RV Institute of Technology & Management®

Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust

RV Institute of Technology and Management®
(Affiliated to VTU, Belagavi)

JP Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 076

Department of CSE/ISE/ECE/ME

Course Name: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

Course Code: BRMK557
V Semester
2022 Scheme
Prepared By:
Dr. Solaimuthu C and Dr. Anitha J,
Faculty, RVITM
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 1 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

MODULE– I
Chapter 1
Introduction: What Is Research?

Research refers to a careful, well-defined (or redefined), objective, and systematic method of search
for knowledge, or formulation of a theory that is driven by inquisitiveness for that which is unknown
and useful on a particular aspect so as to make an original contribution to expand the existing
knowledge base. Research involves formulation of hypothesis or proposition of solutions, data
analysis, and deductions; and ascertaining whether the conclusions fit the hypothesis. Research is a
process of creating, or formulating knowledge that does not yet exist.

Booth et al. [1] explains that the research cycle starts with basically a practical problem: one must be
clear what the problem being attempted to solve is and why it is important. This problem motivates a
research question without which one can tend to get lost in a giant swamp of information. The question
helps one zero in onto manageable volume of information, and in turn defines a research project which
is an activity or set of activities that ultimately leads to result or answer, which in turn helps to solve
the practical problem that one started with in the first place as shown in Fig. 1.1.

The building up of background for doing research includes one to acquire the ability to connect
different areas. The purpose is to prepare the mind for active work as opposed to becoming a repository
or an encyclopedia. Research is not just about reading a lot of books and finding a lot of, gathering a
lot of existing information. It is instead adding, maybe small and specific, yet original, contribution to
that existing body of knowledge. So, research is about how one poses a question which has relevance
to the world that we are living in, and while looking for that answer one has to be as systematic as one
can be. There must be a balance between what is achievable in a research program with a finite
endpoint and also, the contribution it is going to make. The objective of a good research program is to
try and gain insight into something. Or indeed, to try and solve a problem. Good research questions
develop throughout the project actually and one can even keep modifying them. Through research, one
would like to make, or develop, new knowledge about the

Fig. 1.1 The research flow diagram [1]

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 2 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

world around us which can be written down or recorded in some way, and that knowledge can be
accessed through that writing or recording.
The ways of developing and accessing knowledge come in three, somewhat over- lapping, broad
categories:

(i) Observation is the most fundamental way of obtaining information from a source, and it could
be significant in itself if the thing that we are trying to observe is really strange or exciting, or is
difficult to observe. Observation takes different forms from something like measurements in a
laboratory to a survey among a group of subjects to the time it takes for a firmware routine to run. The
observational data often needs to be processed in some form and this leads to the second category of
knowledge, the model.

(ii) Models are approximated, often simplified ways of describing sometimes very complex
interactions in the form of a statistical relationship, a figure, or a set of mathematical equations. For
instance, the modeling equation captures the relationship between different attributes or the behavior
of the device in an abstract form and enables us to understand the observed phenomena [2].

(iii) The final category is a way of arranging or doing things through processes, algorithms,
procedures, arrangements, or reference designs, to get a certain desired result.
The categories of knowledge as enumerated above are shown in Fig. 1.2.

Good research involves systematic collection and analysis of information and is followed by an attempt
to infer a little bit beyond the already known information in a way that is a significant value addition.
Usually, engineering research is a journey that traverses from a research area (example: Control
Systems), to the topic (example: Control of Microbial Fuel Cells) and finally onto the problem
(example: Adaptive Control of Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells) (Area → Topic → Problem).
Getting a good problem to solve is more than half the work done. However, sometimes

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 3 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

Fig. 1.2 The categories of knowledge in research

the journey can be reverse, for example, the traversal from (Problem → Topic → Area). This can
happen when one is led to a problem through a connection to another problem whose top structure is
different.
Engineering research is the process of developing the perspectives and seeking improvements in
knowledge and skills to enable the recognition, planning, design, and execution of research in a wide
range of forms relevant for engineering and technology investigations and developments. We can start
off by describing some problem in the world that exists that is bugging or worrying us and that we
should be addressing. It could be that there is something we would like to do or accomplish but
currently cannot because we lack the knowledge to do so. It could be that there is something that
already works, but we do not know why and we would like to understand it better. It could be that we
want to do something to see what will happen.

