Proposing a Study with Emerging Methods
By Janet Salmons
Dr. Salmons is the Research Community Manager for Methodspace, and serves as Mentor in Residence for June. Her most recent book from SAGE Publishing is Doing Qualitative Research Online. Her most recent book from SAGE Publishing is Doing Qualitative Research Online. If ordering from SAGE, use MSPACEQ222 for a 20% discount, valid through the end of June 2022.
Oversight, enacted through varied types of review, distinguishes scholarly writing from other types.
Cycles of review are what makes scholarly writing trustworthy in a sea of misinformation, disinformation, and unsupported opinions. While those who share ideas on social media simply have to write their comments and click to post, academic writers must go through multiple steps before they can conduct the research and share what they learned.
Students planning research for theses or dissertations typically need approvals from a chair, supervisor, or mentor, a committee, department level reviews, and university-level ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Review Board (ERB). Academics applying for funding typically need to receive institutional approval before submitting to the agency or foundation they hope will support the study. Researchers hoping to publish research submit work for editorial and peer review.
Timely approval is dependent on the reviewer’s knowledge of the methodologies, methods, and ethical protocols described in the research designs and plans. When we propose a study that uses new approaches, we can run into obstacles when reviewers are unfamiliar with the type of design we’ve submitted. During a time of rapid change is unrealistic to expect that reviewers, who are often unpaid volunteers, can stay up-to-date with myriad cutting-edge methods. It is safe to assume that at least one person in the review chain is unfamiliar, and perhaps skeptical of the design you plan to study or publish. With that given in mind, think about how to frame your innovative studies in ways reviewers can understand.
Lessons from Constructivist Learning Theory
When I studied education way back when, my professors emphasized a point drawn from Ausubel’s constructivist learning theory:
To learn meaningfully, individuals must choose to relate new knowledge to relevant concepts and propositions they already know. (Novak and Gowin, 1984, p. 7)
Novak and Gowin described the educator’s role as building a cognitive bridge between what the learner knows, and the next concepts they need to learn. Just as we walk across a physical bridge one plank at a time, without big leaps across roiling rapids below, the cognitive bridge should lead the reader through a logical progression of steps. We can adapt these ideas, and help reviewers cross from familiar research traditions to those we are proposing.
Building a Bridge: From Familiar to Unfamiliar Research Methods
Here are a few tips to consider when introducing a study using emerging methods:
Consult first. Carefully read any guidelines. As possible, ask questions. Look at work that this committee has previously approved.
Follow all requirements for format and organization. A clean, well-organized, error-free document that adheres to the rules makes it easier for reviewers to focus on content.
Ground your work in respected theories and principles. Who are the seminal thinkers in your field? What books or articles are commonly read as foundational thinking? Reference them and discuss any theoretical constructs or principles that underpin your study.
Link new methods to accepted methods.
In a concise but thorough way, demonstrate your knowledge of the methods most comparable to your proposed approaches. Reference respected methodologists.
Discuss new literature that used comparable methods, even if it is from a different field or discipline.
Explain what part(s) of the accepted methods you will use, and why.
Explain where your study diverges from accepted methods, and why.
If you plan to use a new device, platform, or communications technology, explain how it works and why it fits your study. Discuss any issues relating to access or digital literacy requirements if you are involving human participants.
Show the design.
Consider a mind map, flow-chart or other diagram that shows the parts of the study and sequence you will follow.
Emphasize ethics.
Position your work within an ethical tradition.
Note any potential ethical dilemmas, and how you will address them.
