Research method Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Research – Creative, systematic work that expands knowledge by collecting, organizing, and analyzing evidence while controlling bias and error. Primary (Original) Research – Generates new knowledge from direct observation, experiments, or novel data analysis; evaluated for originality through peer review. Scientific Research Process – Observation → hypothesis (testable prediction) → operational definitions → data collection → analysis → interpretation → revise/accept hypothesis. Null Hypothesis (H₀) – States no relationship exists between variables; used as a baseline for statistical testing. Epistemology – Underlying theory of knowledge that guides how evidence is gathered and interpreted; differs between humanities and sciences. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research – Qualitative: meaning‑focused, non‑numeric, uses symbols/metaphors. Quantitative: numeric, uses statistical methods, tests hypotheses. Research Ethics – Principles governing integrity (no falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) and humane treatment of human/animal subjects; overseen by ethics committees. Replication Crisis – Widespread inability to reproduce published results, highlighting methodological flaws and bias. Generalizability – Extent to which findings from a study apply to broader populations; limited when samples are narrow or context‑specific. --- 📌 Must Remember Hypothesis can be supported or rejected; never proven. Null hypothesis is assumed true until evidence shows otherwise. Bias types: funding bias, publication bias, language/geographic bias. Key ethical codes: Nuremberg Code (1947), Declaration of Helsinki (1964), Belmont Report (1978). Three research forms: exploratory (problem identification), constructive (theory testing/solution proposal), empirical (evidence‑based feasibility). Peer review = expert evaluation for quality & credibility; open access = free public availability of research outputs. Citation basics: Author surname first → year in parentheses → title (book italic, article sentence case) → source details → DOI (if available). --- 🔄 Key Processes Scientific Research Workflow Observe phenomenon Formulate testable hypothesis Define concepts (conceptual & operational) Choose methodology (experimental, correlational, survey) Collect data (random sampling where possible) Analyze (statistical tests) Interpret results → accept/reject H₀ Report & communicate findings Historical Method (Humanities) External criticism (authenticity of sources) Internal criticism (consistency, bias) Synthesis (construct narrative) Documentary Research (Hourglass Model) Broad literature review → narrow method → expand again in discussion/results. Ethics Review Process Submit protocol → ethics committee assessment → approval → conduct study → monitoring → reporting. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Primary vs. Secondary Research Primary: new data, original analysis. Secondary: summarizes/interprets existing literature. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Qualitative: meanings, symbols, non‑numeric; often small, purposive samples. Quantitative: numbers, statistical inference; aims for generalizability via random sampling. Exploratory vs. Constructive vs. Empirical Research Exploratory: defines problems, generates questions. Constructive: tests theories, proposes solutions. Empirical: uses observed data to assess feasibility. Funding Bias vs. Publication Bias Funding: sponsor interests shape study outcomes. Publication: positive/significant results more likely to appear. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “A hypothesis can be proven.” – It can only be supported by data; proof is impossible in empirical science. “Qualitative research is unscientific.” – It follows rigorous systematic methods appropriate for meaning‑focused questions. “If a study is peer‑reviewed, it is error‑free.” – Peer review reduces but does not eliminate flaws; replication remains essential. “Generalizability is automatic with statistical tests.” – Only valid when sampling is random and sample reflects the target population. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition Hypothesis as a “tent pole” – Holds the study together; everything else (methods, data) is built to test whether the pole stands. Bias as “filter” – Every stage (design, funding, publishing) can filter out truth; actively check each filter. Hourglass model as “narrowing lens” – Start wide (literature), focus tightly (method), then widen again (discussion) to situate findings. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Non‑empirical (theoretical) research can generate testable hypotheses without new data collection. Mixed‑method studies may prioritize one paradigm (qualitative or quantitative) but still require integration of both data types. Humanities research often lacks a single “correct answer”; evaluation hinges on depth of interpretation and contextual insight. --- 📍 When to Use Which Choose Primary Research when existing literature does not answer your specific question or when novel data are needed. Select Qualitative methods for exploring meanings, cultural contexts, or when variables are not easily quantified. Select Quantitative methods when you need to measure magnitude, test statistical relationships, or generalize to a larger population. Apply Mixed‑methods when you want to enrich numerical findings with contextual depth. Use Null Hypothesis testing for experiments/correlational designs with clear independent/dependent variables. Adopt Historical Method for reconstructing past events using primary documents. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Bias → limited reproducibility” – Studies reporting strong effects without clear bias controls often belong to the replication crisis pattern. “Hourglass shape in methods sections” – Broad intro → narrow method → broad discussion indicates well‑structured documentary research. “Ethics statement + IRB approval” – Presence signals compliance; absence in human/animal studies is a red flag. Citation style cues – Author‑year parentheses + DOI = standard scholarly reference. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Confusing “null hypothesis” with “no hypothesis.” – H₀ is a specific statement of no effect, not an absence of hypothesis. Assuming “peer‑reviewed = flawless.” – Distractor answers may claim peer review guarantees validity; correct answer emphasizes need for replication. Mixing up “primary” and “secondary” sources. – Test items may label a literature review as primary; remember primary = new data. Overlooking ethical approvals in human studies. – Answers that omit IRB/ethics committee mention are incomplete. Equating “generalizability” with “statistical significance.” – Significance does not guarantee findings apply to other populations. ---