BUS-MHR 8780 - Introduction to Micro Research Methods in Management
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
Spring 2013, Second Term
Professor:
Office:
Office Phone:
E-Mail:
Office Hours:
Class Hours:
Howard J. Klein, Ph.D.
748 Fisher Hall
292-0719
Klein_12@fisher.osu.edu
Monday 3:00-3:30, Tuesdays 4:00-5:00, and by appointment
Mondays, 12:00 – 3:00 in 700 Fisher
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This class is designed to familiarize doctoral students with the fundamentals of behavioral
research in the organizational sciences. To be successful as a researcher (and a consumer of
research) you need a working understanding of all phases of the scientific process.
The scientific process employs both theory and data in an effort to describe, explain, predict
and/or control a phenomenon of interest. This process consists of four key linkages. Linkage I
involves moving from theory to hypotheses generation, and entails such
topics as theory building, ascertaining the current state of knowledge and
generating hypotheses. Linkage II concerns designing a study to provide
data relative to those hypotheses, and deals with the issues associated with
the reliability and validity of measurement, sampling, and research design.
In Linkage III, that data is analyzed in order to draw inferences with respect
to the theory and hypotheses. Finally, the process comes full circle in
Linkage IV, where the results are used to support, amend or refute the
theory. Critical topics associated with this linkage include the interpretation,
generalizability, and presentation of research results.
This class uses a seminar format requiring (a) active, through reading and evaluation of
assigned materials, (b) written assignments, and (c) rigorous, engaged group discussions.
This class will not deal with technical aspects of using statistics (your statistics classes serve
that purpose) nor will it provide in-depth practice in conducting research (research
experiences with faculty is needed for that). This course provides the foundation for you to
learn more from those research experiences.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
This seminar will prepare you to undertake original programs of behavioral research. You will
learn about the numerous methodological options available to researchers, the strengths and
weaknesses of each, and how to assess the appropriateness of each given the research
questions of interest. We will consistently return to the themes of choices, constraints, and
tradeoffs. You will also gain an understanding of the ethical standards used in the conduct of
research with respect to both the treatment of research participants and the dissemination of
research findings.
After completing this course, you should be able to: (a) communicate about empirical
research with the community of scholars in your field, (b) critically review the methods used in
empirical studies -- for yourself in the journal articles you read, for peers seeking feedback, or
for journal editors, and (c) design your own research to maximize the possible knowledge to
be gained from it, while at the same time recognizing its limitations.
MHR 8780
2
Spring 2013
INSTRUCTIONAL PHILOSOPHY:
This course is designed to lay the foundation for your research endeavors and I'm here to
help you set a solid foundation. I am committed to working with you to create a positive
learning environment but each of us is responsible for the success of this class. What you get
out of the course is, ultimately, up to you. I expect each you to take responsibility for your own
learning and to actively contribute to the class. My goal is to strikes a balance between my
presenting material and your involvement in discussions and assignments. If things get
boring, tell me; if you're having trouble, let me know. I'm looking forward to an enjoyable,
stimulating course. I’ll do everything I can to make it so.
WEEKLY ASSIGNMENTS:
Required Text: Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research, (4th
Edition). Cengage Learning - Wadsworth. ISBN# 9780155078970
Readings. Additional readings for the course are taken from a variety of academic journals
and books to provide a comprehensive treatment of the topics covered. Assigned readings
will be made available on Carmen along with discussion questions for each class sessions.
Web Casts. For several classes, the assignment will include watching a web cast and
downloading the slides corresponding to those web casts. The web casts are approximately 1
to 1 and one-half hours and should be viewed prior to the class session for which they are
assigned. Below are the log in instructions for accessing the assigned web casts and
PowerPoint slides as well as any other topics that may interest you.
