© All rights reserved, 2001-2010.

The Research Methods Training, in all its parts:

guidelines, examples, technical notes, forms, images and any additional material is
copyright of Laureate Online Education B.V.

RMT: Research Methods Training

Stage 1 in: Final project and Dissertation

Lecture 1: What is Research?

What is meant by the word “research”? Among the various definitions we find
references to the word both as a noun, meaning scholarly or scientific
investigation or inquiry, and as a verb, meaning to study (something) so
thoroughly so as to present it in a detailed and accurate manner.

Investigation can be conducted by reading, observation, and testing, while study

is the purposeful application of one’s mind to the acquisition of knowledge and
understanding of the researched subject.

Please read the entry about “research” (Research ,2006), where you’ll find that
research consists of an active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry in order
to discover, interpret, or revise facts, events, behaviors, or theories, or to make a
collection of information about a particular subject through the practical
application of such facts, laws, or theories. The word derives from the Middle
French, and the literal meaning is “to investigate thoroughly".

Additional insight can be gained from how the Higher Education Council for
England defines research. It regards research as an original investigation
undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding, including:

• work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry and to the
public and voluntary sectors
• scholarship (research infrastructure)
• the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, and
artifacts, including design, leading to new or substantially improved
insights

1
 • the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce
new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, and
processes, including design and construction.

Knowledge acquisition goes through four major steps (Dawson, 2009: 2.1.4),
where each step involves the processing of content of the preceding step:

Data
Data are values accepted as given and presented as numbers, characters,
images, or sounds. The measurement or observation of variables, objects, or
events constitutes a large class of statements of practical importance that is
highly relevant to our specific type of research. Data appears in a computing
context in a form which can be assessed, stored, processed, and transmitted by
a computer.

An Example:
Tyco Brahe was the last great astronomer who made observations without
a telescope, as it was invented shortly after his death. As a keen observer,
he accumulated a huge number of recorded observations, among them lists
of the positions of the planets of the Solar System.
For more information see (Brahe, 2006)

Information
Data on its own has no meaning. It becomes meaningful only when it is
processed within some kind of interpretive framework, thus becoming
information.

An Example:
Johannes Kepler, who was Brahe’s assistant, arranged his masters’ raw
data into meaningful lists of observations that reflected the patterns of the
planets as observed by Brahe.
For more information see (Kepler, 2006)

Scientific Knowledge
Dawson (2009) regards knowledge as a higher level of understanding, when we
are then able to understand the ‘why' instead of the mere ‘what'. In many cases,
the interpretation of information takes the form of rules, patterns, decisions,
models, ideas, etc. Yet in the natural sciences, understanding ‘why’ is sometimes
too ambitious. Thus we must frequently settle for understanding ‘how' something
occurs, and this is what we usually aim for.

An Example:
Following the arrangements of Brahe’s data into Information, Kepler
analyzed it and formulated his three laws of planetary motion. Isaac
Newton, building on these laws, formulated his laws of motion that

2
 explained how the force of gravity governs the movement of the planets,
although to this day we don’t know what a force is (the why).
For more information see (Newton, 2006)

In other areas, understanding ‘how’ is trivial, while understanding ‘why' is

challenging.

Study the article in (Knowledge, 2006) for additional information on knowledge.

(http://en..org/wiki/Knowledge
Wisdom
At this stage we might make use of the knowledge gained and put it into practice,
the results of which might be the generation of new knowledge.

An Example:
Using the knowledge of Newton’s theory of Halley we can predict the
location of the planets.

Theory
Many times our aim is to organize scientific knowledge into theories. Theories
are logical and self-consistent models or frameworks describing the behavior of
certain natural or social phenomena, either originating from observable facts or
supported by them. These are formulated, developed, and evaluated according
to the scientific method.

A body of (descriptions of) knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a
firm empirical basis (Theory, 2006); that is, a theory. A theory can be
characterized as having the following attributes:

• it is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing

theory was experimentally verified, although it will often show pre-existing
theory to be mistaken to some extent; it is supported by many strands of
evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a
good approximation if not totally correct;
• it makes (testable) predictions that might someday be used to disprove the
theory itself;
• it has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it
false;
• it is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor (Occam,
2006), of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

Thus, it is wrong to claim that a certain theory is true, as the status of a ‘truth’ is
by and large unachievable. A theory is only formulated, developed, and
evaluated according to the scientific method. If given enough experimental

3
support, a theory can be considered to be a better current explanation of how
things work – but it is never absolutely proved to be true.