1.1 Objectives of Engineering Research

The objective of engineering research is to solve new and important problems, and since the conclusion
at the end of one’s research outcome has to be new, but when one starts, the conclusion is unknown.
So, the start itself is tricky, one may say. The answer is, based on “circumstantial evidence”, intuition,
and imagination, one guesses what may be a possible conclusion. A guess gives a target to work
toward, and after initial attempts, it may turn out that the guess is incorrect. But, the work may suggest
new worthy avenues or targets which may be based on some modifications of the initial target, or may
need new techniques, or one may obtain negative results which may render the initial target or some
other targets as not realizable, or may lead to fortunate discoveries while looking for something else
(serendipity). Research objectives can sometimes be convoluted and difficult to follow.
Knowing where and how to find different types of information helps one solve engineering problems,
in both academic and professional career. Lack of investigation into engineering guidelines, standards,
and best practices result in failures with severe repercussions. As an engineer, the ability to conduct
thorough and accurate research while clearly communicating the results is extremely important in
decision- making.

The main aim of the research is to apply scientific approaches to seek answers to open questions, and
although each research study is particularly suited for a certain approach, in general, the following are
different types of research studies: exploratory or formulative, descriptive, diagnostic, and hypothesis-
testing.

The objectives of engineering research should be to develop new theoretical or applied knowledge and
not necessarily limited to obtaining abilities to obtain the desired result. The objectives should be
framed such that in the event of not being able to achieve the desired result that is being sought, one
can fall back to understanding why it is not possible, because that is also a contribution toward ongoing
research in solving that problem. Of course, someone else might come along and actually propose a
different approach where the desired objective is indeed possible to be achieved.

1.2 Motivation in Engineering Research

The possible motives may be the result of one or more of the following desires:

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 4 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

(i) Studies have shown that intrinsic motivations like interest, challenge, learning, meaning,
purpose, are linked to strong creative performance;
(ii) Extrinsic motivating factors like rewards for good work include money, fame, awards, praise,
and status are very strong motivators, but may block creativity. For example: Research outcome may
enable obtaining a patent which is a good way to become rich and famous.
(iii) Influences from others like competition, collaboration, commitment, and encouragement are
also motivating factors in research. For example: my friends are all doing research and so should I, or,
a person that I dislike is doing well and I want to do better.
(iv) Personal motivation in solving unsolved problems, intellectual joy, service to community, and
respectability are all driving factors.

The following factors would be a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic aspects: (i) Wanting to do better than
what has been achieved in the world, (ii) improve the state of the art in technology, (iii) Contribute to
the improvement of society, (iv) Fulfillment of the historical legacy in the immediate sociocultural
context.

Several other factors like government directives, funding opportunities in certain areas, and terms of
employment, can motivate people to get involved in engineering research.

1.3 Types of Engineering Research

The different types of research are

(i) Descriptive versus Analytical: Descriptive research includes comparative and correlational
methods, and fact-finding inquiries, to effectively describe the present state of art. The researcher holds
no control over the variables; rather only reports as it is. Descriptive research also includes attempts to
determine causes even though the variables cannot be controlled. On the contrary, in analytical
research, already available facts for analysis and critical evaluation are utilized. Some research studies
can be both descriptive and analytical [3].

(ii) Applied versus Fundamental: Research can either be applied research or fundamental (basic or
pure) research. Applied research seeks to solve an immediate problem facing the organization, whereas
fundamental research is concerned with generalizations and formulation of a theory. Research
concerning natural phenomena or relating to pure mathematics are examples of fundamental research.
Research to identify social or economic trends, or those that find out whether certain communications
will be read and understood are examples of applied research. The primary objective of applied
research is to determine a solution for compelling problems in actual practice, while basic research is
aimed at seeking information which could have a broad base of applications in the medium to long
term.

(iii) Quantitative versus Qualitative: Quantitative research uses statistical observations of a

sufficiently large number of representative cases to draw any conclusions, while qualitative researchers
rely on a few nonrepresentative cases or verbal narrative in behavioral studies such as clustering effect
in intersections in Transportation engineering to make a proposition.

1.4 Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 5 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

A researcher may start out with the research problems stated by the Supervisor or posed by others that
are yet to be solved. Alternately, it may involve rethinking of a basic theory, or need to be formulated
or put together from the information provided in a group of papers suggested by the Supervisor.
Research scholars are faced with the task of finding an appropriate problem on which to begin their
research. Skills needed to accomplish such a task at the outset, while taking care of possible
implications are critically important but often not taught [4]. Once the problem is vaguely identified,
the process of literature survey and technical reading, as described in the next chapter, would take
place for more certainty of the worthiness of the intended problem.
However, an initial spark is ideally required before the process of literature survey may duly begin.
Sometimes, an oral presentation by somebody which is followed by asking questions or introspection
provides this perspective which reading papers do not. At other times, a development in another subject
may have produced a tool or a result which has direct implications to the researcher’s subject and may
lead to problem identification.

A worthwhile research problem would have one or more attributes. It could be

nonintuitive/counterintuitive even to someone who knows the area, something that the research
community had been expecting for some time, a major simplification of a central part of the theory, a
new result which would start off a new subject or an area, provides a new method or improves upon
known methods of doing something which has practical applications, or a result which stops further
work in an area. The researcher has to be convinced that the problem is worthwhile before beginning
to tackle it because best efforts come when the work is worth doing, and the problem and/or solution
has a better chance of being accepted by the research community. Not all problems that one solves will
be great, and sometimes major advancements are made through solutions to small problems dealt with
effectively.

Some problems are universally considered hard and open, and have deep implications and connections
to different concepts. The reality is that most researchers in their lifetime do not get into such problems.
However, hard problems get solved only because people tackle them. The question a researcher has to
grapple with whether the time investment is worth it given that the likely outcome is negative, and so
it is a difficult personal decision to make. At the same time, even in the case of failure to solve the
intended hard problem, there may be partial/side results that serve the immediate need of producing
some results for the dissertation.

George Pólya (1887–1985) suggested a 4-step procedure for mathematical problem-solving [5], which
is relevant to engineering researchers as well. Recent work such as [6, 7] suggest the relevance of these
recommendations. The recom- mended steps to solve a research problem are

(i) Understand the problem, restate it as if its your own, visualize the problem by drawing figures,
and determine if something more is needed.
(ii) One must start somewhere and systematically explore possible strategies to solve the problem
or a simpler version of it while looking for patterns.
(iii) Execute the plan to see if it works, and if it does not then start over with another approach.
Having delved into the problem and returned to it multiple times, one might have a flash of insight or
a new idea to solve the problem.
(iv) Looking back and reflecting helps in understanding and assimilating the strat- egy, and is a sort
of investment into the future.
In the subsequent chapters of this book, we present other different aspects of research which together

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 6 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

form different parts of research methodologies and are important for a successful engineering research
career.

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 7 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

References

1. Booth, W., Colomb, G., & Williams, J. (2008). The craft of research. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
2. Deb, D., Tao, G., Burkholder, J., & Smith, D. (2008). Adaptive synthetic jet actuator compensa-
tion for a nonlinear aircraft model at low angles of attack. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 16(5), 983–995.
3. Hill, F., & Collins, L. (2000). A descriptive and analytical model of organisational transformation.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(9), 966–983.
4. Kandhway, K. (2015). Finding a research problem: Tips for new Ph.D. students. IEEE Potentials,
34(3), 25–29.
5. Poyla, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
6. Lee, C. (2016). An appropriate prompts system based on the Polya method for mathematical
problem-solving. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3),
893–910.
7. Brijlall, D. (2015). Exploring the stages of Polya’s problem-solving model during collaborative
learning: A case of fractions. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 291–299.

