research paper

How often does a newspaper, magazine, or net source publish reports of a test or study? It's difficult to read any source without finding some research cited. But not all research data is created equally, nor is every study definitive.

You've probably heard that statistics can be used in any number of ways, to prove points valid and invalid. Propaganda uses statistics-often from the same research of the individuals/groups the propaganda is railing against.

It's important to be able to evaluate the study findings and research reported. All too often what we read are the headlines-after all, they are meant to catch our attention-and spend less time on the details of the reports. But people can make decisions based on poorly developed studies and skewed research data.

Remember when eggs were thought to be a healthy food, then years later they were nearly verboten, and once again they are enjoying a comfortable place in our diets? Coffee is good; coffee is bad; coffee is acceptable again. These are relatively innocuous examples of various study results printed over the years. But much of the research printed is about topics that can affect our health, our finances, our quality of life.

How do we go about evaluating the information that bombards us from every direction? First we have to look at who/what was behind a particular piece of research?

For example, was a pesticide company the funding source for a study on the safety of chemicals used in pest control? Funding sources are not always evident, but if the information interests you, with a little delving on your part, you can find out this important information.

Research that begins by trying to prove a certain point or move in a particular direction is not research that will provide unbiased results. Limitations of analysis are ignored; some data may be ignored-anything that doesn't point to the central idea behind the research will be dismissed.

Be wary of research that doesn't address other sides of the issue. There is rarely one perspective on available information-if so, there wouldn't be much need for research. Open-ended thinkers and researchers will address alternative views, if only to show how this particular study/research logically makes those alternative views less forceful.

When you read about studies involving groups of people, it is important to note how many people were involved in the study, what criteria was used to choose those who took part in the study. The smaller the group of people involved in the study, the less reliable the outcome will be.

Over what period of time did the study take place? For example, in medication studies, a short time period might indicate that potential side effects did not have sufficient time to develop. Reports of such a study that show few side effects were found might not represent the truth of the matter.

A valid study can be replicated. Are there other studies on the same issue? If so, what conclusions did those studies reach? Evaluate the additional studies by the same criteria used for the initial results.

What credentials does the study/research author have? Are there reputable references cited in the material? Does the tone of the information attempt to persuade or is it presented objectively?

All these questions and more will aid you in evaluating the quality of the material you read, no matter the media source. In this era of information overload it may seem overwhelming to take the time to evaluate what you read, but it is important that you do before you alter your way of life based on inferior information.




Reference research: beauty research and health research and shopping research and my bookmark page




Wordpress Login Box

research methods and statistics

Few people would climb a mountain blindfolded. Yet company executives routinely pursue markets with blinders on-ignorant of market characteristics, the competition, and barriers to entry. Good ideas and good products aren't enough; a variety of factors can prevent first-class concepts from becoming profitable businesses. Opportunities need to be carefully investigated through objective market research. Investing in research can both save a business from making costly mistakes and increase its long-term profitability.

It's a common misconception that only large companies can afford market research. Just the opposite is true; small companies cannot afford not to invest in research. When resources are limited, mistakes are more damaging. Many small businesses fail because their owners don't do their homework-before starting the business and during the first crucial months. By performing a comprehensive market investigation-on their own or by enlisting the services of professional researchers-business owners can avoid pitfalls, increase revenues, and differentiate themselves from their competition.

Types of Market Research

Customer satisfaction is probably the most common form of market research but other kinds of research are equally important. The main categories are:• Competitor analysis - identifies who it is, pinpoints the strengths and weaknesses of other firms in the same market, shows where they are having success, and what they plan to do in the future. The objective is to stay a step ahead by taking advantage of their weaknesses, or at least keep up with them.• Market opportunity assessment - size, growth rate, trends, barriers to entry.• Product analysis - features, price points; determined by talking to potential customers to assess their desires before the product is introduced.

Research can be primary or secondary and quantitative or qualitative. A business needs primary research-which involves direct contact with sources of information-if it is trying to determine very specific, detailed information or is dealing with a technology, product, or service so new that there is a very limited existing body of literature. Customer satisfaction also requires primary research.

Secondary research involves the review of a body of existing literature about a topic. It is most suitable when a company wants a general overview of a broad topic, analyst opinions, and high-level quantitative information of an existing market.

Primary research is usually more expensive than secondary. Costs vary, depending on:• Sample size• How the survey will be administered - by mail, by telephone, online, focus groups• Whether just raw survey results or analysis and recommendations are desired

If resources are limited, a company can do secondary research in-house, provided in-house staff knows what resources are available, where to access the information, and how to interpret it. The Internet makes secondary research much easier and less expensive, because so many agencies have made information available for free. For example, government agencies worldwide furnish a wealth of quantitative information. Company Websites offer much valuable information, such as press releases, annual reports and financial filings, job openings, and product data sheets.

IT analysts and management consulting firms often make a limited number of reports and white papers available for free. Some companies also furnish free white papers, but these seldom are objective assessments.

Syndicated research reports are also available. These reports consist of long-term market forecasts, often segmented by geographical regions or vertical markets. Many businesses rely heavily on quantitative market forecasts to determine whether it makes sense for them to enter a new market or develop a new product. For established markets and products, syndicated research can be quite useful, but in the case of new products or technologies, such reports are less reliable.

Make the Most of Market Research

A business can dramatically improve its chances of getting valid results by clearly defining its objectives. Asking the right questions is crucial-a company should be able to clearly state what it wants to determine. It is not the responsibility of an outside research firm to identify what the client wants from a study. It is the research firm's responsibility to clearly explain its methodology and how it will approach a study.

Additionally, a research request should not be biased in favor of a particular result. Frequently, individuals who commission research have vested interests in a particular outcome. If the results are not to their liking, they try to discredit the study and ignore its results. It is best to have high-level decision-makers who have the best interests of the entire company at heart involved in the research process.

Research should not be based on an untested assumption. For example, a company should not assume there is demand for its new widget and ask a research company to find out how the product should be priced. Before developing the widget, the company should determine if there is a market for it.

Like any other investment, market research should be measured by the return it delivers. Return can be measured both by increased profitability and cost savings derived from not making mistakes. To receive any benefit, a company has to make a commitment to act on the results of a reliable research study. Market research can be a powerful business tool for those companies willing to remove their blindfolds.

Reference research: finance research and health research and sport research and recent update




Social Bookmarking Submit

research groups

The similarities between scientific research and criminal investigation are the search for the conclusion or a cause of the effect. Both scientists and criminal investigators are specially trained in their field of practice. They tend to use similar methods of research and investigation the cause. Scientists as well as investigators both observe the surroundings, the facts, the areas involved in the research or investigations. They classify the data into categories this can be as simple as determining if it is valid or not valid. There is the use of logic, the formation of a hypothesis or a theory as to why and what has occurred. Both sides must link information together to prove their hypothesis or conclusions. Both scientists and criminal investigators work in a systemic method which seeks accurate answers, not general conclusions.

So how can you tell which is which? It's not really that difficult once you understand the basic principles. Scientific research is a type of investigation which is systemic and basis its research on scientific methods which have been used in the past, and in relation to the scientific field. This type of research can be described as well organized, methodical, and precise. Scientists begin with an idea, a theory or a hypothesis. Scientists begin with an observation or description about what they intend to study/research. From these observations they form a hypothesis to explain their subject. They use the hypothesis to predict what may happen in the course of the research. The scientist begins to experiment or run tests based on their predictions about the hypothesis. They may also collect data about their observations to show that the hypothesis is either valid or not.
.
Criminal investigations begin with gathering documents and information. They begin to evaluate the facts about the events, or the crime. They use a systemic method to observe the details of the crime, as in who what where when why and how. They begin to piece things together, by assembling the facts and determining if the evidence gathered is useful or not. The hypothesis begins to form at this point which helps to link all the information gathered to the crime. The hypothesis in this sense is used to create a theory as to what happened, and the ability to define what has occurred. The hypothesis is an important part of the criminal investigation. The reason is that the investigator must prove or disprove the theory/hypothesis. Even more important for the investigator is to find the missing pieces, that are not ready available at the time. The investigator must be able to draw conclusions about the events but they must also be able to prove that the events did in fact occur.




