class 4: 09/24/12 building research skills (cont.)

class 4: 09/24/12 building research skills(cont.)

research is • We know that science evolves and knowledge grows. The best attitude is a healthy skepticism, along with a determination to stay abreast of things. (John Swartzberg, 2009, p. 3) • They don't know the simple rule If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. (Alecia Nugent, “Too Good to BeTrue,” 2007)

precision and accuracy cont. • transcription format (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) • regular type (upper & lower): speech • (( )): info on speaker’s tone, non-verbal speech • [ ]: other information • //: speaker interrupted or stops speaking • underscore: emphasis • colon within word: preceding syllable prolonged

1. Ken: You wanna hear muh-eh sister told me 2. a story last night 3. Roger: I don’t wanna hear it. But if you must, (1.0) 4. Al: What’s purple an’ an island? Grape-Britain. 5. That’s what his sis//ter – 6. Ken: No. To stun me she says uh there was these 3 girls an’ they just got married 7. Roger: Ehhh//hehhhhhhhh 9. Ken: An’ uh// 10. Roger: Hey ((high pitch)) wa:it a se:cond 11: Roger: Heh!

_______________________________________ :00 :05 Claradine? science science roooooo I know what that ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (D’Amato, 1986, p.23)

all researchers must attend to type I and type II error • type I: accepting as true what is really false • type II: rejecting as false what is really true (this is the straightforward plain English version—see Vogt for the more complicated statistical version)

model: a graphic explanation of a small part of the world • evaluating models • does this model adequately explain new observations • does this model explain observations better than other models

constructing a model • hypothesize the factors involved • hypothesize how they might be related • draw the models • evaluate which one explains the facts best • guesstimate the strengths of paths rules • model must be falsifiable • maximize concreteness • explain as much as possible

Krathwohl: ch 7causal inference & internal integrity • associations and causation • cause: • selecting the salient part of a causal chain for one’s inquiry • is always inferred • Popper’s escaping disconfirmation (falsification): no proof in empirical research • Cronbach’s reducing uncertainty • clocklike vs cloudlike worlds

internal & external validity & cause • generalizability: based on this study what can we say about other cases • is the relationship established in this study • does that relationship exist elsewhere • internal validity (internal integrity) • evidence for relationship between variables in a study • external validity (external generality) • whether the relationship generalizes beyond study

operationalization: what we describe in search of the unobservable • to establish internal validity • conceptual evidence • explanation credibility • translation credibility • empirical evidence • findings, results • rival explanations eliminated • credible, logically inferred claims

validity: capable of being justified • internal • does study do what it says it does • model theoretically sound • well thought out operationalizations • accurate descriptions (measurement or narrative) • well thought out design • robust findings • justifiable claims • defensible conclusion

external • do the claims generalize • looking only at study, a judgment call • external validity can really only be established empirically—in fact, do the claims generalize • can study be replicated in different contexts • if we do what study claims we should, do we get the expected result • real question not, do claims generalize, but to what

inferring causation • agreement • what is common • difference • what is different • concomitant variation • do variables vary together • residuals • after eliminating explanations, what is left

ch 8: sampling, etc • sample and population • larger sample needed • the greater the certainty required to infer from sample to population • the more accurate we want to be about target population • the more the units in the sample vary • the smaller the effect relative to normal variation

sampling frame—the list • sampling unit—what is selected (unit of analysis) probability sampling—random • stratified • systematic • cluster • Table 8.2 useful

nonprobability sampling • judgmental • purposive • quota • snowball (chain-referral) • sequential • the danger of convenience sampling

external validity (external generality) • (if study has no internal validity, little point in worrying about generalizability) • conceptual evidence • explanation generality • translation generality • empirical evidence • “demonstrated generality” • restrictive explanations eliminated • replicable results

Vogt & Johnson • aggregate data • applied research • case study • control for • dummy variable (first paragraph) • ecological fallacy • emic, etic • endogenous, exogenous • experiment (first & third paragraph) • gambler’s fallacy

