Chapter 24 — Applied research methods

Chapter 24 — Applied research methods

Lesson map

Lesson 24 published. Map, example, EX070.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["24.1 Framing a question"]
  N2["24.2 Collecting and analysing data"]
  N3["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3
  N3 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX070"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["24.1 Framing a question"]
  N2["24.2 Collecting and analysing data"]
  N3["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> Q["EX070"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[24.1 Framing a question]
    |
    v
[24.2 Collecting and analysing data]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX070]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) frame a practical research question; (2) collect and analyse operational data; (3) report findings with limits.

24.1 Framing a question

Lucas's applied research question is: does the morning summary email reduce the time between a problem occurring and someone acting on it? He chooses it because the makerspace introduced the email halfway through the year, giving before and after periods. He defines the measure as hours from the first log evidence of a problem to the first recorded action. A practical question, tied to a real change and measurable from existing records, is achievable within a term and useful to the organisation that has to decide whether to keep the email.

24.2 Collecting and analysing data

Lucas extracts 18 problems from the logs: 9 before the email and 9 after. Median time to action was 26 hours before and 7 hours after. He plots each problem on a timeline and notes that two of the slow ones before the email happened over holiday weekends. He also checks whether problem types differed between periods; they were broadly similar. With only 18 cases, he reports the medians and individual values rather than complex statistics, so readers can see the data directly and judge the difference for themselves.

24.3 Reporting with limits

Lucas reports that action times were shorter after the email, while noting limits: small numbers, possible other changes such as more experienced volunteers, and holiday effects. He does not claim the email alone caused the improvement. He recommends keeping the email and continuing to record action times so the finding can be checked over a longer period. Ms Adebayo praises the honest framing. Practical research does not need to be large to be useful, but it must be honest about what it can and cannot show to readers.

Worked example

Median time to action falls from 26 hours (9 problems) to 7 hours (9 problems) after the morning email, reported with limits on causation.

Synthetic case. The problems and times are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Claiming a single change caused an improvement ignores other changes in the same period.

Exercises

• EX070 — Research measure. How is time to action measured? Rubric: 3 = hours from first log evidence to first recorded action;; 2 = hours to action;; 1 = minutes of downtime;; 0 = none.
• EX071 — Before and after medians. What were the median times? Rubric: 3 = 26 hours before, 7 after;; 2 = 26/7;; 1 = equal;; 0 = none.
• EX072 — Alternative explanation. Name one alternative explanation. Rubric: 3 = more experienced volunteers;; 2 = holidays;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Practical research on real changes, reported with limits, informs operational decisions.

Continue studying — chapter 24 of 30

← Chapter 23 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 25 (draft) →