Mff715 w1 1_introto_research_fall11


Published on

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mff715 w1 1_introto_research_fall11

  1. 1. Week 1: What is Research? <br />MFF 715: Forensic Research & Analysis<br />1<br />
  2. 2. What’s due on 11/20/2011 at 11:55pm<br />Practice 1 (individual – PASS/FAIL)<br />Quiz 1 (individual)<br />Graded Discussion 1: Initial postings are due by the end of 11/17/2011. The individual replies are due by the end of 11/20/2011.<br />Assignment 1 (group)<br />2<br />
  3. 3. Learning Objectives<br />Understand what scientific research is and is not<br />Appreciate the need for sound reasoning to interpret research results<br />3<br />
  4. 4. Why should I care about research?<br />Research makes us better decision makers<br />Example: How should we allocate resources for fraud detection?<br />Example: Why are accounting fraud problems more prevalent in some divisions than others?<br />Research improves practice<br />Example: What are the best ways to perform police lineups?<br />Example: Are certain types of customers more likely to commit fraud than others?<br />4<br />
  5. 5. Truth or Myth?<br />Eyewitnesses are better at identifying criminals when all suspects are presented together in a lineup as opposed to one at a time<br />People are more likely to cheat alone when they can pocket all the profits, than when they have to cheat with colleagues and split the profits<br />People cheat more as the payoff gets bigger<br />People cheat more as the risk of getting caught decreases<br />5<br />
  6. 6. “We have many intuitions in our lives. The point is, many of those intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?” – Dan Ariely<br />6<br />
  7. 7. What is Research?<br />From the following examples, identify those cases that you would consider scientific research:<br />An investigator gathering information about several potential cases of financial fraud<br />An investigator asking a customer about her identity fraud experience<br />Answer: Both or none of them could be research !<br />The key lies on the methodology used, it should be scientific reasoning ! <br />Scientific methodology is a systematic approach toward understanding of the world <br />7<br />
  8. 8. What’s Scientific Research<br />A process of determining, acquiring, analyzing, synthesizing, and disseminating relevant empirical data, information, and insights to decision makers in ways that mobilize the organization to take appropriate business actions that, in turn, maximize business performance<br />8<br />
  9. 9. 9<br />
  10. 10. Scientific Reasoning: DEDUCTIVE<br />Reasoning (or inference) in which there is a relation between the premises and the conclusion so that the following property exists: if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.<br />Example 1:<br />All people born in the United States are U.S. citizens<br />John was born in the U.S.<br />Therefore, John is a U.S. citizen<br />Can you provide your own examples of deductive reasoning?<br />10<br />
  11. 11. NON-DEDUCTIVE INFERENCES<br />Deductive inference is fundamental toward the development of generalizations (theories) about the world.<br />However, it is constantly misused (e.g. in the media).<br />Example:<br />The first five eggs in the box are rotten<br />All eggs have the same expiration date<br />Therefore, all eggs are rotten<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Scientific Reasoning: INDUCTIVE<br />We move from premises about objects we have examined to conclusions (or generalizations) about objects we have not examined<br />Example: Everyday the sun rises; therefore, the sun will also rise tomorrow.<br />We use this reasoning everyday<br />Can you provide your own inductive example?<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Inductive Inference in Science<br />Science also uses inductive reasoning (e.g. how do we know that copper conducts electricity?)<br />Still, inductive reasoning is a risky business (e.g. all swans are white)<br />David Hume argued that inductive reasoning can not be rationally justified …<br />…but that we should use a practical skepticism based on common sense <br />13<br />
  14. 14. Problem with Inductive Inference: Popper’s Approach<br />To solve the problem with inductive reasoning, Karl Popper argued that we can never know if a theory is true but only if it is false.<br />Karl Popper (1934) proposed that all theories should be falsifiable (that is, they could be proved wrong ).<br />In general, it is accepted that a theory should be falsifiable, explanatory, and have predictive power!<br />14<br />
  15. 15. Research Approach: Deductive<br />Deductive Approach<br />Example<br />Deduce a hypothesis from existing theory<br />Express the hypothesis in operational terms<br />Test the hypothesis<br />Examine the outcome (does it prove the theory false?)<br />If necessary, modify the theory in lieu of the results<br />Base Theory: Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger 1957)<br />Deduced Hypothesis: Consumers of snack foods experience cognitive dissonance due to adverse health-related publicity<br />Survey snack food consumers<br />15<br />
  16. 16. Research Approach: Inductive<br />Inductive Approach<br />Example<br />Berg et al (2003) studied use of cell phones by teens<br />Research question: How do teenagers use their cell phones?<br />Exploratory study in a small college using ethnographic methodology<br />They found that phones are used to establish and maintain the status of social networks via text exchanges<br />Results were used for a new design for 3G cell phones<br />In this approach theory follows data<br />Define the context of your study (e.g. a small group of students) and your data collection and analysis method (e.g. qualitative analysis)<br />Examine the data and develop your theory and hypotheses<br />16<br />
  17. 17. 17<br />-- End --Questions?<br />