Unit VResearch Methods & Field Studies

Documentation & Ethics

Writing it up — structure, citation and integrity.

≈ 45 min + studio task

Research that is not communicated honestly is not finished. Learn to prepare and analyse data sheets and questionnaires and arrive at conclusions; the standard research-report and dissertation structure and what each part does — including why a literature review is a critical synthesis, not a summary; the referencing styles; and the ethics that separate scholarship from misconduct — plagiarism and self-plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation, authorship and informed consent.

Learning objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to — mapped to the course outcomes for Research Methods & Field Studies:

CO5 · Apply

Prepare and analyse data sheets and questionnaires and draw conclusions.

CO5 · Understand

Structure a research report / dissertation and reference it correctly.

CO5 · Evaluate

Apply research ethics — plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship, consent.

CO6 · Apply

Present a pilot study with its data analysis.

Data to report

Writing it up

Data becomes knowledge through data sheets, analysis and a conclusion that adds no new data — set out in a standard report structure and cited in one consistent style.^{[2, 3]}

DiagramThe research report structure — abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion, references, appendices

Compile, analyse, conclude

Raw responses become knowledge through DATA SHEETS that organise them, then ANALYSIS — descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, charts) for quantitative data, thematic coding for qualitative — and then CONCLUSIONS that answer the research question. The conclusion must follow from the evidence and must NOT introduce new data. A pilot study is presented the same way in miniature: instrument, sample, preliminary analysis, reliability check, and the revisions it prompted for the main study.^{[2, 3]}

Integrity, credit, consent

Research ethics

The cardinal sins are fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (including un-attributed paraphrase and self-plagiarism); the duties are honest citation, fair authorship and informed consent.^[4]

DiagramThe three cardinal forms of research misconduct — fabrication, falsification and plagiarism — beside the duties of authorship and informed consent

Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification

Three forms of research misconduct (FFP). PLAGIARISM is presenting others' words, ideas or data as your own without attribution — including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, and patchwork/mosaic plagiarism; SELF-PLAGIARISM (reusing your own published work undisclosed) also counts. FABRICATION is making up data that never existed. FALSIFICATION is manipulating data, images or methods so the record is inaccurate. MISCONCEPTION→correct: 'plagiarism is only word-for-word copying' — un-attributed paraphrase and self-plagiarism are plagiarism too.^[4]

Myth vs reality

At a glance

Aspect	One side	The other
Literature review	Myth: a summary of readings	Reality: a critical synthesis finding the gap
Plagiarism	Myth: only verbatim copying	Reality: un-attributed paraphrase + self-plagiarism too
Fabrication vs falsification	Fabrication: invented data	Falsification: altered data/methods
Conclusion	Answers the question	Introduces NO new data
Authorship	Ghost: real contributor omitted	Gift: non-contributor added

Vocabulary

Key terms

Abstract

A concise, standalone summary of aim, method, findings and conclusion.

Literature review

A critical synthesis of prior work that identifies the research gap — not a summary.

FFP

Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism — the three cardinal forms of research misconduct.

Self-plagiarism

Reusing your own previously published work without disclosure or citation.

Authorship

Credit for substantial intellectual contribution; no ghost or gift authors.

Informed consent

Voluntary, informed, withdrawable participation with confidentiality for human subjects.

Apply it

Studio task

Take the pilot study you designed in Unit IV and outline how you would present it: write a 120-word abstract, list the report sections in order, choose one referencing style and cite a source in it, and note two ethical safeguards you would put in place for your respondents. Finally, in one sentence, explain why paraphrasing a paper without citing it is still plagiarism.

Check your understanding

Self-assessment

1. A literature review should be —

2. Reusing your own previously published text without disclosure is —

3. Adding a senior who did no work as a co-author is —

In a nutshell

Recap

Turn data into knowledge through data sheets, analysis (descriptive stats / thematic coding) and a conclusion that adds no new data.

A report runs abstract → introduction → literature review → methodology → findings → discussion → conclusion → references → appendices.

A literature review is a critical synthesis that finds the gap, not a summary; cite in one consistent style.

The cardinal sins are fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) — including un-attributed paraphrase and self-plagiarism.

Credit only real contributors (no ghost/gift authors) and obtain informed consent for human-subject surveys.

The evidence

References & further reading

[1]Linda Groat & David Wang, Architectural Research Methods — communicating and situating research.
[2]C.R. Kothari, Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques — data analysis, interpretation, report writing.
[3]Booth, Colomb & Williams, The Craft of Research — argument, drafting, the literature review, referencing.
[4]Singh, Sakshi & Sharma, Research & Publication Ethics (Sultan Chand) + UGC norms — plagiarism, FFP, authorship, consent.