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 8 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

Chapter 2
2.1 Ethics in Engineering Research

Ethics generally refers to a set of rules distinguishing acceptable and unacceptable conduct,
distinguishing right from wrong, or wise aphorisms like the sayings of Chanakya.1 Most people learn
such norms in their formative years [1], but moral development continues through different stages of
growth. Although everyone recognizes some common ethical norms, but there is difference in
interpretation and application. Ethical principles can be used for evaluation, proposition or interpreta-
tion of laws [2]. Although ethics are not laws, but laws often follow ethics because ethics are our
shared values.

International norms for the ethical conduct of research have been there since the adoption of the
Nuremberg Code in 1947 [3]. According to Whitbeck [4], the issues related to research credit dates
back to the establishment of the British Royal Society (BRS) in the seventeenth century to refine the
methods and practices of modern science [4]. This event altered the timing and credit issues on the
release of research results since BRS gave priority to whoever first submitted findings for publication,
rather than trying to find out who had first discovered.

Whitbeck [4] raised two simple but significant questions to address the tricky issue of authorship in
research: (1) who should be included as an author and (2) the appropriate order of listing of authors.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the issue of coauthorship is very relevant to all researchers.
There are issues around individuals who may be deeply involved during the conduct of the research
work, but may not contribute in the drafting phase. Additionally, certain universities now put
restrictions on coauthorship to prevent malpractices which will be described later in this chapter.

Government bodies, and universities worldwide have adopted certain codes for research ethics.
Research ethics and the responsible conduct of research are often erroneously used interchangeably.
Research ethics examines the appropriate application of research outcomes, while responsible conduct
of research deals with the way the work is undertaken. In this chapter, let us take a look at specific
challenges posed by the application of ethics in engineering research.

2.2 Ethics in Engineering Research Practice

Technological developments raise a whole range of ethical concerns such as privacy issues and data
related to surveillance systems, and so engineering researchers need to make ethical decisions and are
answerable for the repercussions borne out of their research as outcomes. The reason that ethics matter
in data used in engineering research is usually because there is impact on humans. Certain practices
may be acceptable to certain people in certain situations, and the reasons for unacceptability may be
perfectly valid. We have unprecedented access to data today, and unprecedented options for analysis
of these data and consequences in engineering research related to such data. Are there things that are
possible to do with this data, that we agree we should not do? Engineering ethics gives us the rule
book; tells us, how to decide what is okay to do and what is not.

Engineering research is not work in isolation to the technological development taking place.
Researchers make many choices that matter from an ethical perspective and influence the effects of
technology in many different ways:
(i) By setting the ethically right requirements at the very outset, engineering researchers can

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 9 | 32

 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

ultimately influence the effects of the developed technology.

(ii) Influence may also be applied by researchers through design (a process that translates the
requirements into a blueprint to fulfill those requirements). During the design process, decision is to
be made about the priority in importance of the requirements taking ethical aspects into consideration.

(iii) Thirdly, engineering researchers have to choose between different alternatives fulfilling similar
functions.

Research outcomes often have unintended and undesirable side effects. It is a vital ethical
responsibility of researchers to ensure that hazards/risks associated with the technologies that they
develop, are minimized and alternative safer mechanisms are considered. If possible, the designs
should be made inherently safe such that they avoid dangers, or come with safety factors, and multiple
independent safety barriers, or if possible a supervisory mechanism to take control if the primary
process fails.

2.3 Types of Research Misconduct

Engineering research should be conducted to improve the state-of-the-art of tech- nologies. Research
integrity encompasses dealing fairly with others, honesty about the methods and results, replicating
the results wherever possible so as to avoid errors, protecting the welfare of research subjects, ensuring
laboratory safety, and so forth. In order to prevent mistakes, peer reviews should take place before the
research output is published.

