Introduction:

Research refers to a careful, well-defined (or redefined), objective, and systematic method of search for knowledge, or
formulation of a theory that is driven by inquisitiveness for that which is unknown and useful on a particular aspect so as
to make an original contribution to expand the existing knowledge base.
Research involves formulation of hypothesis or proposition of solutions, data analysis, and deductions; and ascertaining
whether the conclusions fit the hypothesis.
Research is a process of creating, or formulating knowledge that does not yet exist.

Booth et al. [1] explains that the research cycle starts with basically a practical problem: one must be clear what the
problem being attempted to solve is and why it is important. This problem motivates a research question without which
one can tend to get lost in a giant swamp of information.
The question helps one zero in onto manageable volume of information, and in turn defines a research project which is an
activity or set of activities that ultimately leads to result or answer, which in turn helps to solve the practical problem that
one started with in the first place as in figure.

Research is not just about reading a lot of books and finding a lot of,
gathering a lot of existing information. It is instead adding, maybe
small and specific, yet original, contribution to that existing body of
knowledge. So, research is about how one poses a question which has
relevance to the world that we are living in,

while looking for that answer one has to be as systematic as one can be.
There must be a balance between what is achievable in a research
program with a finite endpoint and also, the contribution it is going to
make. The objective of a good research program is to try and gain
insight into something. Or indeed, to try and solve a problem.

The ways of developing and accessing knowledge come in three, somewhat overlapping, broad categories:
(i) Observation is the most fundamental way of obtaining information from a source, and it could be significant in itself
if the thing that we are trying to observe is really strange or exciting, or is difficult to observe. Observation takes different
forms from something like measurements in a laboratory to a
survey among a group of subjects to the time it takes for a firmware routine to run. The observational data often needs to
be processed in some form and this leads to the second category of knowledge, the model.
(ii) Models are approximated, often simplified ways of describing sometimes very complex interactions in the form of a
statistical relationship, a figure, or a set of mathematical equations. For instance, the modeling equation captures the
relationship between different attributes or the behavior of the device in an abstract form and enables us to understand the
observed phenomena [2].
(iii) The final category is a way of arranging or doing things through processes, algorithms, procedures, arrangements, or
reference designs, to get a certain desired result.
The categories of knowledge as enumerated are

Good research involves systematic collection and analysis of

information and is followed by an attempt to infer a little bit beyond
the already known information in a way that is a significant value
addition.
Engineering research is a journey that traverses from a research area
(Example: Control Systems), to the topic (example: Control of
Microbial Fuel Cells) and finally onto the problem (example:
Adaptive Control of Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells) (Area →
Topic → Problem).
Getting a good problem to solve is more than half the work done.

Engineering research is the process of developing the perspectives and seeking improvements in knowledge and skills to
enable the recognition, planning, design, and execution of research in a wide range of forms relevant for engineering and
technology investigations and developments
1.1 Objectives of Engineering Research:
The objective of engineering research is to solve new and important problems, and since the conclusion at the end of one’s
research outcome has to be new, but when one starts, the conclusion is unknown. So, the start itself is tricky, one may say.
The answer is, based on “circumstantial evidence”, intuition, and imagination, one guesses what may be a possible
conclusion
. A guess gives a target to work toward, and after initial attempts, it may turn out that the guess is incorrect. But the work
may suggest new worthy avenues or targets which may be based on some modifications of the initial target, or may need
new techniques, or one may obtain negative results which may render the initial target or some other targets as not
realizable, or may lead to fortunate discoveries while looking for something else (serendipity). can sometimes be
convoluted and difficult to follow.

Research objectives
The objective of engineering research is to solve new and important problems, and since the conclusion at the end of one’s
research outcome has to be new, but when one starts, the conclusion is unknown

Knowing where and how to find different types of information helps one solve engineering problems, in both academic
and professional career. Lack of investigation into engineering guidelines, standards, and best practices result in failures
with severe repercussions.
The main aim of the research is to apply scientific approaches to seek answers to open questions, and although each research
study is particularly suited for a certain approach, in general, the following are different types of research studies:
exploratory or formulative, descriptive, diagnostic, and hypothesis-testing.

The objectives of engineering research should be to develop new theoretical or applied knowledge and not necessarily
limited to obtaining abilities to obtain the desired result. The objectives should be framed such that in the event of not being
able to achieve the desired result that is being sought, one can fall back to understanding why it is not possible, because
that is also a contribution toward ongoing research in solving that problem.
Motivation in Engineering Research:
The possible motives may be the result of one or more of the following desires:
(i) Studies have shown that intrinsic motivations like interest, challenge, learning, meaning, purpose, are linked to strong
creative performance;
(ii) Extrinsic motivating factors like rewards for good work include money, fame, awards, praise, and status are very
strong motivators, but may block creativity. For example: Research outcome may enable obtaining a patent which is a
good way to become rich and famous.
(iii) Influences from others like competition, collaboration, commitment, and encouragement are also motivating factors
in research. For example: my friends are all doing research and so should I, or, a person that I dislike is doing well
and I want to do better.
(iv) Personal motivation in solving unsolved problems, intellectual joy, service to community, and respectability are all
driving factors.
The following factors would be a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic aspects:
(i) Wanting to do better than what has been achieved in the world,
(ii) Improve the state of the art in technology,
(iii) Contribute to the improvement of society,
(iv) Fulfillment of the historical legacy in the immediate sociocultural context.
Several other factors like government directives, funding opportunities in certain areas, and terms of employment, can
motivate people to get involved in engineering research.

