Designed as a role-play scenario for a research methods course, the RESEARCH INSTITUTE involves players engaging in collegial panel sessions and writing proposals as dedicated members of a research institute.
The teacher determines the theme for the research institute and oversees the production of the research proposals.
Research proposal(s) designated as “superior quality” can be promoted to the COLLEGIATE CONTEST.
How do researchers write research proposals?
How do different disciplines approach a complex problem?
Find answers to these questions by playing the role of a Research Scholar in this RESEARCH INSTITUTE scenario.
NOTE: To print the entire content of the Research Institute at once, please click on the PRINTER icon on this page.
The Research Institute is a dynamic setting for exploring how social scientists research problems on a dedicated theme.
The Research Institute is suitable for a class size of between 20 and 40.
CEGEP or first-year university students in a social science research methods course or research-oriented course in the social sciences.
For students to play a scripted role in the inquiry-based setting of a research institute.
The Research Director invites Research Scholars from a variety of social science disciplines to produce research proposals around a complex research problem (the theme of the game).
A series of scheduled activities, including writing seminars, working groups, peer reviews and panel sessions, is held at the Research Institute.
Can be compressed into six weeks; easily extendable.
Divided into four stages – SET-UP, RESEARCH PROPOSAL ASSEMBLY, REPORT-RESPOND-REVISE AND FINALIZE – played out over a six-week period and easily adaptable to a lengthier time period. Can also be a mid-semester sequel to the Fund$ Game.
The scenario begins the moment the assignment instructions are delivered and the roles assigned. The teacher plays the part of Research Director at the fictional Research Institute. The Research Director guides the Research Scholars through the process of writing research proposals with a competitive advantage, eventually qualifying them for entry in the Collegiate Contest, the final scenario.
Inquiry-based role-play scenario. The intention is to liven up the learning environment, to make learning about the research process less of a passive endeavour and more of an immersive collegiate effort.
For college-level research methods students to experience firsthand the collegial and multidisciplinary production of social science research proposals.
Respect for the well-being and integrity of research participants and full and voluntary adherence to scientific protocol and government laws and regulations govern behaviour at all levels of research.
The Research Institute Code of Conduct is drawn up in light of these multiple scopes. Even though it is a game, the specific prescriptions in the Code are rooted in the ethical rules governing researchers.
The Code of Conduct should be followed not just as a means to be “a good sport” but as a way to “behave your way into the world of professional research.”
To ensure the role-play experience is conducted in a professional manner, the players are expected to follow the Code of Conduct. Adherence to this Code of Conduct may be evaluated.
Check off items to signify your comprehension and agreement to abide by the rules that apply.
While role-playing, the Research Scholars agree to behave in a manner befitting scholars. This involves
While role-playing, the Research Director (teacher) agrees to behave in a manner befitting the director of a research institute. This involves
ROLES | PRELIMINARIES | SET-UP | RESEARCH PROPOSAL ASSEMBLY | REPORT, RESPOND, REVISE | FINALIZE | POSTLIMINARIES | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Research Scholars |
9. Endorsement |
||||||
Research Director |
3. Select Theme |
4. Assign Roles |
6. Supervise Confetti Way |
10. Run IGR |
|||
PONDERATION | 1-2-2 | 1-2-3 | 1-2-3 | 0-2-2 | 0-1-1 | ||
WEEKS | 1 | 2 and 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
The ponderations show the estimated weighting for a six-week compressed version of the Research Institute according to the Lecture-Lab-Homework (#-#-#) division of coursework. The scenario can be extended by adding extra weeks to the research proposal assembly stage
Under the supervision of the Research Director, the Research Scholars write Research Proposals and participate in collegial activities such as the Internal Grants Review.
The Research Proposals are formulated around the Research Institute’s dedicated theme and are written either by individuals or teams of Research Scholars assigned to Social Science Disciplines:
Using the custom-designed tools, the CONFETTI WAY and the DECISION CIRCUIT, the Research Scholars create a well-rounded collection of Research Proposals with a competitive advantage.
The Research Scholar Script Form is specially designed to help you to write a Research Proposal worthy of being submitted to the external grants review of the COLLEGIATE CONTEST.
What is your name?
Which discipline have you been assigned to?
What are the names of the other students assigned to this discipline?
What is the dedicated theme for the Research Institute?
Browse for about 15 minutes through an official website (Canadian or American) of the professional association of your discipline. This should help you understand how professionals in your discipline conduct their affairs. Examples include the Canadian or American Psychological Association or the Canadian or American Political Science Association. They are easy to find online. For business, these associations are more specific to areas such as marketing, advertising, finance or accounting.
