If you need help on Research Methods I may be able to offer some help though I cannot promise to read through you project or dissertation. Here is a sample project outline that might be used at almost any level.
Basic Chapters - these are the usual chapters to find in a whole project. You can add appendices as necessary but here I just show the ones which are almost always required.
Chapter 1 - Introduction and problem outline Chapter 2 - Literature Review Chapter 3 - Research Design Chapter 4 - Presentation of data and generation of results Chapter 5 - Evaluation of outcome and practice Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Generalizations
Appendices – Specification, schedule, Glossary, References list and Bibliography, primary data collection/set. Other items that might be included in an appendix are: Inclusions (copies any relevant documents), Sample Questionnaires, Summary interview transcripts, Details Evaluation scripts, Requirement catalogues, etc
I might start here be asking a question: so what is your defintion of all the following: a project might generate an outcome (a model, a plan, a description etc) but is that the same as the conclusions?
A literature review is a structured account of a topic area that lays the foundation for a research effort. It must be comprehensive, current and lucid. Of most importance it must be critical meaning that YOU must add comment or explanation to what you have found - in short a review is not a recitation of what has been found but and exposition of it.
It follows that from a structural point of view you need a themed list of sub-topics using headings, subheading, paragraphs, bullets, tables, diagrams and so on in order to get a coherent and lucid discourse on your chosen subject area. This is not a trivial matter and you must expect to go over it many, many times before it is completed.
A Simple Literature Review Checklist
In summary, the review is about your topic area and about you becoming sufficiently expert in it to deal with the presenting problem that you have uncovered. The intention is for you to offer a discourse that is Focused, Relevant, Authored, Measured, Evaluatory and expressed as a Dialogue. (Notice the acronym FRAMED)
Focused – this means that your whole effort is focused on the topic area and the particular aspect of it that you are pursuing. So do not be tempted to add in other things just because they might be useful, interesting, and novel or you just have nothing else to say.
Relevant – any topic area aspect will itself represent a large body of knowledge and so you must continually ask if a particular element in the knowledge domain is relevant to your particular study.
Authored - any literature review is to be written by its author. This sounds obvious but it is all too easy to fill up a review with cited quotations, paraphrases and summaries so that the ‘hand’ of the review author is not evident anywhere in the work. When this happens it is not an evaluative review at all but simple plagiarism. The author’s ‘hand’ must guide and direct the review in an evaluatory fashion so that the review is a message from the review author and not a recitation of what has been found elsewhere. Typically this is done by using your own skills and knowledge to introduce, comment, add to, modify and extrapolate from various primary sources available.
Measured – this is a matter of selecting and using the focused and relevant materials that you have found. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to pack in information in excruciatingly detail and so end up with a laboured entry that treats your readers as if they were completely ignorant of the subject area. So you need to ask honestly “is the entry a measured response to the readers information needs?”
Evaluatory – authors sift through the primary sources looking for materials to use. The essence of this sifting is an evaluatory outlook based on an awareness of your problem theme, your topic area and your own ideas. Care is needed because this process is not about searching for materials that you agree with or like in some way. Instead it is a contextualised response (based on what you already know) and that may mean you find materials that are new to you, materials that make you change your own knowledge base and even materials that completely replace what you previously thought of as solid.
Dialogue – a review is a form of argument. Good arguments are based on a strong theme and try to explain to, and convince your readers about something. So it is best if you think of it as a kind of dialogue in which you challenge them about your review theme and content.
excellent many thanks!!! I think some people have a misconception a lit review is simply a 'review' of what others have said - i.e. quotes and quotes from lots of authors...
Thank you very much for your input. My first degree... is in education and combined studies. I have not done ANY philosophy before apart from child development... learning theories etc if that counts as 'philosophy'. I know exactly what my research will be, how I will conduct it etc etc etc. I just don't KNOW which 'philosophical theory' it sits on ??
I'm finding very difficult to engage with the topic as I really don't 'get' much of it - and any bits I do 'get' make sense in isolation but not when trying to make links. So as you can probably tell I'm feeling quite UN-motivated which is not typical of me. I like to really 'engage' with my learning - but philosophy has got the better of me it seems.
For example I understand what epistemology/ontology are but only in isolation I can define them - don't have a clue what my ontological/epistemological stance is or would be in relation to my research nor do I know how to 'establish'/find it!