 Go to http://carma.wayne.edu/Login.asp the website for the Center for the Advancement
of Research Methods and Analysis
 Enter my e-mail address: klein.12@osu.edu and the password: MHR911
 Click on Video Library (the last link on the page)
GRADING:
The graded requirements for this course reflect the things you will be expected to know and
do as academics. Students will receive a letter grade for all but one of these requirements
(the CITI training), each of which is described in more detail below. The following table
indicates the relative weighting of the graded requirements in determining final grades.
Research Proposal
50%
Contribution to Class Discussions
20%
Faculty Research Report
15%
Peer Critique
15%
Complete CITI Training
-Total:
100%
CITI Training. Students will be required to complete the training requirement for OSU
researchers involved in researching involving human subjects if they have not already done
so. This assignment is not graded but must be completed as evidenced by submitting a copy
of the completion report. Information about this web-based course can be found at
http://orrp.osu.edu/irb/training/citi.cfm.
MHR 8780
3
Spring 2013
GRADING (continued):
Research Proposal. Each student will formulate a research proposal with a focus on
the methods section of that proposal. The proposal should describe a feasible, original
research project relating to your area(s) of interest. I encourage you to choose a topic you are
interesting in pursuing (i.e., the goal should be to subsequently conduct the research you
propose). You may but do not have to further refine an idea used for a previous seminar. You
may consult with faculty to help develop, evaluate, and refine your thinking, but the proposal
should be for your own original new research, not something you have started doing with a
faculty member. See the page 9 of this syllabus for additional details on expected content of
your proposal.
Faculty Research Report. This assignment requires that you make contact with one of
the faculty members in your department, ask him or her to share a relatively recent article
reporting the results of some type of empirical research, and conduct a brief interview with
that professor. You are to read that article carefully and to prepare a brief (5-7 minute)
presentation to the class on that professor’s views of research, areas of expertise, and the
study you read. See the page 10 of this syllabus for additional details on expected content of
your presentation and suggested interview questions. Students are expected to coordinate
their efforts so as to avoid duplication of faculty (i.e., each student should report on a different
faculty member’s work). If you have already begun working with a faculty member and are
somewhat familiar with that person’s research, you should select a different faculty member
so that you use this opportunity to make additional connections. Since you will be hearing
about my research and views all quarter, I am not an eligible subject for this assignment.
Class Contribution. Substantive contributions to class discussions are expected and
critical for learning to occur in a seminar format. Note that contributing is not the same as
attending or participating (though the others are prerequisites for contributing). Contributing is
defined as providing comments that demonstrate knowledge, application, or integration of
course material, respectful responses to and elaboration on the comments of others,
refraining from overly long monologues or war stories, and actively engaging in in-class
activities. Ask questions and contribute your thoughts and personal experiences whenever
relevant. You are expected to have read all assigned materials and prepared answers to the
discussion questions. Review those materials prior to class and to come to class with ideas,
concerns, and questions on the material. You do not have to formally write out your answers
to the discussion questions, but you should bring thorough notes and be prepared to speak
from them, should you be called upon in class (and you will be!). There is not always a
"correct" answer to the questions but you are expected to have an opinion and to back up
your opinion. My teaching style is informal. Feel free to interrupt or ask questions at any time.
The questions you ask will likely be of help to other students in class. Feedback regarding
your contribution level is available upon request.
Peer Draft Critique and Response. You will be asked to critically review a classmate’s
draft research proposal. In doing so, you will provide constructive, written feedback to your
classmate (and to me). You likewise will receive a peer critique of your own draft proposal.
Use that critique to improve your proposal. When you submit your proposal, you will need to
also provide a letter to the “editor” (me!) explaining what was changed in the final paper (or
the rationale for not making changes) to address the “reviewer” comments. The 10% of your
final grade for this assignment breaks down to 6% for the peer critique you provide to your
classmate and 4% for your letter responding to the critique you receive.
MHR 8780
4
Spring 2013
COURSE POLICIES:
 Anyone needing special accommodation because of a disability or other unique
circumstances should notify me as early as possible. Students with special needs are
responsible for making me aware of their situation.