Do your best to find answers to the following questions individually (not as a team).
Generate a very informal list of about ten keywords that appear to signify the unique concepts or approaches taken by your discipline on the dedicated theme. For example, keywords found in a search on Political Science on the theme of violence are electoral violence, protest movements, decolonization, ethnic conflict and low-intensity wars.
Go to one of your library’s periodical databases to generate a list of peer-reviewed scholarly journal article titles. Simply enter your discipline and the theme in the basic search box and scroll through the titles and subjects for ideas. Your Research Director will probably show you how to conduct this type of search.
Do some research online to find something relevant about your discipline and the theme at a research institute or a university department. Copy the URL below and briefly describe what you found.
Choose a title and an institutional affiliation for your own character (e.g., Dr. [your last name], from University of [name of reputable one in your discipline].) Get ideas for character titles and institutional affiliations by consulting relevant websites such professional associations, research institutes and university departments related to your discipline.
List the character titles and institutional affiliations of your discipline fellows.
Review the Code of Conduct under the Rules and Code of Conduct and respond to the questions below.
Which part of the code of conduct do you think you will have no trouble adhering to?
Which part of the code of conduct do you think you may have some trouble adhering to? Why?
Start writing up your Research Proposal. Your Research Director will give you the exact details and may even add or remove items in this particular step.
This Research Proposal Parts table is an all-purpose outline for a Research Proposal. Please note that there is no single standard model for a Research Proposal. Requirements vary considerably.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL PARTS |
---|
Introduction (Overview & Literature Review) |
Method Plan |
Bibliographic List of Cited Sources |
Appendix (optional) |
The Introduction is the first part of a Research Proposal and consists mostly of a Literature Review.
The Literature Review and the Method Plan are the most substantial parts of a Research Proposal and are interconnected. The Literature Review provides the context for the research question that emerges at the end of the review and sets the stage for the Method Plan part of the proposal. The Literature Review provides a brief account of significant literature on a selective area of a topic, while the Method Plan makes a convincing case for how best to address the research question.
The “literature” for the Literature Review should be predominantly, if not exclusively, drawn from your discipline. Your Research Director will provide you with more specific instructions.
View the Writing the Literature Review the Confetti Way video to learn how to write the Literature Review.
Custom-designed for writing Literature Reviews, the Confetti Way is an innovative technique for integrating multiple sources into a blended text.
Use the table below to summarize your sources the Confetti Way. You may need to add other rows, depending on the number of sources required by your Research Director.
SOURCE SUMMARY WORK SPACE | ||
---|---|---|
CITATION INFORMATION FOR SOURCES | COLOUR | SUMMARY POINTS
|
#1 [place citation information (author, titles…) here] | red |
|
#2 [place citation information here] | green |
|
#3 [place citation information here] | blue |
|
ADD OTHER ROWS AS REQUIRED by Research Director |
Fill in the Inverted Pyramid Outline Template according to the Confetti Way video and the Research Director’s instructions.
Using the confetti notes and this outline, write up a draft of the Literature Review to the best of your ability. Add the References or Works Cited list. This draft will be copied into a template in Step 7, Draft Research Proposal.
Once you have written a draft Literature Review using the Confetti Way, you will need to find a viable research question to launch yourself into the next and final part of writing the Research Proposal – the Method Plan. On your own, try to find some answers to the following brainstorm question prompts.
What kinds of gaps, limitations or disagreements did you note as you were writing up the Literature Review?
Generate at least ten research questions openly and freely. Do not overthink; list questions as they come to mind. Think about the gaps/limitations/disagreements identified above and about the who, what, where, when, and how aspects. Highlight a few of the more promising and discipline-related questions from that open-ended list. Questions that hold the most promise are ones that have no known and ready response.
Revise one or two of the more promising questions and show the results here:
Get together with your discipline fellows and share your revised questions with them. Discuss how these questions relate to the literature from the discipline. Roughly write down at least three of the more well-liked questions that emerge in the discussions:
Get ready to share these well-liked questions in a multidisciplinary panel session.
The Multidisciplinary Panel Session will be organized, convened and moderated by the Research Director. The goal of this panel session is to generate a collection of questions that reflects diverse and wide-ranging disciplines. The session should take about 60 minutes to complete and is organized into two parts:
For the panel presentations, a panellist from each of the disciplines is invited by the Research Director to briefly present (~5 minutes) the literature and the research questions that emerged from their earlier discussions with their discipline fellows.