Types of Engineering Research

The different types of research are
(i) Descriptive versus Analytical: Descriptive research includes comparative and correlational methods, and fact-finding
inquiries, to effectively describe the present state of art. The researcher holds no control over the variables; rather
only reports as it is. Descriptive research also includes attempts to determine causes even though evaluation are utilized.
Some research studies can be both descriptive and analytical [3].
(ii) Applied versus Fundamental: Research can either be applied research or fundamental (basic or pure) research. Applied
research seeks to solve an immediate problem facing the organization, whereas fundamental research is concerned with
generalizations and formulation of a theory. Research concerning natural phenomena or relating to pure mathematics are
examples of fundamental research. Research to identify social or economic trends, or those that find out whether certain
communications will be read and understood are examples of applied research. The primary objective of applied research
is to determine a solution for compelling problems in actual practice, while basic research is aimed at seeking information
which could have a broad base of applications in the medium to long term.
(iii) Quantitative versus Qualitative: Quantitative research uses statistical observations of a sufficiently large number of
representative cases to draw any conclusions, while qualitative researchers rely on a few nonrepresentative cases overall
narrative in behavioral studies such as clustering effect in intersections in Transportation engineering to make a proposition.
Finding and solving a Worthwhile Problem:
A researcher may start out with the research problems stated by the Supervisor or posed by others that are yet to be solved.
Alternately, it may involve rethinking of a basic theory, or need to be formulated or put together from the information
provided in a group of papers suggested by the Supervisor. Research scholars are faced with the task of finding an
appropriate problem on which to begin their research. Skills needed to accomplish such a task at the outset, while taking
care of possible implications are critically important but often not taught

Once the problem is vaguely identified, the process of literature survey and technical reading, as described in the next
chapter, would take place for more certainty of the worthiness of the intended problem. However, an initial spark is ideally
required before the process of literature survey may duly begin. Sometimes, an oral presentation by somebody which is
followed by asking questions or introspection provides this perspective which reading papers do not. At other times, a
development in another subject may have produced a tool or a result which has direct implications to the researcher’s
subject and may lead to problem identification. A worthwhile research problem would have one or more attributes. It could
be nonintuitive/counterintuitive even to someone who knows the area, something that the research community had been
expecting for some time, a major simplification of a central part of the theory, a new result which would start off a new
subject or an area, provides a new method or improves upon known methods of doing something which has practical
applications, or a result which stops further work in an area. The researcher has to be convinced that the problem is
worthwhile before beginning to tackle it because best efforts come when the work is worth doing, and the problem and/or
solution has a better chance of being accepted by the research community. Not all problems that one solves will be great,
and sometimes major advancements are made through solutions to small problems dealt with effectively. Some problems
are universally considered hard and open, and have deep implications and connections to different concepts. The reality is
that most researchers in their lifetime do not get into such problems. However, hard problems get solved only because
people tackle them.
The question a researcher has to grapple with whether the time investment is worth it given that the likely outcome is
negative, and so it is a difficult personal decision to make. At the same time, even in the case of failure to solve the intended
hard problem, there may be partial/side results that serve the immediate need of producing some results for the dissertation.
George Pólya (1887–1985) suggested a 4-step procedure for mathematical problem-solving [5], which is relevant to
engineering researchers as well. Recent work such as [6, 7] suggest the relevance of these recommendations. The
recommended steps to solve a research problem are
(i) Understand the problem, restate it as if its your own, visualize the problem by drawing figures, and determine if
something more is needed.
(ii) One must start somewhere and systematically explore possible strategies to solve the problem or a simpler version of
it while looking for patterns.
(iii) Execute the plan to see if it works, and if it does not then start over with another approach. Having delved into the
problem and returned to it multiple times, one might have a flash of insight or a new idea to solve the problem.
(iv) Looking back and reflecting helps in understanding and assimilating the strategy, and is a sort of investment into the
future.

Ethics in Engineering Research:

Ethics generally refers to a set of rules distinguishing acceptable and unacceptable conduct, distinguishing right from
wrong, although everyone recognizes some common ethical norms, but there is difference in interpretation and application.
Ethical principles can be used for evaluation, proposition or interpretation of laws.