I am in the social sciences and have looked at Popper and his falsification theory but didn't really understand it! Added to that we were advised to 'falsify' our research and not prove it otherwise?? whatever that means!?
If you say you "I know exactly ..." but then say you don't know your epistemological position then that does not make sense because you must have one. So start by telling us
What problem you are setting out to solve and what kind of thinking you are using - deductive, inductive or abductive - what? You may find it helpful to look at several post from going back about 4 or 5 posts from yours.
I am in the social sciences and have looked at Popper and his falsification theory but didn't really understand it! Added to that we were advised to 'falsify' our research and not prove it otherwise?? whatever that means!?
Any advice/help would be appreciated.again, many thanks.
You need to slow down a bit and look through my post starting at 71 and see how to set up a project. With Popper on falsification what he is saying is critical to your understanding and because of that you are loosing an important elements of your work.
Consider the old philosophical question "are all Swans white?" - ask your self HOW you would go about proving this theory to be true. If you do that you will have to conclude than the ONLY way is to find EVERY Swan and check it is white.
OBVIOUSLY, that route is IMPOSSIBLE so the other alternative is to try to falsify it which is now easier because all I have to do is find just ONE swan that is not white and the theory is disproved. Now this does NOT mean you go looking for black or brown or red or whatever swans but what you do is take a representative sample of swans (I will talk about how to do that later) and check those, if all are white you can say with a certain level of probability that all swans are white. So this is NOT proof it is in effect prediction based on the evidence you have.
As you can see the key here is to think in terms of falsification and then make sure you have a sample that has the necessary precision - meaning that you are say 95% sure the sample is representative but always keep in mind you CANNOT get be 100% sure for obvious reasons. Think of it like this, if you had a huge cauldron of soup and you wanted to check if there was enough salt then you could ONLY be certain if you guzzled the whole lot and it would be absurd to do that and most real cases impossible. So how much do you need to be for example 95% certain - one spoonful, two spoonfuls or what? In fact in research working out your sample size and selecting the sample is the place where your research effort stands or falls and it is often where students are weakest. If the sample does not have the necessary precision your results whatever they show are worthless
Am I correct in understanding then, that falsification is inductive?
Nothis is quite wrong. Now that you have thought of this you are close to breaking the logjam in your mind. So try to say WHY it is not inductive or equivalently, why falsification is deductive. If you can do that then you will take a big step forward in understanding some of the basic, and most important aspects in Philosophy and in research.
Obviously I can explain it now but it is far far better for you to struggle a bit more until YOU find the answer and that will make you feel a real sense of achievement and it will allow you to move forward with greater confidence in your research plans.
DO NOT rush an answer NOW - take a bit of time and think it through
When you think you have an explanation post it here and I will comment on it for you but you are getting closer so don't let it slip away when its within your grasp.
aah I see see. thanks Hugo!!!
I'm pretty sure I'll eventually get there inshaAllah but at the moment I just feel like I'm wading in syrup trying to find my way (!!)
I've never had a problem with engaging with learning or theories this is just one NEW experience... and I feel a bit 'lost' not to mention 'dim'. Sitting in lectures not knowing what on earth some of the stuff means is not a nice feeling...
A question - do many students/people struggle with this area or is it simply me? Please be honest...
Many thanks.
I will reflect on falsification and induction... the reason I asked is if they were similar/same is because in induction you're not 100% sure (right??) it's an observed affect that can change over time??not a law as in deduction? or have I got this completely wrong!
aah I see see. thanks Hugo!!!
I'm pretty sure I'll eventually get there inshaAllah but at the moment I just feel like I'm wading in syrup trying to find my way (!!)
I've never had a problem with engaging with learning or theories this is just one NEW experience... and I feel a bit 'lost' not to mention 'dim'. Sitting in lectures not knowing what on earth some of the stuff means is not a nice feeling...
A question - do many students/people struggle with this area or is it simply me? Please be honest...
I will reflect on falsification and induction... the reason I asked is if they were similar/same is because in induction you're not 100% sure (right??) it's an observed affect that can change over time??not a law as in deduction? or have I got this completely wrong! awaiting your response
Almost every student and a lot of staff struggle with these ideas. Usually, if you ask them what induction or deduction means they can tell you but if you ask them what difference it has made to how they work they are stumped and admit that it made no difference and that shows of course that they do not really understand the ideas.