For the moderated discussion, the Research Director opens up the floor for a 30-minute interactive exchange of ideas concerning the questions formulated by the separate discipline groups. To be considered:
Briefly summarize how well your discipline question(s) held up in comparison to the others that were presented. How well did your question(s) appear to reflect your discipline? To what extent? In which ways?
What kind(s) of changes would you consider making to your question? Briefly explain.
Firm up your question before moving to the next step. If you are having trouble, be sure to discuss this with your discipline fellows or the Research Director.
You can start making decisions for the method plan portion of your Research Proposal once you have a viable research question.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL PARTS |
---|
Introduction (Overview & Literature Review) |
Method Plan |
Bibliographic List of Cited Sources |
Appendix (optional) |
Your tool for developing the method plan is the Decision Circuit. The Decision Circuit is a collection of activity boards with an amended glossary that prompts you to make a series of research decisions.
View the video Plan your Research the Decision Circuit Way and listen to the audio recording Developing a method plan with the Decision Circuit to get a sense of how the Decision Circuit works, and how it can be used.
Either alone or with your discipline fellows, start using the Decision Circuit. For each of the three Decision Boards, there is a series of numbered question prompts. Follow through on the decisions for each of these questions. If you do not know what the options are, consult the glossary and your course materials.
Enter your decisions for each of the numbered items below and provide brief explanations about the actual applications. For instance, if you decide on content analysis as a technique, explain what you will analyse.
1.1 Research Question
1.2 Problem Formulation
1.3 Approach for Collecting and Analysing the Data
2.1 Forms of Data
2.2 Data Collection Technique
2.3 Data Processing Instruments
2.4 Type(s) of Units
2.5 Sampling Strategy
3.1 Type(s) of Analysis
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Ethical Dimensions
The peer review should take about 20 minutes to complete.
Identity three concerns about your decisions that your peer(s) may be of assistance with:
As a result, what will you revise in your original decisions?
What is the most difficult/challenging decision? Why?
What are your takeaways from the peer exchange?
This step provides a template that will help you to assemble and write out the various parts of the Research Proposal, most of which can be copied directly from your work in previous steps.
In approximately 12 words, concisely outline the what, where, how and who of the proposal.
Overview: Write an opening paragraph with a “statement of the problem,” briefly explaining the reasons for researching the problem or issue that has been targeted for study.
Literature Review: Copy and paste the literature review drafted earlier.
Decision Circuit items with explanations
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
Your pitch for being endorsed.
Using the template material, draft a full written account with complete sentences and coherent paragraphs. Follow the Research Director’s specifications for specific assignment requirements. Run the contents of the draft Research Proposal through this checklist.
Place a check mark beside items that are adequately completed.
The question is stated as a focused hypothesis or thesis that is briefly justified/defined in the Problem Formulation portion of the Method Plan. Appendix items, if required, are included.
How do you intend to address items that are not adequately completed?
Once everything on the checklist is adequately completed, you are ready to move to the Internal Grants Review. This step requires you to have hard copies of your draft Research Proposal to deliver to the assigned reviewers. Your Research Director may also request a consultation on the results of this checklist prior to the review.
The Internal Grants Review is intended to provide Research Scholars with a competitive advantage in external grant competitions. It connects scholars across disciplines, in multidisciplinary peer exchanges, on Research Institute proposals. It should improve the quality of the proposals and enhance the success rate for grant acceptance in the highly competitive funding environment of the Collegiate Contest.
All Institute proposals must be submitted to this internal review prior to being submitted for formal evaluation and external funding competitions (e.g., the Collegiate Contest).
The Internal Grants Review involves two sessions:
A Reviewer Report Panel session consists of three Research Scholars from different disciplines. Each panel member’s draft proposal is critically reviewed by the two fellow panellists.
Each Research Scholar is responsible for providing a copy of their draft proposal in advance of the scheduled session.
Each draft proposal is assigned to a few peer reviewers. Using the ten-item Peer Review Report Form, the Research Scholars review the two draft proposals they have received before the scheduled panel session, following the ten-item Peer Review Report Form below and filling in the required fields.
At the panel session, the Review Reports are delivered in hard copy to be presented and discussed for 45 minutes.
The written Reports are required to prepare the Reviewer’s Response.
What is your name?
What is your discipline?
What is the title of the Research Proposal under review?
