CE PROJECT

ENGR. JESS FERNANDO A.MIRANDILLA, M.ENG

 OFFICIAL IMRAD GUIDELINES

The flow of the paper may be as follows:

1. Introduction
a) Background
b) Rationale
c) Current state of research in the field
d) Review of Related Literature and Past
Studies
e) Key References
f) Gap to be bridged/ problem in the field
g) Significance of the study
h) Objective of the Study
 OFFICIAL IMRAD GUIDELINES

2. Methods

a) Research Design
b) Who? What? When? Where? How? Why?
c) Materials, Interventions, Outcome
Measures, Statistical Analysis, Sample Size
Calculations, Ethical Considerations
d) Data Gathering Tools and Techniques
 OFFICIAL IMRAD GUIDELINES

3. Results

a) Results of all experiments, surveys, QDA

1st Level
b) Presentation of Data [Texts, Tables,
Figures]
c) Interpretation of Data
 OFFICIAL IMRAD GUIDELINES

4. Discussion
a) Recapitulation of major findings
b) Discussion of findings
c) Alternative explanations
d) Strengths and Weaknesses
e) Analysis
f) Use of Theory and Approach as part of
analysis
g) Implications of the findings
h) Unanswered questions
i) Final Summary
j) Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

• One of the preliminary steps to completing a thesis

is the background study for it. The background
study for a thesis includes a review of the area
being researched, current information surrounding
the issue, previous studies on the issue, and relevant
history on the issue.
 RATIONALE

• The best rationale for research is that it will show

demonstrable benefits to people’s lives. It may even
be a good idea to include a specific Beneficiaries
section in your rationale. If you can show your
audience tangible ways you are helping people–
always remain clinical–but lay it on thick. Consider
giving a timeline of how long it may take for these
benefits to reach other researchers and the public.
• A rationale for research is a set of reasons offered
by a researcher for conducting more research into
a particular subject
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A literature review surveys books, scholarly

articles, and any other sources relevant to a
particular issue, area of research, or theory, and
by so doing, provides a description, summary,
and critical evaluation of these works in relation
to the research problem being investigated.
Literature reviews are designed to provide an
overview of sources you have explored while
researching a particular topic and to
demonstrate to your readers how your research
fits within a larger field of study.
 THE PURPOSE OF A LITERATURE
REVIEW IS TO:
• Place each work in the context of its contribution to
understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others
under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory
previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication
of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing
literature [very important].
THE STRUCTURE OF A LITERATURE REVIEW SHOULD
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under

consideration, along with the objectives of the literature
review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories
[e.g. works that support a particular position, those against,
and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it
varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their
argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make
the greatest contribution to the understanding and
development of their area of research.
 WRITING YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW

• Use Evidence
A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other
academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available
sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that
demonstrates that what you are saying is valid.

• Be Selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight
in the review. The type of information you choose to mention
should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is
thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that
provide additional information but that are not key to
understanding the research problem can be included in a list of
further readings.
 WRITING YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW

• Use Quotes Sparingly

Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or
if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased.
Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that
was coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken
directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a
substitute for your own summary and interpretation of the
literature.

• Summarize and Synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within
each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review.
Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then
synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it
to your own work.
 WRITING YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW

• Keep Your Own Voice

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your
voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For
example, weave references to other sources into what
you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting
and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and
wording.

• Use Caution When Paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure
to represent the author's information or opinions
accurately and in your own words. Even when
paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a
citation to that work.
 GAPS TO BE BRIDGED

1. Discuss the inconsistencies and vagueness of the

findings of the studies previously conducted

2. Present the difference of the present study being

conducted in terms of the respondents, areas being
studied or the variables of the study, methodology
used, scope and limitations of the studies
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• goals that the research would attempt to achieve.

• Research objectives should be:

specific, measurable, attainable relevant and
time-bound

• S-M-A-R-T objectives
 BE SPECIFIC

• avoid general statements such as “this project will

improve the employability of young people”.
Rather, write what the specific context of the
project is. For instance, be specific about what the
unemployment rate among young people in your
community is. What are the causes? What strategies
have been already implemented? Evaluate what
has been already done successfully and draw on
the results of previous initiatives to engage with
other actors and sources. Explain why other
initiatives failed and how your project will avoid
replicating the same mistakes.
 YOUR OBJECTIVES MUST BE
MEASURABLE
• Following up the previous example, state how many
young people will be participating in the project, how
many will be trained, how many will be likely to find a job
within the end of the project, within 6 months, or within a
year. Make reference to statistics and analyses of the
local market to substantiate your claims. As good
practice, write that “at least” x number people will
participate, be trained, and become employed. In
doing so, you will provide a minimum benchmark
against which your results will be evaluated and will also
give the idea that a larger number of individuals will
successfully take part in the project and benefit from the
organised activities.
 YOUR OBJECTIVES MUST BE
ACHIEVABLE
• research your community and make sure you know
whether your project is likely to be welcomed or
whether it is needed. Set achievable targets; do not
claim that a yearlong project will produce radical
change. Rather, set clear objectives that can be
fulfilled. Remember that the success of the project
will also determine your chances of obtaining more
funding. Thus, see each project as a small
contribution towards bigger ends.
OUR OBJECTIVES MUST BE RELEVANT

• Relevant means result oriented. Your project

objective should be able to answer the questions
like “why should this project be done?” “what
impact will this project have?” Set objectives
parallel to your organization’s strategic plan and
mission addressing the specific needs of your target
group.
YOUR OBJECTIVES MUST BE REACHED
IN A SET TIME-FRAME
• Draw on the results of similar projects and observe
what is happening in your community in order to
decide how long it will take to complete a task.
Consider all the steps you intent to make.
METHODS
 RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Design describes the systematic plan to obtain the

needed information.

It includes the following:

Sampling Method which includes a justification for the choice of

the sampling method, sampling size, and subjects/respondents;

Data Collection Procedures show how the procedures will help

satisfy the research objectives which includes an enumeration
of the expected data outputs; append data collection
materials to be used, e.g., questionnaires, observations forms,
etc.;
Description of the Respondents;
Description of the Major/Main Data to be Collected;
Planned Analysis which illustrates the various ways by
which the data gathered would be analyzed and
interpreted in relation to the research objectives;
specify the planned measures & statistical tools and
confidence levels, if applicable; necessary
permits/consent should be obtained in cases where
research would involve human/animal
experimentation, etc., identify the people or
institutions from whom/where the necessary
permits/consent will be obtained.
 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

1. Discuss the respondents of the study with emphasis

on the manner of selecting the respondents

2. Use respondents of the study; in case of pure

qualitative method citing the key informants or key
interviewees will be used

3. Limit discussion to one page

 YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW YOU OBTAINED AND ANALYZED
YOUR RESULTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

• Readers need to know how the data was

obtained because the method you chose affects
the findings and, by extension, how you interpreted
them.

• Methodology is crucial for any branch of

scholarship because an unreliable method
produces unreliable results and, as a consequence,
undermines the value of your interpretations of the
findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods
you can choose to investigate a research problem. The
methodology section of your paper should clearly
articulate the reasons why you chose a particular
procedure or technique.

• The reader wants to know that the data was collected

or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted
practice in the field of study. For example, if you are
using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to
know that it offered your respondents a reasonable
range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall
aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that
you have a large enough sample size to be able to
generalize and make recommendations based upon
the findings.

• The methodology should discuss the problems that were

anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them
from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must
describe the ways in which they were minimized or why
these problems do not impact in any meaningful way
your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important
to always provide sufficient information to allow
other researchers to adopt or replicate your
methodology. This information is particularly
important when a new method has been
developed or an innovative use of an existing
method is utilized.
 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

1. Discuss the types of instrument that will be used in

the study
2. Discuss each part and how they will be answered
by the respondents and how it will be scored
3. Discuss also on how the instruments will be
administered, how long will it be administered, and
who will administer the instruments
4. Limit discussions to one to two pages
 VALIDATION OF THE RESEARCH
INSTRUMENT

1. Discuss the process on how the validation of the

instrument was conducted
2. Mention the author if the instrument was adopted
from another research
3. Discuss the dry-run process if there is any
4. Mention the suggestions of experts if the instrument
was subjected to validation and relate items
that were suggested
5. Limit discussions to one page
 DATA GATHERING PROCESS

1. Discuss the process on how the research will be

undertaken.

2. Begin the discussion from asking permission to

conduct the study from the venue to data
processing, analysis, and interpretations

3. Limit discussions to one to two pages

RESULTS
PRESENTATION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
FINDINGS

The following extracts are examples of how qualitative data

might be presented:

Data From an Interview.

The following is an example of how to present and discuss a

quote from an interview.

The researcher should select quotes that are poignant and/or

most representative of the research findings. Including large
portions of an interview in a research paper is not necessary and
often tedious for the reader. The setting and speakers should be
established in the text at the end of the quote.

)
• The student describes how he had used deep
learning in a dispensing module. He was able to
draw on learning from a previous module, “I found
that while using the e learning programme I was
able to apply the knowledge and skills that I had
gained in last year's diseases and goals of
treatment module.” (interviewee 22, male
• This is an excerpt from an article on curriculum reform that
used interviews 5:

• The first question was, “Without the accreditation mandate,

how much of this curriculum reform would have been
attempted?” According to respondents, accreditation played
a significant role in prompting the broad-based curricular
change, and their comments revealed a nuanced view. Most
indicated that the change would likely have occurred even
without the mandate from the accreditation process: “It
reflects where the profession wants to be … training a
professional who wants to take on more responsibility.”
However, they also commented that “if it were not
mandated, it could have been a very difficult road.” Or it
“would have happened, but much later.” The change would
more likely have been incremental, “evolutionary,” or far more
limited in its scope. “Accreditation tipped the balance” was
the way one person phrased it. “Nobody got serious until the
accrediting body said it would no longer accredit programs
that did not change.”
 CHECKLIST

Introduction

□ Research question is clearly stated.

□ Research question is justified and related to the
existing knowledge base (empirical research, theory,
policy).
□ Any specific research or educational terminology
used later in manuscript is defined.
□ The process by which ethical and or
research/institutional governance approval was
obtained is described and cited.
Method

□ Reason for choosing particular research method is stated.

□ Criteria for selecting study participants are explained and
justified.
□ Recruitment methods are explicitly stated.
□ Details of who chose not to participate and why are given.
□ Study sample and research setting used are described.
□ Method for gaining informed consent from the participants
is described.
□ Maintenance/Preservation of subject anonymity and
confidentiality is described.
• □ Method of recording data (eg, audio or video
recording) and procedures for transcribing data are
described.
• □ Methods are outlined and examples given (eg,
interview guide).
• □ Decision to stop data collection is described
and justified.
• □ Data analysis and verification are described,
including by whom they were performed.
• □ Methods for identifying/extrapolating themes
and concepts from the data are discussed.
Results

□ Sufficient data are presented to allow a reader

to assess whether or not the interpretation is
supported by the data.
□ Outlying or negative/deviant cases that do not fit
with the central interpretation are presented.
□ Transferability of research findings to other
settings is discussed.
□ Findings are presented in the context of any
similar previous research and social theories.
Discussion

□ Discussion often is incorporated into the results in

qualitative papers.
□ A discussion of the existing literature and how this
present research contributes to the area is included.
□ Any particular strengths and limitations of the research
are discussed.
□ Reflection of the influence of the researcher(s) on the
data, including a consideration of how the researcher(s)
may have introduced bias to the results is included.
Conclusions

□ The conclusion states the main finings of the

study and emphasizes what the study adds to
knowledge in the subject area.