RESEARCH METHODOLOGY CONFUSION AMONG NOVICE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCHERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v5i1.332Keywords:
research procedure, inexperienced reseacher, methodology ambiguity, social researchAbstract
Research methodology in the social sciences and humanities entails a methodical approach to studying social phenomena, context, and human behaviour using qualitative, quantitative, or hybrid research techniques. However, the intricate nature of research methods in the social sciences and humanities often poses substantial difficulties for inexperienced researchers and may result in perplexity and mistakes. The objective of this study is to review the research methodology confusion among novice researchers in the social sciences and humanities. This study entails a content analysis approach to discovering pertinent material on the difficulties faced by inexperienced researchers in comprehending research methodology. This study has identified several points of research methodology confusion among novice researchers in the social sciences and humanities, namely: (a) normality tests and validity/reliability tests; (b) parametric and non-parametric tests; (c) sampling determination between experiments and social research; (d) literature review and manuscript analysis; (e) a review and an original qualitative paper; (f) specific terminology of research paper types; and (g) independent and dependent of sample and variable. In conclusion, this study reveals the widespread lack of clarity among inexperienced researchers in the social sciences and humanities when it comes to fundamental ideas, concepts, and research methods.
References
Adekeye, A.J., Apeh, P. (2019): Applicability of sampling techniques in social sciences. – Net Journal of Social Sciences 7(4): 101-108.
Annandale, E. (1993): Sampling in non-experimental research. – Nursing Standard 7(28): 34-36.
Ardi, Z., Daharnis, V.Y., Ifdil, I. (2021): Controversy in determining criteria and categories in summarizing and exploring the research data; Analysis of assessment procedures in the social science research. – Psychology and Education Journal 58(1): 4109-4115.
Baškarada, S., Koronios, A. (2018): A philosophical discussion of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research in social science. – Qualitative Research Journal 18(1): 2-21.
Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2010): Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle. – Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41(2): 129-144.
Bolarinwa, O.A. (2015): Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. – Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal 22(4): 195-201.
Bozkurt, M., Öztürk, F. (2022): Qualitative research in social sciences: A research profiling study. – Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 17(1): 247-277.
Burton, R.F. (2009): "Original work" and creative reviews. – Medical Hypotheses 73(6): 1p.
Butchard, D., Rowberry, S.P., Squires, C. (2018): DIY peer review and monograph publishing in the arts and humanities. – Convergence 24(5): 477-493.
Carstens, A. (2008): Preferred genres and rhetorical modes in the humanities and social sciences. – Language Matters 39(1): 49-65.
Casanave, C.P., Li, Y. (2015): Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication. – Publications 3(2): 104-119.
Cole, G. (2021): Sampling on the dependent variable: An Achille's heel of research on displacement? – Journal of Refugee Studies 34(4): 4479-4502.
Daniels, J.B., Torto, R.T.A. (2022): Schematic and linguistic analysis of the literature review section of MPhil research proposals in English. – International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature 10(10): 16-27.
Dhobi, S. (2022): PhD research in humanities & social sciences: Methods & approaches. – Patan Pragya 10(01): 179-187.
Dodgson, J.E. (2021): Critical analysis: The often-missing step in conducting literature review research. – Journal of Human Lactation 37(1): 27-32.
Dooley, D. (2001): Social research methods (4rd ed.). – Prentice-Hall 385p.
Drost, E.A. (2011): Validity and reliability in social science research. – Education Research and Perspectives 38(1): 105-123.
Ellis, T.J., Levy, Y. (2009): Towards a guide for novice researchers on research methodology: Review and proposed methods. – Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology 6: 323-337.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., Davidson, L. (2002): Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. – Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36(6): 717-732.
Gaito, J. (1959): Non-parametric methods in psychological research. – Psychological Reports 5(1): 115-125.
Gerald, B., Patson, T.F. (2021): Parametric and nonparametric tests: A brief review. – International Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications 7: 78-82.
Gergen, K.J. (1978): Experimentation in social psychology: A reappraisal. – European Journal of Social Psychology 8(4): 507-527.
