will our approach
be empirical, doctrinal or theoretical etc?

5. Research Methods: The proposal should outline the research methods,

explaining how we are going to conduct our research. The methods may
include visiting particular libraries or archives, field work or interviews.
 Most research is library-based. If your proposed research is library-based,
you should explain where your key resources (e.g. law reports, journal
articles) are located (in the Law School’s library, Westlaw etc). If you plan
to conduct field work or collect empirical data, you should provide details
about this (e.g. if you plan interviews, who will you interview? How many
interviews will you conduct? Will there be problems of access?). This
section should also explain how you are going to analyse your research
findings.

6. Significance of Research

The proposal should demonstrate the originality of your intended research.

You should therefore explain why your research is important (for example,
by explaining how your research builds on and adds to the current state of
knowledge in the field or by setting out reasons why it is timely to research
your proposed topic).

7. Bibliography

The proposal should include a short bibliography identifying the most

relevant works for your topic.

G. Collection the Data:

Primary data – can be collected through experimental or survey. In survey –

data can be collected (a) by observation, (b) through personal interview, (c)
through telephone interview, (d) by mailing a questionnaire and (e) through
schedules – enumerators are appointed and given training, provided with
schedules containing relevant questions. Data is filled by taking the replies
given by the respondents.
G. Data analysis

Requires closely related operations like establishment of categories, application

of these categories to raw data through coding, tabulation and then drawing
statistical inferences. Hypothesis testing – do the facts support the hypothesis or
they happen to be contrary.

H. Report writing/ thesis writing).

At it's simplest, there are 4 straightforward steps to academic report

writing: Plan, Write, Referenceyour sources, and Review.
Step 1. Plan
Before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard!), it is important
to plan your approach to the assignment. This includes:
Define the purpose - Make sure you have carefully read and analysed the
assignment and have a clear idea of the exact purpose.
Gather information - Use a variety of sources in your research, and be aware of
the ABC's of each source:
 Authorship (who has written this material?)
 Bias (might the author be biased in any particular way)
 Currency (how up-to-date or relevant is this source?)
 Be sure to keep track of each source you use, so that you'll be able to
correctly reference each of your sources in the final essay.
Structure your material - Try not to impose a structure too early; gather your
ideas, assess them, then organise and evaluate them. Once this is done, you can
identify the 3 to 5 main ideas around which to structure the report or essay. The
overall structure of a report or essay should look something like this:
Introduction - outlining your approach to the report or essay
Body - 3 to 5 main points; 1 or 2 paragraphs for each main point
Summary and/or conclusions - summarise/conclude your main message
List of references - list all sources used in preparing the report or essay
Step 2. Write
Many people mistakenly begin at this stage! You'll find it much easier to
write a good paper after you have clarified the purpose, gathered the relevant
information, assessed and evaluated the information, and planned the
structure (as described above).
Most writing advice suggests that you begin by writing a rough draft of each
of the main sections first. After this, you can more easily write the
introduction (outlining your approach) and the summary/conclusion
(summarising the key ideas of the report or essay).
The introduction is one of the most important paragraphs. An effective
introduction introduces the topic and purpose of the report or essay and
outlines your approach, i.e. the main ideas that will be developed within
it. After reading just the introduction, the reader should know (i)
the purpose of the paper and (ii) the main ideas which will be covered
within it.
Step 3. Reference your Sources
Refer to the Basics of Correct Referencing to find guidelines for citing and
referencing all of the sources you use in your report or essay.
Step 4. Review
Once your first draft is written, it's time to refine and revise, taking care to use a
clear writing style. Finally, proof-read from start to finish; it is often useful to
ask someone else to do this, as errors can go unnoticed when you have worked
on a piece of writing for some time.

RESEARCH PROBLEM-SOURCE, SELECTION CRITERIA,

DEFINING, STATEMENT, DELIMITATION
Definiton:

Kerlinger: “A problem is an interrogative sentence or statement that asks what

relation exists between two or more variables, the answer to question will
provide what is having sought in the research”.

A research problem is a statement about an area of concern, a condition to

be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question
that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or in practice that point to the
need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation.

