INRS7311 Summative Project Research Assignment Answer by Experts
- Topic :: Introduction to Research
- Document Type :: Assignment help (any type)
- Subject: Computer Science
- Number of Words*: 4500
- Citation/Referencing Style: Harvard referencing style
The purpose of this Summative Assignment is to develop your understanding of the processes and techniques of research. The Summative Assignment will develop your ability to assess the validity of research findings through interpretation and critical analysis of previous research. This will be done over the course of three questions.
You will need to break up each of three pre-selected research articles into their various research components in order to identify, compare, analyse and evaluate the research decisions made.
The three pre-selected research articles have been chosen because of their sometimes different (and sometimes similar) approaches to research. You will be required to determine where these similarities and differences lie, and what their consequences are for the various stages in the research process. It is expected that you analyse the research articles by deconstructing the research decisions made by the author(s) using the theory covered throughout the module.
Your understanding of the various elements of the research process will be assessed through your ability to provide an academically sound critique of the research articles, substantiated by a range of academic sources.
Various activities on Learn have been created to guide you through the analysis of the three pre- selected research articles. All answers provided will need to be well argued using more than one source. It is therefore expected that you undertake additional reading in order to appropriately justify any arguments and/or critiques made. You will have to engage with the various paradigms, methodologies and research expectations for both qualitative and quantitative research as well as the ethical considerations applicable to each. By the end of the semester, you will have applied all the theory you have learned by making sense of why the researchers made the decisions they did, arguing if the decisions were sound, and when asked, providing alternatives. You will need to apply academic literacy skills throughout the project.
Ebscohost permalinks to the three pre-selected research articles follow:
Fukamizu, J., Verstegen, D. and Chi, S.C. 2021. International trainer perspectives of simulation- based learning: a qualitative study. International Journal of Medical Education, 12: 267-273. [Online].
Available at: https://ezproxy.iielearn.ac.za/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=asn&AN=154625548&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Suherman, R.N., Saidah, Q., Nurhayati, C., Susanto, T. and Huda, N. 2021. The relationship between parenting style and gadget addiction among preschoolers. Malaysian Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences, 4:117–122. [Online]. Available at: https://ezproxy.iielearn.ac.za/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =asn&AN=151511637&site=ehost-live&scope=site [Accessed 03 February 2022].
Gegenfurtner, A., Zitt, A. and Ebner, C. 2020. Evaluating webinar-based training: a mixed methods study of trainee reactions toward digital web conferencing. International Journal of Training & Development, 24(1): 5–21. [Online]. Available at: https://ezproxy.iielearn.ac.za/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =eue&AN=141780936&site=ehost-live&scope=site [Accessed 03 February 2022].
The word count for the entire project is between 4000-4500 words. The word count is to be stipulated on the cover page of your document. Students should note that the lecturer /tutor will not mark beyond the maximum word count (4500 words). This means that students exceeding the word count could substantially lose marks. For example, a student exceeding the 4500-word limit by submitting 5000 words, could find that they lose all marks allocated to the final section of the project if that section falls into the 500 words not marked.
Question 1 (Marks: 85)
Write a report in which you analyse EACH of the pre-selected research articles to identify and discuss the research paradigm and design the authors followed, and then explain how this informed the decisions made by the researchers. Then, applying critical thinking skills, you will need to consider alternate research methods, and motivate your choices using sources beyond your textbook.
Q.1.1 Identify the paradigm/tradition for each article. You will need to motivate each choice of paradigm using examples from each of the articles as well as a critical discussion of each of the paradigms chosen. (10)
Q.1.2 Identify the following elements of the research design for each article. You will need to motivate using examples from each article, as well as theory from various sources.
Q.1.2.1 Research methodology. (10)
Q.1.2.2 Type of research. (10)
Q.1.3 Identify the population and sampling types and methods used in each article.
Q.1.3.1 Using examples from each article, as well as theory from the prescribed text, describe the population and sampling methods used in each study. Each answer should outline the target and accessible population, population parameters, unit of analysis and sampling method. (15)
Q.1.3.2 For each article, using appropriate theory, argue in favour of an alternate sampling method that aligns with the same paradigm/tradition and research question. (10)
Q.1.4 Identify the data collection methods used in each article.
Q.1.4.1 Using examples from each article identify the data collection methods used in each study. Motivate each answer with examples from each article as well as theory from various sources. (10)
Q.1.4.2 For each article, using appropriate theory, argue in favour of an alternate data collection method that aligns with the same paradigm/tradition and research question. (10)
Q.1.5 Identify and describe the data analysis method in each article. Each answer should be a combination of examples from the articles as well as theory from various sources. (10)
Question 2 (Marks: 85)
Demonstrate your understanding of paradigms, methodologies and research practicalities by considering the impact on each study were the authors to use an alternate paradigm to that represented in the original articles. You will need to select a different alternate paradigm for each research article, so there are no duplicate paradigms in your three chosen alternatives.
