Research design

A research design is the set of methods and procedures used in collecting and analyzing measures of the variables specified in the problem research. The design of a study defines the study type (descriptive, correlation, semi-experimental, experimental, review, meta-analytic) and sub-type (e.g., descriptive-longitudinal case study), research problem, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, experimental design, and, if applicable, data collection methods and a statistical analysis plan. A research design is a framework that has been created to find answers to research questions. A research design is the set of methods and procedures used in collecting and analyzing measures of the variables specified in the problem research. The design of a study defines the study type (descriptive, correlation, semi-experimental, experimental, review, meta-analytic) and sub-type (e.g., descriptive-longitudinal case study), research problem, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, experimental design, and, if applicable, data collection methods and a statistical analysis plan. A research design is a framework that has been created to find answers to research questions. There are many ways to classify research designs. Nonetheless, the list below offers a number of useful distinctions between possible research designs. A research design is an arrangement of conditions or collection. Sometimes a distinction is made between 'fixed' and 'flexible' designs. In some cases, these types coincide with quantitative and qualitative research designs respectively, though this need not be the case. In fixed designs, the design of the study is fixed before the main stage of data collection takes place. Fixed designs are normally theory-driven; otherwise, it is impossible to know in advance which variables need to be controlled and measured. Often, these variables are measured quantitatively. Flexible designs allow for more freedom during the data collection process. One reason for using a flexible research design can be that the variable of interest is not quantitatively measurable, such as culture. In other cases, the theory might not be available before one starts the research. The choice of how to group participants depends on the research hypothesis and on how the participants are sampled. In a typical experimental study, there will be at least one 'experimental' condition (e.g., 'treatment') and one 'control' condition ('no treatment'), but the appropriate method of grouping may depend on factors such as the duration of measurement phase and participant characteristics: Confirmatory research tests a priori hypotheses — outcome predictions that are made before the measurement phase begins. Such a priori hypotheses are usually derived from a theory or the results of previous studies. The advantage of confirmatory research is that the result is more meaningful, in the sense that it is much harder to claim that a certain result is generalizable beyond the data set. The reason for this is that in confirmatory research, one ideally strives to reduce the probability of falsely reporting a coincidental result as meaningful. This probability is known as α-level or the probability of a type I error. Exploratory research, on the other hand, seeks to generate a posteriori hypotheses by examining a data-set and looking for potential relations between variables. It is also possible to have an idea about a relation between variables but to lack knowledge of the direction and strength of the relation. If the researcher does not have any specific hypotheses beforehand, the study is exploratory with respect to the variables in question (although it might be confirmatory for others). The advantage of exploratory research is that it is easier to make new discoveries due to the less stringent methodological restrictions. Here, the researcher does not want to miss a potentially interesting relation and therefore aims to minimize the probability of rejecting a real effect or relation; this probability is sometimes referred to as β and the associated error is of type II. In other words, if the researcher simply wants to see whether some measured variables could be related, he would want to increase the chances of finding a significant result by lowering the threshold of what is deemed to be significant. Sometimes, a researcher may conduct exploratory research but report it as if it had been confirmatory ('Hypothesizing After the Results are Known', HARKing—see Hypotheses suggested by the data); this is a questionable research practice bordering on fraud.