{"id":275,"date":"2022-08-23T12:56:54","date_gmt":"2022-08-23T12:56:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/back-matter\/glossary\/"},"modified":"2022-08-23T12:56:54","modified_gmt":"2022-08-23T12:56:54","slug":"glossary","status":"publish","type":"back-matter","link":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/back-matter\/glossary\/","title":{"raw":"Glossary","rendered":"Glossary"},"content":{"raw":"","rendered":"
\n
a priori categories<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Categories that we use that are determined ahead of time, based on existing literature\/knowledge.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

abstract<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a summary of the main points of an article<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

access<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

whether you can actually reach people or documents needed to complete your project<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

accountability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The idea that researchers are responsible for conducting research that is ethical, honest, and following accepted research practices.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

acquiescence bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In a measure, when people say yes to whatever the researcher asks, even when doing so contradicts previous answers.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

action research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

research that is conducted for the purpose of creating social change<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Afrocentric methodologies<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research methodologies that center and affirm African cultures, knowledge, beliefs, and values. <\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

aggregate matching<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In nonequivalent comparison group designs, the process in which researchers match the population profile of the comparison and experimental groups.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

aim<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

what a researcher hopes to accomplish with their study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

alternate\/multiple forms reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of reliability in which multiple forms of a tool yield the same results from the same participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

annotation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the process of writing notes on an article<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

anonymity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The identity of the person providing data cannot be connected to the data provided at any time in the research process, by anyone.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ANOVA<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A statistical method to examine how a dependent variable changes as the value of a categorical independent variable changes<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

applicability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The potential for qualitative research findings to be applicable to other situations or with other people outside of the research study itself.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

argument<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statement about what you think is true backed up by evidence and critical thinking<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

artifacts<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Artifacts are a source of data for qualitative researcher that exist in some form already, without the research having to create it. They represent a very broad category that can range from print media, to clothing, to tools, to art, to live performances.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

assent form<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Comparable to the informed consent for BUT this is for children who are old enough to understand and make a decision about a research project.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

assumptions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The characteristics we assume about our data, like that it is normally distributed, that makes it suitable for certain types of statistical tests<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

attributes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The characteristics that make up a variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

audit trail<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An audit trail is a system of documenting in qualitative research analysis that allows you to link your final results with your original raw data. Using an audit trail, an independent researcher should be able to start with your results and trace the research process backwards to the raw data. This helps to strengthen the trustworthiness of the research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

authenticity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

For the purposes of research, authenticity means that we do not misrepresent ourselves, our interests or our research; we are genuine in our interactions with participants and other colleagues.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

availability sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

researcher gathers data from whatever cases happen to be convenient or available<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

axial coding<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Axial coding is phase of qualitative analysis in which the research will revisit the open codes and identify connections between codes, thereby beginning to group codes that share a relationship.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

axiology<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

assumptions about the role of values in research<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

beneficence<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

One of the three values indicated in the Belmont report. An obligation to protect people from harm by maximizing benefits and minimizing risks.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Biases are conscious or subconscious preferences that lead us to favor some things over others.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

bimodal distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A distribution with two distinct peaks when represented on a histogram.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

bivariate analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a group of statistical techniques that examines the relationship between two variables<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

bracketing<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A qualitative research technique where the researcher attempts to capture and track their subjective assumptions during the research process. * note, there are other definitions of bracketing, but this is the most widely used.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

BRUSO model<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An acronym, BRUSO for writing questions in survey research. The letters stand for: \u201cbrief,\u201d \u201crelevant,\u201d \u201cunambiguous,\u201d \u201cspecific,\u201d and \u201cobjective.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

case studies<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Case studies are a type of qualitative research design that focus on a defined case and gathers data to provide a very rich, full understanding of that case. It usually involves gathering data from multiple different sources to get a well-rounded case description.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

categorical variables<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

variables whose values are organized into mutually exclusive groups but whose numerical values cannot be used in mathematical operations.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

causality<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the idea that one event, behavior, or belief will result in the occurrence of another, subsequent event, behavior, or belief<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

chi-square test for independence<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statistical test to determine whether there is a significant relationship between two categorical variables<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

chronbach’s alpha<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Statistical tool used to asses the internal consistency of an instrument. See also split-half approach.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

closed-ended questions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

questions in which the researcher provides all of the response options<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cluster sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a sampling approach that begins by sampling groups (or clusters) of population elements and then selects elements from within those groups<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

code<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A code is a label that we place on segment of data that seems to represent the main idea of that segment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

codebook<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A document that we use to keep track of and define the codes that we have identified (or are using) in our qualitative data analysis.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

coding<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Part of the qualitative data analysis process where we begin to interpret and assign meaning to the data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

coercion<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

When a participant faces undue or excess pressure to participate by either favorable or unfavorable means, this is known as coercion and must be avoided by researchers<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cognitive biases<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

predictable flaws in thinking<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cohort survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of longitudinal design where participants are selected because of a defining characteristic that the researcher is interested in studying. The same people don\u2019t necessarily participate from year to year, but all participants must meet whatever categorical criteria fulfill the researcher\u2019s primary interest.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Common method bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Common method bias refers to the amount of spurious covariance shared between independent and dependent variables that are measured at the same point in time.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

community gatekeeper<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Someone who has the formal or informal authority to grant permission or access to a particular community.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

composite measures<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

measurements of variables based on more than one one indicator<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

