Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Findings
Published by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and
Strathclyde
W.L. Wilson
Acknowledgements
The material from this booklet has been developed from discussion groups
and interviews with the research staff of Glasgow and Strathclyde
Universities
The advice and contributions of Dr Avril Davidson, Mr Keri Davies, Prof
George Gordon, Mrs Janice Reid, Dr Alan Taylor and Mrs Sheila Thompson
are acknowledged.
The advice of the project Steering Group: Prof Michael Anderson,
University of Edinburgh; Dr Nuala Booth, University of Aberdeen; Dr Ian
Carter, University of Glasgow; Ms Jean Chandler, University of Glasgow; Dr
Avril Davidson, University of Glasgow; Prof George Gordon, University of
Strathclyde; Prof Caroline MacDonald, University of Paisley; Prof James
McGoldrick, University of Dundee; Dr Alan Runcie, University of
Strathclyde; Prof Susan Shaw, University of Strathclyde; Dr Alan Taylor,
University of Edinburgh; Prof Rick Trainor, University of Glasgow is also
acknowledged.
The project was funded by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
Other titles in Series
Gaining Funding for Research
Gathering and Evaluating Information from Secondary Sources
Preparing the Research Brief
Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde 1999
Cartoons D. Brown & W. L. Wilson
ISBN 0 85261 688 0 Printed by Universities Design and Print
Introduction
This booklet is one of a series of four aimed at researchers in the early
stages of their career life cycle. The comments within the booklet are
based upon information collected at a series of discussion groups and
interviews at Strathclyde and Glasgow Universities. The questions put to
the discussion groups were based broadly upon the performance criteria
and knowledge requirements identified in the report "Draft Occupational
Standards in Research" (Gealy et al, 1997).
The booklet is in two sections. The first section, "Interpreting Research
Results and Findings" considers various aspects concerning the
interpretation of results. Generally the section considers how to confirm
the reliability and analysis of results, the avoidance of bias or overinterpretation of results, and the identification from the results of potential
areas of future research.
Section two, "Documenting Research Results and Findings," examines
methods of presenting research findings, the physical aspects of record
keeping, and what should be recorded within research records both to
ensure their value to the researcher and to ensure that they are legally
and ethically correct.
The booklet is not intended to be read in one fell swoop, but rather to be
dipped into as and when the occasion arises.
Both sections within the booklet are subdivided into subsections each of
which consist of:
Introduction
Points of advice, and examples from experienced researchers to
highlight these points (colour linked). Information for the second
section was collected through a series of interviews and discussion
groups, which were formed from lecturers, PhD students, and
Contract Research Staff (CRS).
Bullet points which highlight the main points. The bullet points refer to the
points and examples preceding them.
Contents
INTERPRETING RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS......................4
HOW DO YOU CONFIRM THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR RESULTS?..................................4
Introduction.......................................................................................... 4
Points to Consider................................................................................ 4
HOW DO YOU AVOID GETTING INTO A RUT WITH YOUR ANALYTICAL METHODS?...........6
Introduction.......................................................................................... 6
Points to consider................................................................................. 6
HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE INTERPRETATIVE METHODS?..........................................8
Introduction.......................................................................................... 8
Definitions of "Interpretative"..............................................................8
HOW DO YOU RECOGNISE AND AVOID BIAS IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF YOUR
RESULTS?.................................................................................................... 9
Introduction.......................................................................................... 9
Points to Consider................................................................................ 9
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE YOUR RESULTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF YOUR
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL?..................................................................................11
Introduction........................................................................................ 11
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 11
WHEN DO YOU THINK UNCERTAINTY MAY ARISE OVER RESULTS AND THEIR
INTERPRETATION AND, HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE FULLY
JUSTIFIED BY THE RESULTS?...........................................................................12
Introduction........................................................................................ 12
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 12
HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY POTENTIAL AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH FROM THE RESULTS?
