Editing Research (section)

== Steps in conducting research ==
[[File:Research design and evidence.svg|thumb|Research design and evidence]]
[[File:Research cycle.svg|thumb|Research cycle]]
Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research.<ref>Trochim, W.M.K, (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base.</ref> The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the method of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results. The major steps in conducting research are:{{sfn|Creswell|2008|pp=8-9}}
* Identification of research problem
* [[Literature review]]
* Specifying the purpose of research
* Determining specific [[research question]]s
* Specification of a [[conceptual framework]], sometimes including a set of hypotheses<ref>{{cite book|first1= Patricia M.|last1= Shields<!--|authorlink1=Patricia M. Shields-->|last2= Rangarjan|first2= N.|year= 2013|title= A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=tVYbAgAAQBAJ|location= Stillwater, OK|publisher= New Forums Press|isbn= 9781581072471}}{{Dead link|date=June 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
* Choice of a methodology (for data collection)
* Data collection
* Verifying data
* Analyzing and interpreting the data
* Reporting and evaluating research
* Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations

The steps generally represent the overall process; however, they should be viewed as an ever-changing iterative process rather than a fixed set of steps.<ref>Gauch, Jr., H.G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2003 {{ISBN|0-521-81689-0}} (page 3)</ref> Most research begins with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study.<ref>Rocco, T.S., Hatcher, T., & Creswell, J.W. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 2011 {{ISBN|978-0-470-39335-2}}</ref> The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a [[literature review]] is conducted in a given subject area before a [[research question]] is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the [[hypothesis]]. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as [[empirical research]]. The results of the data analysis in rejecting or failing to reject the [[null hypothesis]] are then reported and evaluated. At the end, the researcher may discuss avenues for [[Further research is needed|further research]]. However, some researchers advocate for the reverse approach: starting with articulating findings and discussion of them, moving "up" to identification of a research problem that emerges in the findings and literature review. The reverse approach is justified by the transactional nature of the research endeavor where research inquiry, research questions, research method, relevant research literature, and so on are not fully known until the findings have fully emerged and been interpreted.

[[Rudolph Rummel]] says, "... no researcher should accept any one or two tests as definitive. It is only when a range of tests are consistent over many kinds of data, researchers, and methods can one have confidence in the results."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MTF.CHAP9.HTM|title=QUESTIONS ABOUT FREEDOM, DEMOCIDE, AND WAR|website=www.hawaii.edu|access-date=25 November 2011|archive-date=4 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120104195242/http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MTF.CHAP9.HTM|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Plato]] in [[Meno]] talks about an inherent difficulty, if not a paradox, of doing research that can be paraphrased in the following way, "If you know what you're searching for, why do you search for it?! [i.e., you have already found it] If you don't know what you're searching for, what are you searching for?!"<ref>Plato, & Bluck, R. S. (1962). Meno. Cambridge, UK: University Press.</ref>