A research problem does not state how to do something, offer a vague or broad
proposition, or present a value question.

The purpose of a problem statement is to:

1. Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied.

The reader is oriented to the significance of the study and the research
questions, hypotheses, or assumptions to follow.
2. Place the topic into a particular context that defines the parameters of
what is to be investigated.
3. Provide the framework for reporting the results and indicates what is
probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings
will present this information

So What!

In the social sciences, the research problem establishes the means by which you
must answer the "So What" question. The "So What" question refers to a
research problem surviving the relevancy test [the quality of a measurement
procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy]. Note that answering the
"So What" question requires a commitment on your part to not only show that
you have researched the material, but that you have thoroughly considered its
significance.

To survive the "So What" question, problem statements should possess the
following attributes:

 Clarity and precision [a well-written statement does not make sweeping

generalizations and irresponsible pronouncements],
 Demonstrate a researchable topic or issue [i.e., feasibility of conducting
the study is based upon access to information that can be effectively
acquired, gathered, interpreted, synthesized, and understood],
 Identification of what would be studied, while avoiding the use of value-
laden words and terms,
 Identification of an overarching question or small set of questions
accompanied by key factors or variables,
 Identification of key concepts and terms,
 Articulation of the study's boundaries or parameters or limitations,
 Some generalizability in regards to applicability and bringing results into
general use,
 Conveyance of the study's importance, benefits, and justification [i.e.,
regardless of the type of research, it is important to demonstrate that the
research is not trivial],
 Does not have unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentence
constructions; and,
 Conveyance of more than the mere gathering of descriptive data
providing only a snapshot of the issue or phenomenon under
investigation.

I. Types and Content

There are four general conceptualizations of a research problem in the
social sciences:

1. Casuist Research Problem -- this type of problem relates to the

determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience
by analyzing moral dilemmas through the application of general rules and
the careful distinction of special cases.

Casuist-a person who resolves moral problems by the application of

theoretical rules.

2. Difference Research Problem -- typically asks the question, “Is there a

difference between two or more groups or treatments?” This type of
problem statement is used when the researcher compares or contrasts two
or more phenomena. This a common approach to defining a problem in
the clinical social sciences or behavioral sciences.
3. Descriptive Research Problem -- typically asks the question, "what
is...?" with the underlying purpose to describe the significance of a
situation, state, or existence of a specific phenomenon. This problem is
often associated with revealing hidden or understudied issues.
4. Relational Research Problem -- suggests a relationship of some sort
between two or more variables to be investigated. The underlying
purpose is to investigate qualities/characteristics that are connected in
some way.

A problem statement in the social sciences should contain:

 A lead-in that helps ensure the reader will maintain interest over the
study,
 A declaration of originality [e.g., mentioning a knowledge void, that will
be revealed by the literature review],
  An indication of the central focus of the study [establishing the
boundaries of analysis], and
 An explanation of the study's significance or the benefits to be derived
from investigating the research problem.

II. Sources of Problems for Investigation

The identification of a problem to study can be challenging, not because there's

a lack of issues that could be investigated, but due to the challenge of
formulating an academically relevant and researchable problem which is unique
and does not simply duplicate the work of others. To facilitate how you might
select a problem from which to build a research study, consider these sources of
inspiration:

Deductions from Theory

This relates to deductions made from social philosophy or generalizations
embodied in life and in society that the researcher is familiar with. These
deductions from human behavior are then placed within an empirical frame of
reference through research. From a theory, the researcher can formulate a
research problem or hypothesis stating the expected findings in certain
empirical situations. The research asks the question: “What relationship
between variables will be observed if theory aptly summarizes the state of
affairs?” One can then design and carry out a systematic investigation to assess
whether empirical data confirm or reject the hypothesis, and hence, the theory.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Identifying a problem that forms the basis for a research study can come from
academic movements and scholarship originating in disciplines outside of your
primary area of study. This can be an intellectually stimulating exercise. A
review of pertinent literature should include examining research from related
disciplines that can reveal new avenues of exploration and analysis. An
interdisciplinary approach to selecting a research problem offers an opportunity
to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a very complex issue that
any single discipline may be able to provide.

Interviewing Practitioners
The identification of research problems about particular topics can arise from
formal interviews or informal discussions with practitioners who provide insight
into new directions for future research and how to make research findings more
relevant to practice. Discussions with experts in the field, such as, teachers,
social workers, health care providers, lawyers, business leaders, etc., offers the
chance to identify practical, “real world” problems that may be understudied or
ignored within academic circles. This approach also provides some practical
knowledge which may help in the process of designing and conducting your
study.

Personal Experience
Don't undervalue your everyday experiences or encounters as worthwhile
problems for investigation. Think critically about your own experiences and/or
frustrations with an issue facing society, your community, your neighborhood,
your family, or your personal life. This can be derived, for example, from
deliberate observations of certain relationships for which there is no clear
explanation or witnessing an event that appears harmful to a person or group or
that is out of the ordinary.

Relevant Literature
The selection of a research problem can be derived from a thorough review of
pertinent research associated with your overall area of interest. This may reveal
where gaps exist in understanding a topic or where an issue has been
understudied. Research may be conducted to: 1) fill such gaps in knowledge; 2)
evaluate if the methodologies employed in prior studies can be adapted to solve
other problems; or, 3) determine if a similar study could be conducted in a
different subject area or applied in a different context or to different study
sample [i.e., different setting or different group of people].Also, authors
frequently conclude their studies by noting implications for further research;
read the conclusion of pertinent studies because statements about further
research can be a valuable source for identifying new problems to investigate.
The fact that a researcher has identified a topic worthy of further exploration
validates the fact it is worth pursuing.

Practical Experience

Critical Appraisal of Literature

Previous Research

Social Issues

III. What Makes a Good Research Statement?

• problem statement: declarative statement indicting question addressed in

research project
• Example: The focus of the study was to determine whether particular
variations within the CHRNA4 gene are associated with smoking
behaviors.

A good problem statement begins by introducing the broad area in which

your research is centered, gradually leading the reader to the more specific
issues you are investigating. The statement need not be lengthy, but a good
research problem should incorporate the following features:
1. Compelling Topic
Simple curiosity is not a good enough reason to pursue a research study because
it does not indicate significance. The problem that you choose to explore must
be important to you, your readers, and to a the larger academic and/or social
community that could be impacted by the results of your study. The problem
chosen must be one that motivates you to address it.

2. Supports Multiple Perspectives

The problem must be phrased in a way that avoids dichotomies and instead
supports the generation and exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule
of thumb in the social sciences is that a good research problem is one that would
generate a variety of viewpoints from a composite audience made up of
reasonable people.

3. Researchability
This isn't a real word but it represents an important aspect of creating a good
research statement. It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find yourself in
the midst of investigating a complex research project and realize that you don't
have enough prior research to draw from for your analysis. There's nothing
inherently wrong with original research, but you must choose research problems
that can be supported, in some way, by the resources available to you.

NOTE: Do not confuse a research problem with a research topic. A topic is

something to read and obtain information about, whereas a problem is
something to be solved or framed as a question raised for inquiry, consideration,
or solution, or explained as a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation.

IV. Asking Analytical Questions about the Research Problem

Research problems in the social and behavioral sciences are often analyzed
around critical questions that must be investigated. These questions can be
explicitly listed in the introduction [i.e., "This study addresses three research
questions about women's psychological recovery from domestic abuse in multi-
generational home settings..."], or, the questions are implied in the text as
specific areas of study related to the research problem. Explicitly listing your
research questions at the end of your introduction can help in designing a clear
roadmap of what you plan to address in your study, whereas, implicitly
integrating them into the text of the introduction allows you to create a more
compelling narrative around the key issues under investigation. Either approach
is appropriate.

The number of questions you attempt to address should be based on the

complexity of the problem you are investigating and what areas of inquiry you
find most critical to study. Practical considerations, such as, the length of the
paper you are writing or the availability of resources to analyze the issue can
also factor in how many questions to ask. In general, however, there should be
no more than four research questions underpinning a single research problem.

