How To Choose A Research Problem For Your Thesis

Offers detailed guidance on how to develop, organize, and write a research paper.

Purpose of Guide

This guide is intended to help college students organize and write a quality research paper for classes taught in the social and behavioral sciences. Note that, if you have any questions about a research and writing assignment, you should always seek advice from your professor before you begin. Requirements set forth by your professor will always supersede instructions provided under these general guidelines.

Types of Research Designs

Introduction

Before beginning your paper, you need to decide how you plan to design the study.

The research design refers to the overall strategy and analytical approach that you have chosen in order to integrate, in a coherent and logical way, the different components of the study, thus ensuring that the research problem will be thoroughly investigated. It constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement, and interpretation of information and data. Note that the research problem determines the type of design you choose, not the other way around!

General Structure and Writing Style

The function of a research design is to ensure that the evidence obtained enables you to effectively address the research problem logically and as unambiguously as possible. In social sciences research, obtaining information relevant to the research problem generally entails specifying the type of evidence needed to test the underlying assumptions of a theory, to evaluate a program, or to accurately describe and assess meaning related to an observable phenomenon.

With this in mind, a common mistake made by researchers is that they begin their investigations before they have thought critically about what information is required to address the research problem. Without attending to these design issues beforehand, the overall research problem will not be adequately addressed and any conclusions drawn will run the risk of being weak and unconvincing. As a consequence, the overall validity of the study will be undermined.

The length and complexity of describing the research design in your paper can vary considerably, but any well-developed description will achieve the following:

Identify the research problem clearly and justify its selection, particularly in relation to any valid alternative designs that could have been used,
Review and synthesize previously published literature associated with the research problem,
Clearly and explicitly specify hypotheses [i.e., research questions] central to the problem,
Effectively describe the information and/or data which will be necessary for an adequate testing of the hypotheses and explain how such information and/or data will be obtained, and
Describe the methods of analysis to be applied to the data in determining whether or not the hypotheses are true or false.

The research design is usually incorporated into the introduction of your paper. You can obtain an overall sense of what to do by reviewing studies that have utilized the same research design [e.g., using a case study approach]. This can help you develop an outline to follow for your own paper.

Action Research Design

Definition and Purpose

The essentials of action research design follow a characteristic cycle whereby initially an exploratory stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is developed and plans are made for some form of interventionary strategy. Then the intervention is carried out [the "action" in action research] during which time, pertinent observations are collected in various forms. The new interventional strategies are carried out, and this cyclic process repeats, continuing until a sufficient understanding of [or a valid implementation solution for] the problem is achieved. The protocol is iterative or cyclical in nature and is intended to foster deeper understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations.

What do these studies tell you?

This is a collaborative and adaptive research design that lends itself to use in work or community situations.
Design focuses on pragmatic and solution-driven research outcomes rather than testing theories.
When practitioners use action research, it has the potential to increase the amount they learn consciously from their experience; the action research cycle can be regarded as a learning cycle.
Action research studies often have direct and obvious relevance to improving practice and advocating for change.
There are no hidden controls or preemption of direction by the researcher.

What these studies don't tell you?

It is harder to do than conducting conventional research because the researcher takes on responsibilities of advocating for change as well as for researching the topic.
Action research is much harder to write up because it is less likely that you can use a standard format to report your findings effectively [i.e., data is often in the form of stories or observation].
Personal over-involvement of the researcher may bias research results.
The cyclic nature of action research to achieve its twin outcomes of action [e.g. change] and research [e.g. understanding] is time-consuming and complex to conduct.
Advocating for change usually requires buy-in from study participants.

Case Study Design

Definition and Purpose

A case study is an in-depth study of a particular research problem rather than a sweeping statistical survey or comprehensive comparative inquiry. It is often used to narrow down a very broad field of research into one or a few easily researchable examples. The case study research design is also useful for testing whether a specific theory and model actually applies to phenomena in the real world. It is a useful design when not much is known about an issue or phenomenon.

What do these studies tell you?

Approach excels at bringing us to an understanding of a complex issue through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships.
A researcher using a case study design can apply a variety of methodologies and rely on a variety of sources to investigate a research problem.
Design can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous research.
Social scientists, in particular, make wide use of this research design to examine contemporary real-life situations and provide the basis for the application of concepts and theories and the extension of methodologies.
The design can provide detailed descriptions of specific and rare cases.

What these studies don't tell you?

A single or small number of cases offers little basis for establishing reliability or to generalize the findings to a wider population of people, places, or things.
Intense exposure to the study of a case may bias a researcher's interpretation of the findings.
Design does not facilitate assessment of cause and effect relationships.
Vital information may be missing, making the case hard to interpret.
The case may not be representative or typical of the larger problem being investigated.
If the criteria for selecting a case is because it represents a very unusual or unique phenomenon or problem for study, then your interpretation of the findings can only apply to that particular case.

Causal Design

Definition and Purpose

Causality studies may be thought of as understanding a phenomenon in terms of conditional statements in the form, “If X, then Y.” This type of research is used to measure what impact a specific change will have on existing norms and assumptions. Most social scientists seek causal explanations that reflect tests of hypotheses. Causal effect (nomothetic perspective) occurs when variation in one phenomenon, an independent variable, leads to or results, on average, in variation in another phenomenon, the dependent variable.

Conditions necessary for determining causality:

Empirical association -- a valid conclusion is based on finding an association between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
Appropriate time order -- to conclude that causation was involved, one must see that cases were exposed to variation in the independent variable before variation in the dependent variable.
Nonspuriousness -- a relationship between two variables that is not due to variation in a third variable.

What do these studies tell you?

Causality research designs assist researchers in understanding why the world works the way it does through the process of proving a causal link between variables and by the process of eliminating other possibilities.
Replication is possible.
There is greater confidence the study has internal validity due to the systematic subject selection and equity of groups being compared.

What these studies don't tell you?

Not all relationships are causal! The possibility always exists that, by sheer coincidence, two unrelated events appear to be related [e.g., Punxatawney Phil could accurately predict the duration of Winter for five consecutive years but, the fact remains, he's just a big, furry rodent].
Conclusions about causal relationships are difficult to determine due to a variety of extraneous and confounding variables that exist in a social environment. This means causality can only be inferred, never proven.
If two variables are correlated, the cause must come before the effect. However, even though two variables might be causally related, it can sometimes be difficult to determine which variable comes first and, therefore, to establish which variable is the actual cause and which is the actual effect.

Cohort Design

Definition and Purpose

Often used in the medical sciences, but also found in the applied social sciences, a cohort study generally refers to a study conducted over a period of time involving members of a population which the subject or representative member comes from, and who are united by some commonality or similarity. Using a quantitative framework, a cohort study makes note of statistical occurrence within a specialized subgroup, united by same or similar characteristics that are relevant to the research problem being investigated, rather than studying statistical occurrence within the general population. Using a qualitative framework, cohort studies generally gather data using methods of observation. Cohorts can be either "open" or "closed."

Open Cohort Studies [dynamic populations, such as the population of Los Angeles] involve a population that is defined just by the state of being a part of the study in question (and being monitored for the outcome). Date of entry and exit from the study is individually defined, therefore, the size of the study population is not constant. In open cohort studies, researchers can only calculate rate based data, such as, incidence rates and variants thereof.
Closed Cohort Studies [static populations, such as patients entered into a clinical trial] involve participants who enter into the study at one defining point in time and where it is presumed that no new participants can enter the cohort. Given this, the number of study participants remains constant (or can only decrease).

What do these studies tell you?

The use of cohorts is often mandatory because a randomized control study may be unethical. For example, you cannot deliberately expose people to asbestos, you can only study its effects on those who have already been exposed. Research that measures risk factors often relies upon cohort designs.
Because cohort studies measure potential causes before the outcome has occurred, they can demonstrate that these “causes” preceded the outcome, thereby avoiding the debate as to which is the cause and which is the effect.
Cohort analysis is highly flexible and can provide insight into effects over time and related to a variety of different types of changes [e.g., social, cultural, political, economic, etc.].
Either original data or secondary data can be used in this design.

What these studies don't tell you?

In cases where a comparative analysis of two cohorts is made [e.g., studying the effects of one group exposed to asbestos and one that has not], a researcher cannot control for all other factors that might differ between the two groups. These factors are known as confounding variables.
Cohort studies can end up taking a long time to complete if the researcher must wait for the conditions of interest to develop within the group. This also increases the chance that key variables change during the course of the study, potentially impacting the validity of the findings.
Due to the lack of randominization in the cohort design, its external validity is lower than that of study designs where the researcher randomly assigns participants.

Cross-Sectional Design

Definition and Purpose

Cross-sectional research designs have three distinctive features: no time dimension; a reliance on existing differences rather than change following intervention; and, groups are selected based on existing differences rather than random allocation. The cross-sectional design can only measure differences between or from among a variety of people, subjects, or phenomena rather than a process of change. As such, researchers using this design can only employ a relatively passive approach to making causal inferences based on findings.

What do these studies tell you?

Cross-sectional studies provide a clear 'snapshot' of the outcome and the characteristics associated with it, at a specific point in time.
Unlike an experimental design, where there is an active intervention by the researcher to produce and measure change or to create differences, cross-sectional designs focus on studying and drawing inferences from existing differences between people, subjects, or phenomena.
Entails collecting data at and concerning one point in time. While longitudinal studies involve taking multiple measures over an extended period of time, cross-sectional research is focused on finding relationships between variables at one moment in time.
Groups identified for study are purposely selected based upon existing differences in the sample rather than seeking random sampling.
Cross-section studies are capable of using data from a large number of subjects and, unlike observational studies, is not geographically bound.
Can estimate prevalence of an outcome of interest because the sample is usually taken from the whole population.
Because cross-sectional designs generally use survey techniques to gather data, they are relatively inexpensive and take up little time to conduct.

What these studies don't tell you?

Finding people, subjects, or phenomena to study that are very similar except in one specific variable can be difficult.
Results are static and time bound and, therefore, give no indication of a sequence of events or reveal historical or temporal contexts.
Studies cannot be utilized to establish cause and effect relationships.
This design only provides a snapshot of analysis so there is always the possibility that a study could have differing results if another time-frame had been chosen.
There is no follow up to the findings.

Descriptive Design

Definition and Purpose

Descriptive research designs help provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot conclusively ascertain answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena and to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation.

What do these studies tell you?

The subject is being observed in a completely natural and unchanged natural environment. True experiments, whilst giving analyzable data, often adversely influence the normal behavior of the subject [a.k.a., the Heisenberg effect whereby measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems].
Descriptive research is often used as a pre-cursor to more quantitative research designs with the general overview giving some valuable pointers as to what variables are worth testing quantitatively.
If the limitations are understood, they can be a useful tool in developing a more focused study.
Descriptive studies can yield rich data that lead to important recommendations in practice.
Appoach collects a large amount of data for detailed analysis.

What these studies don't tell you?

The results from a descriptive research cannot be used to discover a definitive answer or to disprove a hypothesis.
Because descriptive designs often utilize observational methods [as opposed to quantitative methods], the results cannot be replicated.
The descriptive function of research is heavily dependent on instrumentation for measurement and observation.

