Week 1 Day 1How do we know what we think we know?

Human Inquiry v Scientific Research

DIE 4564 Research Methods

Human Inquiry • seeking reality, truth, information, or

knowledge. • may be participative, experiential,

political, or action oriented.

What is “Reality” Agreement Reality – those things we

“know” as part of the culture we share with those around us.Tradition – knowledge based on shared

cultural understandings.Authority – knowledge based on the status

of the discoverer.

Discussion: What are some of the things we “know” as part of our culture?What now constitutes “authority”. Who do you trust?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uZAjwN2Eho

Seeking Reality Experiential Reality – those things we

“know” as part of our personal experience.o Cause and effect patterns tend to be

probabilistic in nature.o Experience that the future is caused in part

by the events in the present.o Anecdotal evidence

Errors in Human Inquiry

Inaccurate Observationso http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo o Measurement devises offer accuracy.

Overgeneralizationso Large and representative samples safeguard

against overgeneralization.o Replication – repeating a research study to

confirm, qualify, or refute the findings of an earlier study.

Errors in Human Inquiry continued

Selective Observationso Avoid looking for “deviant” cases.

illogical Reasoning o Example: “Gambler’s fallacy”o Strive to use logic consciously and explicitly.

Scientific Inquiry

• The foundations of science are logic and observation. Logic = process of valid reasoning Valid = true under every interpretation

Scientific ResearchResearch is a systematic and logical method of inquiry

Key termsEpistemology – the science of knowing; systems of knowledge.

Methodology – the science of finding out; procedures for scientific investigation.

Pure v Applied Research

Pure (basic) Research – gaining “knowledge for knowledge’s sake.” ex. surveillance

Applied Research – systematic inquiry into the practical application of science. ex. monitoring

Research in Dietetics

Purposes:To uncover new knowledgeTo define new modes of therapyTo provide the basis for educationTo set public policyTo allow dietitians to be recognized as a

valued and credible source of food and nutrition information

Examples of Research Goals• Identifying and classifying new nutrition issues• Determining nutrition-related risk factors for

disease• Developing and testing new dietary interventions

for preventing or treating illness• Evaluating the impact of health policies on

nutrition-related health outcomes• Synthesizing existing knowledge so that it can

be applied by others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuSoitiJS0

Benefits to the Researcher

• Acquiring new skills• Satisfying personal curiosity• Becoming a published author• Fulfilling degree or work requirements• Contributing to individual or population health• Contributing to the body of scientific knowledge

The Research Process… It all begins with “The Question”

In Social Science the research process may be described as:• Create a theory• Collect data• Analyze the data

Jumping on the “Wheel of Science”- how do you come up with “The Question”?

Defining the

question

Key terms

Hypothesis - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. H0 or H1. It is your or your prediction of the relationship

Theory – A systematic explanation devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Types of reasoning • inductive reasoning – “bottom-up” approach,

inferring general principles or rules from specific facts and observations• Observe first then develop hypothesis.

• deductive reasoning –“top- down” approach, reasoning from one or more general statements or premises Create hypothesis then observe / test it.

Brainstorming for “The Question”

What question will keep you engaged until you find the answer?

Once theme identified consider types of exposures

PICO Strategy for Clinical Research Questions*

• P – Patient or problem• I – Intervention• C – Control or comparison• O - Outcome or expected result

Key Words Example:Initial brainstorming about Child Health in America

Obesity PovertyIron deficiency Attention Deficit DisorderMalnutrition AllergiesViolence Drug and alcohol abuse

How can you transform this to a workable research question?

Log into Keiser Library then select EBSCOHOST

Deselect the automatic selections then choose CINAHL and Medline…Then click “continue”

Insert keywords and limitations: Keywords -attention deficit disorder, iron deficiency anemia, children, and related words in Boolean search. Limit by dates, English, peer-reviewed, and humans.

8 hits are not enough. Change time frame?

Changed to past 10 year gave only 12 hits. Now what?

Additional search strategies…• Find one article that correctly addresses

your subject and examine the key words of that article.