 I expect you to honor the academic honesty standards outlined in OSU’s Code of Student
Conduct (Section 3335-23-04). Any suspicion of academic misconduct will be acted upon in
accordance with university policy. The ideas and work on the assignments for this class
must be your own -- they are not group projects. I also reserve the right to use Turnitin or
similar products to detect plagiarism or excessive undocumented material.
CLASS SCHEDULE:
DAY (DATE)
TOPIC
MONDAY (3/4)
Introduction to Course & Connections to Prior Coursework
MONDAY (3/11)
No Class – Spring Break
MONDAY (3/18)
Choosing Variables & Measures I
MONDAY (3/25)
Choosing Measures II & Samples
MONDAY (4/1)
Research Ethics & Cultural Considerations
CITI & Faculty Research Reports Due
MONDAY (4/8)
Choosing Data Collection Sources and Methods;
MONDAY (4/15)
Choosing Designs
Draft Research Proposal Due
MONDAY (4/22)
Choosing Conclusions
Peer Critique Due
MONDAY (4/29)
Research Proposal due
RESEARCH METHODS RESOURCES:
Below is a list of valuable research methods resources of which you should be aware:
Research Methods Division of the Academy of Management Website
http://division.aomonline.org/rm/joomla
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., and Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum and
Association: Hillsdale, NJ.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative Research (3rd ed). Newbury Park: Sage.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Drasgow, F. & Schmitt, N. (2002). Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Goldacre, B. (2010). Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. London, Faber &
Faber.
Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
MHR 8780
5
Spring 2013
RESOURCES (continued):
Klein, K.J. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGrath, J.E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R.A. 1982. Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3rd Edition). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (P&S)
Rogelberg, S. G. (2002). Handbook of research methods in Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd Ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
Designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Van de ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social
research. Oxford University Press.
READING ASSIGNMENTS:
I. THEORY  HYPOTHESES
WEEK 1 Introduction to Course
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) Chapters 1-2, & pages 455-463 (Research Design as Variance Control).
Campion, M. A. (1993). Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles
in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46(3), 705-718.
Robison, S. J. 1990. Top 10 things you should know about doing research in an organization. The
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 27(3), 79-81.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigor relevance gap in management
research: It is already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534-546.
Recommended but not required:
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press. [a great overview of everything we’ll be covering in this class]
McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1-30.
II. HYPOTHESIS  DATA
WEEK 2 Choosing Variables & Measures I
Webcast - #22 Issues with Group Measurement; Dr. Katherine Klein
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) Chapters 3 & 27.
Becker, T. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8, 274-289.
Hackman, J.R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals,
and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905-922.
MHR 8780
6
Spring 2013
Harnish, K.A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals' repertoires of
behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general
attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463-480
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang C. H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing M. U. (2012).
Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional
constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 62-72.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98-104.
Dalton, D. R. (1986). The practical applicability of test-retest reliability on a decision making
algorithm: Exhaustive Alternatives. Journal of Irreproducible Results, 3, 278.
Recommended but not required:
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) chapter 26.
LeBrenton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability
and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.
WEEK 3 Choosing Measures II & Samples
Webcasts - Watch at least one or both of the following:
#20 Non-responses to Organizational Surveys; Dr. Steven Rogelberg
#15 Contributing to Applied Psychology with Laboratory Research; Dr. John Hollenbeck
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) Chapters 8 & 28.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 2, 3-43.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and
validation procedures In MIS and behavioral research: Integrating New and existing
techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334.
Molloy, J. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2012). Construct Clarity: Multidisciplinary Considerations and an
Illustration Using Human Capital. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 152-156.
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J.Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In C.E. Lance &
R.J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends:
Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 249-268). New
York: Routledge.
Murphy, K. (2002). Using power analysis to evaluate and improve research (pp. 119-138). In
S.G. Rogelberg (ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational
psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mook, D.G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 1379-1387.
