Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 176–200 of 860 results
The scope of a research study defines the territory the investigation actually covers. Depending on the study, this may include the population, setting, timeframe, variables or phenomena, context, and other boundaries needed to show exactly what the research addresses.
Read Guide →A research question becomes too narrow when its boundaries make the study manageable but remove so much uncertainty, variation, significance, or applicability that answering it contributes little. The goal is not maximum breadth, but a focused question whose answer still matters.
Read Guide →Consequential exclusions should usually be explained when readers need the rationale to understand or evaluate the study. The explanation should identify why the population or variable was excluded and what that decision means for the evidence and conclusions.
Read Guide →A study's scope can sometimes change after research has begun, but the later the change occurs, the more carefully its methodological, ethical, analytical, and reporting consequences must be considered. Legitimate revisions should be documented transparently rather than rewritten as though they had always been planned.
Read Guide →You do not need to list everything a study will not investigate. However, explicitly defining consequential boundaries can prevent readers from attributing questions or claims to the study that its design was never intended to address.
Read Guide →A study period needs scientific justification when time affects what can be observed, compared, or inferred. The relevant question is not simply how long data collection takes, but whether the chosen period matches the phenomenon and research question.
Read Guide →Knowing a research method well is a genuine advantage, but familiarity should not be the main reason you choose it. The method must first be capable of producing the evidence needed to answer your research question.
Read Guide →A worthwhile study does not always need a completely new question. Learn how to decide whether your research should test an existing claim again or investigate something genuinely different.
Read Guide →Replication may be more useful than starting something new when an important claim remains uncertain and another independent test could materially improve what researchers know. The strongest replication targets combine meaningful consequences with unresolved evidence.
Read Guide →Direct and conceptual replications do not simply differ in how much of the original method they copy. They can address different evidential questions: whether a finding recurs under closely similar conditions or whether the underlying claim survives a meaningfully different test.
Read Guide →A replication asks whether prior evidence or a previous claim holds up under another test. An extension moves beyond that prior work to investigate something additional, although a single study can deliberately do both.
Read Guide →Adding a variable does not automatically turn a replication into an extension. The key question is what the variable does: does it help you retest the original claim, or does it introduce an additional claim that the original study never examined?
Read Guide →Using a different population does not automatically make your research a new study. The key question is whether you are testing the same scientific claim in a new population or whether the population change creates a meaningfully different research question.
Read Guide →One successful replication does not permanently settle a scientific claim. Another replication can still be valuable when important uncertainty remains, although its value depends on what new evidence the additional study can provide.
Read Guide →A famous finding can be worth replicating, but fame is not a sufficient reason to choose it. A stronger replication target is usually a claim for which reducing uncertainty would meaningfully improve knowledge or decisions in the field.
Read Guide →A weak original study can make replication more valuable because its claim remains uncertain, but weakness alone is not a reason to replicate it. First decide whether the underlying claim matters and whether your new study can provide substantially more informative evidence.
Read Guide →No replication can reproduce every feature of an earlier study exactly. The practical task is to preserve the conditions needed to test the original claim, justify unavoidable changes, and report them clearly enough for readers to judge what the new evidence means.
Read Guide →A replication does not become worthless when the original finding does not recur. An informative non-replication can reduce confidence in a claim, expose possible boundary conditions, improve effect estimates, and identify questions that the original study could not answer.
Read Guide →A replication does not need a completely new research question to make a contribution. A strong justification explains which existing claim remains uncertain, why resolving that uncertainty matters, and how the new study provides evidence the literature does not yet have.
Read Guide →Original data can be extremely useful when planning and interpreting a replication, but replication normally generates new data rather than reanalyzing the original dataset. The more important question is whether the published methods and available materials provide enough information to conduct an interpretable new test.
Read Guide →The strongest study and the most influential study may be different replication targets. Choose based on the uncertainty the replication can resolve and how much resolving it would matter to the scientific record.
Read Guide →A study can deserve replication because people act on its findings. When a result influences consequential decisions and independent evidence remains weak, the cost of being wrong can make replication unusually valuable.
Read Guide →Novelty is not the only form of scientific contribution. A rigorous replication can be more valuable when an important existing claim remains uncertain and resolving that uncertainty would strengthen or redirect substantial subsequent research.
Read Guide →International evidence does not automatically remove the need for local research. A new study is most defensible when local conditions create meaningful uncertainty about whether existing findings apply, how they apply, or what decision should follow.
Read Guide →A local context does not need to be dramatically different before another study is justified. What matters is whether a specific difference could plausibly change the finding, mechanism, implementation, interpretation, or decision.
Read Guide →