Table of contents:

Task Contents

1 Select a research question Explain the factors that contribute to the process of successful

research question selection. Justify their choice of research question

2 Conduct research to find literature relevant to the research question

Undertake a critical review of the key literature for inclusion in a research proposal

3 Evaluate techniques for use with quantitative data in a research proposal

Evaluate techniques for use with qualitative data in a research proposal

4 Evaluate appropriate research methodologies in terms of the research question.

Choose an appropriate methodology in terms of the research question

Justify the methodology selected in terms of the research question

5 Record findings on a research question, literature review and methodology in an agreed format

Summarise the findings using suitable methods Present the findings using suitable methods Critically analyse the findings

Introduction

A research question is the methodological point of departure of scholarly research in both the natural sciences and humanities. The research will answer any question posed. At an undergraduate level, the answer to the research question is the thesis statement.

Importance:

The research question is one of the first methodological steps the investigator has to take when undertaking research. The research question must be accurately and clearly defined.

Choosing a research question is the central element of both quantitative and qualitative research and in some cases it may precede construction of the conceptual framework of study. In all cases, it makes the theoretical assumptions in the framework more explicit, most of all it indicates what the researcher wants to know most and first.

Uses:

The student or researcher then carries out the research necessary to answer the research question, whether this involves reading secondary over a few days for an undergraduate term paper or carrying out primary research over years for a major project.

Once the research is complete and the researcher knows the (probable) answer to the research question, writing can begin. In term papers, the answer to the question is normally given in summary in the introduction in the form of a thesis statement.

Task 1 - Select and justify the choice of research question

Task 1.1 Select a research question

“Factors that contribute to the process of successful research question selection”

1.2 Explain the factors that contribute to the process of successful research question selectionThe research problem is often argued as the heart of the research process, without which no research process can take place. In formulating the problem the variables must be eminent and easily identifiable while a hypothesis should accompany each research problem. Once a research problem is clearly defined, it should be translated into a research hypothesis that states; a relationship between two or more variables into one or more populations. Thus the assignment will reflect on the linkage of the research problem, research hypothesis and the existing variables. Firstly, the research problem will be explored, its importance, sources of the research problem, considerations as well as steps to be followed when formulating a research problem. Secondly, identification of variables will be discussed using the three common types of variables and the four prominent scales of measurement.

The research problem is the heart of the research process hence cannot be selected in a vacuum thus some considerations and factors have to be considered. Sources of research problems revolve around the four P’s, People, Problems, Programs, and Phenomena. Formulation of a research problem is a process thus involves following steps. Variables are measurable factors that can assume more than one value andthree types of important variables can distinguished; independent, dependant andextraneous variables. Nominal scale, ordinal scale, interval scale and ratio scale are the different types of measurement scale which we use to classify variables. A hypothesis is a tentative statement of the results of an investigation indicating the relationshipbetween two or more variables that awaits verification. Hypotheses enable theresearcher to add the formulation of theory if proved to be true. The researchhypothesis and the alternate hypothesis are the most important when carrying out or analyzing research.

1.3 Justify their choice of research question The objective of this report is to gain a better understanding of the factors that support and enable a collaborative effort in South African companies. The benefits from collaborate are significant and the findings could enable companies to attain these benefits. The predominant area of focus was four research questions dealing with relationships and selection factors, these focused on complexity, trust, culture and impact of selection area.

Task 2: Literature Review

2.1 Conduct research to find literature relevant to the research question

The literature review includes a number of areas that have bearing on the topic of both collaboration and the factors that lead to collaboration. The studies are primarily focused on the application of collaboration in the business environment. The literature reviews was instrumental in formulating the question that were then covered in the questionnaire.

There are multiple aspects to the requirement to the successful collaboration. The literature review is divided into four areas. First area covers the relationship factors that are supportive of the collaborative effort. The intent is to provide an insight into both how relationships are perceived and measured, and impact of these relationships on long term efforts.