............................................................................................................... 14
Introduction........................................................................................ 14
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 14
DOCUMENTING RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS....................17
WHAT TECHNIQUES DO YOU USE TO PRESENT YOUR FINDINGS, AND POSSIBLE AREAS OF
FUTURE RESEARCH TO OTHER INTERESTED BODIES?...........................................17
Introduction........................................................................................ 17
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 17
HOW DO YOU RECORD YOUR RESEARCH AND FINDINGS? ARE THERE METHODS OF
RECORDING THAT YOU WOULD AVOID?............................................................18
Introduction........................................................................................ 18
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 18
WHAT DETAILS DO YOU PUT IN YOUR RESEARCH RECORDS? WHAT DETAILS SHOULD
NEVER BE MISSED OUT OF RECORDS, AND WHY?...............................................20
Introduction........................................................................................ 20
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 20
HOW DO YOU CONFIRM THAT YOUR RECORDS MEET ALL RELEVANT LEGAL AND ETHICAL
REQUIREMENTS?......................................................................................... 22
Introduction........................................................................................ 22
Points to Consider.............................................................................. 22
Points to Consider
trials. His recent study examining the rearing of halibut fish highlights this
latter point. The experiment required four different tanks, each tank
providing a different environment. Normally the researcher would aim to
do these in triplicate, providing a total of 12 tanks. However, because the
experiment was within a production style system, the scale of the project
made simultaneous trials impossible, thereby requiring the entire
experiment to be repeated. This unavoidable variability requires an
increased number of repetitions beyond the average. On the other hand,
the big advantage of using a production style system is the avoidance of
the extra variables inherent in scaling from the very small upwards.
Using several techniques on the same sample provides an alternate form
of experimental repetition. Thus the reliability of tests for genetic
mutations in tumours is regularly checked by using three different
techniques on the same tumour sample.
Refer to previously published work and review your results within the
context of previous publications to obtain a feel for general trends. They
are some trends which may be expected to emerge. You must ensure
adequate quality controls to avoid bias, i.e., inadvertently creating the
result expected from trend. Bear in mind when checking reliability in the
light of previous trends that many breakthroughs in science have at first
been regarded as completely implausible. Plausibility is determined by
present knowledge.
It is important to be thoroughly familiar with the background and
content of the project. This is especially important where moving
into new fields, where some less than obvious fact may pass
unnoticed.
Example: Whilst out collecting crabs a postgraduate researcher observed
that some crabs reacted to other individuals of the same species by
rearing up and attacking. Lower shore crabs were more likely to be
aggressive than upper shore crabs. Several years later the researcher
discovered that there were actually two species of crab on those shores,
but that the two species were virtually identical. Fortunately the
researcher had not published the study, and learnt a valuable lesson
cheaply.
One engineer suggests the following summary for his own speciality:
a) Derive from first principles to establish plausibility. This would help to
highlight erroneous results.
b) Meticulous calibration.
c) Error analysis. (Error analysis being the system used to measure the
parameter will consist of different parts, each with an associated
uncertainty. When this uncertainty can be obtained from calibration,then
the uncertainty of the whole should be quantifiable.)
When working with human subjects it is essential to ensure that
the sample is as representative as possible in order to check for a
Bear in mind that your results may not be as you need them.
Check all results thoroughly.
Use alternative techniques to check results.
Examine your results in the light of other work.
Know your background information well.
Points to consider
Keep in touch with the research world around you. It takes some time for
new methods/techniques to appear in the literature. As with so many
aspects of research, networking is vital. Perhaps the most common reason
for the development of new techniques has been where the present
technique was very labour intensive. In these circumstances it is worth
asking around to see what other investigators are doing.
Look to other fields for inspiration.
Example: One research team studying the prostitute population of the red
light area in a large city decided to adopt the biological technique of
capture/mark/recapture. The study required identifiers, so the team
tagged each individually captured subject with a unique ID, then used
these identifiers to model changes in the prostitution population over a
period of time. This is a particularly elegant example as the technique
originated from an 1800s study in Paris in which the number of priests
was used to estimate the total population of the city. Then the technique
was adopted by ecologists to model animal population dynamics. In this
instance the technique has moved from social science research to
biological research and back to social science.
Discuss what you are about to do with your colleagues who may
well contribute some good ideas. Discussion can help you avoid
becoming enmeshed in minutiae and missing the bigger picture. It
may be helpful to brainstorm with a group of your peers on a
regular basis.
