Research methodology involves the collection and analysis of materials relevant to the study. Thus, in all of these cases there are 4 basic ways to deal with the essay methodology:.
The type of research method that you follow will be much determined by the type of study. Depending on the purpose, your research method may take different forms. Some of the examples of research methods are: Also, based on the source of materials for the research and study, you may have primary research and secondary research.
But how do you know which research methods should you use? Decide your purpose of research first; then the purpose itself decides the method. The type of research method that you follow is determined by the type of study. Data collecting methods may be different. For example, you may mention that:. In this case you should specify how many people you have interviewed, what did you ask them, and who these people were.
If you have a questionnaire you need to specify which type of questions did you use, who your respondents were and how did you distribute it. Though we live in the information age, not all information is available on-line. So, when you are doing a research paper on history a visit to an archive will provide you with unique material for analysis.
Data collecting methodology also includes the explanation of your choice of sources. For instance, that the authors held different views on the same issue because of their different professional background. P rof E ssays. Though essay methodology examples are easily accessible on-line, copying it from the web is not a way out and might create a problem. By using P rof E ssays. We employ only well qualified professionals to prepare content for our clients.
All content is thoroughly checked for plagiarized material. At P rof E ssays. Our professional writers write all content from scratch, including a custom written methodology for you. We will ensure all of this while helping you with an essay methodology example.
We offer fast turnaround time, i. Our round the clock support team will always be available to help you complete your assignment in time. We are ready to help you with methodology in any essay, be it UK custom essays , thematic essay or Harvard admission essay writing. Data analysis methods may be divided into quantitative and qualitative. For instance you may either conduct a number of interviews for quantitative analysis, or have just a couple of them for case studies.
Quantitative methods are used when you can rely on some reliable statistics. Mostly these are used in the essays connected with economics, where descriptive method can be applied. Quantitative methods are also widely used in social sciences and humanities. Content analysis is a popular quantitative method used in philology, political science and history. Due to content analysis you may count how often certain topics are connected together in speeches of politics, and arrive at some interesting conclusion.
Qualitative methods are widely used in different research areas. The most popular qualitative method is case study , though context analysis, and surveys are also popular. This resulted in a sample size of persons over the two-year course of the study.
In terms of illness history, the members in the sample averaged 4 prior psychiatric hospitalizations and spent a lifetime average of 9 months as patients in psychiatric hospitals. Participants had spent an average of almost two and one-half years 29 months at the longest job they ever held. While the study sample cannot be considered representative of the original population of interest, generalizability was not a primary goal -- the major purpose of this study was to determine whether a specific SE program could work in an accessible context.
Any effects of SE evident in this study can be generalized to urban psychiatric agencies that are similar to Thresholds, have a similar clientele, and implement a similar program.
All but one of the measures used in this study are well-known instruments in the research literature on psychosocial functioning. All of the instruments were administered as part of a structured interview that an evaluation social worker had with study participants at regular intervals.
Two measures of psychological functioning were used. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale BPRS Overall and Gorham, is an item scale that measures perceived severity of symptoms ranging from "somatic concern" and "anxiety" to "depressive mood" and "disorientation.
The Global Assessment Scale GAS Endicott et al, is a single 1-to rating on a scale where each ten-point increment has a detailed description of functioning higher scores indicate better functioning.
For instance, one would give a rating between if the person showed "no symptoms, superior functioning Two measures of self esteem were used. The total score is simply the sum across the ten items, with five of the items being reversals. The final ten items were selected from a pool of 97 original candidate items, based upon high item-total score correlations and a judgment of face validity by a panel of three psychologists.
This instrument was deliberately kept simple -- a shorter response scale and no reversal items -- because of the difficulties associated with measuring a population with SMI. The entire instrument is provided in Appendix A. All four of the measures evidenced strong reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliability estimates using Cronbach's alpha ranged from. Test-retest reliabilities were nearly as high, ranging from. Convergent validity was evidenced by the correlations within construct.
For the two psychological functioning scales the correlation was. Discriminant validity was examined by looking at the cross-construct correlations which ranged from. A pretest-posttest two-group randomized experimental design was used in this study. In notational form, the design can be depicted as:. The comparison group received the standard Thresholds protocol which emphasized in-house training in life skills and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop.
All participants were measured at intake pretest and at three months after intake posttest. This type of randomized experimental design is generally strong in internal validity. It rules out threats of history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, mortality and selection interactions.
Its primary weaknesses are in the potential for treatment-related mortality i. Because these rates are low and are approximately equal in each group, it is not plausible that there is differential mortality.
There is a possibility that there were some deleterious effects due to participant knowledge of the other group's existence e. Staff were debriefed at several points throughout the study and were explicitly asked about such issues.
There were no reports of any apparent negative feelings from the participants in this regard. Nor is it plausible that staff might have equalized conditions between the two groups. Staff were given extensive training and were monitored throughout the course of the study.
Overall, this study can be considered strong with respect to internal validity. For those selected, the purpose of the study was explained, including the nature of the two treatments, and the need for and use of random assignment.
Participants were assured confidentiality and were given an opportunity to decline to participate in the study. Only 7 people out of refused to participate. In addition, all study participants were given the four measures at intake. All participants spent the initial two weeks in the program in training and orientation.
