Test 1 (Ch. 1-3)

the discovery of answers to questions through the application of scientific systematic procedures

conducted through the use of scientific and systematic methods and is based on the assumption that research can uncover patterns in the lives of people

objective, numbers

subjective, observes situations

both methods are based on observations or experiences of communication

you are either conducting it or consuming it

research that is owned by an individual or organization for its own use and not in the public domain

researchers or scholars who have been trained in research methods and procedures to conduct research

1. paper is submitted to a conference for a presentation or a journal/book for publication

2. experts review the paper to test its validity and credibility

to describe communication phenomena as well as to discover and explain the relationships among them

describe behavior: outcomes, processes (motive for someone lying)

determine causes of behavior: help future

predict behavior: be aware of future; aid decision making

explain behavior: understanding the why

related set of ideas that explains how/why something happens

formulated, tested, and verified in one research study. Theories are tested overtime

uses quantitative and qualitative methods to look for patterns of messages of communication behaviors (both methods must be empirical)

planned for a specific goal or audience

focuses on interactive moment between and among conversational participants (is contextually and culturally bound)

focuses on understanding the domination inequality and oppression that can occur through communication practices and structures

1. question/problem

2. hypothesis

3. reasoning

4. design and conduct observation, measurement, or experiment

5. data is analyzed and interpreted

theoretical significance, social importance, and personal interest

provide definitions for phenomena in which we are interested (the what)

if, how, and the degree. to which phenomena are related (the how)

ask and answer if one or more variables are the cause of one or more outcome variables (the why)

ask for individual’s subjective evaluations of issues

assess normality

use results to recommend a course of action

1. based on evidence

2. testable

3. replicable

4. public record

5. measured and observed

6. minimizes bias and distortion

7. generalizability

   1. heuristic

you can extend the findings to a greater population

encourages further questions (your research leads to more questions)

1. theory provides us with the patterns for interpreting data

2. theory links one study to another

3. theory provides a framework for understanding how concepts and issues are important or significance

   1. theory helps us interpret the larger meaning of research findings

begins with the theory and then gathers evidence or data to assess whether the theory is correct (like an inverted pyramid; it starts with the theory then gets to the answer)

begins by gathering evidence or data and then develops a theory in response to what data revealed (like a normal pyramid; start with the research problem then find the theory)

assume anything (do not ask how until you have asked does; always evaluate your questions and rephrase as you do more research)

5 (6 including abstract)

1. introduction

2. literature review

3. methods

4. results

   1. discussion

the last few paragraphs of the introduction

the last few paragraphs of the literature review (lit review also includes all of the previously found information on the topic)

methods (instruments are surveys, interviews, or observations that you will do; also explains how they got their participants) METHODS IS WHO AND HOW

it is full of statistical information that is hard to read

the discussion

EVERYONE (researchers and students)

the research process

it was a study on syphilis where the researchers withheld men from penicillin to see the extent of the symptoms of syphilis and many men died because of it

a National Commission formed to identify fundamental ethical principles for research

the tuskegee syphilis case

1. beneficence

2. respect for persons

   1. justice

the benefits of the study outweigh the risks (the well being of the participant is protected and the benefits are maximized) `

the participants have autonomy (independence; the ability to choose to participate or not; no coercion)

the fairness of the selection of participants (am I systematically selecting one group of participants?)

Institutional Review Board

determines if the study is reasonable, sound, and if the participants are protected in the research design (ensures the study is ethical)

All of the information of the study (all of your instruments, why you are doing this research, how you will carry it out, who you will use, any documents or permissions pertinent to the study)

no

one year

principle investigator (the main researcher over the study)

explaining to the participant exactly what will go on in the study and the participant willingly agreeing (in a manner they understand)

1. how will the consent of the participants be gained?

2. how will confidentiality and anonymity be handled?

3. are participants appropriate for the study?

4. are there potential physical or psychological harms?

5. how will the researcher’s role affect the study?

6. is the research design valid or credible?

   1. is the researcher capable of conducting the study?

researcher knows who the information came from but does not share it with anyone else (researcher must tell the participant where the information will be stored)

the researcher does not even know who said or did what (completely anonymous)

intentionally deceiving (falsifying) participants to get more honest answers (giving generic reasoning so participant’s responses are not swayed)

researcher uses someone else to help them in the study who acts like a participant (usually used to see if the participants are influenced by others even when the answer is wrong)

can the participants harm themselves physically or mentally in the study

researcher assures the participants that the information will be kept to themselves and where it will be stored

researcher must get participants’ consent

researchers responsibility to tell the participants EVERYTHING you did in the study and about the study (if you used intentional deception, use of confederates, etc.)

the ability to produce desired results, but the benefits must outweigh the risks

make sure you submit to a peer reviewed journal and you are protecting the participants identity

the researcher is always responsible for the accuracy of the study regardless of who helps them

by using direct quotes with proper citations, summaries or paraphrasing, and acknowledging ideas or contributions (self-plagiarism is included in this)

a proposition to explain something (an educated guess based on the literature review, which shows what you already know and the hypothesis shows what you hope to find)

broad question because there is not enough information to pose a hypothesis

The document was drafted at the Belmont Conference Center