Chapter 24 — Applied research methods
Lesson map
Lesson 24 published. Map, example, EX070.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["24.1 Question"]
N2["24.2 Method"]
N3["24.3 Results"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3
N3 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX070"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["24.1 Question"]
N2["24.2 Method"]
N3["24.3 Results"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> Q["EX070"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[24.1 Question]
|
v
[24.2 Method]
|
v
[24.3 Results]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX070]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) frame a small study; (2) collect data ethically; (3) report limits.
24.1 Question
Aisha asks whether members understand the heart-rate sharing settings. Earlier, volunteers mentioned surprise at class screens showing heart-rate zones. Aisha wants to know whether the settings page lets members control this. A clear research question keeps the study small and focused. She writes the question, the method, the participants and the planned analysis before collecting data, so the results cannot shape the question after the fact. She also limits the study to adult members. The question is narrow enough to answer in four weeks with a small group of volunteers.
24.2 Method
She runs a short survey with consent and no identifiers, plus five usability sessions. The survey asks members to find and explain each setting and records whether their explanation is correct. The usability sessions ask five members to complete tasks while thinking aloud. Participants receive an information sheet, give consent and can stop at any time. No names are recorded, and session notes use participant numbers that are not linked to accounts. Raw survey files are deleted after analysis. Consent forms are kept separately.
24.3 Results
Most participants found the setting but misunderstood class screen sharing. Of the survey participants, most located the heart-rate setting, but fewer than half correctly explained that it controlled sharing to class screens, and several thought it switched off the strap completely. In sessions, two participants searched the class booking page for the setting. These results suggest a wording and placement problem rather than members being uninterested in privacy. Fewer than half explaining the setting correctly is a strong signal that the label, not the members, needs to change.
24.4 Limits
The sample is small and self-selected. Mr. Reilly notes that honest limits make results useful. Participants volunteered, so they may care more about privacy than other members. The study took place in two clubs only. The usability sample is small, though small samples can still reveal major problems. Aisha reports these limits beside the results and recommends a follow-up after the redesign to see whether understanding improves, using the same questions. She also notes that participants knew it was a study. Honest limits guide the follow-up.
Worked example
Aisha studies settings understanding with an anonymous survey and five sessions and reports limits.
Synthetic case. The study is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Small samples do not generalise.
Exercises
- EX070 — Question. What did the study ask? Rubric: 3 = whether members understand heart-rate settings;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX071 — Ethics. How was data collected ethically? Rubric: 3 = consent and no identifiers;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX072 — Limit. Name one limit. Rubric: 3 = small, self-selected sample;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 24 (chapter 24 of 30)
← Chapter 23 · Course chapter index · Chapter 25 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.