CHAPTER 2
Choosing Topics
and Methods for
Research
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Sources of Research Ideas
• Your own experience and knowledge.
• Brainstorming
• Pros? And Cons?
• Prior research findings.
• Pros and Cons?
• Using existing theories.
• Pros and Cons?
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Reviewing the Literature
• Why?
– Be informed!
• Don’t want to duplicate pre-existing research.
• Where the topic currently is.
– Help choose and construct a research design.
• E.g., operational definitions of variables.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Types of Literature
• Scholarly versus General Sources
– Scholarly: For professionals and students.
• Written by expects or researchers
• Cite references
• Little or no general advertising in the source.
– General: For general public.
• Written by professional writers in well-known
sources (e.g., magazine).
• Little referencing of sources
• Lots of general advertising (e.g., cars)
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Scholarly Sources
• Scholarly Sources are Peer Reviewed!
– Other experts or researchers check over the papers
of their colleagues before the are published.
• Primary Source
– Original, firsthand account of an idea or research
finding.
– E.g., Journal article of a research report.
• Secondary Source
– Secondhand information, usually based on the
primary source.
– E.g., Text book, newspaper article.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Scholarly Research Reports
• Most research reports (primary sources)
will contain the following sections:
– Abstract
– Introduction
– Method
• Participants
• Apparatus and Materials
• Procedure
– Results
– Discussion
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Where Do I Find Scholarly
Research?
• Abstracts
– Psychological Abstracts
• Older research. Not a lot of fun – tedious, but
builds character.
• Electronic Databases
– PsycINFO (web-based)
– PsychLIT (CD-ROM version of PsycINFO)
– MEDLINE
– EBSCOhost
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
References In Hand, Now What?
• Even before you start reading (or have only read the
abstracts) – organize them in some fashion (e.g.,
methods employed, results found)
• Read the “Introduction” sections of each paper noting
theories, other references, definitions of variables.
• Read the “Discussion” sections of each paper looking for
strengths and weaknesses of the methods employed.
• Now read the “Method” sections. Which methods do you
think are best? Do the different methods explain
conflicting results? What needs to be done? Maybe even
come up with a hypothesis.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Hypotheses
• Good Hypotheses
– Make Explicit Predictions
– Are Testable and Falsifiable
– Provide clear “operational definitions” of
variables.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Match Hypothesis to a Research
Strategies
• Once a hypothesis is in place – which
research strategy should you employ?
– This will depend on factors like:
• The topic and participants you choose
• The variables you use
• How much control you can have over the situation and
variables
– There 4 Research Strategies available to you.
•
•
•
•
Experimental
Quasi-experimental
Correlational
Descriptive
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Experimental Strategy
• If you want to draw a cause-effect
conclusion then you must run an
experimental design or strategy.
• Key features include:
– Manipulation of a independent variable
– Control Condition
– Random assignment of participants to groups
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Quasi-Experimental
• Very similar to experimental except a
required element to make a cause-effect
conclusion is absent.
– e.g., no random assignment to groups, or no
manipulation of the independent variable.
• Cannot draw cause-effect conclusions with
quasi-experimental designs.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Correlational
• Usually participants are measured on two
variables and the relationship between the
two variables is measured.
– Usually no assignment to groups
– No manipulation of the independent variable
(sometimes called predictor variable).
• Hypotheses state a relationship will exist
between the variables.
• Cannot draw cause-effect conclusions.
Can state relationship exists between
variables but little more.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Descriptive Strategy
• Often used to detail or categorize events.
• A hypothesis may be absent.
– Descriptive strategies often help to generate
hypothesis for correlational, quasiexperimental, or experimental studies.
• Cannot draw cause-effect conclusions.
Conclusions are descriptive (for lack of a
better word) in nature.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Who Will I Study: Participants
• Population: entire set of people or animals
(the participants) of interest.
• Sample: a representative subset of the
population that is being studied.
– What does representative mean?
– How might you go about this?
• We’ll have much more to say about this in
future chapters.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Materials and Procedures
• The materials and procedures you use will
depend on a number of factors:
– What you want to accomplish?
• Cause-and-effect relationship or a relationship?
– What materials and procedures been done
before and how effective was it.
• Do you have access to similar materials?
• How expensive is it?
• Can I control the variables better?
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Applied Vs. Basic Research
• Applied Research:
– Trying to solve a practical problem.
• E.g., Does a certain nutrient increase immune
function?
• Basic Research
– Tries to answer fundamental or theoretical
questions. No focus on practical application.
• E.g., What is the impact of stress on memory?
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Laboratory Vs. Field Research
• Laboratory Research
– A research setting with a high degree of control over:
• Who and what is present
• How data are collected
• What the participants experience
• Field Research
– Research that occurs in real life situations thus there
is less control.
• Speculate on the pros and cons of each.
– Mundane realism vs. experimental realism.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall
Generalizability
• Will you results stand up if:
– You use a different group of participants?
– Change the circumstances slightly?
– You run the study at a different time (e.g., winter vs. summer)?
• If they do, then your results have
“External Validity” or are considered
generalizable.
• How far should you generalize?
– Most psychologists begin with the “continuity assumption” –
results are likely to be similar across different individuals,
situations, and time periods unless there are substantive
reasons to believe otherwise.
©2005, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall