RESEARCH METHODS

LECTURE 2 2013 MGJL

VALIDITY
A key concept relevant to a discussion of research methodology is that of validity.

When an individual asks, "Is this study valid?", they are questioning the validity of at least one aspect of the study.

There are four types of validity that can be discussed in relation to research and statistics. Thus, when discussing the validity of a study, one must be specific as to which type of validity is under discussion.
A study may be valid in relation to one type of validity but invalid in relation to another type of validity.

1. Statistical Conclusion Validity:

Unfortunately, without a background in basic statistics, this type of validity is difficult to understand.

According to Cook and Campbell (1979), "statistical conclusion validity refers to inferences about whether it is reasonable to presume co variation given a specified alpha level and the obtained variances (p. 41)."
Essentially, the question that is being asked is - "Are the variables under study related?" or "Is variable A correlated (does it covary) with Variable B?".

1. Statistical Conclusion Validity:

If a study has good statistical conclusion validity, we should be relatively certain that the answer to these questions is "yes". Examples of issues or problems that would threaten statistical conclusion validity would be random heterogeneity of the research subjects (the subjects represent a diverse group - this increases statistical error) and small sample size (more difficult to find meaningful relationships with a small number of subjects).

2. Internal Validity:
Once it has been determined that the two variables (A & B) are related, the next issue to be determined is one of causality. Does A cause B? If a study is lacking internal validity, one can not make cause and effect statements based on the research; the study would be descriptive but not causal. There are many potential threats to internal validity. For example, if a study has a pretest, an experimental treatment, and a follow-up posttest, history is a threat to internal validity. If a difference is found between the pretest and posttest, it might be due to the experimental treatment but it might also be due to any other event that subjects experienced between the two times of testing (for example, a historical event, a change in weather, etc.)

3. Construct Validity:
One is examining the issue of construct validity when one is asking the questions "Am I really measuring the construct that I want to study?" or "Is my study confounded (Am I confusing constructs)?". For example, if I want to know a particular drug (Variable A) will be effective for treating depression (Variable B) , I will need at least one measure of depression. If that measure does not truly reflect depression levels but rather anxiety levels (Confounding Variable X), than my study will be lacking construct validity.

Thus, good construct validity means the we will be relatively sure that Construct A is related to Construct B and that this is possibly a causal relationship. Examples of other threats to construct validity include subjects apprehension about being evaluated, hypothesis guessing on the part of subjects, and bias introduced in a study by expectancies on the part of the experimenter

4. External Validity:
External validity addresses the issue of being able to generalize the results of your study to other times, places, and persons. For example, if you conduct a study looking at heart disease in men, can these results be generalized to women? Therefore, one needs to ask the following questions to determine if a threat to the external validity exists: "Would I find these same results with a difference sample?", "Would I get these same results if I conducted my study in a different setting?", and "Would I get these same results if I had conducted this study in the past or if I redo this study in the future?" If I can not answer "yes" to each of these questions, then the external validity of my study is threatened.

Types of Sampling Procedures

As stated above, a sample consists of a subset of the population. Any member of the defined population can be included in a sample. A theoretical list (an actual list may not exist) of individuals or elements who make up a population is called a sampling frame. There are five major sampling procedures. 1. The first sampling procedure is convenience. Volunteers, members of a class, individuals in the hospital with the specific diagnosis being studied are examples of often used convenience samples. This is by far the most often used sample procedure. It is also by far the most biased sampling procedure as it is not random (not everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected to participate in the study). Thus, individuals who volunteer to participate in an exercise study may be different that individuals who do not volunteer.

Types of Sampling Procedures

2. Another form of sampling is the simple random sample. In this method, all subject or elements have an equal probability of being selected. There are two major ways of conducting a random sample. The first is to consult a random number table, and the second is to have the computer select a random sample.

3. A systematic sample is conducted by randomly selecting a first case on a list of the population and then proceeding every Nth case until your sample is selected. This is particularly useful if your list of the population is long. For example, if your list was the phone book, it would be easiest to start at perhaps the 17th person, and then select every 50th person from that point on.

Types of Sampling Procedures

4. Stratified sampling makes up the fourth sampling strategy. In a stratified sample, we sample either proportionately or equally to represent various strata or subpopulations. For example if our strata were states we would make sure and sample from each of the fifty states. If our strata were religious affiliation, stratified sampling would ensure sampling from every religious block or grouping. If our strata were gender, we would sample both men and women. 5. Cluster sampling makes up the final sampling procedure. In cluster sampling we take a random sample of strata and then survey every member of the group. For example, if our strata were individuals schools in the St. Louis Public School System, we would randomly select perhaps 20 schools and then test all of the students within those schools.

