In the area of science, it is significant to proceed away from the looser significance and use it only in its correct context. Scientific research adheres to a set of strict protocols and long established structures. Often, we will converse about carrying out internet research or say that we are researching in the library. In everyday dialect, it is flawlessly correct grammatically, but in science, it gives a misleading impression. The correct and most widespread period used in science is that we are carrying out a literature review. For a successful vocation in science, you must understand the methodology behind any research and be cognizant of the correct protocols.Science has evolved these guidelines over numerous years as the standard for measuring the validity of the results obtained. Failure to pursue the guidelines will avert your findings from being acknowledged and taken seriously. These protocols can alter slightly between scientific disciplines, but all pursue the same basic structure.
Components of Research
Appropriate - Does topic apply to the discipline selected? Need to judge by "intrinsic merit", not evaluator's bias or disciplinary biases.
Clear - If sufficient focus can summarize purpose in short paragraphs. Succinct, terms clearly defined. Parsimonious.
Comprehensive - Do question/s and purpose really describe all it could for a complete study? Are all of the relevant areas related to the topic included?
Credible - Questionable if topic is already studied thoroughly. Need to be familiar with related literature. What group's special interests are served or ignored? Whose values are emphasized in the goals and purposes?
2. Research Philosophy
Appropriate - What philosophical view is reflected in the study itself, not just the philosophy of researcher?
Clear - Specify philosophical tradition:
E.g. 1) realism 2) idealism 3) existentialism 4) pragmatism 5) phenomenology 6) positivist 7) a combination of these.
Comprehensive - Not just selecting a philosophy and using associated guidelines in a study "replacing one positivist orthodoxy with a group of neopositivist orthodoxies." (LeCompte and Preissle, 1993, p.326). Is there consistency in philosophical views?
Credible - Describe in detail, relate to existing research philosophies in literature.
3. Conceptual/Theoretical Frame - Heart of study
To some degree specified at the beginning of the study, can be multiple theories, very broad theories (e.g. Lewin, Gaffman).
Appropriate - Concepts apply to setting; fits what was experienced. How do concepts and constructs interrelate with each other/interactions? Concepts related to questions asked - "securely integrated"
Clear - Well defined. Data level of questions clearly related to theory. Empirical descriptions of possible relationships and presuppositions articulated.
Comprehensive - Scope of theory fits research questions - novices often restrict scope to current status of discipline - need to broaden to include crossdisciplinary concerns - multiple theories and views.
Credible - Not an afterthought - emergent (not imposed—need to ...