Experimental Design

Definition and Purpose

A blueprint of the procedure that enables the researcher to maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In doing this, the researcher attempts to determine or predict what may occur. Experimental research is often used where there is time priority in a causal relationship (cause precedes effect), there is consistency in a causal relationship (a cause will always lead to the same effect), and the magnitude of the correlation is great. The classic experimental design specifies an experimental group and a control group. The independent variable is administered to the experimental group and not to the control group, and both groups are measured on the same dependent variable. Subsequent experimental designs have used more groups and more measurements over longer periods. True experiments must have control, randomization, and manipulation.

What do these studies tell you?

Experimental research allows the researcher to control the situation. In so doing, it allows researchers to answer the question, “What causes something to occur?”
Permits the researcher to identify cause and effect relationships between variables and to distinguish placebo effects from treatment effects.
Experimental research designs support the ability to limit alternative explanations and to infer direct causal relationships in the study.
Approach provides the highest level of evidence for single studies.

What these studies don't tell you?

The design is artificial, and results may not generalize well to the real world.
The artificial settings of experiments may alter the behaviors or responses of participants.
Experimental designs can be costly if special equipment or facilities are needed.
Some research problems cannot be studied using an experiment because of ethical or technical reasons.
Difficult to apply ethnographic and other qualitative methods to experimentally designed studies.

Exploratory Design

Definition and Purpose

An exploratory design is conducted about a research problem when there are few or no earlier studies to refer to or rely upon to predict an outcome. The focus is on gaining insights and familiarity for later investigation or undertaken when research problems are in a preliminary stage of investigation. Exploratory designs are often used to establish an understanding of how best to proceed in studying an issue or what methodology would effectively apply to gathering information about the issue.

The goals of exploratory research are intended to produce the following possible insights:

Familiarity with basic details, settings, and concerns.
Well grounded picture of the situation being developed.
Generation of new ideas and assumptions.
Development of tentative theories or hypotheses.
Determination about whether a study is feasible in the future.
Issues get refined for more systematic investigation and formulation of new research questions.
Direction for future research and techniques get developed.

What do these studies tell you?

Design is a useful approach for gaining background information on a particular topic.
Exploratory research is flexible and can address research questions of all types (what, why, how).
Provides an opportunity to define new terms and clarify existing concepts.
Exploratory research is often used to generate formal hypotheses and develop more precise research problems.
In the policy arena or applied to practice, exploratory studies help establish research priorities and where resources should be allocated.

What these studies don't tell you?

Exploratory research generally utilizes small sample sizes and, thus, findings are typically not generalizable to the population at large.
The exploratory nature of the research inhibits an ability to make definitive conclusions about the findings. They provide insight but not definitive conclusions.
The research process underpinning exploratory studies is flexible but often unstructured, leading to only tentative results that have limited value to decision-makers.
Design lacks rigorous standards applied to methods of data gathering and analysis because one of the areas for exploration could be to determine what method or methodologies could best fit the research problem.

Field Research Design

Definition and Purpose

Sometimes referred to as ethnography or participant observation, designs around field research encompass a variety of interpretative procedures [e.g., observation and interviews] rooted in qualitative approaches to studying people individually or in groups while inhabiting their natural environment as opposed to using survey instruments or other forms of impersonal methods of data gathering. Information acquired from observational research takes the form of “field notes” that involves documenting what the researcher actually sees and hears while in the field. Findings do not consist of conclusive statements derived from numbers and statistics because field research involves analysis of words and observations of behavior. Conclusions, therefore, are developed from an interpretation of findings that reveal overriding themes, concepts, and ideas.

What do these studies tell you?

Field research is often necessary to fill gaps in understanding the research problem applied to local conditions or to specific groups of people that cannot be ascertained from existing data.
The research helps contextualize already known information about a research problem, thereby facilitating ways to assess the origins, scope, and scale of a problem and to gage the causes, consequences, and means to resolve an issue based on deliberate interaction with people in their natural inhabited spaces.
Enables the researcher to corroborate or confirm data by gathering additional information that supports or refutes findings reported in prior studies of the topic.
Because the researcher in embedded in the field, they are better able to make observations or ask questions that reflect the specific cultural context of the setting being investigated.
Observing the local reality offers the opportunity to gain new perspectives or obtain unique data that challenges existing theoretical propositions or long-standing assumptions found in the literature.

What these studies don't tell you

A field research study requires extensive time and resources to carry out the multiple steps involved with preparing for the gathering of information, including for example, examining background information about the study site, obtaining permission to access the study site, and building trust and rapport with subjects.
Requires a commitment to staying engaged in the field to ensure that you can adequately document events and behaviors as they unfold.
The unpredictable nature of fieldwork means that researchers can never fully control the process of data gathering. They must maintain a flexible approach to studying the setting because events and circumstances can change quickly or unexpectedly.
Findings can be difficult to interpret and verify without access to documents and other source materials that help to enhance the credibility of information obtained from the field [i.e., the act of triangulating the data].
Linking the research problem to the selection of study participants inhabiting their natural environment is critical. However, this specificity limits the ability to generalize findings to different situations or in other contexts or to infer courses of action applied to other settings or groups of people.
The reporting of findings must take into account how the researcher themselves may have inadvertently affected respondents and their behaviors.

Historical Design

Definition and Purpose

The purpose of a historical research design is to collect, verify, and synthesize evidence from the past to establish facts that defend or refute a hypothesis. It uses secondary sources and a variety of primary documentary evidence, such as, diaries, official records, reports, archives, and non-textual information [maps, pictures, audio and visual recordings]. The limitation is that the sources must be both authentic and valid.

What do these studies tell you?

The historical research design is unobtrusive; the act of research does not affect the results of the study.
The historical approach is well suited for trend analysis.
Historical records can add important contextual background required to more fully understand and interpret a research problem.
There is often no possibility of researcher-subject interaction that could affect the findings.
Historical sources can be used over and over to study different research problems or to replicate a previous study.

What these studies don't tell you?

The ability to fulfill the aims of your research are directly related to the amount and quality of documentation available to understand the research problem.
Since historical research relies on data from the past, there is no way to manipulate it to control for contemporary contexts.
Interpreting historical sources can be very time consuming.
The sources of historical materials must be archived consistently to ensure access. This may especially challenging for digital or online-only sources.
Original authors bring their own perspectives and biases to the interpretation of past events and these biases are more difficult to ascertain in historical resources.
Due to the lack of control over external variables, historical research is very weak with regard to the demands of internal validity.
It is rare that the entirety of historical documentation needed to fully address a research problem is available for interpretation, therefore, gaps need to be acknowledged.

Longitudinal Design

Definition and Purpose

A longitudinal study follows the same sample over time and makes repeated observations. For example, with longitudinal surveys, the same group of people is interviewed at regular intervals, enabling researchers to track changes over time and to relate them to variables that might explain why the changes occur. Longitudinal research designs describe patterns of change and help establish the direction and magnitude of causal relationships. Measurements are taken on each variable over two or more distinct time periods. This allows the researcher to measure change in variables over time. It is a type of observational study sometimes referred to as a panel study.

What do these studies tell you?

Longitudinal data facilitate the analysis of the duration of a particular phenomenon.
Enables survey researchers to get close to the kinds of causal explanations usually attainable only with experiments.
The design permits the measurement of differences or change in a variable from one period to another [i.e., the description of patterns of change over time].
Longitudinal studies facilitate the prediction of future outcomes based upon earlier factors.

What these studies don't tell you?

The data collection method may change over time.
Maintaining the integrity of the original sample can be difficult over an extended period of time.
It can be difficult to show more than one variable at a time.
This design often needs qualitative research data to explain fluctuations in the results.
A longitudinal research design assumes present trends will continue unchanged.
It can take a long period of time to gather results.
There is a need to have a large sample size and accurate sampling to reach representativness.

Meta-Analysis Design

Definition and Purpose

Meta-analysis is an analytical methodology designed to systematically evaluate and summarize the results from a number of individual studies, thereby, increasing the overall sample size and the ability of the researcher to study effects of interest. The purpose is to not simply summarize existing knowledge, but to develop a new understanding of a research problem using synoptic reasoning. The main objectives of meta-analysis include analyzing differences in the results among studies and increasing the precision by which effects are estimated. A well-designed meta-analysis depends upon strict adherence to the criteria used for selecting studies and the availability of information in each study to properly analyze their findings. Lack of information can severely limit the type of analyzes and conclusions that can be reached. In addition, the more dissimilarity there is in the results among individual studies [heterogeneity], the more difficult it is to justify interpretations that govern a valid synopsis of results.

A meta-analysis needs to fulfill the following requirements to ensure the validity of your findings:

Clearly defined description of objectives, including precise definitions of the variables and outcomes that are being evaluated;
A well-reasoned and well-documented justification for identification and selection of the studies;
Assessment and explicit acknowledgment of any researcher bias in the identification and selection of those studies;
Description and evaluation of the degree of heterogeneity among the sample size of studies reviewed; and,
Justification of the techniques used to evaluate the studies.

What do these studies tell you?

Can be an effective strategy for determining gaps in the literature.
Provides a means of reviewing research published about a particular topic over an extended period of time and from a variety of sources.
Is useful in clarifying what policy or programmatic actions can be justified on the basis of analyzing research results from multiple studies.
Provides a method for overcoming small sample sizes in individual studies that previously may have had little relationship to each other.
Can be used to generate new hypotheses or highlight research problems for future studies.

What these studies don't tell you?

Small violations in defining the criteria used for content analysis can lead to difficult to interpret and/or meaningless findings.
A large sample size can yield reliable, but not necessarily valid, results.
A lack of uniformity regarding, for example, the type of literature reviewed, how methods are applied, and how findings are measured within the sample of studies you are analyzing, can make the process of synthesis difficult to perform.
Depending on the sample size, the process of reviewing and synthesizing multiple studies can be very time consuming.

Mixed-Method Design

Definition and Purpose

Mixed methods research represents more of an approach to examining a research problem than a methodology. Mixed method is characterized by a focus on research problems that require, 1) an examination of real-life contextual understandings, multi-level perspectives, and cultural influences; 2) an intentional application of rigorous quantitative research assessing magnitude and frequency of constructs and rigorous qualitative research exploring the meaning and understanding of the constructs; and, 3) an objective of drawing on the strengths of quantitative and qualitative data gathering techniques to formulate a holistic interpretive framework for generating possible solutions or new understandings of the problem. Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) and other proponents of mixed methods argue that the design encompasses more than simply combining qualitative and quantitative methods but, rather, reflects a new "third way" epistemological paradigm that occupies the conceptual space between positivism and interpretivism.

What do these studies tell you?

Narrative and non-textual information can add meaning to numeric data, while numeric data can add precision to narrative and non-textual information.
Can utilize existing data while at the same time generating and testing a grounded theory approach to describe and explain the phenomenon under study.
A broader, more complex research problem can be investigated because the researcher is not constrained by using only one method.
The strengths of one method can be used to overcome the inherent weaknesses of another method.
Can provide stronger, more robust evidence to support a conclusion or set of recommendations.
May generate new knowledge new insights or uncover hidden insights, patterns, or relationships that a single methodological approach might not reveal.
Produces more complete knowledge and understanding of the research problem that can be used to increase the generalizability of findings applied to theory or practice.

What these studies don't tell you?

