Workshop Slides on Research Proposal and Procedure 190415
10 likes3,980 views
This document provides an overview of a two-day workshop on research proposals and procedures for postgraduate studies. Day one covers topics such as selecting a topic, identifying a research problem and objectives, theoretical frameworks, literature reviews, research design and methodology. Day two focuses on conducting a literature review, research methodology including research design and sampling, instrument design, data collection and analysis, and writing a research proposal. The document provides detailed information on each topic through explanatory text and examples.
Workshop Slides on Research Proposal and Procedure 190415
- 1. Ernest Cyril de Run Hiram Ting 1 Research Proposal and Procedure: A Guide to Postgraduate Studies (II) Kuching Park Hotel, Kuching, Sarawak April 18-19, 2015 Organized by Sarawak Research Society (SRS)
- 2. 2 Initial Remarks These workshop slides are prepared and designed specifically for the postgraduate candidates in the present workshop. Hence, some of the points are developed based on experience, not textbook-like materials, and must be understood with the right context. Hiram Ting Acknowledgement Gratitude to Prof Thurasamy Ramayah and Prof Ernest Cyril de Run for providing useful information during the preparation of the workshop slides. Research Proposal and Procedure: A Guide to Postgraduate Studies Kuching, 18-19 April, 2015
- 3. Workshop Outline Day One • Why Do Research • Introduction to Research Proposal • Overview of Research Proposal • Concept, Context & Content • Selecting Topic(s) • Research Problem & Objective* • Identifying Research Gap • Theoretical & Conceptual Framework • Literature Review* • Research Design/Methodology* • Expected Results & Contribution • References and Time Frame • Sources of Information • Ten Common Mistakes 3 Day Two • Literature Review • What and How Many • How to Review • How to Synthesize • Research Methodology • Research Paradigm & Design • Population & Sample • Instrument Design • Data Collection and Analysis • Taxonomy • How to Start Writing • How to Present & Defend • Handling Challenges & Roadblocks • Post-Research Proposal • Hands-on Exercise
- 4. 4
- 5. Literature Review Literature review involves the systematic identification, search, and analysis of documents containing information related to the research problem and phenomena under investigation. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is a piece of discursive (a series of logical discussion) writing style. 5
- 6. Literature Review CONTINUED A Literature Review is NOT an annotated bibliography with a short descriptive paragraph. It is NOT a literary survey, an overview of one author or a summary of a researcher’s life and work (even if your work is biographical, you will also have secondary sources). Background information or explanations of important concepts may be essential but they do NOT constitute the essence of a Literature Review. E.g. the definition of malaria may be important to a paper tracking malaria-bearing mosquitoes, but it is NOT the substantive part of a Literature Review. It is NOT primarily an argument for the importance of what it is you are researching. It is crucial to explain what is at stake in your research, and the Literature Review may explore this aspect, but usually the Literature Review assumes that the urgency for undertaking the task has already been established in earlier, introductory parts of your research essay. 6
- 7. Literature Review CONTINUED Attributes of critical review (Saunders and Rojon, 2015): 1. Identifies and includes the most relevant research to the topic. 2. Discusses and evaluates research. 3. Identifies recognized experts. 4. Contextualizes and justifies your aim(s) and objective(s). 5. Consider and discuss research that supports and opposes your ideas. 6. Justifies points made logically with valid evidence. 7. Distinguishes between fact and opinion. 8. Includes articles that is published since the start of your research. 9. References all sources fully. 7
- 8. Literature Review CONTINUED Specific Reasons for the Review To identify what has already been done; To keep current in their field; To have a better idea and bigger picture about the research; to help in the planning and correcting of what needs to be done; To state clearly gaps in the literature and problem statements; To provide the significance of study and rationale for research; To identify research strategies and procedures, and also specific measurements or scales (self-construct, adopt or adapt); To identify underlying and competing theories, build research framework, and deepen or broaden existing knowledge; To ensure relevant variables are not left out; To help interpret data and discuss findings from the research. 8
