Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Purpose research |
Add knowledge. You must know the past to make a contribution to the future |
|
|
How can literature help your research? |
- stimulates own research - broadens the vision of the field - suggest most appropriate research methods - shows where own research fits in broader body of knowledge
Helps in following sections: - methods - ethics - language & style - inspiration breakthrough paper (makes difficult concept clear and shows how to use specific method and helps your direction) |
|
|
We want two things from literature: |
Relevant: immediately useful Quality: credible, can be relied on, meets scholarly standards |
|
|
How to obtain those? |
Relevant info: develop good vocabulary and appreciate the difference in results that different search items may bring. Quality info: meets scholarly standards. Includes clear, defensible research design, with analyses and method that fits logically to that design. Results and conclusions make an original contribution to knowledge |
|
|
Academic results go through peer review (referees article): |
Reviewed by other researchers from the author’s field. Checking on meeting professional/scholarly and ethical standards, and contributing to knowledgde Before publication |
|
|
Pro’s and con’s Database: |
Pro’s: scholarly research, defined number of entries, most is peer reviewed, higher level of credibility Con’s: important to not make mistakes in search term don’t misspell! |
|
|
Pro’s and con’s search engine: |
Pro’s: shows you what is out there. Easy to use, easy access, simple interface Con’s: unmanagable number of searches, questionnable output |
|
|
search field database allows search for: |
Author Publication date Title Subject |
|
|
2 cautions |
- don’t restrict yourself to peer reviewed journals only - Requires broad vision and narrow focus: Communication is very broad. May find information in other databases |
|
|
Impact factor |
Number of times an article in a journal is cited by other scholarly articles |
|
|
Scholarly article vs. Populair article vs. Trade publications: |
Scholarly article: Peer reviewed “Journal of...” in title Abstract, methods, literature review, reference list Frequency of publication: quarterly. Maybe monthly. Popular article: Published without refereeing process. In daily or weekly media
Trade publications: In between the above two. Written by practitioners rather than academics. No peer review. No method. No literature review. No rederences. |
|
|
Citations |
At the end of the article to let you find out what their sources wrote |
|
|
Primary vs secundary sources |
Primary source: original article Secundary source: another authors’ summary of the primary source. This misses details and can magnify biases and misinterpretations |
|
|
Bibliografic research: shape of a champagne glass |
1. Wide-ranging findings from your initial search 2. Leads you to very specific citations 3. Which generate still more highly relevant findings |
|
|
Library of congressen (LOC) |
Gives alternative search items |
|
|
Example resources |
Encyclopedia Indexes Handbooks Abstracts Dictionaries |
|
|
Identify good scholarship articles |
Author’s credentials Author’s affiliation Date of publication Publisher
Title Intended audience Objectivity/subjectivity Coverage
Writing style Reviews Citations |
|
|
Extra options to check for web |
URL extensions Clear criteria for accepting info Who created the website? Can you verify what is said/shown on the website? Could the page be satire or comedy? Comparable sites. What are they like? Is contact Information provided? When was the site last updated? |
|
|
Boolean operators |
AND: reduces search results OR: expand the search results NOT: narrows the search results |
|
|
Bibliographic info for APA: |
Author - full name Title Date of publication Volume nr + issue nr Edition (if book) Page Numbers (that locate the article or specific quote) URL (if website) DOI (digital object identifier)
Besides reporting this in APA, you want to report the following topics: - method - results - conclusion - participants/content - Unique aspects of the study |
|
|
APA, CHICAGO, MLA |
APA: american psychological Association MLA: modern language association Both insist on consistency of language and style |
|
|
Reviewing the literature vs. Literature review |
Reviewing literature: means assessing the results of your literature search item by item and decide which items will be in your literature review and what you will write about each item. Literature review: turning the above bibliographic notes into a summary and review of relevant literature that will convince the readers that your own research is built upon a sound theoretical foundation and will advance our comprehension of human Communication. Also supports your own research and demonstrates knowledge gaps |
|
|
Ways to structure a literature review |
History: oldest to most recent Pro-con: analyze the research articles on where they agree and disagree |
|
|