The second area covers the selection factors that are necessary at the time of entering into a collaborative agreement. The importance of ensuring the correct partner for a value effort is highlighted in the literature and what the organizations should be aware of when deciding on partners.

The third area is the cultural environment and its effect on collaborative efforts. The purpose was to understand if some of the organizational and country culture aspects have affected the ability to successfully collaborate.

Finally, the area of collaboration itself is covered in the literature, under various names, and the important aspects of collaboration are investigated to understand the environmental factors surrounding and the drivers behind entering into a collaborative effort.

2.2 Undertake a critical review of the key literature for inclusion in a research proposal

A literature review is an objective, thorough summary and critical analysis of the relevant available research and non-Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan, Michael Coughlan research literature on the topic being studied (Hart, 1998). Its goal is to bring the reader up-to-date with current literature on a topic and form the basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. A good literature review gathers information about a particular subject from many sources. It is well written and contains few if any personal biases. It should contain a clear search and selection strategy (Carnwell and Daly, 2001). Good structuring is essential to enhance the flow and readability of the review. Accurate use of terminology is important and jargon should be kept to a minimum. Referencing should be accurate throughout (Colling, 2003).

Selecting a review topic can be a daunting task for students and novice reviewers (Timmins and McCabe, 2005). A common error for novices is to select a review title that is all encompassing, such as ‘pressure ulcers’ or ‘pain’. Although this may be a useful initial strategy for determining how much literature is available, subjects such as these generate a considerable amount of data making a review infeasible. Therefore, it is advisable to refine this further so that the final amount of information generated is manageable. For example, to focus the topic of interest, consider what aspects of pressure ulcers or pain are of particular significance. Is there a specific element of this topic that is of interest, such as prevention or management? Identifying what exactly is of interest and why can help refine the topic (Hendry and Farley, 1998). Talking to others, such as clinical specialists, or reading around a topic can also help to identify what areas of the subject the reviewer is interested in and may help indicate how much information exists on the topic (Timmins and McCabe, 2005). Having sufficient literature is also important, particularly when the review is an academic assignment. These academic exercises usually have short deadlines, so having enough literature is key from the perspective of being able to do the review and submit it on time. Attempting to change the topic close to the deadline for submission is usually a recipe for disaster so select an area that will hold your interest and ensure that there is enough data to meet your needs. Literature reviews that are part of academic course work usually have strictly enforced word limits and it is important to adhere to that limit. Topics that are too broad will result in reviews that are either too long or too superficial. As a rule of thumb, it is better to start with a narrow and focused topic, and if necessary broaden the scope of the review as you progress. It is much more difficult to cut content successfully, especially if time is short.

Task 3 - Analyzing Data for a Research Proposal

3.1 Evaluate techniques for use with quantitative data in a research proposalAt this point of the process, what has been determined as appropriate literature will have been gathered. While the focus of the literature may vary depending on the overall purpose, there are several useful strategies for the analysis and synthesis stages that will help the construction and writing of the review. Initially, it is advisable to undertake a first read of the articles that have been collected to get a sense of what they are about. Most published articles contain a summary or abstract at the beginning of the paper, which will assist with this process and enable the decision as to whether it is worthy of further reading or inclusion. At this point, it may also be of benefit to undertake an initial classification and grouping of the articles by type of source. Once the initial overview has been completed it is necessary to return to the articles to undertake a more systematic and critical review of the content. It is recommended that some type of structure is adopted during this process such as that proposed by Cohen (1990). This simple method is referred to as the preview, question, read, summarize (PQRS) system and it not only keeps you focussed and consistent but ultimately facilitates easy identification and retrieval of material particularly if a large number of publications are being reviewed.

Following the preview stage, a reviewer may end up with four stacks of articles that are deemed relevant to the purpose of the review. Although some papers may have been discarded at this point, it is probably wise to store them should you need to retrieve them at a later stage.