- 10. Literature Review CONTINUED What and How Many to Review Consider and know your research problem. Identify and determine key concepts and context of your research. Search for relevant journal articles using concepts + context using Google Scholar. Recent journal articles and seminar papers are more preferred than textbooks and conference proceedings. Go through the first 30 results, and select articles that may be of relevance based on the titles and the short description provided. Search for a good thesis with similar topics online or in library. Scan the selected articles in order to determine if they are relevant. Use the keywords and references to search for more relevant articles. There is no fixed number of articles for preparing research proposal. 10
- 11. Literature Review CONTINUED How to Review Critically The Three-Pass Approach: The first pass gives you a general idea about the paper. The second pass lets you grasp the paper’s content, but not its details. The third pass helps you understand the paper in depth. First Pass is a quick scan to get a bird's-eye view of the article and should take about 5 to 10 minutes. It consists of the following steps: 1. Carefully read the title, abstract, and introduction; 2. Read the section and sub-section headings; 3. Glance any figure of underlying theoretical foundations or table that shows variables under investigation; 4. Glance over the references, mentally ticking on the ones you've already read. 11
- 12. Literature Review CONTINUED How to Review Critically (cont.) Second Pass requires reading of the article with greater care. However, it is fine if you cannot understand the formula, research terminologies and the presentation of findings. It helps to jot down the key points or to make comments in the margins, as you read (either manually using various techniques or software). After this pass, you should be able to grasp the content of the article. You should be able to summarize the main thrust of the article, with supporting evidence, to someone else. 12
- 13. Literature Review CONTINUED How to Review Critically (cont.) When you review more articles, you will begin to see abundance of ideas, arguments, past findings and etc. You see similarities but also disagreements. You may use summary table or mapping technique. You can ensure you are analyzing critically by testing out your own views against those you are reading about: What do you think about the topic? Then as you read each new study, does the evidence presented confirm your view, or does it provide a counter-argument that causes you to question your view? This does not only help drafting your research proposal, it is also a training itself to develop your critical reading and thinking skills which are essential for your continual progress. 13
- 14. Literature Review CONTINUED How to Review Critically (cont.) To provide evidence to help explain the rationale or importance of your investigation. If not, “so what” about this proposed research? When you are writing the discussion of findings for your thesis, you need to relate these back to the background literature. Do your results confirm what was found before, or challenge it? Why might this be? When writing your discussion section, you may find that you need to redraft the focus of your literature review slightly to draw out those studies that are most important to your findings. 14
- 15. Literature Review CONTINUED 15 Descriptive Summarizes what other people have found without saying what these findings mean for your investigation. Usually a chronological list of who discovered what, and when. Analytical Synthesizes the work and succinctly passes judgment on the relative merits of research conducted in your field. Reveals limitations or recognizes the possibility of taking research further, allowing you to formulate and justify your aims for your investigation. Example: "Green (1975) discovered …." "In 1978, Black conducted experiments and discovered that …." "Later Brown (1980) illustrated this in ……" Example: There seems to be general agreement on x, (see White 1987, Brown 1980, Black 1978, Green 1975). Although x is largely seen as a consequence of y (Green, 1975; Brown, 1980) , x and y are also regarded as …. (Black, 1978). While Green's work has some limitations in that it …., its main value lies in …."
- 16. Literature Review CONTINUED 16 Bad Literature Review: Richbell et al. (1998) studied about the staffing levels that effect health and morale of the staff. The aim of their study was to match demand for policing activities with police resources and resize the number of officers on shift duties. They used a method heuristically to match demand to staff, then developed a questionnaire to measure staff satisfaction based on a statistical approach. The staff performance was measured through the percentage change of a few factors such as sickness, overtime, number of arrest and reported crime from the questionnaire between the regular shift system and the Ottawa shift systems. The result showed that the Ottawa shift system increases morale, improves health and increases satisfaction in the workforce. However, their heuristic method was used only to determine the number of staff. Discuss why?