A researcher must be proficient in understanding how to apply multiple methods to investigating a research problem as well as be proficient in optimizing how to design a study that coherently melds them together.
Can increase the likelihood of conflicting results or ambiguous findings that inhibit drawing a valid conclusion or setting forth a recommended course of action [e.g., sample interview responses do not support existing statistical data].
Because the research design can be very complex, reporting the findings requires a well-organized narrative, clear writing style, and precise word choice.
Design invites collaboration among experts. However, merging different investigative approaches and writing styles requires more attention to the overall research process than studies conducted using only one methodological paradigm.
Concurrent merging of quantitative and qualitative research requires greater attention to having adequate sample sizes, using comparable samples, and applying a consistent unit of analysis. For sequential designs where one phase of qualitative research builds on the quantitative phase or vice versa, decisions about what results from the first phase to use in the next phase, the choice of samples and estimating reasonable sample sizes for both phases, and the interpretation of results from both phases can be difficult.
Due to multiple forms of data being collected and analyzed, this design requires extensive time and resources to carry out the multiple steps involved in data gathering and interpretation.

Observational Design

Definition and Purpose

This type of research design draws a conclusion by comparing subjects against a control group, in cases where the researcher has no control over the experiment. There are two general types of observational designs. In direct observations, people know that you are watching them. Unobtrusive measures involve any method for studying behavior where individuals do not know they are being observed. An observational study allows a useful insight into a phenomenon and avoids the ethical and practical difficulties of setting up a large and cumbersome research project.

What do these studies tell you?

Observational studies are usually flexible and do not necessarily need to be structured around a hypothesis about what you expect to observe [data is emergent rather than pre-existing].
The researcher is able to collect in-depth information about a particular behavior.
Can reveal interrelationships among multifaceted dimensions of group interactions.
You can generalize your results to real life situations.
Observational research is useful for discovering what variables may be important before applying other methods like experiments.
Observation research designs account for the complexity of group behaviors.

What these studies don't tell you?

Reliability of data is low because seeing behaviors occur over and over again may be a time consuming task and are difficult to replicate.
In observational research, findings may only reflect a unique sample population and, thus, cannot be generalized to other groups.
There can be problems with bias as the researcher may only "see what they want to see."
There is no possibility to determine "cause and effect" relationships since nothing is manipulated.
Sources or subjects may not all be equally credible.
Any group that is knowingly studied is altered to some degree by the presence of the researcher, therefore, potentially skewing any data collected.

Philosophical Design

Definition and Purpose

Understood more as an broad approach to examining a research problem than a methodological design, philosophical analysis and argumentation is intended to challenge deeply embedded, often intractable, assumptions underpinning an area of study. This approach uses the tools of argumentation derived from philosophical traditions, concepts, models, and theories to critically explore and challenge, for example, the relevance of logic and evidence in academic debates, to analyze arguments about fundamental issues, or to discuss the root of existing discourse about a research problem. These overarching tools of analysis can be framed in three ways:

Ontology -- the study that describes the nature of reality; for example, what is real and what is not, what is fundamental and what is derivative?
Epistemology -- the study that explores the nature of knowledge; for example, by what means does knowledge and understanding depend upon and how can we be certain of what we know?
Axiology -- the study of values; for example, what values does an individual or group hold and why? How are values related to interest, desire, will, experience, and means-to-end? And, what is the difference between a matter of fact and a matter of value?

What do these studies tell you?

Can provide a basis for applying ethical decision-making to practice.
Functions as a means of gaining greater self-understanding and self-knowledge about the purposes of research.
Brings clarity to general guiding practices and principles of an individual or group.
Philosophy informs methodology.
Refine concepts and theories that are invoked in relatively unreflective modes of thought and discourse.
Beyond methodology, philosophy also informs critical thinking about epistemology and the structure of reality (metaphysics).
Offers clarity and definition to the practical and theoretical uses of terms, concepts, and ideas.

What these studies don't tell you?

Limited application to specific research problems [answering the "So What?" question in social science research].
Analysis can be abstract, argumentative, and limited in its practical application to real-life issues.
While a philosophical analysis may render problematic that which was once simple or taken-for-granted, the writing can be dense and subject to unnecessary jargon, overstatement, and/or excessive quotation and documentation.
There are limitations in the use of metaphor as a vehicle of philosophical analysis.
There can be analytical difficulties in moving from philosophy to advocacy and between abstract thought and application to the phenomenal world.

Sequential Design

Definition and Purpose

Sequential research is that which is carried out in a deliberate, staged approach [i.e. serially] where one stage will be completed, followed by another, then another, and so on, with the aim that each stage will build upon the previous one until enough data is gathered over an interval of time to test your hypothesis. The sample size is not predetermined. After each sample is analyzed, the researcher can accept the null hypothesis, accept the alternative hypothesis, or select another pool of subjects and conduct the study once again. This means the researcher can obtain a limitless number of subjects before making a final decision whether to accept the null or alternative hypothesis. Using a quantitative framework, a sequential study generally utilizes sampling techniques to gather data and applying statistical methods to analze the data. Using a qualitative framework, sequential studies generally utilize samples of individuals or groups of individuals [cohorts] and use qualitative methods, such as interviews or observations, to gather information from each sample.

What do these studies tell you?

The researcher has a limitless option when it comes to sample size and the sampling schedule.
Due to the repetitive nature of this research design, minor changes and adjustments can be done during the initial parts of the study to correct and hone the research method.
This is a useful design for exploratory studies.
There is very little effort on the part of the researcher when performing this technique. It is generally not expensive, time consuming, or workforce intensive.
Because the study is conducted serially, the results of one sample are known before the next sample is taken and analyzed. This provides opportunities for continuous improvement of sampling and methods of analysis.

What these studies don't tell you?

The sampling method is not representative of the entire population. The only possibility of approaching representativeness is when the researcher chooses to use a very large sample size significant enough to represent a significant portion of the entire population. In this case, moving on to study a second or more specific sample can be difficult.
The design cannot be used to create conclusions and interpretations that pertain to an entire population because the sampling technique is not randomized. Generalizability from findings is, therefore, limited.
Difficult to account for and interpret variation from one sample to another over time, particularly when using qualitative methods of data collection.

Systematic Review

Definition and Purpose

As noted by Denyer and Tranfield [2009], a systematic review is a specific methodology that identifies existing research about a well-defined topic of investigation, usually derived from a public policy or clinical, practice-based problem. The design involves selecting and critically evaluating the contributions of each identified study, analyzing and carefully synthesizing the data, and reporting the evidence in a way that facilitates clear conclusions about what is and is not known. A systematic review is not a traditional literature review, but a self-contained research project that explores a clearly defined research problem using existing studies. The design of a systematic review differs from other review methods because distinct and exacting principles are applied to the evaluative process of analyzing existing literature.

NOTE: A thorough and well-designed systematic review requires extensive and on-going consultation with a librarian to ensure that all published and unpublished studies concerning the research problem have been located and evaluated as to whether they should be included in your analysis. Due to the required time commitment and workload, these types of reviews are often conducted as a group project.

What do these studies tell you?

A systematic review synthesizes the findings of multiple studies related to each other by incorporating strategies of analysis and interpretation intended to reduce biases and random errors.
The application of critical exploration, evaluation, and synthesis methods separates insignificant, unsound, or redundant research from the most salient and relevant studies worthy of reflection.
They can be use to identify, justify, and refine hypotheses, recognize and avoid hidden problems in prior studies, and explain data inconsistencies and conflicts in data.
Systematic reviews can be used to help policy makers formulate evidence-based guidelines and regulations.
The use of strict, explicit, and pre-determined methods of synthesis, when applied appropriately, provide reliable estimates about the effects of interventions, evaluations, and effects related to the overarching research problem investigated by each study under review.
Systematic reviews illuminate where knowledge or thorough understanding of a research problem is lacking and, therefore, can then be used to guide future research.
The accepted inclusion of unpublished studies [i.e., grey literature] ensures the broadest possible way to analyze and interpret research on a topic.
Results of the synthesis can be generalized and the findings extrapolated into the general population with more validity than most other types of studies.

What these studies don't tell you?

Systematic reviews do not create new knowledge per se; they are a method for synthesizing existing studies about a research problem in order to gain new insights and determine gaps in the literature.
The way researchers have carried out their investigations [e.g., the period of time covered, number of participants, sources of data analyzed, etc.] can make it difficult to effectively synthesize studies.
The inclusion of unpublished studies can introduce bias into the review because they may not have undergone a rigorous peer-review process prior to publication. Examples may include conference presentations or proceedings, publications from government agencies, white papers, working papers, and internal documents from organizations, and doctoral dissertations and Master's theses.

Design Flaws to Avoid

The research design establishes the decision-making processes, conceptual structure of investigation, and methods of analysis used to address the study's research problem. Taking the time to develop a thorough research design helps to organize your thoughts, sets the boundaries of your study, maximizes the reliability of your findings, and avoids misleading or incomplete conclusions. Therefore, if any aspect of your research design is flawed or under-developed, the quality and reliability of your final results, as well as the overall value of your study, will be diminished.

In no particular order, here are some common problems to avoid when designing a research study. Some are general issues you should think about as your organize your thoughts [e.g., developing a good research problem] while other issues must be explicitly addressed in your paper [e.g., describe study limitations].

Lack of Specificity -- do not describe the investigative aspects of your study in overly-broad generalities. Avoid using vague qualifiers, such as, extremely, very, entirely, completely, etc. It's important that you design a study that describes the process of investigation in clear and concise terms. Otherwise, the reader cannot be certain about what you intend to do.
Poorly Defined Research Problem -- the starting point of most new research in the social and behavioral sciences is to formulate a problem problem and begin the process of developing questions that address the problem. Your paper should outline and explicitly delimit the problem and state what you intend to investigate because this will determine what research design you will use [identifying the research problem always precedes choice of design].
Lack of Theoretical Framework -- the theoretical framework represents the conceptual foundation of your study. Therefore, your research design should include an explicit set of logically derived hypotheses, basic postulates, or assumptions that can be tested in relation to the research problem. More information about developing a theoretical framework can be found here.
Significance -- this refers to describing what value your study has in contributing to understanding the research problem. In the social and behavioral sciences, arguing why a study is significant is framed in the context of clearly answering the "So What?" question [e.g., "This study compares key areas of economic relations among three Central American countries." So what?]. In describing the research design, state why your study is important and how it contributes to the larger body of studies about the topic being investigated.
Relationship between Past Research and Your Paper -- do not simply offer a summary description of prior research. Your literature review should include an explicit statement linking the results of prior research to the research you are about to undertake. This can be done, for example, by identifying basic weaknesses in previous studies, filling specific gaps in knowledge, or describing how your study contributes a unique or different perspective or approach to the problem.
Provincialism -- this refers to designing a narrowly applied scope, geographical area, sampling, or method of analysis that restricts your ability to create meaningful outcomes and, by extension, obtaining results that are relevant and possibly transferable to understanding phenomena in other settings. The scope of your research should be clearly defined, but not to the point of where you cannot extrapolate findings in a meaningful way applied to better understanding the research problem.
Objectives, Hypotheses, or Questions -- your research design should include one or more questions or hypotheses that you are attempting to answer about the research problem. These should be clearly articulated and closely tied to the overall aims of your paper. Although there is no rule regarding the number of questions or hypotheses associated with a research problem, most studies in the social and behavioral sciences address between two and five key questions.
Poor Methodological Approach -- the design must include a well-developed and transparent plan for how you intend to collect or generate data and how it will be analyzed. Ensure that the method used to gather information for analysis is aligned with the topic of inquiry and the underlying research questions to be addressed.
Proximity Sampling -- this refers to using a sample that is based not on the purpose of your study, but rather, is based on the proximity of a particular group of subjects. The units of analysis, whether they be persons, places, events, or things, should not be based solely on ease of access and convenience. Note that this does not mean you should not use units of analysis that are easy to access. The point is that this closeness to data or information cannot be the sole factor that determines the purpose of your study.
Techniques or Instruments -- be clear in describing the techniques [e.g., semi-structured interviews; Linear Regression Analysis] or instruments [e.g., questionnaire; online survey] used to gather data. Your research design should note how the technique or instrument will provide reasonably reliable data to answer the questions associated with the research problem.
Statistical Treatment -- in quantitative studies, you must give a complete description of how you will organize the raw data for analysis. In most cases, this involves describing the data through the measures of central tendencies like mean, median, and mode that help the researcher explain how the data are concentrated and, thus, lead to meaningful interpretations of key trends or patterns found within that data.
Vocabulary -- research often contains jargon and specialized language that the reader is presumably familiar with. However, avoid overuse of technical or pseudo-technical terminology as part of describing your research design. Problems with vocabulary also can refer to the use of popular terms, cliche's, or culture-specific language that is inappropriate for academic writing. More information about academic writing can be found here.
Ethical Dilemmas -- in the methods section of qualitative research studies, your design must document how you intend to minimize risk for participants [a.k.a., "respondents", "human subjects"] during stages of data gathering while, at the same time, still being able to adequately address the research problem. Failure to do so can lead the reader to question the validity and objectivity of your entire study.
Limitations of Study -- all studies have limitations. Your research design should anticipate and explain the reasons why these limitations exist and clearly describe the extent of missing data. It is important to include a statement concerning what impact these limitations may have on the validity of your results and how you helped to ameliorate the significance of these limitations.