Gualandi, B., Pareschi, L., Peroni, S. (2023): What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities. – Journal of Documentation 79(7): 51-71.
Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., Mallard, G. (2004): What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? – American Sociological Review 69(2): 190-212.
Harwell, M.R. (1988): Choosing between parametric and nonparametric tests. – Journal of Counseling & Development 67(1): 35-38.
Haydam, N.E., Steenkamp, P. (2020): A methodological blueprint for social sciences research–the social sciences research methodology framework. – EIRP Proceedings 15(1): 304-325.
Hooghe, M., Stolle, D., Mahéo, V.A., Vissers, S. (2010): Why can’ta student be more like an average person?: Sampling and attrition effects in social science field and laboratory experiments. – The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628(1): 85-96.
Horwitz, A.V. (2008): Normality. – Contexts 7(1): 70-71.
Hussey, I., Hughes, S. (2020): Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. – Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 3(2): 166-184.
Islam, T.U. (2019): Ranking of normality tests: An appraisal through skewed alternative space. – Symmetry 11(7): 14p.
Jacob, E. (1989): Qualitative research: A defense of traditions. – Review of Educational Research 59(2): 229-235.
Janinović, J., Pekovic, S., Vuckovic, D., Popovic, S., Djokovic, R., Pejić Bach, M. (2020): Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities. – Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS 18(4): 449-458.
Keselman, H.J., Othman, A.R., Wilcox, R.R. (2014): Testing for normality in the multi-group problem: Is this a good practice. – Clinical Dermatology 2(1): 29-43.
Keselman, H.J., Othman, A.R., Wilcox, R.R. (2013): Preliminary testing for normality: Is this a good practice? – Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 12(2): 2-19.
Khalefa, E.Y., Selian, S.N. (2021): Non-random samples as a data collection tool in qualitative art-related studies. – International Journal of Creative and Arts Studies 8(1): 35-49.
Kwak, S.G., Park, S.H. (2019): Normality test in clinical research. – Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 26(1): 5-11.
Kyakuwa, J. (2019): It piques a novice's curiosity and engages the experienced: A review of designing qualitative research (the SAGE qualitative research kit). – The Qualitative Report 24(12): 3190-3197.
LaRossa, R. (2012): Writing and reviewing manuscripts in the multidimensional world of qualitative research. – Journal of Marriage and Family 74(4): 643-659.
Leung, T.M. (2019): Parametric Design Modelling in Urban Art: Approaches and Future Directions. – In: 2019 International Conference on Architecture: Heritage, Traditions and Innovations (AHTI 2019), Atlantis Press 5p.
Li, X., Li, Q., Wang, Q. (2023): Analysis of college students' misconceptions of quantitative research in social sciences in China: Implications for teaching. – Journal of Education and Educational Research 2(3): 28-31.
Luo, X., Lim, J.M.H. (2021): Expert writers’ structural outlines in research papers: An inquiry into social sciences. – Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39(3): 306-318.
Madden, A.D. (2022): A review of basic research tools without the confusing philosophy. – Higher Education Research & Development 41(5): 1633-1647.
McSweeney, M., Faust, K. (2019): How do you know if you don’t try? Non-traditional research methodologies, novice researchers, and leisure studies. – Leisure/Loisir 43(3): 339-364.
Mircioiu, C., Atkinson, J. (2017): A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a Likert scale. – Pharmacy 5(2): 12p.
Muhaise, H., Ejiri, A.H., Muwanga-Zake, J.W.F., Kareyo, M. (2020): The research philosophy dilemma for postgraduate student researchers. – International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation 7(4): 2321-2705.
Nguyen, T.H T., Tran, T., Dau, T.T., Nguyen, T.S.H., Nguyen, T.H., Ho, M.T. (2020): How scientific research changes the Vietnamese higher education landscape: Evidence from social sciences and humanities between 2008 and 2019. – F1000Research 9: 14p.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S.E., Daniel, H.D. (2013): Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities. – Research Evaluation 22(2): 79-92.
