Q 6. Case Study: You are engaged to carry out a market survey on behalf of a leading Newspaper that is keen to increase its circulation in Bangalore City, in order to ascertain reader habits and interests. What type of research report would be most appropriate? Develop an outline of the research report with the main sections.
Introduction
I looked at the situation and found that I had a question to ask about it. I wanted to investigate something in particular.
Review of literature
So I read everything I could find on the topic - what was already known and said and what had previously been found. I established exactly where my investigation would fit into the big picture, and began to realise at this stage how my study would be different from anything done previously.
Methodology
I decided on the number and description of my subjects, and with my research question clearly in mind, designed my own investigation process, using certain known research methods (and perhaps some that are not so common). I began with the broad decision about which research paradigm I would work within (that is, qualitative/quantitative, critical/interpretive/ empiricist). Then I devised my research instrument to get the best out of what I was investigating. I knew I would have to analyse the raw data, so I made sure that the instrument and my proposed method(s) of analysis were compatible right from the start. Then I carried out the research study and recorded all the data in a methodical way according to my intended methods of analysis. As part of the analysis, I reduced the data (by means of my preferred form of classification) to manageable thematic representation (tables, graphs, categories, etc). It was then that I began to realise what I had found.
Findings/results
What had I found? What did the tables/graphs/categories etc. have to say that could be pinned down? It was easy enough for me to see the salient points at a glance from these records, but in writing my report, I also spelled out what I had found truly significant to make sure my readers did not miss it. For each display of results, I wrote a corresponding summary of important observations relating only elements within my own set of results and comparing only like with like.
I was careful not to let my own interpretations intrude or voice my excitement just yet. I wanted to state the facts - just the facts. I dealt correctly with all inferential statistical procedures, applying tests of significance where appropriate to ensure both reliability and validity. I knew that I wanted my results to be as watertight and squeaky clean as possible. They would carry a great deal more credibility, strength and thereby academic 'clout' if I took no shortcuts and remained both rigorous and scholarly.
Discussion
Now I was free to let the world know the significance of my findings. What did I find in the results that answered my original research question? Why was I so sure I had some answers? What about the unexplained or unexpected findings? Had I interpreted the results correctly? Could there have been any other factors involved? Were my findings supported or contested by the results of similar studies? Where did that leave mine in terms of contribution to my field? Can I actually generalise from my findings in a breakthrough of some kind, or do I simply see myself as reinforcing existing knowledge? And so what, after all? There were some obvious limitations to my study, which, even so, I'll defend to the hilt. But I won't become over-apologetic about the things left undone, or the abandoned analyses, the fascinating byways sadly left behind. I have my memories...
Conclusion
We'll take a long hard look at this study from a broad perspective. How does it rate? How did I end up answering the question I first thought of? The conclusion needs to be a few clear, succinct sentences. That way, I'll know that I know what I'm talking about. I'll wrap up with whatever generalizations I can make, and whatever implications have arisen in my mind as a result of doing this thing at all. The more you find out, the more questions arise. How I wonder what you are ... how I speculate. OK, so where do we all go from here?
Three stages of research
1. Reading
2. Research design and implementation
3. Writing up the research report or thesis
Use an active, cyclical writing process: draft, check, reflect, revise, redraft.
Establishing good practice
1. Keep your research question always in mind.
2. Read widely to establish a context for your research.
3. Read widely to collect information, which may relate to your topic, particularly to your hypothesis or research question.
4. Be systematic with your reading, note-taking and referencing records.
5. Train yourself to select what you do need and reject what you don't need.
6. Keep a research journal to reflect on your processes, decisions, state of mind, changes of mind, reactions to experimental outcomes etc.
7. Discuss your ideas with your supervisor and interested others.
8. Keep a systematic log of technical records of your experimental and other research data, remembering to date each entry, and noting any discrepancies or unexpected occurrences at the time you notice them.
9. Design your research approaches in detail in the early stages so that you have frameworks to fit findings into straightaway.
10. Know how you will analyse data so that your formats correspond from the start.
USERNAME: FRIEND
[/quote]