Concept of Research

Research

Research in common parlance refers to the search for knowledge. One can
define research as a scientific and systematic search for pertinent
information on a specific topic. Research is the art of scientific investigation.
A dictionary definition of research is careful investigation or inquiry,
especially through the search for new facts in any branch of knowledge.
Some people consider research as a movement from the known to the
unknown. It is a voyage of discovery. We all possess the vital instinct of
inquisitiveness that makes us probe and attain an understanding of the
unknown. This inquisitiveness is the mother of all knowledge and the
method, which one employs for obtaining the knowledge of whatever is
unknown can be termed as research. Research is an academic activity and
as such the term should be used in technical terms.
According to Clifford Woody, Research comprises defining and redefining
problems, formulation of a hypothesis or suggested solution; collecting,
organizing, and evaluating data; making deductions and reaching
conclusions; and at last, carefully testing the conclusion to determine
whether they fit the formulated hypothesis.
As indicated by Creswell, 'research is a procedure of steps used to gather
and analyse information to increase our understanding of a particular topic
or issue’.

Research Objectives

● Investigate some existing situation or problem.

● Build or make another method or framework.
● Generate new knowledge.
● Explore and analyze more general issues.
● Offer a solution to a problem.
 ● Review and synthesize the existing knowledge.

Research characteristics

Objectivity

● Based on scientific facts rather than on one's opinion.

● Factual, free from personal bias.
● Judgment is based on observable phenomena uninfluenced by
emotions or personal prejudices.

Reliability

● Reliability refers to whether or not you get the same answer by

using an instrument to measure something more than once. In
simple terms, research reliability is the degree to which a research
method produces stable and consistent results.
● It can also be termed verifiability. If any research yields similar
results each time, then it is undertaken with a similar population
in the given context, and with similar procedures, it is said to be
termed as verifiability.
● There are four main types of reliability. Each can be estimated by
comparing different sets of results produced by the same method.

Type of reliability Measures the consistency of

Test-retest The same test over time.

Inter-rater The same test is conducted by different

people.

Parallel forms Different versions of a test which are

designed to be equivalent.

Internal consistency The individual items of a test.

Test-retest reliability

Test-retest reliability measures the consistency of results when you repeat

the same test on the same sample at a different point in time. You use it
when you are measuring something that you expect to stay constant in
your sample.

A test of colour blindness for trainee pilot applicants should have high
test-retest reliability because colour blindness is a trait that does not
change over time.

Why is it important?

● Many factors can influence your results at different points in time:

for example, respondents might experience different moods, or
external conditions might affect their ability to respond accurately.
● Test-retest reliability can be used to assess how well a method
resists these factors over time. The smaller the difference
between the two sets of results, the higher the test-retest
reliability.

Test-retest reliability example

● You devise a questionnaire to measure the IQ of a group of

participants (a property that is unlikely to change significantly
over time).You administer the test two months apart to the same
group of people, but the results are significantly different, so the
test-retest reliability of the IQ questionnaire is low.
Inter-rater reliability
Inter-rater reliability (also called inter-observer reliability) measures the
degree of agreement between different people observing or assessing the
same thing. You use it when data is collected by researchers assigning
ratings, scores, or categories to one or more variables.

Importance of Interrater Reliability

Interrater reliability is crucial in research to minimize subjectivity and ensure

that different researchers or observers perceive and rate variables
consistently. This is especially important when multiple researchers are
involved in data collection or analysis.

Example of Interrater Reliability:

In a study, a team of researchers observed the progress of wound healing

in patients. They used rating scales with specific criteria to assess various
aspects of wounds. The results of different researchers assessing the same
set of patients showed a strong correlation, indicating high inter-rater
reliability.

Parallel forms reliability

It measures the correlation between two equivalent versions of a test. You
use it when you have two different assessment tools or sets of questions
designed to measure the same thing.

Why is it important?
Parallel form reliability is crucial when using multiple versions of a test to
ensure that all sets of questions or measurements yield consistent and
reliable results. This is especially important in educational assessment,
where different versions of tests are often created to prevent students from
memorizing questions.

Example of Parallel Forms Reliability:

In a study, a set of questions was formulated to measure financial risk
aversion in a group of respondents. The questions were randomly divided
into two sets, and the respondents were randomly divided into two groups.
Both groups took both tests, with one group taking test A first and the
other group taking test B first. The results of the two tests were compared
and found to be nearly identical, indicating high parallel forms reliability.