In the question stage, questions are asked of each publication. Here several writers have suggested using an indexing or summary system (or a combination of both) to assist the process (Patrick and Munro, 2004; Polit and Beck, 2004; Timmins and McCabe, 2005; Burns and Grove, 2007). Although there are slight variations in the criteria proposed in the indexing and summary systems, generally they are concerned with the title of the article, the author, the purpose and methodology used in a research study, and findings and outcomes. It is also useful to incorporate comments or key thoughts on your response to the article after it has been reviewed. For the purpose of good record keeping, it is suggested that the source and full reference are also included. It can be very frustrating trying to locate a reference or a key point among a plethora of articles at a later stage.

As it is likely that not all of the articles will be primary sources, you may wish to adapt your summary system to accommodate other sources, such as systematic reviews or non-research literature. Although it may be laborious at times, each article should be read while trying to answer the questions in the grid. It is worth noting, however, that if any aspect of the appraisal is not clear, it may be beneficial to access more detailed tools or checklists that facilitate further analysis or critique. While most research textbooks contain tools for critique, novice reviewers can find them difficult to negotiate given their complexity. In recognition of the different types of questions needed to appraise research studies, the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP)

within the public health resource unit (www.phru.nhs.uk) has several checklists that enable users to make sense of qualitative research, reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case control studies, among others.

Like primary sources, not all reviews classed as secondary sources are the same. For example, systematic reviews follow strict criteria and are appraised on those (Parahoo, 2006). However, there are reviews that simply present a perspective on a topic or explore the relevance of a concept for practice. Some theoretical papers, such as concept, analysis may fall into this bracket. If appraised against the criteria for evaluating systematic reviews, these publications would be found lacking in this area. Therefore, an important first step in the appraisal of a review is to determine its original purpose and perspective. In this way it will be possible to determine appropriate evaluation questions.

3.2 Evaluate techniques for use with qualitative data in a research proposal

Most students and beginning researchers do not fully understand what a research proposal means, nor do they understand its importance. To put it bluntly, one's research is only as a good as one's proposal. An ill-conceived proposal dooms the project even if it somehow gets through the Thesis Supervisory Committee. A high quality proposal, on the other hand, not only promises success for the project, but also impresses your Thesis Committee about your potential as a researcher.

A research proposal is intended to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project and that you have the competence and the work-plan to complete it. Generally, a research proposal should contain all the key elements involved in the research process and include sufficient information for the readers to evaluate the proposed study.

Regardless of your research area and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions: What you plan to accomplish, why you want to do it and how you are going to do it.

The proposal should have sufficient information to convince your readers that you have an important research idea, that you have a good grasp of the relevant literature and the major issues, and that your methodology is sound.

The quality of your research proposal depends not only on the quality of your proposed project, but also on the quality of your proposal writing. A good research project may run the risk of rejection simply because the proposal is poorly written. Therefore, it pays if your writing is coherent, clear and compelling.

This paper focuses on proposal writing rather than on the development of research ideas.

Title:

It should be concise and descriptive. For example, the phrase, "An investigation of . . ." could be omitted. Often titles are stated in terms of a functional relationship, because such titles clearly indicate the independent and dependent variables. However, if possible, think of an informative but catchy title. An effective title not only pricks the reader's interest, but also predisposes him/her favourably towards the proposal.

Abstract:

It is a brief summary of approximately 300 words. It should include the research question, the rationale for the study, the hypothesis (if any), the method and the main findings. Descriptions of the method may include the design, procedures, the sample and any instruments that will be used.

Introduction:

The main purpose of the introduction is to provide the necessary background or context for your research problem. How to frame the research problem is perhaps the biggest problem in proposal writing.

The introduction typically begins with a general statement of the problem area, with a focus on a specific research problem, to be followed by the rational or justification for the proposed study. 

Literature Review:

Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introduction section. However, most professors prefer a separate section, which allows a more thorough review of the literature.

Methods:

The Method section is very important because it tells your Research Committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. It will provide your work plan and describe the activities necessary for the completion of your project.

The guiding principle for writing the Method section is that it should contain sufficient information for the reader to determine whether methodology is sound. Some even argue that a good proposal should contain sufficient details for another qualified researcher to implement the study.

