MELJUN CORTES research seminar_1_selecting_a_problem_and_reviewing_the_research

1. Selecting a Problem and
Reviewing the Research

2. SELECTING A PROBLEM

3. Selecting a Problem
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.

4. Selecting a Problem (cont’d)
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.

5. Selecting a Problem (cont’d)
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.

6. Defining Your Interests
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.

7. Well-written Hypothesis (review)
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

8. REVIEWING THE LITERATURE

9. Types of Sources

10. What General Sources Provide
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

11. Examples of General Sources
Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature
Scientific American
New York Times
Time
Newsweek

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

13. Examples of Secondary Sources
Annual Reviews
Yearbooks of the National Society for the
Study of Education
The Condition of Education in Brief 2004
Handbook of Child Psychology
Encyclopedia of Psychology (2000)

14. What Primary Sources Provide
Specific information
More strong literature review

15. Examples of Primary Sources
Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
Journal of Experimental Psychology
Journal of Health Education
American Anthropologist
Daedalus

16. Peer Review
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.

17. Peer Review (cont’d)
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

18. Abstract
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.

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

20. Example of Indices
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]

21. READING AND EVALUATING
RESEARCH

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

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

24. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
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?

25. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

26. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

27. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

28. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

29. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

30. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

31. Criteria: Judging a Research Study
(cont’d)
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?

32. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL
RESEARCH

33. Ethical Research
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.

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

35. ENSURING HIGH ETHICAL
STANDARDS

36. Ensuring High Ethical Standards
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.

37. Ensuring High Ethical Standards
(cont’d)
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.

38. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
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.

39. Summary of Ethical Guidelines (cont’d)
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.

40. Summary of Ethical Guidelines (cont’d)
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.

41. Summary of Ethical Guidelines (cont’d)
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.

42. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children
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.

43. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)
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.

44. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)
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.

45. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Children (cont’d)
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.

46. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Online Research
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.

47. Summary of Ethical Guidelines
Regarding Online Research
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.

48. WRITING THE LITERATURE REVIEW

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

50. Selecting a Problem and
Reviewing the Research