Your note at the end is getting closer but it can be in both induction and deduction you end up not being sure. Certainly in physical laws such as gravity or Ohms law one can be very confident because they have been tested and tested over and over again.
But you might have a theory about population control, a social theory and I think here is is easy to see this is not like a natural law and often we say it is a nominal one (loosely meaning here the facts over time can change and are subject to differing interpretation). You can of course in principle test it but its never going to be as sure as a natural one and I doubt you would say it will be true forever.
Thanks for your reply and patience. I will get 'there' eventually inshaAllah I promise you that! Still mulling over induction and my 'theory'.
I've also semi - established my research will be founded upon or in critical realism (I *think*). Another thing I've learnt is your where your research sits philosophically (realism, posivitism etc) and your methodology are two different things? Initially I was very confused but I think that's clarified somewhat now so the clouds are dispersing sloooooowly.
Will keep you posted re the induction.. I thought one was 'law' universal and the other one that can change???
Thanks for your reply and patience. I will get 'there' eventually inshaAllah I promise you that! Still mulling over induction and my 'theory'.
I've also semi - established my research will be founded upon or in critical realism (I *think*). Another thing I've learnt is your where your research sits philosophically (realism, posivitism etc) and your methodology are two different things? Initially I was very confused but I think that's clarified somewhat now so the clouds are dispersing sloooooowly.
Will keep you posted re the induction.. I thought one was 'law' universal and the other one that can change???
You are getting nearer but if you say "induction and theory' together you are making a blunder. Let me suggest what you do and if you can work it out you are more or less there. Think about your research and what you intend to then
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what primary data will I try to collect" then
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what primary data will I collect"
Now you should get DIFFERENT answers, the data sets will not be totally different but they will be different and if you can see why this is so then hooray!! Next
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what will I try to show by processing primary data" then
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what will I try to show by processing my primary data"
You are getting nearer but if you say "induction and theory' together you are making a blunder. Let me suggest what you do and if you can work it out you are more or less there. Think about your research and what you intend to then
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what primary data will I try to collect" then
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what primary data will I collect"
Now you should get DIFFERENT answers, the data sets will not be totally different but they will be different and if you can see why this is so then hooray!! Next
Ask yourself "if I am inductive what will I try to show by processing primary data" then
Ask yourself "if I am deductive what will I try to show by processing my primary data"
Again you should get two DIFFERENT answers
I *think* my research will/is inductive as it is exploratory trying to 'discover' or find issues regarding a specific topic focussing on people's experience of the phenomena and the issues arising from it... subjective perhaps? so it is quite qualitative...social science...
my guess is deduction works the other way round... quantitative...fixed...OBJECTIVE, theory...etc etc?
Also to add with induction you are discovering new information... making connections? seeing relationships?? deduction on the other hand is 'fixed' and dare I say rigid perhaps? Is deduction then used more by positivists??i.e science lab experiments...numbers etc.
whereas induction is more about learning...exploring...observing...etc???
hmmm... also thinking of deductive reasoning in research... I did some research a few years ago... my hypothesis was that there was a possible relationship between between suffering abuse (csa) and self harm in adult life...
So I did some research and the findings strongly supported the above. Anyway is the above example of deduction or induction??
The difference between that research and my proposed research is I don't really have a hyphothesis as such eg x causes y or there's a relationship between x and y. It's very exploratory and I will be exploring perceptions and experience of a certain phenomena in social sciences. I have some 'idea' of the issue but no hypoth. etc. So is this inductive???
No idea if I'm on the right track here... hoping I am!!
This example might help you see what difference it makes to your data if you are being inductive or deductive.
Ways of thinking and what they imply
Deductive (rationalism) - this way of thinking means you are using your mind to form a theory about a given situation and why it is as it is before you have collected any data.
Analogy - Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be deductive if he worked out rationally (in his mind so had a theory) how the crime was committed. He would then collect evidence to TEST his theory.
Inductive (empiricism) - this way of thinking means you will rely on the data when you eventually get it to explain a situation. If you like it implies you have no fixed ideas on solution but will decide these when you get the data
Analogy – Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be inductive if he waited until he had all the data and then used the data (empirically) to infer (you can say guess) how the crime was committed.
Here is a fuller example with a hint of realism:
Suppose I am a teachers and I have the problem of students coming late to seminar sessions and I want to collect data about it with a view to finding a solution because coming late is annoying and disrupts classes.
If I am deductive I might suggest the theory that coming late is due to cultural norms. Because I have this theory ALL my data is going to be about cultural norms because I set out to TEST the theory to see if it is true. So I am “forced” to define only data about culture: country of origin, religion, family values, previous schooling, male/female relationships, respect for elders, etc
If I am inductive I have no theory because implicitly I cannot decide what is causing this problem or its possible solution so in effect I just have to guess what data might be useful. So I am “forced” to define (almost randomly) data about: age, course, religion, values, respect, lodgings, transportation, the weather, friends, other classes and so on.
Notice that sometimes the data will be the same or similar but your UNDERLYING motive for its choice will be be different.
PS Just to be a bit silly if I were testing Ohms law which is a theory about resistance, voltage and current then those are the values I collect and can use to test the theory. It would be utterly stupid to collect any other data.
This example might help you see what difference it makes to your data if you are being inductive or deductive.
Ways of thinking and what they imply
Deductive (rationalism) - this way of thinking means you are using your mind to form a theory about a given situation and why it is as it is before you have collected any data.
Analogy - Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be deductive if he worked out rationally (in his mind so had a theory) how the crime was committed. He would then collect evidence to TEST his theory.
Inductive (empiricism) - this way of thinking means you will rely on the data when you eventually get it to explain a situation. If you like it implies you have no fixed ideas on solution but will decide these when you get the data
Analogy – Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime would be inductive if he waited until he had all the data and then used the data (empirically) to infer (you can say guess) how the crime was committed.
Here is a fuller example with a hint of realism:
Suppose I am a teachers and I have the problem of students coming late to seminar sessions and I want to collect data about it with a view to finding a solution because coming late is annoying and disrupts classes.
If I am deductive I might suggest the theory that coming late is due to cultural norms. Because I have this theory ALL my data is going to be about cultural norms because I set out to TEST the theory to see if it is true. So I am “forced” to define only data about culture: country of origin, religion, family values, previous schooling, male/female relationships, respect for elders, etc
If I am inductive I have no theory because implicitly I cannot decide what is causing this problem or its possible solution so in effect I just have to guess what data might be useful. So I am “forced” to define (almost randomly) data about: age, course, religion, values, respect, lodgings, transportation, the weather, friends, other classes and so on.
Notice that sometimes the data will be the same or similar but your UNDERLYING motive for its choice will be be different.
PS Just to be a bit silly if I were testing Ohms law which is a theory about resistance, voltage and current then those are the values I collect and can use to test the theory. It would be utterly stupid to collect any other data.
Hi Hugo,
Thanks for your post. A question; was my Last post totally off the radar in relation to deduction/induction. On another note HOW important is it to have this understanding before conducting research?? I mean regardless of weather you knew beforehand or not you would be 'doing' it regardless right?? I hope that makes sense!
hmmm... also thinking of deductive reasoning in research... I did some research a few years ago... my hypothesis was that there was a possible relationship between between suffering abuse (csa) and self harm in adult life...
So I did some research and the findings strongly supported the above. Anyway is the above example of deduction or induction??
Hugo - If one has a hypothesis then it is essentially deductive because obviously you MUST select data that is to do with that Hypothesis. The reason you do this is because you want to TEST the hypothesis to see if it true (within experimental limits) or false.
If you had been inductive you would just have said more or less I want to investigate abuse and self harm but you mind set would have been open in the sense that you do not go to it with any precocious view or theory but just to explore it. You may then later perhaps suggest a theory or make some implications but they would not be predictive and strictly only apply to the data you collected.
The difference between that research and my proposed research is I don't really have a hyphothesis as such eg x causes y or there's a relationship between x and y. It's very exploratory and I will be exploring perceptions and experience of a certain phenomena in social sciences. I have some 'idea' of the issue but no hypoth. etc. So is this inductive???
No idea if I'm on the right track here... hoping I am!!
??
Yes this is inductive, because you don't have a theory you don't with any kind of certainty know what data to select, you may have a gut feeling but you have nothing to test. So the best you can do here is use you data to try to describe and perhaps explain what is going on and out of that you might also suggest a relationship and that can be tested by later researchers.
Thought I might add another word on the induction/deduction theme based on what someone said to me yesterday. He was trying to explain logic and empiricism and he said: "If I go out in the sun then my logic will tell me if it is hot" but is this correct?