Given this, well-developed analytical questions can focus on any of the

following:

 Highlights a genuine dilemma, area of ambiguity, or point of confusion

about a topic open to interpretation by your readers;
 Yields an answer that is unexpected and not obvious rather
than inevitable and self-evident;
 Provokes meaningful thought or discussion;
 Raises the visibility of the key ideas or concepts that may be understudied
or hidden;
  Suggests the need for complex analysis or argument rather than a basic
description or summary; and,
 Offers a specific path of inquiry that avoids eliciting generalizations
about the problem.

NOTE: Questions of how and why about a research problem often require
more analysis than questions about who, what, where, and when. You should
still ask yourself these latter questions, however. Thinking introspectively about
the who, what, where, and when of a research problem can help ensure that you
have thoroughly considered all aspects of the problem under investigation.

V. Mistakes to Avoid

Beware of circular reasoning! Do not state that the research problem as simply
the absence of the thing you are suggesting. For example, if you propose the
following, "The problem in this community is that there is no hospital," this
only leads to a research problem where:

 The need is for a hospital

 The objective is to create a hospital
 The method is to plan for building a hospital, and
 The evaluation is to measure if there is a hospital or not.

This is an example of a research problem that fails the "So What?" test. In
this example, the problem does not reveal the relevance of why you are
investigating the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., there's a
hospital in the community ten miles away]; it does not elucidate
the significance of why one should study the fact there is no hospital in the
community [e.g., that hospital in the community ten miles away has no
emergency room]; the research problem does not offer an intellectual pathway
towards adding new knowledge or clarifying prior knowledge [e.g., the
county in which there is no hospital already conducted a study about the need
for a hospital]; and, the problem does not offer meaningful outcomes that lead
to recommendations that can be generalized for other situations or that
could suggest areas for further research [e.g., the challenges of building a
new hospital serves as a case study for other communities].

DEFINING

Operational Definition.
Adjective: in or ready for use.

Ex: "the new laboratory is fully operational"

synonyms: up and running, running, working, functioning, operative, in

operation, in use, in action, going; More

Operationalization

In research design, especially in psychology, social sciences, life sciences,

and physics, operationalization is a process of defining the measurement of a
phenomenon that is not directly measurable, though its existence is indicated by
other phenomena. It is the process of defining a fuzzy concept so as to make the
theoretical concept clearly distinguishable or measurable, and to understand it in
terms of empirical observations. In a wider sense, it refers to the process of
specifying the extension of a concept—describing what is and is not a part of
that concept. For example, in medicine, the phenomenon of health might be
operationalized by one or more indicators like body mass index or tobacco
smoking. Thus, some phenomena are directly difficult to observe (i.e. they
are latent), but their existence can be inferred by means of their observable
effects.
The concept of operationalization was first presented by the British physicist N.
R. Campbell in his 'Physics: The Elements' (Cambridge, 1920). This concept
next spread to humanities and social sciences. It remains in use in physics

LIMITATION AND DELIMITATION

Delimitations are choices made by the researcher which should be mentioned.

They describe the boundaries that you have set for the study. This is the place to
explain: the things that you are not doing (and why you have chosen not to do
them).

The delimitations of a study are those characteristics that limit the scope
(define the boundaries) of the inquiry as determined by the conscious
exclusionary and inclusionary decisions that were made throughout the
development of the proposal.

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or

methodology that set parameters on the application or interpretation of the
results of the study; that is, the constraints on generalizability and utility of
findings that are the result of the devices of design or method that establish
internal and external validity.

Delimitations are defined as the term to identify boundaries. In this instance, the
delimitations in social research refer to the various boundaries used in the study
such as the participants, apparatus or instruments used, and the
geographical placement.

This delimitation refers to the number and type of participants used in the study
whether they are subjects or observers. This is an important boundary because
within social research the main objective is to discover various aspects
regarding human interactions within certain cultures or areas. In some studies,
researchers look at specific types of people in terms of their occupation or
gender.

To carry out research, a number of tools and instruments will be needed to

record your findings or to generate them. For example, within social research
the majority of time, questionnaires are used to make a number of distinctions.
Questionnaires would be deemed as instruments in order to carry out the
relevant research. When you consider what you need in order to complete the
study, you must ensure that you think of absolutely everything. If you do not
have the relevant instruments and equipment that your research will not work.

With regards to most forms of research, a particular area will be used for study.
When it comes to social study, researchers will aim to look at diverse cultures
and communities so it is vital that they have a particular geographical area that
they study. Deciding on an area of study can be difficult, especially when it
comes to social research. For example, if someone is considering looking at
behaviors in different cultures, it can be difficult to find the appropriate place
because so many cultures merge together in today's society.

 What is delimitation within an experiment?

Delimitations are boundaries that are set by the researcher in order to control the
range of a study. They are created before any investigations are carried out, in
order to reduce the amount of time spent in certain areas that may be seen to be
unnecessary, and perhaps even unrelated, to the overall study.

An example of this would be if a study was delimited to questioning people

within a certain age group only, or to refrain from moving from within a certain
area, whether it is a big region, such as a whole state, or a smaller one, such as a
town or village within it.
  Why limitations and delimitations are considered

Although thinking about the various limitations and delimitations that may
occur within an experiment can be time consuming, it is necessary to the overall
outcome of the experiment, and ensures that the proceeding can run ahead
without any unforeseen stipulations, some of which could prove both costly and
detrimental to the investigations being carried out.

The delimitations of a study are those characteristics that limit the scope
(define the boundaries) of the inquiry as determined by the conscious
exclusionary and inclusionary decisions that were made throughout the
development of the proposal.

Among these are the choice of objectives and questions, variables of interest,
alternative theoretical perspectives that could have been adopted, etc. The first
limiting step was the choice of problem itself; implicit are other, related
problems that could have been chosen but were rejected or screened off from
view. Go back and review each of these decisions. You will want to prepare a
statement of purpose or intent that clearly sets out what is meant to be
accomplished by the study but that also includes a declaration of what the study
does not intend to cover.

In the latter case, your decisions for excluding certain territory should have
been based on such criteria as "not interesting"; "not directly relevant"; too
problematic because..."; "not feasible" and the like. Make this reasoning
explicit.

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or

methodology that set parameters on the application or interpretation of the
results of the study; that is, the constraints on generalizability and utility of
findings that are the result of the devices of design or method that establish
internal and external validity.

The most obvious limitation would relate to the ability to draw descriptive or
inferential conclusions from sample data about a larger group.

For example, a study of alcohol consumption among native French, Italian,

Russian and European Jewish males, based on data from a truly representative
sample of these groups, would allow the researcher to make generalizations
about the consumption behavior of all other native French, Italian, Russian and
European Jewish males that were not included in the study, assuming the
sample is large enough and randomly selected.

If the study included a finding that differences in consumption across groups

were strongly predicted by specific cultural values and beliefs, it might be
legitimate for the researcher to speculate that similar findings would accrue
from a study of other ethnic groups with similar cultural characteristics, such as
Germans or Bulgarians, but such an inference would be purely speculative. The
researcher, however, could not generalize the findings to next generation
American Jews, French, Italians, or Russians of the male gender.

Certainly, the researcher would be foolish to draw conclusions from the data
about the drinking behavior of females of any nationality, or of native Japanese
or Japanese-American males.

Once a statement of limitations and delimitations has been prepared, the

question about where in the proposal to place it arises. A logical place is near
the end of the problem statement section, somewhere after the statement of
purpose. Elsewhere in the proposal, the researcher may have repeated a general
statement of purpose, "the purpose of this project is...", which presents another
opportunity for including the limitations and delimitations of the study. Again,
that may have been at the end of the problem statement, preceding a
justification for selecting the problem in the first place. Another juncture may
have occurred somewhere in the proximity of the section devoted to the
conceptual framework (design of the study) or earlier in the procedures section
as part of the outlining step suggested elsewhere in this guide.

ETHICAL ISSUES FOR RESEARCH

The most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Another way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards
of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology.

For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies ethical standards in

medicine.

One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for

deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues.

For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take
an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem.

While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies
related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical
values and principles at stake.

Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have norms for

behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These norms also help
members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to
establish the public's trust of the discipline.
For instance, ethical norms govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and
business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to
people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities.
There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these
norms.

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in

research.

First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and
avoidance of error.

For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting

research data promote the truth and avoid error.

Second, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and

coordination among many different people in different disciplines and
institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to
collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness.

For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship,
copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules
in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while
encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their
contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed
prematurely.

Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held
accountable to the public.

For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the

human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to
make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held
accountable to the public.

Fourth, ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research.
People more likely to fund research project if they can trust the quality and
integrity of research.

Finally, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important

moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal
welfare, compliance with the law, and health and safety. Ethical lapses in
research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the
public.

For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or
even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and
guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health
and safety or the health and safety of staff and students.

The following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principles that
various codes address:

Honesty

Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data,

results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate,
falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or
the public.

Objectivity

Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation,

peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other
aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or
minimize bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or financial interests that
may affect research.

Integrity

Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of
thought and action.

Carefulness

Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own
work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such
as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or
journals.

Openness

Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

Respect for Intellectual Property

Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use
unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give credit where
credit is due. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to
research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for

publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible Publication

Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your
own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.
Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow
them to make their own decisions.

Respect for colleagues

Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through
research, public education, and advocacy.

Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race,

ethnicity, or other factors that are not related to their scientific competence and
integrity.

Competence

Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through
lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as
a whole.

Legality

Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Animal Care

Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not
conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Human Subjects Protection

When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and
maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special
precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and
burdens of research fairly.

* Adapted from Shamoo A and Resnik D. 2009. Responsible Conduct of

Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press).

Ethical Decision Making in Research

Although codes, policies, and principals are very important and useful, like any
set of rules, they do not cover every situation, they often conflict, and they
require considerable interpretation. It is therefore important for researchers to
learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how to make
decisions and to act in various situations. The vast majority of decisions involve
th e straightforward application of ethical rules. For example, consider the
following case,

Case 1:

The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the

administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with
chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. Tom has almost
finished the experiment for Dr. Q. He has only 5 mice left to test. However, he
really wants to finish his work in time to go to Florida on spring break with his
friends, who are leaving tonight. He has injected the drug in all 50 mice but has
not completed all of the tests. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45
completed results to produce the 5 additional results.

Many different research ethics policies would hold that Tom has acted
unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal
agency, such as the NIH, his actions would constitute a form of research
misconduct, which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism" (or FFP). Actions that nearly all researchers classify as unethical are
viewed as misconduct. It is important to remember, however, that misconduct
occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to
sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even
negligence do not constitute misconduct. Also, reasonable
disagreements about research methods, procedures, and interpretations do not
constitute research misconduct. Consider the following case:

Case 2:

Dr. T has just discovered a mathematical error in a paper that has been accepted
for publication in a journal. The error does not affect the overall results of his
research, but it is potentially misleading. The journal has just gone to press, so it
is too late to catch the error before it appears in print. In order to avoid
embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the error.

Dr. T's error is not misconduct nor is his decision to take no action to correct the
error. Most researchers, as well as many different policies and codes, including
ECU's policies, would say that Dr. T should tell the journal about the error and
consider publishing a correction or errata. Failing to publish a correction would
be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity
in research.

There are many other activities that the government does not define as
"misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical.
These are called "other deviations" from acceptable research practices and
include:

Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors
Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors

Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure
that you are the sole inventor

Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though

the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper

Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are
reviewing for a journal

Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper

Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance

of your research

Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press
conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work

Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions

of other people in the field or relevant prior work

Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that

your project will make a significant contribution to the field

Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita

Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who
can do it the fastest

Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students

Failing to keep good research records

Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time

Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's
submission

Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors

Using a racist epithet in the laboratory

Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your

institution's Animal Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board for
Human Subjects Research without telling the committee or the board

Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment

Wasting animals in research

Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's

biosafety rules

Rejecting a manuscript for publication without even reading it

Sabotaging someone's work

Stealing supplies, books, or data

Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out

Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs

Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not
disclosing this financial interest

Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to

obtain economic benefits

These actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might
even be illegal. Most of these would also violate different professional ethics
codes or institutional policies. However, they do not fall into the narrow
category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct.
Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research
misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the
government's narrow definition that focuses on FFP. However, given the huge
list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious
deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other
deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit
their focus.

