Introduction

Introduction

One of a university instructor’s great pleasures is to observe the progress of students. At the opening of each term students are exposed to new information, new terminology, new ideas, concepts, and processes. And, as students of empirical research, for example, become more familiar with notions such as assumptions, theses and variables, the processes of sampling and design, or values such as reliability and validity, their report writing reveals an educational journey from formative – even tentative – steps in early drafts of research project proposals to more grounded applications of logic, description, and interpretation as evident in terminal or final project reports. The intent of this introduction is to share highlights of that learning experience which may be of interest to academic educators who also introduce research methods whether they be for senior undergraduate or for graduate level students.

By way of introduction to the five student research projects completed in December of 2021, features of notable achievements as well as distinctive challenges help to demonstrate common features of research project conception, design, implementation, and conclusion as evident in the final reports presented in this monograph. Within this survey of common features of original mixed methods research, we consider topical themes, terminology, the use of logic, epistemological issues in research methods, and ethics, all as addressed to those instructors in the social sciences and communication studies who partake in the pleasures of leadership within the discovery of research methods.

This collection of student research projects demonstrates the educational journey of five senior-level undergrad teams as they progressed through the advanced research course (BCSC 411) in the Department of Communication Studies at MacEwan University in Edmonton. Under the tutelage of Associate Professor Dr. Lucille Mazo, students identified current themes of interest and then settled upon a unifying theme of Covid-19-related topics. And, as social media (SM) is never far from the minds of contemporary students, four of the five projects have social media as a secondary theme for consideration within the shared subject, with both themes drawing upon the experience of living through the global pandemic that spread throughout the world from 2020 to the present.

In reading the research project final reports, we are reminded of how the concluding section is where the teams reflect upon their project’s design leading to an overall evaluation of what was accomplished and how it could be improved. Within the standardized format of an academic research report, the conclusion is where the learning curve clearly reveals the team efforts to evaluate their work and ultimately come to terms with the needs for a sufficiently comprehensive and cohesive tying-together of all steps and components of the project.

Prior to a close look at the projects, it is important to note that the overarching sequence of steps in this learning process is largely determined by the format of a conventional research report that guides the learning sequence. In empirical research, the standard five-section format begins with an introduction to the project, its theme and requisite components such as the project’s assumptions, definitions, variables and research questions, followed by a literature review of relevant current academic resources. After this ground is established, the central section is on methods, followed by the presentation of results. Yet it is the closing section – identifying the project’s conclusions, theoretical import and recommendations for further research – that offers a reflexive evaluation of how the team’s results apply to both their original theme(s) of interest and specific focus of inquiry.

Based upon this format, the sequence of learning closely mirrors the process of report writing. Prior to engaging with the instrumental means of research (“doing”), teams draft a kind of map comprised of the first three sections (intro/literature review/methodology) that indicates the proposed route or steps of the project to be followed. At this point, teams may implement an additional trial step, often using a short survey of a limited available sample to test the match of the available cohort with the intent of their proposed project. Like a pilot project, the short survey instrument helps the teams confirm their research questions while offering a chance to refine the schedule of questions, by assessing the types and sequencing of questions in the survey instrument. Based upon the results of the trial survey, teams then revise their draft of the first three sections, prior to implementation of the project proper. After data collection has been completed, the teams produce a second draft that covers all five sections of the report, prior to editing for the final version. With this three-part sequence: introductory draft, complete draft, and final edited report, it is not surprising that the first draft is relatively more tentative as it is like a mapping to propose the route to completion, while in the complete draft teams grapple with the integration and comprehensiveness of their project’s components. Last, for the final edited report as designed for publication, students reduce the length of the drafts – often running from 30 to 100 pages – down to a more manageable 20 -30 pages of text plus results in the appendices.

Loosely following the five-part report format, present readers should keep in mind the overall three-stages of the project which determine the sequence of student learning. Within this orientation, the three steps may be considered as conceptualization – based on what may come (plus pre-trial or pilot), implementation (doing), and re-conceptualization (reportage) based on what was done.