Reference research: business research and home research and sport research and my bookmark page




Cpanel Web Hosting

research paper topics

The late actor Christopher Reeve was a tireless advocate of stem cell research in the last decade of his life. Paralyzed from the neck down by a horseback riding accident in 1995, Reeve dedicated his considerable talents and impressive network of powerful allies to attempt to drive forward stem cell research into the reparation of spinal cord injuries and disorders. Despite his continued acting and directing, advocacy of stem cell research became his primary professional and political focus until his death from heart attack in October 2004, nearly ten years after the accident that paralyzed him.

Reeve held an absolute, unwavering belief that the answers to irreversible spinal cord damage lay in the utilization of this controversial potential therapy. He was undaunted by his own physical limitations when fighting for enhancement of government funding into stem cell research, rather, he used his condition as an extremely effective tool when presenting his case to legislative bodies, funding organizations, and media outlets.

Is it possible that the fruits of the efforts of Christopher Reeve, and those working with him to keep stem cell research on the front burners of scientific discovery and legislative calendars, are finally finding themselves ready to be collected? Perhaps not quite, but this week there is evidence that seeds have at long last been planted that may soon grow into the trees of knowledge that may bare those fruits. And, with a little luck, those trees may grow swiftly.

Exciting new evidence about the viability of stem cell therapy for the treatment of patients living with paralysis has just been published by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School. In a study published in Annals of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Neurological Association, researchers led by Dr. Douglas Kerr studied rats that had been paralyzed and then injected with embryonic stem cells from mice. The resulting study showed that 11 of the 15 mice treated with the therapy regained significant mobility and motor function in the paralyzed limbs.

In light of this groundbreaking research, and the potential that this unprecedented study has to spark new life into the contentious and often avoided political bugaboo, could a change in the public and political response to the stem cell question be at hand? The push called for by Christopher Reeve and others for increased government funding for stem cell research may have been waiting for a banner breakthrough that could infuse skittish governmental and corporate agencies with a little more nerve. Several public interest groups and private religious organizations have effectively made the issue of stem cell research such a political hot potato that advancements have been seriously crippled by the nervous politicians’ slow response to requests for research funding. Could the work of researchers like Dr. Kerr provide that “ah ha!” moment that will nudge the reticent voters into a more corporeal and vocal support of the research efforts?

Governmental funding for stem cell research is supported by a majority of U.S. citizens. In an August 2005 Gallup Poll, in responding to the question "do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?" 56% of people responded that they should, while only 40% responded that they should not. One month earlier, in a poll conducted by CBS News, when asked “do you approve or disapprove of medical research using embryonic stem cells?” 56% of respondents indicated that they approved, while only 30% responded in the negative.

The work of Dr. Kerr and his associates at Johns Hopkins has been on the stem cell radar for several years now. In a 2001 interview with CNN, Christopher Reeve discussed his optimism for the research being conducted, and reiterated his concern about the effects of lackluster governmental funding for their work.

“What a couple of researchers did recently is proof of principle, which is very, very important,” said Reeve. “It was Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Kerr at Johns Hopkins, and they were able to inject mice or rats with a virus, which simulates ALS. They then injected human embryonic stem cells. Then, over a period of time, the progression of deterioration was stopped, and all the rats showed recovery of function,” he stated.

“Now, that is proof, because some people say, well, we don't know what embryonic stem cells can do; it's never been proven. Well, that's a huge first step,” continued Reeve. “And of course we won't know what they can do until we go and do the work. But the work must not be stopped, absolutely.”

