Research methods

CS480 Computer Science Seminar

Fall, 2002

Web addresses

• http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill1.htm

The seven steps of research process

• STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND DEVELOP YOUR TOPIC.

• SUMMARY: State your topic as a question. For example, if you are interested in finding out about use of alcoholic beverages by college students, you might pose the question, "What effect does use of alcoholic beverages have on the health of college students?" Identify the main concepts or keywords in your question.

STEP 2: FIND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

• SUMMARY: Look up your keywords in the indexes to subject encyclopedias.

STEP 3: USE CATALOGS TO FIND BOOKS.

• SUMMARY: Use keyword searching for a narrow or complex search topic. Use subject searching for a broad subject. Print or write down the citation (author, title,etc.) and the location information (call number and library). Note the circulation status. When you pull the book from the shelf, scan the bibliography for additional sources. Watch for book-length bibliographies and annual reviews on your subject; they list citations to hundreds of books and articles in one subject area.

STEP 4: USE INDEXES TO FIND PERIODICAL ARTICLES

• SUMMARY: Use periodical indexes and abstracts to find citations to articles. The indexes and abstracts may be in print or computer-based formats or both. Choose the indexes and format best suited to your particular topic; ask at the reference desk if you need help figuring out which index and format will be best. When you have recorded or printed out the citation from the index, locate the library that owns the periodical you want, get assistance from librarians as necessary.

STEP 5A: FIND INTERNET RESOURCES

• SUMMARY: Use search engines and subject directories to locate materials on the Web.

STEP 6: EVALUATE WHAT YOU FIND

• SUMMARY: See How to Critically Analyze Information Sources and Distinguishing Scholarly from Non-Scholarly Periodicals: A Checklist of Criteria for suggestions on evaluating the authority and quality of the books and articles you located. If you have found too many or too few sources, you may need to narrow or broaden your topic. Check with a reference librarian or your instructor.

STEP 7: CITE WHAT YOU FIND USING A STANDARD FORMAT

• Give credit where credit is due. Cite your sources using one of the styles listed below or another style approved by your instructor. The APA and MLA styles are widely used use ACM or IEEE journals as a reference. Other sources are shown in the next slide.

Additional sources of style guidelines

• Format the citations in your bibliography using examples from the University of Illinois Writer's Workshop Web site. Both Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA) examples are available.

• A brief online version of The Columbia Guide to Online Style also gives examples for citing networked resources only.

• Book guides: • Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research

Papers. 4th ed. New York: MLA, 1995.(Uris Ref Z 253 .M68 1995; also Olin)

RESEARCH TIPS

• WORK FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC. • Find background information first, then use more specific and recent sources.

• RECORD WHAT YOU FIND AND WHERE YOU FOUND IT. • Write out a complete citation for each source you find;

you may need it again later. • TRANSLATE YOUR TOPIC INTO THE SUBJECT

LANGUAGE OF THE INDEXES AND CATALOGS YOU USE.

Progress Report

• Progress reports are common in science and engineering. As the name suggests, they document ongoing projects. They might be one-page memos or long, formal documents. Such a report is aimed at whoever assigned the project. Its goal is to enable yourself or the manager or sponsor of a project to make informed decisions about the future of the project.  Usually, progress reports can stressful. The sponsor wants a job done quickly and cheaply; the engineer needs to ensure accuracy and quality. A sponsor might cancel even a quality job if it is behind or overbudget. As the engineer, you need to please the sponsor and do the job well. Yet, any project of size or significance is bound to encounter snags: additional requirements, miscommunications, problems, delays, or unexpected expenses. A progress report must account for those snags. 

Organization of a progress report

• The original proposal for the project determines the structure: make use of original milestones or the timeline. With this in mind, the simplest structure is as follows: 

1. Introduction

2. Work Completed

3. Work Scheduled

4. Problems

A more comprehensive list of components of the report

• But a more comprehensive list of components will give you a clearer structure, even if you return to the simpler structure for the report itself.  