Example: One researcher remarked that she had been experimenting for
months with a new technique to identify differentially expressed genes, all
the while going nowhere. Then after several months she discovered that
throughout that period a colleague in the group had been arguing the case
for an alternative technique. Greater efforts at communication would have
saved her several wasted months.
For some fields, such as English Literature, opening a line of
communication with the author you are studying may provide a useful
insight into their work. For other fields, contacting authors of publications
will allow you to discuss new techniques being developed, or perhaps
highlight publications which you may have inadvertently missed.
Look for weakness in the methodology, for instance, is the
present technique of a lower sensitivity than required, can it be
improved? Regular reappraisal of the techniques used, and
consideration of their less satisfactory points, should help avoid
complacency.
Example: A research group was interested in measuring virus-specific
immune responses. When the researcher joined the group there were a
number of techniques available to measure antibody responses to the
virus. However, there were no reliable techniques available to measure the
T-cell response. Unlike antibodies, T-cells recognise virus infected cells, or
tumour cells, and kill them. The researchers first task was to develop such
a technique. He succeeded in developing a technique which was then
adopted globally. There remained concern that the technique was
underestimating the true magnitude of the host T-cell response. The team
is now in the process of designing novel assays to measure virus-specific
T-cells. Using these assays it will not only be possible to verify the data
that they (and other laboratories) have obtained, but the improved
sensitivity afforded by the new techniques will allow detection of T-cells in
circumstances which would otherwise have been overlooked.
Definitions of "Interpretative"
"This would partly be related to the way that the experiments have been
set up - you set up experiments with defined objectives, the interpretation
of which would initially be based on that background information. You
analyse results by plotting them in various ways, carrying out statistical
analysis and comparing them with your expected views from the
experiment."
"As an architect you interpret your model of parts of cities against a set of
criteria which you hope are generally agreed upon. There is a huge
amount of literature on what a sustainable city should look like, although
there is also huge disagreement. However, there are certain consistent
demands upon a city, e.g. public transport, low degrees of pollution and
eliminating congestion. You can set these as the targets for your models
and test your models to see how they influence these criterion, and to
what degree. But as the models are not real, there is no actual physical
proof. Thus there are two sets of interpretations, what criterion should be
used to judge the model and, in the absence of physical proof, how
accurately does the model reflect what would happen in reality. The
difficulty in our field is that everybody has his or her own set of criteria to
judge against, and so we never agree."
"I think if something meets with your understanding of the subject. In my
own research I have interpretative methods that would anticipate my
critics. It can be very objective in the sense that you can interpret
according to the aim of what you are trying to do. Thus in terms of
interpretative methods researchers need to be aware of how the results
would be interpreted, by the media, peers in research and the community
at large. This is important when the research involves some controversial
subject. A further advantage of attempting to foresee how some
arguments will be interpreted is that a prior response can be prepared."
"Interpretation in English Literature often possesses the implicit danger of
interpreting things along the lines of your own preconceived notions. In my
view, that has happened too frequently, with theories transposed onto
(and into) texts, and the resulting criticism has been not so much a
criticism of the text but an expression of the critics own opinions. So
interpretation becomes too greatly bound up with opinion. I think covering
yourself to anticipate your critics is necessary to a certain extent, in the
sense that your thesis must be as logical and consistent as possible, but
this should not be at the expense of your being totally inflexible, and
blinding yourself to any shortcomings in your thesis. By all means go into
your project armed with notions which will challenge the received wisdom
in your chosen area, but be aware of dealing with gaps in your own
argument too!"
Points to Consider
Introduction
Adaptation of new methodological techniques was identified as a frequent
source of problems. Either the methodology proves unable to deliver all
that it promised, or it takes too long to train the staff/yourself in the use of
the new techniques. The next most likely cause of failure was simply
setting ones sights too high, a common temptation with the increasing
competitiveness of winning grant funding.
Points to Consider
The use of untested methodologies can result in a lower than expected
level of success.
Example: The researchers were examining the genetic basis of the
production of particular types of toxin by bacteria. This was of interest as
these were toxins which were generally considered to be produced by
algae, but not by bacteria. The methods that the group chose to use were
not as well developed as they had anticipated. They found that the
sensitivity of the methods was not good enough to allow the screening of
bacterial toxin production, although the method worked well for algae,
which produce much more toxin. To effectively screen bacteria the project
required a screening system which could run 1,000 samples rather than
the 50-60 needed for algae, a demand beyond the capabilities of the
technique. In retrospect, overconfidence in an untried methodology
resulted in the projects failure.
It can take longer than anticipated to train or re-train and provide the
necessary level of new experience required for staff (and yourself) to
change fields. Time must be allowed within your proposal for training,
failure to do so can result in projects being less successful than
anticipated.
Were the objectives unattainable? This can occur when relying on
claims made for techniques without any definite evidence that
these claims are accurate. This may occur for a range of reasons
e.g., extrapolation beyond the reasonable range of the original
results, altered conditions, attempting to push the system beyond
its capacity.
Example: The research team had been working on the microbiology of
turbot larvae, which are susceptible to very large losses when they are at
the first feeding stage. A new project was proposed which was to be run in
collaboration with a European company. The funding was granted on the
grounds that the commercial company claimed to possess an improved
technique for preparing water to allow the rearing of larvae in defined
conditions. However, major collaborative trials using the methodology
failed to reach the standards which the company had claimed were
possible in their publications. The reason for the failure was probably that
the research team had inadvertently exceeded the capacity of the system
and extrapolation of the technique to larger systems was impossible.
How certain are you that the claims made by others are accurate?
Ensure an adequate allowance of time for retraining and developing
untested techniques.
Consider that you may not have failed, perhaps the results were not
positive, but that in itself need not constitute failure.
Unexpected results may result in the research progressing along a
different route.
Points to Consider
Points to Consider
these types of vaccine are high, and some improperly inactivated vaccines
have been responsible for outbreaks of disease. These problems have
encouraged researchers to evaluate the potential of nucleic acid or DNA
vaccination as an alternative. Using this technique the DNA is injected
directly into the animal or person, there is no risk of infection since the
whole virus or bacteria is not used, and there is no costly production and
purification of recombinant protein. To optimise the immune responses
produced following vaccination a chemical called an "adjuvant" is often
included. Recently, the team has pioneered the use of genetic adjuvants in
veterinary medicine. The results have now opened up a whole new area of
research, not only in the application of this technology to other infectious
agents of man and animals, but also in improving our knowledge of the
way the genetic adjuvant is exerting its effect.
Points to Consider
the length of fish, whereas fish farmers think in terms of the weight. Thus
for presentations to fish farmers she re-analysed her data to take account
of the difference in approach.
For a larger audience one researcher remarked that he would use
Powerpoint and a slide projector, but for a smaller more informal audience,
a board and a pen or overheads. If the lights are on you can better gauge
if your audience is interested and enjoying your presentation. Standing
and writing also has the further advantage/disadvantage of adding to the
informality of the proceedings.
As all who have written a thesis or a major report will know, most people
will never read them in their totality. One solution may be to present an
executive summary of the research. This increases the likelihood of its
being read by focusing all of the ideas into a short and concise section, but
of course it leaves out all the proof, evidence, arguments and counter
arguments. Multi-media productions offer considerable potential in this
area. Although more complex and expensive to produce, they allow
readers to look through your research and pick out what interests them, by
jumping from one point to the another.
When seeking funding consider emphasising the benefits rather than the
features. Thus instead of a fully integrated software package which is
easy to use, highlight the benefits, e.g. minimal training required, financial
savings.
Points to Consider
Records must possess longevity. Use good quality paper, which should last
at least 30 years. Do not use pencils or strange coloured inks, the ink must
not be water soluble or solvent reactive, it should not smear and should be
light stable (BTG plc)
discarded the other branches over the years, the remainder can be
discarded. On the other hand, archiving old material, even if you do not
believe you will return to it, may allow you to refer back to a solution to a
problem which you have had to deal with previously.
Make sure that your record system is accessible, it is of little use if you
have to walk through half the building to access it, or if you have one type
of computer system at home and another in the office. Similarly, try not to
put it on some obscure computing system that is likely to vanish within the
next few years.
Take care of where and how you record your list of things to do.