International norms for the ethical conduct of research have been there since the adoption of the Nuremberg Code in 1947.
British Royal Society (BRS) in the seventeenth century to refine the methods and practices of modern
science [4]. This event altered the timing and credit issues on the release of research results since BRS gave priority to
whoever first submitted findings for publication, rather than trying to find out who had first discovered.
Whitbeck [4] raised two simple but significant questions to address the tricky issue of authorship in research:
(1) who should be included as an author and (2) the appropriate order of listing of authors
There are issues around individuals who may be deeply involved during the conduct of the research work, but
may not contribute in the drafting phase. Additionally, certain universities now put restrictions on coauthor ship to
prevent malpractices.
Ethics in Engineering Research Practice:
Technological developments raise a whole range of ethical concerns such as privacy issues and data related to
surveillance systems, and so engineering researchers need to make ethical decisions and are answerable for the
repercussions borne out of their research as outcomes. Engineering ethics gives us the rule book; tells us, how to
decide what is okay to do and what is not.
Researchers make many choices that matter from an ethical perspective and influence the effects of technology in many
different ways:
i) By setting the ethically right requirements at the very outset, engineering researchers can ultimately influence the
effects of the developed technology.
ii) Influence may also be applied by researchers through design (a process that translates the requirements into a
blueprint to fulfill those requirements). During the design process, decision is to be made about the priority in
importance of the requirements taking ethical aspects into consideration.
iii) Thirdly, engineering researchers have to choose between different alternatives fulfilling similar functions.
Research outcomes often have unintended and undesirable side effects. It is a vital ethical responsibility of researchers to
ensure that hazards/risks associated with the technologies that they develop, are minimized and alternative safer
mechanisms are considered.

Types of Research Misconduct:

Engineering research should be conducted to improve the state-of-the-art of technologies. Research integrity encompasses
dealing fairly with others, honesty about the methods and results, replicating the results wherever possible so as to avoid
errors, protecting the welfare of research subjects, ensuring laboratory safety, and so forth. In order to prevent mistakes,
peer reviews should take place before the research output is published.
Different types of research misconduct as described in research articles are:
1) Fabrication (Illegitimate creation of data): Fabrication is the act of conjuring data or experiments with a belief of
knowledge about what the conclusion of the analysis or experiments would be, but cannot wait for the results
possibly due to timeline pressures from supervisor or customers.
2) Falsification (Inappropriate alteration of data): Falsification is the misrepresentation or mis-interpretation, or
illegitimate alteration of data or experiments even if partly, to support a desired hypothesis even when the actual
data received from experiments suggest otherwise. Misleading data can also crop up due to poor design of
experiments or incorrect measurement practices.
#Fabrication and falsification of data in published content can hurt honest researchers getting their work published
because what they can churn out may short fall of what is already published through misconduct till the misconduct is
established and subsequently retracted.
Such misconduct can be thwarted by researchers by always trying to reproduce the results independently whenever they
are interested to do further work in a published material which is likely to be part of their literature survey.
3) Plagiarism (Taking other’s work sans attribution): Plagiarism takes place when someone uses or reuses the
work (including portions) of others (text, data, tables, figures, illustrations or concepts) as if it were his/her own
without explicit acknowledgement. Verbatim copying or reusing one’s own published work is termed as self-
plagiarism and is also an unacceptable practice in scientific literature. The increasing availability of scientific
content on the internet seems to encourage plagiarism in certain cases, but also enables detection of such practices
through automated software packages.
Supervisors, reviewers or editors alerted to plagiarism by:
(i) Original author comes to know and informs everyone concerned.
(ii) Sometimes a reviewer finds out about it during the review process.
(iii) readers who come across the article or book, while doing research.
many free tools and also paid tools available that one can procure institutional license of, one cannot conclusively identify
plagiarism, but can only get a similarity score which is a metric that provides a score of the amount of similarity between
already published content and the unpublished content under scrutiny.
4) Other Aspects of Research Misconduct:
1) Serious deviations from accepted conduct could be construed as research misconduct.
2) Simultaneous submission of the same article to two different journals also violates publication policy
3) When mistakes are found in an article or any published content, they are generally not reported for public
access unless a researcher is driven enough to build on that mistake and provide a correct version of the same
Ethical Issues Related to Authorship:
Academic authorship involves communicating scholarly work, establishing priority for their discoveries, and
building peer-reputation, and comes with intrinsic burden of acceptance of the responsibility for the contents of the work.
There are several important research conduct and ethics related issues connected to authorship of research papers as
described by Newman and Jones as follows
1) Credit for research contributions is attributed in three major ways in research publications: by authorship (of the
intended publication), citation (of previously published or formally presented work), and through a written
acknowledgment (of some inputs to the present research). Authorship establishes both accountability and gives
due credit. A person is expected to be listed as an author only when associated as a significant contributor in
research design, data interpretation, or writing of the paper.
2) The primary author dubiously bestows coauthor ship on a junior faculty or a student to boost their chances of
employment or promotion, which can be termed as Career-boost authorship
3) unfortunate malpractice of co authorship that can be described as “Career-preservation authorship” wherein a head
of the department, a dean, a provost, or other administrators are added as Coauthors because of quid pro quo
arrangement wherein the principal author benefits from a “good relation” with the
superiors and the administrator benefit from authorship without doing the required work for it
4) Sometimes, an actual contributor abstains from the list of authors due to nondisclosed conflict of interest within
the organization. Such coauthor ships can be termed as ghost coauthor ship.