• 1. Introduction  2. Project Description  3. Progress Summary  4. Problems Encountered  5. Changes in Requirements  6. Overall Assessment of the Project

1. Introduction 

• As always, first indicate the purpose of the report and its intended audience. Clearly define the time period covered in the report. Then, explain the project's objectives and summarize the major issues.

2. Project Description 

• In very short progress reports, as is the case of our bi-weekly report, the introduction might contain this section, but if it is under its own heading, readers who are familiar with the project can skip it. Someone unfamiliar with the project, however, needs summarized details such as purpose and scope of the project, start and completion dates, and names of parties involved. Often this section can be adapted from a proposal or borrowed from a previous progress report.   

3. Progress Summary

• This is the substance of the report (so "summary" may be a misnomer). You want to discuss work done, work in progress, and work to be done. You might just use these as subheadings to structure the section.

4. Problems Encountered 

• As noted in the opening, snags are expected. Don't hide from them; explain what they are and how they might affect key areas of the job (such as timing, price or quality). If the problem occurred in the past, you can explain how you overcame it. This is least serious; in fact, you look good. If the problem is in front of you (now or in the future), explain how you hope to overcome it, if you can. 

5. Changes in Requirements 

• Here, you record the changes to the project: milestones added, new requirements, or schedule changes (good or bad). Even if these changes have not affected the ultimate goal of the project, you need to tell the sponsor how problems have been accommodated.    Note: If changes are a direct result of problems encountered, sections 4 and 5 may be combined. This would lead to a modified organization: first problem and the change it required, then the next problem and change, and so on. 

6. Overall Assessment of the Project 

• Since a progress report is not about a finished work, the conclusion needs only to give your professional opinion of how the project is going.  Being unrealistically optimistic is as inappropriate as being unduly negative. Beware of promising early completion: a single setback can gobble up much time. Likewise, don't overreact if you are behind schedule. You may also gain time along the way. Far more significant for the science and engineer is to explain anything that may change the expected quality of the final product. Keeping in mind your purpose can help you focus here: your goal is to enable the manager or sponsor to make informed decisions. 

Scientific Research Method

• What is the purpose of the Scientific Method? The scientific method is the means by which researchers are able to make conclusive statements about their studies with a minimum of bias. The interpretation of data, for example the result of a new drug study, can be laden with bias. The researcher often has a personal stakes in the results of his work. As any skilled debater knows, just about any opinion can be justified and presented as fact. In order to minimize the influence of personal stakes and biased opinions, a standard method of testing a hypothesis is expected to be used by all members of the scientific community.

How does the Scientific Method Work?

• The first step: formulate the basis for conducting your research. This is based on observed phenomena (or gathered information) that is either directly or indirectly related to the specific subject matter of your proposed research.

Formulate a hypothesis

• Formulate a hypothesis to explain some aspect of your observations. You speculate that the virus that causes Disease B is either Virus A or it is related to Virus A. Your hypothesis is that the cause of Disease A and Disease B is the same virus.

Test your hypothesis

• Now that you have a hypothesis, you are ready to test it. You must now use your hypothesis to predict other phenomena that have not yet been observed. You know that Drug A will wipe out Disease A. If Disease B is caused by the same virus, you reason that the same drug should be effective.

Rigorously test your prediction

• The final step of the scientific method is to rigorously test your prediction. Remember, you cannot "prove" your hypothesis. You can only fail to disprove it. While this is an example of how the scientific method is used in everyday research and hypothesis testing, it is also the basis of creating theories and laws.

Some comments

• The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be eliminated if experiments repeatedly contradict predictions. No matter how great a hypothesis sounds, it is only as good as it's ability to consistently predict experimental results. It should also be noted that a theory or hypothesis is not meaningful if it is not quantitative and testable. If a theory does not allow for predictions and experimental research to confirm these predictions, than it is not a scientific theory.

Misapplications of the Scientific Method

• A common error encountered by people who claim to use the scientific method is a lack of testing. A hypothesis brought about by common observations or common sense does not have scientific validity. As stated above, even though a good debater may be quite convincing as he conveys the merits of his theory, logical arguments are not an acceptable replacement for experimental testing.