In preparation for consideration of the research studies that follow, components which distinguish an empirical report from a literary or humanist endeavour deserve a recap of the distinctive terminology that will inform a project’s introductory section. Terms common to most types of research reports – whether qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both – include a thesis, basic assumptions, a focus of interest and some hypothesis to test – often in the form of a research question (RQ). All are requisite to any type of project introduction, yet empirical research would add terms common to quantitative research such as sample, cohort, variables – both independent and dependent, and the specific means of data collection instruments, of coding the data, and of its analysis. As present readers peruse the introductory section of each research project, note which terms are (or are not) present, and be mindful of the qualities of each term’s use vis-à-vis the mixed methods approach combining both qualitative and quantitative types of data.

Thesis Statements

A declarative thesis statement, for example, balances comprehensiveness with specificity, and succinctly notes the what – as the theme and focus, the how – as the key means of data collection, and the why – as in – the primary research question. Each thesis will lead to specific basic assumptions that are essential or, at the least, necessary, to the project, and to that project’s hierarchy of research questions. The primary research question needs to align with the independent variable, while the dependent variables address contingent aspects of the primary and the secondary research questions.

In evaluation of a project’s introductory section, consider the links and causal features of the students’ use of logic and terminology. Research projects need to clearly identify enough key terms of empirical research to give the reader a definitive sense that there is sufficient appropriate terminology for the project to stand as either qualitative, quantitative, or both – as in mixed-methods. If this ground has been sufficiently established in the project’s introduction, readers can then determine what may or may not be necessary to be included in both the project’s literature review and section on methods. By the end of each sample Introduction, readers know clearly what is to come, how what follows in the method’s modelling is relevant, and why the model and methods are sufficient to address the primary research question.

For an effective thesis, it will need to be refined more than once: starting with the original draft thesis – that captures the theme and focus, followed by revisions for increasing its specificity, first – after any trial testing, and then again, after working through the methods of realization, to produce a revised thesis.  A sample working thesis will address four features of the project’s specific purpose, such as the kind of research (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed- methods), the field of inquiry in terms the audience for any specific discourse, along with the focus of interest and desired outcomes. This information should be sufficient for the team to draft and then revise an effective thesis.

Research Questions (RQ)

The focus and desired outcome apparent in each project’s research question can be refined further based upon the results of the res verba – as the three stasis questions, an sit, quid sit and quale sit – common in classical rhetorical analysis. To focus in upon the specific aspect of interest, teams can ask three res verba questions. Does the focus of the research need to establish that a problem or condition exists (basic assumption as an sit)? Or can we assume there definitely is a well-established problem-condition and focus upon the definition or type of the problem (quad sit)? And, if the status of the problem-condition already has been established, and well defined, is the focus on the degree, kind, or quality of that issue (quale sit)? While the application of these stasis questions helps to refine the project’s thesis, the answers will also distinguish the team’s specific primary research question (RQ) from secondary sub-questions.

Among the five projects herein, each gives an example of the logical type of an effective research question. The project investigating the role of hobbies on mental health during Covid lockdown begins with an an sit type of research problem, initially asking whether or not there is an impact on mental health via engagement with hobbies. Later, in their methodology section, the RQ shifts to “which hobby has the most impact” – as a quid sit question of definition – and then “which hobby is the most popular,” as a quale sit question of kind, quality or degree. The project on social media addiction (SMA) acknowledges that there is a problem – as a basic (an sit) assumption – but asks what the local status of the problem is within the Edmonton area, hovering between the nature (quid sit) and degree of the problem as a quale sit type of research question. The project on the mental health of restaurant workers during the Covid lockdown asks about the definition of the impact, as a quid sit research question. And, in the project on the impact of government social media messaging during the 4th wave of Covid, again, we can see that the project assumes there is an impact yet asks a specific question about the consistency – as a quality of impact within the sample population, here with a quale sit type of research question.

The fifth project examines local perceptions of mandatory vaccination, a topical theme that is already well recognized as a significant set of Covid-related issues. In this project, the primary research question assumes there is an existing condition and then asks a quid sit type of RQ. The primary RQ is focused upon perceptions of students in a university program/ department, a quid sit focus on definitions, while the secondary sub-questions focus on relevant demographic factors of the sample cohort, such as by age and political affiliation, offers quale sit or qualitative considerations. In each case the degree of specificity of the project’s thesis and subsequent research question can be refined by answering the three stasis questions. As readers progress through each project, be conscious of the consistency of the research question and how the researchers have clearly categorized the relationship of research problems as to what is primary and what is secondary or even tertiary.