Consider mentioning your objectives to others at coffee time - in
six months time they may remind you.
Example: One researcher admitted that on moving office recently she
found a list of things to do dated four years earlier - none of which she
had done.
Points to Consider
US and UK patent laws are not identical. Thus in the US evidence of the
date of conception of an invention, and proof of diligence in its reduction
to practice is required for patenting.
Do not exclude data which you only think may be significant in the
future, err on the side of caution.
Keep record keeping consistent.
Remember that you must be able to recognise data files not just
next year but in three or four years time.
You can use your records not only to record experimental details,
but also to cover yourself against future unfair accusations.
How do you confirm that your records meet all relevant legal
and ethical requirements?
Introduction
The ethical problems of working with human subjects are considered not
only from the perspective of their rights, but whether or not they
understand these rights. The final section of the discussion considers
where sources of ethical advice may be located.
Points to Consider
In ethical terms make certain that your volunteers understand the ethical
promises you have made them. Although your explanation may seem
clear to you, ask the subjects some questions on what you have promised
them, they may not have understood after all.
Example: One researcher working on prostitution and HIV explained to all
her subjects that a double blind system was being used. This meant that
the results of the HIV test could not be identified with the person from
whom the samples had been taken. Despite this, the researcher regularly
received requests from her subjects as to their HIV status, thus it became
obvious that many of the volunteers had not understood the ethical
commitments that the research team had made.
Research upon human beings can carry the added complication of
political overtones. Data, results and conclusions should not be
modified for political purposes, but neither can researchers deny
that their conclusions are liable to be used for such purposes.
Especially where vulnerable groups are involved, consideration
should be given as to how the project will be presented.
Example: Prostitutes are a stigmatised and vulnerable group. The group
the research team tested for HIV prevalence came up with a relatively low
percentage, about 3%. However, had that percentage been 50% then that
would have raised a completely different set of ethical issues.
Animal experimentation is a continuous process. Once begun the animals
(even during non experimental periods) require constant supervision. This
must be taken into account when planning the project. Appropriate
experimental records to meet the requirements for the annual Home
Office returns must be kept. Organisations such as the Ministry for
Agriculture and Fisheries (MAFF) will want to know whether you have
conformed to standards such as ISO 2000 or Good Laboratory Practice
(GLP), ISO being a standard for experimental procedure and the recording
of data. GLP again has particular requirements. These often tend to be in
the form of standard checks. Thus results may have to be confirmed by a
superior who may have to initial a page in a notebook to say that they had
read and checked the records. If there are Home Office requirements then
there is a very clear line of responsibility and there will generally be
someone in your Department responsible for Home Office requirements.
Your institution will have staff who are responsible for such issues. Be sure
to seek out their advice at an early stage of project planning.
It is not unheard of for data to be destroyed when they have not provided
the expected results, or in order to avoid a closer scrutiny of conclusions.
This is unethical. Your institution will have a policy on scientific conduct.
Make yourself familiar with this document. Your Research Support staff will
be able to advise you on such issues.
Plagiarising the work of others is unethical.
References
Bell, J. (1993) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time
Researchers in Education and Social Science. Open University Press,
Buckingham. 176 pp.
Beynon, R.J. (1993) Postgraduate study in the biological sciences: A
researchers companion. Portland Press, London 151 pp.
Brown, S., McDowell, E., and Race, P. (1995) 500 Tips for Research
Students. Kogan Page Ltd, London. 127 pp.
BTG plc Keeping a Laboratory Notebook. Gulph Mills, USA. 12pp.
Gealy, N. and Clarke, D. (1998) Development of an Interim Workplan for
the Researchers Lead Body. Maloney and Gealy, 24-26 Mossbury Rd.
London. 30 pp.
Gealy, N., Westlake, D., & Clarke, D. (1997) Draft Occupational
Standards In Research. Maloney and Gealy, 24-26 Mossbury Rd. London.
59 pp.
Skelton, F. and Walker, L. (1995) Pilot Study to Assess the Benefits of
Gathering Evidence of Research Competencies for PhD Students to
Improve Their Subsequent Employability. Glasgow University. 21pp.
THEROS: Technology Ventures - Intellectual Property Guidelines
(1998)