Science Research Science Research
Methodology (3) Methodology (3)
Li-Hua LI (李麗華 李麗華 李麗華) 李麗華
Information Management Dept.
Chaoyang University of Technology
Contents Contents
Doing research Refereeing
註: 本教材主要匯編並引用自唐元亮老師之教
材、網路資源及相關之學術論文及參考文章
Doing Research(1) Doing Research(1)
Purpose a research program
( Ph.D.,Masters, Minor Thesis)
University: Provide a student with research training
Student: demonstrate capability to
undertake research from conception to write-up
Best strategy: learning while doing
Doing Research(2) Doing Research(2)
Students and advisors
“There are as many scientific methods as scientists.”
“There are more advising styles than advisors”
Advising
Select an area Provide several research area
Find a topic Specify a research area
Come up with an idea Specify a research topic
Figure out how to solve or implement it
Give an idea
Implement Structure the research project
Student Advisor
Doing Research(3) Doing Research(3)
Student-Advisor Relationship
From Management to Guidance
Early Stage: Advisor specify each small step student should take
Student runs an experiment, search literature, write a section of a report/paper, ….
Student gets more mature: anticipate what advisor will ask
Have you done the survey, ….?
Have you considered a certain issue, another approach, …. ?
Student evolves into an independent researcher
Doing Research(4) Doing Research(4)
Beginning of research
Origin of a research:
Ideas often come to mind when The brain is idling
Separate topics coincidently arise at the same time
First step is subjective: choose to explore ideas that seem likely to succeed or are intriguing
Followed by objective, scientific investigation
Doing Research(5) Doing Research(5)
Choosing a topic
Fashionable area should be at most a minor consideration
(Fashion may pass before graduation)
Is the project at the right kind of technical level?
Programming skill, mathematical ability…
Doing Research(5) Doing Research(5)
Choosing a topic
Project scope
“Major breakthrough” is, by definition, rare
Ambitious project creates a high potential for failure Most research is incremental
Scope of incremental trivial step does not worth investigation
Critical from advisor’s expertise: scooping the project Open enough to allow innovation and freedom
Strict enough to have a good likelihood to succeed Close to advisor’s expertise to verify novelty,
sufficient exploration of literature, and validity of research
Doing Research(6) Doing Research(6)
Evidence
Paper: assembly of evidence and supporting
explanation with an attempt to persuade others to share the conclusions
Write-up: pose a hypothesis, then present evidence to support it
Four kinds of evidence:
Analysis or proof: formal argument that the hypothesis is correct
Modeling: mathematical description of the hypothesis Simulation: controlled environment and artificial data Experiment: tested on real data
Doing Research(7) Doing Research(7)
A Research Checklist
Are the ideas clear and consistent?
Is the problem worthy of investigation?
Does the project have appropriate scope?
What are the specific research questions?
Is there a hypothesis?
Has the work been critically questioned?
Have you satisfied yourself that is sound science?
Doing Research(8) Doing Research(8)
A Research Checklist (continue)
How are the outcomes to be evaluated? Why are the chosen methods of the evaluation
appropriate or reasonable?
Are the roles of the participants clear? What are your responsibilities? What activities will the others undertake?
What are the likely weaknesses of your solution?
Is there a written research plan?
What forms of evidence are to be used?
Doing Research(9) Doing Research(9)
A Research Checklist (continue)
Have milestone, timeliness, and deadlines been identified?
Do the deadlines leave enough time for your advisor to provide feedback on your drafts or for your colleagues to contribute to the
material?
Has the literature been explored in
appropriate depth? Once the work is largely done—and your perspective has changed–
does it need to be explored again?
Refereeing (1) Refereeing (1)
Refereeing
Criticizing and analyzing papers written by others
Central part of scientific process, as important as research itself
Part of learning from apprentice to mature researcher
Challenge
Outside referee’s domain of expertise
Wrongly criticizing a good research work
Refereeing (2) Refereeing (2)
Reward
Look at own work from a fresh perspective Stretch and improve capacity for productive and interesting research
Observe different kinds of error or failure in research
Refereeing (3) Refereeing (3)
(a) Responsibility
Author: honest, ethical, careful, and thorough on the preparation of papers
Ensure the content of the paper is correct Clearly identify strengths, weaknesses, and
implications of the proposed work
Referee: be faire, be objective, be on time, … Editor: choose referees appropriately, …
Refereeing (4) Refereeing (4)
(b) Contribution
Originality: Significant, new and interesting
How much change from the existing contributions
Validity: the degree to which the ideas are shown to be sound
Demonstrated by theory or experiment
Refereeing (5) Refereeing (5)
(c) Evaluating Papers
Evaluation:
Has contribution? Timely? Has relevant?
Technical details and result correct?
Conclusions appropriate? Any ambiguities or inconsistencies? Paper understood? Any
unnecessary material?
Bibliography:
Too few, too much, self-references, too old?
Elementary nitpicking:
Errors need to be corrected before publication?