Internal consistency

Internal consistency assesses the correlation between multiple items in a

test that are intended to measure the same construct.

You can calculate internal consistency without repeating the test or

involving other researchers, so it’s a good way of assessing reliability when
you only have one data set.

Why it’s important?

Internal consistency is crucial when combining multiple questions or ratings
into an overall score. It ensures that all items reflect the same underlying
concept or variable and that responses to different items do not contradict
one another. This is especially important in surveys and questionnaires.

Example of Internal Consistency:

In a study, a set of statements was designed to measure optimistic and

pessimistic mindsets. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with
each statement on a scale from 1 to 5. If the test has high internal
consistency, optimistic respondents should generally give high ratings to
optimism indicators and low ratings to pessimism indicators. However, if
the correlation between responses to the "optimistic" statements is weak, it
suggests that the test has low internal consistency.

Split-Half Method
The split-half method is a common technique used to assess the internal
consistency of a test. It involves dividing the test into two halves and
comparing the results of one half with the results of the other half. A high
correlation between the two halves indicates good internal consistency.
How much “noise,” or unrelated information, is captured by the results?

Validity

Face Validity:
It is the extent to which the measurement method appears “on its face” to
measure the construct of interest.
Example:
People might have negative reactions to an intelligence test that did not
appear to them to be measuring their intelligence.
Content Validity:
It is the extent to which the measurement method covers the entire range
of relevant behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that define the construct being
measured.
Example:
● One’s attitude toward an object is considered to consist of
thoughts about the object, feelings about the object, and
behaviors toward the object.
● Therefore, a test to assess one’s attitude toward taxes should
include items about thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
● If test anxiety is thought to include both nervous feelings and
negative thoughts, then any measures of test anxiety should cover
both of these aspects.
● A course exam has good content validity if it covers all the
material that is supposed to be learned and poor content validity
if it does not.

Criterion Validity:
It is the extent to which people’s scores are correlated with other variables
or criteria that reflect the same construct.
Example:
● An IQ test should correlate positively with school performance.
● An occupational aptitude test should correlate positively with
work performance.

Types of Criteria Validity:

Predictive Validity:
● A new measure of self-esteem should correlate positively with an
old, established measure.
● When the criterion is something that will happen or be assessed
in the future, this is called predictive validity.

Concurrent Validity:
● When the criterion is something that is happening or being
assessed at the same time as the construct of interest, it is called
concurrent validity.

External Validity:
● It is the extent to which the results of a research study can be
generalized to different situations, different groups of people,
different settings, different conditions, etc.

Internal Validity:
● It is basically the extent to which a study is free from flaws and
that any differences in measurement are due to an independent
variable and nothing else.
● Internal validity is the extent to which a study establishes a
trustworthy cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment
and an outcome.
● Internal validity can be assessed based on whether extraneous
(i.e. unwanted) variables that could also affect results are
 successfully controlled or eliminated; the greater the control of
such variables, the greater the confidence that a cause and effect
relevant to the construct being investigated can be found.

Construct validity:

● Construct validity is an assessment of how well you translated

your ideas or theories into actual programs or measures.
Construct is a way of defining something and if a researcher’s
proposed construct is against the existing literature, its construct
validity is doubtful.

Factors Affecting Validity:

1. History: events that occur besides the treatment (events in the
environment).
2. Maturation: Physical or psychological changes in the participants.
3. Testing: effect of experience with the pretest - - become tests.
4. Instrumentation: learning gain might be observed from pre to
post-test simply due to the nature of the instrument. Particularly a
problem in observation studies is when observers are more likely
to give ratings based on expectations (conscious or subconscious).
5. Differential Selection: Effect of treatment confounded with other
factors because of differential selection of participants, problem in
non-random samples.
6. Experimental Mortality: participants lost from the study, attrition.