Finally, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree

about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what
should be done. In these situations, there may be good arguments on both sides
of the issue and different ethical principles may conflict. These situations create
difficult decisions for research known as ethical dilemmas. Consider the
following case:

Case 3:

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on

the health of 5,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that
includes information on demographics, environmental exposures, diet, genetics,
and various disease outcomes such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease (PD), and
ALS. She has just published a paper on the relationship between pesticide
exposure and PD in a prestigious journal. She is planning to publish many other
papers from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that
wants access to her complete dataset. They are interested in examining the
relationship between pesticide exposures and skin cancer. Dr. Wexford was
planning to conduct a study on this topic.
Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, the ethical norm of
openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Her funding
agency may also have rules that obligate her to share data. On the other hand, if
she shares data with the other team, they may publish results that she was
planning to publish, thus depriving her (and her team) of recognition and
priority. It seems that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue and
Dr. Wexford needs to take some time to think about what she should do. One
possible option is to share data, provided that the investigators sign a data use
agreement. The agreement could define allowable uses of the data, publication
plans, authorship, etc.

The following are some step that researchers, such as Dr. Wexford, can take to
deal with ethical dilemmas in research:

What is the problem or issue?

It is always important to get a clear statement of the problem. In this case, the
issue is whether to share information with the other research team.

What is the relevant information?

Many bad decisions are made as a result of poor information. To know what to
do, Dr. Wexford needs to have more information concerning such matters as
university or funding agency policies that may apply to this situation, the team's
intellectual property interests, the possibility of negotiating some kind of
agreement with the other team, whether the other team also has some
information it is willing to share, etc. Will the public/science be better served by
the additional research?
What are the different options?

People may fail to see different options due to a limited imagination, bias,
ignorance, or fear. In this case, there may be another choice besides 'share' or
'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement.'

How do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different
options?

The university or funding agency may have policies on data management that
apply to this case. Broader ethical rules, such as openness and respect for credit
and intellectual property, may also apply to this case. Laws relating to
intellectual property may be relevant.

Are there any people who can offer ethical advice?

It may be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your

department chair, or anyone else you can trust (?). In the case, Dr. Wexford
might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a
decision.

After considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may

decide to ask more questions, gather more information, explore different
options, or consider other ethical rules. However, at some point he or she will
have to make a decision and then take action. Ideally, a person who makes a
decision in an ethical dilemma should be able to justify his or her decision to
himself or herself, as well as colleagues, administrators, and other people who
might be affected by the decision. He or she should be able to
articulatereasons for his or her conduct and should consider the following
questions in order to explain how he or she arrived at his or her decision: .

Which choice could stand up to further publicity and scrutiny?

Which choice could you not live with?

Think of the wisest person you know. What would he or she do in this situation?

Which choice would be the most just, fair, or responsible?

Which choice will probably have the best overall consequences?

After considering all of these questions, one still might find it difficult to decide
what to do. If this is the case, then it may be appropriate to consider others ways
of making the decision, such as going with one's gut feeling, seeking guidance
through prayer or meditation, or even flipping a coin. Endorsing these methods
in this context need not imply that ethical decisions are irrational or that these
other methods should be used only as a last resort. The main point is that human
reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but there are limits to
its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of time.

Promoting Ethical Conduct in Science

Many of you may be wondering why you are required to have training in
research ethics. You may believe that you are highly ethical and know the
difference between right and wrong. You would never fabricate or falsify data
or plagiarize. Indeed, you also may believe that most of your colleagues are
highly ethical and that there is no ethics problem in research.

