1. Briefly discuss how we know what we know.
According to Earl Babbie (2011), we know what we know through ordinary human inquiry, tradition, and authority.
Ordinary human inquiry is rooted on our desire to understand how things work and use that understanding to predict the future. This may be as informal as mere observation or as stringent and rigorous as a formal research.
Tradition and authority are second –hand sources of knowledge we accept that provide us information without us having to participate in the process of deriving the understanding and reaching its coupled conclusion/ generalization. Tradition is what has been established from the past that has survived with its own practical and convenient merits. On the other hand, information we derive from authority are the things we accept due to the credibility of the source relative to the information.
2. When choosing a research topic, briefly discuss at least five important concerns, which we, as researchers, have to consider thoughtfully.
As researchers, we need to consider the following, among others, in selecting our research topics: interest, level of expertise, availability of data, topic relevance, and ethics.
First, in choosing research topics, we have to consider what interests. Our own interest on any given subject will give us the fuel and the drive that motivates us in pursuing and finishing the required study. A kind personal attachment to our topic enhances our desire in providing answers to research questions.
However, mere interest on a topic may be inadequate and may be unable to carry the necessary research operations and procedures. Researchers should consider carrying out studies that is matched and related with the second item to be considered – their level of expertise. Not only will it already serve as their working background even before they formally start making their paper, but it would also provide a higher level of credibility on whatever conclusion they are able to generate from their researches.
to be analysed cannot be obtained, there is no use for it. Of course it should be mentioned that lack of available data in previous literature may be disheartening, but it should not hinder any researcher from pursuing the study. Moreover, there may be situations when an underdeveloped topic could be another source of motivation since the impact of the research to be undertaken would have a greater value on the field.
Fourth, the research topic should be relevant to the field and intended audience. Relevance to the field simply means that the paper would form part of the continuous evolution and development of the topic undertaken. Researchers need to pursue a certain study with an eye towards publication; that whenever future scholars would research on the same or related topic, the researcher’s paper would be cited. In a grander scale, the researcher should consider her/his research topic to be her/his legacy. On the other hand, relevance to the intended audience is about the importance of the paper to the intended audience. Be it a professor that requires students to pass a term paper related to Public Administration, or the Congress of the Philippines that, invoking the Constitution, requires the submission of an Annual Financial Report, the intended audience should in some way or another be satiated of a want or a need of a knowledge that has yet to exist. There are times even, when the need for a certain knowledge is not known to the intended audience until it’s already staring at their faces.
Lastly, researchers need to consider the ethical issues attached to their chosen research topic. There is a baseline of ethical issues that every researcher need to face whenever they choose a certain research topic. Most of it is concerned in the operationalization of the concepts being tested –how the information is obtained, plagiarism, rigging the results etc.. But there are certain research topics that have glaring ethical issues on their own. For example, measuring the level of efficiency of extra-judicial killings in minimizing street crimes, assessing the effectiveness of underground marketing of Misoprostol (abortifacient) in the Philippines.
3. In your own words, explain the difference between validity and reliability, as well as the difference between the two types of validity.
Reliability is the consistency of the results derived from the research operations used in the study. Essentially, if the procedures were made again and again, they would essentially produce the same results. Validity, on the other hand, is the consistency of the concept established with the designed and implemented procedures. For instance, if the paper is evaluating love, the design and procedures created for evaluation should not be revolving around the measurement of hate or grief or kindness.
external validity is the consistency of the drawn conclusion/ generalizations with the rest of the world (other researches of the same/related topic).
4. Discuss how you can improve validity and reliability in case-study designs.
According to Yin (2003), there are many ways researchers can improve the validity and reliability of their case-study designs
In designing the research, a general theory should be tapped into for single-case studies while a replication logic should be utilized for multiple-case types. Both tactics improve external validity.
Tapping into a general theory as a part of the design of a single-case study would put the conclusions/ generalizations which can be derived from the study in equal wavelength with other studies that employ the same theory. Replication logic is pretty much the same as the first tactic but is more “robust” since it is applied to multiple stand-alone case studies converging to make a cross-case conclusion.
In the collection of the data for the research, the use of a case study protocol and development of a case study database would enhance the reliability of a case-study. To improve construct validity, on the other hand, researchers should employ using multiple sources of evidence and establish a chain of evidence.
Utilization of a case study protocol would maintain the comparability and consistency of date gather while the development of a case study database would make sure that information used in the case study is available for replication. Multiple sources of evidence would create a multi-dimensional conclusion based on the verged themes from different sources. A chain of evidence would actually establish the integrity and credibility of the gathered information.
In data analysis, in order to improve internal validity, researchers may match patterns, establish a well-structured explanation with sufficient support, pre-empt arguments against the drawn conclusion, and utilize logic models.
5. Define plagiarism and briefly discuss three strategies how we can avoid plagiarism
Three strategies that are commonly used to avoid plagiarism are quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Quoting is the direct “copy paste”, word per word, of an author’s actual text in a researcher’s own paper. This strategy is most effectively used when the string of words created by an author magnificently captures any given idea that to paraphrase or summarize the same would be an insult to the author’s idea’s substance and form.
Paraphrasing is used through getting the core of the idea or work being referred to and converting the text (not the substance) into one’s own. Like paraphrasing, summarizing is also the taking of the core idea and packaging it on a different form that is made the by researcher who used the core idea or work
Regardless of what strategy is used, whether through quoting, paraphrasing or summarizing, it is essential that proper citation be made, especially on schools and institutions that place plagiarism as the 8th deadly
6. Discuss why a review of the literature must be undertaken before designing and implementing our research project.
It is important that a review of related literature be undertaken before designing and implementing research project to, foremost, share the results of previous studies. It is important to give credit to studies that placed the research topic into where it is now in order to properly design a research model which could generate results that are comparable with them. Comparability is a cornerstone value of research papers to which researchers need to base their research design in order to place their work among the literature and form part of the ongoing dialogues in the field. The review of related literature further provides a framework from where researchers may base upon. Also, it improves methodology as it can enhances what an individual person’s perspective; literature, especially those which comes from journals, have been well established and accepted to provide acceptable results. Most importantly, a review of the related literature fortifies the need for the research as the review would formally place the research topic into filling a gap that may have been overlooked or have been underdeveloped by previous research on the field.
7. As students and working professionals, why do you think we need to learn how to propose or design a research? Discuss the real-life application of PA299.1.
means it is a standardized form that could stand alone from its author. This is essential in any field because a document that could stand on its own, without the constant need for the author to explain the proposition and the design, reflects clarity and order.