Michigan ’ s Personal Property Tax Tax Relief and Ballot Question 2014 Updated Feb. 25, 2014
updated Presentation1RESEARCH QUESTION
-
Upload
memo-nesta -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
description
Transcript of updated Presentation1RESEARCH QUESTION
In this session, we will…
• Discuss guidelines for creating a ‘good’
research question
• Provide time to revisit and revise your
research questions and plans
• Consider appropriate methods for
investigating your research question(s)
What is Research?
Research is the systematic process of collecting
and analysing information (data) in order to
increase our understanding of the
phenomenon with which we are concerned or
interested.
Research involves three main stages:
planning
data collection
analysis.
The Research Process
• Originates with a question or problem.
• Requires a clear articulation of a goal.
• Follows a specific plan of procedure.
• Usually divides the principal problems into more manageable sub-problems (hypotheses), which guide the research.
• Accepts certain critical assumptions.
• Requires collection and interpretation of data to answer original research question.
Ways to select research topics:
Personal experience.
Whether you want to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention or understand how or why it works
Curiosity about something in the media.
State of knowledge in the field
Solving a problem.
Hot topics under discussion
Personal values
Everyday life.
Gaps in the research and theoretical literature.
Why are research questions
important?
“Well-crafted questions guide the systematic
planning of research.
Formulating your questions precisely
enables you to design a study with a good
chance of answering them.”
P - Who is the patient or what problem is being addressed?
I - What is the intervention or exposure?
C – What is the comparison group?
O - What is the outcome or endpoint?
Architecture of a focused question:
a 4-part review question
+ study design
Richardson et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club 1995;A-12
Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:380-7.
1. Patient: 1. Disease or condition
2. Stage, Severity
3. Demographic characteristics (age, gender, etc.)
2. Intervention: 1. Type of intervention or exposure
2. Dose, duration, timing, route, etc.
3. Comparison: 1. Absence of risk or treatment
2. Placebo or alternative therapy
4. Outcome: 1. Risk or protective
2. Dichotomous or continuous
3. Type: mortality, morbidity, quality of life, etc.
Types of questions (domains)
• Etiology [cohort, case-control]
• Therapy [RCT]
• Prognosis [cohort]
• Harm [cohort, case-control]
• Diagnosis [cross-sectional, case-control]
• Economic [cost-effectiveness analysis, etc.]
These domains are usually addressed by different study
designs
Formulation of a therapy question
Is Zinc effective in treating cold?
In children with common cold, is oral Zinc effective in
reducing the duration of symptoms, as compared to placebo?
Intervention Outcome
Intervention Patient/problem
Outcome Comparison + RCTs
Formulation of an etiology
question
Is snoring a risk factor for diabetes?
Are people who snore regularly at a greater risk of developing
type II diabetes mellitus as compared to those who do not snore?
Exposure Outcome
Exposure Patient
Outcome Comparison + cohort & case-control studies
Formulation of a diagnosis
question
Is Positron Emission Tomography (PET) a good test for coronary disease?
Is PET a more sensitive and specific test in diagnosing coronary
artery disease as compared to coronary angiography?
Test (intervention) Outcome
Patient Outcome
Comparison + diagnostic studies [cross-sectional]
Test (intervention)
Remember,
you will spend a lot of time researching and
writing about the proposed project :
{ if it does not interest you in the beginning,
it will certainly become very difficult to write
about in the end.}
To write a strong research question
you will need time.
So; 1.Step away from your computer; 2.Consider what attracted you to your topic. 3.Listen to yourself and start formulating your question by following your own interests.
4. Next, extensively research your topic. 5. What have people said about it? 6. How have they framed their research? 7. What gaps, contradictions, or concerns arise for you as
you read, talk to people, and visit places? After you have done this you can go back to your
computer or note pad and start crafting the question itself.
The research question should be Evocative 1
Evocative questions are ones that catch the interest of the reviewer and draw her/him into the proposal. Also, they easily adhere in the reviewers’ memory after reading the proposal. Questions tend to be evocative because they pose innovative approaches to the exploration of problems, and because of this the answers found are far from obvious. There is no single way to form a conceptually innovative question. However, some of the following qualities are common to successful proposals.
The research question should be Evocative 1
Make it timely Evocative questions are often extracted from very contemporary and recent social, medical or theoretical concerns. For example, questions regarding the energy crisis, international tribunals, bird flu, or the rise of anti-globalization protests are likely to attract the interests of others because they are questions whose relevance will be clearly perceptible by the senses or intellect of reviewer.
The research question should be Evocative 1
Frame it as a paradox (A self contradiction) Frame your question around a provocative paradox. For example, why the incidence of bird flu increases despite the enormous efforts to combat its spread? Or why there is an increased incidence of schistozomal infection despite the huge health education program?
