An introduction to research

and research environment

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Payam MAHASTI
Aim of this lecture
• Some of the reasons for doing research
• How research can be used to gather evidence to inform your practice
• The applications of research
• Characteristics and requirements of the research process
• Types of research from the perspective of applications, objectives and
enquiry modes
• Research paradigms
RESEARCH?
• Research in common parlance refers to a search for knowledge. Once can
also define research as a scientific and systematic search for pertinent
information on a specific topic. In fact, research is an art of scientific
investigation.
• A careful investigation or inquiry specially through search for new facts in
any branch of knowledge. The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford,
1952, p. 1069
• Systematized effort to gain new knowledge. L.V. Redman and A.V.H. Mory, The
Romance of Research, 1923, p.10.
• The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in
order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. Concise Oxford English
Dictionary
• Some people consider research as a movement, a movement from the
known to the unknown. It is actually a voyage of discovery.
RESEARCH?
• The word research is composed of two syllables, re and search. The
dictionary defines the former as a prefix meaning again, anew or over
again and the latter as a verb meaning to examine closely and
carefully, to test and try, or to probe. Together they form a noun
describing a careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in
some field of knowledge, undertaken to establish facts or principles.
(Grinnell 1993: 4)
Characteristics (Kumar, 2011)
• Controlled – In real life there are many factors that affect an outcome. A
particular event is seldom the result of a one-to-one relationship. Some
relationships are more complex than others. Most outcomes are a sequel to
the interplay of a multiplicity of relationships and interacting factors. In a
study of cause-and-effect relationships it is important to be able to link the
effect(s) with the cause(s) and vice versa. In the study of causation, the
establishment of this linkage is essential; however, in practice, particularly
in the social sciences, it is extremely difficult – and often impossible – to
make the link.
• The concept of control implies that, in exploring causality in relation to two
variables, you set up your study in a way that minimizes the effects of other
factors affecting the relationship.
Characteristics (Kumar, 2011)
• Rigorous – You must be scrupulous in ensuring that the procedures followed to find
answers to questions are relevant, appropriate and justified. Again, the degree of rigor
varies markedly between the physical and the social sciences and within the social
sciences.
• Systematic – This implies that the procedures adopted to undertake an investigation
follow a certain logical sequence. The different steps cannot be taken in a haphazard way.
Some procedures must follow others.
• Valid and verifiable – This concept implies that whatever you conclude on the basis of
your findings is correct and can be verified by you and others.
• Empirical – This means that any conclusions drawn are based upon hard evidence
gathered from information collected from real-life experiences or observations.
• Critical – Critical scrutiny of the procedures used and the methods employed is crucial to
a research enquiry. The process of investigation must be foolproof and free from any
drawbacks. The process adopted and the procedures used must be able to withstand
critical scrutiny.
Characteristics (Yilmaz, 2012)
• Innovative – Research does not develop from randomly generated
ideas but all involve “innovation” (plus some “luck”)
• Expensive – This involves measurements or analysis using nominal
(existing in name only) or ordinal (relating to order in a series)
variables. Example: description of an observation.
Types:
• Descriptive vs. Analytical: Descriptive research includes surveys and fact-finding
enquiries of different kinds. The major purpose of descriptive research is
description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. In social science and
business research we quite often use the term Ex post facto research for
descriptive research studies. The main characteristic of this method is that the
researcher has no control over the variables; he can only report what has happened
or what is happening. Most ex post facto research projects are used for descriptive
studies in which the researcher seeks to measure such items as, for example,
frequency of shopping, preferences of people, or similar data. Ex post facto
studies also include attempts by researchers to discover causes even when they
cannot control the variables.
• The methods of research utilized in descriptive research are survey methods of all
kinds, including comparative and correlational methods. In analytical research, on
the other hand, the researcher has to use facts or information already available, and
analyze these to make a critical evaluation of the material.
Types:
• Applied vs. Fundamental: Research can either be applied (or action) research or fundamental (to basic or
pure) research.
• Applied research aims at finding a solution for an immediate problem facing a society or an
industrial/business organization, whereas
• fundamental research is mainly concerned with generalizations and with the formulation of a theory.
• “Gathering knowledge for knowledge’s sake is termed ‘pure’ or ‘basic’ research.” (Young, 1960, p. 30) Research
concerning some natural phenomenon or relating to pure mathematics are examples of fundamental research.