If you feel this way, relax. No one is accusing you of acting unethically. Indeed,
the best evidence we have shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in
research, although there is considerable variation among various estimates. The
rate of misconduct has been estimated to be as low as 0.01% of researchers per
year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to
as high as 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on
anonymous surveys). See Shamoo and Resnik (2009), cited above.
Clearly, it would be useful to have more data on this topic, but so far there is no
evidence that science has become ethically corrupt. However, even if
misconduct is rare, it can have a tremendous impact on research. Consider an
analogy with crime: it does not take many murders or rapes in a town to erode
the community's sense of trust and increase the community's fear and paranoia.
The same is true with the most serious crimes in science, i.e. fabrication,
falsification, and plagiarism. However, most of the crimes committed in science
probably are not tantamount to murder or rape, but ethically significant
misdeeds that are classified by the government as 'deviations.' Moreover, there
are many situations in research that pose genuine ethical dilemmas.

Will training and education in research ethics help reduce the rate of misconduct
in science? It is too early to tell. The answer to this question depends, in part, on
how one understands the causes of misconduct. There are two main theories
about why researchers commit misconduct. According to the "bad apple"
theory, most scientists are highly ethical. Only researchers who are morally
corrupt, economically desperate, or psychologically disturbed commit
misconduct. Moreover, only a fool would commit misconduct because science's
peer review system and self-correcting mechanisms will eventually catch those
who try to cheat the system. In any case, a course in research ethics will have
little impact on "bad apples," one might argue. According to the "stressful" or
"imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various
institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit
misconduct, such as pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career
ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and
trainees, and poor oversight of researchers. Moreover, defenders of the stressful
environment theory point out that science's peer review system is far from
perfect and that it is relatively easy to cheat the system. Erroneous or fraudulent
research often enters the public record without being detected for years. To the
extent that research environment is an important factor in misconduct, a course
in research ethics is likely to help people get a better understanding of these
stresses, sensitize people to ethical concerns, and improve ethical judgment and
decision making.

Misconduct probably results from environmental and individual causes, i.e.

when people who are morally weak, ignorant, or insensitive are placed in
stressful or imperfect environments. In any case, a course in research ethics is
useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms even if it does not prevent
misconduct. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because
researchers simple do not know or have never thought seriously about some of
the ethical norms of research. For example, some unethical authorship practices
probably reflect years of tradition in the research community that have not been
questioned seriously until recently. If the director of a lab is named as an author
on every paper that comes from his lab, even if he does not make a significant
contribution, what could be wrong with that? That's just the way it's done, one
might argue. If a drug company uses ghostwriters to write papers "authored" by
its physician-employees, what's wrong about this practice? Ghost writers help
write all sorts of books these days, so what's wrong with using ghostwriters in
research?

Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is

conflicts of interest in research. A researcher may think that a "normal" or
"traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee
from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues.
Or perhaps a university administrator sees no ethical problem in taking a large
gift with strings attached from a pharmaceutical company. Maybe a physician
thinks that it is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder’s fee for referring
patients into a clinical trial.
If "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or
a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a course in research
ethics may help reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the
researcher's understanding of ethics and by sensitizing him or her to the issues.

Finally, training in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple

with ethical dilemmas by introducing researchers to important concepts, tools,
principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. In fact,
the issues have become so important that the NIH and NSF have mandated
training in research ethics for graduate students.

David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.

Bioethicist and NIEHS IRB Chair

resnikd@niehs.nih.gov

http://tipsonphysicaleducation.blogspot.in/2010/12/various-definition-of-
research-methods.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its

Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20;
Castellanos, Susie. Critical Writing and Thinking. The Writing Center. Dean of
the College. Brown University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova
Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on
the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem. Informing Science: the
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); Thesis and
Purpose Statements. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of
Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of
North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing
Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

lvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. “Generating Research Questions Through

Problematization.” Academy of Management Review 36 (April 2011): 247-
271; Choosing and Refining Topics. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University;
Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based
Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-
Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging
Transdiscipline 11 (2008); How to Write a Research Question. The Writing
Center. George Mason University; Invention: Developing a Thesis Statement.
The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Problem Statements PowerPoint
Presentation. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Procter,
Margaret. Using Thesis Statements. University College Writing Centre.
University of Toronto; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation. Research
Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Thesis and Purpose Statements. The Writer’s
Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis
Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and
Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL.
Purdue University; Walk, Kerry. Asking an Analytical Question. [Class handout
or worksheet]. Princeton University; White, Patrick. Developing Research
Questions: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2009.