These are software tools that can aid qualitative researchers in managing, organizing and manipulating\/analyzing their data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

concept<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A mental image that summarizes a set of similar observations, feelings, or ideas<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

conceptual framework<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a network of linked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

conceptualization<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

developing clear, concise definitions for the key concepts in a research question<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

concurrent validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of criterion validity. Examines how well a tool provides the same scores as an already existing tool administered at the same point in time.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

conditions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The different levels of the independent variable in an experimental design.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

confidence interval<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a range of values in which the true value is likely to be, to provide a more accurate description of their data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

confidentiality<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

For research purposes, confidentiality means that only members of the research team have access potentially identifiable information that could be associated with participant data. According to confidentiality, it is the research team's responsibility to restrict access to this information by other parties, including the public.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

confirmation bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

observing and analyzing information in a way that agrees with what you already think is true and excludes other alternatives<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

conflicts of interest<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Conflicting allegiances.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

confound<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a variable whose influence makes it difficult to understand the relationship between an independent and dependent variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

consistency<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Consistency is the idea that we use a systematic (and potentially repeatable) process when conducting our research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

constant<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a characteristic that does not change in a study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

constant comparison<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Constant comparison reflects the motion that takes place in some qualitative analysis approaches whereby the researcher moves back and forth between the data and the emerging categories and evolving understanding they have in their results. They are continually checking what they believed to be the results against the raw data they are working with.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

construct bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\"when the construct measured is not identical across cultures or when behaviors that characterize the construct are not identical across cultures\" (Meiring et al., 2005, p. 2)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

constructivist<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Constructivist research is a qualitative design that seeks to develop a deep understanding of the meaning that people attach to events, experiences, or phenomena.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

constructs<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Conditions that are not directly observable and represent states of being, experiences, and ideas.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

content<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Content is the substance of the artifact (e.g. the words, picture, scene). It is what can actually be observed.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

content analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An approach to data analysis that seeks to identify patterns, trends, or ideas across qualitative data through processes of coding and categorization.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

content validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which a measure \u201ccovers\u201d the construct of interest, i.e., it's comprehensiveness to measure the construct.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

context<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Context is the circumstances surrounding an artifact, event, or experience.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

context effects<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

unintended influences on respondents\u2019 answers because they are not related to the content of the item but to the context in which the item appears.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

context-dependent<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research findings are applicable to the group of people who contributed to the knowledge building and the situation in which it took place.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

contingency table<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a visual representation of across-tabulation of categorical variables to demonstrate all the possible occurrences of categories<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

continuing education units<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

required courses clinical practitioners must take in order to remain current with licensure<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

continuous variables<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

variables whose values are mutually exclusive and can be used in mathematical operations<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

control<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In research design and statistics, a series of methods that allow researchers to minimize the effect of an extraneous variable on the dependent variable in their project.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

control variable<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a confounding variable whose effects are accounted for mathematically in quantitative analysis to isolate the relationship between an independent and dependent variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

convenience or availability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A convenience sample is formed by collecting data from those people or other relevant elements to which we have the most convenient access. Essentially, we take who we can get.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

correlation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a relationship between two variables in which their values change together.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

correlation coefficient<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statistically derived value between -1 and 1 that tells us the magnitude and direction of the relationship between two variables<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

covariation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when the values of two variables change at the same time<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

coverage<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In qualitative data, coverage refers to the amount of data that can be categorized or sorted using the code structure that we are using (or have developed) in our study. With qualitative research, our aim is to have good coverage with our code structure.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

criterion validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which people\u2019s scores on a measure are correlated with other variables (known as criteria) that one would expect them to be correlated with.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

critical information literacy<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

engaging with \"the social, political, economic, and corporate systems that have power and influence over information production, dissemination, access, and consumption\u201d (Gregory & Higgins, 2013, p.ix)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

critical paradigm<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a paradigm in social science research focused on power, inequality, and social change<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cross-sectional survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

When a researcher collects data only once from participants using a questionnaire<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cultural bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

spurious covariance between your independent and dependent variables that is in fact caused by systematic error introduced by culturally insensitive or incompetent research practices<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

cultural equivalence<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the concept that scores obtained from a measure are similar when employed in different cultural populations<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

damaged-centered research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research that portrays groups of people or communities as flawed, surrounded by problems, or incapable of producing change. <\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

data analysis plan<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An ordered outline that includes your research question, a description of the data you are going to use to answer it, and the exact analyses, step-by-step, that you plan to run to answer your research question.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

data collection protocol<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A plan that is developed by a researcher, prior to commencing a research project, that details how data will be collected, stored and managed during the research project.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

data dictionary<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

This is the document where you list your variable names, what the variables actually measure or represent, what each of the values of the variable mean if the meaning isn't obvious.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

data matrix<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A data matrix is a tool used by researchers to track and organize data and findings during qualitative analysis.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

data triangulation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Including data from multiple sources to help enhance your understanding of a topic<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

database<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a searchable collection of information<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

debriefing statement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A statement at the end of data collection (e.g. at the end of a survey or interview) that generally thanks participants and reminds them what the research was about, what it's purpose is, resources available to them if they need them, and contact information for the researcher if they have questions or concerns.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

decision-rule<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A decision-rule provides information on how the researcher determines what code should be placed on an item, especially when codes may be similar in nature.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Decolonizing methodologies<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research methods that reclaim control over indigenous ways of knowing and being.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

deconstructing data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The act of breaking piece of qualitative data apart during the analysis process to discern meaning and ultimately, the results of the study.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

deductive<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The type of research in which a specific expectation is deduced from a general premise and then tested<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

deductive analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An approach to data analysis in which the researchers begins their analysis using a theory to see if their data fits within this theoretical framework (tests the theory).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

deductive reasoning<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

starts by reading existing theories, then testing hypotheses and revising or confirming the theory<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dependent variable<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a variable that depends on changes in the independent variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

descriptive research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

research that describes or defines a particular phenomenon<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

descriptive statistics<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A technique for summarizing and presenting data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dichotomous<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Participants are asked to select one of two possible choices, such as true\/false, yes\/no, or agree\/disagree.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Dichotomous response question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Participants are asked to select one of two possible choices, such as true\/false, yes\/no, or agree\/disagree.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

diminished autonomy<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Having the ability to make decisions for yourself limited<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

direct relationship<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Occurs when two variables move together in the same direction - as one increases, so does the other, or, as one decreases, so does the other<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

discipline<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an academic field, like social work<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

discrete variables<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Variables with finite value choices.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

discriminant validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which scores on a measure are not correlated with measures of variables that are conceptually distinct.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dissemination<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\u201ca planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and\u2026service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice\u201d (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dissemination plan<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

how you plan to share your research findings<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dissemination strategy<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