There may be different types of research misconduct as described in research articles like [5] and [6],
which can be summarized as follows:

(i) Fabrication (Illegitimate creation of data): Fabrication is the act of conjuring data or
experiments with a belief of knowledge about what the conclusion of the analysis or experiments
would be, but cannot wait for the results possibly due to timeline pressures from supervisor or
customers.

(ii) Falsification (Inappropriate alteration of data): Falsification is the misrepresentation or

misinterpretation, or illegitimate alteration of data or experiments, even if partly, to support a desired
hypothesis even when the actual data received from experiments suggest otherwise.

Falsification and fabrication of data and results, hamper engineering research, cause false empirical
data to percolate in the literature, wreck trustworthiness of individuals involved, incur additional costs,
impede research progress, and cause actual and avoidable delays in technical advancement. Misleading
data can also crop up due to poor design of experiments or incorrect measurement practices.

The image of engineering researchers as objective truth seekers is often jeopardized by the discovery
of data related frauds. Such misconduct can be thwarted by researchers by always trying to reproduce
the results independently when- ever they are interested to do further work in a published material
which is likely to be part of their literature survey.

(iii) Plagiarism (Taking other’s work sans attribution): Plagiarism takes place when someone uses
or reuses the work (including portions) of others (text, data, tables, figures, illustrations or concepts)

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 10 |

32
 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

as if it were his/her own without explicit acknowledgement. Verbatim copying or reusing one’s own
published work is termed as self-plagiarism and is also an unacceptable practice in scientific literature.
The increasing availability of scientific content on the internet seems to encourage plagiarism in certain
cases, but also enables detection of such practices through automated software packages.2

How are supervisors, reviewers or editors alerted to plagiarism?

(i) Original author comes to know and informs everyone concerned.
(ii) Sometimes a reviewer finds out about it during the review process.
(iii) Or, readers who come across the article or book, while doing research.

Although there are many free tools and also paid tools available that one can procure institutional
license of, one cannot conclusively identify plagiarism, but can only get a similarity score which is a
metric that provides a score of the amount of similarity between already published content and the
unpublished content under scrutiny.

However, a low similarity score does not guarantee that the document is plagiarism free. It takes a
human eye to ascertain whether the content has been plagiarized or not. It is important to see the
individual scores of the sources, not just the overall similarity index. Setting a standard of a maximum
allowable similarity index is inadequate usage of the tool. Patchwork plagiarism is more difficult to
evaluate.

There are simple and ethical ways to avoid a high similarity count on an about to be submitted
manuscript. Sometimes, certain published content is perfect for one’s research paper, perhaps in
making a connection or fortifying the argument presented. The published material is available for the
purpose of being used fairly. One is not expected to churn out research outcomes in thin air.

However, whatever is relevant can be reported by paraphrasing in one’s own words, that is, without
verbatim copy. One can also summarize the relevant content and naturally, the summary invariably
would use one’s own words. In all these cases, citing the original source is important. However, merely
because one has cited a source, it does not mean that one can copy sentences (or para- graphs) of the
original content verbatim. A researcher should practice writing in such a way that the reader can
recognize the difference between the ideas or results of the authors and those that are from other
sources. Such a practice enables one to judge whether one is disproportionately using or relying on
content from existing literature.

(iv) Other Aspects of Research Misconduct: Serious deviations from accepted con- duct could be
construed as research misconduct. When there is both deception and damage, a fraud is deemed to
have taken place. Sooner or later ethical violations get exposed. Simultaneous submission of the same
article to two different journals also violates publication policies. Another issue is that when mistakes
are found in an article or any published content, they are generally not reported for public access unless
a researcher is driven enough to build on that mistake and provide a correct version of the same which
is not always the primary objective of the researcher.

2.4 Ethical Issues Related to Authorship

Academic authorship involves communicating scholarly work, establishing priority for their

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 11 |

32
 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

discoveries, and building peer-reputation, and comes with intrinsic burden of acceptance of the
responsibility for the contents of the work. It is the primary basis of evaluation for employment,
promotion, and other honors.
There are several important research conduct and ethics related issues connected to authorship of
research papers as described by Newman and Jones [7], and are summarized herewith in the context
of engineering research.