Definition of Architectural Research*

Architectural research is the search for new knowledge and new ideas about the built environment. Research can be conducted in a variety of sub disciplines, including building technology, environment-behavior studies, history of architecture and computing technology. In each area of architectural research, certain presuppositions and fundamental beliefs guide and determine the appropriate focus and method of inquiry, as well as the significance and merit of each research project.

 While the parameters of these research approaches vary, there are some common characteristics among them:
* Source: the Initiative for Architectural Research AIA, ACSA and ARCC

1. Architectural research efforts are those that have clearly identifiable goals at the outset of the research, where the project is directed to respond to a question 2. In pursuing that question, one follows a credible, systematic method or mode of inquiry, relevant and acceptable to the research paradigm under which one is operating 3. This process results in significant results (and in a thorough, documented manner which reflects a solution or enhances understanding/knowledge within the research domain) It should be noted that design can be a form of research inquiry if it incorporated the three characteristics listed above.

The following components need to appear in your thesis: 1. Title page 2. Abstract/summary 3. Table of contents 4. Acknowledgements 5. Main text 6. Bibliography or references 7. Appendices

Title page
You should include: title of your thesis in full your names and degrees statement of presentation in the form: "This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy/Master of [insert name of degree] of The University of Western Australia" school discipline (where applicable) year of submission. If you are enrolled in a degree which has examinable components other than a thesis, you should state: "This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the [insert name of degree]". THE STUDY OF A DISASTER RESILIENT HOME JUAN T. DELA CRUZ 2010654321
This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture of The Mapua Institute of Technology Muralla, Intramuros, Manila

2014

Confirm actual format with your thesis adviser

THE STUDY OF A DISASTER RESILIENT HOME JUAN T. DELA CRUZ 2010654321
This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture of The Mapua Institute of Technology Muralla, Intramuros, Manila

2014

Abstract A good abstract explains in one line why the paper is important. It then goes on to give a summary of your major results, preferably couched in numbers with error limits. The final sentences explain the major implications of your work. A good abstract is concise, readable, and quantitative. Length should be ~ 1-2 paragraphs, approx. 400 words.
Absrtracts generally do not have citations. Information in title should not be repeated. Be explicit. Use numbers where appropriate. Answers to these questions should be found in the abstract: What did you do? Why did you do it? What question were you trying to answer? How did you do it? State methods. What did you learn? State major results. Why does it matter? Point out at least one significant implication.

Table of Contents list all headings and subheadings with page numbers indent subheadings it will look something like this: Table of Contents Page No. Title Page ............................................................. Acknowledgement .............................................. Table of Contents ................................................. List of Figures ....................................................... List of Tables ......................................................... Abstract ................................................................ I. Introduction .................................................... A. Background of Study B. Statement of the Problem C. Objective D. Review of Related Literature

i ii iii iv v vi 1

List of Figures List page numbers of all figures. The list should include a short title for each figure but not the whole caption. List of Figures Page No. Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................ 3 Figure 2: Location Plan .......................... 8

List of Tables List page numbers of all tables. The list should include a short title for each table but not the whole caption. List of Table Table 1: Result of Survey .................... 4 Table 2: List of Areas of Study ............ 10

INTRODUCTION
You can't write a good introduction until you know what the body of the paper says. Consider writing the introductory section(s) after you have completed the rest of the paper, rather than before. Be sure to include a hook at the beginning of the introduction. This is a statement of something sufficiently interesting to motivate your reader to read the rest of the paper, it is an important/interesting scientific problem that your paper either solves or addresses. You should draw the reader in and make them want to read the rest of the paper.

The next paragraphs in the introduction should cite previous research in this area. It should cite those who had the idea or ideas first, and should also cite those who have done the most recent and relevant work. You should then go on to explain why more work was necessary (your work, of course.)

1.What else belongs in the introductory section(s) of your paper? A statement of the goal of the paper: why the study was undertaken, or why the paper was written. Do not repeat the abstract. 2.Sufficient background information to allow the reader to understand the context and significance of the question you are trying to address. 3.Proper acknowledgement of the previous work on which you are building. Sufficient references such that a reader could, by going to the library, achieve a sophisticated understanding of the context and significance of the question.
4.The introduction should be focused on the thesis question(s). All cited work should be directly relevent to the goals of the thesis. This is not a place to summarize everything you have ever read on a subject. 5.Explain the scope of your work, what will and will not be included. 6.A verbal "road map" or verbal "table of contents" guiding the reader to what lies ahead. 7.Is it obvious where introductory material ("old stuff") ends and your contribution ("new stuff") begins? Remember that this is not a review paper. We are looking for original work and interpretation/analysis by you. Break up the introduction section into logical segments by using subheads.