• Try “mind mapping” or creating a Concept Map of key words

• Use other databases • “Snowball” hand search of references in

related texts

Health Science Databases• PubMed –US National Library of Medicine (free!)

• EBSCOHOST – KU subscription CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and

Allied Health) MEDLINE

• LIRN – KU subscription ProQuest

Pub Med Searches• More specific than

Google Scholar• Uses a controlled

vocabulary (MeSH)for efficient search

• Built in automatic term mapping

Pub Med – US National Library of Medicine – universal free access

MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)

MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)

The MeSH index can sometimes help you to narrow the

scope of interest

MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)

Use the MeSH index

to expand the scope of interest

Anatomy of a Medical Article

• Title / Author• Sponsorship / Conflict of Interest• Abstract• Introduction• Methods• Results• Discussion• References

Full-Text ArticlesThe only way to truly understand a study is to read the full text of the article.

How to acquire full text articles:• Library websites (e-journals) and physical

collections• Journal websites / Internet searches• Request an “interlibrary loan” from a university

library• Check “Google Scholar” for access• Email the author and request an electronic copy

Steps for Reading Articles1. Read the abstract. 2. Read the entire text of the article3. Look carefully at the tables and figures for

important results (compare to text)4. Review of the reference lists for related papers5. Reflect on the methods and results - Were the

evaluation methods the best means to answer the study question?

6. Did the abstract and discussion accurately reflect the results?

Questions to Ask

• Is the title neutral or is it “marketing” a result?

• Is it an industry-sponsored study? • Was this a preliminary study? • Was it on animals or humans?• Was the sample size big enough? Was the

study long enough?• Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal?

So how do we “KNOW” we have the right answer?:

“Causality or causation is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first”

The case for causality

Social Science Criteria for Causal Relationships

• Correlation – a statistical relationship between two variables

• Time order- the cause precedes the effect

• Non-spuriousness- the effect can only be explained by the cause; cause cannot be explained by a third variable

Necessary and Sufficient Causes

• A necessary cause represents a condition that must be present for the effect to follow.

• A sufficient cause represents a condition that, if it is present, guarantees the effect in question.

• Most satisfying outcome in research includes both necessary and sufficient causes.

Necessary and Sufficient Causes

Necessary Cause. Being female is a necessary cause of pregnancy; that is, you can’t get pregnant unless you are female.

Sufficient Cause. Not taking the exam is a sufficient cause of failing it, even though there are other ways of failing (such as not studying).

Necessary and Sufficient Causes

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 1: Strength of Association. The stronger the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, the less likely it is that the relationship is due to an extraneous variable.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 2: Temporality. It is logically necessary for a cause to precede an effect in time.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 3: Consistency. Multiple observations, of an association, with different people under different circumstances and with different measurement instruments increase the credibility of a finding.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 4: Theoretical Plausibility. It is easier to accept an association as causal when there is a rational and theoretical basis for such a conclusion.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 5: Coherence. A cause-and-effect interpretation for an association is clearest when it does not conflict with what is known about the variables under study and when there are no plausible competing theories or rival hypotheses. In other words, the association must be coherent with other knowledge.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 6: Specificity in the causes. In the ideal situation, the effect has only one cause. In other words, showing that an outcome is best predicted by one primary factor adds credibility to a causal claim.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 7: Dose Response Relationship. There should be a direct relationship between the risk factor (i.e., the independent variable) and people’s status on the disease variable (i.e., the dependent variable).

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 8: Experimental Evidence. Any related research that is based on experiments will make a causal inference more plausible.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

The Bradford Hill Criteria

• 9: Analogy. Sometimes a commonly accepted phenomenon in one area can be applied to another area.

Example: How do we know that iron-deficiency causes hypochromic microcytic anemia.

Using the Bradford Hill Criteria

“None of these nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against a cause and effect hypothesis ….

What they can do, with greater or less strength, is to help answer the fundamental question—is there any other way of explaining the set of facts before us, is there any other answer equally, or more, likely than cause and effect?”

~Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1897-1991)

Reading Assignment -