Rana, Muhammed Q.
Kaushik, Amit K.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis unique collection of ten chapters gives you the essential knowledge for research methods and academic writing. Educational researchers should use this book as a dissertation/thesis writing guide. This book is carefully considering the benefits for both the native and non-native speakers of English. Therefore, understandable and simplified English terms are adopted in writing this book. This book aims to provide simplified research methods and tools and techniques to dissertation writers. This book is not a discipline-specific resource. Therefore, this resource can equip bachelors/masters and doctorate level researchers with the tools and techniques that are essential for research and academic writing. A successful research project needs critical planning. Research planning may take some time, but that makes your research journey stress-free. Many students fail to manage the research project due to the lack of research planning. A substantial amount of research fails due to the lack of understanding of the research methodology. Consequently, it fails to produce a merit or distinction level research. Well-Planned research saves time to focus on the main content such as investigating literature, research methodology, collecting data, analysing data and logically draw conclusions and recommendations. A research project has a time-limit. Therefore, in this book, we have discussed several tools that help you to plan and manage your thesis. Through this guide, you will be able to employ a critical thinking approach to your research content and structure. This guide consists of several examples and activities of academic writing, which provides you with a starting point to write each chapter of your dissertation and its sections and sub-sections. The content of this guide is kept generic that can be used with citation. This unique collection of your nuts and bolts for research and academic writing is organised in ten chapters. So, you can use it in a flow-through chapter-by-chapter and section-by-section.
CitationSaini, M. (2020) Simplified research methods: with exercises and examples. Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton.
The following licence applies to the copyright and re-use of this item:
- Creative Commons
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Book of Abstracts: 2nd Faculty of Science and Engineering (FSE) Research Conference. Theme: Festival of Research (FoR) and Research during the COVID-19 PandemicSuresh, Subashini; Aggoun, Amar; Burnham, Keith (University of Wolverhampton, 2021-03-26)
Is big team research fair in national research assessments? The case of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan; Makita, Meiko; Abdoli, Mahshid; Stuart, Emma; Wilson, Paul; Levitt, Jonathan (Sciendo/National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023-02-28)Collaborative research causes problems for research assessments because of the difficulty in fairly crediting its authors. Whilst splitting the rewards for an article amongst its authors has the greatest surface-level fairness, many important evaluations assign full credit to each author, irrespective of team size. The underlying rationales for this are labour reduction and the need to incentivise collaborative work because it is necessary to solve many important societal problems. This article assesses whether full counting changes results compared to fractional counting in the case of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. For this assessment, fractional counting reduces the number of journal articles to as little as 10% of the full counting value, depending on the Unit of Assessment (UoA). Despite this large difference, allocating an overall grade point average (GPA) based on full counting or fractional counting give results with a median Pearson correlation within UoAs of 0.98. The largest changes are for Archaeology (r=0.84) and Physics (r=0.88). There is a weak tendency for higher scoring institutions to lose from fractional counting, with the loss being statistically significant in 5 of the 34 UoAs. Thus, whilst the apparent over-weighting of contributions to collaboratively authored outputs does not seem too problematic from a fairness perspective overall, it may be worth examining in the few UoAs in which it makes the most difference.
What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research?Levitt, Jonathan M. (Springer, 2014-10-19)Many studies have found that co-authored research is more highly cited than single author research. This finding is policy relevant as it indicates that encouraging co-authored research will tend to maximise citation impact. Nevertheless, whilst the citation impact of research increase as the number of authors increases in the sciences, the extent to which this occurs in the social sciences is unknown. In response, this study investigates the average citation level of articles with one to four authors published in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 in 19 social science disciplines. The results suggest that whilst having at least two authors gives a substantial citation impact advantage in all social science disciplines, additional authors are beneficial in some disciplines but not in others.