Well no it is not, his senses tell him it is hot not logic. The issue is that if I stood by him in the sun I might say "no it is not hot". How can this be, the data (the heat from the sun) is identical for both of us but he says it is hot and I say it is not - is one of us, must one of us be wrong?
This is like induction, we have to go out into the sun and gather as it were data and when we have that data we make inferences from it and although the data is the same those inference might be different. Here we might go and ask 100 people if it is hot but even then all we can say if "most people think it is hot (or not)" but we still have nothing that is unequivocal and will be true forever.
The deductive end of things or we can say rationalism is the power of unaided reason. Here I can work something out in my head sitting in my armchair at home without ever having to go and collect data. This kind of insight is known as 'a priori' meaning roughly I know (I can predict) what will happen before it does, without any experience of the real world. Another way of saying this is that we can form a 'theory' of how things will happen and in research we then go out and collect data, not to make an inference, but to test if the theory is true.
Einstein for example predicted that time would go slower if speed increases but there were no observations and no data to help him do that, he worked it out in his own mind. Indeed it was to be another 12 years before anyone was able to experimentally test the theory and show it to be true.
One final word of caution here. There are scientific theories such as Ohms law or Archimedes principles that are natural laws that hold for everyone, everywhere and no one can avoid them for all time as far as we know. However, we also talk about nominal theories or laws that can change over time. For example, I might have a nominal theory that everyone who reads this message has red hair and I can test that but it is obvious that even it turns out to be true today no one with any mind at all would think it will hold forever.
1. In induction and deduction does one have more weight/precedence/authenticity than the other?? i.e. is any one of them favoured or preferred over the other?
2. Regardless, of your philosophical stance induction/deduction is inherently present? Am I correct?
1. In induction and deduction does one have more weight/precedence/authenticity than the other?? i.e. is any one of them favoured or preferred over the other?
2. Regardless, of your philosophical stance induction/deduction is inherently present? Am I correct?
Many thanks
In general my view is that when possible a deductive stance is better because it implies that you know what you are looking for and the outcome can be predictive. (but see my note on natural and nominal laws below). There is a problem called the 'problem of Induction' which was outlined by Hume many years ago. To understand the issue recall that an argument is valid when there is no way, meaning no possible way that the premises, or starting points, could be true without the conclusion being true, additionally an argument is sound if it is valid and it has true premises, in which case the conclusion is true as well.
So what this means is that an argument is foolproof if it is both valid and sound. Consider ohms law, if the current is 10 amps and the resistance is 10 ohms then the voltage must be 100 given the same environmental conditions and there is no possible way for it to be anything else.
However for induction you might collect data or if you like form premises but unfortunately there is always a way in which your premises can be true and yet your conclusions false - that of course is very disturbing because it means we cannot predict the future inductively with any kind of certainty. Here's a silly example, I might have a class of students who are proving lazy and uncooperative and the results turn out to be very poor - those are the two premises (lazy and Uncooperative) however it seem obvious that I cannot from this predict with certainty that any class that is lazy and uncooperative will produce poor results.
For induction to work we have to assume that things cannot change. Now we might be able to argue in any given situation that change is improbable but often and obviously not impossible. So in induction, to use an analogy we engineer a bridge between the past and the future, but we cannot be sure that the bridge is reliable.
So induction means more of the same but always with a level of uncertainty caused because things can change and as long as you understand this you can use induction honestly. It only becomes a problem if you treat it as if it a description in one situation would be matched perfectly with another description of a similar one in the future and therefore the implications will be the same.
An interesting example of induction in use is in the formation of law. Obviously laws are often constructed by looking at prevailing circumstances but you would never be able to say the law can never be changed because that would imply that the circumstances will always be identical and of course they rarely are and that is why we often find laws changed or made obsolete or updated.
hmmm... in social sciences would not a lot of research be inductive? I can understand positivism would have deductive stances however, what about social constructionism? etc
With my proposed research I guess I know some of the issues... I also know to some extent some of the data I may obtain from fieldwork... a 'semi' theory... just need to gather data to find the causes, preceptions etc. Would you say my research has an element of deduction based upon the above??
It is not as 'solid' as my previous research i.e. is there a relationship between x and y... which I went onto find. It's more a case of what are the causes, why and how..
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Research Methods (OP)
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks