MELJUN CORTES research seminar_1__selecting_a_problem_and_reviewing_the_research_summer1516_2nd_updates

1. Selecting a Problem and
Reviewing the Research

2. Selecting a Problem

3. ∗ Research takes a great deal of time and energy, and
you want to be sure that the area you select interests
you.
∗ If selecting the area goes well, the remaining steps
also have a good chance of going well.
Selecting a Problem

4. ∗ Falling in love with your idea can be fatal. Be
committed to your ideas but not so much that it
clouds your judgment as to the practical and correct
way to do things.
∗ Sticking with the first idea that comes to mind isn’t
always wise.
Selecting a Problem (cont’d)

5. ∗ Doing something trivial by selecting a problem that
has no conceptual basis of apparent importance in
the field can lead to a frustrating experience and one
that provides no closure.
∗ Choose a research question that is doable.
∗ If you do something that has already been done, you
could be wasting your time.
Selecting a Problem (cont’d)

6. ∗ Personal experiences and first-hand knowledge can
be the catalyst for starting research.
∗ Using ideas from your instructor will probably make
you very current with what is happening in your field.
∗ You might look for a research question that reflects
the next step in the research process.
∗ You may have come up with a research question
because of this class.
Defining Your Interests

7. ∗ Stated in declarative form
∗ Posits a relationship between variables
∗ Reflects a theory or body of literature upon which it
is based
∗ Brief and to the point
∗ Testable
Well-written Hypothesis (review)

8. Reviewing the Literature

9. ∗ An account of what has been published on a topic by
accredited scholars and researchers. Often part of
the introduction to an essay, research report, or
thesis.
∗ The purpose is to convey to your reader what
knowledge and ideas have been established on a
topic, what their strengths, and weaknesses.
What is a Literature Review?

10. ∗ A a piece of writing, the literature review must be
defined by a guiding concept (e.g. your research
objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or
your argumentative thesis).
∗ Goals:
∗ To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
∗ To summarize the historical or existing state of a
research topic
∗ Identify a problem in a field of research

11. ∗ Systematic review – authors use specific procedure
to search the research literature, select the studies to
include in their review, and critically evaluate the
studies they find.
∗ Meta-analysis – a method of reviewing research
findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the
data from individual studies into an effective size and
then pooling and analyzing this information. The goal
is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in
different studies.
Kinds of Literature Reviews

12. ∗ Meta-synthesis – Qualitative meta synthesis is a type
of qualitative study that uses as data the findings
from other qualitative studies linked by the same or
related topic.
Kinds of Literature Reviews

13. ∗ No definite number regarding how many sources
needed, it all depends on the topic and what type of
the literature review one is doing.
∗ Are you working on an emerging topic?
∗ Are you working on something that has been studied
extensively?
∗ Consult with a research librarian to identify key terms,
subject heading and descriptors.
The Magic Number

14. ∗ Refers to print, electronic or visual materials
necessary for your research.
∗ Classified into primary, secondary, and tertiary.
Sources

15. Types of Sources

16. ∗ General introduction to areas in which you might be
interested
∗ Some clues as to where you should go for the more
valuable or useful information about your topic
∗ Great browsing material
What General Sources Provide

17. ∗ Scholarly summary of the research that has been
done in a particular area
∗ Further sources of references
What Secondary Sources Provide

18. ∗ Specific information
∗ More strong literature review
∗ Original “material”from the field one is studying
What Primary Sources Provide

19. General Classifications of Selected
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources

20. ∗ Sometimes, secondary sources can be considered
primary sources depending on context. Ex. Academic
article about Mexican Revolution written during that
period can be used as primary sources to document the
“contemporary thinking” of that period.
∗ In sciences, an academic article reporting the findings
of a major study can be considered a primary source
because it is reporting findings.

21. ∗ Literature reviews use a combination of primary and
secondary sources since the purpose is to document
and analyze what has been published on any given
topic through time.