That research described by Reeve in the CNN interview has now advanced to the point that researchers have been able to stimulate the reconnection of the muscles to the spinal cord with the embryonic stem cells of mice.

Still, political trepidation continues. Despite the impressive polling numbers in favor of stem cell research, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, introduced the year after Christopher Reeve’s death, has been stalled in the U.S. senate for nearly a year. The bill, which would lift many of the current limitations on stem cell research that currently slow down the progress of the research and restrict the money the government puts into it, has polled incredibly well, and garnered strong bi-partisan support at its introduction.

In May 2006, the American Diabetes Association, who, like Christopher Reeve and other paralysis patients, also has a strong interest in stem cell research, spoke out about the lag time in passing the bill. The ADA publicly admonished the U.S. Senate for dragging its feet, and demanded to know just when the bill would be passed.

If Christopher Reeve were alive today to see the most recent results of the work of Dr. Kerr and his associates at Johns Hopkins, he would certainly be encouraged by current advancement in stem cell research, despite the lackluster funding and slow response to stem cell legislation. Now that advancements in the research are more tangible, perhaps the funding restrictions will be loosened and the work of advocates like Christopher Reeve will be honored. Should that happen, the reversal of paralysis due to spinal cord injuries and disorders may be closer at hand. The new research out of Johns Hopkins has certainly taken us several steps closer.





Reference research: research Dr. and computer research and general research and my bookmark page




Facebook Book

research design

Ever get a research assignment and not know how to do the research portion?  Well here are some tips for your problem from someone whose written countless papers.

First and foremost I recommend for any paper is get your hands on a good grammer handbook.  The one I used was the Longman Handbook, it was required for some courses.  Any paper is only as good as the grammer within.  You could write an outstanding paper, but if your grammar is poor, the your paper will reflect that.  Also get your hands on a handbook for both formats MLA and APA it will be useful when citing your information.

Second thing you should do is to find out everything ou need to know about the assignment.  Such as what's needed, allowed, and not allowed.  Some professors will allow charts, graphs, and even pictures.  I had a professor who loved that I added pictures of the novels I wrote about.

Next thing I suggest is DO NOT WAIT until the last moment to do the research.  You will only cause yourself to go insane.  It will cause so many problems, the books you may need may not be available, because everyone else is writing the same paper and need the same resources.  Also magazines in your field that have useful information may be tossed out because of age.

Make use of all the resources in the library, that includes talking to the librarians.  Librarians know alot more than  you think.  They could lead you to useful books and articles for your topic.  Do not rely solely on internet resources.  One you never know if the information is accurate, and 2 if all your information is from the internet you come off as lazy to the point that the internet looked for information, not yourself.  Make  use of journals relating to your field, you may have to do some reading, but they contain useful articles.

Narrow your search topic until you have a more concrete subject.  If the assignment is say trends in tourism, ask yourself  what kid of trends?  Trends in transportation, lodging, restaurants, activities and even locations could be some sub-topics for the paper which narrows your search based on the sub-topics.  Any topic could be divided into two or more subjects.  You also have a sort of organization for the paper.

When doing research use notecards.  Mark each one with a number.  The first note card is the book infor like author, publisher,  copyright date etc.  Anything found in the book would be 1.1, 1.2 and so one until you move to the second book. When writing the book notecards write the information according to citing them on the referance page, that way you can just copy the notecard. Hold on to all book notecards for future papers, it would be easy reference.  I would also write a few notes about what is in the book.

Lastly I would suggest keep talking to your professor about the paper.  They could easily give you advice and help direct you to useful books and articles that would would help yor search.  They could also give you ideas on how to proceed with the paper and if you're on the right track or not.

Following these tips could help make researching a paper all the more easier and less stressful.  You could improve your skills and wow your professors.




Reference research: research Dr. and computer research and shopping research and my bookmark page




How to Start a Blog