What is the name of the fellow Research Scholar whose proposal is under review?
In reviewing, bear in mind that you are reviewing a draft version of a Research Proposal for an internal review and that this is not a win-lose external form of review. Complete the Report as per the Research Director’s specifications. After a careful reading of the assigned Research Proposal, address the following:
In your own words, what is the main goal of the proposed study?
Identify two of the most cogent features of the Literature Review.
How could the literature review be improved?
Briefly explain how the research question relates to the literature reviewed.
How could the thesis statement or hypothesis be improved?
What parts of the Method Plan address the hypothesis/thesis effectively?
What parts of the Method Plan address the hypothesis/thesis ineffectively?
Is there a discernible discipline approach (something about the question, the perspective or the techniques that differentiates the proposal from the other disciplines)? Briefly explain.
As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:
What should be the focus of attention for the revisions?
Deliver the Report to the peers whose proposals you reviewed, following the Research Director’s instructions.
Insert the Reviewer Reports of your own proposal here:
The Research Director will probably hold panel sessions where fellow peer reviewers verbally deliver their Reports to the peers whose proposals they reviewed.
Responses to the Reviewers’ Reports are discussed in a follow-up session with the same peers. Each Research Scholar prepares, in advance, a Response to the Reviewers’ Reports, using the eight-item Response Form below. The Responses to Reviewers’ Reports are presented and discussed for 30 minutes.
Each peer should summarize their Response based on their answers to the eight question prompts. Then an open and free exchange of ideas should ensue. The Response session is informal in structure, operating more as a friendly exchange.
After giving the Research Scholars time to process the feedback and write their Responses, the Research Director convenes another set of panel sessions for the peers to respond to the reviewers’ Reports.
Use the question prompts to formulate a Response to the Reviewer Reports you received. Looking over the Reviewer Reports, answer the following eight question prompts:
Which parts of your proposal were assessed as addressing the hypothesis/thesis effectively? Briefly explain.
Which parts of your proposal were assessed as addressing the hypothesis/thesis ineffectively? Briefly explain.
Do you feel that these assessments were accurate and fair? Briefly explain.
Were any parts of the Reports inaccurate or not useful? Briefly explain.
What part of the peer feedback was most surprising to you? Briefly explain.
What feedback do you plan to act on?
What do you plan to ignore?
To what extent do you agree with the reviewers’ ratings of your proposal? How would you rate your own proposal? Briefly explain.
As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:
After revising the proposal based on the feedback you received, provide a brief account of what you did and why.
Briefly describe what you revised and how long it took you to do so.
Which aspects of the Reviewer’s Reports helped with the revision?
How satisfied are you with the revisions at this point in time?
Having your Research Proposal endorsed as eligible for entry into the external competition of the Collegiate Contest is an honour worth pursuing. The Research Proposal can be evaluated based on its grade merit or on the rating system used earlier in the Reviewer’s Report.
As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:
Your Research Director will explain exactly how this can be accomplished.
What is your name?
What is the dedicated theme for the Research Institute?
"
"
Page location
There are two types of player roles in the Research Institute scenario – Research Director & Research Scholar. The teacher plays the Research Director and the role of Research Scholar is assigned by discipline to the students in the class.
Using discipline-based groups allows the Research Scholars to focus on knowledge in a single discipline on the designated theme. Otherwise, the material is just overwhelming. When a broader social science perspective is required, discipline scholars will be called on to account for their discipline approach in a multidisciplinary activity.
For the multidiscipline part to be viable, a few students must be assigned as Research Scholars in at least five of the ten social science disciplines listed:
Decide on how to allot the disciplines to the students in your class:
Explain to the students:
As presented in the Research Scholar Script, here are the basic parts of a Research Proposal:
RESEARCH PROPOSAL PARTS |
---|
Introduction (Overview & Literature Review) |
Method Plan |
Bibliographic List of Cited Sources |
Appendix (optional) |
Show the students how to write a Literature Review using the custom-designed Confetti Way and the Steps 3-7 of the Research Scholar Script Form to determine the exact work plan over the next couple of weeks.
Two weeks of the six-week version of this scenario is a conservative estimate for the time required to complete all the review work (Steps 3-7).
Once Step 3 is complete and the literature review drafts have been produced, convene the Research Scholars into discipline groups to discuss viable research questions, following the instructions in Step 4 of their Script Form.
Once the discipline groups complete the Step 4 discussions, convene a Multidisciplinary Panel Session, Step 5. In turns, the disciplines summarize their Literature Reviews and present the “emerging questions” identified in Step 4.
