Chapter 4: Getting Ideas for Research
Getting Ideas for Research
Finding a topic is relatively easy.
Social media
Recent research
Observations
Theories
Theory: long term memory is fixed
Elizabeth memory researcher
Car crash video
Questions immediately, minutes, hours, weeks
Depends on how they asked the questions
When 2 theories about the same thing say different things
Personal interests/ concerns
Often the hard part is choosing what interests you most.
Think about:
What interests you?
What tools are available for searching the literature?
Experience
Two types of observation to consider:
Unsystematic Observation
Casual observations about a particular phenomenon
Only a starting point
Further assembly required
Systematic Observation
Planned approach to observing phenomenon
Structured plan on how:
Observation will take place
Observation will be recorded
Other Approaches:
Indirect observation of behavior: research reports
Your own previous/ongoing research
Theory
Set of assumptions about the causes of behavior and rules that specify how those causes act.
How theories provide research ideas:
Allowing predictions about what should happen under new circumstances.
When two or more alternative theories account for the same initial observations
Developing Good Research Questions
Asking questions answerable through the scientific method.
Examples that can’t be scientifically researched include: Does God exist? Is a particular thing moral or not?
Asking Empirical Questions
Observations must:
Be able to be made under precisely defined conditions.
Be reproducible when the same conditions are present.
Be confirmed by others.
Be answerable in the time frame you have
Be important (so what? Does anybody else care?)
Operationally Defining Variables
Operational Definition:
Defining a variable in terms of the operations required to measure it.
Ex: Are 3rd grade boys more aggressive than 3rd grade girls?
What does aggression mean?
How do we tell who is being aggressive?
Defined by how you measured it
Allows precise measurement of variables included in a study and the ability to determine whether a relationship exists between them.
Downside to Operationally Defining Variables
Restricts the generality of any answers obtained.
Asking Important Questions
Probably important if…
Will answering a question clarify relationships among variables known to affect the behavior under study?
Can the answer support only one of several competing theories?
Probably unimportant if…
The variables in question are known to have small, unrelated effects.
The answer to the question is already firmly established.
Reasons for Reviewing the Literature
Literature Review
Process of locating, obtaining, reading, and evaluating the existing research in your area of interest.
Avoids needless duplication.
Helps specify research questions and determining the design of your study
P-value <0.05 data support hypothesis
Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Primary- contains the full research report, including all details necessary to duplicate the study.
Includes descriptions of rationale, participants or subjects, materials, procedure, results, and references.
Talking about what they did
Secondary- summarizes the information from primary sources
Review papers, theoretical articles, newspaper articles, textbooks, magazines, tv programs, films, or lectures.
Using outside sources and summarizing them
Good for starters
Books
Anthologies
Assembly of papers that the editor believes are important in a given area.
Original Works
Be cautious using books as primary sources as their review process is less rigorous in comparison to scientific journals.
Scholarly Journals
Typically the most up to date source of information
Refereed Journal- reviewed by multiple reviewers before publication
Nonrefereed Journal- journal without a review process.
Common Online Research Tools
PsychINFO
PsycARTICLES
PubMed
The Web of Science
JSTOR
Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search
Journal and Author-Associated Websites
Thorough Search Strategy
Obtain one or more relevant articles.
Examine the reference section or bibliography of each article to identify older sources.
Repeat steps 1 and 2 until you are no longer finding additional articles.
Identify more recently published sources to “fill in” gaps between the newer sources and the ones previously obtained.
Reading the Literature Critically
Initial appraisal and careful analysis of content
Much like buying a product you are interested in
Initial appraisal
Author, Date, Edition/Revision, Publisher, Title of Journal
Careful analysis involves reading the content of the article and evaluating each section.
Evaluating the Introduction
Has the author correctly represented the results from previous research?
Does the author clearly state the purposes of the study and the nature of the problem under study?
Do the hypotheses logically follow from the discussion in the introduction?
Are the hypotheses clearly stated and, more importantly, are they testable?
Evaluating the Method Section
Describes precisely how the study was carried out.
Participants? Selection process? Race, gender, ethnic background?
Does the design adequately test hypotheses?
Any flaws in materials or procedures that might affect validity?
Evaluating the Results Section
Which effects are statistically significant? Which aren’t?
Are the differences large or small? Significant?
Were appropriate statistics used?
Do the text, tables, and figures match? Check for accuracy.
If data are reported numerically, consider visually graphing them.
Evaluating the Discussion Section
Do the author’s conclusions follow from reported results?
Sometimes this isn’t the case
Does the author offer speculations about the results?
Carefully evaluate any speculations made.
How well do findings mesh with previous research and existing theory?
If the study is the only one to find the results reported...be skeptical.
Does the author suggest directions for future research?
Factors Affecting the Quality of a Source
Publication Practices
Do the articles in question provide a fair and accurate picture of the state of research in the field?
Statistical Significance
Alpha: criterion probability used to determine statistical significance.
“File Drawer Phenomenon”
Consistence with Previous Knowledge
Most findings expected to build on previous knowledge rather than contradict it.
Findings that fall outside of this are considered suspect.
Creates a tough position for editors and reviewers:
Skepticism (safer) vs. Open-Minded Approach (riskier)
Significance of Contribution
Previously, studies were accepted by journals even if only one experiment was presented.
Currently, journals generally insist on the presentation of a series of experiments
Requiring multiple experiments:
Elongates time requirement for study and thus the time before it’s data is considered useful.
Peer Review
Three functions:
Provide evidence to an editor whether to accept or reject a paper.
Authors receive feedback which allows for alterations to be made.
Authors can improve their science and writing through reviewer interaction.
Problems with Peer Review
Reviewers may lack expertise.
“Gate-Keeper” effect.
Over-leniency as a potential problem.
Various forms of personal bias.
Values Reflected in Research
Values of Researchers can affect:
Practices of science and thus integrity.
Which questions are addressed and which aren’t.
How data are interpreted.
Basic assumptions made during the process.
Global Assumptions and thus the character of research.
Developing Hypotheses
Hypotheses should flow logically from the sources used to develop your research question
First…study
Then…determine hypothesis
Key Terms:
Empirical question
A question that can be answered through objective observation.
Operational definition
A definition of a variable in terms of the operations used to measure it
Literature review
The process of locating, obtaining, reading, and evaluating the research literature in your area of interest.
Primary source
A reference source that contains the original, full report of a study. It includes all the details needed to replicate and interpret the study.
Secondary source
A reference source that summarizes information from a primary source and includes research reviews and theoretical articles.
Refereed journal
A journal whose articles have undergone prepublication editorial review by a panel of experts in the relevant field.
Nonrefereed journal
A journal in which articles do not undergo prepublication editorial review
Paper session
A meeting at a scientific convention at which the most up-to-date research results are presented by reading a paper.
Poster session
A way of disseminating research results at a conference, in which a presenter prepares a poster providing information about the research being reported.
Personal communication
Information obtained privately through personal replies to inquiries
PsycInfo
A computerized database system that indexes journals, books, dissertations, and other sources relevant to psychology.
PsycArticles
A computerized source of articles, available for immediate download, that were published in the journals of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), and a few other publishers
File drawer phenomenon
A problem associated with publication practices and meta-analysis that occurs because results that fail to achieve statistical significance often fail to be published (i.e., get relegated to the researcher’s file drawer).
Peer review
Process of editorial review used by refereed journals. Manuscripts are usually sent out to at least two reviewers who screen the research for quality and importance.