Independent and Dependent Variables

Definitions

Dependent Variable
The variable that depends on other factors that are measured. These variables are expected to change as a result of an experimental manipulation of the independent variable or variables. It is the presumed effect.

Independent Variable
The variable that is stable and unaffected by the other variables you are trying to measure. It refers to the condition of an experiment that is systematically manipulated by the investigator. It is the presumed cause.

Identifying Dependent and Independent Variables

Don't feel bad if you are confused about what is the dependent variable and what is the independent variable in social and behavioral sciences research. However, it's important that you learn the difference because framing a study using these variables is a common approach to organizing the elements of a social sciences research study in order to discover relevant and meaningful results. Specifically, it is important for these two reasons:

You need to understand and be able to evaluate their application in other people's research.
You need to apply them correctly in your own research.

A variable in research simply refers to a person, place, thing, or phenomenon that you are trying to measure in some way. The best way to understand the difference between a dependent and independent variable is that the meaning of each is implied by what the words tell us about the variable you are using. You can do this with a simple exercise from the website, Graphic Tutorial. Take the sentence, "The [independent variable] causes a change in [dependent variable] and it is not possible that [dependent variable] could cause a change in [independent variable]." Insert the names of variables you are using in the sentence in the way that makes the most sense. This will help you identify each type of variable. If you're still not sure, consult with your professor before you begin to write.

Structure and Writing Style

The process of examining a research problem in the social and behavioral sciences is often framed around methods of analysis that compare, contrast, correlate, average, or integrate relationships between or among variables. Techniques include associations, sampling, random selection, and blind selection. Designation of the dependent and independent variable involves unpacking the research problem in a way that identifies a general cause and effect and classifying these variables as either independent or dependent.

The variables should be outlined in the introduction of your paper and explained in more detail in the methods section. There are no rules about the structure and style for writing about independent or dependent variables but, as with any academic writing, clarity and being succinct is most important.

After you have described the research problem and its significance in relation to prior research, explain why you have chosen to examine the problem using a method of analysis that investigates the relationships between or among independent and dependent variables. State what it is about the research problem that lends itself to this type of analysis. For example, if you are investigating the relationship between corporate environmental sustainability efforts [the independent variable] and dependent variables associated with measuring employee satisfaction at work using a survey instrument, you would first identify each variable and then provide background information about the variables. What is meant by "environmental sustainability"? Are you looking at a particular company [e.g., General Motors] or are you investigating an industry [e.g., the meat packing industry]? Why is employee satisfaction in the workplace important? How does a company make their employees aware of sustainability efforts and why would a company even care that its employees know about these efforts?

Identify each variable for the reader and define each. In the introduction, this information can be presented in a paragraph or two when you describe how you are going to study the research problem. In the methods section, you build on the literature review of prior studies about the research problem to describe in detail background about each variable, breaking each down for measurement and analysis. For example, what activities do you examine that reflect a company's commitment to environmental sustainability? Levels of employee satisfaction can be measured by a survey that asks about things like volunteerism or a desire to stay at the company for a long time.

The structure and writing style of describing the variables and their application to analyzing the research problem should be stated and unpacked in such a way that the reader obtains a clear understanding of the relationships between the variables and why they are important. This is also important so that the study can be replicated in the future using the same variables but applied in a different way.

Glossary of Research Terms

This glossary is intended to assist you in understanding commonly used terms and concepts when reading, interpreting, and evaluating scholarly research. Also included are common words and phrases defined within the context of how they apply to research in the social and behavioral sciences.

