Wednesday 27 February 2013

What is good research?



Professor Jacobs stated that a good research is fundamentally a good argument based on evidence, and has nothing to do with the "truth". He joked that if one would like to seek the "truth", carrying out research would not be a good idea. Rather, studying theology would be a better option.

I pondered over this statement and decided that I will first make a comparison between research and argument.

The word "argument" is derived from Latin "argumentum", where "arguere" means to "make clear, prove, or accuse". In our daily lives, we might encounter an argument with another person owing to some disagreement. During the argument, each of us might attempt to use evidence and/or facts to support our own viewpoint. In school, we might also have been tasked with writing an argumentative essay, where we take a stand regarding an issue and use evidence to support our stance, in the hopes of persuading and convincing our readers to agree with our point of view. However, in doing so, we must not be one-sided and should address both sides of the argument in a fair and balanced manner as this helps to strengthen the points that we make.

What about a research paper?

A research paper is somewhat similar to an argumentative essay, in that a claim (which could be a proposed explanation, an opinion, a proposal, and so on) is made within an academic discipline, and the claim is subsequently justified using evidence (which could be in the form of data, responses from surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and so on). The goal of the research thesis is to inform and/or explain to the target audience about the research findings backed up by evidence, and hopefully to convince them that the claim is true and has made a useful contribution to that particular academic discipline.

As shown, a research and an argument have the same purpose and both strive to achieve the same outcome. The difference is that research papers are often subjected to more stringent requirements as they are eventually published in the form of a journal article, book or thesis. Though the quality and standards vary from one academic discipline to another, one journal to another, and one publisher to another, most research papers usually need to undergo peer review and the editorial-referee system before they can be published.




What are the rules of the game for good research? 

If a research is similar to an argument, it follows that a good research is fundamentally a good argument. But what qualifies as a good research or argument?

We were introduced to the three modes of persuasion - ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional), and logos (logical), as described by Greek philosopher Aristotle in his book "Rhetoric": 
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. [...] Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. [...] Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. [...] Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.
This short video, entitled "The 3 Pillars of Persuasion", provides a brief history of ethos, pathos and logos:


In-class Example: People should not have alcohol until they are 18. Discuss.

Ethos (meaning "character" in Greek) - ethical appeal

Professor Jacobs' argument: "... because the law says so."

The impact of ethos is often referred to as the argument's 'ethical appeal' or the 'appeal from credibility'. In other words, the extent to which the presenter convinces his/her audience that he/she is qualified, credible, knowledgeable and/or ethical to present on the particular topic.

Pathos (meaning "suffering" or "experience" in Greek) - emotional appeal

Professor Jacobs' argument: "... because my sister was killed by a 17-year-old drunk driver in a road accident."
 


Pathos is an appeal to the audience's emotions, in particular, the audience's sympathy, imagination, hopes and sometimes, fear. A successful appeal to pathos should cause an audience not just to respond emotionally but to identify with the writer's point of view, and this usually happens when the presenter agrees with the underlying values of his/her audience.

Logos (meaning "word" in Greek) - logical appeal

Professor Jacobs' argument: "... because alcohol affects the developing brain of adolescents profoundly."


Logos refers to the consistency of a persuasion, an argument or a claim, emphasising on the clarity, the logic behind the reasoning, and the effectiveness of the supporting evidence. It is normally used to describe the data, facts and information that support the presenter's claim. Academic research is primarily based on logos, although researchers might bring in some elements of ethos and pathos. Logos also happens to be Aristotle's favourite method of persuasion as he believed that providing reasons is the gist of an argument.


Professor Kerry Jacobs' rules for good research

This table was presented to us in class:



Professor Jacobs added that
a good research paper should explore a problem/an issue that readers do not understand, and therefore the research findings should be something new to them. It should also be clearly presented, well-articulated and well-argued.

In addition to the points mentioned, I think that a good research is essentially one that is well-organised from the start to the end. Before the research project is carried out, it is essential that prior readings have been done and/or a pilot study carried out to find out what is already known or lacking in that area of research. I am not sure if this should apply to all types of research, but I think a clear time frame should also be drafted at the start of the research project to help the researcher manage and gauge his/her progress throughout the research process. Furthermore, in order for the research to be current and relevant, it should be completed within a period of time, otherwise it will be hard to keep up with changes or advances within that academic discipline. 

In "Picking a Research Problem - The Critical Decision", author C. Ronald Kahn
listed two important features which he thought made a research project "outstanding". As shown in the paragraph below, I found them highly insightful and straight-to-the-point:
First, it must ask important questions. If the question is not important, then it is likely that no matter how carefully the study is performed, how accurately the results are tabulated, or how well the work is reported, this will not be viewed as an outstanding piece of work. Second, if possible, the project should have the potential to yield a “seminal” observation - one that creates truly new knowledge, leads to new ways of thinking, and lays the foundation for further research in the field. We often recognise a seminal observation as the first major publication in an area, which sets the stage for subsequent work and will be followed by many reports from the same and other laboratories extending and developing the point and expanding it to related areas.
The issue with "seminal" observation is that what qualifies as "seminal" is often subjective and usually involves a fair amount of skepticism at the start of the research project. Kahn suggests that for researchers who are facing this problem, it is best to discuss with trusted colleagues/confidants and determine if the research is able to yield real importance at the end of the day.

Having an idea of what constitutes good research, I will proceed to blog about picking a good research project/topic next week. As usual, I welcome any comments, suggestions and feedback. Many thanks to those who have been to my blog and left your comments, I really appreciate it.

Friday 22 February 2013

Ontology – Epistemology – Methodology



I attended the first BUSN8018 lecture today, and Professor Kerry Jacobs introduced us to ontologyepistemology, and methodology - which can be differentiated by the following principal questions:

Ontology - what is real? 

"Is there a real world out there that is independent of our knowledge of it?" (Marsh and Furlong, 2002) 

"What is out there to know about it?" (Grix, 2002)


"What is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it?" (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)


Professor Jacobs: Is God real? / Are black holes real? / Is society real? / Are you real? / What are the objects we can study?

Epistemology- how do you know?

An epistemological position reflects the "view of what we can know about the world and how we can know it" (Marsh and Furlong, 2002).

"What and how can we know about it?" (Grix, 2002)

"What is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known?" (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)


Professor Jacobs: How do you know if God is real? / How do you know if your boyfriend is sleeping with someone else?

Methodology - what is the evidence or proof?  

"...ways of determining knowledge or reality" (Guba, 1990)

"...ways of generating and justifying knowledge" (Blaikie, 2003)

"How can the inquirer go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be known?"
(Guba and Lincoln, 1994)

 

Professor Jacobs: How can we find out if God is real? / How can we prove it? / What is acceptable evidence? / How would you go about convincing someone that it is true? / Why and how?

Researchers usually begin their research with an understanding of ontology, followed by epistemology, and finally, methodology. It seems pretty logical to me that this should be the case. Ontology should come first because it establishes the underlying assumptions and beliefs about 'the reality'. Epistemology then goes on to define how we can know and reason that reality. In many cases, epistemologists have to assume that findings from ontology are true before they start to make arguments about knowledge. 

In my opinion, anyone undertaking research should be clear about his ontological and epistemological position before proceeding with a research topic, otherwise, confusion and contradiction will arise as he progresses further on his research topic. After which, the methodology for the research topic will naturally come about. In a nutshell, a researcher's epistemological approach is a result of his ontological view, which in turn influences his choice of methodology.

Ontology vs Epistemology

Personally, I find it a little hard to recognise the differences between ontology and epistemology. But I found that taking a closer look at their definitions - 
"Ontology" is a combination of the Greek words "onto-" and "-logos", which mean "being" and "study" respectively. Put simply, ontology is the study of the nature of being. It usually answers the question "what" as it is concerned with identifying the types of objects that actually exist.
On the other hand, "epistemology" is a combination of the Greek words "epistēmē" and "-logos", which mean "knowledge" and "study" respectively. In other words, epistemology is the study of knowledge. It answers the questions "how" and "what", as it is concerned with the nature of knowledge, its related possibilities and scope.
has given me a better understanding of both concepts.

 

Wednesday 20 February 2013

What is research?




Before delving into what makes for a good research, I think it is necessary to first understand what research is. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word 'research' has its roots in the Middle French word 'recherche', which means 'to go about seeking'. The term 'recherche' itself is derived from the Old French term 'recerchier',
compounded from 're' and 'cerchier', or 'sercher', which means 'to search'.
 

Although research sounds detached and academical, people rely on some form of research to solve smaller issues on a day-to-day basis. Such research, however, might not necessarily be as elaborate as formal scientific/economic/market research. Note that this blog is primarily concerned with formal research.

Definition of research

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines research as: 
a studious inquiry or examination, especially - investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.
The University of Queensland defines research as:
Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes.

This definition of research is consistent with a broad notion of research and experimental development (R&D) as comprising of creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.