Accuracy:

Accuracy in research is a research characteristic that provides a way to

know how close are the sample parameters to population characteristics.
So accuracy means how precisely the measured value or findings reflect
the real or the original values. By measuring the accuracy of the research
the researcher can prove that the research is generalizable, reliable, and
valid.
Credibility:
It is the utilization of the best wellspring of data and the best techniques in
the exploration. Credibility refers to the extent to which a research account
is believable and appropriate, concerning the level of agreement between
participants and the researcher. Hence, it has to be a trade-off between
primary data and secondary data.
Empirical research:
Empirical research is research that is based on the observation and
measurement of phenomena, as directly experienced by the researcher. The
data thus gathered may be compared against a theory or hypothesis, but
the results are still based on real-life experience. Empirical research is
defined as any research where conclusions of the study are strictly drawn
from concretely empirical evidence, and therefore “verifiable” evidence. This
empirical evidence can be gathered using quantitative and qualitative
research methods. For example, research is being conducted to find out if
listening to happy music while working may promote creativity. An
experiment is conducted by using a music website survey on a set of
audiences who are exposed to happy music and another set who are not
listening to music at all, and the subjects are then observed. The results
derived from such research will give empirical evidence if it does promote
creativity or not
Systematic:

For an exploration to be powerful, it must be deliberate. It is the main way

to deal with embracing any examination work and each progression must
pursue the other. There is a set of procedures that have been tested over a
period of time and are, thus, suitable to use in research. Therefore, each
research should follow a definite procedure.
Controlled factors:
In real-life experiences, there is always more than one factor that
affects the outcome of an event. Similarly, in research, various factors
may affect the outcome and some are taken as controlled factors,
whereas the others are tested for the possible outcome.
Cyclical:
Research is a repetitive procedure. Research starts with a specific
problem, finds a solution for that problem, and paves the way for a new
problem.
Logical:
The statement, great research is coherent, infers that examination is
guided by the standards of sensible thinking.
Replicable:
Replicability means obtaining consistent results across studies aimed at
answering the same scientific question using new data or other new
computational methods.
Reliability is about whether the same result would be found if the
experiment was repeated. An experiment must be replicable if it is to be
reliable. One way to remember this is 'reliability requires replicability'
Positivism and Post-positivism

Keywords:
● Epistemology: Study of knowing. How we come to know or can
know. In other words, it is the study of how to get true knowledge.
● Ontology: Study of what is reality.
● Metaphysics: Concerned with reasoning and logic.
● Paradigm: A research paradigm is “the set of common beliefs and
agreements shared between scientists. about how problems
should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn, 1970)
Interpretive paradigm

The interpretive paradigm is concerned with understanding the world as it

is from the subjective experiences of individuals. They use meaning
(versus-measurement-oriented methodologies, such as interviewing or
participant observation, that rely on a subjective relationship between the
researcher and subjects.
Positivist paradigm and interpretive paradigm

Positivists believe society shapes the individual and uses quantitative

methods, intepretivists believe individuals shape society and use qualitative
methods
positivist paradigm: empirical, objectivist, and explanatory.
interpretative paradigm: humanist, subjectivism, understanding.
Transformative paradigm

The transformative paradigm views knowledge as a social construction

shaped by the knower's individual experiences, personal characteristics,
and community affiliations.
This paradigm aims to give voice to local knowledge held by a diverse array
of participants.
Comte is regarded as the father of positivism.
What made Comte immortal in the discipline was his celebrated 'law of
three stages'.
● First, he spoke of the theological stage: a stage in which the mind
explains phenomena or mundane occurrences by ascribing them
to the unfathomable gods. The fact is that without some guidance
one cannot begin to make systematic observations. And sciences
in their infancy could not escape the questions relating to the
essences of phenomena and their ultimate origins to which
theological answers are most appropriate.
 ● Second, he spoke of the metaphysical stage in which abstract
forces, powers, and essences, rather than spiritual forces, are
considered responsible for worldly affairs.
● Finally, as Comte argued, there was a positive or scientific stage in
which we abandon the search for ultimate origins, purposes, or
abstract forces, and become more concrete and focused: we
observe the relations between phenomena and arrive at laws
because the aim of positive philosophies to consider all
phenomena as subject to invariable natural laws

An Example to Understand the Deeper Meaning of Comte's Law of

Three Stages
Let us take a simple illustration to comprehend the deeper meaning of
these three stages of knowledge. Imagine fire as a phenomenon. It is
possible to explain it, as the Vedic hymns suggest, as a manifestation of a
powerful deity called Agni.