An Example:

Our view of the Solar System is shaped by the Copernican model in which
the planets, including Earth, orbit the Sun, which is in the middle. The
beauty of this model is its simplicity (see the above Occam’s Razor) and it
predicts quite well the movements of the planets and where they are to be
found in the sky on any date. It replaced the theory developed by Ptolemy
that was accepted for almost 1600 years, in which the Earth was placed in
the center and the planets, the Moon and the Sun were circling around it.
The model became increasingly complex in an effort to predict the location
of the planets, and epicycles were added to it – but it did predict them quite
well. Which of the theories is the right one? The answer is that both are
right, as it depends on the point of view of the observer, as demonstrated
by modern physics and the relativity theory, and although the Copernican
model is simpler, the older Ptolemaic model can be used as well. For more
detailed information see (Copernicus, 2006) and (Ptolemy, 2006)

Originality
Originality might be defined as doing something that has not been done
previously (Dawson, 2009: 2.1.1). There is no point in repeating the work of
others and discovering or producing what is already known, unless rechecking
for fear that they might be wrong. However, this strong statement is only true for
what is truly known, and as this pertains to very little, research can be
successfully made on less demanding issues. As theories make predications,
they must be tested in order to evaluate the theory’s robustness. As the people
who created or checked the theories might be neither infallible nor trustworthy,
additional tests need to be repeated and results replicated.

Fallibility
A known case of fallibility was the professed discovery of a viable method of Cold
Fusion (Cold Fusion, 2006). This is a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well
below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions, that is, near ambient
temperature instead of millions of degrees Celsius. It was first reported to have
been achieved by Pons (University of Utah) and Fleischmann (University of
Southampton) in 1989. Scientists have tried to replicate their results since
immediately after the initial announcement, but without success. Although teams
at Texas A&M University and the Georgia Institute of Technology first confirmed
the results, they withdrew that claim later due to a lack of evidence. The majority
of other experiments were also a failure.

4
Trustworthiness
Jan Hendrik Schon, a researcher at Bell Labs working in the field of condensed
matter physics and nanotechnology, was listed in 2001 as an author on an
average of one research paper every eight days. One of his claims was that he
produced a transistor on the molecular scale. Although his published papers
were peer reviewed, which should have injected a high level of confidence, it was
found that they were suspected to contain duplicated and anomalous data.
He was dismissed after an investigation found 24 cases of misconduct.
Science (the journal) withdrew 8 papers and Nature (journal) 7 papers co-
authored by him. (Schon, 2006)

Scholarly Contribution and Gain

The DS guidelines list scholarly contribution as one of the most important
components of the dissertation. Scholarly Contribution is tightly linked to
originality, as presented by Cryer (1996) and Gain (HEFCE, 1998) as:

• Exploring the unknown by investigating a field that no one has investigated

before
• Exploring the unanticipated to obtain unexpected results and investigate
new directions in an already existing field
• Use data and interpret it in new ways
• Apply new tools, techniques, procedures, and methods to alternative
problems and to try procedures and methods in new contexts

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) defines research as
“an original undertaking in order to gain knowledge and understanding” (Dawson,
2009: 2.1.3). Such research is supposed to add to the world's body of knowledge
and understanding (rather than only adding to the researcher's knowledge and
understanding).

White (2002) quotes Johnson’s view on research, highlighting four points:

• The Research should be focused: decide on what you want to do and don’t
spread yourself too thin.
• Be systematic: use a structured approach and be organized.
• Your research should add to the general knowledge of yourself and others.
• The result should be a basis for analysis and clarifying comments that
could be extended to other cases.

Research process models

Dawson (2009: 2.2.1) lists four models of the research process:

5
Sequential
According to the sequential model, the research process is conducted as a series
of activities that are performed one after the other in a fixed, linear series of
stages.

Examples from Greenfield and Sharp, in Dawson, 2009: 2.2.1:

The process in broken into (1) Review of the field which is usually done by
performing a literature survey, (ii) Build a theory based on your
interpretations of the field, (iii) Test the theory to find if it works at all and (4)
Reflect and integrate in order to update your ideas and contribute your
findings to others.
Sharp suggests the following:
(i) Identify the broad area of study
(ii) Select a research topic
(iii) Decide on an approach
(iv) Plan how you will perform the research
(v) Gather data and information
(vi) Analyze and interpret these data
(vii) Present the result and findings
The first four steps might even better reflect the methodology we
recommend for you to take towards the composition of the proposal.

