{"title":"十个研究问题:批判实证研究和教学研究严谨性的分析工具","authors":"T. Reio","doi":"10.1177/15344843211025182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most onerous tasks for research neophytes like students is deciphering the often complex and technical empirical research article and determining its scientific merit. With limited research method knowledge and experience designing and conducting research, the neophyte is left with little to draw upon when trying to understand the findings, whether standards of rigor were met, and if replication and application may be warranted. In particular, this lack of understanding can contribute much to students’ negative attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and conceptions about research. This state of affairs is unfortunate because each can lessen the likelihood of subsequent engagement with the research literature, often at the cost of poorer student well-being (Pyhaltö et al., 2012), less timely graduation and greater attrition (Meyer et al., 2005, 2007). Because higher education is increasingly costly, and the need for talented social science researchers (e.g., human resource development [HRD] researchers) has never been greater, we cannot afford to allow the curious, but inexperienced to languish unnecessarily in their research endeavors (Earley, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Thus, proposing that one must think and act like a researcher to be a researcher, we must find ways to help learners methodically analyze existing research and enter the “research conversation” with authors of empirical research in one’s discipline and beyond (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan et al., 2019). The purpose of this article, then, is to help learners enter the research conversation by presenting an analytic tool for","PeriodicalId":51474,"journal":{"name":"Human Resource Development Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15344843211025182","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ten Research Questions: An Analytic Tool for Critiquing Empirical Studies and Teaching Research Rigor\",\"authors\":\"T. Reio\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15344843211025182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most onerous tasks for research neophytes like students is deciphering the often complex and technical empirical research article and determining its scientific merit. With limited research method knowledge and experience designing and conducting research, the neophyte is left with little to draw upon when trying to understand the findings, whether standards of rigor were met, and if replication and application may be warranted. In particular, this lack of understanding can contribute much to students’ negative attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and conceptions about research. This state of affairs is unfortunate because each can lessen the likelihood of subsequent engagement with the research literature, often at the cost of poorer student well-being (Pyhaltö et al., 2012), less timely graduation and greater attrition (Meyer et al., 2005, 2007). Because higher education is increasingly costly, and the need for talented social science researchers (e.g., human resource development [HRD] researchers) has never been greater, we cannot afford to allow the curious, but inexperienced to languish unnecessarily in their research endeavors (Earley, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Thus, proposing that one must think and act like a researcher to be a researcher, we must find ways to help learners methodically analyze existing research and enter the “research conversation” with authors of empirical research in one’s discipline and beyond (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan et al., 2019). The purpose of this article, then, is to help learners enter the research conversation by presenting an analytic tool for\",\"PeriodicalId\":51474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Resource Development Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15344843211025182\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Resource Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211025182\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resource Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211025182","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Ten Research Questions: An Analytic Tool for Critiquing Empirical Studies and Teaching Research Rigor
One of the most onerous tasks for research neophytes like students is deciphering the often complex and technical empirical research article and determining its scientific merit. With limited research method knowledge and experience designing and conducting research, the neophyte is left with little to draw upon when trying to understand the findings, whether standards of rigor were met, and if replication and application may be warranted. In particular, this lack of understanding can contribute much to students’ negative attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and conceptions about research. This state of affairs is unfortunate because each can lessen the likelihood of subsequent engagement with the research literature, often at the cost of poorer student well-being (Pyhaltö et al., 2012), less timely graduation and greater attrition (Meyer et al., 2005, 2007). Because higher education is increasingly costly, and the need for talented social science researchers (e.g., human resource development [HRD] researchers) has never been greater, we cannot afford to allow the curious, but inexperienced to languish unnecessarily in their research endeavors (Earley, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Thus, proposing that one must think and act like a researcher to be a researcher, we must find ways to help learners methodically analyze existing research and enter the “research conversation” with authors of empirical research in one’s discipline and beyond (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan et al., 2019). The purpose of this article, then, is to help learners enter the research conversation by presenting an analytic tool for
期刊介绍:
As described elsewhere, Human Resource Development Review is a theory development journal for scholars of human resource development and related disciplines. Human Resource Development Review publishes articles that make theoretical contributions on theory development, foundations of HRD, theory building methods, and integrative reviews of the relevant literature. Papers whose central focus is empirical findings, including empirical method and design are not considered for publication in Human Resource Development Review. This journal encourages submissions that provide new theoretical insights to advance our understanding of human resource development and related disciplines. Such papers may include syntheses of existing bodies of theory, new substantive theories, exploratory conceptual models, taxonomies and typology developed as foundations for theory, treatises in formal theory construction, papers on the history of theory, critique of theory that includes alternative research propositions, metatheory, and integrative literature reviews with strong theoretical implications. Papers addressing foundations of HRD might address philosophies of HRD, historical foundations, definitions of the field, conceptual organization of the field, and ethical foundations. Human Resource Development Review takes a multi-paradigm view of theory building so submissions from different paradigms are encouraged.