![Choosing research topic[1]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/choosingresearchtopic1-171005154619-thumbnail.jpg?width=384&fit=bounds)
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances(20)
En vedette
En vedette(13)
Similaire à Week 10 writing research proposal
Similaire à Week 10 writing research proposal(20)
Plus de wawaaa789
Plus de wawaaa789(20)
Dernier
Dernier(20)
Week 10 writing research proposal
- 3. Why do I need a research proposal? • To convince others of the value of your research • To demonstrate competency • To assist you - as a planning tool
- 4. When should the proposal be written?
- 5. When should the proposal be written? • Start thinking now • A substantial amount of work has to be done before a proposal can be written • Seek advice on your draft from me, and peers
- 6. Titles • This can come later • Descriptive and informative • Avoid bland titles! – Bland: Library Needs Analysis • Better: Effects of Household Income on Use and Perceptions of Library Services
- 7. Core components of research proposals Make sure that these are meaningful, not mechanistic
- 8. Core elements • An indication of why the problem is important • A description of the research question • A review of relevant literature • A description of the proposed methodology
- 9. Or in plain English... • What do you want to do? • Why do you want to do it? • Why is it important? • Who has done similar work? • How are you going to do it? • How long will it take?
- 11. Depending on the research... • A description of how the research findings will be disseminated • Reliability and validity • Ethical statement • Possible problems
- 12. Ethics in Research • CONSENT • HARM • DECEPTION • PRIVACY
- 13. Consent • Informed consent – Subjects must know potential risks, benefits, conditions of participation, and ability to withdraw without penalty • If consent is not informed, it can be as bad as (or worse than) not getting consent at all • Two types – Direct or Substitute (3rd party) – If the person has a legal guardian, need substitute • When in doubt, ask for permission • Consent should always be obtained in writing
- 14. Harm • Subjects must be protected from harm, or at the least fully informed about the potential costs and benefits resulting from the harm • Research that is physically or psychologically dangerous is generally considered unethical • Care needs to be taken with subjects who are, or consider themselves to be, relatively powerless – Children, elderly, w/ disabilities
- 15. Privacy • Sensitivity of topic &/or data • Can responses/results affect the subject’s life if known by others • How public/private is the setting? • Public display of the data – Personally identifiable information should be removed or changed
- 16. Deception • Often tied to the informed part of consent • Omission: withhold information • Commission: provide false information – i.e., lying • Establishing false intimacy: subject feels a high degree of comfort because he/she does not know is “on the record” • Using accomplices: someone helping the researcher that the subject doesn’t know is helping
- 17. Do not fabricate, falsify or plagiarize!
- 18. Success and failure indicators for proposals
- 19. Success indicators • Clearly defined research question • Appropriate literature provides a background to the problem • Use of other sources to identify/support the problem • Objectives clearly specified
- 20. Success indicators • Conceptual framework and theoretical assumptions clearly stated • Appropriate design and methodology • Promotes further research • Preliminary data/pilot study • Necessary resources available
- 21. Failure indicators • Too long • Poor structure, language use • Inappropriate use of technical terms • Research too ambitious • No literature review • No integration of theory in literature review • Literature review copied • No theoretical foundation
- 22. Failure indicators (cont.) • Weak research design • Methods not clear • Methods inappropriate • No references or bibliography • Plagiarized work
- 23. Core components We will do this in week 13
- 25. First find a research question! • Researchers get their questions from many different places... • Observation of the world • Concern with theory • Previous research • Practical concerns • Personal interest
- 26. Choosing a research question • A broad research area is not a research question • Formulate a number of possible questions, and weigh up the pros and cons • The proposal must reflect that the issues have been thought through
- 27. Criteria for choosing include... • Access to information • Access to resources • Theoretical background • Value of research • Researcher’s skills • Is question big/small enough • Overall probability of successful completion • Interest to researcher
- 28. Setting the limits: definitions • Provide explicit definitions for key concepts • Terms don’t always have single meanings understood in the same way by all • Don’t under- or overestimate your readers • Don’t provide mechanistic dictionary definitions of all terms
- 29. Sample definitions • “A dependent variable is a variable that is influenced by another variable.” - weak • The term “social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting” (SEAAR) has been used to describe a variety of practices relating to corporate social responsibility. For purposes of this study, the term will be used to refer specifically to the formal set of procedures outlined in AccountAbility 1000, while “social audit” will be used to describe the broader set of practices.- better
- 30. Setting the limits: boundaries • Specify the limits of the research in a way which makes in clear what is and is not to be studied, through, for example, – definitions – time span – geographical boundaries – other limits as appropriate to the field of study
- 32. What purpose does the literature review serve? • Provides a conceptual framework for the research • Provides an integrated overview of the field of study • Helps establish a need for the research • May help clarify the research problem • Helps to demonstrate researcher’s familiarity with the area under consideration (theory and / or methods)
- 33. Skills involved in producing a literature review • Surveying a comprehensive range of existing material and sources in the general areas of your study • Selecting those that will be most relevant and significant for your particular project • Understanding and analyzing the central findings and arguments • Synthesizing the findings and integrating them into the research proposal • A good literature review generally contains an argument
- 34. How to write a literature review • Indicate the ways in which the authors you are reviewing will be relevant to your research (information, theory, methodology) • Demonstrate that you understand the similarities and differences between these works and paradigms (Where do they stand in relation to each other? Where does your research stand in relation to them?) • If the study is cross-disciplinary or comparative you need to describe how the different areas of research can be drawn together in a meaningful way
- 35. Questions to help you in compiling a literature review • What are the broad bodies of literature that have relevance for your research topic (local and international)? • What theoretical model/s relate to your research topic? • What theories, methods & results have previous researchers in your field produced? What is the history of your area of study? (cont.)