Research Terminology

Other correlative means to consider what the focus of a research project may be is to consider the extent or range of topics to be covered within the project’s research problems. Specifically, research teams need to ask what the project’s scope is – in relation to the target sample’s reach. In general, a project’s scope delimits the topic and boundaries of the research question to be investigated. It is appropriate to recap the scope of a project at the end of the section on research questions to confirm the depth of detail required and any other parameters of your research problem, sample population and the timeframe of the project. If scope is understood as the limits of inquiry based on your research questions or problem, reach delimits who will or will not be participating in your sample’s cohort.

For example, the project on vaccine hesitancy demonstrates use of scope under the heading of “Limitations” as found in the project’s introduction. In this case, the potential sample of reviewing more than 200 government videos on Covid messaging, messaging by “bots,” and the “entirety” of related social messaging, goes well beyond the scope and limits of the project, and by identifying these outlying, but relevant media, the project report’s Methodology section delimits the scope to a more manageable sample of six Alberta Government Covid update videos. The scope is then further refined with an explanation of why the six were chosen out the 240 possible videos.

Two further research notions demonstrated in these projects include participant bias and the potential for skewing the data.  Skew, for example, in terms of the potential for researcher bias is acknowledged in the projects on vaccine hesitancy, on Covid mandates, and on social media addiction. The project on vaccine hesitancy noted the intent to mitigate any possible researcher bias by an appropriate division of labour wherein the person with bias potential did not work on the design of the survey questions nor on the coding of the resultant data.  The project on Covid mandates mitigated the same potential by full disclosure of each researcher’s political affiliations, a clear example of self-reflexivity by team members.

The project on social media addiction offers a comprehensive treatment of bias in terms of the participating sample members, with reference to preconceived bias, normalcy bias and confirmation bias. First, the project’s report defines both participant and normalcy biases prior to explaining specifically how such conditions were taken into account in design of the survey question wording and sequencing. Pre-conceived bias is mentioned as worth avoiding under their “Interviews” section, and the loaded term, addiction, was avoided based on its potential stigma that could have an impact on certain questions for certain people from the sample. Since the term “addiction” can trigger a potential for skew via confirmation bias, this team called attention to it stigma, as noted in their introduction (as well as in “Conclusion 2” near the end of their report) as a limiting factor to avoid skewing the results by response bias. Tactics to avoid participant bias drew upon the work by Farnsworth on the same topic (2019). The project also addressed potentials for bias and skew as found in their source projects and noted in their literature review. Again, while both terms are not used in all the projects, the team working on social media addiction demonstrates a clear and well applied understanding of the challenges and means to mitigate both bias and skew.

Literature Reviews

An effective literature review will not only call our attention to contemporary relevant academic resources, but also link each relevant feature back to the appropriate variable of the project at hand. A common feature of literature reviews in student research projects can be called the stream-of-consciousness-omniscience model of writing where each resource is obviously relevant, but the specificity of that relevance is vague or not explicitly stated. The flow of commentary in a literature review – on the surface – may appear to be overtly relevant, but only the project’s authors know how each feature addresses one or more of the relevant variables under review. An effective literature review ties each specific feature of a resource to a specific aspect of the project’s research question, variables and/or method. However, the basic essential feature evident in all literature reviews of research projects is the use of recent accredited academic sources. All five research projects demonstrate this basic feature.

Special and Ethical Features in a Literature Review

The research project on mandatory vaccination situates ethics and the public good in relation to the consequences of “psychological reactance.” The academic literature reviewed in this project was organized by themes and – from a sound sociological perspective – its authors began with a source (Le et al, 2020) on the materialist historical context of the development of the vaccinations. From this ground, their literature review examines key definitions and values on the ethics of mandatory vaccination from three contemporary (2021) sources. The first source (Sprengholz et al, 2021) sets the conditional options when members of the public face governmental impositions on the individual: such as voluntary, mandatory or scarcity (when vaccinations are not yet available for their distribution to the public). While boosters were offered on a relatively more voluntary basis, the double-tap vaccinations – required as mandatory – challenged some person’s freedom to choose in terms of the liberal right of an individual to have control over his or her own bodily autonomy. The second source (Giubilini, 2021) frames the situation in the dialectics of self-vs.-community and choice-vs.-access to then pose the common good as “herd immunity” and mandatory vaccination as a “gesture of care for one’s community.” So far, this literature review has grounded its topic in a specific historical context – basic to sociological research, established essential definitions in terms of what is universal and what is merely practical – as required by Aristotle in any scientific study, and raised ethical questions in Platonic terms asking what is best for the common good.

