Research Methodology Somsak Wongsawass ASEAN Institute for Health Development 4 March 2011
Jan 21, 2015
Research Methodology
Somsak WongsawassASEAN Institute for Health
Development4 March 2011
Defining research
Research is a process for: collecting analysing interpreting
information to answer questions.
The Research Process (Kumar, 2005, p.19)
Why literature review?
• LR is the foundation and inspiration of substantial, useful research.
• Most graduate students receive little or no formal training in how to analyze and synthesize the research literature.
• LR acquires the skills and knowledge.• Critically appraise and synthesize the
current state of knowledge relating to the topic under investigation, as a mean of identifying gaps .
Sources of information
Keywords related to the research topic Beware of different terms used
Problems too little versus too much inclusion versus exclusion
Reviewing the literature
• Skim reading of the abstract and main body
• What and why it has been done and how it was done.
• Position current knowledge in the field and elucidate gaps of knowledge.
• Identify themes and detail structure of final review.
Define scope
Construction of review
• Introduction• Main body
Theoretical literature and methodological literature
Examine theoretical literature and empirical literature in separate sections
Divide the literature into content themes Examining the literature chronologically
• Conclusion – integrate all the theme summaries, gaps and weakness should be evident, suggestion of research needs
How to use the concept of study type in evaluating journal articles
To get as close as possible to the “truth” No study is ever perfect. If your expectation is too HIGH => reject all
the articles you review
5 Steps
1. What is the study objective, hypothesis, or research question? study factor /outcome factor?
2. What study would give the highest quality of evidence for this hypothesis/objective?
3. What is the best study type you consider feasible?
4. What study type was actually used?5. Is the conclusion of the paper reasonable
in the light of how compares with 2 and 3?
Objective
• Causality• Does an intervention
work?• Is a factor a cause,
determinant of, predictor or risk factors for a specific problem?
• Magnitude • How common is the
health problem?
• Evaluation of diagnostic tests• Is the test a good
indicator of existing disease?
• Is the test a good indicator of future disease?
Possible study types
• RCT• Cohort• Case control with well defined
study base• Case control with poor defined
study base• Cross-sectional analytic• Descriptive
• Descriptive (cross-sectional for prevalence, prospective for incidence)
• Cross sectional analytic
• Cohort• Population-based case control
study• Hospital based case control
study
Quality
• The tops • Nest best• Almost as good
• Weak
• Fair-weak • Very weak:
• Appropriate
• Appropriate
• Best• Al most as good• weak
Proposal
STRONG• Appearance• Red flag (specific
aims)• Conceptual
framework (figures and diagrams)
• Review criteria (state of the art: clear, logical and brief)
• Hypotheses• Soundness of
method
WEAK Lack of Original ideas Diffuse, unfocused Lack of published
relevant work, uncritical approach
Lack of experience in essential methodology
Uncertainty of future directions (so what?)
Lack of sufficient experimental detail