The shortcomings of the sequential model are that the stages are not subject-
specific and there are no repetitions or cycles.

Generalized
The generalized research process model recognizes that the stages of the
research process depend on the subject and nature of the research undertaken.

An Example:
Data gathering and data analysis play no research role in pure
mathematics and large parts of computer science. Instead, researchers
make conjectures which they prove mathematically

The generalized research process model provides alternative routes depending

on the subject and nature of the research undertaken, but each route is still
sequential.

An Example:

Research Process:
(i) Identify the broad area of study
(ii) Select a research topic

6
 In natural sciences: In mathematics
(iii) Decide on an approach (iii) Make a hypothesis
(iv) Plan the research (iv) Prove the hypothesis
(v) Gather data and information
(vi) Analyze and interpret these data:
(vii) Present the result and findings

The problems with the generalized process model are similar to those of the
sequential process model and generalized process model, namely that that the
stages are not subject-specific and there are no repetitions or cycles.

Circulatory
The circulatory research process model recognizes that any research is part of a
continuous cycle of discovery and investigation that never ends. The research
process can be joined at any point and earlier stages of research can be
revisited:

Evolutionary
The evolutionary research process model recognizes that research itself evolves
and changes over time. This takes into account how the scope and methods of
research may change over time. This could include changes in our concept of
what acceptable research questions are; the scope and methods of data
collection, including questions surrounding the necessity of the research, ethics,
and the reliability of the research; what tools and methods of data analysis are
available; what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a hypothesis; and what
is meant by a systematic approach.

An Example of computer-aided mathematical proof:

The famous “four color theorem” maintains that four colors must be used to
color any planar map so that no two regions with the same color share a
border. This theorem was conjectured in 1852 by Francis Guthrie. Many
distinguished mathematicians tried to prove it but success came only in
1976, when it was proved by Appel and Haken. The proof involves a case
analysis of about 10,000 cases, for which the help of a computer was used.
(Wilson: 2002). The proof seems to be generally accepted, but not by all
mathematicians. For a fascinating reading see: The Death of Proof

7
 (Horgan: 1993), as the use of the computer at the last stage bothered many
of them.

The Research Process (White: 2002)

There are several approaches to research. The two main areas are quantitative
(positivist) research and qualitative (relativist) research. The first approach tries
to use an objective method of studying the world while the other maintains that
only a subjective mode is possible. The quantitative researcher tries to collect
data (through experiments, surveys, questionnaires, interviews) which will then
be used in mathematical or statistical analysis.

The qualitative approach maintains that objectivity cannot be achieved as the

researchers are part of the research process. Instead of collecting numerical
data, qualitative researchers try collect descriptive data (interviews, behavior
patterns, and interactions) which will be analyzed through non-mathematical
methods. It is possible, of course, to mix the two approaches.

Intellectual Discovery (Dawson, (2009): 2.2.2)

As much as the research process models provide guidance on how to conduct
research, they do not tell you how to come up with questions and answers.
These are commonly derived by a reasoning process, which was classified into
three possible types of reasoning processes by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-
1914):

• Deductive reasoning
• Abductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning proceeds from assumed knowledge of the world (theories)
in order to predict ‘likely’ observations.

An Example:
Assume we know that A implies B.
A has been observed.
Thus, we should also obverse B.
-- Useful for generating experiments to test theories

An Example:
Comparing Newton's theory of gravity versus Einstein's theory of relativity,
we observe that they largely make the same predictions as both predict that
the sun's gravity should bend rays of light. However, Einstein's theory
predicts a greater deflection. In order to test this, Arthur Eddington
(Eddington, 2006) made an expedition in 1919 to the island of Principe in
order to measure the amount of deflection during a total Solar Eclipse
(when stars near the limb of the Sun can be seen). The correctness of

8
 Einstein's prediction was confirmed by these observations and
measurements.

It is often said that deductive reasoning does not lead to new knowledge (thus it
might imply that pure mathematicians largely “waste” their time). In many cases
we seriously underestimate the computational effort involved in deductive
reasoning, because most theories are un-decidable (i.e. there is no algorithm
that, even given infinite time, could determine whether a statement follows from a
theory or not).