This definition of research encompasses pure and strategic basic research, applied research and experimental development. Applied research is original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge but directed towards a specific, practical aim or objective (including a client-driven purpose).
In Practical Research: Planning and Design, Eighth Edition, authors Leedy and Ormrod described research as:
Research is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing information to increase our understanding of the phenomenon under study. It is the function of the researcher to contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon and to communicate that understanding to others.
Further, the OECD defines research and experimental development (R&D) as comprising of:
... creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.
There are many other definitions of 'research' which I came across, and if I could summarise all of them in a nutshell, based on my preliminary findings, I would liken 'research' to a continuous learning journey for the researcher, which can potentially present him/her with further insights, leading to improvements and ultimately, the advancement of knowledge not just for the researcher but mankind.

What research is not?
 


I also found that learning what research is not has helped me to gain a deeper understanding of the concept. Essentially, research:
  • is not a 'copy' and 'paste' of information/data/facts from one place to another, but should involve some extensive interpretation of these information/data/facts. Compilation of facts, coupled with convincing references, do not constitute genuine research. The process of interpreting and drawing conclusions based on gathered information/data/facts are an essential component of research.
  • is not information retrieval, but knowledge creation. Gathering published information is straightforward, but research normally attempts to answer questions/issues that do not yet have clear and tidy answers/solutions to them. The YouTube video below draws a clear distinction between information retrieval and research. In particular, it highlights that information retrieval is not research because it is based on existing knowledge, while research is the pursuit of new knowledge. Researchers work at the frontier of knowledge by utilising existing knowledge and expanding on them, thereby creating new knowledge. 


Why do we research?

John Armstrong, a philosopher at the University of Melbourne, suggests that there are two main motives underlying research - first, the intellectual desire of wanting to know and understand everything around us; second, the need to solve issues or problems. Linking these two motives back to our daily lives, I think formal research is required because despite possessing common sense, and having gone through certain experience and observation, we may not have considered external factors or alternatives to a certain problem or issue. Essentially, no matter how knowledgeable a person is, there are definitely some gaps in one's understanding and reality.

What research is?

Having a brief idea of what research does not entail and why do people research, I guess understanding what constitutes research has now become clearer. To summarise this blog post based on the information I have gathered, research has the following characteristics:
  • it requires interpretation of information/data/facts.
  • it usually stems from intellectual curiosity or a problem/issue, and is naturally guided by an explicit and specific research question, problem or hypothesis. 
  • it has some underlying assumptions before being carried out.

Again in Practical Research: Planning and Design, Eighth Edition, authors Leedy and Ormrod lists eight characteristics of research, many of which involve the research process and methodology, which have not been mentioned in this blog post, but will be touched upon in the coming weeks.

In the next blog post, I will be reflecting on the ‘rules of the game’ for good research, and discussing the key question - ‘what is good research’. In the next few weeks, I will also be exploring a particular academic discipline which falls under my research interests. I will then proceed to reflect on good research practice, based on academic papers which I have obtained within this field. I would really appreciate if readers can provide me with suggestions, feedback and comments, thank you in advance. 


Sunday 17 February 2013

In-class Assigned Task - Week 1 - Present brief summary of research interest

My primary research focus will be on self-efficacy, the sources of self-efficacy beliefs, and the effects of self-efficacy beliefs. In particular, for the qualitative project, I will be exploring the ways in which self-efficacy beliefs effect perceived career options, taking into consideration demographic differences such as gender, socio-economic status, and race/ethnicity. Bandura (1986, 1997) argued that self-efficacy beliefs constitute the principal factor of human agency, and are also strong predictors of the level of accomplishment that individuals ultimately achieve. Additionally, Pajares (1997) highlighted that high self-efficacy helps individuals feel calm when approaching challenging tasks, while low self-efficacy may cause individuals to believe that tasks are more challenging than they really are.

In general, qualitative research on self-efficacy has yielded consistent findings: (1) self-efficacy is predictive; (2) self-efficacy has a causal relationship with other variables; and (3) gender differences are highly influential (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Brown and Lent (1996) also found that individuals tend to eliminate possible careers or occupations based on their self-efficacy beliefs and/or outcome expectations. Essentially, the greater the perceived barriers to a career or occupation, the less likely individuals will pursue those careers (Lent et al., 1994). Hence, it follows that adjusting or modifying an individual's self-efficacy or outcome expectations may help the individual to have a higher chance of success and expose him or her to more career options.

More research findings, particularly the theoretical process linking self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options, will be elaborated upon in subsequent blog posts. 

References

Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Worth Publishers, New York, NY.

Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1996), "A social cognitive framework for career choice counseling", The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4: pp. 355–367.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994), "Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 1: pp. 79–122.

Pajares, F. (1997), "Current directions in self-efficacy research", Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 10, No. 1: pp. 1–49.