Causal relationship |
If 2 variables (IV and DV) have a relation. “Does A cause B?” |
|
|
Control |
Removing all other possible variables from design (so you know the cause) |
|
|
Control groups |
Group that is not exposed to any experimental variable |
|
|
Two-group pre-test post-test design |
Same as the one-group design, but with a control group added Q1 X Q2 Test group Q1 Q2 Control group
If change is found in control group, then something else is causing it. |
|
|
Random assignment |
To assume that the probability of something is no greater or less in one group compared to the other group, which could lead to differences in observation between the two groups. Any difference should due to the manipulated variable and not something unique to one group |
|
|
Two-group random assignment + pre-test-post-test design |
Same as the normal design, but with random assigned groups. Random numbers are used to assign participants to a group. R Q1 X Q2 R Q1 X Q2 |
|
|
Solomon Four-Group design |
Sophisticated design. Compares pretest with posttest and control group with experimental group and the group to which nothing happens. R O1 X O2 R O1 O2 R X O2 R O2 |
|
|
Temporal ordening |
The causal variable must precede in time any affect Covariation can be expressed in correlation coefficient |
|
|
Time series analysis |
Series of observation made over time. 1. Check for stability of pre-experimental condition 2. Check whether experimental result is stable over time |
|
|
Multivariable analysis |
Examines the relationship among 3 or more variables |
|
|
Factorial design |
Manipulate two or more variables |
|
|
3 things to assure that A does cause B |
A must precede B in time (measure at different times) A and B must vary together (covariance) B must be caused by A and only A |
|
|
2x2 design |
2 categories of each (eg. male/female - group/individual) |
|
|
Between subject and inbetween |
Between subject design = when every participant is used for one set of conditions Within subject design = when every participant is used for multiple conditions Problem: one condition may effect the other. Also, within is not always possible |
|
|
2 types of validity |
Internal: questions in experimental design External: whether it captured reality, valid across time and space |
|
|
Internal validity |
Spurious relationships: relationships are found, but not the one you were looking for. Selection bias: when the experimental groups are not comparable Attrition: when people drop out of the study (post-test not equal to pre-test) Repeated testing: participants become familiar with the test Maturation: people change over time Diffusion: participants talk to each other Experimenter bias: own threat to validity, by for example biasing the sample on favor, or when priming participants by behaving in a particular way |
|
|
External validity |
Ecological isomorphism: situation does not reflect reality Hawthorne effect: productivity is increased because you think you are being judged/watched or you believe people of higher up are showing interest in you. The increase is due to motivation instead of the manipulation of the variable. |
|
|
Manipulation check |
Check on whether the research participant interpreted the experimental conditions as the researcher intended. Example to do this with = Likert scale questions |
|
|
Advantages of experimental research |
Potential to identify variables that have a significant causal relationship Assess direction of relation Identify variables that have no significant effect on other variables |
|
|
Disadvantages |
Ecological isomorphism: lack of capturing natural environment More sophisticated designs may need a large number of people (for longer periods of time) |
|
|
Ex-post facto / Natural experiment |
No design, just an opportunity to observe a fact. Unique or unusual event -> observation |
|
|
Field experiment |
Run simple experiments to test the observation. Manipulating a variable. Study condition 1 (group study) -> observation (test results) Study condition 2 (group study) -> observation (test results) |
|
|
Reasons why ex-post facto and field experiment do not let you make recommendations with confidence |
No baseline measurement Don’t know how groups differ outside the setting Don’t know direction of causality |
|
|
2-tailed and 1-tailed |
2-tailed hypothesis: relationship, no direction 1-tailed hypothesis: relationship, specific direction |
|
|
Different levels of experimental design (X, R, O1, O2) |
X = manipulation of variable R = random assignment of individuals to group O1, O2 = observation 1, observation 2 |
|
|
One-group pre-test post-test design |
Basic experimental design Baseline observation, followed by exposure to an experimental condition (X) and after the experiment you observe again. O1 X O2 Negative side: many other variables (such as location) may play a part too. To be certain, need to rule out two possibilities: -observed change might have occurred anyway -same influence other than the study conditions caused the change |