Highhouse, S. (2009). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research
Methods, 12 (3), 554-566.
WEEK 4 Research Ethics & Cultural Considerations
Webcasts - Watch at least one or both of the following:
#21 Methodological issues in Cross-Cultural Research; Dr. Michele Gelfand
#65 Cross Cultural Research Methods; Dr. Mark Peterson
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) chapter 17.
MHR 8780
7
Spring 2013
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for
Organizational Research: A Best- Practices Approach. Organizational Research Methods,
6(2), 169-215.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1-13.
Academy of Management. (2005). The Academy of Management code of ethics.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological
research. Psychological Science, 5 (3). 127-133.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of SelfCorrection in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6) 670-688.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology:
Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as
Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.
Kacmar, K. M. (2009). An ethical quiz. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (3), 432–434.
WEEK5 Choosing Data Collection Sources and Methods
Webcasts - Watch one or more of the following:
# 40 Measurement of Affect and Episodic Events; Dr. Howard Weiss
# 41 Question and Context Effects in Organizational Survey Data; Dr. Adam Meade
# 70 Practical Issues in Developing a Measure; Dr. Fred Oswald
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau. (1993). Improving construct
measurement in management research: comments and a quantitative approach for
assessing the theoretical content adequacy of pencil–and-paper survey-type
instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.
Whitley, B. E. (2002). Chapter 11: Survey research. In Principles of research in behavioral science
(2nd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill. pp. 343-371.
Schwartz, N. (1999) Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist,
54(2), 93-105.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method
variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
Recommended but not required:
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) chapters 25, 29-31.
WEEK 6 Choosing Designs
Webcasts - Watch at least one or both of the following:
#24 Longitudinal Data Analysis; Dr. Robert Ployhart
#64 Quasi-Experimental Research, Dr. Adam Grant
Kerlinger & Lee (2000) chapters 18-24.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
Designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Pages 53-61;
156-160; 247-257.
MHR 8780
8
Spring 2013
Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). Time and the logic of method. In On time and method, (pp.
9-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Edmonson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4) 1155-1179.
Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192-205.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current
practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 1248-1264.
Recommended but not required:
Stone-Romero, E. (2002). The relative validity and usefulness of various empirical
research designs (pp. 77-98). In S.G. Rogelberg (ed.), Handbook of research
methods in industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
III & IV. DATA  INFERENCE THEORY
WEEK 7 Choosing Conclusions
Webcasts - Watch one or more of the following:
# 56 Missing Data: Problems and Prospects; Dr. Daniel Newman
# 48 Computer-Aided Text Analysis: Tips and Techniques; Dr. Jeremy Short
# 82 Crafting Qualitative Organizational Research; Dr. Ann Cunliffe
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapters 1 and 2 from Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed).
Newbury Park: Sage.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2011). Crafting Qualitative Research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on.
Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647-673.
Smith, P. C., Budzeika, K. A., Edwards, N. A., Johnson, S. M., Bearse, L. N. (1986). Guidelines
for clean data: Detection of common mistakes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 457460.
Asimov, I. (1988). Chapter 17: The relativity of wrong. The relativity of wrong. NY: Doubleday.
pp. 213–225.
Anderson, C. (2008). The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method
Obsolete. Wired Magazine: 16.07.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory
Recommended but not required:
Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (2002). Coping with missing data. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (pp.
310-323). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
MHR 8780
9
Spring 2013
Research Proposal Guidelines [with approximate page budgets]
Proposals should conform with the predominate format style in your field (e.g., Academy of
Management Journal Guidelines, APA Guidelines) and are not to exceed 25 pages (doublespaced in a 12-point font with 1” margins on all sides).
Introduction - Because the focus of this assignment is on the on the methods section, the
introduction section should be abbreviated from what you would typically see in a journal article
submission. However, it must contain sufficient detail to (a) demonstrate the “value added” to
the literature and (b) evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed methodology.
