Workshop 1

Identifying and Contextualizing Your Research Question tests

What should you produce?

  1. A 3-4 page introduction (double-spaced, 12 pt font) that provides context for your study.
  2. The introduction should culminate with a good paragraph that describes your research question, including your aim/hypothesis.
  3. Your introduction needs to explain why you are doing your study – What conceptual and methodological holes/issues does your study address? Note that lack of replication evidence is a methodological hole, so this does not preclude replication studies.
  4. Your introduction should address key threats to validity (i.e., what are the limits to good inference in previous research?).

Steps to take

  1. Identify 2 articles related to your topic. Answer the following questions:
    • How does this study relate specifically to your study?
    • What are the strengths of these studies with respect to threats to validity? Be specific.
    • What are the limitations of these studies with respect to the threats to validity? Be specific.
    • How does your study address some of the limitations and mimic some of the strengths? Does your study mimic limitations of previous research?
  2. Write up your analysis and present to your colleagues.
  3. Continue to evaluate the literature by critiquing other papers relevant to your study. I’m not going to give you a specific number of studies you need to do, but you need to be thorough.
  4. Write your culminating paragraph that builds on your introduction and present to your colleagues for feedback.

Parts of the Workshop

Complete the relevant steps prior to the due date. See Learning Suite for the due dates.

  • Workshop 1a: Steps 1 and 2
  • Worskhop 1b: Steps 3 and 4

Feedback to colleagues

These are suggestions – they aren’t the only the things you should consider when evaluating your colleagues’ work. Be thoughtful and remember to provide actionable feedback.

  1. Have your colleagues synthesized the research literature in their area?
  2. Does the introduction provide a discussion of key themes, ideas, methods, etc? (Or does it read like a list of studies. Study A found this. Study B found this. And so on.)
  3. Have your colleagues critiqued the literature? Critique is used here in the positive and negative sense. Have your colleagues addressed positives in the previous literature and the contributions of studies? Have your colleagues addressed holes or problems in the literature?
  4. Have your colleagues clearly identified problems with the existing literature, especially with respect to threats to validity?
  5. Is there a well-written, culminating paragraph that is a logical conclusion to the introduction? Do your colleagues provide a clear statement of their research question? Do your colleagues provide justification for their particular project that is logically connected to literature and addresses issues/extends the literature)?

After you colleague presents their workshop to you, you should answer the relevant questions and provide a brief written summary regarding what they could work on.

What will you turn into to me?

Turn in your completed introduction (1a + 1b) that takes into account your colleagues’ feedback. You should also include the comments your received from colleagues as well your brief summary of how you dealt with their feedback.

%d bloggers like this: