BRMK557 Research Methodology and

Intellectual Property Rights

By
Dr. S. Pradeep Naryanan,
Assistant Professor,
ECE Department, SMVIT, Bangalore.
 MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION

Syllabus

Meaning of Research, Objectives of Engineering Research, and

Motivation in Engineering Research, Types of Engineering Research,
Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem. Ethics in Engineering
Research, Ethics in Engineering Research Practice, Types of Research
Misconduct, Ethical Issues Related to Authorship.
 MEANING of RESEARCH
 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. Thus research is an art of scientific
investigation.
 OBJECTIVES of ENGINEERING RESEARCH

The purpose of research is to discover answers to questions through the

application of scientific procedures. The main aim of research is to find
out the truth which is hidden and which has not been discovered as yet.
Though each research study has its own specific purpose, we may think
of research objectives as falling into a number of following broad
groupings:

1. Exploratory or Formulative research studies: To gain familiarity with

a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it.

2. Descriptive research studies: To portray accurately the characteristics

of a particular individual, situation or a group.

3. Diagnostic research studies: To determine the frequency with which

something occurs or with which it is associated with something else.

4. Hypothesis-testing research studies: To test a hypothesis of a causal

relationship between variables.
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.

 Research objectives can sometimes be convoluted and difficult to follow.

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. As an engineer, the
ability to conduct thorough and accurate research while clearly
communicating the results is extremely important in decision making.
 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.

 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:

 Studies have shown that intrinsic motivations like interest, challenge,

learning, meaning, purpose, are linked to strong creative performance;

 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.

 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.
 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:

o Wanting to do better than what has been achieved in the world.

o Improve the state of the art in technology.

o Contribute to the improvement of society.

o Fulfillment of the historical legacy in the immediate socio-

cultural 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

Descriptive versus Analytical:

• Descriptive research includes comparative and co relational 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 the variables cannot be controlled.

• On the contrary, in analytical research, already available facts for

analysis and critical evaluation are utilized. Some research studies can
be both descriptive and analytical.
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.
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 non representative cases or verbal

narrative in behavioral studies such as clustering effect in intersections in
Transportation engineering to make a proposition.
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.
 ENGINEERING RESEARCH PROCESS

 Research process consists of series of actions or steps necessary to

effectively carry out research and the desired sequencing of these steps.
The chart indicates that the research process consists of a number of closely
related activities, as shown through I to VII. But such activities overlap
continuously rather than following a strictly prescribed sequence

1. Formulating the research problem: There are two types of research

problems, viz., those which relate to states of nature and those which relate
to relationships between variables. At the very outset the researcher must
single out the problem he wants to study, i.e., he must decide the general
area of interest or aspect of a subject-matter that he would like to inquire
into.

2. Extensive literature survey: Once the problem is formulated, a brief

summary of it should be written down. It is compulsory for a research
worker writing a thesis for a Ph.D. degree to write a synopsis of the topic
and submit it to the necessary Committee or the Research Board for
approval. At this juncture the researcher should undertake extensive
literature survey connected with the problem.
3. Development of working hypotheses: After extensive literature survey,
researcher should state in clear terms the working hypothesis or hypotheses.
Working hypothesis is tentative assumption made in order to draw out and
test its logical or empirical consequences. Hypothesis should be very
specific and limited to the piece of research in hand because it has to be
tested. The role of the hypothesis is to guide the researcher by delimiting the
area of research and to keep him on the right track. It sharpens his thinking
and focuses attention on the more important facets of the problem.

4. Preparing the research design: The research problem having been

formulated in clear cut terms, the researcher will be required to prepare a
research design, i.e., he will have to state the conceptual structure within
which research would be conducted. The preparation of such a design
facilitates research to be as efficient as possible yielding maximal
information. In other words, the function of research design is to provide for
the collection of relevant evidence with minimal expenditure of effort, time
and money.
5. Determining sample design: The researcher must decide the way of
selecting a sample or what is popularly known as the sample design. In
other words, a sample design is a definite plan determined before any data
are actually collected for obtaining a sample from a given population.
Sampling can be done choosing a particular unit, random unit selection,
systematic pattern, homogenous group (stratified sampling), quota, cluster
or area, multi stages and sequential.

6. Collecting the data: In dealing with any real life problem it is often found
that data at hand are inadequate, and hence, it becomes necessary to collect
data that are appropriate. There are several ways of collecting the
appropriate data which differ considerably in context of money costs, time
and other resources at the disposal of the researcher. Primary data can be
collected either through experiment or through survey. If the researcher
conducts an experiment, he observes some quantitative measurements, or
the data, with the help of which he examines the truth contained in his
hypothesis. But in the case of a survey, data can be collected by any one or
more of the following ways by observation, through personal interview,
through telephonic interview, by mailing the questionnaire etc.
7. Execution of the project: It is a very important step in the research process.
If the execution of the project proceeds on correct lines, the data to be
collected would be adequate and dependable. The researcher should see that
the project is executed in a systematic manner and in time. A careful watch
should be kept for unanticipated factors in order to keep the survey as much
realistic as possible.

