|
Objectives -- After completing this module you will be able to:
Topic 1: Review these documents and think about how they relate to the design, rigor and impact of social science research. We covered these ideas early in the course and I have repeatedly encouraged you to review some of the basic documents -- my cheat sheets iin many cases. Come to class prepared to explain how you have extended or expanded or deepend your understanding of these goals based on what we have learned. Focus specifically on how the specific designs that researchers use affect their ability to add to the body of knowledge and ultimately, as a whole, the overall quality of any given body of knowledge. You have seen these documents several times in this class. Do not spend your time on what you have read. Think about your ideas about the quality of social scientific research. Comparative Characteristics of Design Groups Topic 2: What's new in social scientific research design and methodology? Do we have any impact? Where are we headed in social science? Individual Reading Assignments -- The Rigor & Impact of Research Select any one of the articles below for a brief presentation this week. Your task is to discuss how the information and ideas in the article relate to our discussion of the goals of research and specifically how the degree to which scientists use the array of designs available affect rigor and impact of research. Do not focus on the topic of the study. Apply the ideas more generally, including to your own research interests. Focus on what you learned about the importance of research design in this class. Find and share the ideas, based on what the authors did, that you can apply to making better research designs and to being better able to assess the degree to which social science research has created some sort of change -- had an impact. Select your article soon because only one person gets to present any given article. The first to claim the article by entering your full name on the Week 15 discussion board gets an article. Put your name and the full citation for article on the discussion board. Post your comments under the Discussion Board for Week 15: Design Decisions, Rigor and Impact of Science on Canvas by our class meeting time at 09:35 am on Friday, December 02. Upload a Word Document with this kind of title: YourLastName_LastName of First Author -- like Swisher_Gunn. Bero, L. (2018) Research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust. PLoS BiologyI 16(4): e2005972. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005972 Esko, Terhi and Tuunainen, Juha. (2019) Achieving the social impact of science? An analysis of public press debate on urban development. Science and Public Policy 46(3):404-414. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy067 Gunn, A. & Mintrom, M. (2017) Evaluating the non-academic impact of academic research: Design considerations. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Managment 39(1):20-30. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2016.1254429 KImbell, Lucy and Julier, Guy. (2019) Confronting bureaucracies and assessing value in the co-production of social design research. Codesign 14(1):8-23. DOI: /10.1080/15710882.2018.1563190 Massey, S.G. & Barreras, R.E. (2013) Introducing "impact validity." Journal of Social Issues 69(4), 615-632. DOI: 10.1111/josi.12032. Myers, E.F., Parrott, J.S., Splett, P., Chung, M. & Handu, D. (2018) Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food-and-nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding. PLoS ONE 13(7):e0197425 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197425 Reale, Emanuela. (2022) Factors enabling social impact: The Importance of Institutional entrepreneurship in social science research. Science & Public Policy. 49:632-642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac014 Reale, Emanuela; Avarmov, Dragana; Kubra, Canhial; Donovan, Claire; Flecha, Ramon; et al. (2018) A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation 27(4):298-308. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvx025 Rosenbloom, Joshua L. and Ginther, Donna K. (2017) The effectiveness of social science rsearch in addressing societal problems: Broadening participation in computing. Science & Public Policy 44(2):259-273. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw062 Urbanska, Karolina; Huet, Sulvie; and Guimond, Serge. (2019) Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research? PlOS ONE 14(9):e0221907. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221907 Waller, L.A. & Miller, G.W. (2016) More than manuscripts: Reproducibility, rigor, and rsearch productivity in the big data era. Toxicological Sciences 149(2), 275-276. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfv330. Weilshuhn, P., Helming, K. & Ferretti, J. (2018) Research impact assessment in agriculture: A review of approaches and impact areas. Research Evaluation 17(1), 36-24. Wilde, P, Morgan, E., Roberts, J., Schpok, A. & Wilson, T. (2012) Relationship between funding sources and outcomes of obesity-related research. Physiology & Behavior 107:172-175 doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.05.004 |
|