Step 5 of the Research Scholar Script Form is the most time-consuming of all the steps. It involves everything from finding relevant sources to writing about the literature in a referential way. The goal of the Multidisciplinary Panel Session is to generate a collection of questions that reflect diverse and wide-ranging disciplines.
You could arrange in advance to have all or part of the instructional session delivered by library staff, if available. This is highly recommended for teachers new to teaching or unfamiliar with the library’s resources.
Ask to see each of the Research Scholar Script Forms to verify that the research plans are moving forward at around the same pace. Spend time with those whose forms are sketchy or incomplete.
Convene informal panel sessions to present and review the research plans. The hope is that by coaxing Research Scholars to openly discuss their Decision Circuit plans, they will firm up and formalize their ideas. The cross-fertilization of ideas will provide the peers with a chance to provide feedback and support. Weak choices or poorly formulated justifications can be picked over before the plans are written up formally.
You will convene and monitor an Internal Grants Review. This should be scheduled during the final two weeks of a six-week version of the scenario.
The Internal Grants Review is intended to provide the Research Scholars with a competitive advantage in external grant competitions. It connects scholars across disciplines, in multidisciplinary peer exchanges, on Research Institute proposals.
It should improve the quality of proposals and enhance the success rate for grant acceptance in the highly competitive funding environment of the Collegiate Contest.
All Institute proposals must be submitted to this internal review prior to being submitted for formal evaluation and external funding competitions (e.g., the Collegiate Contest). The Internal Grants Review involves two sessions:
A Reviewer Report Panel session consists of three Research Scholars from different disciplines. Each panel member’s draft proposal is critically reviewed by the two fellow panellists.
Each Research Scholar is responsible for providing a copy of their draft proposal in advance of the scheduled session.
Using the ten-item Peer Review Report Form, the Research Scholars review the two draft proposals they have received before the scheduled panel session.
At the panel session, the Review Reports are delivered in hard copy to be presented and discussed for 45 minutes.
The written reports are required to prepare the Reviewer’s Response.
Responses to the Reviewers’ Reports are discussed in a follow-up session with the same peers.
Each Research Scholar prepares, in advance, a Response to the Reviewers’ Reports, using the eight-item Response Form below.
The Responses to Reviewers’ Reports are presented and discussed for 30 minutes.
Each peer should summarize their Response based on their answers to the eight question prompts. Then an open and free exchange of ideas should ensue. The Response session is informal in structure, operating more as a friendly exchange.
Social Science Research Scholars, in disciplines as diverse as psychology and economics, develop research proposals on a dedicated theme. Having a theme focuses the work of the Research Scholars and the Research Director in their RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
Not enough is known about what drives individuals and firms to push beyond existing frontiers. Invaluable contributions are made by ingenious individuals such as an administrator who is able to design greener production procedures or a poet who gives expression to a deeply felt social malaise. Fundamental questions regarding “creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship” still remain: How effective are workplace training programs at fostering a spirit of innovation? Do science fairs cultivate a desire to invent? How advisable is it for schools and businesses to foster deviance and norm-breaking behaviour? These types of questions frame this broadly challenging theme.
Social science researchers examine belonging and identity in all its manifestations. Belonging to a nation, political group or ideology impacts identity formation and is given special consideration by political scientists. Sociologists study social group processes such as familial associations and social structures. Psychologists focus on relationships, affiliations and identity formation, including online identity. Marketers study brand loyalty and market affiliations. Identity formation and social, economic and political affiliations are all complex phenomena. Research in this area provides insights into some of the inner workings of identity formation, sheds light on processes and relationships among variables and clears up some of the conceptual muddle.
Violent crimes and full-scale wars are on the decline. It would seem the 21st century is the dawn of a more peaceful era. On closer inspection, however, social scientists have demonstrated that the supposed trend towards diminished violence is premised on an incomplete picture of violence. Determining trends in violence has become more conceptually sophisticated with the development of rigorous recording methods.Beginning in 1959, Johan Galtung introduced a broad conceptual framework that includes traditional direct forms of physical harm along with two other forms of violence: structural and cultural. Indirect, non-physical forms of violence are evident wherever poverty exists and wherever cultures perpetuate unequal access to vital resources such as information, education, income and rights. New additions to the violence lexicon – structural violence, hate crimes and low-intensity conflicts – are but a few examples of the broad understanding that social scientists have brought to the understanding of violence.