How you plan to share your research findings<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the way the scores are distributed across the levels of that variable.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

document analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The analysis of documents (or other existing artifacts) as a source of data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

double-barreled question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a question that asks more than one thing at a time, making it difficult to respond accurately<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

dyads<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A combination of two people or objects<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

element<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the units in your sampling frame, usually people or documents<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

emergent design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Emergent design is the idea that some decision in our research design will be dynamic and change as our understanding of the research question evolves as we go through the research process. This is (often) evident in qualitative research, but rare in quantitative research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

emphasis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

in mixed methods research, this refers to the order in which each method is used, either concurrently or sequentially<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

empirical articles<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

report the results of a quantitative or qualitative data analysis conducted by the author<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

empirical data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

information about the social world gathered and analyzed through scientific observation or experimentation<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

empirical questions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

research questions that can be answered by systematically observing the real world<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

epistemic injustice<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when someone is treated unfairly in their capacity to know something or describe their experience of the world<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

epistemology<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

assumptions about how we come to know what is real and true<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

equity-informed research agenda<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A general approach to research that is conscientious of the dynamics of power and control created by the act of research and attempts to actively address these dynamics through the process and outcomes of research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

essence<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Often the end result of a phenomological study, this is a description of the lived experience of the phenomenon being studied.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ethical questions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

unsuitable research questions which are not answerable by systematic observation of the real world but instead rely on moral or philosophical opinions<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ethnography<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Ethnography is a qualitative research design that is used when we are attempting to learn about a culture by observing people in their natural environment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

evaluation\u00a0research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

research that evaluates the outcomes of a policy or program<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

evidence-based practice<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a process composed of \"four equally weighted parts: 1) current client needs and situation, (2) the best relevant research evidence, (3) client values and preferences, and (4) the clinician\u2019s expertise\" (Drisko & Grady, 2015, p. 275)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ex post facto<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

After the fact<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

exclusion criteria<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

characteristics that disqualify a person from being included in a sample<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

exempt review<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Exempt review is the lowest level of review. Studies that are considered exempt expose participants to the least potential for harm and often involve little participation by human subjects.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

exhaustive categories<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Exhaustive categories are options for closed ended questions that allow for every possible response (no one should feel like they can't find the answer for them).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

expanded field notes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Expanded field notes represents the field notes that we have taken during data collection after we have had time to sit down and add details to them that we were not able to capture immediately at the point of collection.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

expedited review<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Expedited review is the middle level of review. Studies considered under expedited review do not have to go before the full IRB board because they expose participants to minimal risk. However, the studies must be thoroughly reviewed by a member of the IRB committee.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

experiment\u00a0<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

experimental design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Refers to research that is designed specifically to answer the question of whether there is a causal relationship between two variables.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

experimental group<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

in experimental design, the group of participants in our study who do receive the intervention we are researching<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

explanatory research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

explains why particular phenomena work in the way that they do; answers \u201cwhy\u201d questions<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

exploratory research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

conducted during the early stages of a project, usually when a researcher wants to test the feasibility of conducting a more extensive study or if the topic has not been studied in the past<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

external audit<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Having an objective person, someone not connected to your study, try to start with your findings and trace them back to your raw data using your audit trail. A tool to help demonstrate rigor in qualitative research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

external validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

This is a synonymous term for generalizability - the ability to apply the findings of a study beyond the sample to a broader population.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

extraneous variables<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

variables and characteristics that have an effect on your outcome, but aren't the primary variable whose influence you're interested in testing.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

extreme (or deviant) case sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A purposive sampling strategy that selects a case(s) that represent extreme or underrepresented perspectives. It is a way of intentionally focusing on or representing voices that may not often be heard or given emphasis.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

face validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which a measurement method appears \u201con its face\u201d to measure the construct of interest<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

false negative<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a measure does not indicate the presence of a phenomenon, when in reality it is present<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

false positive<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a measure indicates the presence of a phenomenon, when in reality it is not present<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

feasibility<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

whether you can practically and ethically complete the research project you propose<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Feminist methodologies:<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research methods in this tradition seek to, \"remove the power imbalance between research and subject; (are) politically motivated in that (they) seeks to change social inequality; and (they) begin with the standpoints and experiences of women\".[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

field notes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Notes that are taken by the researcher while we are in the field, gathering data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Filter or Screening Questions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Questions that screen out\/identify a certain type of respondent, usually to direct them to a certain part of the survey.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

filter question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

items on a questionnaire designed to identify some subset of survey respondents who are asked additional questions that are not relevant to the entire sample<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

floaters<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

respondents to a survey who choose a substantive answer to a question when really, they don\u2019t understand the question or don\u2019t have an opinion<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

focus group<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Type of interview where participants answer questions in a group.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

focus group guide<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A document that will outline the instructions for conducting your focus group, including the questions you will ask participants. It often concludes with a debriefing statement for the group, as well.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

focus groups<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A form of data gathering where researchers ask a group of participants to respond to a series of (mostly open-ended) questions.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

fraud<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Deliberate actions taken to impact a research project. For example deliberately falsifying data, plagiarism, not being truthful about the methodology, etc.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

frequency\u00a0table<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A table that lays out how many cases fall into each level of a varible.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

full board review<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A full board review will involve multiple members of the IRB evaluating your proposal. When researchers submit a proposal under full board review, the full IRB board will meet, discuss any questions or concerns with the study, invite the researcher to answer questions and defend their proposal, and vote to approve the study or send it back for revision. Full board proposals pose greater than minimal risk to participants. They may also involve the participation of vulnerable populations, or people who need additional protection from the IRB.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

gatekeeper<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the people or organizations who control access to the population you want to study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

generalizability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The ability to apply research findings beyond the study sample to some broader population,<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

generalizable findings<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Findings form a research study that apply to larger group of people (beyond the sample). Producing generalizable findings requires starting with a representative sample.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

generalize<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

(as in generalization) to make claims about a large population based on a smaller sample of people or items<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

gray literature<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

research reports released by non-commercial publishers, such as government agencies, policy organizations, and think-tanks<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

grounded theory<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of research design that is often used to study a process or identify a theory about how something works.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

grounded theory analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A form of qualitative analysis that aims to develop a theory or understanding of how some event or series of events occurs by closely examining
\nparticipant knowledge and experience of that event(s).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Guttman scale<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A composite scale using a series of items arranged in increasing order of intensity of the construct of interest, from least intense to most intense.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

heterogeneity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The quality of or the amount of difference or variation in data or research participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

