Other designs

Question 1

Qualitative research

Answer 1

Aim to gain a detailed and deeper understanding of a topic. Nothing counted, just details collected.

• Desire for ecological validity, i.e. capturing natural behaviours and
  thoughts, rather than artificial (e.g. lab based).
• Idea of empowering participants, i.e. allowing them to shape the
  discussion and feel in control.
• There are objections to quantitative research: does not capture depth, lab based testing may not have adequate ecological validity,
  scales may not be reliable…
• There are also objections to qualitative research: effects do not generalise (for the most part), sampling biases.

Question 2

Reviews: evidence synthesis

Answer 2

• Instead of presenting new empirical data, reviews summarise the
  state of play in the published literature.
• Three main types of reviews:
• Narrative
• Systematic
• Scoping

Question 3

Narrative reviews

Answer 3

• Literature is selected by authors.
• Typically written by experts in the field.
• Can be on a relatively broad area.
• No expectation that all relevant literature is included.
• Authors can essentially cherry pick the literature they include (but hopefully not too much cherry picking occurs).

Question 4

Systematic reviews

Answer 4

• Written relative to a very specific research aim.
• Literature is systematically identified using criteria.
• The first stage (identification) often involved 1000s of articles.
• All relevant literature must be
  included (that meets criteria).
• Very methodical, very time
  consuming.
• The final product represents all
  published studies relative to the
  specific research aim.

Question 5

Scoping reviews

Answer 5

• Sits somewhere in-between a
  narrative and systemic review.
• Can vary; some use a more systematic approach than others.
• Has larger scope than a systemic review, so, the research aim can be broader and criteria for inclusion not as tight.
• Good for identifying knowledge gaps,
  scoping a body of literature, and
  clarifying concepts.
• Good approach if there isn’t a huge amount of work in a specific area, and you want to include related work.

Question 6

Meta-analysis: evidence synthesis

Answer 6

• Using inferential statistics to assess evidence across published studies.
• Instead of collecting data from participants, you collect data from published studies.
• Done after conducting a systematic review. Note: you cannot always
  run a meta-analysis after a systematic review.
• Can use data at a study-level (i.e. you extract data from the published study, such as means and SDs) or individual-level (i.e. you contact the author of the study and request they send you the original data) data.

Question 7

Research integrity

Answer 7

• Australian Code of Responsible Conduct of Research sets out a framework for responsible research conduct, provides a foundation for high-quality research, credibility and community trust in research.
• The University where you conduct the research has
  responsibilities.
• Then you as the researcher has responsibilities, e.g
• conduct research honestly and ethically.
• respect the rights of those affected by their research.
• promote the adoption of responsible research
  practice.
• disseminate research findings responsibly.

Question 8

Ethical obligations

Answer 8

• Detailed in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct
  in Human Research (2007), updated in 2018.
• Before we collect data and run a study, we need
  ethical approval from the UniSA Ethics Committee.
• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
  Research - ‘Ethical conduct’ is more than simply
  doing the right thing. It involves acting in the right
  spirit, out of an abiding respect and concern for one’s
  fellow creatures.

Question 9

Good research practices

Answer 9

To better your research integrity credentials, beyond ethical obligations.
* Don’t be obsessed by the p value.
* Don’t HARK (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Don’t do it!)
and don’t p hack (misuse of data to get significant result)
.
* Report all results, including null results.
* Check, check, check.
* Be open and transparent.

Question 10

Reporting results including null results

Answer 10

• Null results need to be published.
• Issues around replication if we do not
  publish null results.
• In terms of reporting, null or significant results, there are comprehensive guides to reporting on the equator
  network.

Question 11

Double check, triple check

Answer 11

• You REALLY need to go over your work before
  publishing.
• Get your stats right. Don’t publish without
  ensuring this. You can’t take it back…
• Please do not have documents such as lastversion.doc, reallylastversion.doc, reallyreallylastversion.doc. It will go wrong! Try to date your work, every time you modify it, e.g. most days!

Question 12

Replication crisis in psychology

Answer 12

We need…
* Reproducible research.
* Open science.
* Transparent science.

Question 13

Transparent and open science

Answer 13

• As the name suggests, not keeping any
  secrets.
• Preregistration including protocol
  papers.
• Making raw data available.
• Making the analysis code available.
• Will reduce HARKing, p hacking, and
  improve reproducibility.

Question 14

Alternative explanations

Answer 14

• It’s too easy to jump to causative conclusions. Watch for this!
• There may be third variables/confounding factors at play.

Question 15

preregistration

Answer 15

publish protocols before running a study. More transparent and less HARK or p hacking research.