This project’s third source on ethics of mandatory vaccination (Gur-Arie et. al., 2021) shifts logically from the universal to the particular – in this case to consider pragmatic variables relevant to the ethics of mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers. These variables – hesitancy, efficacy, and perception of risk – are then reviewed in terms of healthcare principles in support of mandatory vaccination, explicitly found in the principles to “do no harm” and to follow the path of “duty to care.” This research team concludes their section on ethics with a recommendation that – for the success of any governmental mandate – open communication and sufficient public education are necessary. While the content stands with its own tacit interest, from the history of science point of view, this research project’s literature review demonstrates essential features of classical science: with sufficient definition for what follows, a clear development by a logic of discovery in terms of both pragmatics and the universal, and an ethical consideration of practical and principled human action. While all literature reviews include relevant and current sources, not all researchers demonstrate these features in its flow of logic – features that are generally required to understand a scientific study, and more specifically – again in Aristotelian terms – as necessary for the efficacy of methodology in an empirical study (A. Dumitriu. 1977. History of Logic. Vol.1. Abacus Press, Kent. p.146[1])

Methodology and Epistemology

Stepping now from a focus on logic and appropriate terminology – as required for an effective project introduction and its literature review, evaluative questions of epistemology arise in the projects’ methods section. In this middle section of research project final reports, methodological features of the project’s design need to first demonstrate how the sample and instrumentation will produce the intended original data. The design of method then needs to explain the means of coding and analyses to interpret the data within a unified logical synthesis. Underlying this synthesis is the need for the project design to adequately address the research questions under consideration in each research project. By viewing the parts of the section on methodology through the fundamental lens of epistemology, readers should be able to assess how well each project has been described, including how the experimental data collection instrument will address the guiding RQs, and to evaluate how the design creates a sufficient quantity of the necessary kinds of data to achieve a qualitative outcome that is statistically significant as well as conceptually sound and grounded in the method.

Samples, Sampling and Significance

While our projects did not assess the statistical significance or variance in accuracy of the quantitative data, a more hybrid qualitative approach to epistemic issues of mixed methods research is appropriate, such as assessing the generalizability of the results. With this caveat in mind, sample size, its demographic composition and reach, can lead us to assess how well the results offer a representation of the grounds for epistemological evaluation of the efficacy of method to address its primary and secondary research questions. As the five research projects primarily used mixed methods, the following will consider both quantitative and qualitative measures of epistemic value.

For a quantitative measure of statistical significance, 10% of a population can be considered adequate. Moreover, for the central limit theorem, a minimum of 30 to 50 sample responses is considered as a valid indicator of qualitative generalizability with the potential for statistical significance (Le Cam, L.  1986. “The central limit theorem around 1935.” Statistical Science, 1(1). pp.78-91[2]). The project on student hobbyists during lockdown, with a sample size of 15, was insufficient to make a valid generalization, so their survey then functioned more as a test trial of concept. The project on restaurant workers during lockdown, with 34 response sets, was valid insofar as a test of the efficacy of their survey instrument. While the sample size did not achieve the limit of 10% of its target population, its sample size of greater than 30 indicates responses could lead to limited generalizations, with the potential for statistical significance.

Results of the other three research projects, with sample sizes approaching 50 or more responses, can all be considered as generalizable, with a good yet limited potential for statistical significance. The project on vaccine mandates, for example, with 49 actual survey participants can be evaluated by a comparison with the largest possible target population. If the current size of the student body in MacEwan’s Communication Studies Department varies between 260 and 300, say 275 on average, a sample size of 49 – approximately 18% of the total population – is sufficiently valid for statistical significance, both for quantitative measure and for qualitative generalizability. If, however, the total student body of the school, at approximately 18,345 students (as in the Fall 2020 term), is the focus of evaluation, the project’s sample reached around .3% of the total population. This survey can offer some reliable generalizations, but the statistical significance, while valid for the department is too low to generalize about the whole school’s student body.