This consisted of life skill training e. At the end of that period, each participant was assigned to a job site -- at the agency sheltered workshop for those in the control condition, and to an outside employer if in the Supported Employment group. Control participants were expected to work full-time at the sheltered workshop for a three-month period, at which point they were posttested and given an opportunity to obtain outside employment either Supported Employment or not.
The Supported Employment participants were each assigned a case worker -- called a Mobile Job Support Worker MJSW -- who met with the person at the job site two times per week for an hour each time. The MJSW could provide any support or assistance deemed necessary to help the person cope with job stress, including counseling or working beside the person for short periods of time. In addition, the MJSW was always accessible by cellular telephone, and could be called by the participant or the employer at any time.
At the end of three months, each participant was post-tested and given the option of staying with their current job with or without Supported Employment or moving to the sheltered workshop.
There were participants in the final sample for this study, in each treatment. There were 9 drop-outs from the control group and 13 from the treatment group, leaving a total of and in each group respectively from whom both pretest and posttest were obtained. Due to unexpected difficulties in coping with job stress, 19 Supported Employment participants had to be transferred into the sheltered workshop prior to the posttest.
In all 19 cases, no one was transferred prior to week 6 of employment, and 15 were transferred after week 8. In all analyses, these cases were included with the Supported Employment group intent-to-treat analysis yielding treatment effect estimates that are likely to be conservative.
It is immediately apparent that in all four cases the null hypothesis has to be accepted -- contrary to expectations, Supported Employment cases did significantly worse on all four outcomes than did control participants. The mean gains, standard deviations, sample sizes and t-values t-test for differences in average gain are shown for the four outcome measures in Table 1.
The results in the table confirm the impressions in the figures. Note that all t-values are negative except for the BPRS where high scores indicate greater severity of illness. The results of this study were clearly contrary to initial expectations. The alternative hypothesis suggested that SE participants would show improved psychological functioning and self esteem after three months of employment.
Exactly the reverse happened -- SE participants showed significantly worse psychological functioning and self esteem. There are two major possible explanations for this outcome pattern. First, it seems reasonable that there might be a delayed positive or "boomerang" effect of employment outside of a sheltered setting. SE cases may have to go through an initial difficult period of adjustment longer than three months before positive effects become apparent.
This "you have to get worse before you get better" theory is commonly held in other treatment-contexts like drug addiction and alcoholism. But a second explanation seems more plausible -- that people working full-time jobs in real-world settings are almost certainly going to be under greater stress and experience more negative outcomes than those who work in the relatively safe confines of an in-agency sheltered workshop. Put more succinctly, the lesson here might very well be that work is hard.
Sheltered workshops are generally very nurturing work environments where virtually all employees share similar illness histories and where expectations about productivity are relatively low. In contrast, getting a job at a local hamburger shop or as a shipping clerk puts the person in contact with co-workers who may not be sympathetic to their histories or forgiving with respect to low productivity.
This second explanation seems even more plausible in the wake of informal debriefing sessions held as focus groups with the staff and selected research participants.
It was clear in the discussion that SE persons experienced significantly higher job stress levels and more negative consequences. However, most of them also felt that the experience was a good one overall and that even their "normal" co-workers "hated their jobs" most of the time.
One lesson we might take from this study is that much of our contemporary theory in psychiatric rehabilitation is naive at best and, in some cases, may be seriously misleading. Theory led us to believe that outside work was a "good" thing that would naturally lead to "good" outcomes like increased psychological functioning and self esteem. But for most people SMI or not work is at best tolerable, especially for the types of low-paying service jobs available to study participants.
While people with SMI may not function as well or have high self esteem, we should balance this with the desire they may have to "be like other people" including struggling with the vagaries of life and work that others struggle with.
Future research in this are needs to address the theoretical assumptions about employment outcomes for persons with SMI. It is especially important that attempts to replicate this study also try to measure how SE participants feel about the decision to work, even if traditional outcome indicators suffer. It may very well be that negative outcomes on traditional indicators can be associated with a "positive" impact for the participants and for the society as a whole.
The ecology of the workplace. Transition Institute at Illinois. Job placement success of schizophrenic clients in sheltered workshop programs.
The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense. Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.".
Writing Methodology at the Core of the Research Paper. A well laid out and logical methodology section will provide a solid backbone for the entire research paper, and will lead to a strong results section. The only real difficulty with the methods section is finding the balance between keeping the section short, whilst including all the.
Research paper methodology is the process followed during the whole research activity and essentially is the core component of the research paper itself. Practically speaking, this certain part of a research paper provides the overall reliability factor of the study. What is "Research Methodology"? A Research Methodology from Paper Masters typically discusses the kinds of sources you will use for a research project.. The research methodology section of a research project serves to explain how the researcher is going to solve the problem presented or prove the hypothesis that is put forth. Often times there are several hypotheses and the methodology will.
Research Methodology refers the discussion regarding the specific methods chosen and used in a research paper. This discussion also encompasses the theoretical concepts that further provide information about the methods selection and application. The sample methodology in a research paper provides the information to show that the research is valid. It must tell what was done to answer the research question and how the research was done. Explaining the sample methodology also justifies the experimental design. Because research is .