Now Comte would have argued that explaining fire as a manifestation of

Agni is a theological explanation. But suppose one goes beyond these
Vedic rituals and enters a higher stage of contemplative/abstract thought,
and sees fire as something symbolizing human beings, the quest for truth
and purity: burning all egotistic passions and impulses. Yes, Comte would
have argued that it is a metaphysical explanation.

But then, if you argue that fire is just a Physico-chemical phenomenon that
can be 10 explained in the form of natural law, Comte would have argued
that you have finally arrived at the positive stage. In other words, positivist
knowledge is empirical and universal; something that is concrete and
demonstrable. Here is a piece of knowledge without a metaphysical/
theological significance. It demystifies the world.
So when you see the rains, you need not explain it as Indra's blessing, nor
do you see it as a manifestation of man‟ 's poetry to overcome the dryness
of his being. Instead, the rains you see, in this positivist stage can be
explained in terms of the scientific principles of heat, cloud formation, and
the water cycle!

Salient Features of Positivism

● The salient features of positivism can be characterized as follows:

● It believes in the unity of method. Sociology is not different from
the natural sciences as far as the method of inquiry is concerned.
● It celebrates objectivity and values neutrality. It, therefore,
separates the knower from the known, subjectivity from
objectivity, and fact from value.
● Sociology is not common sense. It rests on explanatory principles,
which give a universal character to the discipline.
● Sociology is a formal and organized body of knowledge,
characterized by specialized skills.
● Sociology can strive for abstraction and generalization. Human
experiences can be explained through law-like generalizations.
● The scientific knowledge of society can be used for social
engineering

Science as an Underlying Ground for Positivism

Positivism often involves the use of existing theories to develop hypotheses

to be tested during the research process. Science can be specified as a
cornerstone of positivist research philosophy. Specifically, positivism relies
on the following aspects of science:.

1. Science is deterministic. The scientific approach is based on the

assumption that X causes Y under certain circumstances. The role
 of the researcher when following the scientific approach is to
discover the specific nature of cause-and-effect relationships.
2. Science is mechanistic. The mechanical nature of the scientific
approach can be explained in a way that researchers develop
hypotheses to be proved or disproved via the application of
specific research methods. This leads to the fact that
3. Science uses methods. Chosen methods are applied mechanically
in order to operationalize theory or hypothesis. Application of
methodology involves the selection of samples, measurements,
analysis, and reaching conclusions about hypotheses.
4. Science deals with empiricism. In other words, science only deals
with what can be seen or measured. From this perspective,
science can be assessed as objective.

Post-positivism

● As we discussed, positivism is associated with quantitative

research strategies.
● There is one specific perspective on how research ought to be
directed, which suggests that we should carry out research in the
social sciences in ways that are similar to the methods within the
natural sciences.
● Two people observe the same event but understand it differently,
based on their own experiences and beliefs.
● Objectivity can be achieved by using multiple measurements and
observations and triangulating the data to gain a clearer
comprehension of what’s going on as a general rule.
● It is important to note that post-positivists share a lot in common
with positivists, but most of the research approaches and
practices in social science today fit better into the post-positivist
category.
 ● Since the inception of the 21st century, the focus of research has
shifted from ‘reality’ to ‘critical reality’.
● Physicists like Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr focused on this
reality.
● The emphasis was turned away from absolute certainty to
probability.
● Now, the scientist is portrayed as a person who constructs
knowledge, instead of just passively noting the laws of nature,
and no matter how faithfully the scientist adheres to scientific
method research, research outcomes are neither totally objective
nor unquestionably certain.
● This approach was called up post-positivism, where it describes a
less strict form of positivism.
● Post-positivists support the idea that social scientists and natural
scientists share the same goals for research and employ similar
methods of investigation.
● It tends to be distinguished from positivism as indicated by
whether the attention is on hypothesis verification (positivism) or
on theory misrepresentation (post-positivism).

Difference between positivism and post-positivism

Feature Positivism Post-Positivism

Objectivity, empirical Interpretation,
Emphasis observation subjectivity
Knowledge Testing through Critical reflection on
acquisition controlled experiments findings
Value-laden,
Value-free, universal, context-dependent, and
Data and objective interpretive
Both quantitative and
Methodology Quantitative methods qualitative methods
Limitations of Acknowledged
knowledge Assumed certainty uncertainty and bias
Relation to Constructed social
reality Mirror of reality reality
Role of
researcher Neutral observer Engaged participant
Physics, natural Social sciences,
Examples sciences humanities