Additional Materials Ashby, N., Fryirs, K. & Howitt, R. (2015) Prospects for, and challenges for, research design and training in cross-disciplinary environmental management research. Geographical Research 53(1), 81-94. Bleijenbergh, I.; Korzilius, H. & Verschuren, P. (2011) Methodological criteria for the internal validity and utility of practice oriented research. Quality & Quantity 45(1), 145-156. Blyth, E., Shardlow, S.M., Masson, H., Lyons, K. et al (2010) Measuring quality of peer-reviewed publications in social work: Impact factors -- liberation or liability? Social Work Education 29(2), 120-136. Bouffard, M. & Reid, G. (2012) The good, the bad, and the ugly of evidence-based practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 29(1), 1-24. Bryman, A. (2007) The research question in social research: What is its role? International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10(1), 5-20. Coghlan, D & Shani, A.B. (2014) Creating action research quality in organizational development: Rigorous, reflective and relevant. Systemic Practice and Action Research 27(6), 523-536. Cronje, J. (2013) What is this thing called "design" in design research and instructional design. Educational Media International 50(1), 1-11 doi: 10.1080/09523987.2013.777180 Davis, S.; Gervin, D.; White, G.; Williams, A.; Taylor, A. & McGriff, E. (2013) Briding the gap between research, evaluation and evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work Education 49(1), 16-29. DuToit, J.L. & Mouton, J. (2013) A typology of designs for social research in the built environment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(2), 125-139. Epstein, I. (2011) Reconciling evidence-based practice, evidence-informed practice, and practice-based research: The role of clinical data-mining. Social Work 56(3), 284-288. Flower, A., McDaniel, S.C. & Jolivette, K. (2011) A literature review of research quality and effective practices in alternative educational settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 34(4), 489-510. Hug, S.E. (2013) Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: A Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history. Research Evaluation 22(5), 369-383. Jordan, G., Malla, A. & Iyer, S.N. (2016) Posttraumatic growth following first episode of psychosis: A mixed methods research protocol using a convergent design. BMC Psychiatry 16:1-10. Klesges, L.M., Estabrooks, P.A., Dzewaltowski, D.A., Bull, S.S. & Glasgow, R.E. (2005). Beginning with the application in mind: Designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 29 (Supplement), 66S-75S. Larzelere, R.E., Kuhn, B.R. & Johnson, B. (2004) The intervention selection bias: an underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin 130(2), 289-303. Liden, G. (2013) What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory. Quality & Quantity 47(1), 213-225. McCann, R.A., Armstrong, C.M., Skopp, N.A., Edwards-Stewart, A. et al. (2014) Virtual reality exposure therapy for the treatment of anxiety disorders: An evaluation of research quality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 28(6), 625-631. McGeary, D.D.,
McGeary, C.A., Gatchel, R.J., Allison, S. et al. (2013) Assessment of
research quality of telehealth trials in pain management: A meta-analysis.
Pain Practice 13(5), 422-431. Moffitt, R. (2003) Causal analysis in population research: an economist's perspective. Population & Development ReviewI 29(3), 448-458. Molina-Azorin, J.F. & Font, X. (2016) Mixed methods in sustainable tourism research: An analysis of prevalence, designs and application in JOST. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(4), 549-573. Morrison, K.H.,
Bradley, R. & Westen, D. (2003) The external validity of controlled
clinical trials of psychotherapy for depression and anxiety: a naturalistic
study. Psychology & Psychotherapy Research & Practice 76,
109-132. Nielson, T.
(2015) Practice-based research: Meeting the demands of program evaluation
through the single-case design. Journal of Mental Health Counseling
37(4), 364-376. Parrish, D.E. & Rubin, A. (2012) Social workers' orientations toward the evidence-based practice process: A comparison with psychologists and licensed marriage and family therapists. Social Work 57(3), 201-210. Pirlott, A.G. & MacKinnon, D.P. (2016) Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66:29-38. Roberts, M. (2010). What is "evidence-based practice" in geography education? International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education. 19(2), 91-95. Roy, A. (2012) Avoiding the involvement overdose: Drugs, race, ethnicity and participatory research practice. Critical Social Policy 32(4), 636-654. Safer, D.L. & Hugo, E.M. (2006) Designing a control for behavioral group therapy. Behavior Therapy 37(2), 120-130. Secret, M., Abell, M.LO. & Trey, B. (2011) The promise and challenge of practice-research collaborations: Guiding principles and strategies for initiating, designing, and implementing program evaluation research. Social Work 56(1), 9-20. Smith, M.L.
& Goltz, H.H. (2012) What is hidden in my data? Practical strategies
to reveal Yule-Simpson's paradox and strengthen research quality in health
education research. Health Promotion Practice 13(5), 637-641. St. John, F.A.V., Keane, A.M., Jones, J.P.G. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2014) Robust study design is as important on the social as it is on the ecological side of applied ecological research. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(6), 1479-1485. Taylor, C.D., Meisinger, E.B. & Floyd, R.G. (2016) Disentangling verbal instructions, experimental design, and sample characteristics: Results of curriculum-based measurement of reading research. School Psychological Review 45(1), 53-72. Wester, K.L., Borders, L.D, Boul, S. & Horton, E. (2013) Research quality: Critique of quantitative articles in the Journal of Counseling and Development. Journal of Counseling and Development 91(3), 280-290. Whalon, K., Conroy, M., Martinez, J. & Werch, B. (2015) School-based peer-related social competence interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis and descriptive re iew of single case research design studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 45(6), 1513-1531. |