1 / 34

class 4 09/22/08 building research skills

class 4 09/22/08 building research skills. developing good eyes. Harry Wolcott tells the story of Nathaniel Shaler who, in the late 1800's at age18, began a tutorial in the lab of Louis Agassiz, the eminent biologist-naturalist of his time in US.

albany
Télécharger la présentation

class 4 09/22/08 building research skills

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. class 4 09/22/08 building research skills

  2. developing good eyes Harry Wolcott tells the story of Nathaniel Shaler who, in the late 1800's at age18, began a tutorial in the lab of Louis Agassiz, the eminent biologist-naturalist of his time in US. [Shaler] was directed to sit at a small table with a rusty tin pan on it. Agassiz placed before him a small fish, directing him only to "study it" without damaging the specimen and to confine his attention to the specimen itself, rather than consulting printed sources or conversing with other individuals in the laboratory.

  3. After about an hour, Shaler . . . had completed his examination and was ready to proceed to a more challenging task. . . . To his mounting distress, however, Shaler realized that Agassiz . . . had no immediate intention of returning to question him. Not that day, not the next, not for a week. And so Shaler committed himself anew to the task of observation—and in due course felt he had learned a hundred times more than in his cursory initial inspection. . . .

  4. [O]n the seventh day...Agassiz approached and inquired, "Well?" His question unleashed an hour-long explication, while Agassiz sat on the edge of the table and puffed a cigar. Suddenly, he interrupted with the statement, "That is not right," and walked abruptly away. Fortunately, Shaler interpreted Agassiz's behavior as a test of whether he could do hard, continuous work without constant direction. He returned to his observation task afresh, discarding his original set of notes and working up detailed new ones

  5. for some ten hours a day for another week. And at the end of that time...he had results that astonished himself and apparently satisfied Agassiz, for although there were no words of praise, Agassiz subsequently placed before him a new and more complicated task and told him to see what he could make of it. That task took two months. (1981, pp. 248-249) So. . . what did you observe on your 5-minute-a-day exercise?

  6. all researchers must attend to type I and type II error • type I: accepting as true what is really false • type II: rejecting as false what is really true (this is the straightforward plain English version—see Vogt for the more complicated statistical version)

  7. Krathwohl: ch 7causal inference & internal validity • associations and causation • cause: • selecting the salient part of a causal chain for one’s inquiry • is always inferred • Popper’s escaping disconfirmation (falsification): no proof in empirical research • Cronbach’s reducing uncertainty • clocklike vs cloudlike worlds

  8. internal & external validity & cause • generalizability: based on this study what can we say about other cases • is the relationship established in this study • does that relationship exist elsewhere • internal validity (LP) • evidence for relationship between variables in a study • external validity (GP) • whether the relationship generalizes beyond study

  9. operationalization: what we describe in search of the unobservable • to establish internal validity • conceptual evidence • explanation credibility • translation credibility • empirical evidence • findings, results • rival explanations eliminated • credible, logically inferred claims

  10. validity: capable of being justified • internal • does study do what it says it does • model theoretically sound • well thought out operationalizations • accurate descriptions (measurement or narrative) • well thought out design • robust findings • justifiable claims • defensible conclusion

  11. external • do the claims generalize • looking only at study, a judgment call • external validity can really only be established empirically—in fact, do the claims generalize • can study be replicated in different contexts • if we do what study claims we should, do we get the expected result • real question not, do claims generalize, but to what

  12. inferring causation • agreement • what is common • difference • what is different • concomitant variation • do variables vary together • residuals • after eliminating explanations, what is left

  13. ch 8: sampling, etc • sample and population • larger sample needed • the greater the certainty required to infer from sample to population • the more accurate we want to be about target population • the more the units in the sample vary • the smaller the effect relative to normal variation

  14. sampling frame—the list • sampling unit—what is selected (unit of analysis) probability sampling—random • stratified • systematic • cluster

  15. nonprobability sampling • judgmental • purposive • quota • snowball • sequential • the danger of convenience sampling

  16. external validity • (if study has no internal validity, little point in worrying about generalizability) • conceptual evidence • explanation generality • translation generality • empirical evidence • “demonstrated generality” • restrictive explanations eliminated • replicable results

  17. Vogt • halo effect • histogram • independence • interaction effect • John Henry effect • joint probability • lurking variable • maturation effect • mortality • N! (N factorial)

  18. housekeeping test • all material in Segment I. • if you have printed out the lectures, taken good notes in class, done the readings carefully, taking notes, you will have no problem with test. • a review session with peers, going over notes etc, will be big help format • will be available on the website Friday, 10/03 at noon • to be taken in groups. turn in 3x5 index card listing group 9/29. • once you open the file, you have 4 hours to take the test (1 15-minute break). do not open the test until entire group there • no discussion at all with anyone in 550 once you have begun the test until Monday at 10pm. • do on a computer. • when finished, delete questions you chose not to answer, and print out. • put all names on test, and sign statement at the end. • hard copy in sealed large envelope (do not fold the test) in bag on 260 Armory door by 10pm Monday 10/06—one test per group permitted when taking test • hand produced (by you) notes • anything printed out from website not permitted • books • xeroxed copies of anything except 2 lists from Krathwohl ch 6

  19. Sieber: Ch 4 • voluntary informed consent • importance of gatekeepers • special populations • legal elements (see p. 33) • effective consent statements (see p. 35) • consent: signed, oral, or behavioral • consent as ongoing • debriefing • community-based research

  20. writing

  21. lit review structure • Cover page • Abstract (APA pp. 12-15) • Intro: Repeat title (title not a heading); no heading • Describe area of interest. • State the specific question or problem that your review addresses. • Brief but detailed description of data base and strategies. State parameters explicitly. Note possible biases from your search strategy, e.g., one type of journal. • Tell reader how your review section is organized. • Review: Explicit & logical scheme, e.g., sections based on topics or types of studies. Explain. End each section with a discussion—strengths & limitations of studies. • Discussion: Synthesize the review—a discussion of discussions. More than a brief summary. Communicate what you learned. Discuss general strengths and weaknesses of lit. • Conclusion: Address original question(s), e.g., will you refine or change question. Limitations of review. Implications. Areas where more or different research needs to be done • Personal reflection: Short personal discussion of what you have learned in the process of doing the review—about doing research, about yourself as a researcher.

  22. APA citations in text • “. . . quoted text” (Chung, 2001, p. 20). • Chung (2001) noted, “Quoted text . . .” (p. 20). abbreviations • cf. (compare), i.e. (that is), e.g. (for example), viz. (namely), etc. (and so forth), vs. (versus) usedonly within parentheses. Otherwise spell out (APA, p. 106). exceptions: et al. and v. (for court cases)

  23. citing quotation found in secondary source • “Much of psychology . . . has envisioned the child as embedded in the atemporal and acontextual realm of abstract developmental theory” (Lerner, 1998, p. 13, as cited in Lee & Walsh, 2001, p. 71). • Lerner (1998) wrote, “Much of psychology . . . has envisioned the child as embedded in the atemporal and acontextual realm of abstract developmental theory” (p. 13, as cited in Lee & Walsh, 2001, p. 71). • References to both Lerner (1998) and Lee & Walsh (2001) needed in the reference section.

  24. general style rules and tips

  25. in American English • periods and commas always go inside quotation marks • He said, “Please go down the hall.” • colons and semicolons always go outside quotation marks • He wrote, “Be back soon”; then he left. • question marks and explanation points—place depending on the meaning • She asked, “Where are you going?” • What did she mean by “antiquated”?

  26. use active voice • I interviewed the kids. (good) • The kids were interviewed. (bad) use first person to talk about yourself • I interviewed the kids. (good) • The researcher interviewed the kids. (bad) do not begin sentences with “there is” or “it is” etc. • There were three kids who answered… (bad) • Three kids answered the questions. (good)

  27. use who for people, that for things • I interviewed the kids, who all agreed….(good) • I interviewed the teacher that was in…. (bad) pronouns must refer to nouns • I entered the room and found the kids running across the table tops and throwing erasersat each other. That made me nervous. (bad—not clear what made you nervous)

  28. grad life

  29. bests best cheap places to eat • Thai Eatery at the Y, Wright street (lunch only) • Courier Café, Race St, downtown U • L’il Porgy’s Barbecue, Broadway & University, U • Noodles, Green St., Campus Town best video sources • That’s Rentertainment (6th & John, C) (buy a “block”) • Urbana Free Library (downtown U), free

  30. best coffee houses • Caffe Paradiso, Lincoln & Nevada, U (stays open 24 hours a day during exam week) • Café Kopi, Walnut St, downtown C best quiet place on campus to study • Granger Engineering library best cheap place for tools, kids’ clothes, and stuff in general • Farm & Fleet, North Cunningham, U

  31. best Asian grocery stores • Lee’s, next to IGA on Kirby, C • Far East, 5th St south of University, C • AmKo, 1st and Springfield, C

  32. this week: free and cheap M: Mike ‘N’ Mollys, C, improv comedy, 9 T: Virginia, C, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 7pm, $2 W: Memphis on Main, C, open stage comedy 8:30 Th:Virginia, C, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 7pm, $3 F: Iron Post, U, Boneyard Jazz Quintet, 5pm Sa: Krannert, U, Windsymphony and Symphonic Band I, 7:30, $4

More Related