Research proposal

For this assignment, you will design and propose a research design for an original empirical research project of your choice. You will select a research topic, review relevant literature, construct three hypotheses to be examined empirically, address concerns for scientific ethics and objectivity, and design a measurement instrument. When finished, you will have carried out a study up to the point of gathering data.

The research proposal should be approximately 10-15 pages long. It contains five parts: (1) the research topic; (2) the literature review; (3) hypothesis construction; (4) a discussion of objectivity, ethics, and sampling; and (5) the research instrument. The whole assignment is worth 25% of your final grade. It is due May 2.

 

Part one: the research topic

In a brief section, explain your research topic. This should be the one you've been writing about on Moodle this semester, although you're welcome to change it one more time at this point. Make your case for why it is important (e.g., it has important sociological implications, it is unaddressed by previous research, it is of personal concern to you).

 

Part two: the literature review

Find two sociological journal articles that contain theories relating to your research question. (One of these "articles" may be a chapter from Carter's Doing Sociology with Student CHIP; in this case, you would cite the findings you arrive at by doing the analysis yourself.) Here is a list of acceptable sociology journals.

To search for articles successfully, your research question should address two or more concepts that you can then review in combination (e.g., articles theorizing the same relationship between concepts) or individually (e.g., articles where one or more of your concepts have been theorized as variables in different conceptual relationship). As you search, you may find that...

a. No one has previously researched your topic (very unlikely). If this is the case, then search for similar research which may shed light on how your topic and question have been addressed in the past. You might use some of Becker's tricks to think creatively about different literatures that indirectly address your concepts.

b. There is an "infinite" amount of previous research on your topic (more likely). In this case, you need to make some decisions about narrowing your topic.

Read your two articles and write separate literature reviews that explain what each theorized and discovered about your topic. Do not write general "summaries." Instead, organize your reviews around how each article theorized and operationally defined particular relationships between concepts. Use these relationships to frame your discussion of how variables were indicated, samples were obtained, and research designs were constructed. You will not necessarily refer to all the information from each article; instead, relate only that which is relevant to your topic and research question. Finally, briefly relate what parts of the authors' studies have informed your research design (even if you reject how they studied the topic).

Citations and bibliography: Use proper citation style within the text and write a bibliography for the two articles according to the ASA Style Guide (available from Moodle). You will not get full credit if your citation style is incorrect.

Back to top

 

Part three: hypothesis construction

State three research hypotheses (H₁-H₃) that you can investigate empirically. Formulate these as potential or predicated relationships between concepts that speak to your research question. They should also reflect the literature you have reviewed, if only because they improve upon preexisting research; if you thought your articles were off the mark, here is your chance to examine the research problem more validly. The hypotheses should be concrete enough that they can be tested (e.g., they predict actions or behaviors, not feelings or perspectives).

Identify and operationalize the dependent variables (DV) and independent variables (IV) for each hypothesis. Likewise, for each hypothesis identify and operationalize two extraneous variables that may not be in your hypothesis but may affect the observed outcomes (e.g., demographic factors like gender, race, class, etc.) Organize your writing around the following format:

Tip: If you use the same variables for more than one hypothesis, just copy and paste what you have already written. If you are stuck about how to operationalize your variables, look at how other researchers have done so (if this is appropriate to your measurement instrument; see part five).

Back to top

 

Part four: objectivity, ethics, sampling

In a brief essay, discuss potential problems with your scientific objectivity. What were your preconceived beliefs or prior knowledge about your area of study before you began your research? What beliefs and paradigms do you subscribe to regarding the people or topics you are going to study? How might these affect your analysis or conclusions if you are not careful? How will you avoid imposing bias in your research design: administering a survey impersonally, creating specific criteria for observing your variables, having someone else measure the observations, etc.? Address these and other potentially relevant questions of objectivity.

In another essay, discuss potential ethical problems in your study. Could your subjects be harmed by your research, either in carrying it out or affecting society after it is finished? Who are the audiences for your research, and do they have "objective" concerns for the practical implications and policy recommendations that you make? Address these and other possibly relevant questions of ethics.

In a third essay, explain how you will select your sample. This part should read like a detailed set of instructions that someone else could follow and execute without your help. Your essay should cover the following questions: Who or what is your target population? What is your unit of analysis? What sampling method do you plan to use, and how many stages will it require? Why do you plan to use this methods as opposed to others that are available? If applicable, what is your sampling frame?

Back to top

 

Part five: the measurement instrument

Design a measurement instrument based on one of the options below.

Survey research: Construct a brief questionnaire (about 15-20 questions) that addresses all aspects of the hypotheses you constructed in part three. This should be ready for self-administration, so include clear instructions about how respondents should take, complete, and return the questionnaire. Pay careful attention to issues of design: question ordering, question phrasing, closed- or open-ended questions, overall convenience and attractiveness of the questionnaire, etc.

In-depth interviews: Construct an interview schedule that includes questions for all of your variables, as well as introductory comments to your respondents, explanations for answering questions, and follow-up questions or probes. Explain how you will analyze the interviews to measure your variables if it is not self-evident from the "measurement" sections for your variables in part three. Address how you will deal with potential interviewer effects (e.g., through your appearance, the time and place of the interview).

Other methods (participant observation, experiments, content analysis, etc.): You will need to describe the setting for gathering your data, write instructions for 20-25 explicit observations to be made, explain how you will code and/or analyze these data to measure your variables, etc. Please consult with me if you choose one of these other methods.

Your measurement instrument will be evaluated for the validity and reliability of the observations it can produce. If you have good reasons for using a less than optimally valid or reliable measurement instrument (e.g., questionnaires are not appropriate for your subjects), then state these reasons.

Finally, make sure your citations and references follow the conventions of the ASA Style Guide. Use the spell-check function on your word processing software! When finished, the end product should read like the first half of a (very explicit) research article:

Back to top

 

Criteria for evaluation of research proposals

Here are some of the questions I will be asking as I evaluate your proposals:

1. Have you clearly operationalized your research question(s)? Is your proposal vague and insufficiently specific on key issues?

2. Have you succeeded in making the case that the study is worth doing? Does it have important implications for a social science audience? Does it have implications for public policy, social theory, or social change?

3. Have you selected the most appropriate research design and methodology to explore the specific research question(s)?

4. Will your design be likely to provide answer(s) to your research question(s)?

5. Are you aware of what are likely to be the major methodological obstacles and ethical issues facing your study? Have you come up with a convincing case that these can be successfully resolved?