You need to demonstrate your knowledge of alternative methods and make the case that your approach is the most appropriate and most valid way to address your research question.

Results:

Obviously you do not have results at the proposal stage. However, you need to have some idea about what kind of data you will be collecting, and what statistical procedures will be used in order to answer your research question or test you hypothesis.

Discussion:

It is important to convince your reader of the potential impact of your proposed research. You need to communicate a sense of enthusiasm and confidence without exaggerating the merits of your proposal. That is why you also need to mention the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research, which may be justified by time and financial constraints as well as by the early developmental stage of your research area.

Task 4 - Presenting a Research Proposal and its Evaluation

4.1 Evaluate appropriate research methodologies in terms of the research question

Quantitative Methods

In quantitative research the data collected takes the form of measurements or counts which can be statistically analysed. The process of quantitative research follows standard procedures, methods, forms of analysis and reporting the results of the research undertaken. This standardisation maximises objectivity.

Quantitative methods can be used for comparison of subgroups and analysis is generally conducted through statistics. The method is based on meanings derived from numbers and results are numerical and standardised data.

Quantitative methods use numbers and statistics. General sequence:

1. Observe/present questionnaire/ask questions with fixed answers

2. Tabulate

3. Summarise data

4. Analyse data

5. Draw conclusions

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative research offers insights and understandings of participants, which is unobtainable by quantitative research, but is more than just non-numerical research. It aims to study the subject in their natural surroundings and to collect naturally occurring, non-biased data. It describes in words, rather than numbers, the qualities of the subject through observation. Methods of qualitative research include structured and unstructured interviews, group interviews and focus groups.

Qualitative methods can highlight key themes or patterns emerging in the project, are used to comprehend and manage data and used to develop and test hypothesises.

There are, naturally, weaknesses with qualitative research. The result is less easily generalised than with quantitative methods.

Qualitative methods use descriptions and categories. General sequence:

1. Observe/ask questions with open-ended answers

2. Record what is said and/or done

3. Interpret

4. Return to observe/ask more questions

5. (recurring cycles of 2-4 iteration)

6. Theorising

7. Draw conclusions

Comparison:

Qualitative Research Quantitative Research

phenomenological positivistic

inductive deductive

holistic particularistic

subjective centered objective centered

process oriented outcome oriented

anthropological worldview natural science worldview

relative lack of controlattempted control of variables

dynamic reality assumed static reality assumed

discovery orientated verification orientated

explanatory confirmatory

adapted from Cook and Reichardt (1979)

4.2 Choose an appropriate methodology in terms of the research question

In terms of research question, the appropriate methodology would be Qualitative Research, the reasons being discussed above.

Task 5.1 Record findings on a research question, literature review and methodology in an agreed format

References

1. Andersen, E.S., Grude, K.V., and Hang, T. 1995. Goal Directed Project Management: Effective techniques and strategies (trans. From Norwegian by Roberta Wiig), 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.

2. Appelo, J. 2009. What is the Mission of Your Project? Retrieved May 12, 2009, from www.projectsmart.co.uk

3. www.hfrp.org 4. www.oppapers.com 5. Heneman, R., Waldeck, N. & Cushnie, M. (1996). Diversity considerations in staffing

decisionmaking. In E. Kossek & S. Lobel (eds) Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace. Oxford: Blackwell.

6. Johnson, L. & Johnstone, S. (2000). The legislative framework. In G. Kirton & A. Greene (eds) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

7. Rees, T. (1998). Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. London: Routledge. Richards, W. (2000). Evaluating equal opportunities initiatives: the case for a ‘transformative’ agenda. In M. Noon&E. Ogbonna (eds) Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

8. Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000), “The effects of strategy type on the market orientation– performance relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.64, pp.1 –16.

9. Gonzalez- Benito Oscar & Gonzalez- Benito Javier (2005), “Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective performance: perspective of production and operation”, Journal of Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp.797-829.

10.www.corporate.marks&spencers.com 11.www.health.vic.gov.au 12.www.managementhelp.org