Chapter 18 — Research methods I

Lesson map

Lesson 18 published. Map, example, EX052.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["18.1 Formulating a question"]
  N2["18.2 Choosing a method"]
  N3["18.3 Planning ethically"]
  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 Formulating a question"]
  N2["18.2 Choosing a method"]
  N3["18.3 Planning ethically"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX052"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[18.1 Formulating a question]
    |
    v
[18.2 Choosing a method]
    |
    v
[18.3 Planning ethically]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX052]

Learning outcomes

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

18.1 Formulating a question

Sofia's first research project asks: how often do cooperative voucher records and ledger balances disagree, and why? A good research question is specific, answerable with available evidence and useful to someone. Hers is specific to the test ledger, answerable from reconciliation logs and useful to the board. Dr Asante helps her narrow an earlier, vaguer question about whether blockchains are secure, which no small project could answer. A focused question makes every later step clearer: what data to collect, how to analyse it and how to judge whether the answer is convincing to a careful reader.

18.2 Choosing a method

Sofia considers methods. A survey of members could reveal their experiences but not the true cause of mismatches. Analysis of reconciliation logs can count mismatches and classify causes. Interviews with coordinators could explain how errors arise. She chooses log analysis supported by short interviews, a mixed approach that combines counts with explanations. She writes down the strengths and weaknesses of each method and why she chose hers. Method choice should follow the question, not the researcher's favourite technique, and stating the reasons openly allows readers to judge the strength of the conclusions.

18.3 Planning ethically

Research involving people needs ethical approval. Sofia applies to the university's ethics committee, explaining that she will use synthetic and pseudonymised logs, interview coordinators only with their written consent, store notes securely and delete them after the project. Coordinators may withdraw at any time. She will not record names in her analysis. The committee approves with one change: interviews should avoid discussing any named member. Ethical planning protects participants and the cooperative, and it improves the research too, because participants speak more openly when they trust how their words will be used.

Worked example

Sofia narrows her question to mismatch frequency and causes, combines log analysis with consented interviews and gains ethics approval with one change.

Synthetic case. The research project and approval are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Choosing a method before the question often answers a different question than the one asked.

Exercises

• EX052 — Research question. What is Sofia's research question?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = how often records and ledger balances disagree, and why;; 2 = mismatch frequency;; 1 = are blockchains secure;; 0 = none.
• EX053 — Chosen method. Which method does she choose?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = log analysis with short interviews;; 2 = mixed;; 1 = survey only;; 0 = none.
• EX054 — Committee change. What change did the ethics committee require?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = avoid discussing any named member;; 2 = no names;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

A focused question, fitting method and ethical plan make research credible.

Continue studying — chapter 18 of 40

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