Our last two of five research projects presented relatively more complex data sets. The project on the degree of Smart-phone addiction in young adults from within the greater Edmonton region drew upon a distinct type of data for each of its three instruments, the survey, the screen-time log, and the follow-up interviews. With a sample size of 66 respondents for the survey, as a sample of the total possible students on the Edmonton area, this data set is reliable for limited generalization, yet on the weaker side of validity for quantitative measure of its statistical significance. However, as a mix of both qualitative and quantitative responses, the survey’s resultant data sets were initially correlated with results from the ten people who completed the screen-time log, and then further deepened qualitatively by the two completed questionnaires. Producing what Clifford Geertz would call “deep description” (1973), the three correlated data sets offer excellent reliability for qualitative interpretation in the form of observations or generalizations.

Last, the research project on the impact of government messaging on vaccine hesitancy used three types of public access content for their data sets, sample videos, SM commentary and Facebook views. Cross-correlations among the three data sets offered excellent depth for both qualitative reliability and – while relatively more limited – quantitative validity. As their project conclusion noted, reliable proof of an info-demic was not supportable by the data collected. However, their data sets did confirm, while not definitively, that government messaging has a significant impact on vaccine hesitancy and further that inconsistent messaging had a negative (divisive) public impact on mandate compliance. This project clearly identified the nature and process of their data analysis by means of both comparative thematics and contextual content analysis, and this depth and breadth of analytic description made a significant contribution to data that was both qualitatively reliable and quantifiably valid.

Results and Conclusions

Before looking at the concluding sections in the sample research projects, a couple of observations on the presentation of results are worth consideration. First, should the team present all the results or only those of interest? The common expectation is that all results will be addressed, but that the specifics of each data response is too unwieldy for a succinct report. While research project appendices conventionally list the results to every question based on their data collection instruments, a preferred model would group like kinds/types of data responses for presentation in the results section, while the complete data set of answers for each instrument would be supplied in the Appendices. This means that selection, formatting, and organization in the presentation of the data is key to success in this section. And while organization of the results section needs to address all results by grouping types of responses, such as under demographics or as a redux of long-answer open questions, the actual interpretation of the data is saved for the closing section on conclusions and recommendations.

With this caveat in mind, best practices in the presentation of results can be summarized as a necessary challenge for those new to mixed-methods research. Missing from many student research projects is an introduction to the breakdown of how results were selected to be presented in either this section or in the appendices. So, a good introduction to results needs to inform readers of the criteria for selection and mention specifically what data is in which location. With this established, the results’ introduction then needs to address how the data is presented and organized in terms of formatting. Drawing upon the 7th Edition of APA style guide for the formatting of data in this monograph, the presentation of results was broken down into questions (by number), figures or tables (both by name), by instrument or by types of data, each with a specific format as found in the current APA style guide, a format that governs the hierarchy of organization for placement and design of subheadings.

The research project on SM addiction, for example, organized their results section by instrument as a main sub-heading, and then identified components by question number, respondent number or as grouped by figures and tables, for a sub-sub-heading.  A sequential summary of all the data – by listing every question and all its responses defeats the value of grouping for unification by data types but does allow for consistency in presentation of results. The key points here are that each project needs a sufficient introduction to clearly delineate which data is present in which section, and then needs to prepare readers for the manner or format of how it is to be sequenced and organized. Challenges of format evident in student research projects include inadequate introductory paragraphs, loose treatment of the sub-heading hierarchy of the APA style, mismatched, misaligned or missing units or labels for either the x or y axis of graphs, and an absence of organization beyond the merely sequential.  Two research projects – on restaurant workers and on vaccine mandates – both presented a well grouped sequence of results and included the number of responses for each question as a best practice in results presentation.