Acculturation -- refers to the process of adapting to another culture, particularly in reference to blending in with the majority population [e.g., an immigrant adopting American customs]. However, acculturation also implies that both cultures add something to one another, but still remain distinct groups unto themselves.
Accuracy -- a term used in survey research to refer to the match between the target population and the sample.
Affective Measures -- procedures or devices used to obtain quantified descriptions of an individual's feelings, emotional states, or dispositions.
Aggregate -- a total created from smaller units. For instance, the population of a county is an aggregate of the populations of the cities, rural areas, etc. that comprise the county. As a verb, it refers to total data from smaller units into a large unit.
Anonymity -- a research condition in which no one, including the researcher, knows the identities of research participants.
Baseline -- a control measurement carried out before an experimental treatment.
Behaviorism -- school of psychological thought concerned with the observable, tangible, objective facts of behavior, rather than with subjective phenomena such as thoughts, emotions, or impulses. Contemporary behaviorism also emphasizes the study of mental states such as feelings and fantasies to the extent that they can be directly observed and measured.
Beliefs -- ideas, doctrines, tenets, etc. that are accepted as true on grounds which are not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Benchmarking -- systematically measuring and comparing the operations and outcomes of organizations, systems, processes, etc., against agreed upon "best-in-class" frames of reference.
Bias -- a loss of balance and accuracy in the use of research methods. It can appear in research via the sampling frame, random sampling, or non-response. It can also occur at other stages in research, such as while interviewing, in the design of questions, or in the way data are analyzed and presented. Bias means that the research findings will not be representative of, or generalizable to, a wider population.
Case Study -- the collection and presentation of detailed information about a particular participant or small group, frequently including data derived from the subjects themselves.
Causal Hypothesis -- a statement hypothesizing that the independent variable affects the dependent variable in some way.
Causal Relationship -- the relationship established that shows that an independent variable, and nothing else, causes a change in a dependent variable. It also establishes how much of a change is shown in the dependent variable.
Causality -- the relation between cause and effect.
Central Tendency -- any way of describing or characterizing typical, average, or common values in some distribution.
Chi-square Analysis -- a common non-parametric statistical test which compares an expected proportion or ratio to an actual proportion or ratio.
Claim -- a statement, similar to a hypothesis, which is made in response to the research question and that is affirmed with evidence based on research.
Classification -- ordering of related phenomena into categories, groups, or systems according to characteristics or attributes.
Cluster Analysis -- a method of statistical analysis where data that share a common trait are grouped together. The data is collected in a way that allows the data collector to group data according to certain characteristics.
Cohort Analysis -- group by group analytic treatment of individuals having a statistical factor in common to each group. Group members share a particular characteristic [e.g., born in a given year] or a common experience [e.g., entering a college at a given time].
Confidentiality -- a research condition in which no one except the researcher(s) knows the identities of the participants in a study. It refers to the treatment of information that a participant has disclosed to the researcher in a relationship of trust and with the expectation that it will not be revealed to others in ways that violate the original consent agreement, unless permission is granted by the participant.
Confirmability Objectivity -- the findings of the study could be confirmed by another person conducting the same study.
Construct -- refers to any of the following: something that exists theoretically but is not directly observable; a concept developed [constructed] for describing relations among phenomena or for other research purposes; or, a theoretical definition in which concepts are defined in terms of other concepts. For example, intelligence cannot be directly observed or measured; it is a construct.
Construct Validity -- seeks an agreement between a theoretical concept and a specific measuring device, such as observation.
Constructivism -- the idea that reality is socially constructed. It is the view that reality cannot be understood outside of the way humans interact and that the idea that knowledge is constructed, not discovered. Constructivists believe that learning is more active and self-directed than either behaviorism or cognitive theory would postulate.
Content Analysis -- the systematic, objective, and quantitative description of the manifest or latent content of print or nonprint communications.
Context Sensitivity -- awareness by a qualitative researcher of factors such as values and beliefs that influence cultural behaviors.
Control Group -- the group in an experimental design that receives either no treatment or a different treatment from the experimental group. This group can thus be compared to the experimental group.
Controlled Experiment -- an experimental design with two or more randomly selected groups [an experimental group and control group] in which the researcher controls or introduces the independent variable and measures the dependent variable at least two times [pre- and post-test measurements].
Correlation -- a common statistical analysis, usually abbreviated as r, that measures the degree of relationship between pairs of interval variables in a sample. The range of correlation is from -1.00 to zero to +1.00. Also, a non-cause and effect relationship between two variables.
Covariate -- a product of the correlation of two related variables times their standard deviations. Used in true experiments to measure the difference of treatment between them.
Credibility -- a researcher's ability to demonstrate that the object of a study is accurately identified and described based on the way in which the study was conducted.
Critical Theory -- an evaluative approach to social science research, associated with Germany's neo-Marxist “Frankfurt School,” that aims to criticize as well as analyze society, opposing the political orthodoxy of modern communism. Its goal is to promote human emancipatory forces and to expose ideas and systems that impede them.
Data -- factual information [as measurements or statistics] used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation.
Data Mining -- the process of analyzing data from different perspectives and summarizing it into useful information, often to discover patterns and/or systematic relationships among variables.
Data Quality -- this is the degree to which the collected data [results of measurement or observation] meet the standards of quality to be considered valid [trustworthy] and reliable [dependable].
Deductive -- a form of reasoning in which conclusions are formulated about particulars from general or universal premises.
Dependability -- being able to account for changes in the design of the study and the changing conditions surrounding what was studied.
Dependent Variable -- a variable that varies due, at least in part, to the impact of the independent variable. In other words, its value “depends” on the value of the independent variable. For example, in the variables “gender” and “academic major,” academic major is the dependent variable, meaning that your major cannot determine whether you are male or female, but your gender might indirectly lead you to favor one major over another.
Deviation -- the distance between the mean and a particular data point in a given distribution.
Discourse Community -- a community of scholars and researchers in a given field who respond to and communicate to each other through published articles in the community's journals and presentations at conventions. All members of the discourse community adhere to certain conventions for the presentation of their theories and research.
Discrete Variable -- a variable that is measured solely in whole units, such as, gender and number of siblings.
Distribution -- the range of values of a particular variable.
Effect Size -- the amount of change in a dependent variable that can be attributed to manipulations of the independent variable. A large effect size exists when the value of the dependent variable is strongly influenced by the independent variable. It is the mean difference on a variable between experimental and control groups divided by the standard deviation on that variable of the pooled groups or of the control group alone.
Emancipatory Research -- research is conducted on and with people from marginalized groups or communities. It is led by a researcher or research team who is either an indigenous or external insider; is interpreted within intellectual frameworks of that group; and, is conducted largely for the purpose of empowering members of that community and improving services for them. It also engages members of the community as co-constructors or validators of knowledge.
Empirical Research -- the process of developing systematized knowledge gained from observations that are formulated to support insights and generalizations about the phenomena being researched.
Epistemology -- concerns knowledge construction; asks what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is validated.
Ethnography -- method to study groups and/or cultures over a period of time. The goal of this type of research is to comprehend the particular group/culture through immersion into the culture or group. Research is completed through various methods but, since the researcher is immersed within the group for an extended period of time, more detailed information is usually collected during the research.
Expectancy Effect -- any unconscious or conscious cues that convey to the participant in a study how the researcher wants them to respond. Expecting someone to behave in a particular way has been shown to promote the expected behavior. Expectancy effects can be minimized by using standardized interactions with subjects, automated data-gathering methods, and double blind protocols.
External Validity -- the extent to which the results of a study are generalizable or transferable.
Factor Analysis -- a statistical test that explores relationships among data. The test explores which variables in a data set are most related to each other. In a carefully constructed survey, for example, factor analysis can yield information on patterns of responses, not simply data on a single response. Larger tendencies may then be interpreted, indicating behavior trends rather than simply responses to specific questions.
Field Studies -- academic or other investigative studies undertaken in a natural setting, rather than in laboratories, classrooms, or other structured environments.
Focus Groups -- small, roundtable discussion groups charged with examining specific topics or problems, including possible options or solutions. Focus groups usually consist of 4-12 participants, guided by moderators to keep the discussion flowing and to collect and report the results.
Framework -- the structure and support that may be used as both the launching point and the on-going guidelines for investigating a research problem.
Generalizability -- the extent to which research findings and conclusions conducted on a specific study to groups or situations can be applied to the population at large.
Grey Literature -- research produced by organizations outside of commercial and academic publishing that publish materials, such as, working papers, research reports, and briefing papers.
Grounded Theory -- practice of developing other theories that emerge from observing a group. Theories are grounded in the group's observable experiences, but researchers add their own insight into why those experiences exist.
Group Behavior -- behaviors of a group as a whole, as well as the behavior of an individual as influenced by his or her membership in a group.
Hypothesis -- a tentative explanation based on theory to predict a causal relationship between variables.
Independent Variable -- the conditions of an experiment that are systematically manipulated by the researcher. A variable that is not impacted by the dependent variable, and that itself impacts the dependent variable. In the earlier example of "gender" and "academic major," (see Dependent Variable) gender is the independent variable.
Individualism -- a theory or policy having primary regard for the liberty, rights, or independent actions of individuals.
Inductive -- a form of reasoning in which a generalized conclusion is formulated from particular instances.
Inductive Analysis -- a form of analysis based on inductive reasoning; a researcher using inductive analysis starts with answers, but formulates questions throughout the research process.
Insiderness -- a concept in qualitative research that refers to the degree to which a researcher has access to and an understanding of persons, places, or things within a group or community based on being a member of that group or community.
Internal Consistency -- the extent to which all questions or items assess the same characteristic, skill, or quality.
Internal Validity -- the rigor with which the study was conducted [e.g., the study's design, the care taken to conduct measurements, and decisions concerning what was and was not measured]. It is also the extent to which the designers of a study have taken into account alternative explanations for any causal relationships they explore. In studies that do not explore causal relationships, only the first of these definitions should be considered when assessing internal validity.
Life History -- a record of an event/events in a respondent's life told [written down, but increasingly audio or video recorded] by the respondent from his/her own perspective in his/her own words. A life history is different from a "research story" in that it covers a longer time span, perhaps a complete life, or a significant period in a life.
Margin of Error -- the permittable or acceptable deviation from the target or a specific value. The allowance for slight error or miscalculation or changing circumstances in a study.
Measurement -- process of obtaining a numerical description of the extent to which persons, organizations, or things possess specified characteristics.
Meta-Analysis -- an analysis combining the results of several studies that address a set of related hypotheses.
Methodology -- a theory or analysis of how research does and should proceed.
Methods -- systematic approaches to the conduct of an operation or process. It includes steps of procedure, application of techniques, systems of reasoning or analysis, and the modes of inquiry employed by a discipline.
Mixed-Methods -- a research approach that uses two or more methods from both the quantitative and qualitative research categories. It is also referred to as blended methods, combined methods, or methodological triangulation.
Modeling -- the creation of a physical or computer analogy to understand a particular phenomenon. Modeling helps in estimating the relative magnitude of various factors involved in a phenomenon. A successful model can be shown to account for unexpected behavior that has been observed, to predict certain behaviors, which can then be tested experimentally, and to demonstrate that a given theory cannot account for certain phenomenon.
Models -- representations of objects, principles, processes, or ideas often used for imitation or emulation.
Naturalistic Observation -- observation of behaviors and events in natural settings without experimental manipulation or other forms of interference.
Norm -- the norm in statistics is the average or usual performance. For example, students usually complete their high school graduation requirements when they are 18 years old. Even though some students graduate when they are younger or older, the norm is that any given student will graduate when he or she is 18 years old.
Null Hypothesis -- the proposition, to be tested statistically, that the experimental intervention has "no effect," meaning that the treatment and control groups will not differ as a result of the intervention. Investigators usually hope that the data will demonstrate some effect from the intervention, thus allowing the investigator to reject the null hypothesis.
Ontology -- a discipline of philosophy that explores the science of what is, the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes, and relations in every area of reality.
Panel Study -- a longitudinal study in which a group of individuals is interviewed at intervals over a period of time.
Participant -- individuals whose physiological and/or behavioral characteristics and responses are the object of study in a research project.
Peer-Review -- the process in which the author of a book, article, or other type of publication submits his or her work to experts in the field for critical evaluation, usually prior to publication. This is standard procedure in publishing scholarly research.
Phenomenology -- a qualitative research approach concerned with understanding certain group behaviors from that group's point of view.
Philosophy -- critical examination of the grounds for fundamental beliefs and analysis of the basic concepts, doctrines, or practices that express such beliefs.
Phonology -- the study of the ways in which speech sounds form systems and patterns in language.
Policy -- governing principles that serve as guidelines or rules for decision making and action in a given area.
Policy Analysis -- systematic study of the nature, rationale, cost, impact, effectiveness, implications, etc., of existing or alternative policies, using the theories and methodologies of relevant social science disciplines.
Population -- the target group under investigation. The population is the entire set under consideration. Samples are drawn from populations.
Position Papers -- statements of official or organizational viewpoints, often recommending a particular course of action or response to a situation.
Positivism -- a doctrine in the philosophy of science, positivism argues that science can only deal with observable entities known directly to experience. The positivist aims to construct general laws, or theories, which express relationships between phenomena. Observation and experiment is used to show whether the phenomena fit the theory.
Predictive Measurement -- use of tests, inventories, or other measures to determine or estimate future events, conditions, outcomes, or trends.
Principal Investigator -- the scientist or scholar with primary responsibility for the design and conduct of a research project.
Probability -- the chance that a phenomenon will occur randomly. As a statistical measure, it is shown as p [the "p" factor].
Questionnaire -- structured sets of questions on specified subjects that are used to gather information, attitudes, or opinions.
Random Sampling -- a process used in research to draw a sample of a population strictly by chance, yielding no discernible pattern beyond chance. Random sampling can be accomplished by first numbering the population, then selecting the sample according to a table of random numbers or using a random-number computer generator. The sample is said to be random because there is no regular or discernible pattern or order. Random sample selection is used under the assumption that sufficiently large samples assigned randomly will exhibit a distribution comparable to that of the population from which the sample is drawn. The random assignment of participants increases the probability that differences observed between participant groups are the result of the experimental intervention.
Reliability -- the degree to which a measure yields consistent results. If the measuring instrument [e.g., survey] is reliable, then administering it to similar groups would yield similar results. Reliability is a prerequisite for validity. An unreliable indicator cannot produce trustworthy results.
Representative Sample -- sample in which the participants closely match the characteristics of the population, and thus, all segments of the population are represented in the sample. A representative sample allows results to be generalized from the sample to the population.
Rigor -- degree to which research methods are scrupulously and meticulously carried out in order to recognize important influences occurring in an experimental study.
Sample -- the population researched in a particular study. Usually, attempts are made to select a "sample population" that is considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. In studies that use inferential statistics to analyze results or which are designed to be generalizable, sample size is critical, generally the larger the number in the sample, the higher the likelihood of a representative distribution of the population.
Sampling Error -- the degree to which the results from the sample deviate from those that would be obtained from the entire population, because of random error in the selection of respondent and the corresponding reduction in reliability.
Saturation -- a situation in which data analysis begins to reveal repetition and redundancy and when new data tend to confirm existing findings rather than expand upon them.
Semantics -- the relationship between symbols and meaning in a linguistic system. Also, the cuing system that connects what is written in the text to what is stored in the reader's prior knowledge.
Social Theories -- theories about the structure, organization, and functioning of human societies.
Sociolinguistics -- the study of language in society and, more specifically, the study of language varieties, their functions, and their speakers.
Standard Deviation -- a measure of variation that indicates the typical distance between the scores of a distribution and the mean; it is determined by taking the square root of the average of the squared deviations in a given distribution. It can be used to indicate the proportion of data within certain ranges of scale values when the distribution conforms closely to the normal curve.
Statistical Analysis -- application of statistical processes and theory to the compilation, presentation, discussion, and interpretation of numerical data.
Statistical Bias -- characteristics of an experimental or sampling design, or the mathematical treatment of data, that systematically affects the results of a study so as to produce incorrect, unjustified, or inappropriate inferences or conclusions.
Statistical Significance -- the probability that the difference between the outcomes of the control and experimental group are great enough that it is unlikely due solely to chance. The probability that the null hypothesis can be rejected at a predetermined significance level [0.05 or 0.01].
Statistical Tests -- researchers use statistical tests to make quantitative decisions about whether a study's data indicate a significant effect from the intervention and allow the researcher to reject the null hypothesis. That is, statistical tests show whether the differences between the outcomes of the control and experimental groups are great enough to be statistically significant. If differences are found to be statistically significant, it means that the probability [likelihood] that these differences occurred solely due to chance is relatively low. Most researchers agree that a significance value of .05 or less [i.e., there is a 95% probability that the differences are real] sufficiently determines significance.
Subcultures -- ethnic, regional, economic, or social groups exhibiting characteristic patterns of behavior sufficient to distinguish them from the larger society to which they belong.
Testing -- the act of gathering and processing information about individuals' ability, skill, understanding, or knowledge under controlled conditions.
Theory -- a general explanation about a specific behavior or set of events that is based on known principles and serves to organize related events in a meaningful way. A theory is not as specific as a hypothesis.
Treatment -- the stimulus given to a dependent variable.
Trend Samples -- method of sampling different groups of people at different points in time from the same population.
Triangulation -- a multi-method or pluralistic approach, using different methods in order to focus on the research topic from different viewpoints and to produce a multi-faceted set of data. Also used to check the validity of findings from any one method.
Unit of Analysis -- the basic observable entity or phenomenon being analyzed by a study and for which data are collected in the form of variables.
Validity -- the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. A method can be reliable, consistently measuring the same thing, but not valid.
Variable -- any characteristic or trait that can vary from one person to another [race, gender, academic major] or for one person over time [age, political beliefs].
Weighted Scores -- scores in which the components are modified by different multipliers to reflect their relative importance.
White Paper -- an authoritative report that often states the position or philosophy about a social, political, or other subject, or a general explanation of an architecture, framework, or product technology written by a group of researchers. A white paper seeks to contain unbiased information and analysis regarding a business or policy problem that the researchers may be facing.