Okesina, M. (2020): A critical review of the relationship between paradigm, methodology, design and method in research. – Journal of Research & Method in Education 10(3): 57-68.
Oliver, D., Mahon, S.M. (2005): Reading a research article part II: parametric and nonparametric statistics. – Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 9(2): 238-240.
Orehov A.A., Nizhnikov S.S., Reznik Y.Y. (2024): History, philosophy and methodology of social sciences and humanities. – INFRA-M Academic Publishing 692p.
Ouimet, M., Bédard, P. (2021): Literature Review. – In: Morin, J., Olsson, C., Atikcan, E. (eds.) Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An A-Z of Key Concepts, Oxford University Press, Oxford 336p.
Padgett, D.K. (2009): Qualitative and mixed methods in social work knowledge development (guest editorial). – Social Work 54(2): 101-105.
Pariser, D. (1999): Reviewed work: Research methods and methodologies for art education by Sharon D. La Pierre, Enid Zimmerman. – Studies in Art Education 40(3): 279-283.
Pedersen, D.B., Grønvad, J.F., Hvidtfeldt, R. (2020): Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities-A literature review. – Research Evaluation 29(1): 4-21.
Peterson, J.S. (2019): Presenting a qualitative study: A reviewer’s perspective. – Gifted Child Quarterly 63(3): 147-158.
Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D., Byrne, J. (2015): Publishing not perishing: How research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. – Studies in Higher Education 40(10): 1756-1769.
Rahman, M.M., Tabash, M.I., Salamzadeh, A., Abduli, S., Rahaman, M.S. (2022): Sampling techniques (probability) for quantitative social science researchers: a conceptual guidelines with examples. – Seeu Review 17(1): 42-51.
Roberts, C., Kumar, K., Finn, G. (2020): Navigating the qualitative manuscript writing process: some tips for authors and reviewers. – BMC Medical Education 20(1): 1-4.
Roye, S., Calamia, M., Bernstein, J.P., De Vito, A.N., Hill, B.D. (2019): A multi-study examination of performance validity in undergraduate research participants. – The Clinical Neuropsychologist 33(6): 1138-1155.
Sansom, R. (2019): “Doing research”: Understanding the different types of peer-reviewed articles. – fVoice and Speech Review 13(3): 259-264.
Saur-Amaral, I. (2014): Towards a methodology for literature reviews in social sciences. – Investigaçao e Intervençâo em Recursos Humanos 10p.
Schirmer, B.R. (2021): Writing a literature review narrative. – International Journal of Education 13(2): 94-103.
Siler, K., Strang, D. (2017): Peer review and scholarly originality: Let 1,000 flowers bloom, but don’t step on any. – Science, Technology, & Human Values 42(1): 29-61.
Staller, K.M. (2022): Confusing questions in qualitative inquiry: Research, interview, and analysis. – Qualitative Social Work 21(2): 227-234.
Stojanović, M., Anđelković-Apostolović, M., Milošević, Z., Ignjatović, A. (2018): Parametric versus nonparametric tests in biomedical research. – Acta Medica Medianae 57(2): 75-80.
Șuteu, C. (2022): The assessment of originality in academic research. – Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Musica 67(1): 165-173.
Taherdoost, H. (2016): Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. – SSRN 9p.
Van der Walt, J.L. (2020): Interpretivism-constructivism as a research method in the humanities and social sciences-more to it than meets the eye. – International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 8(1): 59-68.
Weichselbraun, A., Kuntschik, P., Francolino, V., Saner, M., Dahinden, U., Wyss, V. (2021): Adapting data-driven research to the fields of social sciences and the humanities. – Future Internet 13(3): 22p.
Wells, G.L., Windschitl, P.D. (1999): Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. – Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(9): 1115-1125.
Wolhuter, C., Chigisheva, O. (2020): New thematic and methodological research focus in the social sciences and the humanities: The BRICS countries grouping. – Space and Culture, India 7(5): 1-2.
Zhafyarov, A.Z. (2022): Criteria for studying dependent and independent samples in the field of education. – Science for Education Today 12(3): 69-91.
