Morehead state university iet 698 Research Methods Technology

Session 3

These charts are the most relevant industrial occupational reports I could find while surfing this website.

I will judge Jason’s proposal based on the review of literature, presentation of paper, and methodology.

Literature: First of all this article is set up in a manner that allows it to flow from one topic to the next and Jason provides headings to allow the reader to follow his train of thought. It is good that he included a review of literature in the beginning. The problem of the paper is clearly stated. The references used seem to be strong sources but are not properly cited throughout the paper, as far as I know you are supposed to also include the date and location of the information accessed.

Presentation of paper: Although the paper contains some good information, I don’t think that it has a very professional appearance. I think that some minor adjustments to the format could go a long way.

Methodology: Since he works at this place the participants in the research can likely be trusted sources so the methodology is good.

Please carefully study the linked document below on "graduate research" and discuss your understanding of the topic on this thread.

Reflection On Forum II

The instructor is pleased to review your more than 20 pages of responses, comments, discussions on Forums I and II. Please do not consider the DB questions, issues and topics as a TEST. The instructor doesn't grade you based on right OR wrong answers, your informed discussions are important. The instructor encourages you to review the assigned literature, join the discussions and engage in intellectual conversations. Although we do not copy other classmate's work, we should react to it, agree or disagree, make comments. As I grade the DB work, I look at the level of your work, the depth of your knowledge and your involvement. The instructor doesn't encourage isolated responses as in many exams. The instructor encourages joint discussions. This is not a TEST that you respond to questions and leave the Forum, you shall continue to react to other participants.

This article extensively covers the information of chapter one. It explains the formulation of the research problem, the execution of the investigation, and the publication of the research. It defines research as having four categories:

•&νβσπ;Methodology

•&νβσπ;Applicability

•&νβσπ;Locality

•&νβσπ;Funding

This article does a fine job in distinguishing between what is research and what is not research.

Go to the Assignments, Reading Assignments, access the manuscript, Are Americans Becoming Internet Slave? Read and review the article and post

Upon reading this article I have found validity in its suggestions that Americans have become too dependent on the internet. The article states that as Internet use grows, Americans report that they are spending less time with friends and family, shopping in stores, or watching television, and more time working for their employers at home--without cutting back their hours in the office. This thesis was gathered by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS), sampled 4,113 adults in 2,689 households.

I do agree that technologies like the internet result in a declination of social awareness to some extent, but also enhance our communication experience in others. On one hand this tool can bring us together communicatively and on the other it can be the wedge in between us. For instance, without the internet it might not be possible to remain in touch with a long lost friend or stay so close to a family member fighting in a war over seas; adversely, email and social medias also allow us to be very brief and mechanical in our communication.

This article brought to life some interesting discussion points but they felt lacking in description. The methodology could have been strengthened if graphs and tables were provided to visually represent the multitude of quantitative data.

In regards to the researchers review of literature this article was on the short side of convincing. Although the data being presented was all over the spectrum it was represented by the study conducted at Stanford University alone, more sources would be added credibility.

Finally, I felt that this article was limited in its finding. Although the author does well in stating in the introduction the instrumentation of the survey and specifying conductor of the research, the findings would have been more powerful if the article had used more than one source. Also, the procedure of informing the reader about the research and how it was conducted is good, we know that it was a descriptive survey. What we do not know is the demographics of the sample group and the questions on the survey. I think this information is critical when weighing the validity of any survey based research.

Problems can be found everywhere; whereas, researchable problems are far less general. If the research being conducted is a replication of an existing research then yes of course research problems can be found everywhere. As a replicative work the idea is to reiterate the truth and validity of an existing work, failure should really not be an option here. On the other hand, if the research being conducted is an original work then the problems will be much more elusive. For example, you might be able to find several products right now in your eyeshot that have the characteristics of a problem; such as, a pen or pencil, a backpack, a computer, kitchen utensils, an automobile, etc. Problems though they may be, the question here is, are they researchable? Unless ones motives to research these problems is to ultimately discover and develop a more effective and efficient alternative product or process then the research being conducted is a replication. In addition, suppose one has an idea to invent an alternative product or process, or innovate on an existing one, is this problem really worth the research? Even if one was positive on the originality of the research problem, will the work put into developing the idea be worth the results or will the means be worth the ends? These are good questions to ask in a projects early stages; similarly, the customer will eventually ask, is this product really worth my money? So to answer the question, problems can be found everywhere, but finding a good problem is somewhat of a problem in and of itself.

What are the characteristics of a researchable problem?

There are two types of research: replications and original work. The purpose of replicative research is, most importantly, to provide further evidence that the parenting study was true, and ideally its problem statement should reveal and reference the parenting research. In an original work, no such references shall be made.

The commonality that links these two types of research is the process and criteria to be met in the problem selection and the execution of research. When selecting a problem to research, whether it is a replication or an original work, the researchable problem should be of passionate interest to the researcher, and also build upon what was commonly known to be true about that particular subject. Also, during the research process these two would share common techniques and criteria that would apply to all research.

These five strategies are useful in articulating the research problem:

1. State the problem clearly and completely.

2. Think through the feasibility of the project that the problem implies.

3. Say precisely what one means.

4. State the problem in a way that reflects an open mind about its solution.

5. Edit one’s work (Leedy & Ormrod 2010).

Above all, the development of a reasonable theoretical framework for the study begins with identifying a good research question and addressing every loose end. Although there are strategies and criteria that are useful in developing a good study, some of the greatest researchers are those who present questions that stray our minds to think outside the box, similarly there methods may have been rather unorthodox. Just as the importance of good research is to improve what was previously known about a certain subject matter, just maybe the way research is conducted can also be improved.