Sterre Huizer
Lectures: Methodology, Analyzing, Presenting, Scientific writing (MAPS)
Inhoudsopgave
Lecture 1: Practicalities and writing an introduction........................................................................... 2
Part 1. Practicalities ......................................................................................................................... 2
Part 2. Writing an introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
Part 3: Q&A 1.................................................................................................................................. 6
Lecture 2: Research design and writing a proposal ............................................................................. 7
Part 1: Building a conceptual model ............................................................................................... 7
Part 2: Designing research ............................................................................................................... 8
Part: 3: Writing theoretical development....................................................................................... 11
Part 4: Q&A 2 – research design and writing a proposal .............................................................. 12
Lecture 3: Method and result section and presenting ........................................................................ 13
Part 1: Hypotheses and the model ................................................................................................. 13
Part 2: What to include in the method section ............................................................................... 13
Part 3:What to include in the results section ................................................................................. 14
Part 4: Presenting........................................................................................................................... 18
Part 5: Q&A3 – Reporting research findings ................................................................................ 19
Lecture 4: Statistical analyses (differences between groups, mediation, moderation, repeated
measures) ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Part 1: Statistics refresher introduction and regression ................................................................. 20
Part 2: moderation and mediation with regression ........................................................................ 23
Part 3: comparing means (ANOVAs) ............................................................................................ 25
Part 4: Q&A 4 – Statistical analyses (1) ........................................................................................ 29
Lecture 5: Statistical analyses (mediated moderation, PROCESS, 3-way interaction) ..................... 30
Part 1: exam information, scale creation (recap) and installing PROCESS .................................. 30
Part 2: mediation and moderation in PROCESS ........................................................................... 31
Part 3: 3-way interaction, moderation + mediation together in PROCESS ................................... 34
Part 4: Power analysis with G*Power ........................................................................................... 38
Part 5: Q&A 5 – Statistical analyses (2) ........................................................................................ 38
Lecture 6: Statistical analyses (Chi-square, logistic regression, loglinear analysis) ......................... 40
Part 1: Categorical predictors with more than 2 categories; Moderated mediation ...................... 40
Part 2: Chi-square .......................................................................................................................... 42
Part 3: Loglinear analysis; Logistic regression.............................................................................. 44
Part 4: Q&A 6 – Statistical analyses (3) ........................................................................................ 49
1
, Sterre Huizer
Lecture 1: Practicalities and writing an introduction
Part 1. Practicalities
How is MAPS relevant? → master thesis (which analyses to use, how to interpret data etc. and internship. In the
long term (practice).
At the end of the course, students should be able to
(a) analyze theoretical and/or practical problems by applying theoretical insights from the Work and
Organizational Psychology literature and develop a suitable method to help them answer their research
question (analysis, evaluation, and scientific thinking);
a. theoretical/practical problems
b. relevant literature
c. which analysis method is most appropriate to test the hypotheses
d. how do I perform the analysis?
e. Short refresher of MODA (3rd year bachelor course) + more advanced techniques
(b) write an interesting, convincing, readable and, for the audience, attractive research proposal (written
communication);
a. how do I explain the importance of my research?
b. Who is my audience when I write up my research?
c. How do I structure my text?
(c) independently make use of analytical techniques commonly used in Work and Organizational
Psychology, analyze, interpret, and report data (scientific thinking);
(d) present research results to a broad audience in an interesting, convincing and clear manner (oral
communication).
a. What does a good presentation look like?
b. How do I determine what is important and what is not?
c. Emphasis on presenting scientific findings
We will focus on the first three learning objectives.
Subgoals:
1. Practice writing an introduction, method and results section → individual and group assignments
2. Practice presenting (in a group)
3. Applying an d building upon prior knowledge
Practicums:
- Practicum 1: differences between groups, mediation, moderation (refresher MODA); repeated measures
(chapters 9-15 Field)
- Practicum 2: moderated mediation; PROCESS; 3-way interactions (Hayes 2012)
- Practicum 3: Chi-square, logistic regression, loglinear analysis (Chapters 19-20 Field)
Assessment:
- Attendance
o Compulsory for Q&As, working groups and
computer practicums
o Can miss 1 working group (or practicum)
without consequences
o Can mis 1 Q&A session without
consequences
- Individual components (80%)
o Evaluation of Assignment 1 = 15%
o Evaluation of Assigment 2 = 15%
o SPSS = 50%
- Group component (20%)
o Evaluation of group Assignment = 20%
- You need to pass every single component to pass the
course (> 5.5)
2
, Sterre Huizer
Part 2. Writing an introduction
The complete empirical cycle begins and ends with the research question (the question you pose in your
introductory section), basis of the hypotheses and the methods you use to answer the question. You end with it
because you reflect on the answers in the discussion.
Research question: a good one is clear, specific, answerable, interconnected to other questions in your model
and substantively relevant. Different types of research questions and these depend on the aim you have in your
research:
- Descriptive in nature: ‘what has occurred?’, ‘what is the status quo?’ → does diversity relate to
creativity?
- Explanatory in nature: ‘why has this occurred?’, ‘how can we
explain this pattern of occurrences?’ and ‘When does this occur
more or less strongly?’ → why and when are diverse teams more
creative?
o Diversity = independent variable
o Creativity = dependent variable
o Information elaboration = mediator (why, the because)
o Perspective taking = moderator (when)
Explanatory can also be about causality: what causes this to
happen? (cause, influence, effect) → does happy mood cause
more creativity? Only with experiments you can show a causal
effect.
How to come up with a research question?
- Start with a specific question that you have about a phenomenon that interests you and then research
that question, adapting it as you learn more by reading about prior research; or
- You can choose a general topic that you are curious about and come up with an interesting questions as
you read more about the topic and what has been done by prior research
Example: the observation that leader emotions influence followers. The knowledge that emotions influence
cognition, affect and behavior lead to the following (starting) research question: ‘What should leaders do:
express positive emotions or negative emotions?’ → general question, now look at the literature, what do we
already know? How is this work flawed or limited? Analysis of existing literature. This informs a direction →
formulate a precise research question and a predicted answer to the research question. In this case: ‘how do
leader emotional displays affect subordinates and, thereby, an organization’s productivity?’.
Once you know your specific research question you can start writing your general introduction. How to do this?
Important, how to sell your research?
- Positioning: correct way of framing. Framing your article the right way to convince your readers that
your research is important, needed and interesting. For example by addressing a lack of consensus in
the current literature about the research topic.
- Text form: a good structure gets you halfway there. Take the reader by the hand, walk the reader
through all your different variable and the arguments and the research design.
Why is good writing so important?
- Importance of the message
- Competition
- Readers are lazy → easily have to follow your argumentation
What does good writing mean? A well-written scientific text should be:
- Accurate (contains the right information)
- Clear
- Convincing
- Exciting
Convincing and exciting has to do with the positioning of your research: ‘the so what?’ question (why is your
research important). Do this in the first three to five paragraphs in your article. The reader should know the
answer to the following questions:
- Why this research?
- Why should we care?
3
, Sterre Huizer
This must be made explicitly clear in the text! The why of your research, how it should be done: providing a
convincing answer to the ‘so what’ question can be done in two ways:
1. This research shifts the consensus → doubting the previous literature and shifting it by giving an
alternative answer.
a. Connect with the prevailing consensus for your target audience (for a long time it was thought
that….)
b. Next say that this is incorrect (however, this is not correct…)
c. Explain how it should be (in contrast to what was always thought to be the case, the current
research will instead show that…)
d. Explain what the practical consequences of these new findings will be for your audience (new
research is needed to….)
2. This research creates consensus → by integrating all different perspectives/theories to address an
important question. (‘the current study reconcile these findings)
a. Show that previous findings contradict each other (e.g., inconsistent findings) and explain how
this research will reconcile these findings. Adding an additional study without trying to explain
prior contradictory findings is not an example of this! You need to come up with a research
model that explains why these inconsistent findings emerge. Introduce a moderator: when do
positive effects emerge and when do negative effects emerge?
Less convincing answers to the ‘so what’ question are:
1. This has never been done before → ‘we know that … increase …, but it has never been shown in a
sample of elderly people that face corona times’ → sure, but it is not convincing looking at the so what
question. The fact that it has never been done before is not a good enough reason to do it. Stronger
reasoning = explain why it should be done. Avoid this in your thesis and assignment 1 !
2. This has never been done before with something else → ‘we know that … increase …., but now lets
use another task that hasn’t been used before’. Same as previous point, but: if, for example, you can
explain the ‘this’ has a certain effect, but not if it goes together with ‘something else’, then you have a
good reason to do this research (see consensus shift).
3. This and that are related and we know why, but not why why → add an additional step, we learn a bit
but it could be more important. Especially if the mediator you are looking for is very obvious, this is not
a good reason for research. However, if the mediator turns out to be totally different from the prevailing
consensus, it becomes exciting (see shifting the consensus).
4. This research confirms what we already know → replication is important, but it is not so important
answering the so what question. If we already know it, then why do this research? This is fine for
problem-solving but not for research. Exception: replication research. Then specify it as such.
So this is how it shouldn’t be done!
General introduction: 3-5 paragraphs are crucial!
Writing a general introduction, tips:
1. Talk about people before you mention research → people find other people more interesting than
research, they need to recognize themselves
2. Give examples (anecdotes, metaphors)
3. Explain what you intend to do in your first 3-5 paragraphs
What works really well?? Use the 1-2-3 punch, basically your introduction needs to be able to answer the
following:
1. Who cares? (‘so what?’), what is the topic or research question, and why is it interesting and important
in theory and practice?
2. What do we know, what don’t we know and so what? What key theoretical perspectives and empirical
findings have already informed the topic or question? What major unaddressed puzzle, controversy or
paradox does this study address, and why does it need to be addressed?
3. What will we learn? How does your study fundamentally change, challenge or advance scholars
understanding?
This 1-2-3 punch is reflected in the first 3-5 paragraphs.
1. Paragraph 1: what is this paper about?
Hook the reader (rhetorical question). Situate your research in an important and interesting context.
After reading the first paragraph the reader should be curious to know more about the topic. Highlight
the practical relevance of your research. (tip: read other introductions).
4