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

Sieber: Ch 4 • voluntary informed consent • importance of gatekeepers • special populations • legal elements (see p. 33) • effective consent statements (see p. 35) • consent: signed, oral, or behavioral • consent as ongoing • debriefing • community-based research

test 10/08/12 covers • all material in Segment I hints • print lectures, take notes in class, read carefully with notes—test will be a learning experience. • reviewing with peers, going over notes etc, will be big help format • available on the website Thursday, 10/04 at 5pm (no class Monday, 10/08) • groups 2-4. turn in 3x5 index card listing group 10/01. • once you open the file, 4 hours to take the test (1 15-minute break). do not open the test until entire group assembles • no discussion with anyone in 550 once you begin the test until Monday at 10 pm. • do on a computer • when finished, delete questions you chose not to answer, and print out. • put all names on test, and sign statement at the end. • hard copy in sealed 9x12 envelope (do not fold) 260 Armory by 10pm Monday 10/08—one test per group. permitted • hand produced (by you) notes • the website not permitted • books • xeroxed copies of anything except 2 lists from Krathwohlch 6

hints for test • follow directions • if 1st person singular, indicate who is speaking • (a),(b),(c) in question? then (a),(b),(c), in answer • if question about X, answer should include word X • data plural, i.e., data are • one (total) extra point question: extra in red • be explicit in answers to questions about “your research.” • unless question asks for answer from everyone, one answer • “observation-N” not “subject-N”

writing lit review structure • title page • abstract • intro: repeat title (title not a heading); no heading • 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 • personal reflection: Short discussion of what you have learned in the process of doing the review—about doing research, about yourself as a researcher.

Becker: preface, ch 1 • writing in grad school, and for the rest of your academic life, a very different process from writing up to this point • days of the one-draft paper are over • writing becomes a public process • writing part of the research process, not simply what one does at the end

(Becker cont.) • scholars know that their professional futures rests on how peers and superiors judge what they write. They can’t distance themselves from their writing. • viewed sociologically, these writing symptoms were magical rituals—rituals to influence the result of a process over which we have no control. • a mixed up draft is no cause for shame. • if you begin writing early in your research, you begin to clean up your thinking earlier. • only version that counts is the last one.

APA citations in text • “. . . quoted text” (Chung, 2001, p. 20). • Chung (2001) noted, “Quoted text . . .” (p. 20). Latin abbreviations • cf. (compare), i.e. (that is), e.g. (for example), viz. (namely), etc. (and so forth), vs. (versus) usedonly within parentheses. Otherwise spell out (APA, p. 108). exceptions: et al. and v. (for court cases)

citing quotation in secondary source • “Much of psychology . . . has envisioned the child as embedded in the atemporal and acontextual realm of abstract developmental theory” (Lerner, 1998, p. 13, as cited in Lee & Walsh, 2001, p. 71). • Lerner (1998) wrote, “Much of psychology . . . has envisioned the child as embedded in the atemporal and acontextual realm of abstract developmental theory” (p. 13, as cited in Lee & Walsh, 2001, p. 71). • References to both Lerner (1998) and Lee & Walsh (2001) needed in References.

journal article (journal paginated across year) electronic version • Lee, J-H., & Walsh, D. J. (2004). Quality in early childhood programs: Reflections from program evaluation practices. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 351- 373. doi: 10.1177/109821400402500306

in American English • periods and commas always go inside quotation marks • He said, “Please go down the hall.” • colons and semicolons always go outside quotation marks • He wrote, “Be back soon”; then he left. • question marks and explanation points—place depending on the meaning • She asked, “Where are you going?” • What did she mean by “antiquated”?

use active voice • I interviewed the kids. (yes) • The kids were interviewed. (no) use first person to talk about yourself • I interviewed the kids. (yes) • The researcher interviewed the kids. (no) avoid beginning sentences with “there is” or “it is” etc. • There were three kids who answered… (no) • Three kids answered the questions. (yes)

use who for people, that for things • I interviewed the kids, who all agreed . . . (yes) • I interviewed the teacher that was in . . . (no) pronouns must refer to nouns • I entered the room and found the kids running across the table tops and throwing erasersat each other. That made me nervous. (no—not clear what made you nervous)

grad life: goods good cheap places to eat • Thai Eatery at the Y, Wright street (lunch only) • Courier Café, Race St, downtown U • L’il Porgy’s Barbecue, Broadway & University, U • Noodles, Green St., Campus Town Good video sources • That’s Rentertainment (6th & John, C) (buy a “block”) • Urbana Free Library (downtown U), free

good coffee houses • Caffe Paradiso, Lincoln & Nevada, U (stays open 24 hours a day during exam week) • Café Kopi, Walnut St, downtown C good quiet place on campus to study • Granger Engineering library good place for tools, kids’ clothes, and stuff in general • Farm & Fleet, North Cunningham, U

this week: free and cheap • under construction

class 4: 09/24/12 building research skills (cont.)