1. Choosing a Research Problem

Definition

In the social and behavioral sciences, the subject of analysis is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to obtain a greater understanding, formulate a set of solutions or recommended courses of action, and/or develop a better approach to practice. The research problem, therefore, is the main organizing principle guiding the analysis of your research. The problem under investigation establishes an occasion for writing and a focus that governs what you want to say. It represents the core subject matter of scholarly communication and the means by which scholars arrive at other topics of conversation and the discovery of new knowledge and understanding.

Choosing a Research Problem / How to Begin

Do not assume that identifying a research problem to investigate will be a quick and easy task! You should be thinking about it during the beginning of the course. There are generally three ways you are asked to write about a research problem: 1) your professor provides you with a general topic from which you study a particular aspect; 2) your professor provides you with a list of possible topics to study and you choose a topic from that list; or, 3) your professor leaves it up to you to choose a topic and you only have to obtain permission to write about it before beginning your investigation. Here are some strategies for getting started for each scenario.

I. How To Begin: You are given the topic to write about

Step 1: Identify concepts and terms that make up the topic statement. For example, your professor wants the class to focus on the following research problem: “Is the European Union a credible security actor with the capacity to contribute to confronting global terrorism?" The main concepts in this problem are: European Union, security, global terrorism, credibility [hint: focus on identifying proper nouns, nouns or noun phrases, and action verbs in the assignment description].

Step 2: Review related literature to help refine how you will approach examining the topic and finding a way to analyze it. You can begin by doing any or all of the following: reading through background information from materials listed in your course syllabus; searching the USC Libraries Catalog to find a recent book on the topic and, if appropriate, more specialized works about the topic; conducting a preliminary review of the research literature using multidisciplinary databases such as ProQuest or subject-specific databases from the "By Subject Area" drop down menu located above the list of databases.

Choose the advanced search option in the database and enter into each search box the main concept terms you developed in Step 1. Also consider using their synonyms to retrieve additional relevant records. This will help you refine and frame the scope of the research problem. You will likely need to do this several times before you can finalize how to approach writing about the topic.

NOTE: Always review the references from your most relevant research results cited by the authors in footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography to locate related research on your topic. This is a good strategy for identifying important prior research about the topic because titles that are repeatedly cited indicate their significance in laying a foundation for understanding the problem. However, if you’re having trouble at this point locating relevant research literature, ask a librarian for help!

ANOTHER NOTE: If you find an article from a database that's particularly helpful, paste it into Google Scholar, placing the title of the article in quotes. If the article record appears, look for a "cited by" reference followed by a number [e.g., Cited by 37] just below the record. This link indicates how many times other scholars have subsequently cited that article in their own research since it was first published. This is an effective strategy for identifying more current, related research on your topic. Finding additional cited by references from your original list of cited by references helps you navigate through the literature and, by so doing, understand the evolution of thought around a particular research problem.

Step 3: Since social science research papers are generally designed to encourage you to develop your own ideas and arguments, look for sources that can help broaden, modify, or strengthen your initial thoughts and arguments. For example, if you decide to argue that the European Union is inadequately prepared to take on responsibilities for broader global security because of the debt crisis in many EU countries, then focus on identifying sources that support as well as refute this position. From the advanced search option in ProQuest, a sample search would use "European Union" in one search box, "global security" in the second search box, and adding a third search box to include "debt crisis."

There are least four appropriate roles your related literature plays in helping you formulate how to begin your analysis:

Sources of criticism -- frequently, you'll find yourself reading materials that are relevant to your chosen topic, but you disagree with the author's position. Therefore, one way that you can use a source is to describe the counter-argument, provide evidence from your own review of the literature as to why the prevailing argument is unsatisfactory, and to discuss how your approach is more appropriate based upon your interpretation of the evidence.

Sources of new ideas -- while a general goal in writing college research papers in the social sciences is to examine a research problem with some basic idea of what position you'd like to take and on what basis you'd like to defend your position, it is certainly acceptable [and often encouraged] to read the literature and extend, modify, and refine your own position in light of the ideas proposed by others. Just make sure that you cite the sources!

Sources for historical context -- another role your related literature plays in formulating how to begin your analysis is to place issues and events in proper historical context. This can help to demonstrate familiarity with developments in relevant scholarship about your topic, provide a means of comparing historical versus contemporary issues and events, and identifying key people, places, and events that had an important role related to the research problem. Given its archival journal coverage, a good multidisciplnary database to use in this case is JSTOR.

Sources of interdisciplinary insight -- an advantage of using databases like ProQuest to begin exploring your topic is that it covers publications from a variety of different disciplines. Another way to formulate how to study the topic is to look at it from different disciplinary perspectives. If the topic concerns immigration reform, for example, ask yourself, how do studies from sociological journals found by searching ProQuest vary in their analysis from those in political science journals. A goal in reviewing related literature is to provide a means of approaching a topic from multiple perspectives rather than the perspective offered from just one discipline.

NOTE: Remember to keep careful notes at every stage or utilize a citation management system like EndNotes or RefWorks. You may think you'll remember what you have searched and where you found things, but it’s easy to forget or get confused. Most databases have a search history feature that allows you to go back and see what searches you conducted previously as long as you haven't closed your session. If you start over, that history could be deleted.

Step 4: Assuming you have done an effective job of synthesizing and thinking about the results of your initial search for related literature, you're ready to prepare a detailed outline for your paper that lays the foundation for a more in-depth and focused review of relevant research literature [after consulting with a librarian, if needed!]. How will you know you haven't done an effective job of synthesizing and thinking about the results of our initial search for related literature? A good indication is that you start composing the outline and gaps appear in how you want to approach the study. This indicates the need to gather further background information and analysis about the research problem.

II. How To Begin: You are provided a list of possible topics to choose from

Step 1: I know what you’re thinking--which topic on this list will be the easiest to find the most information on? An effective instructor would never include a topic that is so obscure or complex that no research is available to examine and from which to design an effective study. Therefore, don't approach a list of possible topics to study from the perspective of trying to identify the path of least resistance; choose a topic that you find interesting in some way, that is controversial and that you have a strong opinion about, that has some personal meaning for you, or relates to your major or a minor. You're going to be working on the topic for quite some time, so choose one that you find interesting and engaging or that motivates you to take a position. Embrace the opportunity to learn something new!

Once you’ve settled on a topic of interest from the list provided by your professor, follow Steps 1 - 4 listed above to further develop it into a research paper.

NOTE: It’s ok to review related literature to help refine how you will approach analyzing a topic, and then discover that the topic isn’t all that interesting to you. In that case, choose a different topic from the list. Just don’t wait too long to make a switch and, of course, be sure to inform your professor that you are changing your topic.

III. How To Begin: Your professor leaves it up to you to choose a topic

Step 1: Under this scenario, the key process is turning an idea or general thought into a topic that can be configured into a research problem. When given an assignment where you choose the topic, don't begin by thinking about what to write about, but rather, ask yourself the question, "What do I want to understand or learn about?" Treat an open-ended research assignment as an opportunity to gain new knowledge about something that's important or exciting to you in the context of the overall subject of the course.

Step 2: If you lack ideas, or wish to gain focus, try any or all of the following strategies:

Review your course readings, particularly the suggested readings, for topic ideas. Don't just review what you've already read, but jump ahead in the syllabus to readings that have not been covered yet.
Search the USC Libraries Catalog for a recently published book and, if appropriate, more specialized works related to the discipline area of the course [e.g., for the course SOCI 335: Society and Population, search for books on "population and society" or "population and social impact"]. Reviewing the contents of a book about your area of interest can give you insight into what conversations scholars are having about the topic and, thus, how you might want to contribute your own ideas to these conversations through the research paper you write for the class.
Browse through some current scholarly [a.k.a., academic, peer reviewed] journals in your subject discipline. Even if most of the articles are not relevant, you can skim through the contents quickly. You only need one to be the spark that begins the process of wanting to learn more about a topic. Consult with a librarian and/or your professor about what constitutes the core journals within the subject area of the writing assignment.
Think about essays you have written for other courses you have taken or academic lectures and programs you have attended outside of class. Thinking back, ask yourself why did you want to take this class or attend this event? What interested you the most? What would you like to know more about? Place this question in the context of the current course assignment. Note that this strategy also applies to anything you've watched on TV or has been shared on social media.
Search online news media sources, such as CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Fox News, or Newsweek, to see if your idea has been covered by the media. Use this coverage to refine your idea into something that you'd like to investigate further, but in a more deliberate, scholarly way in relation to a particular problem that needs to be researched.

Step 3: To build upon your initial idea, use the suggestions under this tab to help narrow, broaden, or increase the timeliness of your idea so you can write it out as a research problem.

Once you are comfortable with having turned your idea into a research problem, follow Steps 1 - 4 listed in Part I above to further develop it into an outline for a research paper.

Resources for Identifying a Topic

Resources for Identifying a Research Problem

If you are having difficulty identifying a topic to study or need basic background information, the following web resources and databases can be useful:

CQ Researcher -- a collection of single-themed public policy reports that provide an overview of an issue. Each report includes background information, an assessment of the current policy situation, statistical tables and maps, pro/con statements from representatives of opposing positions, and a bibliography of key sources.
New York Times Topics -- each topic page collects news articles, reference and archival information, photos, graphics, audio and video files. Content is available without charge on articles going back to 1981.
Opposing Viewpoints In Context -- an online resource covering a wide range of social issues from a variety of perspectives. The database contains a media-rich collection of materials, including pro/con viewpoint essays, topic overviews, primary source materials, biographies of social activists and reformers, journal articles, statistical tables, charts and graphs, images, videos, and podcasts.
Policy Commons -- platform for objective, fact-based research from the world’s leading policy experts, nonpartisan think tanks, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The database provides advanced searching across millions of pages of books, articles, working papers, reports, policy briefs, data sets, tables, charts, media, case studies, and statistical publications, including archived reports from more than 200 defunct think tanks. Coverage is international in scope.

Writing Tip

Not Finding Anything on Your Topic? Ask a Research Expert!

Don't assume or jump to the conclusion that your topic is too narrowly defined or obscure just because your initial search has failed to identify relevant research. Librarians are experts in locating and critically assessing information and how it is organized. This knowledge will help you develop strategies for analyzing existing knowledge in new ways. Therefore, always consult with a librarian before you consider giving up on finding information about the topic you want to investigate. If there isn't a lot of information about your topic, a librarian can help you identify a closely related topic that you can study. Use the Ask-A-Librarian link above to identify a librarian in your subject area.