Similarly, research studies, concerning human behavior carried on with a view to make generalizations about
human behavior, are also examples of fundamental research,
• Research aimed at certain conclusions (say, a solution) facing a concrete social or business problem is an
example of applied research. Research to identify social, economic or political trends that may affect a
particular institution or the copy research (research to find out whether certain communications will be read
and understood) or the marketing research or evaluation research are examples of applied research. Thus, the
central aim of applied research is to discover a solution for some pressing practical problem, whereas basic
research is directed towards finding information that has a broad base of applications and thus, adds to the
already existing organized body of scientific knowledge.
Types:
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative: Quantitative research is based on the
measurement of quantity or amount. It is applicable to phenomena that can
be expressed in terms of quantity. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is
concerned with qualitative phenomenon, i.e., phenomena relating to or
involving quality or kind. For instance, when we are interested in
investigating the reasons for human behavior (i.e., why people think or do
certain things), we quite often talk of ‘Motivation Research’, an important
type of qualitative research. This type of research aims at discovering the
underlying motives and desires, using in depth interviews for the purpose.
Other techniques of such research are word association tests, sentence
completion tests, story completion tests and similar other projective
techniques.
Types:
• Conceptual vs. Empirical: Conceptual research is that related to some abstract idea(s) or
theory. It is generally used by philosophers and thinkers to develop new concepts or to
reinterpret existing ones. On the other hand, empirical research relies on experience or
observation alone, often without due regard for system and theory. It is data-based
research, coming up with conclusions which are capable of being verified by observation
or experiment. We can also call it as experimental type of research.
• In such a research it is necessary to get at facts firsthand, at their source, and actively to
go about doing certain things to stimulate the production of desired information. In such a
research, the researcher must first provide himself with a working hypothesis or guess as
to the probable results. He then works to get enough facts (data) to prove or disprove his
hypothesis. He then sets up experimental designs which he thinks will manipulate the
persons or the materials concerned so as to bring forth the desired information. Such
research is thus characterized by the experimenter’s control over the variables under study
and his deliberate manipulation of one of them to study its effects. Empirical research is
appropriate when proof is sought that certain variables affect other variables in some way.
Evidence gathered through experiments or empirical studies is today considered to be the
most powerful support possible for a given hypothesis.
Types:
• Some Other Types of Research: All other types of research are
variations of one or more of the above stated approaches, based on
either the purpose of research, or the time required to accomplish
research, on the environment in which research is done, or on the basis
of some other similar factor.
• one-time research or longitudinal research
• field-setting research or laboratory research or simulation research
• clinical or diagnostic research
• Exploratory or formalized.
• Historical research
• conclusion-oriented and decision-oriented.
Outcomes (Yilmaz, 2012)
• Research problems can be in terms of "to produce", "to design", or "to
develop" something, and research outcomes can be in terms of having
"produced", "designed" or "developed" something.
• Outcomes of research is also linked with the originality in research
which is another topic covered in this lecture.
Outcomes (Yilmaz, 2012)
• A new or improved product There is a hazy borderline between a
new product and an improvement on an existing one. For the purpose
of developing a research problem, the distinction is unimportant.
• A new theory or a reinterpretation of an existing theory
Developing new theories like relativity theory of Einstein, or the
evolution theory of Darwin is difficult, hence, very rare at graduate
level research.
• Instead, most graduate level researches fall into the class of
reinterpretation of existing theories
Outcomes (Yilmaz, 2012)
• A new or improved research tool or technique It may be a new
measuring device, a new software to undertake certain tasks, a piece of
equipment to identify a disease, a new microscope to explore
nanoparticles etc.
• A new or improved model or perspective It is looking and
interpreting the knowledge through a fresh way.
• An in‐depth study Sometimes one may find the opportunity to study
something that has never been studied before. A good example is
studying the moons of Jupiter through enormous amount of data
supplied by the Galileo probe.
Outcomes (Yilmaz, 2012)
• An exploration of a topic area or field. It is especially a good
starting point when the main features of the search topic is unknown.
• A critical analysis. A good example is the analysis of the use of safe
nuclear energy to replace fossil energy resources at the edge of global
warming.
• A portfolio of work based on research Professionals in many fields
can produce these
• A fact or conclusion, or a collection of facts or conclusions. It is a
particularly common outcome of research in all fields
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality is a "must" in research. It is a high‐profile requirement.
You should develop the necessary skills to recognize "what is
original?" and implement it into your work. It may need a considerable
incubation period for the creative skills to function effectively in
development of originality in your research. You need to appreciate the
scope and potential of originality.