22. Each reviewer makes a recommendation regarding
suitability for publication, without them knowing the
identity of the author(s) of the materials they are
reviewing. This ensured that experts review and
comment on a research manuscript before it is
published.
Peer Review

23. The options from which the reviewers can select
include:
∗Accept outright (article is outstanding and accepted
for publication as is)
∗Accept with revisions
∗Reject with suggestions for revisions (article is not
acceptable as is; after changes are made the author(s)
should be invited to resubmit it)
∗Reject outright
Peer Review (cont’d)

24. One- (or at most two-) paragraph summary of a journal
article which contains all the information readers
should need to decide whether to read the entire
journal article.
Abstract

25. Alphabetical listing of entries by topic, author, or both.
Index

26. ∗ Comprehensive Dissertation Index Citations
[http://www.umi.com/products/pt-product-compdisind.shtml]
∗ American Doctoral Dissertations
[http://www.umi.com/products/pt-product-amerdocdis.shtml]
∗ Social Sciences Citation Index
[http://www.isinet.com/products/citation/ssci/]
∗ Science Citation Index
∗ Bibliographic Index Plus
[http://www.hwwilson.com/Databases/biblio.htm]
Example of Indices

27. Reading and Evaluating
Research

28. Research articles and reports must always
be carefully evaluated and the results
never taken at face value.
Reading and Evaluating Research

29. Research articles take all kind of shapes
and forms, but their primary purpose is to
inform and educate the reader.
Reading and Evaluating Research

30. ∗ Authority: Who is the author? What is his/her
credentials—what university he/she is affiliated? Is
his/her area of expertise?
∗ Usefulness: How this source related to your topic?
How current or relevant it is to your topic?
∗ Reliability: Does the information comes from a
reliable, trusted source such as an academic journal?
Tips to Evaluate Sources

31. 1. Review of Previous Research
∗ How closely is the literature cited in the study related to
previous literature?
∗ Is the review recent?
∗ Are there any seminal or outstanding references you
know of that were left out?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study

32. 2. Problem and Purpose
∗ Can you understand the statement of the problem?
∗ Is the purpose of the study clearly stated?
∗ Does the purpose seem to be tied to the literature that is
reviewed?
∗ Is the objective of the study clearly stated?
∗ Is there a conceptual rationale to which the hypotheses are
grounded?
∗ Is there a rationale for why the study is an important one to
do?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

33. 3. Hypothesis
∗ Are the research hypotheses clearly and explicitly
stated?
∗ Do the hypotheses state a clear association between
variables?
∗ Are the hypotheses grounded in theory or in a review
and presentation of relevant literature?
∗ Can the hypotheses be tested?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

34. 4. Method
∗ Are both the independent and dependent variables
clearly defined?
∗ Are the definitions and descriptions of the variables
complete?
∗ Is it clear how the study was conducted?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

35. 5. Sample
∗ Was the sample selected in such a way that you think it
is representative of the population?
∗ Is it clear where the sample came from and how it was
selected?
∗ How similar are the participants in the study to those
who have been used in similar studies?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

36. 6. Results and Discussion
∗ Does the author relate the results to the review of
literature?
∗ Are the results related to the hypothesis? Is the
discussion of the results consistent with the actual
results?
∗ Does the discussion provide closure to the initial
hypothesis presented by the author?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

37. 7. References
∗ Is the list of references current?
∗ Are they consistent in their format? Are the references
complete?
∗ Does the list of references reflect some of the most
important reference sources in the field?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

38. 8. General Comments About the Report
∗ Is the report clearly written and understandable?
∗ Is the language biased?
∗ What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
research?
∗ What are the primary implications of the research?
∗ What would you do to improve the research?
∗ Does the submitted manuscript conform to the editor’s
or publisher’s specifications?
Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)

39. Basic Principles of Ethical
Research

40. As long as researchers continue to use humans and
animals as participants, the way in which they are treated
and how they benefit even indirectly, from participation
are critical issues that must be kept in the forefront of all
our considerations.
Ethical Research

41. ∗ Protection from Harm
∗ Maintenance of Privacy
∗ Coercion
∗ Informed Consent
∗ Confidentiality
∗ Debriefing
∗ Sharing Benefits
Ethical Principles in Research

42. Ensuring High Ethical Standards

43. ∗ Do a computer simulation in which data are
constructed and subjected to the effects of various
treatments (e.g. Monte Carlo studies).
∗ When the treatment is deemed harmful, try to locate a
population that has already been exposed to the
harmful effects of some variable.
∗ Always secure informed consent.
Ensuring High Ethical Standards

44. ∗ When possible, publish all reports using group data
rather than individual data to maintain confidentiality.
∗ If you suspect that the treatment may have adverse
effects, use a small, well-informed sample until you can
expand that sample size and the ambitiousness of the
project.
∗ Ask your colleagues to review your proposal, especially
your experimental procedures, before you begin.
∗ Consult the institutional review board for approval.
Ensuring High Ethical Standards
(cont’d)

45. ∗ The person conducting the research is the one who is
the first and most important judge of its ethical
acceptability.
∗ Every effort should be made to minimize risk to the
participants.
∗ The researcher is responsible for ensuring ethical
practices, including the behavior of assistants,
students, employees, collaborators, and anyone
involved.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines

46. ∗ A fair and reasonable agreement must be reached between
the researcher and the subjects prior to the beginning of the
research.
∗ If deception is necessary, the researcher must be sure it is
justified and a mechanism must be built in to ensure that
subjects are debriefed when the research is concluded.
∗ Researchers must respect a subject’s choice to withdraw
and must not coerce the subject to return to the study.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
(cont’d)

47. ∗ Whenever possible, participants should be shielded
from physical and psychological harm.
∗ Once the research is complete, results of the work
should be made available, and the participant should
be given a chance to clarify any discrepancies of which
he/she might be aware.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
(cont’d)

48. ∗ If the research activity results in harm of any kind, the
researcher has the responsibility of correcting the
harm.
∗ All the information about the participants of a study,
and any related results, are confidential.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
(cont’d)

49. ∗ The rights of the child supersede the rights of the
investigator no matter what the age of the child.
∗ If there are changes in approved procedures that might
affect the ethical conduct of the research, consultation with
colleagues or experts should be undertaken.
∗ The child should be fully informed as to the research
process, and all questions should be answered in a way that
can be understood. If the child is too young, then the child’s
representative should be closely involved in all discussions.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children

50. ∗ Informed consent from parents, teachers, or whoever
is legally responsible for the child’s welfare must be
obtained in writing.
∗ Informed consent must also be obtained from others
who are involved in the experiment besides the
individual child.
∗ The responsibilities of the child and of the investigator
must be made clear.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)

51. ∗ When deception is necessary, a committee of the
investigator’s peers should approve the planned
methods.
∗ The findings from any study should be reported to
the participants in a way that is comprehensible to
them.
∗ Investigators should be especially careful about the
way in which they report results to children and
should not present the results in the form of advice.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)

52. ∗ If treatments are effective, control groups should be
offered similar opportunities to receive the treatment.
∗ These ethical standards should be presented to students
in the course of their training.
∗ Editors of journals that report investigations of children
should provide authors space to summarize the steps they
took to ensure these standards. If it is not clear such
standards were followed, editors should request additional
information.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)

53. ∗ You can quote and analyze online information without
asking for permission as long as the information is
officially and publicly archived, no password is required to
access the information, and there is nothing stated on the
site that prohibits the use of the information.
∗ Requesting consent, in and of itself, should not disrupt the
very process that is being examined. The process of
requesting consent must not disrupt normal group activity.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Online Research

54. ∗ You can obtain consent electronically if participants
are 18 years of age or older, and the risk is judged to
be relatively low. If you cannot obtain informed
consent electronically, you need to mail, fax, or e-mail
the proper form and ask the participant to sign it and
return it. There must be a hard copy.
∗ As best as possible, the confidentiality of the
participants and their identity must be assured.
Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Online Research

55. Writing the Literature Review

56. 1. Read other literature reviews.
2. Create a unified theme, or a line of thought,
throughout the review.
3. Use a system to organize your materials.
4. Work from an outline.
5. Build bridges between the different areas you
review.
6. Practice writing.
Writing the Literature Review

57. Selecting a Problem and
Reviewing the Research