Another Writing Tip

Don't be a Martyr!

In thinking about what to study, don't adopt the mindset of pursuing an esoteric or overly complicated topic just to impress your professor but that, in reality, does not have any real interest to you. Choose a topic that is challenging but that has at least some interest to you or that you care about. Obviously, this is easier for courses within your major, but even for those nasty prerequisite classes that you must take in order to graduate [and that provide an additional tuition revenue for the university], try to apply issues associated with your major to the general topic given to you. For example, if you are an international relations major taking a GE philosophy class where the assignment asks you to apply the question of "what is truth" to some aspect of life, you could choose to study how government leaders attempt to shape truth through the use of nationalistic propaganda.

Reading a Scholarly Article or Research Paper

Identifying a research problem to investigate requires a preliminary search for and critical review of the literature in order to gain an understanding about how scholars have examined a topic. Scholars rarely structure research studies in a way that can be followed like a story; they are complex and detail-intensive and often written in a descriptive and conclusive narrative form. However, in the social and behavioral sciences, journal articles and stand-alone research reports are generally organized in a consistent format that makes it easier to compare and contrast studies and to interpret their contents.

General Reading Strategies

When you first read an article or research paper, focus on asking specific questions about each section. This strategy can help with overall comprehension and with understanding how the content relates [or does not relate] to the problem you want to investigate. As you review more and more studies, the process of understanding and critically evaluating the research will become easier because the content of what you review will begin to coalescence around common themes and patterns of analysis. Below are recommendations on how to read each section of a research paper effectively. Note that the sections to read are out of order from how you will find them organized in a journal article or research paper.

1. Abstract

The abstract summarizes the background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions of a scholarly article or research paper. Use the abstract to filter out sources that may have appeared useful when you began searching for information but, in reality, are not relevant. Questions to consider when reading the abstract are:

Is this study related to my question or area of research?
What is this study about and why is it being done?
What is the working hypothesis or underlying thesis?
What is the primary finding of the study?
Are there words or terminology that I can use to either narrow or broaden the parameters of my search for more information?

2. Introduction

If, after reading the abstract, you believe the paper may be useful, focus on examining the research problem and identifying the questions the author is trying to address. This information is usually located within the first few paragraphs of the introduction or in the concluding paragraph. Look for information about how and in what way this relates to what you are investigating. In addition to the research problem, the introduction should provide the main argument and theoretical framework of the study and, in the last paragraphs of the introduction, describe what the author(s) intend to accomplish. Questions to consider when reading the introduction include:

What is this study trying to prove or disprove?
What is the author(s) trying to test or demonstrate?
What do we already know about this topic and what gaps does this study try to fill or contribute a new understanding to the research problem?
Why should I care about what is being investigated?
Will this study tell me anything new related to the research problem I am investigating?

3. Literature Review

The literature review describes and critically evaluates what is already known about a topic. Read the literature review to obtain a big picture perspective about how the topic has been studied and to begin the process of seeing where your potential study fits within the domain of prior research. Questions to consider when reading the literature review include:

What other research has been conducted about this topic and what are the main themes that have emerged?
What does prior research reveal about what is already known about the topic and what remains to be discovered?
What have been the most important past findings about the research problem?
How has prior research led the author(s) to conduct this particular study?
Is there any prior research that is unique or groundbreaking?
Are there any studies I could use as a model for designing and organizing my own study?

4. Discussion/Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion are usually the last two sections of text in a scholarly article or research report. They reveal how the author(s) interpreted the findings of their research and presented recommendations or courses of action based on those findings. Often in the conclusion, the author(s) highlight recommendations for further research that can be used to develop your own study. Questions to consider when reading the discussion and conclusion sections include:

What is the overall meaning of the study and why is this important? [i.e., how have the author(s) addressed the "So What?" question].
What do you find to be the most important ways that the findings have been interpreted?
What are the weaknesses in their argument?
Do you believe conclusions about the significance of the study and its findings are valid?
What limitations of the study do the author(s) describe and how might this help formulate my own research?
Does the conclusion contain any recommendations for future research?

5. Methods/Methodology

The methods section describes the materials, techniques, and procedures for gathering information used to examine the research problem. If what you have read so far closely supports your understanding of the topic, then move on to examining how the author(s) gathered information during the research process. Questions to consider when reading the methods section include:

Did the study use qualitative [based on interviews, observations, content analysis], quantitative [based on statistical analysis], or a mixed-methods approach to examining the research problem?
What was the type of information or data used?
Could this method of analysis be repeated and can I adopt the same approach?
Is enough information available to repeat the study or should new data be found to expand or improve understanding of the research problem?

6. Results

After reading the above sections, you should have a clear understanding of the general findings of the study. Therefore, read the results section to identify how key findings were discussed in relation to the research problem. If any non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts, tables, etc.] are confusing, focus on the explanations about them in the text. Questions to consider when reading the results section include:

What did the author(s) find and how did they find it?
Does the author(s) highlight any findings as most significant?
Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way?
Does the analysis of results in the discussion section agree with how the results are presented?
Is all the data present and did the author(s) adequately address gaps?
What conclusions do you formulate from this data and does it match with the author's conclusions?

7. References

The references list the sources used by the author(s) to document what prior research and information was used when conducting the study. After reviewing the article or research paper, use the references to identify additional sources of information on the topic and to examine critically how these sources supported the overall research agenda. Questions to consider when reading the references include:

Do the sources cited by the author(s) reflect a diversity of disciplinary viewpoints, i.e., are the sources all from a particular field of study or do the sources reflect multiple areas of study?
Are there any unique or interesting sources that could be incorporated into my study?
What other authors are respected in this field, i.e., who has multiple works cited or is cited most often by others?
What other research should I review to clarify any remaining issues or that I need more information about?

NOTE: A final strategy in reviewing research is to copy and paste the title of the source [journal article, book, research report] into Google Scholar. If it appears, look for a "cited by" followed by a hyperlinked number [e.g., Cited by 45]. This number indicates how many times the study has been subsequently cited in other, more recently published works. This strategy, known as citation tracking, can be an effective means of expanding your review of pertinent literature based on a study you have found useful and how scholars have cited it. The same strategies described above can be applied to reading articles you find in the list of cited by references.

Reading Tip

Specific Reading Strategies

Effectively reading scholarly research is an acquired skill that involves attention to detail and an ability to comprehend complex ideas, data, and theoretical concepts in a way that applies logically to the research problem you are investigating. Here are some specific reading strategies to consider.

As You are Reading

Focus on information that is most relevant to the research problem; skim over the other parts.
As noted above, read content out of order! This isn't a novel; you want to start with the spoiler to quickly assess the relevance of the study.
Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments; not everything may be entirely valid, examined effectively, or thoroughly investigated.
Look up the definitions of unfamiliar words, concepts, or terminology. A good scholarly source is Credo Reference.

Highlighting Key Points and Taking Notes

Taking notes as you read will save time when you go back to examine your sources. Here are some suggestions:

Mark or highlight important text as you read [e.g., you can use the highlight text feature in a PDF document]
Take notes in the margins [e.g., Adobe Reader offers pop-up sticky notes].
Highlight important quotations; consider using different colors to differentiate between quotes and other types of important text.
Summarize key points about the study at the end of the paper. To save time, these can be in the form of a concise bulleted list of statements [e.g., intro has provides historical background; lit review has important sources; good conclusions].

Reflecting on What You Have Read

Write down thoughts that come to mind that may help clarify your understanding of the research problem. Here are some examples of questions to ask yourself:

Do I understand all of the terminology and key concepts?
Do I understand the parts of this study most relevant to my topic?
What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
Are there any issues or perspectives the author(s) did not consider?
Do I have any reason to question the validity or reliability of this research?
How do the findings relate to my research interests and to other works which I have read?

Another Reading Tip

When is it Important to Read the Entire Article or Research Paper

Laubepin argues, "Very few articles in a field are so important that every word needs to be read carefully." However, this implies that some studies are worth reading carefully. As painful and time-consuming as it may seem, there are valid reasons for reading a study from beginning to end. Here are some examples:

Studies Published Very Recently. The author(s) of a recent, well written study will provide a survey of the most important or impactful prior research in the literature review section. This can establish an understanding of how scholars in the past addressed the research problem. In addition, the most recently published sources will highlight what is currently known and what gaps in understanding currently exist about a topic, usually in the form of the need for further research in the conclusion.
Surveys of the Research Problem. Some papers provide a comprehensive analytical overview of the research problem. Reading this type of study can help you understand underlying issues and discover why scholars have chosen to investigate the topic. This is particularly important if the study was published very recently because the author(s) should cite all or most of the key prior research on the topic. Note that, if it is a long-standing problem, there may be studies that specifically review the literature to identify gaps that remain. These studies often include the word "review" in their title [e.g., Hügel, Stephan, and Anna R. Davies. "Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 (July-August 2020): https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.645].
Highly Cited. If you keep coming across the same citation to a study while you are reviewing the literature, this implies it was foundational in establishing an understanding of the research problem or the study had a significant impact within the literature [either positive or negative]. Carefully reading a highly cited source can help you understand how the topic emerged and how it motivated scholars to further investigate the problem. It also could be a study you need to cite as foundational in your own paper to demonstrate to the reader that you understand the roots of the problem.
Historical Overview. Knowing the historical background of a research problem may not be the focus of your analysis. Nevertheless, carefully reading a study that provides a thorough description and analysis of the history behind an event, issue, or phenomenon can add important context to understanding the topic and what aspect of the problem you may want to examine further.
Innovative Methodological Design. Some studies are significant and should be read in their entirety because the author(s) designed a unique or innovative approach to researching the problem. This may justify reading the entire study because it can motivate you to think creatively about pursuing an alternative or non-traditional approach to examining your topic of interest. These types of studies are generally easy to identify because they are often cited in others works because of their unique approach to investigating the research problem.
Cross-disciplinary Approach. Reviewing studies produced outside of your discipline is an essential component of investigating research problems in the social and behavioral sciences. Consider reading a study that was conducted by author(s) based in a different discipline [e.g., an anthropologist studying political cultures; a study of hiring practices in companies published in a sociology journal]. This approach can generate a new understanding or a unique perspective about the topic. If you are not sure how to search for studies published in a discipline outside of your major or of the course you are taking, contact a Expert for assistance.

Importance of Narrowing the Research Topic

Whether you are assigned a general issue to investigate, must choose a problem to study from a list given to you by your professor, or you have to identify your own topic to investigate, it is important that the scope of the research problem is not too broad, otherwise, it will be difficult to adequately address the topic in the space and time allowed. You could experience a number of problems if your topic is too broad, including:

You find too many information sources and, as a consequence, it is difficult to decide what to include or exclude or what are the most relevant sources.
You find information that is too general and, as a consequence, it is difficult to develop a clear framework for examining the research problem.
A lack of sufficient parameters that clearly define the research problem makes it difficult to identify and apply the proper methods needed to analyze it.
You find information that covers a wide variety of concepts or ideas that can't be integrated into one paper and, as a consequence, you trail off into unnecessary tangents.

Strategies for Narrowing the Research Topic

A common challenge when beginning to write a research paper is determining how and in what ways to narrow down your topic. Even if your professor gives you a specific topic to study, it will almost never be so specific that you won’t have to narrow it down at least to some degree [besides, it is very boring to grade fifty papers that are all about the exact same thing!].

