Overviews Research Methodology

476 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
476
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Overviews Research Methodology

  1. 1. Research Methodology Somsak Wongsawass ASEAN Institute for Health Development 4 March 2011
  2. 2. Defining research <ul><li>Research is a process for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>collecting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>analysing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>interpreting </li></ul></ul><ul><li>information to answer questions. </li></ul>
  3. 3. The Research Process (Kumar, 2005, p.19)
  4. 4. Why literature review? <ul><li>LR is the foundation and inspiration of substantial, useful research. </li></ul><ul><li>Most graduate students receive little or no formal training in how to analyze and synthesize the research literature. </li></ul><ul><li>LR acquires the skills and knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Critically appraise and synthesize the current state of knowledge relating to the topic under investigation, as a mean of identifying gaps . </li></ul>
  5. 5. Sources of information <ul><li>Keywords related to the research topic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of different terms used </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>too little versus too much </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>inclusion versus exclusion </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Reviewing the literature <ul><li>Skim reading of the abstract and main body </li></ul><ul><li>What and why it has been done and how it was done. </li></ul><ul><li>Position current knowledge in the field and elucidate gaps of knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Identify themes and detail structure of final review. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Define scope
  8. 8. Construction of review <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Main body </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretical literature and methodological literature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examine theoretical literature and empirical literature in separate sections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Divide the literature into content themes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the literature chronologically </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conclusion – integrate all the theme summaries, gaps and weakness should be evident, suggestion of research needs </li></ul>
  9. 9. How to use the concept of study type in evaluating journal articles <ul><li>To get as close as possible to the “truth” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No study is ever perfect. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If your expectation is too HIGH => reject all the articles you review </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. 5 Steps <ul><li>What is the study objective, hypothesis, or research question? study factor /outcome factor? </li></ul><ul><li>What study would give the highest quality of evidence for this hypothesis/objective? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the best study type you consider feasible? </li></ul><ul><li>What study type was actually used? </li></ul><ul><li>Is the conclusion of the paper reasonable in the light of how compares with 2 and 3? </li></ul>
  11. 11. Objective <ul><ul><li>Causality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does an intervention work? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is a factor a cause, determinant of, predictor or risk factors for a specific problem? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Magnitude </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How common is the health problem? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of diagnostic tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is the test a good indicator of existing disease? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is the test a good indicator of future disease? </li></ul></ul></ul>Possible study types <ul><ul><ul><li>RCT </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cohort </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Case control with well defined study base </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Case control with poor defined study base </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-sectional analytic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive (cross-sectional for prevalence, prospective for incidence) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross sectional analytic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cohort </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Population-based case control study </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hospital based case control study </li></ul></ul></ul>Quality <ul><ul><li>The tops </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nest best </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Almost as good </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weak </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fair-weak </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very weak: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Al most as good </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>weak </li></ul></ul>
  12. 15. Proposal <ul><li>STRONG </li></ul><ul><li>Appearance </li></ul><ul><li>Red flag (specific aims) </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual framework (figures and diagrams) </li></ul><ul><li>Review criteria (state of the art: clear, logical and brief) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypotheses </li></ul><ul><li>Soundness of method </li></ul><ul><li>WEAK </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of Original ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Diffuse, unfocused </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of published relevant work, uncritical approach </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of experience in essential methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Uncertainty of future directions (so what?) </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of sufficient experimental detail </li></ul>

×