The research question should be Evocative 1
Take a distinctive approach A question that approaches an old problem in a fresh new way, or proposes a surprising view of analysis on a difficult dilemma, is likely to prove evocative for reviewers. This could involve; 1. A new methodology, 2. A new conceptual approach, or 3. The linking of two previously disparate fields of
knowledge.
Questions that clearly demonstrate their relevance to; 1.Society, 2.A social group, or 3.Scholarly literature and debates Are likely to be given more weight by reviewers. As a general rule, research is more likely to be funded if it is seen as part of a larger intellectual project or line of inquiry, not just a way for the researcher to get a degree.
The research question should be Relevant 2
Fill in the missing piece If your proposal can expose a given field or problem and then point to a specific portion that is missing in that field or so , a gap which will be filled by the answer to your research question, your research is likely to obtain a great deal of support and fund. Reviewers will note its importance and recognize its relevance to a larger community of researchers.
The research question should be Relevant 2
The research question should be Clear 3
Clear questions tend to be 1.Short, 2.Conceptually straightforward, and 3.Jargon-free (Blablabla). This does not mean they have to be overly simplistic; but save your efforts for the analysis.
The research question should be Clear 3
Ground the questions Keep your questions close to the topic or place you are researching. Questions that are too abstract or obtuse make it difficult for the reader to determine your question’s relevance and intent. You must still link your question to a larger context or objective
The research question should be Clear 3
Limit variables If a question is burdened with too many variables or too many clauses it becomes both difficult to read and difficult to research. For example : a question like “Was the decline of poliomyelitis in Egypt the result of government policies?” is much easier to understand than “Was the decline of poliomyelitis in Egypt related more to health education, the vaccination campaign, or people awareness?”
The research question should be Clear 3
You may talk about all these factors in your proposal, but the first question allows the reader to focus on the central aspect of your research rather than the variables surrounding it.
The research question should be Researchable 4
Research questions need to be clearly “doable.” One of the most common rationales for rejecting proposals is that the question is simply too expansive (or expensive) to be carried out by the applicant. There are many questions that you will need to ask yourself to avoid this pitfall. Above all else, consider your limitations.
The research question should be Researchable 4
First among them is: How long will the research take to carry out? Next, do you have the appropriate background to carry
out the research? Are there ethical constraints? Is the project likely to be approved by your advisor and
your University’s committee for the protection of human subjects?
Can you obtain the cooperation from all the necessary individuals, communities and institutions you need to answer the question you have asked?
Are the costs of conducting the research more than you will be likely to raise?
If I can’t complete this project well, can I break it down and address the most important component?
Remember that writing a research question is a tedious, repetitive process and such concerns need to be carefully considered in your research design and budget.
The research question should be Researchable 4
CONCLUSSION
When you do, consider that a strong
research question should be:
Evocative,
Clear, and specific
Reflects the objective(s) of the study
It has no answer by common sense
It has no answer in the literature
Finding an answer to the question will solve or at least help
in solving the problem to be studied
Outline of a protocol
Background
Problem statement and importance of the problem
addressed
Rationale for the review
Have there been other reviews on this topic?
How will your review be different from others on the
same topic?
Outline of a protocol
Objectives:
Precise statement of the primary objective of the
review, including the intervention(s) reviewed and the
problem addressed.
If there are hypotheses for the review (specific
theories or suggestions being tested), these should
be stated here.
Outline of a protocol
Criteria for considering studies for this review
(PICO)
Types of participants
Types of interventions
Types of outcome measures
Types of studies (study designs)
Outline of a protocol
Search strategy:
What databases and sources will be searched?
What will be the time period?
What search terms and key words will be used?
Will there be language restrictions?
How will conference abstracts be handled?
Will unpublished data be sought?
Who will run the searches?
Outline of a protocol
Methods:
Eligibility:
What will the inclusion/exclusion criteria be?
Who & how many reviewers will screen the articles
for inclusion?
How will the reviewers resolve disagreements?
Will the articles be reviewed in a blinded manner?
Outline of a protocol
Methods:
Data extraction:
Who and how many reviewers will extract data?
What data will be extracted?
How will the reviewers resolve disagreements?
Will data extraction be done in a blinded manner?
Will inter-rated reliability be measured?
Outline of a protocol
Assessment of study quality:
Who and how many reviewers will assess study
quality?
What instrument or scale will be used for quality
assessment?
Will a numeric quality score be measured?
Will quality assessment be done blinded?
How will the reviewers resolve disagreements?
Will inter-rated reliability be measured?
How will the quality data be used?
Outline of a protocol
Analysis: What software will be used
How heterogeneity will be evaluated
If a meta-analysis will be done, what model will be used for combining data (random vs. fixed effects)
If heterogeneity is found, what approaches will be used to find reasons for heterogeneity
Will subgroup analyses be done
Will sensitivity analyses be done
How will quality of studies affect the analyses
How potential publication bias will be evaluated