If we are successful in establishing that a statement follows from a theory then

we do extend our knowledge

Abductive reasoning
Abductive reasoning proceeds from observations to causes

An Example:
The phenomenon X is observed.
Among hypotheses A, B, C, and D, that have a theory linkage to X, only A
and B are capable of explaining X.
Hence, there is a reason to assume that A or B holds.

This category of reasoning is useful for hypothesis generation, but an hypotheses

must then be confirmed or eliminated through further observation or
experimentation.

These two categories are often confused, as it is not easy for an outside
observer to determine whether someone has used deduction or abduction.

For a paper on these three processes see (Yu, Chong Ho, 1994: Abduction?
Deduction? Induction?)

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning proceeds from a set of observations to a general conclusion.

An Example:
Tycho Brahe, whom we mentioned previously, collected data on the
movement of Mars. Johannes Kepler analyzed data which was found to be
consistent with Mars moving in an elliptic orbit around the sun.
From that example, his inductive conclusion was that not only Mars, but all
other planets as well, move in elliptic orbits around the Sun, with the Sun at
one of the focal points of the ellipse.

An incomplete set of observations can easily lead to incorrect inductive

conclusions, however.

9
 An Example:
All swans I've ever seen are white
(Wrong) inductive conclusion: All swans are white

Techniques for Solutions:

Solving complex problems involves a chain of steps using reasoning and can
make use of the following techniques:

• Analogy: Look for similarity between one problem and another which has
already been solved
• Partition: Break the problem into smaller sub-problems which are easier to
solve
• Random/Motivated Guesses: Guess a solution to the problem then prove
it correct
• Generalize: Take the essential features of the specific problem and pose a
more general problem
• Particularize: Look for a special case with a narrower set of restrictions
than the more general case
• Subtract: Drop some of the complicating features of the original problem
• Add: A difficult problem may be resolved by adding an auxiliary problem
• Invert: Look at the problem from an opposing point of view
• Method of Pappus: Assume the problem is solved and calculate
backwards (Pappus, 2006)
• Method of Tertullus: Assume the problem cannot be solved and try to
prove why (Tertullus, 2006)

Classifying Research (Dawson, 2009: 2.3.1)

Research can be viewed from three different perspectives:

• Field - Position of the research within a hierarchy of topics

An Example:
Artificial Intelligence → Automated Reasoning → First-Order Reasoning →
Decidability

• Approach - Research methods that are employed as part of the research

process

Examples:
Case study, Experiment, Survey, Proof

• Nature - Pure theoretical development. These are reviews of pure theory

and evaluation of its applicability applied research. These can be
categorized as follows:

10
Research can also be classified according to several different modes of studies:

• Pure theory - Developing theories and working on their consequences,

without regard to experimentation or application

• Descriptive studies - Reviewing and evaluating existing theories, including

describing the state of the art, comparing predictions with experimental
data.

• Exploratory studies - Investigating an ‘entirely’ new area of research,

exploring a situation or a problem (Models in Research Process)

• Explanatory studies - Explaining or clarifying some phenomena or

identifying the relationship between things

• Causal studies - Assessing the causal relationship between things

• Normative studies - Producing a theory of design (or of other

development) like recommendations, rules, standards, algorithms, advices
or other tools for improving the object of study

• Problem-solving studies - Resolving a problem with a novel solution

and/or improving something in one way or another

• Development and Application studies - Developing or constructing

something novel

A Model of Scientific Research

Summarizing the above models, categories, technologies, intellectual discovery
methods, and processes, we arrive at the following flow that represents some
models that we can adopt for doing research in Information Technology:

11
Research Methods

There is an important distinction between quantitative and qualitative research

methods, as they originated from two different research approaches.

The quantitative research method is associated with measurements (on numeric

scales). It stems from the natural sciences and is used to test hypotheses or
create a set of observations for inductive reasoning. Accuracy and repeatability
of results are of vital importance.

Qualitative research methods involve interviews, case studies, and surveys and
stem from the social sciences. They are concerned with increasing the
understanding of an area rather than seeking an explanation. In many cases the
repeatability, which is so important in the quantitative method, might be a
problem.

