Chapter 18 — Research methods I

Lesson map

Lesson 18 published. Map, example, EX052.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["18.1 A research question"]
  N2["18.2 Choosing a method"]
  N3["18.3 Ethical data collection"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX052"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["18.1 A research question"]
  N2["18.2 Choosing a method"]
  N3["18.3 Ethical data collection"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX052"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[18.1 A research question]
    |
    v
[18.2 Choosing a method]
    |
    v
[18.3 Ethical data collection]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX052]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) form a clear research question; (2) choose a suitable method; (3) plan data collection ethically.

18.1 A research question

Elena's first research exercise asks: why is multi-factor coverage low in the repairs team? A good question is specific, answerable with available evidence and useful to Greenhill. She avoids broad questions such as how to improve security, which cannot be answered in one study. She writes her question, what would count as an answer and how the answer would help, and agrees it with her supervisor and the repairs manager before collecting anything. The agreed question is written at the top of her research notes.

18.2 Choosing a method

Numbers show where coverage is low but not why. Elena chooses short interviews with eight repairs operatives and the repairs manager, combined with observation of how operatives sign in on their tablets at the start of a shift. Interviews reveal reasons people give; observation shows what actually happens. Using both helps her spot differences, such as operatives saying they have multi-factor set up when the tablet actually stays signed in under a shared account. She notes where the two sources agree and where they differ.

18.3 Ethical data collection

Participants are told the purpose, that taking part is voluntary and that their names will not appear in reports. Elena gets consent in writing, records notes rather than audio, stores them securely and deletes them after analysis. Her university's ethics process reviews the plan first. She takes care not to make anyone feel blamed for low coverage, because the aim is to understand barriers, and people who feel judged rarely explain them honestly. Participants receive a short summary of findings once the study is complete.

Worked example

Interviews and observation reveal that repairs tablets stay signed in under shared accounts and that operatives lack work phones, explaining much of the low coverage.

Synthetic case. Interviews, operatives and findings are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Relying only on what people say can miss practices, such as shared tablet accounts, that observation would show.

Exercises

• EX052 — Specific question. Why avoid a question like how to improve security?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = too broad to answer in one study;; 2 = broad;; 1 = boring;; 0 = none.
• EX053 — Observation value. What did observation add to interviews?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = showed shared tablet accounts despite claims;; 2 = practice;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX054 — Consent elements. Name two things participants are told.
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = purpose, voluntary, anonymity (two);; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

A specific question, mixed methods and ethical collection give clear, trustworthy explanations.

Continue studying — chapter 18 of 40

← Chapter 17 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 19 (draft) →