1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

SUBJECT CODE:

MODULE 1
Introduction: Meaning of Research, Objectives of Engineering Research, and Motivation in
Engineering Research, Types of Engineering Research, Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem.
Ethics in Engineering Research, Ethics in Engineering Research Practice, Types of Research
Misconduct, Ethical Issues Related to Authorship.

Meaning of 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 the
unknown and useful on a particular aspect 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.
As per Booth, 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 the figure
below.

Figure: The research flow diagram

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 encyclopaedia. 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 must 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, the contribution it is going to make.
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

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 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 overlapping, broad categories.
Observation is the most fundamental way of obtaining information from a source, and it
could be significant if the thing that we are trying to observe is 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.
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 modelling equation captures the relationship between different attributes or the
behaviour of the device in an abstract form and enables us to understand the observed phenomena.
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 the below figure.

Figure: The categories of knowledge in research

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 he journeys
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
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

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.
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 must 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 propose a different approach where the desired objective is indeed possible to be
achieved.

Motivation in Engineering Research

The possible motives may be the result of one or more of the following desires:
(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:
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

• Wanting to do better than what has been achieved in the world

• Improve the state of the art in technology • Contribute to the improvement of
society
• Fulfilment 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.
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.

(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
behavioural studies such as clustering effect in intersections in Transportation
engineering to make a proposition.
Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem
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. Once the problem is
vaguely identified, the process of literature survey and technical reading 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.
5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

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
which is relevant to engineering researchers as well. Recent work such as suggest the relevance of
these recommendations. The recommended steps to solve a research problem are
(i) Understand the problem, restate it as if it’s 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 strategy, and is
a sort of investment into the future.
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. Most people learn
such norms in their formative years 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
interpretation of laws. 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. According to Whitbeck, the issues related to research credit dates
to the establishment of the British Royal Society (BRS) in the seventeenth century to refine the
methods and practices of modern science. 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 raised two simple
but significant questions to address the tricky issue of authorship in research:
6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

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 coauthor ship 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 coauthor ship to prevent malpractices.
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.
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 ways:
(i) By setting the ethically right requirements at the very outset, engineering researchers
can 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 fulfil 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 must 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.
Types of Research Misconduct
Engineering research should be conducted to improve the state-of-the-art of technologies.
Research integrity encompasses dealing fairly with others, honesty about the methods and results,
replicating the results wherever possible to avoid errors, protecting the welfare of research subjects,
ensuring laboratory safety, and so forth. To prevent mistakes, peer reviews should take place before
the research output is published.
7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

There may be different types of research misconduct as described in research articles, 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 whenever 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) 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
(Eg: iTheticate: http://www.ithenticate.com/.)
How are supervisors, reviewers or editors alerted to plagiarism?

• Original author comes to know and informs everyone concerned.

• Sometimes a reviewer finds out about it during the review process.
• Or, readers who come across the article or book, while doing research.
Although there are many free tools and 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
8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

paragraphs) of the original content verbatim. A researcher should practise 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 conduct
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.
Ethical Issues Related to Authorship
Academic authorship involves communicating scholarly work, establishing priority for their
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 honours. There are several important research conduct and ethics related
issues connected to authorship of research papers as described by Newman and Jones 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” (coauthor ship bestowed on
someone with little or no contribution to the work) authors dilutes the contribution of those who
did the work, inappropriately inflates credentials of the listed authors, and is ethically a red flag
highlighting research misconduct. Sometimes, the primary author dubiously bestows coauthor ship
on a junior faculty or a student to boost their chances of employment or promotion, which can be
termed as Career boost authorship. There is also an unfortunate malpractice of coauthor ship 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.
Sometimes, an actual contributor abstains from the list of authors due to nondisclosed
conflict of interest within the organization. Such coauthor ships can be termed as ghost coauthor
ship. Full disclosure of all those involved in the research is important so that evaluation can happen
both based on findings, and 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
consequently, 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
9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

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 to
appropriately recognize and ascertain the degree of associated accountability of each coauthor, is
appealing. 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 elsewhere, and strongly discourage double submission.