Q.2.1 For EACH research project, select an alternate paradigm. You may not use the same paradigm for more than one article. For each alternate, consider the implications of this change in paradigm on the nature of the research and construct new, alternate versions of the following (for each article):
Q.2.1.1 The research problem (considering the five criteria for a research problem); (20)
Q.2.1.2 The research question/s; (10)
Q.2.1.3 Formulate hypotheses and/or objectives based on the alternate paradigm selected;
Q.2.1.4 The data collection method (including a clear explanation of and motivation for choosing that data collection method); (25)
Q.2.1.5 The data analysis method (including a clear explanation of, and motivation for, choosing that data analysis method). (20)
Question 3 (Marks: 30)
The overall purpose of research is to add to the body of knowledge using an ethical and systematic process. For each article:
Q.3.1 For each article, discuss how the researchers would have ensured trustworthiness and/ or reliability and validity when conducting the research. Your answer can be a combination of examples from the articles and theory from various sources. (15)
Q.3.2 Critically discuss the ethical issues the researchers can be expected to have considered before, during and after the research process. (15)
Adams, J, Khan, HTA, Raeside, R & White, D. 2012. Research methods for graduate business and social science students. New Delhi: Sage.
Adelman, C. 1993. Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1):7−24. Published online: 11 August 2006. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0965079930010102 [Accessed: 3 September 2013].
Ary, D, Jacobs, LC, Razavieh, A & Sorensen, C. 2006. Introduction to research in education. 7th ed. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
Babbie, ER. 2002. The basics of social research. 6th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Babbie, E. 2011. Introduction to social research. 5th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Babbie, E & Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badenhorst, C. 2007. Research writing: Breaking the barriers. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Bailey, KD. 1997. System entropy analysis. Kybernetes, 26(6/7):74−68. Behrens, SJ, Olen, SII & Machet, MP. 1999. Mastering information skills. Pretoria: Unisa Press.
Berg, BL. 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Blaikie, N. 2007. Approaches to social enquiry. Advancing knowledge. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blaikie, N. 2009. Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bless, C, Higson-Smith, C & Kagee, A. 2006. Fundamentals of social research methods. An African perspective. 4th ed. Cape Town: Juta & Company.
Booth, WC, Colomb, GC & Williams, JM. 2008. The craft of research. 3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Bradley, N. 2013. Marketing research: tools and techniques. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brainmass. nd. Different types of reliability, validity and consistency. Available at: http://brainmass.com/education/other/390575 [Accessed: 4 September 2013].
Brown, CK. 2005. 7 steps to writing a great research paper. Available at: http:// www.back2college.com/writingresearchpaper.htm [Accessed: 6 September 2012].
Bryman, A. 2012. Social science research. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burger, M. 2010. Bibliographic style and reference techniques. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Caprette, DR. 2000. How to write a research report. Available at: http:// dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869K/CHEM869KLinks/www.ruf.rice. edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html [Accessed: 5 September 2013].
Chandler, D. 2001. Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge. Available at: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html [Accessed: 3 December 2013].
Chang, H. 2008. Auto-ethnography as method. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Chenail, RJ. 1995. Presenting qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2(3):1–8. Clarke, JJ. 1994. Jung and Eastern thought. A dialogue with the Orient. London: Routledge.
Cohen, L, Manion, K & Morrison, K. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed. London: Routledge. Available at: http://www.carlosmoreno.info/upn/ pdf/cohen_research_sixth.pdf [Accessed: 2 September 2013].
Collis, J & Hussey, R. 2003. Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cone, JD & Foster, SF. 2006. Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Cresswell, JW. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dainton, M & Zelly, ED. 2011. Applying communication theory for professional life. A practical introduction. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
De Vos, A, Strydom, H, Fouché, CB & Delport, CSL. 2011. Research at grass roots. 4th ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Du Plooy, GM. 2001. Text analysis. In PJ Fourie (ed). Media studies. Vol. 2 Media studies: Content, audiences and production. Lansdowne: Juta & Company.
Du Plooy, GM. 2002. Communication research techniques, methods and applications. Landsdowne: Juta & Company.
Du Plooy, GM. 2006. Communication research. Cape Town: Juta & Company. Du Plooy, GM. 2009. Communication research. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Juta & Company.
Du Plooy-Cilliers, F. 2003. Paradigms and paradoxes: Shifting management thinking. In S Verwey & F du Plooy-Cilliers (eds) Strategic organizational communication: Paradigms and paradoxes. Johannesburg: Heinemann.
Durrheim, K. 1999. Research design. In M Terre Blance, K Durrheim & D Painter (eds) Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
For REF… Use: #getanswers2002237