Quality of Good Research

In the reading by Marjorie M. Brown on What are the Qualities of Good Research? standards are first listed for any piece of research and then standards are listed according to three modes of inquiry. Listed below are standards for all research and the standards for positivistic, interpretative, and critical science research. Standards for All Research 1. Any good piece of research is based upon commitment to a theoretical attitude as distinguished from the attitude of everyday life.

2. Any good piece of research is significant in that it contributes in some important way to knowledge in the profession and to the human needs and aspirations of people whom the profession seeks to serve as defined by its purpose.

3. The research reflects recognition of the guiding interest served by the particular piece of research.

4. The piece of research reflects, in its conduct and oral or written presentation, that the researcher is knowledgeable about previous inquiry in the same or related areas.

5. The research needs to be clear about the basis of the symbol system being used and to be open to its being questioned and revised.

6. The researcher presents a rationally compelling argument in his or her research in that claims made as conclusions have adequate and coherent reasons to support them.

7. Good research can respond to challenge and questioning by others.

8. The researcher assumes appropriate social responsibility and observes ethical norms in the conduct and presentation of research.

Standards for Empirical/Analytical Research 1. The research addresses an appropriate question: a question regarding certain states of affairs (existences) about objective reality.

2. The research offers a hypothesized relationship between variables as a possible answer to the question.

3. To test the hypothesis, the research obtains facts (about things and events, properties and relations existing independent of thought or control of human actors) by means of controlled observation.

4. It is explicitly recognized that the observation of variables and their relationships (i.e., obtaining data) cannot be separated from the concepts, which the researcher brings to the observation.

5. Observations are precise (i.e., usually quantitative) and are reliable in that other observers will see the same things as the researcher if they are using the same theoretical perspective.

6. Methods and procedures are so clearly described that the same researcher or other researchers can replicate the study.

7. Data are interpreted in light of the theoretical categories and relations hypothesized.

8. Conclusions are drawn in light of the success of research operations in testing the hypothesis(es.)

Standards for Interpretive Research 1. The text selected to interpret is important in that it is relevant to the practice of life today.

2. The question the research addresses concerns how we are to interpret the meanings (intentions, conceptual orientations, and values) in a particular text within cultural tradition given the historical situation of the text.

3. The meaning expressed by the author of the text is respected in the interpretation.

4. The research reflects that interpretation has been made by interrelating the parts and the whole of the text.

5. The research reflects search for an interpretation that is reasonable.

6. The research shows the researchers familiarity with the topics which are the subject matter of the text and with cultural traditions and the historical-social context which shaped meaning in the text.

7. The researcher seeks to establish the validity of the piece of research through the informal logic of validation, i.e., argumentation.

8. The interpretation makes clear the meaning of the text (within cultural tradition) important for the conduct of life.

Standards for Critical Science Research 1. The research addresses a question of how certain individuals or groups can be freed through reason and evidence from a particular systematic misunderstanding (ideological belief).

2. The research identifies an observed systematic misunderstanding (which exists in fact) and documents its existence.

3. The research presents a criticism of the particular misunderstanding by showing how, as ideological belief, supports a certain unjust social situation.

4. A coherent explanation of the particular misunderstanding is provided in the historical-social situation that initially caused the distortion.

5. The research constructs an alternative to the misunderstanding for consideration as to its intersubjective validity.

6. Suggestions are made as to how the individuals or groups involved can act as possible (bur not the only) alternatives to change the frustrating social reality.

7. The research reflects the researchers competence in communication.