class 5: 09/30/13 building research skills (cont.)

class 5: 09/30/13

building research skills (cont.)

our debt to researchers before us• If it weren't for Louis Armstrong, there

wouldn't be me. (Dizzy Gillespie, 1971)

• Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. We can see more than they and things at a greater distance, not because our sight is sharper. . . but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size. (John of Salisbury, 1159)

research is

• the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind (anonymous)

• searching for invisible needles in infinite haystacks (Geertz)

• extremely extended acquaintances with extremely small matters (Geertz)

research is• “the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking

[what is known] by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the experience from the past.” (p. 185)

• “You must doubt the experts. . . . Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” (p. 187).

Richard Feynman

(1999). The pleasure of finding things out. Cambridge, MA:

Perseus.

all researchers must• find some small part of the world to

explore, describe, and explain • write a narrative that reports their

exploration, description, and explanation to an audience

• in other words: first find it out, then report what you found

research begins with need to find it out

• what is your “it” • what do you want to find out about “it”

–big-Q QUESTION (the 10-year agenda)–begin with a little-q question (your

dissertation)–figure out the best way to answer your

little-q question

• research strength depends on quality of– thinking– linking– planning– observations – findings– inferences – claims

good eyeslearning is what occurs

after you think you already know everything

(John Wooden)

• all observing is mediated–by (big-C) CULTURE & (little-c)

cultures–by history–by experiences–by expectations–by beliefs–by values

disciplined eyes• “especially harsh scrutiny of”

–one’s preferences, prejudgments, etc–field’s preferences– individual research reports’

preferences

• “ if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is [too good to be true]” (Alecia Nugent)

K.ch 9: optimizing trade-offs within limits

limits• ethical standards• institutional constraints• resources limits

criteria to be optimized

• audience credibility• relative weighting of internal validity

(integrity) and external validity (generality)

• resource allocation

“although we set out to optimize, we end up satisficing” (p. 190)

building credibility with audience—validity is subjective, plausibility is what counts, and plausibility in the ear of the beholder

in your research

• build on accepted knowledge• show knowledge of relevant literature• avoid weaknesses of previous studies• use accepted techniques and methods• justify use of non-standard methods

in the presentation (research report)• provide expected evidence• anticipate and answer questions &

concerns• reflect the study’s strengths &

weaknesses• convey your integrity

relative weighting of internal validity (integrity) & external validity (generality)

• strengthening internal validity usually diminishes external validity–basic research emphasizes internal

validity–applied research emphasizes external

validity

Bronfenbrenner’s critique of lab studies:

• “the science of strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible time”

resource allocation

• time, energy, and money• hidden decision making that determines

relative strength of various parts of the study

institutional constraints• focus on institution within which

research being done

resource limits• use resources wisely

Types of errors in synthesizing research in education (Michael J. Dunkin)

primary stage errors• unexplained selectivity• lack of discrimination

secondary stage errors• erroneous detailing• double counting• non-recognition of faulty author

conclusions• unwarranted attributions• suppression of contrary findings

tertiary stage errors • consequential errors• failure to marshal all evidence

relevant to a generalization

• “...potential users of syntheses should be encouraged to develop a healthy skepticism toward them. The availability of a typology of synthesized errors should assist in the process” (Dunkin, p. 95)

model: a graphic explanation of a small part of the world

constructing a model1. hypothesize factors involved2. how might factors be related3. draw models4. which model explains facts best5. guesstimate strengths of paths

drawing a model• label variables• connect variables

– curved, no arrowheads: correlation– arrow-head: direction of “effect”– arrow-head in both directions: mutual effect

• type of effect: + (positive), - (negative)• strength of the effect

• low, moderate, strong

rules• model must be falsifiable• maximize concreteness• explain as much as possibleevaluating models• does model explain new observations• does model explain observations better

than other models

Vogt & Johnson• halo effect• independence• interaction effect• John Henry effect• lurking variable• maturation effect• mortality• N! (N factorial)

Epstein: Lead poisoning: The ignored scandal

• (IRBs came into being for a reason)• lead poisoning a reality for urban poor

• “[government] facing a choice between protecting children . . . and protecting businesses . . . almost invariably chose the latter. In the process, some of the scientific research on lead poisoning became corrupted” (p. 3)

• millions of children had their growth and intelligence stunted lead contaminated products. Some five million at risk today (p.3)

• many public health experts and ethicists defended the toddler lead study . . . Claimed court decision was a disaster. . . argued such research necessary to solve problems of poor (p. 4)

• researchers almost certainly knew in advance that level I and II abatement would not protect children from being poisoned (p. 5)

• researchers themselves seem to have been decent men (p. 5)

• public health inseparable from politics (p. 10)

• facing a government aiming to spend as little as possible on a public health catastrophe, C & F may have felt they had no choice to cut as many corners as possible. They could have worked with poor communities to use their research findings more creatively. . . . If leading poisoning had been affecting middle class children, this might have happened. Instead, they “did another study” (p. 11)

Becker ch 2: persona and authority• “Somewhere, probably in college, I picked up

that articulate people used big words, which impressed me” (p. 28).

• Ideas written so that they are difficult for untrained people to understand. This is scholarly writing (p. 30).

• “I am looking for a writing style that makes me sound smart” (p. 31)

• “Gee, Howie, if you say it that way, it sounds like something anyone could say.” (41)

• “To overcome the academic prose you have to first overcome the academic pose” (Mills)

• “Some—I favor this persona—take a Will Rogers line. We are just plain folks who emphasize our similarities to ordinary people, rather than the differences. We may know a few things others don’t, but it’s nothing special” ( p.36).

• “The author can’t be nobody, so every author will necessarily be somebody” (p. 37).

lit review structure• title page• abstract • intro: repeat title (title not a heading); no heading at top (e.g., Intoduction)

– describe area of interest.– 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.

– how review section is organized.• review section: explicit & logical scheme, e.g., sections based on topics or types

of studies. Explain. End each section with a Discussion—strengths & limitations. • Discussion: Synthesize review—discussion of discussions. Communicate what you

learned. Discuss general strengths and weaknesses of lit.• Conclusion: Address original question(s)—changes. Limitations of review.

Implications. Areas where more or different research needs to be done. Where you will go next.

• personal reflection: Short discussion of what you have learned in the process of doing the review—about doing research, about yourself as a researcher.

to strengthen writing, simplify• begin sentences with subject

– avoid “throat clearings”: furthermore, to be completely honest, therefore, in addition, etc

• eschew jargon• do not begin sentences with “there is,”

“there are,” “it is,” etc.– There were three kids who answered. . .– It is incumbent on us as educators to . . .

that vs. which (APA p. 55)• that is restrictive, that is, the relative clause

is essential to the meaning of the sentence.• which can restrictive, or nonrestrictive, that

is, merely adds further information not essential to the meaning of the sentence– APA suggests using that for restrictive

clauses and which for nonrestrictive clauses

restrictive clauses (no comma) The animals that performed well on the

first task were not successful on the second task.

nonrestrictive clauses (comma required)The animals, which performed well on

the first task, were not successful on the second task.

more goodsbakery• Mirabelle, Main St, downtown Uplace to watch a sunset• Windsor east to High Cross. High Cross south

to 600 north. 600 N east 2 miles to 1800. 1800 north to top of hill. Pull over, look west.

for apples (cider, donuts, pumpkins)• Curtis Apple Orchard, 3902 S. Duncan Rd., C

this week free or cheap• under construction