histogram<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a graphical display of a distribution.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

homogeneity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The quality of or the amount of similarity or consistency in data or research participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

human instrument<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

As researchers in the social science, we ourselves are the main tool for conducting our studies.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

human subject<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) defines a human subject as \u201ca living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information\u201d (USDHHS, 1993, para. 1). [2]<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

hypothesis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statement describing a researcher\u2019s expectation regarding what they anticipate finding<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

hypothetico-deductive method<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A cyclical process of theory development, starting with an observed phenomenon, then developing or using a theory to make a specific prediction of what should happen if that theory is correct, testing that prediction, refining the theory in light of the findings, and using that refined theory to develop new hypotheses, and so on.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

idiographic causal relationship<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

attempts to explain or describe your phenomenon exhaustively, based on the subjective understandings of your participants<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

idiographic understanding<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A rich, deep, detailed understanding of a unique person, small group, and\/or set of circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

impact<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Tthe long-term condition that occurs at the end of a defined time period after an intervention.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

implementation science<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

importance<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the impact your study will have on participants, communities, scientific knowledge, and social justice<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

inclusion criteria<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Inclusion criteria are general requirements a person must possess to be a part of your sample.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

independent variable<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

causes a change in the dependent variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

index<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a composite score derived from aggregating measures of multiple concepts (called components) using a set of rules and formulas<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

indicators<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Clues that demonstrate the presence, intensity, or other aspects of a concept in the real world<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

indirect observables<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In measurement, conditions that are subtle and complex that we must use existing knowledge and intuition to define.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

individual matching<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In nonequivalent comparison group designs, the process by which researchers match individual cases in the experimental group to similar cases in the comparison group.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

inductive<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

inductive reasoning draws conclusions from individual observations<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

inductive analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An approach to data analysis in which we gather our data first and then generate a theory about its meaning through our analysis.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

inductive reasoning<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a researcher starts with a set of observations and then moves from particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

information literacy<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\"a set of abilities requiring individuals to 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information\" (American Library Association, 2020)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

information privilege<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the accumulation of special rights and advantages not available to others in the area of information access<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

informed consent<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A process through which the researcher explains the research process, procedures, risks and benefits to a potential participant, usually through a written document, which the participant than signs, as evidence of their agreement to participate.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Institutional Review Board<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

internal consistency<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The consistency of people\u2019s responses across the items on a multiple-item measure. Responses about the same underlying construct should be correlated, though not perfectly.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

internal validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Ability to say that one variable \"causes\" something to happen to another variable. Very important to assess when thinking about studies that examine causation such as experimental or quasi-experimental designs.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Interpretivism<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interrater reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which different observers are consistent in their assessment or rating of a particular characteristic or item.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

intersectional identities<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the various aspects or dimensions that come together in forming our identity<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interval<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A level of measurement that is continuous, can be rank ordered, is exhaustive and mutually exclusive, and for which the distance between attributes is known to be equal. But for which there is no zero point.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interview guide<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An interview guide is a document that outlines the flow of information during your interview, including a greeting and introduction to orient your participant to the topic, your questions and any probes, and any debriefing statement you might include. If you are part of a research team, your interview guide may also include instructions for the interviewer if certain things are brought up in the interview or as general guidance.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interview schedule<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A questionnaire that is read to respondents<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interviewer effect<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

any possible changes in interviewee responses based on how or when the researcher presents question-and-answer options<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

interviews<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A form of data gathering where researchers ask individual participants to respond to a series of (mostly open-ended) questions.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

intra-rater reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Type of reliability in which a rater rates something the same way on two different occasions.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

intuition<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a \u201cgut feeling\u201d about what to do based on previous experience<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

intuitions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

yer gut feelin'<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

inverse relationship<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

occurs when two variables change in opposite directions - one goes up, the other goes down and vice versa<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

item-order effect<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when the order in which the items are presented affects people\u2019s responses<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

iterative<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An iterative approach means that after planning and once we begin collecting data, we begin analyzing as data as it is coming in.  This early analysis of our (incomplete) data, then impacts our planning, ongoing data gathering and future analysis as it progresses.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

iterative\u00a0process<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a nonlinear process in which the original product is revised over and over again to improve it<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

justice<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

One of the three ethical principles in the Belmont Report. States that benefits and burdens of research should be distributed fairly.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

key informant<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Someone who is especially knowledgeable about a topic being studied.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

keywords<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the words or phrases in your search query<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

leading question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

When a participant's answer to a question is altered due to the way in which a question is written. In essence, the question leads the participant to answer in a specific way.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

level of measurement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The level that describes the type of operations can be conducted with your data. There are four nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

levels of measurement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
<\/dd>\n
Likert scale<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

measuring people\u2019s attitude toward something by assessing their level of agreement with several statements about it<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

linear<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A research process where you create a plan, you gather your data, you analyze your data and each step is completed before you proceed to the next.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

linear regression<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statistical technique that can be used to predict how an independent variable affects a dependent variable in the context of other variables.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

logic<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

logic model<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A graphic depiction (road map) that presents the shared relationships among the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact for your program<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

longitudinal survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Researcher collects data from participants at multiple points over an extended period of time using a questionnaire.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

macro-level<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

examining social structures and institutions<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

magnitude<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The strength of a correlation, determined by the absolute value of a correlation coefficient<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

matrix question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a type of survey question that lists a set of questions for which the response options are all the same in a grid layout<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

maximum variation sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A purposive sampling strategy where you choose cases because they represent a range of very different perspectives on a topic<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

mean<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Also called the average, the mean is calculated by adding all your cases and dividing the total by the number of cases.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

measure of central tendency<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