Four methods that you might employ include the following:

• Action research - Pursues action (or change) and understanding at the

same time. It continuously alternates between action and critical reflection,
while refining methods, data, and interpretation using the understanding
developed in the earlier cycles.

An Example:
Reflective teaching

Case study – In which a single situation is given in-depth exploration. Case study
research usually generates a large amount of (subjective) data. In order to be of
value it should not merely report the data obtained or behavior observed, but
attempt to generalize from the specific details of an observed situation.

An example:
Case study of open source software development

• Survey – A survey is usually undertaken using questionnaires or

interviews. Questionnaire and interview design are of outmost importance
but are only briefly discussed in the Dawson textbook. Determining the
right target audience and sample size are also important.

An Example:
Survey on the popularity or use of programming languages

• Experiment - This is an investigation of causal relationships using a test

controlled by the researcher. It is usually performed in development,
evaluation, and problem solving projects

An Example:

12
 Evaluation of processor performance

The key elements of an experiment are:

• A precise hypothesis that the experiment will confirm or refute.
• A completely specified experimental system, which will be modified in
some systematic way to elicit the effects predicted by the hypothesis, must
be introduced.
• Quantitative measurement of the results of modifying the experimental
system
• Use of controls to ensure that the experiment really tests the hypothesis
• Analysis of the measured data to determine whether they are consistent
with the hypothesis
• Report of procedures and results so that others can replicate the
experiment

Reading:
Read Chapter 1 and Chapter 2
And: Chapters 1 and 2 of the DS Guidelines are relevant to this seminar yet it is
highly suggested to read the entire manual in order to understand the whole
process and its procedures.

Assignments, Discussions and Project:

These are found in the corresponding sections

Cited References and Links:

Brahe (2006), available from

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Mathematicians/Brahe.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Cold_Fusion (2206), available from

http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Copernicus (2006), available from

http://www-history.mcs.st-
andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Copernicus.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Cryer, P. (1996) The research student’s guide to success. Buckingham, UK:

Open University Press.

Dawson, C.W. (2009 (and 2005)) Projects in computing and information systems:

13
A student’s guide. Harlow: Addison-Wesley.

Eddington (2006), available from:

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Eddington.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

HEFCE, (1998), Mentioned in Dawson, (2009: 2.1.3)

http://admin.hero.ac.uk/rae/niss/1_98cd.html
(Accessed: 28 November 2006)

Horgan J. (1993), The death of proof. Scientific American (October 1993), 74-82.

Kepler (2006), available from:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kepler.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Knowledge (2006), Available from:

http://www.groovyweb.uklinux.net/?page_name=philosophy%20of%20knowledge
&category=philosophy (Accessed: 11 May 2006). This link seems dead so try:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Knowledge-(philosophy)
(Accessed 27/2/2009)

Newton (2006), available from

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Newton.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Occam (2006), available from

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html (Accessed: 11 May 2006)
and/or
http://skepdic.com/occam.html (Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Pappus (2006). available from:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Pappus.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Ptolemy (2006), available from

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Research (2006), available from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research (Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Routio, P. (2006) “Models in the research process”. University of Art and

Design, Helsinki. Available from:
http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/177.htm [Accessed: 20 January 2006].

14
Schon (2006), available from
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2 (Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Tertullus (2006), available from:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/tertullus.html
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Theory (2006), available from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories (Accessed: 11 May 2006)

White, W. (2002) Writing your MBA dissertation. Continuum.

ISBN: 0-8264-6012-7.

Wilson, R. (2002), Four colors suffice: How the map problem was solved.
Penguin Books. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
(Accessed: 11 May 2006)

Yu, Chong Ho (1994) Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a Logic of

Exploratory Data Analysis? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. April, 1994. Available from:
http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/Peirce/Logic_of_EDA.html (Accessed: 28
February 2009).

Additional References:

Practical:
An outstanding site devoted to Research, Literature Surveys and Writing
Academic essays is The “Academic Grammar” found at:
http://ec.hku.hk/acadgrammar/ (Last accessed 19/5/2006). The site covers the
whole process of Research and we suggest that you will review its section side
by side with the reading of the lectures and the textbooks.

Theoretical:
An excellent and highly recommended book (106 pages), “Theory of Science” by
Gordana Dodig – Crnkovic, is found at:
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/publications/0333.pdf The book addresses many of the
theoretical and philosophical issues that have to do with Science and with
research in Science (Last accessed on 27/2/2009).

15