The research report, in my opinion, is the research. It is the medium through which to communicate the research problem, methods, and results. Through it, the audience are able to determine the reliability and validity of the research study it reports on. But over and above the task of reporting on the research work, Neuman advises that the report prose be well written. In this respect, I would bookmark Boxes 16.1 and 16.2 (pages 493 and 494 respectively).

While communicating the research results is the last step in the research process, the prewriting and composing stages take place concurrently with the research study. Rewriting occurs last. For that purpose, Box 16.2 is full of invaluable suggestions.

Writing a final report is a process that has three stages (prewriting, composing, and rewriting). Some researchers start from the second stage. Yet, researchers who start from composing stage need to be very talented and experienced researchers. Writing a report on a qualitative research is harder than writing a report on quantitative research because qualitative research has less rules and less structured. For instance, field research report is facing more skepticism more than any quantitative research. The researchers shouldn’t ignore the audience’s demands while they reporting about their field research’s results. Otherwise, the researcher will end up with many doubts about his/her research’s credibility.

Nueman also differentiated between research proposals and research reports. The researcher states in his final report the results he/she reached after conducting the research. On the other hand, before conducting any study, the researcher write a proposal in which he/she explains the research problem and what methodology will be used and why it is appropriate for his/her topic.

Additionally, Nueman explained in this chapter what political and ethical limitations that any researcher may face on his/her research. I found table 16.8 well summarized in which Nueman categorized the limits on research into direct and indirect limits. After all, researchers need to be always aware of what political and ethical issues they may encounter, its subsequent dangers, and adopt a realistic view sociopolitical environment.

The issue for politics of social research was very impressive for me. I realized there are some limits on research or the dissemination of knowledge due to the influence of politicians and national security. These facts have been existed from the past until today. Sometimes good research can change people’s behavior for better society, but falsification or distortion of research result also can lead people to the wrong direction. For these reasons, Neuman insists academic freedom in this last chapter. According to his definition, academic freedom is the existence of an open and largely unrestricted atmosphere for the free exchange of ideas and information. As a beginning researcher I will keep in mind this advice for free research atmosphere.

Qualitative researchers use concepts, general ideas, and themes as a tool to make generalization. They analyze the data after they put them into categories based on those ideas or themes. The qualitative researchers link the concepts as a sequence (X then Y), oppositional set (X opposite to Y), or a set of similar categories.

In qualitative research, coding is an integral part of data analysis. It is guided by the research’s questions and it can also bring up new research questions to be examined. The researcher goes through three stages of coding in the qualitative research, those stages are: open coding as a first stage of coding, axial coding as a second stage, and the last stage is the selective coding. Qualitative researchers need to avoid three errors in coding process, those errors occur when the researcher treat the codes as a mechanical process, keep them fixed, and stay at descriptive level and not being analytic.

It seems to me that the analysis and coding process in the quantitative research is easier that that of qualitative research because quantitative researchers follow one of the fixed and standardizes sets of techniques. However, qualitative researchers need to go back and forth while they analyze and code the collected data. Once new evidence comes to the surface, the researcher needs to eliminate some of the data collected and code the new ones and this all depends on what questions the researcher wants to answer and how well he/she really understands what is intended to reach.  

·         I will have a clear statement of the problem, in which I will make the case that

o   Even though companies can freely choose from a wide range of possible opt-in/opt-out mechanisms, there is really not enough we know about the factors that influence consumers’ participation in programs. Yet, companies will want to select the consent eliciting mechanisms that will most likely yield the greatest number of individuals participating. Also, those designing Web consent forms will want to have at their disposal adequate and competent knowledge to guide them. The gist of the problem statement will be (a la Brooth et al):

o   I am studying opt-in and opt-out approaches towards obtaining consumers’ consent for them to participate in promotional and other programs

because I want to find out the mechanisms through which these two approaches are implemented, the respective roles of these mechanisms on participation, the factors  (including consumers’ proclivity to privacy issues) that mediate or moderate those roles

so that organizations and Web designers can gain insight as to the mix of mechanisms that will best suit their target audience given their peculiarities.

·         In other words the problem must have a condition (inadequate knowledge or unhappy social condition) and a cost (the significance to the readers of the problem)

The Research Argument

·         I will make a clear statement of claim encapsulating what the study’s findings are. The Lai and Hui paper does not have a clear claim.

·         I will also clearly state the reasons upon which those claims are based and the evidence that support the reasons. And whenever the link between a reason and a claim seems tenuous, I will strengthen it with a warrant

Theory

·         I will define the constructs being studied, delineating between broader conceptual definitions and my narrower operational definitions, thereby pointing other researchers to areas of further studies.

·         The dependent variable, participation, should be defined. Participation can be construed as active (consumers participating in programs) or passive (secondary use of their information in a company’s dealings with others. The latter may have different antecedents than the former. I would conduct a survey to determine the dominant mechanisms being used by websites for each of these two forms of participation. I will later compare the survey results against the results from my experimental design. The experiment will include questions eliciting both types of participation. Most importantly, I will clearly state my operational definition of participation as the percentage of people agreeing to participate or permiting their personal information to be used for secondary purposes.

·         The construct ‘consent’ has to be defined.  Consent can be explicit as in opt-in or implied as in opt-out. At the theoretical level, I would like to know if there are concerns that are more amenable to explicit consent than implied consent.

·         In addition to the issue of attractiveness of the default and positive frames, I would investigate other factors that could serve to influence consumer participation and suggest them as further areas of study in order not to fall into the problem of scope creep.

·         What of the general attractiveness and persuasiveness of the Website? In particular, what role could persuasive messages preceding the consent form play? These are subsidiary research questions begging for answers.

·         Lai and Hui operationalize framing in terms of positive or negative phrasing of the question eliciting consent. What of messages of fear, loss, danger, or excitement, which do not fit into the positive/negative dimension? My conceptual framework will highlight these issues.

·         To clearly isolate the effects of the default, I will also incorporate "no default" mechanisms using radio buttons. I will also use radio buttons with defaults selected and compare the result with that from a minimalist design where there is only one check box. Results thus obtained should give insight as to whether the design of the consent form has information content that can signal to absent-minded customers that they are required to make a choice at the given point.

In terms of differences between two methods, while quantitative researchers choose from specialized, standardized set of data analysis techniques qualitative method is less standardized. Instead qualitative method has wide variety in many approaches to data analysis. Another difference is that qualitative researchers collect all the data first then analyze it, where as qualitative research seek patterns or relationships in early stage of research project. In addition, qualitative researchers create new concepts and theory from empirical evidence and abstract concepts. Lastly qualitative analysis does not establish body of formal knowledge from mathematics and statistics.

He enumerates various kinds of coding style such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding along with memo writing and outcroppings. Coding in qualitative method is an integral part of data analysis. Especially figure 15.2 shows how the researcher uses the data to generate and evaluate theories and generalizations. Also it helps me to understand the relationship among theory, surface reality, and underlying structures in qualitative research style.

Negative case method is a most impressive for me since this is a way to examine the absence of what is expected and when what was expected did not occur, it can be important information. Also insights from the negative case are then used to revise the theory.