• One or more of the following requirements must be fulfilled in your
research in order to claim for originality
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in tools, techniques and procedures Your research
methodology may include fairly standard tools, techniques and
procedures in the field of study. But if you use them in new untested
ways, this would justify a claim of originality.
• Or if you develop new procedures, tools and techniques for a specific
purpose, this too will also justify a claim for originality. For example,
development of a new "controlled release" system of an existing drug
is original.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in exploring the unknown. Your studies are said to be
original if you are conducting a major investigation of something
which has never been investigated before such as a recently discovered
catalyst for fuel cells, a new medicine for cancer treatment etc.
• Recognizing the "original" in some fields or in some types of research
is easy (obvious), but in many fields of study it can be elusive
(difficult to understand and grasp). There may always be an
uncertainty on "what is original". Originality may be unpredictable.
You must learn to live with a certain amount of uncertainty. It may be
difficult to live with uncertainty, but, on the other and it is the fuel of
curiosity and creativity.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in exploring the unanticipated (exploring the
sidetracks) Some researchers may prefer to abandon the planned
research and travel through the sidetracks. It is exciting since it is full
of unknowns, and you may open alternative ways forward which have
never previously been studied.
• They can, on the other hand, equally turn out to be dead ends which
consume time and effort fruitlessly. Focusing on the originally aimed
goals always increases the chance of being more fruitful in research
through a calculated level of originality.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in use of data The more data you collect, the higher the
chance for a more original work. You may find out, after careful post
processing, or analysis of your data, that some of the data collected
might be an indication of an original behavior, or side‐product, or
unseen benefit.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in outcomes. Potato was an unknown (original) to British
people until Sir Walter Raleigh brought it to England from America. It
was known in America perhaps for centuries but original, unique in
England. Some discoveries may be like this. A discovery may not be
new to a discipline, but it may turn out to be important in another
discipline. For example, aspirin can no longer be an excitement source
for chemists since they know every detail about it. However, its use in
the treatment of hearth diseases may be new and create enough
excitement among medical doctors.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in the byproducts There are almost always byproducts
during any research: Perhaps development of a certain piece of
equipment, or some secondary findings in literature. These can be
moved into the mainstream of the research, and focused on or
developed further. When the thesis is written, the research problem,
theme or focus merely needs to be reformulated to reflect the new
nature of the work.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality in the experience. Students who stay the course with their
research should be able to tease out something worthwhile from an
academic or scholarly standpoint. Improvement of the creative
thinking skills may help.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Originality as "potentially publishable" Most research especially at
PhD level ought to be able to generate at least one, and probably
several, journal articles in "peer‐reviewed" ("refereed") journals. A
research article should provide an acceptable claim for originality.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• Facts, ideas and originality Professor Michael Talbot of the University of
Liverpool described the nature of originality in one of lectures to graduate students
as:
• If we accept that there are two ingredients, facts and ideas, and that both may be
either ‘new’ (never before presented to the world) or ‘old’ (familiar from earlier
commentary), four possible combinations arise:
1. New facts + New ideas
2. New facts + Old ideas
3. Old facts + New ideas
4. Old facts + Old ideas.
• Combinations 1–3 all lead to originality. Only combination 4 is guaranteed to miss
out on originality. Between them, combinations 1, 2 and 3 cater for an enormous
variety of scholarly talents, temperaments and opportunities.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• The balance between originality and conformity It may be difficult
for the examiners (jury members in your thesis defense or referees
during the publication process) to appreciate the originality of your
research if it is too original. The rejection rate of highly original
articles is known to be unexpectedly high since the referees are
seemingly not ready yet to understand and comprehend the shocking
new findings. Therefore, unless your supervisor is not a world‐wide
famous scientist, be a little cautious on pushing the level of originality
too far.
Originality (Cryer, 2006)
• The ownership of original work. Original work play important role
in career advancement of both students and supervisors. Therefore,
such so‐called "intellectual properties" need to be respected and
protected.
• Usually they are protected with "copyright laws". The academic world
developed very serious codes of research ethics to keep their members
at a continuous honorable and trustable state. Any violation of these
codes, or ethical rules may result with very severe sanctions like
exclusion from the academic world.
Paradigms of research (Kumar, 2011)
• There are two main paradigms that form the basis of research in the
social sciences. It is beyond the scope of this book to go into any detail
about these.
• The crucial question that divides the two is whether the methodology
of the physical sciences can be applied to the study of social
phenomena.
• The paradigm that is rooted in the physical sciences is called the
systematic, scientific or positivist approach. The opposite paradigm
has come to be known as the qualitative, ethnographic, ecological or
naturalistic approach.