Credit for research contributions is attributed in three major ways in research publications: by
authorship (of the intended publication), citation (of previously published or formally presented work),
and through a written acknowledgment (of some inputs to the present research). Authorship establishes
both accountability and gives due credit. A person is expected to be listed as an author only when
associated as a significant contributor in research design, data interpretation, or writing of the paper.

Including “guest” or “gift” (co-authorship bestowed on someone with little or no contribution to the
work) authors dilutes the contribution of those who actually did the work, inappropriately inflates
credentials of the listed authors [8], and is ethically a red flag highlighting research misconduct [9].

Sometimes, the primary author dubiously bestows co-authorship on a junior faculty or a student to
boost their chances of employment or promotion, which can be termed as Career-boost authorship
[10].

There is also an unfortunate malpractice of co-authorship that can be described as “Career-preservation

authorship” wherein a head of the department, a dean, a provost, or other administrators are added as
Coauthors because of quid pro quo arrangement wherein the principal author benefits from a “good
relation” with the superiors and the administrator benefits from authorship without doing the required
work for it [11].

Sometimes, an actual contributor abstains from the list of authors due to non- disclosed conflict of
interest within the organization [10].

Such co-authorships can be termed as ghost co-authorship. Full disclosure of all those involved in the
research is important so that evaluation can happen both on the basis of findings, and also whether
there was influence from the conflicts. In another type of questionable authorship, some researchers
list one another as coauthors as a reciprocal gesture with no real collaboration except minimal reading
and editing, without truly reviewing the work threadbare.

Some authors, in trying to acquire a sole-authored work, despite relying on significant contribution to
the research work from others, recognize that effort only by an acknowledgment, thereby
misrepresenting the contributions of the listed authors. The unrecognized “author” is as a consequence,
unavailable to readers for elaboration.

All listed authors have the full obligation of all contents of a research article, and so naturally, they
should also be made aware of a journal submission by the corresponding author. It is imperative that
their consent is sought with respect to the content and that they be agreeable to the submission. In case
of misconduct like inappropriate authorship, while the perpetrator is easier to find, the degree of
appropriate accountability of the coauthors is not always obvious. Being able to quantify the
contributions so as to appropriately recognize and ascertain the degree of associated accountability of
each coauthor, is appealing.

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 12 |

32
 RV Institute of Technology & Management®

Double submission is an important ethical issue related to authorship, which involves submission of a
paper to two forums simultaneously. The motivation is to increase publication possibility and possibly
decrease time to publication. Reputed journals want to publish original papers, i.e., papers which have
not appeared else- where, and strongly discourage double submission.

References

1. Swazey, J. P., Louis, K. S., & Anderson, M. S. (1994) The ethical training of graduate students
requires serious and continuing attention. Chronicle of Higher Education.
2. Swazey, J. P. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 542–553.
3. Nuremberg Code. (1949). Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under
Control Council Law No. 10, (Vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office
4. Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
5. Martyn, C. (2003). Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. QJM: An International Journal Of
Medicine, 96(4), 243–244.
6. Zietman, A. (2018). Falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism: The unholy trinity of scientific
writing.
7. Newman, A., & Jones, R. (2006). Authorship of research papers: Ethical and professional issues
for short-term researchers. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(7), 420–423.
8. Jackson, C. I., & Prados, J. W. (1983). Honor in science. American Scientist, 71, 462–464.
9. Lock, S. (1995). Lessons from the Pearce affair: Handling scientific fraud. British Medical
Journals, 310(6994), 1547-1548.
10. Jones, A. W. (1996). Some thoughts and reflections on authorship. Alcohol and Alcoholism,
31(1), 11–15.
11. Altman, L., & Melcher, L. (1983). Fraud in science. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed),
286(6383), 25.

V- Semester, RM & IPR P a g e 13 |

32