1. Identify the specific problem, purpose of the study, and corresponding research
question(s). Explain how this study will make an important contribution from both
theoretical and applied perspectives. [2-3 pages]
2. Briefly review the relevant literature on this topic and use that literature to develop specific,
testable hypotheses. In doing so, be sure to provide conceptual definitions of all
constructs that will be measured in the study. [4-6 pages]
Method - This section should reflect what would be found in a journal submission but should
contain even more detail and be worded in future rather than past tense. The methods should
be spelled out so clearly that another graduate student could pick up your proposal and know
exactly how to conduct the research.
3. Describe the sample you would use, explain why that sample is appropriate, and identify
how participants would be recruited and selected. Note how participants will be assigned
to conditions (if applicable), and any incentives offered for participation. [1 page]
4. Describe the setting and procedures to be followed. Include the instructions to be
presented to participants and what the participants will do and when and how they will
do it. Also describe any experimental tasks, manipulations, and/or apparatus or
materials that will be used. [1-3 pages, depending on complexity]
5. Describe the specific type research study and research design you will use and justify
those choices. [1-2 pages]
6. Describe all constructs that will be measured and/or manipulated. Provide operational
definitions of all variables in the methods section. Indicate what types of data collection
methods will be used (i.e., how will data be assessed and from where/whom?). Provide
evidence regarding the reliability and validity of each established measure and describe
how you would go about establishing the reliability and validity of any new measures. [24 pages]
7. Discuss the analytical approach that you would use to test your hypotheses and the
specific statistical information used to determine support for each hypothesis. [1 page]
Discussion - This section should also be abbreviated from what you would typically see in a
journal article submission but should include the following:
8. Outline the implications of the study (assuming that the study was conducted as described
and the hypotheses were supported) for both theory/research and practice. [1-2 pages]
9. Provide a thorough treatment of the study’s strengths and limitations. [2-4 pages]
10. Identify suggestions for future research that would follow from the expected findings in this
study. [1-2 pages]
Appendices - Include a complete list of references, any figures or tables, and your point by
point response to the peer review you received with your proposal submission. These materials
do not count against the page limit.
MHR 8780
10
Spring 2013
Faculty Research Report
Contact the professor you would like to use for your report, explain the assignment, request an
article and make an appointment to meet with and interview that faculty member. Obtain and
read the article prior to meeting with the faculty member. Below are some possible interview
questions (you should ask some of these and some of your own) and an outline for preparing
your presentation to the class. In addition to giving an oral report, have a handout to distribute to
the class (2 pages maximum) that summarizes what you learned about conducting research
and research methods from this assignment.
Faculty Interview guide
General questions
What kinds of things do you study and how do you go about studying them? (topics,
methods, samples, target audience/outlets)
Is there a particular methodology you use most frequently? Why?
What aspects of the research process do you find most enjoyable and rewarding? Most
difficult and frustrating?
How many research projects do you typically have going at any one time?
How often do you work with co-authors? Why? If you do, how is the work usually
distributed?
How do you make time for research?
In your opinion, what makes for a great research article?
What do you see as the biggest obstacles to being a successful researcher?
Questions relating to the article
What can you tell me about this study that is not in the article?
What was the most challenging aspect of conducting this study?
If you had the chance to do this study over again, what would you have changed?
Identify what you perceive to be a trade-off made in the design of the study and inquire
as to why the decision was made to go in the direction that was taken.
How does this article fit within your broader research interests?
Have you or are you planning to conduct any research that follows-up on the results of
this study?
Report and presentation outline
What did you learn about the kind of research this faculty member conducts?
What did you learn about this faculty member’s approach to research?
What did you learn about this faculty member’s thoughts about the research process?
Summarize the example of this person’s research
Purpose, findings, importance
Methods - setting, sample, type of design; strengths and weaknesses