8. Analysis of data: After the data have been collected, the researcher turns to
the task of analyzing them. The analysis of data requires a number of
closely related operations such as establishment of categories, the
application of these categories to raw data through coding, tabulation and
then drawing statistical inferences. The unwieldy data should necessarily be
condensed into a few manageable groups and tables for further analysis.
Thus, researcher should classify the raw data into some purposeful and
usable categories.
9. Hypothesis-testing: After analyzing the data as stated above, the researcher
is in a position to test the hypotheses, if any, he had formulated earlier. Do
the facts support the hypotheses or they happen to be contrary? This is the
usual question which should be answered while testing hypotheses. Various
tests, such as Chi square test, t-test, F-test, have been developed by
statisticians for the purpose. The hypotheses may be tested through the use
of one or more of such tests, depending upon the nature and object of
research inquiry. Hypothesis-testing will result in either accepting the
hypothesis or in rejecting it.

10. Generalizations and interpretation: If a hypothesis is tested and upheld

several times, it may be possible for the researcher to arrive at
generalization, i.e., to build a theory. As a matter of fact, the real value of
research lies in its ability to arrive at certain generalizations.
9. Preparation of the report or the thesis: Finally, the researcher has to
prepare the report of what has been done by him. Writing of report must be
done with great care keeping in view the following:

 The layout of the report should be as follows: (i) the preliminary

pages; (ii) the main text, and (iii) the end matter.

 In its preliminary pages the report should carry title and date
followed by acknowledgements and foreword. Then there should be a table
of contents followed by a list of tables and list of graphs and charts, if any,
given in the report.
 The main text of the report should have the following parts:
(a) Introduction: It should contain a clear statement of the
objective of the research and an explanation of the methodology adopted in
accomplishing the research. The scope of the study along with various
limitations should as well be stated in this part.

(b) Summary of findings: After introduction there would

appear a statement of findings and recommendations in non-technical language.
If the findings are extensive, they should be summarized.

(c) Main report: The main body of the report should be

presented in logical sequence and broken-down into readily identifiable sections.

(d) Conclusion: Towards the end of the main text, researcher

should again put down the results of his research clearly and precisely. In fact, it
is the final summing up.

 At the end of the report, appendices should be enlisted in respect of all

technical data. Bibliography, i.e., list of books, journals, reports, etc.,
consulted, should also be given in the end. Index should also be given
specially in a published research report.
 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 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 non-intuitive/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, which is
relevant to engineering researchers as well.
The recommended steps to solve a research problem are:

 Understand the problem, restate it as if it‘s your own, visualize the problem
by drawing figures, and determine if something more is needed.

 One must start somewhere and systematically explore possible strategies to

solve the problem or a simpler version of it while looking for patterns.

 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.

 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 as such.

 Most people learn such norms in their formative years, but moral
development continues through different stages of growth. 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. Although ethics are not laws, but laws often follow ethics because
ethics are our shared values.

 International norms for the ethical conduct of research have been there since
the adoption of the Nuremberg Code in 1947.
 According to Whitbeck, the issues related to research credit dates back to the
establishment of the British Royal Society (BRS) in the seventeenth century
to refine the methods and practices of modern science. 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 raised two simple but significant questions to address the tricky
issue of authorship in research:

o Who should be included as an author and

o The appropriate order of listing of authors.

 In an increasingly interconnected world, the issue of co-authorship is very

relevant to all researchers. 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.
 Government bodies and universities worldwide have adopted
certain codes for research ethics. Research ethics and the
responsible conduct of research are often erroneously used
interchangeably.

 Research ethics examines the appropriate application of research

outcomes, while responsible conduct of research deals with the way
the work is undertaken.
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.

 The reason that ethics matter in data used in engineering research

is usually because there is impact on humans. Certain practices
may be acceptable to certain people in certain situations, and the
reasons for unacceptability may be perfectly valid.

 We have unprecedented access to data today, and unprecedented

options for analysis of these data and consequences in
engineering research related to such data. Are there things that
are possible to do with this data, that we agree we should not do?
 Engineering ethics gives us the rule book; tells us, how to decide
what is okay to do and what is not. Engineering research is not
work in isolation to the technological development taking place.

 Researchers make many choices that matter from an ethical

perspective and influence the effects of technology in many
different ways:.

o By setting the ethically right requirements at the

very outset, engineering researchers can ultimately
influence the effects of the developed technology.

o 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.
 o 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.