METHODOLOGY
Methods 1.What belongs in the "methods" section of a scientific paper?Information to allow the reader to assess the believability of your results. 2.Information needed by another researcher to replicate your experiment. 3.Description of your materials, procedure, theory. 4.Calculations, technique, procedure, equipment, and calibration plots. 5.Limitations, assumptions, and range of validity. 6.Desciption of your analystical methods, including reference to any specialized statistical software.

METHODOLOGY
The methods section should answering the following questions and caveats: 1. Could one accurately replicate the study (for example, all of the optional and adjustable parameters on any sensors or instruments that were used to acquire the data)? 2. Could another researcher accurately find and reoccupy the sampling stations or track lines? 3. Is there enough information provided about any instruments used so that a functionally equivalent instrument could be used to repeat the experiment? 4. If the data are in the public domain, could another researcher lay his or her hands on the identical data set? 5. Could one replicate any laboratory analyses that were used? 6. Could one replicate any statistical analyses? 7. Could another researcher approximately replicate the key algorithms of any computer software? 8. Citations in this section should be limited to data sources and references of where to find more complete descriptions of procedures. Do not include descriptions of results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results The results are actual statements of observations, including statistics, tables and graphs. Indicate information on range of variation. Mention negative results as well as positive. Do not interpret results - save that for the discussion.
Lay out the case as for a jury. Present sufficient details so that others can draw their own inferences and construct their own explanations. Use S.I. units (m, s, kg, W, etc.) throughout the thesis. Break up your results into logical segments by using subheadings Key results should be stated in clear sentences at the beginning of paragraphs. It is far better to say "X had significant positive relationship with Y (linear regression p<0.01, r^2=0.79)" then to start with a less informative like "There is a significant relationship between X and Y". Describe the nature of the findings; do not just tell the reader whether or not they are significant.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Note: Results vs. Discussion Sections Quarantine your observations from your interpretations. The writer must make it crystal clear to the reader which statements are observation and which are interpretation. In most circumstances, this is best accomplished by physically separating statements about new observations from statements about the meaning or significance of those observations. Alternatively, this goal can be accomplished by careful use of phrases such as "I infer ..." vast bodies of geological literature became obsolete with the advent of plate tectonics; the papers that survived are those in which observations were presented in stand-alone fashion, unmuddied by whatever ideas the author might have had about the processes that caused the observed phenomena.

Discussion Start with a few sentences that summarize the most important results. The discussion section should be a brief essay in itself, answering the following questions and caveats: What are the major patterns in the observations? (Refer to spatial and temporal variations.) What are the relationships, trends and generalizations among the results? What are the exceptions to these patterns or generalizations? What are the likely causes (mechanisms) underlying these patterns resulting predictions? Is there agreement or disagreement with previous work? Interpret results in terms of background laid out in the introduction - what is the relationship of the present results to the original question? What is the implication of the present results for other unanswered questions in earth sciences, ecology, environmental policy, etc....? Multiple hypotheses: There are usually several possible explanations for results. Be careful to consider all of these rather than simply pushing your favorite one. If you can eliminate all but one, that is great, but often that is not possible with the data in hand. In that case you should give even treatment to the remaining possibilities, and try to indicate ways in which future work may lead to their discrimination.

Avoid bandwagons: A special case of the above. Avoid jumping a currently fashionable point of view unless your results really do strongly support them. What are the things we now know or understand that we didn't know or understand before the present work? Include the evidence or line of reasoning supporting each interpretation. What is the significance of the present results: why should we care? This section should be rich in references to similar work and background needed to interpret results. However, interpretation/discussion section(s) are often too long and verbose. Is there material that does not contribute to one of the elements listed above? If so, this may be material that you will want to consider deleting or moving. Break up the section into logical segments by using subheads.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusions What is the strongest and most important statement that you can make from your observations? If you met the reader at a meeting six months from now, what do you want them to remember about your paper? Refer back to problem posed, and describe the conclusions that you reached from carrying out this investigation, summarize new observations, new interpretations, and new insights that have resulted from the present work. Include the broader implications of your results. Do not repeat word for word the abstract, introduction or discussion.

Recommendations Include when appropriate (most of the time) Remedial action to solve the problem. Further research to fill in gaps in our understanding. Directions for future investigations on this or related topics.

Title Page Acknowledgement Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Abstract I. Introduction A. Background of Study B. Statement of the Problem C. Objective D. Review of Related Literature II. Methodology A. Hypotheses B. Scope and Limitations C. Conceptual Framework D. Results & Discussion III. Conclusion & Recommendation Appendices References

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/sen_ sem/thesis_org.html
http://www.postgraduate.uwa.edu.au/students /thesis/style