ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ - Deneme Sınavı - 16

A popular strategy for doing survey research is cross-sectional research, which means collecting data through a survey across a pretermined population at one point in time (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2010). Thus, the survey is administered to a representative sample at the same time.

The national time series surveys generally are data collected over the years that are in the interest of political scientists. Indicators may vary from economic to social indicators, such as income levels, education level, employment or unemployment figures by education level, in or out migration trends within a nation.

Political sciences, or international relations fields value policy decisions and the changing trends of individuals based on policy making decisions or applications, therefore through a panel study, the researcher can collect data from similar samples at different times.

Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2014) underscore that the researcher needs to avoid four types of errors as cornerstones of good quality surveys:

Coverage error, Sampling error, Nonresponse error, Measurement error

The research topic as well as the title is very
important to attract attention of the readers.
Finding an original and new research problem
is the main organizing principle guiding the
analysis of your research. It is difficult to choose
an interesting topic without doing a preliminary
reading in your discipline.

An abstract summarizes,
the research usually in one paragraph of 200-300
words or less. When writing a structured abstract,
consider the following sub-headings:
1. Problem statement: Why do we care about
the problem? What practical, scientific,
theoretical gap is your research topic filling?
2. Purpose: What is the overall purpose of the
study?
3. Method: The basic design of the study. What
did you actually do to get your findings/
results?
4. Results/Findings: Major findings found as a
result of your analysis. What did you learn/
invent/create?
5. Conclusion/Implications: What is your
concluding remark? What are the larger
implications of your findings, especially for
the problem/gap identified in the research?

Below
are the steps in writing an effective abstract (San
Francisco Edit, 2018):
1. Identify the major objectives and
conclusions.
2. Identify phrases with keywords in the
methods section.
3. Identify the major results from the
discussion or results section.
4. Assemble the above information into a
single paragraph.
5. State your hypothesis or method used in
the first sentence.
6. Omit background information, literature
review, and detailed description of methods.
7. Remove extra words and phrases.
8. Revise the paragraph so that the abstract
conveys only the essential information.
9. Check to see if it meets the guidelines of the
targeted journal.
10. Give the abstract to a colleague (preferably
one who is not familiar with your work)
and ask him/her whether it makes sense.

When selecting keywords, you
should choose keywords that best describe the
content of your thesis or manuscript and follow
the below steps.
1. Focus on the main topic of your research.
2. Avoid keywords that are only one word.
3. Avoid overlapping keywords in your title
and those in your keyword list.
4. Follow the journal guidelines when selecting
keywords.
5. Perform keyword research before submitting
your article

As Reyes (2017) highlighted “Think of
the introduction as a mental road map that must
answer these four questions for the reader:

1. What was I studying?
2. Why was this topic important to investigate?
3. What did we know about this topic before
I did this study?
4. How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding?

In general, Introduction section
of an article should cover: research background,
research problem/problem statement, and research
objective(s)/research question(s).

1. Establish an area to research by:
• Highlighting the importance of the
topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the
topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current
research on the subject.

2. Identify a research niche by:
• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research,
and/or

• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3. Place your research within the research niche by:
• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper

In general, Introduction section
of an article should cover: research background,
research problem/problem statement, and research
objective(s)/research question(s).

1. Establish an area to research by:
• Highlighting the importance of the
topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the
topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current
research on the subject.

2. Identify a research niche by:
• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research,
and/or

• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3. Place your research within the research niche by:
• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper

In general, Introduction section
of an article should cover: research background,
research problem/problem statement, and research
objective(s)/research question(s).

1. Establish an area to research by:
• Highlighting the importance of the
topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the
topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current
research on the subject.

2. Identify a research niche by:
• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research,
and/or

• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3. Place your research within the research niche by:
• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper

Elements of a paragraph. To be as effective as possible, a paragraph should contain each of the
following in order: argument/claim, evidence/proof, and summary. When writing a paragraph you should
bear in mind that a paragraph has three elements including 1) coherence, 2) a topic sentence, and 3)
adequate development (Driscoll and Brizee, 2013). Using and adapting them to your individual purposes
will help you construct effective paragraphs.

Elements of a paragraph. To be as effective as possible, a paragraph should contain each of the
following in order: argument/claim, evidence/proof, and summary. When writing a paragraph you should
bear in mind that a paragraph has three elements including 1) coherence, 2) a topic sentence, and 3)
adequate development (Driscoll and Brizee, 2013). Using and adapting them to your individual purposes
will help you construct effective paragraphs.

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. Furthermore, our evaluations can vary in several important respects; notably according to what sort of thing is being evaluated (for example, persons, courses of action, outcomes, institutions, cultures, societies, etc.), and in terms of what standard (for instance, in the case of actions this may be according to what is needed, what is pleasurable, what is fair, what is courageous, etc.)” (Hammersley and Traianou, 2012, p. 19).

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. Furthermore, our evaluations can vary in several important respects; notably according to what sort of thing is being evaluated (for example, persons, courses of action, outcomes, institutions, cultures, societies, etc.), and in terms of what standard (for instance, in the case of actions this may be according to what is needed, what is pleasurable, what is fair, what is courageous, etc.)” (Hammersley and Traianou, 2012, p. 19).

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. In this regard, Patton (2002) provides a very illuminating example about the meaning of evaluation and/or judgment. He provides a dialogue that took place between him and a participant in a workshop about the purpose of evaluation (with regard to the distinction between formative and summative types of evaluation) by using the metaphor of “fishing.” As Patton (2002) clearly illustrates every action starts with some aims/intentions but may end up with different results/consequences. So the main question here is “What should be the priority?”: Aims/intentions for an action/activity (be it evaluation, fishing, or research, etc.) or the results/consequences of that action/activity.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.