- 17. Literature Review CONTINUED 17 Good Literature Review: Good Literature Review : Automated storage retrieval systems (AR/RS) are being introduced into the industry and warehousing at an increasing rate. Forecasts indicate that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future (see Roll et al., 1999). Research in the area of AS/RS has followed several avenues. Early work by Hausman et al. (1965) was concerned with storage assignment and interleaving policies, based on turnover rates of the various items. Elsayed (2001) and Elsayed and Stern (2003) compared algorithms for handling orders in AR/RS. Additional work by Karasawa et al. (1998), Azadivar (2000), and Perry et al. (2002) deals with design of an AR/RS and the determination of its throughput by stimulation and optimization techniques. Discuss why?
- 18. 18
- 19. Research Methodology Research Paradigm Paradigm framework is made up by philosophy, ontology, epistemology and methodology. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or how we come to know (Trochim, 2000). Understanding the differences in epistemology among research paradigms begins primarily as a philosophical exercise to address the question of whether there is one knowable reality or that there are multiple realities (Olson,1995) The underlying belief system of the researcher (ontological assumptions) largely defines the choice of method (methodology) (Dobson, 2002). 19
- 20. Research Methodology CONTINUED In the positivist paradigm, the object of study is independent of researchers; knowledge is discovered and verified through direct observations or measurements of phenomena; facts are established by taking apart a phenomenon to examine its component parts. An alternative view, the naturalist or constructivist view, is that knowledge is established through the meanings attached to the phenomena studied; researchers interact with the subjects of study to obtain data; inquiry changes both researcher and subject; and knowledge is context and time dependent (Coll & Chapman, 2000; Cousins, 2002). 20
- 21. Research Methodology CONTINUED Researchers generally align with one of three research paradigms (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009): (a) a positivist paradigm (quantitative researchers), (b) a constructivist paradigm (qualitative researchers), or (c) a pragmatist paradigm (mixed-methods researchers). Pragmatism “rejects the either/or choices associated with the paradigm wars, advocates for the use of mixed methods in research, and acknowledges that the values of the researcher play a large role in interpretation of results” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 713). Researchers mix methods in ways that make the most sense given their research questions, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches and data analysis procedures and attempting “to open up inquiry to all possibilities while tying that search to practical ends” (Maxcy, 2003, p. 86). 21
- 22. Research Methodology CONTINUED A qualitative study is defined as an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting. Alternatively a quantitative study is an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers, and analyzed with statistical procedures, in order to determine whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true (Creswell, 1994). 22
- 23. Research Methodology CONTINUED Mixed-methods research is a combination of “elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative view points, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (p. 123). Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) described six possible designs: Convergent Design, Explanatory Design, Exploratory Design, Embedded Design, Transformative Design, Multiphase Design. 23
- 25. Research Methodology CONTINUED Deciding Population and Sample Despite being methodology, knowing your population and sample, and overall research carried-out are some of the earliest decisions. Population is determined not based on geographical locations (unless the studies are localized), but concepts and contexts. Probability vs. Non-probability Sampling Probability Sampling A sampling technique in which every member of the population has a known, nonzero probability of selection. Non-probability Sampling A sampling technique in which units of the sample are selected on the basis of personal judgment or convenience. The probability of any particular member of the population being chosen is unknown. 25
- 27. Research Methodology CONTINUED 27 Errors associated with sampling
- 29. Research Methodology CONTINUED Factor of Concerns in Choosing Sample Size Purpose of Study Quantitative or qualitative? Exploratory or Explanatory? Probability or non-probability? Can we use sample size formula? Generalization or Saturation? How many is enough? Complexity of Model Number of variables, items and indicators (arrows pointing to endogenous variable) Types of Analysis Certain analytical methods require minimum sample size. Power Analysis To assess effect size 29