 If possible, the designs should be made inherently safe such that they
avoid dangers, or come with safety factors, and multiple independent
safety barriers, or if possible a supervisory mechanism to take control if
the primary process fails.
 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.

There may be different types of research misconduct as described,

which can be summarized as follows:
 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.

 Falsification (Inappropriate alteration of data): Falsification

is the misrepresentation or misinterpretation, 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.

Falsification and fabrication of data and results, hamper

engineering research and cause false empirical data to percolate in
the literature, wreck trustworthiness of individuals involved, incur
additional costs, impede research progress, and cause actual and
avoidable delays in technical advancement.
Misleading data can also crop up due to poor design of experiments
or incorrect measurement practices.

 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.
How are supervisors, reviewers or editors alerted to plagiarism?

(I) Original author comes to know and informs everyone concerned.

(ii) Sometimes a reviewer finds out about it during the review

process.

(iii) or, readers who come across the article or book, while doing
research.
Although there are 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. However, a low
similarity score does not guarantee that the document is
plagiarism free.

It takes a human eye to ascertain whether the content has

been plagiarized or not. It is important to see the individual
scores of the sources, not just the overall similarity index.
Setting a standard of a maximum allowable similarity index
is inadequate usage of the tool. Patchwork plagiarism is
more difficult to evaluate.
There are simple and ethical ways to avoid a high
similarity count on an about to be submitted manuscript.
Sometimes, certain published content is perfect for one‘s
research paper, perhaps in making a connection or
fortifying the argument presented. The published material
is available for the purpose of being used fairly.

One is not expected to churn out research outcomes in thin

air.

However, whatever is relevant can be reported by

paraphrasing in one‘s own words, that is, without verbatim
copy.

One can also summarize the relevant content and naturally,

the summary invariably would use one‘s own words. In all
these cases, citing the original source is important.
However, merely because one has cited a source, it does not
mean that one can copy sentences (or paragraphs) of the original
content verbatim.

A researcher should practice writing in such a way that the reader

can recognize the difference between the ideas or results of the
authors and those that are from other sources. Such a practice
enables one to judge whether one is disproportionately using or
relying on content from existing literature.
 Other Aspects of Research Misconduct:

Serious deviations from accepted conduct could be construed as

research misconduct. When there is both deception and damage, a fraud
is deemed to have taken place. Sooner or later ethical violations get
exposed. Simultaneous submission of the same article to two different
journals also violates publication policies.

Another issue is that 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 which is not always the primary
objective of the researcher.
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. It is the primary basis
of evaluation for employment, promotion, and other honors.

 There is several important research conduct and ethics related

issues connected to authorship of research papers and are
summarized herewith in the context of engineering research.

 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. Including ―guest‖ or ―gift‖ (co-authorship
bestowed on someone with little or no contribution to the work)
authors dilutes the contribution of those who actually did the work,
inappropriately inflates credentials of the listed authors, and is
ethically a red flag highlighting research misconduct.

 Sometimes, the primary author dubiously bestows co-authorship on

a junior faculty or a student to boost their chances of employment or
promotion, which can be termed as Career-boost authorship.
 There is also an 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 Co-authors because of quid pro quo
arrangement wherein the principal author benefits from a
―good relation‖ with the superiors and the administrator
benefits from authorship without doing the required work for it.

 Sometimes, an actual contributor abstains from the list of

authors due to no disclosed conflict of interest within the
organization. Such co-authorships can be termed as ghost co-
authorship. Full disclosure of all those involved in the research
is important so that evaluation can happen both on the basis of
findings, and also whether there was influence from the
conflicts.
 In another type of questionable authorship, some researchers
list one another as coauthors as a reciprocal gesture with no
real collaboration except minimal reading and editing, without
truly reviewing the work threadbare.

 Some authors, in trying to acquire a sole-authored work,

despite relying on significant contribution to the research work
from others, recognize that effort only by an acknowledgment,
thereby misrepresenting the contributions of the listed authors.

 The unrecognized ―author‖ is as a consequence, unavailable

to readers for elaboration.

 All listed authors have the full obligation of all contents of a

research article, and so naturally, they should also be made
aware of a journal submission by the corresponding author.
 It is imperative that their consent is sought with respect to the
content and that they be agreeable to the submission.

 In case of misconduct like inappropriate authorship, while the

perpetrator is easier to find, the degree of appropriate accountability
of the co-authors is not always obvious. Being able to quantify the
contributions so as to appropriately recognize and ascertain the
degree of associated accountability of each coauthor, is appealing.

 Double submission is an important ethical issue related to

authorship, which involves submission of a paper to two forums
simultaneously. The motivation is to increase publication possibility
and possibly decrease time to publication. Reputed journals want to
publish original papers, i.e., papers which have not appeared
elsewhere, and strongly discourage double submission.