6 Guiding Principles Detailed Description As stated in the previous section, according to the National Research Council (NRC) “the design of a study (e.g. randomized experiment, ethnography, multiwave survey) does not itself make it scientific” (NRC, 2002, p. 97). Rather, “studies may be considered scientific by assessing the rigor with which they meet scientific principles” (NRC, 2002, p. 101). These scientific principles are:
Principle 1: Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically
This two-part principle is relatively straightforward. Questions should be relevant and have import in your educational community. Local, State, and National context will guide the definition of significance. Is the question posed relevant for your community and will the answer help improve the practice or knowledge of education within your community? Will it address current gaps in knowledge? Will it expand knowledge? Will it replicate knowledge? Will it add traditionally marginalized voices of individuals to the knowledge base (Creswell, 2002)? If not, the chances of this question being significant are not worth pursuing. In addition, researchers must be able to observe or measure the impact of the variables they are investigating. If you cannot operationalize and measure a variable then you cannot investigate it empirically.
Principle 2: Link research to relevant theory
Do a literature review. What’s been done in this area before? What were the results and theories developed from these previous studies? Is your research justified by this review of the literature (Creswell, 2002)? Can you connect your study to the relevant theory and identify a direction for your research based upon what’s already been done?
Principle 3: Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question
“The simple truth is that the methods used to conduct scientific research must fit the question posed, and the investigator must completely implement the method. Particular methods are better suited to address some questions rather than others” (NRC, 2002, p.63). “Decisions regarding the use of either qualitative or quantitative methods (or both) depend upon the research question as it is currently posed” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, p. 24). In other words, your research question drives or determines your methods, not the other way around. Will your methods fully explore your research question? If not, keep searching for the methods that will. Refer to the design section of this module for a more complete discussion of research design and methods.
Principle 4: Provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning
Does your research systematically and logically link “empirical observation with the underlying theory” established in your literature review (NRC, 2002, p.66)? To what degree are “both the theory and the observations…linked to the question or problem that lies at the root of the investigation” (NRC, 2002, p. 66)? “The chain of reasoning must be coherent, explicit (one that another researcher could replicate), and persuasive to a skeptical reader (so that, for example, counterhypotheses are addressed)” (NRC, 2002, p. 67). Potential biases, estimates of error, and plausible counter explanations (threats to internal validity) must be addressed and “dealt with in a rational, systematic, and compelling way” (NRC, 2002, p. 68). Look at all the angles and cover all your bases. If a counter explanation is left unaddressed, you have not done a thorough job.
Principle 5: Replicate and generalize across studies
A research study must be implemented and written with enough rigor and attention to detail that another researcher at a different site would be able to repeat the conditions of the original study in order to (hopefully) reach similar conclusions. This evidence of replication is the essence of generalization. In other words, if research findings are replicated from one person to another, one setting to another, one classroom to another, one program to another, or one group of people to another, we can begin to assume these findings will generalize to similar situations holding everything else the same. This concept of generalizability speaks to a study’s external validity discussed at length later in the module (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).
Principle 6: Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique
“The goal of communicating new knowledge is self-evident: research results must be brought into professional and public domain if they are to be understood, debated, and eventually become known to those who could fruitfully use them” (NRC, 2002, p. 73). In addition to immediate stakeholders and intended audiences, researchers should make attempts to publish research and evaluation findings in peer-reviewed or refereed journals and/or books in order to disseminate the information and invite professional debate.