- 30. Research Methodology CONTINUED Factor of Concerns in Choosing Sample Size (cont.) Variance (or Heterogeneity) A heterogeneous population has more variance (a larger standard deviation) which will require a larger sample. A homogeneous population has less variance (a smaller standard deviation) which permits a smaller sample Magnitude of Error (Confidence Interval) How precise must the estimate be? Confidence Level How much error will be tolerated 30
- 31. Research Methodology CONTINUED Instrument Design Proposing the use of the most appropriate instrument is crucial as it will determine whether the collected data is valid and useful for subsequent analysis and interpretation. 31 Qualitative Research: Quantitative Research: Action research Case study research Ethnography Grounded theory Semiotics Discourse analysis Hermeneutics Narrative and metaphor Surveys Laboratory experiments Simulation Mathematical modeling Structured equation modeling Statistical analysis Econometrics
- 32. Research Methodology CONTINUED Instrument Design (cont.) Notwithstanding research proposal, it is important to know which is more appropriate and justify with valid reasons. As long as the proposed method is justifiable, it should be fine. Things may change after proposal defense and doing more studies. 32
- 33. Research Methodology CONTINUED Data Collection Important consideration as they will affect data reliability and validity: 1. Adopt, adapt or self-developed items. 2. The type of respondents you have. 3. Number of items (time needed to complete each data collection) 4. Positive and negative worded statements. 5. Forced scale or randomized the items or section approach. 6. Translation in cross-culture studies How and when to administer data collection is proposed. Procedural control can be mentioned to indicate awareness of potential errors and mistakes. 33
- 34. Research Methodology CONTINUED Data Analysis Types of Analysis 1. Parametric (assumption: normal distribution) 2. Non-parametric (distribution free) Number of Variables Involved 1. Univariate 2. Bivariate 3. Multivariate Types of Software 1. Qualitative: ATLAS.ti, Nvivo, Leximancer 2. Quantitative: SPSS, AMOS, PLS, Lisrel Proposed Types of Analysis – Factor Analysis, SEM, Panel Analysis 34
- 35. 35
- 36. 36
- 37. Taxonomy 37
- 39. Taxonomy CONTINUED About tenses Opinion is varied on whether when writing about prior research you should mainly use the present or past tense. When either tense can communicate equally effectively, we opt for the present for several reasons. First, it gives the reader a greater sense of immediacy. Second, when discussing concepts, and in line with our concept-centric approach to literature reviews, it is logical to use the present tense because concepts are always here and now. Third, the present tense is terser and thus faster for the reader to process. There is an exception to this recommendation. An author’s opinions can change with time. When attributing a statement or idea to a person, therefore, use the past tense: .Max Weber may no longer be saying what he once said. (Starbuck 1999). Consistency and flow (context-based) are crucial. Be familiar with research terminologies in your specific disciplines. 39
- 40. How to Start Writing Start writing is always difficult. You cannot write without reading. You also cannot write without being determined to sit down and do nothing but writing. Your research proposal needs to tell an interesting "story" which leads up to how and why you are doing your investigation. In your literature review, if you are writing a story which reads like one thing after another, this is likely to be descriptive. However, if your story is comparing, contrasting and evaluating the previous literature, you are on the right track. “The introduction is the part of the paper that provides readers with the background information for the research reported in the paper. Its purpose is to establish a framework for the research, so that readers can understand how it is related to other research” (Wilkinson, 1991, p. 96). 40
- 41. How to Start Writing CONTINUED In an introduction, the writer should: • create reader interest in the topic, • lay the broad foundation for the problem that leads to the study, • place the study within the larger context of the scholarly literature, • reach out to a specific audience. (Creswell, 1994, p. 42) Could you address these four items for your present research? Again, just write, and you can always make changes later. 41
- 42. How to Start Writing CONTINUED 42 Problem statements and gaps in the literature are of major importance in research. Clearly and succinctly identify and explain the problem within the framework of the theory or line of inquiry that undergirds the study. State the problem in terms intelligible to someone who is generally sophisticated but who is relatively uninformed in the area of your investigation. Effective problem statements answer the question “Why does this research need to be conducted.” If you are unable to answer this question clearly and succinctly, and without resorting to hyperspeaking (i.e., focusing on problems of macro or global proportions that certainly will not be informed or alleviated by the study), then the statement of the problem will come off as ambiguous and diffuse.
