Evaluating a Good Research

A researcher has its own way of thinking that is why sometimes researches of the same thing end up with different output. On my own point of view a good research work should be easily understood or else your reader may find it too much complicated and would disregard it. A good research work should be supported by legitimate facts. Researcher doing the research should not be biased especially if the output is not what he/she expects to be or else your research work will not be accurate or reliable. As I search trough the net I found some ways on how you evaluate a research work and this one gives a really short yet easy way to evaluate a research work.

A good contribution to a research area should have most of these qualities:
• address an important problem
• be novel, building on existing good research
• use good scientific methods, and best practices in the research area
• report significant results
• have positive benefits/implications in the research area
• be well communicated in writing and in person

The first two items above talks about the general purpose of the research done. If a research work addresses important problems especially current problems that the society is facing then that would be a good start to know if the research work is of good quality. In short, the research should be timely. The next three items probably talks about how the researcher comes up with the result? What methods or practices that he or she used? Does the practices and methods that he or she used appropriate for the research? This part is really crucial for it is where the results are generated. Even though you have a really good research topic, timely and all, it would all mean useless if your ways of finding solutions to the problems are not right. And the last items talks about the researcher’s way of presenting his or her result. If it is presented in a way that is too complex readers would lose the urge to read your findings. After all who wants to read a research work that you don’t understand. Researchers should present their outputs in a way that readers can easily understand it.

According to Linda Finlay researches can be evaluated in 4 C’s
1) Clarity - Does the research make sense? To what extent is the research systematically worked through, coherent and clearly described?
2) Credibility – To what extent do the findings match the evidence and are they convincing? When the author is arguing evidentially, is the evidence marshaled rigorously and opened up for external audit? Are the researcher’s interpretations plausible and justified? Can readers see what the researcher saw even if they disagree with the conclusions drawn by the researcher?
3) Contribution – To what extent does the research add to knowledge of an issue or aspect of human social life? Does it enrich our understanding of the human condition? Is it empowering and/or growth-enhancing? Does it offer guidance for future action or for changing the social world for the better? Does it offer a interesting basis for future research?
4) Communicative resonance – Are the findings sufficiently vivid or powerful to draw readers in? Do the findings resonate with readers’ own experience/understandings? As meanings are elicited in an interpersonal context, have the knowledge claims been tested and argued in dialogue with others, including participants, research supervisors or the wider academic community?

Henwood and Pidgeon identified 7 attributes which characterize a good research.

1. The importance of fit – The themes or analytical categories offered by the researcher should fit the data. The researcher demonstrates this by writing clear, explicit accounts of how these categories were evolved.
2. Integration of theory - The researcher needs to discuss the relationship between units of analysis and the degree to which they can be integrated or generalized (for instance, exploring how themes might be combined moving towards a theory).
3. Reflexivity – The role of the researcher needs to be acknowledged and accounted for in the documentation of the research.
4. Documentation – The researcher needs to provide an audit trail: a comprehensive account of what was done and why.
5. Theoretical sampling and negative case analysis – The researcher needs to continuously develop and modify any emerging theory, exploring cases that do not fit as well as those which might generate new knowledge.
6. Sensitivity to negotiated realities – While participant validation may be necessary, the researcher needs to demonstrate awareness of the research context, power differentials and participant reactions to the research. It is particularly important to explain any differences between the researcher’s interpretations and those of the participant(s).
7. Transferability - The researcher should suggest how the research may have applicability beyond the particular research context.
Lincoln and Guba propose four criteria for ‘naturalistic’ research.
1) Credibility – This concept replaces the idea of internal validity, by which researchers seek to establish confidence in the ‘truth’ of their findings. Instead, Lincoln and Guba focus on the degree to which findings make sense. For instance, they recommend that qualitative researchers use ‘member checks’. Here participants are given their interview transcripts and the research reports so they can agree/disagree with the researcher’s findings. In addition, credibility is built up through prolonged engagement in the field and persistent observation and triangulation of data.
2) Transferability – Transferability replaces the concept of external validity. Instead of aiming for random sampling and probabilistic reasoning, qualitative researchers are encouraged to provide a detailed portrait of the setting in which the research is conducted. The aim here is to give readers enough information for them to judge the applicability of the findings to other settings.
3) Dependability – This concept replaces the idea of reliability. It encourages researchers to provide an audit trail (the documentation of data, methods and decisions about the research) which can be laid open to external scrutiny.
4) Confirmability – Confirmability, replacing the concept of objectivity, also invokes auditing as a means to demonstrate quality. For example, the researcher can offer a self-critically reflexive analysis of the methodology used in the research. In addition, techniques such as triangulation (of data, researcher, and context) can be useful tools of confirmability.

To summarize everything, researches can be evaluated trough its importance. How important the research work is? Since research main purpose is to find solutions to problem it is essential that a research work should meet that purpose. As I’ve stated above a research work should timely. Another criterion is that a research work should be reliable and dependable. How will the reader know is the research is dependable? The reader may check how the research was done. What did the researcher do to get the information? Is the source of information reliable? Does the method used fit the research problem? Those are some of the questions needed to be asked if you want to check the reliability and dependability of a research work. And lastly, a research should be reader friendly. The complete documentation should be provided and the research work should be presented in a way that users easily understand it especially the conclusion or output part.
For the researchers, I have found something for you to be guided before proceeding in making your research.

1. What’s the problem?
2. Who cares about the problem?
3. What have others done?
4. What would you like to do?
5. What can you really do?
6. How are you going to do it?
7. What results did/will you get?
8. Who would/will care about your results?
9. Where will you share your results?
10. What are you going to do afterwards?

Those questions should be satisfied for you to produce a good research work.

Another guideline that I found on the net entitled 15 steps to a good research which is addressed to the researchers are as follows:

1. Define and articulate a research question (formulate a research hypothesis).
2. Identify possible sources of information in many types and formats.
3. Judge the scope of the project.
4. Reevaluate the research question based on the nature and extent of information available and the parameters of the research project.
5. Select the most appropriate investigative methods (surveys, interviews, experiments) and research tools (periodical indexes, databases, websites).
6. Plan the research project.
7. Retrieve information using a variety of methods (draw on a repertoire of skills).
8. Refine the search strategy as necessary.
9. Write and organize useful notes and keep track of sources.
10. Evaluate sources using appropriate criteria.
11. Synthesize, analyze and integrate information sources and prior knowledge.
12. Revise hypothesis as necessary.
13. Use information effectively for a specific purpose.
14. Understand such issues as plagiarism, ownership of information (implications of copyright to some extent), and costs of information.
15. Cite properly and give credit for sources of ideas.

The guidelines given above are provided for researchers to provide a good research work. Researchers should also have the determination and perseverance especially in finding resources in supporting their claims. Researching is not easy and the world becomes what is it now because of the researches that was done so I guess it’s all worth the difficulties.