- 36. Questions to help you in compiling a literature review (cont.) • What are the most recent findings in your area of study? • What gaps or contradictions exist among these findings? • What new research questions do these findings suggest? • What structure suits my literature review best? • What should I leave out?
- 37. Draw a literature map
- 40. The literature review is not • A bibliography • A series of descriptions of pieces of previous research with no apparent connection to each other or your project
- 42. The research must be of value, e.g. • Practical value in solving problems • Value to policy development • Contribution to theory • Contribution to body of knowledge within discipline
- 43. Methodology
- 44. What does the methodology section do? What should it contain? • The methodology section shows the reader how you are going to set about looking for answers to the research question (including materials and methods to be used) – enough detail to demonstrate that you are competent and the project is feasible • The proposed methods must be appropriate to the type of research
- 45. What does the methodology section do? What should it contain? • The instrument – Provide a copy of the questionnaire/ interview protocols in the appendices • The types of data you are going to collect – Quantitative data • Will be tabulated/ graphed etc.. – Qualitative data • Narrative, descriptive • Reliability and validity of instrument
- 46. Methodology section: “traditional” empirical social research • Hypothesis • Research design • Sampling • Measurement instruments • Data collection procedures • Data analysis
- 47. Methodology section: “qualitative” research • Research design • Research site • Participants • Researcher as the instruments – “bracket oneself, refrain from…..” • Data collection procedures • Data analysis
- 49. Sample evaluation criteria Problem Identification: • Is the problem/line of inquiry clearly identified? • Has appropriate literature been examined in order to provide a background to the problem? • Have other relevant sources been used to identify the problem? • Are the aims and/or objectives of the inquiry clearly specified?
- 50. Sample evaluation criteria (cont.) Approach: • To what extent are the conceptual framework and theoretical assumptions clearly stated? • Are the research design, methods of data collection and analysis appropriate to the aims of the research?
- 51. Sample evaluation criteria (cont.) • Significance: – To what extent will the research make an original contribution or be an innovative application of knowledge to its disciplinary field and/or across disciplines? – Is the proposed research likely to promote further investigation within and/or across disciplines and fields?
- 52. Sample evaluation criteria (cont.) • Feasibility – Do the preliminary data and the available resources support the feasibility of the project? • Impact – Does the research project have a potential social impact, i.e. promote problem solving, social /educational policy development or evaluation, etc.?
- 53. Referencing • Use APA style of referencing • OWL at Purdue University
- 55. Proposals due at the end of the semester
Notes de l'éditeur
- Notes for presenters: This PowerPoint presentation has been used for NRF proposal writing workshops of between 1/2 and 1 1/2 days’ duration. The duration and nature of the workshop depends on a variety of factors, such as time available whether participants are able to bring their own proposals to work on and/or submit them to the facilitator in advance. whether sessions can be run a few days or a week apart, with participants required to undertake “homework” before the second session. Ideally, this PowerPoint presentation forms the basis of the first day of a workshop run over one and a half days, with the second day devoted to participants’ own proposals. A half- or whole-day version can be run in which participants are introduced to the elements of proposal writing, and given an opportunity to evaluate sample proposals without discussing their own.
- SECTION I (slides 2-12) Begin the workshop with introductions by participants in which they outline their proposed area of research and what stage they have reached. Depending on the size of the group, participants’ introductions and Section I together usually take half to three quarters of an hour. The first section of the workshop is a presentation which gives an overview of: The purpose of research proposals Who evaluates research proposals At what stage the proposal should be written The core components of research proposals Additional proposal components which may be required by funders After this overview, the core elements are discussed in greater depth, with an opportunity for small group work.
- Too many inexperienced proposal writers (who may or may not be experienced as researchers) submit a proposal which outlines a very general research area, with little or no evidence of preliminary research. Most funders now require a carefully planned proposal, including a review of the relevant literature. While applicants sometimes complain that “half the research needs to have been done before the proposal can be submitted,” when competing for scare research funding resources it is important for the applicant to establish that the researcher or research team is competent, and the project feasible and worthwhile. Doing so generally requires a substantial amount of groundwork.
- The core elements outlined here (research question, significance, literature review, methodology and time frame) are required of most types of research proposal. These components are introduced at this point, and discussed in detail - with some opportunities for small group work - later in the workshop.