- 43. How to Start Writing CONTINUED 43 Literature review is an ongoing process. Always try to write what you have read and understood. Don’t worry about how good it is at the initial stage. A good literature management will help writing as it facilitates information retrieving process. What would be the most effective literature management methods for you? Discuss. 1. Writing notes somewhere, e.g. on the article itself or on your draft. 2. Copy and paste what is relevant, and then paraphrase. 3. Use summary table or mapping. 4. Develop the structure or “skeletons” of your literature review first, and put literature in gradually. 5. Get ideas from past research proposal.
- 44. How to Start Writing CONTINUED 44 The format (sub-headings) of methodology is usually similar for research in the same disciplines, hence you can follow any template in the discipline or guideline suggested by your faculty. Decide what you plan to do, and write. Explanation and justification can come in later as you will learn more about them when reading more articles. Significance of study should reflect your problem statements and research objectives. For a PhD research, theoretical/conceptual contribution is more important than contextual and managerial contribution.
- 45. 45
- 46. How to Present and Defend Before the Defense: Discuss with your supervisor – team effort. Attend some defenses before yours. Plan out your presentation as a team. Use bullet points, know where to emphasize. Do your homework on the important points, make sure you have citations for each of them. Try to come out with possible questions and answer those questions. Make sure all things that you want to bring with you are prepared. E.g. pendrive, notes and etc. Remember to pray. 46
- 47. How to Present and Defend CONTINUED On the Day of the Defense: Dress well. Start on time, don’t let your panel wait for you. Don’t read and teach, but present. Don’t over elaborate, be cautious with improvisation. Be confident but not arrogant. Be animated, project your voice well. Avoid verbal tics. E.g. I mean… Okay… you see. Don’t be “defensive”, always respond based on citations. Record the comments and suggestions. Show your appreciation for the panellists' help. 47 Reference: http://www.learnerassociates.net/dissthes/?utm_content=buffer9c35a&ut m_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- 48. Handling Challenges and Roadblocks Knowing your priorities. Maintaining interest and momentum. Building workable relationship with supervisor. Handling pressure from panelists, reviewers and examiners. Juggling study, work and family at the same time. Dealing with unexpected events. Doing full time or part time. Having difficulties in reading and writing. Supporting each other in a group. 48
- 49. Post- Research Proposal How to do a PhD: 1. Choose who you work with carefully. 2. See yourself as a beginner, a learner. 3. Treating your study as a work (but it has to be fun). 4. Start early, make mistakes, e.g. analyze early. 5. Get to know the literature. 6. Don’t obsess over productivity. 7. Give yourself time to think. 8. Be decisive yet adaptable. 9. Be bold to present your ideas and get comments, including criticism. 10. Set aside definite time, be discipline and persistent. 11. Find/Create for yourself the best working environment. 12. Enjoy life, enjoy the challenge. 49
- 50. Post- Research Proposal CONTINUED PhD Survival: 1. Beat your first deadline 2. Get to know people who can make things happen 3. Thank people who do things for you 4. Get to know other people’s research 5. Get really, really good at one thing 6. What you write now, you won’t like in 3 years time 7. Downloading papers doesn’t count as reviewing the literature 8. Publish 9. Make contacts outside your department 10. Write everything down 11. Time goes faster than you think 12. Make mistakes early, don’t aim to be perfectionist 50
- 51. 51
- 52. 52
- 54. 54 Hands-on Exercise: Sketch what research you are interested to do using the following items (just 1-2 sentences for each item). You can make it up if you don’t have any: • Research problems expressed as questions • Theory or concept used • Research objectives • Research paradigm and design • Proposed methodology • Expected significance of study
- 55. Thank You 55 Ernest Cyril de Run, PhD Email: drernest@feb.unimas.my Hiram Ting, PhD Email: hiramparousia@gmail.com