A topic is too broad to be manageable when a review of the literature reveals too many different, and oftentimes conflicting or only remotely related, ideas about how to investigate the research problem. Although you will want to start the writing process by considering a variety of different approaches to studying the research problem, you will need to narrow the focus of your investigation at some point early in the writing process. This way, you don't attempt to do too much in one paper.

Here are some strategies to help narrow the thematic focus of your paper:

Aspect -- choose one lens through which to view the research problem, or look at just one facet of it [e.g., rather than studying the role of food in South Asian religious rituals, study the role of food in Hindu marriage ceremonies, or, the role of one particular type of food among several religions].
Components -- determine if your initial variable or unit of analysis can be broken into smaller parts, which can then be analyzed more precisely [e.g., a study of tobacco use among adolescents can focus on just chewing tobacco rather than all forms of usage or, rather than adolescents in general, focus on female adolescents in a certain age range who choose to use tobacco].
Methodology -- the way in which you gather information can reduce the domain of interpretive analysis needed to address the research problem [e.g., a single case study can be designed to generate data that does not require as extensive an explanation as using multiple cases].
Place -- generally, the smaller the geographic unit of analysis, the more narrow the focus [e.g., rather than study trade relations issues in West Africa, study trade relations between Niger and Cameroon as a case study that helps to explain economic problems in the region].
Relationship -- ask yourself how do two or more different perspectives or variables relate to one another. Designing a study around the relationships between specific variables can help constrict the scope of analysis [e.g., cause/effect, compare/contrast, contemporary/historical, group/individual, child/adult, opinion/reason, problem/solution].
Time -- the shorter the time period of the study, the more narrow the focus [e.g., restricting the study of trade relations between Niger and Cameroon to only the period of 2010 - 2020].
Type -- focus your topic in terms of a specific type or class of people, places, or phenomena [e.g., a study of developing safer traffic patterns near schools can focus on SUVs, or just student drivers, or just the timing of traffic signals in the area].
Combination -- use two or more of the above strategies to focus your topic more narrowly.

NOTE: Apply one of the above strategies first in designing your study to determine if that gives you a manageable research problem to investigate. You will know if the problem is manageable by reviewing the literature on your more narrowed problem and assessing whether prior research is sufficient to move forward in your study [i.e., not too much, not too little]. Be careful, however, because combining multiple strategies risks creating the opposite problem--your problem becomes too narrowly defined and you can't locate enough research or data to support your study.

Importance of Broadening the Research Topic

It is important to adopt a flexible approach when choosing a topic to investigate. The goal when writing any paper is to choose a research problem that is focused and time-limited. However, your starting point should not be so narrowly defined that you unnecessarily constrict your opportunity to investigate the topic thoroughly. A research problem that is too narrowly defined leads to any of the following problems:

You can't find enough information and what you do find is tangential or irrelevant.
You find information that is so specific that it can't lead to any significant conclusions.
Your sources cover so few ideas that you can't expand them into a significant paper.
The research problem is so case specific that it limits opportunities to generalize or apply the results to other contexts.
The significance of the research problem is limited to only a very small, unique population.

Strategies for Broadening the Research Topic

In general, an indication that a research problem is too narrowly defined is that you can't find any relevant or meaningful information about it. If this happens, don't immediately abandon your efforts to investigate the problem because it could very well be an excellent topic of study. A good way to begin is to look for parallels and opportunities for broader associations that apply to the initial research problem. A strategy for doing this is to ask yourself the basic six questions of who, what, where, when, how, and why.

Here is an example of how to apply the six questions strategy to broadening your topic. Let's use the research topic of how to investigate ways to improve trade relations between Peru and Bolivia as an example. Ask yourself:

Who? -- are there other countries involved in the relations between these two countries that might want to challenge or encourage this relationship? Are there particular individuals or special interest groups [e.g., politicians, union leaders, etc.] promoting trade relations or trying to inhibit it? [remember to ask either the individual who question, the collective who question, or the institutional who question].

What? -- what are the specific trading commodities you are examining? Are there commodities not currently traded between Peru and Bolivia that could be? What commodities are being traded but should be traded in greater volume? What barriers exist that may help or hinder the import-exports of specific commodities?

Where? -- where are examples of other bi-lateral trade agreements that could model the potential for closer trade relations between Peru and Bolivia? Where are the benefits most likely to be felt within each country? Note that the question of where can also relate to specific spatial and geographical issues, such as, are there any areas impeding transportation of goods in the region?

When? -- how long have these countries had or not had trade relations? How far into the future might a trade relationship last given other factors? The question of when can apply to either past issues or future areas of interest.

How? -- how might Peru and Bolivia forge these ties in relation to, for example, long-standing internal conflicts within each country? Note that the how question can also be framed as, "In what way might...." [e.g., In what way might improved trade relations lead to other forms of economic exchanges between the two countries?].

Why? -- what advantages can each country gain by pursuing active trade relations? Why might other countries be concerned about closer ties between these two countries? Asking why can illuminate the "So What?" question applied to your topic and, thus, provide a means of assessing significance.

Reflecting upon these six questions during your initial review of the literature can help you formulate ways to expand the parameters of your initial research problem, providing an opportunity to identify new avenues of investigation and centering your study around gaps in the literature when answers to questions cannot be found. Once you've identified additional directions in which to proceed with your topic, you can try narrowing it down again, if needed.

NOTE: Do not determine on your own that a research problem is too narrowly defined. Always consult with an Expert before making this assumption because librarians are experts in finding information and interpreting it in relation to a research problem. As such, they can help guide you to undiscovered research or suggest ways to design a broader analysis of your research problem using resources you did not even know existed.

Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea

Importance of...

It is often the case that a research problem, even one assigned by your professor, interests you because it relates to a current issue in the news or it reflects something you have very recently experienced. Choosing a research problem that connects to current affairs is an excellent way to remain engaged in the topic because it's happening now and a definitive outcome has yet to be determined. However, you could experience a number of problems if your topic focuses on a very recent issue or event, including the following:

It can be difficult to find scholarly sources and, as a consequence, your study may be considered less rigorous and valid because it does not cite research studies that provide in-depth analysis of the topic.
Examination of a very recent event or issue may force you to draw upon historical precedents in order to frame the research problem effectively. As a consequence, the scholarly sources supporting your arguments end up being more about the historical precedents than the current research problem.
The consequences or results of a current event or issue have yet to be determined and, therefore, any conclusions or recommendations presented in your paper may be rendered less relevant as things unfold.
A current issue or event is rarely a static unit of analysis; it is more like a moving target. Given this, it can be difficult to focus on a specific research problem related to the topic because its relevance or importance may diminish over time due to unforeseen circumstances, while at the same time, new and significant topics may emerge instead that are outside the scope of the original problem.

Strategies for Extending the Timeliness of the Research Topic

An indication that the timeliness of a research problem is too current would be if the only information you find are press releases from news service organizations like the Associated Press, articles from popular magazines and newspapers, online sources like blogs, and other non-scholarly sources.

Depending on the assignment, relying on non-scholarly sources may be acceptable, but most often, professors require you to cite scholarly research studies to support your analysis. However, in the social sciences, research submitted for publication frequently takes more than a year between editorial review of a manuscript to when the study is finally published. In response to this, many journal publishers provide online access to what is termed "pre-prints." These are essentially online versions of the final draft of a manuscript and, thus, should not be considered the authoritative copy of an article [unless it has been designated as the "final copy"]. Given these factors, it will often be difficult, or perhaps impossible, to locate scholarly research studies about a current issue or a newly emerging event.

The obvious solution is to choose a different research problem to investigate. However, do not abandon your topic if it is of particular interest to you because there are several strategies you can use to find scholarly or research-level analysis.

1. Look for related literature that provides the opportunity to conduct a comparative analysis. For example, only now are scholarly studies emerging that investigate the impact and possible significance of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. However, by reviewing the research literature about past Russian incursions in Georgia and Syria, for example, you can extrapolate key lessons learned or identify new ways of understanding the central research problem associated with the current, emerging event.

2. Locate opinions/statements of prominent authors and scholars. Leading researchers are often called upon by mass media news organizations, editors of leading newspapers, and other print and online media outlets to comment and provide insight about an issue or during and immediately after an event. For example, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many prominent experts on disaster management and recovery were interviewed and asked to comment on how New Orleans should be rebuilt. Although these sources did not constitute a body of scholarly research because they were not peer-reviewed or may not have included references to sources, the writings of leading scholars can be considered authoritative because they represent the opinions and observations of experts who have gained in-depth knowledge of the topic as a result of conducting prior research.

3. Identify research centers and special interest organizations that focus on studying current issues and events. Research centers, special interest, and non-governmental organizations often lead the effort to study and publish in-depth reports about a current issue or event. In the case of research centers, this is because their purpose is to bring together scholars and practitioners who have interdisciplinary expertise in a particular area of study. Special interest groups are often proactive in studying current issues because their mission is to influence policy or to promote a specific social or economic agenda. Although often written by experts, it is important to note that some research institutes and special interest groups are privately funded and, therefore, you should pay particular attention to the possibility of bias in their analysis or recommendations. A good source for identifying research centers and special interest organizations is the Gale Directory Library database.

4. Look for Congressional Hearings and government agency reports. Congress often holds hearings shortly after an important or quickly evolving event [e.g., global pandemic recovery] or about a very new topic of public interest [e.g., January 6th Capitol attack]. Although politically-driven, testimonies before Congressional committees are often presented by leading scholars and experts in the field who provide detailed explanation and analysis of an issue. However, unlike the opinions of experts published in newspapers and other media outlets, the testimony of witnesses during Congressional hearings are legally valid because they are under oath. Published hearings often include additional documents submitted by members "for the record" that could be considered authoritative. In addition to Congress, many governmental agencies issue reports produced by experts in the field. To locate Congressional hearings GO HERE. To locate documents issued by government agencies, GO HERE.

Writing Tip

Abductive Reasoning and the Timeliness of Thoughtful Speculation

Abductive reasoning refers to determining the most plausible explanation of something based on limited information. In the case of examining very current research problems, information is limited by the lack of a coherent outcome that can be evaluated and its significance effectively measured. Given this, investigations of current research problems often require you to rely predominantly on the direct and uninterpreted analyses of authoritative sources published in primary source materials. Studies of non-current research problems are generally published in scholarly secondary sources. However, because there may be little, if any, prior research of current issues or events, there is more freedom to apply abductive reasoning to explain possible consequences, solutions, or outcomes. This is not to say that can you ignore related research or delve into idle speculation; your conclusions must be grounded in reality and available evidence, even if that evidence is not peer reviewed. However, the lens through which you interpret current research problems does not have to be designed so rigidly around prior research because it simply may not exist. The opportunity to apply abductive reasoning can be an especially engaging feature of current topic investigations that is generally not available to you in studies that must build upon prior scholarly research.

Access to a wide variety of free tools, research templates, and guidelines can be obtained by visiting our website, which can be found here. We are always ready to provide you with comprehensive research guidance and project support in the event that you ever need assistance with writing your research project, review journal, article, or dissertation. At HAMNIC Solutions, our team of professionals and research experts is always ready to guide you through your research journey.

Share Blog:

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Get Domain & Hosting at one place with Namecheap!

Comprehensive Research Guidance

Thesis & Dissertation Assistance

Editing & Proofreading

Need Help?

Connect with an Expert today!