- Proposal writers should be able to explain in plain English - even if only to themselves - what they are planning to research and how they intend to set about it.
- Apart from the core components, the bodies to which the proposals are submitted may require additional information. For example, while a budget is seldom expected of applicants seeking to register for higher degrees, it will certainly be required if the proposal is being submitted to a funding body. The list given on the next slide is not exhaustive. Budget, dissemination of research findings, team responsibilities, and capacity development are considered in further detail later in the workshop.
- The NRF success and failure indicators are drawn from a study commission by the former Division for Social Sciences and Humanities of the National Research Foundation. These are indicators of success and failure, and illustrate characteristics which commonly feature in successful and unsuccessful applications for funding - not absolute predictors of success or failure. The DACST indicators were taken from information previously available on the Innovation Fund section of the DACST web site <http://www.dacst.gov.za/>. The indicators from the two organizations display both points in common and differences - the latter relating largely to the particular requirements of the grant categories and organizations concerned.
- It should be made clear to participants that these are features commonly present in successful research proposals, not absolute determinants of success.
- It should be made clear to participants that these are features commonly present in successful research proposals, not absolute determinants of success.
- Again, these are commonly-found characteristics of unsuccessful proposals, not absolute measures of failure. Even successful proposals may, for example, be too long or be costed unrealistically.
- SECTION II (slides 19-63) Section II aims at giving workshop participants a more detailed understanding of the core elements expected of most research proposals (description of the research problem / question, the literature review, the significance of the research, research methodology and time frame) and an overview of other components which might be required by funders. This section may be given as a straightforward presentation, or combined with small group work. This section usually takes between an hour and an hour and a half, depending on the extent to which small group tasks are allocated. If participants are new to research (and not just to proposal writing) more time should be allowed.
- An effective research proposal must contain a clear research question which is delimited in such a way that the proposed project will be feasible. We have tended to avoid the use of terms such as “hypothesis,” “aims” and “objectives” in discussion of the research question. Not all research requires a hypothesis, and we have generally found workshop time to be better spent discussing what constitutes a good and viable research question, rather than splitting hairs about the differences between aims and objectives. Depending on the disciplines and types of research concerned, however, these may be essential points to cover.
- The problem of finding a research question is touched on briefly for the benefit of those very new to research, who sometimes have yet to identify even a broad research area. While this has seldom been an issue at the workshops we have presented, it has arisen from time to time.
- Inexperienced proposal writers often either fail to define key terms, or give unnecessary “dictionary definitions” of common terms; it is useful to emphasize the purpose which definitions serve in research proposals.
- These are real examples of definitions used in research proposals, the first weak, the second more useful.
- Further examples can be elicited from participants.
- The literature review is often one of the weaker areas of research proposals. Among the problems we have encountered are the complete absence of a literature review (often with a statement that the basic review will be undertaken as part of the research project itself); simply presenting a lists of works which have been or are to be read; and failure to integrate the literature review with the rest of the proposal. Because the requirements of the literature review will vary according to the nature of research, it is not possible to set out the requirements mechanistically. Rather, it is important to emphasize the purpose of the literature review. Some of our workshop participants have argued that literature reviews are not required in their discipline, or that theirs is a new research area and a literature review is thus not possible. These arguments will seldom carry weight with evaluators. Some form of review of previous research is possible in all disciplines (although it may carry greater or lesser weight in particular disciplines), and even proposals for “new” areas should draw on existing research to establish where gaps exist.
- Some weak proposals look either only at South African research or only at international research in the literature review. While the requirements will of course differ according to the discipline and the nature of the research, a good literature review often requires some consideration of both local and international sources.
- There is no standard, universal format for the literature review. If the body to which the proposal is to be submitted stipulates that the literature review must form a separate section, this should be observed. In the absence of such guidelines the literature review should be structured according to the nature of the research, whether as a separate section or largely integrated with the rest of the proposal.
- Participants sometimes interpret the requirement that social science and humanities research be “of value” as meaning that it must have an immediate social application. Given funders may indeed have their own particular requirements in this regard. The point this presentation wishes to make, however is that the research must be some way significant, and that this significance must emerge clearly in the proposal - but that “significance” can be understood in terms of contribution to theory and to disciplinary knowledge as well as in more practical terms.
- A description of the research methods to be employed is a key component of most research proposals. However, because methodology is specific to disciplines and types of research, this section of the workshop does not give an overview of all possible approaches. Rather, it indicates what the methodology section of a research proposal is intended to demonstrate, and provides the example of what the methodology section of a “traditional” empirical social science research proposal might contain.
- The criteria set out were used in the past by the former Division for Social Sciences and Humanities of the National Research Foundation. While the NRF’s criteria are being redeveloped, those set out here remain broadly representative of criteria used in South Africa and elsewhere. It should be emphasized that the weight given to particular criteria may vary according to the nature and level of research. For example, the impact of the proposed research would carry far greater weight in the case of an experienced researcher than it would with a PhD candidate.