Tuesday, August 20, 2013

EFFECTIVE RESEARCH PROPOSALS


Effective Research Proposals


What is an effective research proposal?  It is a proposal that (1) gets accepted and (2) is a useful guide for conducting your study after it is accepted.  The basic steps of an effective proposal are almost always the same whether the proposal is for a grant application, a doctoral dissertation, or an evaluation of a project.  And, the criteria for effectiveness are virtually identical whether it is called a plan, design, or proposal.  The basic outlines of the are very similar.

In virtually all cases, it is much better to have a detailed plan, which you have to revise as you go along, than to start a research project with only a vague idea of what you are going to do.  Your time is too valuable to waste in aimless wandering.

There are 7 basic components or steps of a good research proposal.  I have listed those steps in a logical order below.  And, this is the order you would probably use to outline your proposal--and to communicate the results of your research.  But in the actual practice of conducting your research, you might need to revisit earlier steps, often more than once.  For example, when something goes wrong in the sampling plan (step 4) a way to get ideas for fixing it is to re-review previous research (step 2) to see how other investigators have dealt with your problem.

1.  A research question. 
2.  A review of previous research. 
3.  A plan for collecting data/evidence.
4.  A sampling and/or recruiting plan 
5.  A research ethics plan. 
6.  A coding and/or measurement plan.
7.  An analysis and interpretation plan


1.  A research question.  A good research question has to be researchable, meaning you could conceivably answer it with research.  Considerable explanation about why it is a good research question—it’s researchable and it’s important—is needed in an effective research proposal. 

2. A review of previous research.  This helps you avoid reinventing the wheel, or even worse, the flat tire.  A review is also a source of many ideas about the subsequent stages of the proposal: on how to collect data, from whom to collect it, the ethical implications of your data collection plan, and finally approaches to coding and analysis. 

3.  A plan for collecting data/evidence.  There are 6 basic ways to collect data: (1) surveying, (2) interviewing, (3) experimenting, (4) observing in natural settings, (5) collecting archival/secondary data, and (6) combining ways (1) through (5) in various ways.  You also need to explain why your choice of a data collection plan is a good one for answering your research question and, implicitly, why one of the others would not be better.

4.  Sampling and/or recruiting plan.  This describes from whom, how, where, and how much evidence you are going to collect.  In other terms:  Who or what are you going to study?  How many of them?  How much data from each of them? How will they be selected?

5.  A plan for conducting research ethically.  This plan tries to anticipate any ethical problems and prepares for how to deal with them.  Once you know what you will gather, how, and from whom, then before you go ahead, you need to review your plan to see if there are any ethical constraints arising from participants’ privacy and consent and potential harms.  At this stage, your plan includes preparing for IRB review.

6.  Coding.  Coding is assigning labels (words, numbers, or other symbols) to your data so that you can define, index, and sort your evidence.  It is in coding phase that the issues of distinctions of quant/qual/mixed become most prominent.  You may have made this coding decision in mind early on—perhaps you are phobic about numbers, or maybe you find verbal data annoyingly vague.  You may actually start with this as your first divider, but it would not be effective to write your proposal that way—by saying, for example:  “I like to interview people and numbers give me the creeps, so I don’t want to do survey research” or “I’m shy and I don’t want to have to interact in face-to-face interviews, so I want to do secondary analysis of data.”


7.  Analysis and interpretation.  This tends to be the skimpiest part of a research proposal.  But if you know what you are going to collect from whom and how you will code it, your first 6 steps really do shape (not completely determine) the analysis options open to you.  

Friday, August 16, 2013

CITATION SYSTEMS: WHICH DO YOU PREFER?


Citation Systems
Which is the best?

There are several distinct conventions authors can use to cite the sources they use in their research.  Individuals often have very strong beliefs about which convention is best.  And professional organizations have issued lengthy guidelines.  Among the best known and most widely used are those of the American Psychological Association, the Modern Language Association, and the University of Chicago Press.  Some research journals have their own systems. 

Is one of these better than the others?  No, they are all just fine.  They are all merely conventions.  Saying that one is better than another would be like claiming that driving on the left side of the road is better than driving on the right.  Both are fine as long as everyone knows and abides by the rules.   

There is only one criterion for excellence in a citation system.  If your reader can easily check your sources for accuracy, the system is good.  If your reader cannot do so, the system is bad.  Specific format does not matter at all if it meets this criterion. 

But tastes differ, people have preferences.  As an author of text books and reference works in research methods, I wanted to know what my readers prefer.  So I did some market research among potential readers—students in research methods courses in the social sciences and applied disciplines such as nursing, social work, and education.  I prepared two versions of a short paragraph, one citing sources in parentheses in the text of the paragraph and the other citing the sources in footnotes or endnotes. 

The results were overwhelming.  In the first group of 47 students surveyed, 42 preferred the endnote system, 5 didn’t care, and not a single student opted for the in-text citation system.  In psychology courses, the in-text citation system did better, probably because the American Psychological Association uses an in-text system, and it is a powerful presence in the fields of psychology and education.  But in no group of respondents did more than 20% ever opt for an in-text system.  Readers who offered an explanation said that in-text citations were “annoying,” that they “got in the way,” and that they “cluttered the text.” 

Convinced by this market research, I have used footnotes or endnotes for citations whenever possible. 


HERE ARE THE SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOWED BY THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE PARAGRAPH

I would appreciate your help with the following survey.  I am writing text books and
reference works for graduate students in research methods, and I would like to learn from potential readers your preferences about the format of the text.

The survey is anonymous.  You are under no obligation to participate.  If you choose not to participate just return these pages blank.

Thank you,
W. Paul Vogt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The passages on the next page are identical in content, but they differ in form.  The first version of the passage includes the citations in the text.  The second version provides the citations as endnotes.

WHICH DO YOU PREFER?
If you were consulting a reference book or text book, which of the two passages would you rather read?


_____Version 1 with citations in the text


_____Version 2 with citations as endnotes


_____No preference


If you would be willing to share the reasons for your preferences, please explain them below.  I would appreciate learning about them. 


Version 1—Citations in Text

While internet surveys are becoming more common, many scholars (Baker, Curtice & Sparrow, 2002; Schoen & Fass, 2005; see also Couper, 2000; Dillman, 2000) continue to express skepticism about their value, especially as concerns sampling bias.  On the other hand, several survey experiments comparing Internet surveying to more traditional modes (Krosnick & Chang, 2001; VanBeselaere, 2002; Alvarez, Sherman & VanBeselaere, 2003; Chang & Krosnik, 2003; Sanders, Clarke, Stewart, & Whiteley, 2007) have shown that well-conducted Internet surveys can be as effective as other methods of sampling and surveying.

Version 2—Citations in Endnotes

While internet surveys are becoming more common, many scholars[1] continue to express skepticism about their value, especially as concerns sampling bias.  On the other hand, several survey experiments comparing Internet surveying to more traditional modes[2]  have shown that well-conducted Internet surveys can be as effective as other methods of sampling and surveying.




[1] Baker, Curtice & Sparrow, 2002;  Schoen & Fass, 2005.  See also Couper, 2000;  Dillman, 2000.

[2] Krosnick & Chang, 2001; VanBeselaere, 2002; Alvarez, Sherman & VanBeselaere, 2003; Chang & Krosnik, 2003;  Sanders, Clarke, Stewart, & Whiteley, 2007.



IF YOU HAVE A REASON FOR PREFERRING ONE VERSION OR THE OTHER, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IT, PLEASE POST IT BELOW.