One number that can give you an idea about the distribution of your data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

measurement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The process by which we describe and ascribe meaning to the key facts, concepts, or other phenomena under investigation in a research study.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

measurement error<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The differerence between that value that we get when we measure something and the true value<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

measurement instrument<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Instrument or tool that operationalizes (measures) the concept that you are studying.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

median<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The value in the middle when all our values are placed in numerical order. Also called the 50th percentile.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

member-checking<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Member checking involves taking your results back to participants to see if we \"got it right\" in our analysis. While our findings bring together many different peoples' data into one set of findings, participants should still be able to recognize their input and feel like their ideas and experiences have been captured adequately.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

membership-based approach<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

approach to recruitment where participants are members of an organization or social group with identified membership<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

memoing<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Memoing is the act of recording your thoughts, reactions, quandaries as you are reviewing the data you are gathering.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A written agreement between parties that want to participate in a collaborative project.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

meso-level<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

examining interaction between groups and within communities<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

meta-analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a study that combines raw data from multiple quantitative studies and analyzes the pooled data using statistics<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

meta-synthesis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a study that combines primary data from multiple qualitative sources and analyzes the pooled data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

methodological justification<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an explanation of why you chose the specific design of your study; why do your chosen methods fit with the aim of your research<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

methodology<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A description of how research is conducted.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

micro-level<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

examining the smallest levels of interaction, usually individuals<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

misconduct<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Usually unintentional. Very broad category that covers things such as not using the proper statistics for analysis, injecting bias into your study and in interpreting results, being careless with your research methodology<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

mixed methods research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methods in a project<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

mode<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The most commonly occurring value of a variable.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

multi-dimensional concepts<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

concepts that are comprised of multiple elements<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

multidimensional scales<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An empirical structure for measuring items or indicators of the multiple dimensions of a concept.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

multivariate analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A group of statistical techniques that examines the relationship between at least three variables<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

mutually exclusive categories<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Mutually exclusive categories are options for closed ended questions that do not overlap, so people only fit into one category or another, not both.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

narratives<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Those stories that we compose as human beings that allow us to make meaning of our experiences and the world around us<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

National Research Act<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

US legislation passed In 1974, which created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which went on to produce The Belmont Report.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

natural setting<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

collecting data in the field where it naturally\/normally occurs<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

naturalistic.observation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Making qualitative observations that attempt to capture the subjects of the observation as unobtrusively as possible and with limited structure to the observation.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

negative case analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Including data that contrasts, contradicts, or challenges the majority of evidence that we have found or expect to find<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

negative correlation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

occurs when two variables change in opposite directions - one goes up, the other goes down and vice versa<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

negotiated outcomes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

ensuring that we have correctly captured and reflected an accurate understanding in our findings by clarifying and verifying our findings with our participants<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

neutrality<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The idea that qualitative researchers attempt to limit or at the very least account for their own biases, motivations, interests and opinions during the research process.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

nominal<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The lowest level of measurement; categories cannot be mathematically ranked, though they are exhaustive and mutually exclusive<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

nomothetic causal explanations<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

provides a more general, sweeping explanation that is universally true for all people<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

non-probability sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

sampling approaches for which a person\u2019s likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

non-relational<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Referring to data analysis that doesn't examine how variables relate to each other.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

non-response bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

If the majority of the targeted respondents fail to respond to a survey, then a legitimate concern is whether non-respondents are not responding due to a systematic reason, which may raise questions about the validity of the study\u2019s results, especially as this relates to the representativeness of the sample.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

normal<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Simplified, a normal distribution of data occurs when the mean, mode and median are all equal; the distribution of value is symmetric at the center (around the mean); and exactly half of the values are found to the left of the mean (lower) and exactly half the values are to the right of the mean (higher). Given a large enough sample, many measures fall naturally into this patter (like height, age, and weight).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

null hypothesis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the assumption that no relationship exists between the variables in question<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Nuremberg Code<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The Nuremberg Code is a 10-point set of research principles designed to guide doctors and scientists who conduct research on human subjects, crafted in response to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

objective truth<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a single truth, observed without bias, that is universally applicable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

observation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Observation is a tool for data gathering where researchers rely on their own senses (e.g. sight, sound) to gather information on a topic.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

observational terms<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In measurement, conditions that are easy to identify and verify through direct observation.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

observations\/cases<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The rows in your data set. In social work, these are often your study participants (people), but can be anything from census tracts to black bears to trains.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

observer triangulation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

including more than one member of your research team to aid in analyzing the data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Office of Human Research Protections<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The federal government agency that oversees IRBs.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

one-way ANOVA<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statistical procedure to compare the means of a variable across three or more groups<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ontology<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

assumptions about what is real and true<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

open access<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

journal articles that are made freely available by the publisher<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

open coding<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An initial phase of coding that involves reviewing the data to determine the preliminary ideas that seem important and potential labels that reflect their significance.  <\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

open science<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

sharing one's data and methods for the purposes of replication, verifiability, and collaboration of findings<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

open-ended question<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Questions for which the researcher does not include response options, allowing for respondents to answer the question in their own words<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

operational definitions<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The concrete and specific defintion of something in terms of the operations by which observations can be categorized.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

operationalization<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

process by which researchers spell out precisely how a concept will be measured in their study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

oral histories<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Oral histories are a type of qualitative research design that offers a detailed accounting of a person's life, some event, or experience. This story(ies) is aimed at answering a specific research question.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

oral presentation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

verbal presentation of research findings to a conference audience<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ordinal<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Level of measurement that follows nominal level. Has mutually exclusive categories and a hierarchy (rank order), but we cannot calculate a mathematical distance between attributes.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

outcome<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The final condition that occurs at the end of an intervention or program.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

outliers<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Extreme values in your data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

p-value<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

summarizes the incompatibility between a particular set of data and a proposed model for the data, usually the null hypothesis. The lower the p-value, the more inconsistent the data are with the null hypothesis, indicating that the relationship is statistically significant.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

panel presentations<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

group presentations that feature experts on a given issue, with time for audience question-and-answer<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

panel survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of longitudinal design where the researchers gather data at multiple points in time and the same people participate in the survey each time it is administered.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

paradigm<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a set of common philosophical (ontological, epistemological, and axiological) assumptions that inform research<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

participant<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Those who are asked to contribute data in a research study; sometimes called respondents or subjects.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

participatory research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An approach to research that more intentionally attempts to involve community members throughout the research process compared to more traditional research methods. In addition, participatory approaches often seek some concrete, tangible change for the benefit of the community (often defined by the community).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

paywall<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a publisher prevents access to reading content unless the user pays money<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

peer debriefing<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A qualitative research tool for enhancing rigor by partnering with a peer researcher who is not connected with your project (therefore more objective), to discuss project details, your decision, perhaps your reflexive journal, as a means of helping to reduce researcher bias and maintain consistency and transparency in the research process.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

peer review<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a formal process in which other esteemed researchers and experts ensure your work meets the standards and expectations of the professional field<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

periodicals<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

trade publications, magazines, and newspapers<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

periodicity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the tendency for a pattern to occur at regular intervals<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

phenomenology<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A qualitative research design that aims to capture and describe the lived experience of some event or \"phenomenon\" for a group of people.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Photovoice<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Photovoice is a technique that merges pictures with narrative (word or voice data that helps that interpret the meaning or significance of the visual artifact. It is often used as a tool in CBPR.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pilot testing<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Testing out your research materials in advance on people who are not included as participants in your study.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

plausibility<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

as a criteria for causal relationship, the relationship must make logical sense and seem possible<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

political case<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A purposive sampling strategy that focuses on selecting cases that are important in representing a contemporary politicized issue.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

population<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the larger group of people you want to be able to make conclusions about based on the conclusions you draw from the people in your sample<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

positionality statement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A statement about the researchers worldview and life experiences, specifically in respect to the research topic they are studying. It helps to demonstrate the subjective connection(s) the researcher has to the topic and is a way to encourage transparency in research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

positive correlation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Occurs when two variables move together in the same direction - as one increases, so does the other, or, as one decreases, so does the other<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Positivism<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

post-test<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A measure of a participant's condition after an intervention or, if they are part of the control\/comparison group, at the end of an experiment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Post-test only control group design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to control and treatment groups, one group receives an intervention, and both groups receive only a post-test assessment<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

poster presentation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

presentations that use a poster to visually represent the elements of the study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

power<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the odds you will detect a significant relationship between variables when one is truly present in your sample<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

practical articles<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

describe \u201chow things are done\u201d or comment on pressing issues in practice (Wallace & Wray, 2016, p. 20)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

practical implications<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

How well your findings can be translated and used in the \"real world.\" For example, you may have a statistically significant correlation; however, the relationship may be very weak. This limits your abiltiy to use these data for real world change.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

practice wisdom<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\u201clearning by doing\u201d that guides social work intervention and increases over time<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pragmatism<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a research paradigm that suspends questions of philosophical \u2018truth\u2019 and focuses more on how different philosophies, theories, and methods can be used strategically to resolve a problem or question within the researcher's unique context<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

predictive validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of criterion validity that examines how well your tool predicts a future criterion.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pretest<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A measure of a participant's condition before they receive an intervention or treatment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pretest and post-test control group design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a type of experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, one group receives an intervention, and both groups receive pre- and post-test assessments<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

primary data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Data you have collected yourself.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

primary source<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

in a literature review, a source that describes primary data collected and analyzed by the author, rather than only reviewing what other researchers have found<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

principle of replication<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

This means that one scientist could repeat another\u2019s study with relative ease. By replicating a study, we may become more (or less) confident in the original study\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

probability proportionate to size<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

in cluster sampling, giving clusters different chances of being selected based on their size so that each element within those clusters has an equal chance of being selected<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

probability sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

sampling approaches for which a person\u2019s likelihood of being selected from the sampling frame is known<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

probes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Probes a brief prompts or follow up questions that are used in qualitative interviewing to help draw out additional information on a particular question or idea.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

process evaluation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An analysis of how well your program ended up running, and sometimes how well it's going in real time.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

professional development<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the \"uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities that deepen and extend...professional competence, including knowledge, beliefs, motivation, and self-regulatory skills\" (Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, L\u00fcdtke, & Baumert, 2014)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

program evaluation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The systematic process by which we determine if social programs are meeting their goals, how well the program runs, whether the program had the desired effect, and whether the program has merit according to stakeholders (including in terms of the monetary costs and benefits)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

prolonged engagement<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

As researchers, this means we are extensively spending time with participants or are in the community we are studying.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

proxy<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a person who completes a survey on behalf of another person<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pseudonyms<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Fake names assigned in research to protect the identity of participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

pseudoscience<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

claims about the world that appear scientific but are incompatible with the values and practices of science<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

psychometrics<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The science of measurement. Involves using theory to assess measurement procedures and tools.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

public approach<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

approach to recruitment where participants are sought in public spaces<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

purposive<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

In a purposive sample, participants are intentionally or hand-selected because of their specific expertise or experience.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

qualitative data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

data derived from analysis of texts. Usually, this is word data (like a conversation or journal entry) but can also include performances, pictures, and other means of expressing ideas.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

qualitative methods<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

qualitative methods interpret language and behavior to understand the world from the perspectives of other people<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

qualitative research<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research that involves the use of data that represents human expression through words, pictures, movies, performance and other artifacts.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

quantitative data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

numerical data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

quantitative interview<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a researcher administers a questionnaire verbally to participants<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

quantitative methods<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

quantitative methods examine numerical data to precisely describe and predict elements of the social world<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Quasi-experimental designs<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a subtype of experimental design that is similar to a true experiment, but does not have randomly assigned control and treatment groups<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Queer(ing) methodologies<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Research methods using this approach aim to question, challenge and\/or reject knowledge that is commonly accepted and privileged in society and elevate and empower knowledge and perspectives that are often perceived as non-normative.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

query<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

search terms used in a database to find sources of information, like articles or webpages<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

questionnaire<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A research instrument consisting of a set of questions (items) intended to capture responses from participants in a standardized manner<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

quota<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A quota sample involves the researcher identifying a subgroups within a population that they want to make sure to include in their sample, and then identifies a quota or target number to recruit that represent each of these subgroups.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

random assignment<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

using a random process to decide which participants are tested in which conditions<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

random error<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Unpredictable error that does not result in scores that are consistently higher or lower on a given measure but are nevertheless inaccurate.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

random errors<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Errors lack any perceptable pattern.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

randomized controlled trial<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

an experiment that involves random assignment to a control and experimental group to evaluate the impact of an intervention or stimulus<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

randomly selection<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An approach to sampling where all elements or people in a sampling frame have an equal chance of being selected for inclusion in a study's sample.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

range<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The difference between the highest and lowest scores in the distribution.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

rating scale<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An ordered set of responses that participants must choose from.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

ratio<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The highest level of measurement. Denoted by mutually exclusive categories, a hierarchy (order), values can be added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided, and the presence of an absolute zero.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

raw data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

unprocessed data that researchers can analyze using quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., responses to a survey or interview transcripts)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

recall bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

When respondents have difficult providing accurate answers to questions due to the passage of time.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reciprocal determinism<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Concept advanced by Albert Bandura that human behavior both shapes and is shaped by their environment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reconstruction<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The act of putting the deconstructed qualitative back together during the analysis process in the search for meaning and ultimately the results of the study.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

recruitment<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the process by which the researcher informs potential participants about the study and attempts to get them to participate<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reflexive journal<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A research journal that helps the researcher to reflect on and consider their thoughts and reactions to the research process and how it may be shaping the study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reflexivity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

How we understand and account for our influence, as researchers, on the research process.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reification<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

assuming that abstract concepts exist in some concrete, tangible way<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The ability of a measurement tool to measure a phenomenon the same way, time after time. Note: Reliability does not imply validity.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

representative sample<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a sample that looks like the population from which it was selected in all respects that are potentially relevant to the study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

representativeness<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

How closely your sample resembles the population from which it was drawn.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

research data repository<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

These are sites where contributing researchers can house data that other researchers can view and request permission to use<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

research methods<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the methods researchers use to examine empirical data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

research proposal<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a document produced by researchers that reviews the literature relevant to their topic and describes the methods they will use to conduct their study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

research protocol<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The details\/steps outlining how a study will be carried out.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

researcher bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The unintended influence that the researcher may have on the research process.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

respect for persons<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

One of the three ethical principles espoused in the Belmont Report. Treating people as autonomous beings who have the right to make their own decisions. Acknowledging participants' personal dignity.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

response option<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the answers researchers provide to participants to choose from when completing a questionnaire<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

retrospective survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Similar to other longitudinal studies, these surveys deal with changes over time, but like a cross-sectional study, they are administered only once. In a retrospective survey, participants are asked to report events from the past.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

review articles<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

journal articles that summarize the findings other researchers and establish the state of the literature in a given topic area<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

rigor<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Rigor is the process through which we demonstrate, to the best of our ability, that our research is empirically sound and reflects a scientific approach to knowledge building.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

roundtable presentations<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

facilitated discussions on a topic, often to generate new ideas<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sample<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the group of people you successfully recruit from your sampling frame to participate in your study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sample size<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The number of cases found in your final sample.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sampling bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Sampling bias is present when our sampling process results in a sample that does not represent our population in some way.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sampling distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the set of all possible samples you could possibly draw for your study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sampling error<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The difference between what you find in a sample and what actually exists in the population from which the sample was drawn.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sampling frame<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the list of people from which a researcher will draw her sample<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

saturation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The point where gathering more data doesn't offer any new ideas or perspectives on the issue you are studying.  Reaching saturation is an indication that we can stop qualitative data collection.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

scatter plot<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A graphical representation of data where the y-axis (the vertical one along the side) is your variable's value and the x-axis (the horizontal one along the bottom) represents the individual instance in your data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

scatterplots<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Visual representations of the relationship between two interval\/ratio variables that usually use dots to represent data points<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

science<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a way of knowing that attempts to systematically collect and categorize facts or truths<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

secondary data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Data someone else has collected that you have permission to use in your research.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

secondary data analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

study publicly available information or data that has been collected by another person<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

secondary sources<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

interpret, discuss, and summarize primary sources<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

selection bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the degree to which people in my sample differs from the overall population<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

selection interval<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the distance between the elements you select for inclusion in your study<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

selective or theoretical coding<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Selective or theoretical coding is part of a qualitative analysis process that seeks to determine how important concepts and their relationships to each other come together, providing a theory that describes the focus of the study. It often results in an overarching or unifying idea tying these concepts together.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Self Determination Theory<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

SDT articulates a meta-theory for framing motivational studies and the respective roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in cognitive and social development and in individual differences. Conditions supporting the individual\u2019s experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are argued to foster the most volitional and high quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

self-administered questionnaire<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A questionnaire that is distributed to participants (in person, by mail, virtually) to complete independently.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

self-report<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a participant answers questions about themselves<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

semantic differential scale<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Composite (multi-item) scales in which respondents are asked to indicate their opinions or feelings toward a single statement using different pairs of adjectives framed as polar opposites.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

semi-structured interviews<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An interview that has a general framework for the questions that will be asked, but there is more flexibility to pursue related topics that are brought up by participants than is found in a structured interview approach.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

seminal article<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a classic work of research literature that is more than 5 years old and is marked by its uniqueness and contribution to professional knowledge\u201d (Houser, 2018, p. 112)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

sequence<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

in mixed methods research, this refers to the order each method is used<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

signposting<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the words used to identify the organization and structure of your literature review to your reader<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

simple random sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

selecting elements from a list using randomly generated numbers<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

skewed distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A distribution where cases are clustered on one or the other side of the median.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

snowball<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

For a snowball sample, a few initial participants are recruited and then we rely on those initial (and successive) participants to help identify additional people to recruit. We thus rely on participants connects and knowledge of the population to aid our recruitment.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

social desirability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

When a participant answers in a way that they believe is socially the most acceptable answer.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

social desirability bias<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Social desirability bias occurs when we create questions that lead respondents to answer in ways that don't reflect their genuine thoughts or feelings to avoid being perceived negatively.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

social science<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the science of humanity, social interactions, and social structures<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

split-half reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A reliability evaluation that examines the internal consistency of a a measurement tool. This process involves comparing one half of a tool to the other half of the same tool and evaluating the results.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

spurious relationship<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

when a relationship between two variables appears to be causal but can in fact be explained by influence of a third variable<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

stakeholders<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The people and organizations that have some interest in or will be effected by our program.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

statistical power<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The ability to fail to accept the null hypotheses (i.e., actually find what you are seeking)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

statistical significance<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\"Assuming that the null hypothesis is true and the study is repeated an infinite number times by drawing random samples from the same populations(s), less than 5% of these results will be more extreme than the current result\" (Cassidy et al., 2019, p. 233).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

strata<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the characteristic by which the sample is divided in stratified random sampling<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

stratified random sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

dividing the study population into subgroups based on a characteristic (or strata) and then drawing a sample from each subgroup<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

structured interview<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Interview that uses a very prescribed or structured approach, with a rigid set of questions that are asked very consistently each time, with little to no deviation<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

study identification codes<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Numbers or a series of numbers, symbols and letters assigned in research to both organize data as it is collected, as well as protecting the identity of participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

subjective truths<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

one truth among many, bound within a social and cultural context<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

survey design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The use of questionnaires to gather data from multiple participants.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

symmetrical distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A distribution with a roughly equal number of cases on either side of the median.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

systematic error<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

(also known as bias) refers to when a measure consistently outputs incorrect data, usually in one direction and due to an identifiable process<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

systematic errors<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Errors that are generally predictable.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

systematic review<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

journal articles that identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular topic (Uman, 2011, p.57)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

systematic sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

selecting every kth element from your sampling frame<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

table<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a quick, condensed summary of the report\u2019s key findings arranged by row and column<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

tacit knowledge<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

knowledge that is difficult to express in words and may be conveyed more through intuition or feelings<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

target population<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the group of people whose needs your study addresses<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

targeted approach<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

approach to recruitment where participants are based on some personal characteristic or group association<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

temporality<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

as a criteria for causal relationship, the cause must come before the effect<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

tentative application of findings<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

any findings that follow from constructivist studies are not inherently applicable to other people or situations, as their realities may be quite different<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

tertiary sources<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

review primary and secondary sources<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

test-retest reliability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which scores obtained on a scale or other measure are consistent across time<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

testing effect<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The measurement error related to how a test is given; the conditions of the testing, including environmental conditions; and acclimation to the test itself<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

The Belmont Report<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The Belmont Report is a document outlining basic ethical principles for research on human subjects in the United States and is the foundation of work conducted by IRBs in carrying out their task of overseeing protection of human subjects in research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

the literature<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

published works that document a scholarly conversation on a specific topic within and between disciplines<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

thematic analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Thematic analysis is an approach to qualitative analysis, in which the researcher attempts to identify themes or patterns across their data to better understand the topic being studied.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

thematic map or thematic array<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A visual representation of how each individual category fits with the others when using thematic analysis to analyze your qualitative data.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

theoretical articles<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

discuss a theory, conceptual model, or framework for understanding a problem<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

theory<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a set of concepts and relationships scientists use to explain the social world<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

thick description<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A thick description is a very complete, detailed, and illustrative of the subject that is being described.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

time order<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A demonstration that a change occurred after an intervention. An important criterion for establishing causality.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

time series<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a set of measurements taken at intervals over a period of time<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

trade publications<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

periodicals directed to members of a specific profession which often include information about industry trends and practical information for people working in the field<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

transcribe<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

To type out the text of recorded interview or focus group.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

transcript verification<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Sharing your typed up transcript with the participant to give them a chance to verify that you captured their thoughts and values correctly, and allow them to expand or revise their thoughts as appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

transparency<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The process of research is record and described in such a way that the steps the researcher took throughout the research process are clear.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

treatment fidelity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

ensuring that everyone receives the same, or close to the same, treatment as possible<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

trend survey<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A type of longitudinal survey where the researchers gather data at multiple times, but each time they ask different people from the group they are studying because their concern is capturing the sentiment of the group, not the individual people they survey.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

Tri-Councils \/ Tri-Agency<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\"Tri-agency\" and \u201cCanadian agencies\u201d refers to the three federal research funding agencies\u2014The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

triangulation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Triangulation of data refers to the use of multiple types, measures or sources of data in a research project to increase the confidence that we have in our findings.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

true experimental design<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

An experimental design in which one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels (random assignment), and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

trustworthiness<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Trustworthiness is a quality reflected by qualitative research that is conducted in a credible way; a way that should produce confidence in its findings.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

trustworthy data<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Data that accurately portrays information that was shared in or by the original source.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

truth value<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The level of confidence that research is obtained through a systematic and scientific process and that findings can be clearly connected to the data they are based on (and not some fabrication or falsification of that data).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

two-way ANOVA<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

a statistical procedure to compare the means of a variable across groups using multiple independent variables to distinguish among groups<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

type I error<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

We mistakenly reject the null hypothesis when it was in fact true.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

typical case sampling<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A purposive sampling strategy where you select cases that represent the most common\/ a commonly held perspective.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

unidimensional concepts<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

concepts that are expected to have a single underlying dimension<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

unimodal distribution<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

A distribution with one distinct peak when represented on a histogram.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

unit of analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

entity that a researcher wants to say something about at the end of her study (individual, group, or organization)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

unit of observation<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

the entities that a researcher actually observes, measures, or collects in the course of trying to learn something about her unit of analysis (individuals, groups, or organizations)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

units<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

discrete segments of data<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

univariate data analysis<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Univariate data analysis is a quantitative method in which a variable is examined individually to determine its distribution.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

unstructured interviews<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

Interviews that contain very open-ended talking prompt that we want participants to respond to, with much flexibility to follow the conversation where it leads.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

validity<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are intended to.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

variability<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The extent to which the levels of a variable vary around their central tendency (the mean, median, or mode).<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

variable<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

\u201ca logical grouping of attributes that can be observed and measured and is expected to vary from person to person in a population\u201d (Gillespie & Wagner, 2018, p. 9)<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

variable name<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

The name of your variable.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

vulnerable populations<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

People who are at risk of undue influence or coercion. Examples are children, prisoners, parolees, and persons with impaired mental capabilities. Additional groups may be vulnerable if they are deemed to be unable to give consent.<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n

workshops<\/dfn><\/dt>\n
\n

interactive presentations which go hands-on with audience members to teach them new skills<\/p>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n

  1. PAR-L. (2010). Introduction to feminist research. [Webpage]. https:\/\/www2.unb.ca\/parl\/research.htm#:~:text=Methodologically%2C%20feminist%20research%20differs%20from,standpoints%20and%20experiences%20of%20women. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":15,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"back-matter-type":[38],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-275","back-matter","type-back-matter","status-publish","hentry","back-matter-type-glossary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/back-matter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/275\/revisions"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter\/275\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"back-matter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/back-matter-type?post=275"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=275"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/press.wpunj.edu\/researchmethodsdesign\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}