21EC56

Research Methodology and IPR

Prepared by

Bavana B N

Assistant Professor

Department of ECE
 AGENDA
• Introduction

• Meaning of Research

• Objectives of Engineering Research

• 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

 Introduction about Research
Research

• Careful, well-defined (or redefined), objective, and systematic method of search for knowledge, or

formulation of a theory that is driven by inquisitiveness unknown and useful on a particular aspect to make

an original contribution to expand the existing knowledge base.

• Formulation of hypothesis/Proposition of solutions, Data analysis, and deductions; and ascertaining whether

the conclusions fit the hypothesis.

• Process of creating, or formulating knowledge that does not yet exist.

 Research Flow Diagram

• 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.

• 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 shown.
• Foundation : Ability to connect different areas.

• The purpose is to prepare the mind for active work as opposed to becoming a repository or an encyclopedia.

• Research is adding, small and specific, yet original contribution to that existing body of knowledge.

• Research - Posing a question which has relevance to the world that we are living in, and 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.

• Good research questions develop throughout the project actually and one can even keep modifying them.

• Through research, one would like to make, or develop, new knowledge about the world around us which can be
written down or recorded in some way, and that knowledge can be accessed through that writing or recording.
Ways Of Developing And Accessing Knowledge

Observation

• Fundamental way of obtaining information from a source,

• Strange , exciting, difficult to observe.

• Takes different forms

• Examples : Measurements in a laboratory , Survey among a group of subjects , Time it takes for a firmware
routine to run.

• Needs to be processed in some form and this leads to the model.

 Models

• Models are approximated in the form of a statistical relationship, a figure, or a set

of mathematical equations.

• 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.
• The final category is a way of arranging or doing things through

• Processes

• Algorithms

• Procedures

• Arrangements

• Reference designs

to get a certain desired result.

Categories of knowledge in research
Good research

• Systematic collection and analysis of information

• Attempt to infer a little bit beyond the already known information in a way that is a significant value addition.

Engineering research

• 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.

• However, sometimes the journey can be reverse, for example, the traversal from (Problem → Topic →Area).

• This can happen when one is led to a problem through a connection to another problem whose top structure is

different.
• 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.

• Characteristics of the Research Problem

• Bugging

• Worrying us and that we should be addressing

• something we would like to do,

• accomplish but currently can not because we lack the knowledge to do so. ,

• something that already works, but we do not know why and we would like to understand it better. ,It
could be that we want to do something to see what will happen.
 Objectives of Engineering Research
• 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).
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,
• 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.
• Of course, someone else might come along and actually propose a different approach where the desired
objective is indeed possible to be achieved.
 Motivation in Engineering Research
(i) 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

• Descriptive versus Analytical

• Applied versus Fundamental

• Quantitative versus Qualitative:

 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICAL

Includes comparative and correlational methods, and Already available facts for analysis and critical
fact-finding inquiries, to effectively describe the evaluation are utilized
present state of art

Researcher holds no control over the variables rather

only reports as it is

includes attempts to determine causes even though the

variables cannot be controlled.
 APPLIED FUNDAMENTAL

• Applied research seeks to solve an immediate Fundamental research is concerned with

problem facing the organization generalizations and formulation of a theory.

• Examples: To identify social or economic trends, Examples : Natural phenomena , Pure mathematics
whether certain communications will be read and
understood

• Primary Objective : To determine a solution for Aimed at seeking information which could have a
compelling problems in actual practice broad base of applications in the medium to long term
 QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE

• Rely on a few nonrepresentative cases or

• Uses statistical observations of a sufficiently
verbal narrative in behavioral studies such as
large number of representative cases to draw
clustering effect in intersections in
any conclusions 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 [4].

• 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 sometime, 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, or wise aphorisms like the sayings of Chanakya.

• Most people learn such norms in their formative years [1], 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 [2].

• 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 [3].

• According to Whitbeck [4], 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 [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

(2) 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.

• Additionally, certain universities now put restrictions on co authorship to prevent malpractices

• 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:
(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.

• 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 in research articles like [5] and [6], which can be
summarized as follows:
(i) 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.

(ii) 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, 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.
The image of engineering researchers as objective truth seekers is often jeopardized by the discovery of data related
frauds. 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.

(iii) 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.2
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 practise 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

• Communicating scholarly work, Establishing priority for their discoveries, Building peer-
reputation, and Comes with intrinsic burden of acceptance of the responsibility for the
contents of the work.

• Primary basis of evaluation for employment, promotion, and other honors.

• 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

• 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 [8], and is ethically a red

flag highlighting research misconduct [9].

• Career-boost authorship

 Primary author dubiously bestows coauthorship on a junior faculty or a student to boost

their chances of employment or promotion.

• Career-preservation authorship

 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
• Sometimes, an actual contributor abstains from the list of authors due to nondisclosed

conflict of interest within the organization [10].

• Such coauthorships can be termed as ghost coauthorship.

• 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.

Inappropriate authorship

• while the perpetrator is easier to find, the degree of appropriate accountability of the
coauthors 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

• 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.