Turning now to consider the concluding sections of research project reports, as mentioned earlier in this introduction, this section revealed how well each team came to terms with the limitations of the project, and then offered their recommendations of what could be adapted, improved, or re-used, in similar future research. The project on hobby use was the only project to design an original scale for differentiation of content, in their case, a taxonomy of hobbies by type. As the taxonomy was new and untried until their team reached the concluding steps of their project, their recommendations offered a critique of that taxonomy, to note that at the planning and draft phase there was some overlap of categories and a category for social hobbies should be added.   Since this project was essentially a proof of concept to test the hobby taxonomy, its scale and scope differed from all the other projects. To their team’s credit, their conclusions recognized this unique developmental status and its experimental nature.

As mentioned before, the project on Covid messaging clearly distinguished what was generalizable in their data results from what was not generalizable, yet the project team was still able to confirm their basic assumptions as outlined at the top of their report. Their recommendations suggested that a broader application of the topic of interest would be valuable in future research, and then proposed that with a larger, more representational, data set, the project has good potential for algorithmic data treatment using, for example, cluster analysis. Their conclusion acknowledged that the results were not definitive, but that they were able to confirm their assumption that governmental messaging has a significant impact on public perceptions, and, overall, their project added a small but valid local data set for future consideration.

The concluding section of the project on SM addiction demonstrated awareness of both limits and opportunities in its organization of conclusions and recommendations. Their team also acknowledged that there needs to be much more research on this topic, and, specifically, that the medical profession seems to be behind in recognizing the importance of this issue, i.e. the type of addiction needs to be established by an officially recognized symptomology. On this topic the team further suggested that a categorical distinction between symptoms and perception of those behaviour would need to be clearly delineated. Additional comments noted the need to match further research on similar content types to differentiate how distinct SM media-based platforms each create a distinctive set of habituation behaviours.  Suggested models valuable for future researchers on this topic include the use of data collection by cross-sectional, life-span, and longitudinal methods.

The project investigating the mental health of restaurant workers during Covid lockdowns made a significant contribution to scientific research on this under-developed subject. Caveats on the limitations of their project recognized the need to address the subjectivity of responses about themes related to mental health overall, and that their conception of the issue did not sufficiently address the margin of error in their data analysis. The paradigmatic shift evident in this project’s conception of mental health factors by industry is how Covid has changed the health conditions of workers in specific industries, and therefore is in need of further study not only within the restaurant sector, but within and across many industrial sectors of Western economies. Final thoughts by the team noted how the project failed to reach a significant sample of workers in diverse roles of the restaurant industry, how their results were less generalizable than expected, and that their report left readers to consider how local industry conditions with an impact on mental health can be improved. As the project came to completion, the existing limits on the sample size was addressed by a reduction in the scope of their reach to the Edmonton area alone. Overall, this conclusion was succinct and effective in tying many strands of interest together, and their team’s recommendations were well founded and adequately supported by their project.

The project on vaccine mandates also demonstrated a well-designed and clearly organized research project overall, and like the projects on mental health of students and of restaurant workers, it offered original, valid, and current conclusions from a local Edmonton context. While the project identified limits in their project design, all five sections of their report were well written, succinct, and appropriate in their use of research terminology, and demonstrated a very high standard of research methodology, description, and analysis. Unique among our sample projects, this team included a clear and comprehensive sense of self-reflexivity on the researcher’s potential for bias and acknowledged distinctive demographic and related lifestyle features for each individual member of the team. While the validity of statistical significance was not the focus of these primarily qualitative studies, the project on vaccine mandates was consistently logical and appropriate in conception and presentation.

Research Ethics

At least two realms of ethical consideration are necessary in research projects that engage human subjects, the general public’s ethical concerns related to the thematic topic of study, and in the individual ethical concerns that arise in any process of data collection such as by use of a survey instrument. Two of our student projects demonstrated models of research where ethical issues are well addressed. The project on Smart-phone addiction, for example, notes the basic ethical requirements of using a survey for data collection, while the project on vaccination mandates offers a rich discussion of the ethical issues related to public education and personal rights in terms of public health programs for vaccination compliance.

For a closer look at data collection with human subjects, those who participate in research with surveys, for example, have certain rights which must be protected by some form of consent and commonly a type of disclaimer. The latter, usually found within the introductory blurb at the opening of a survey, acknowledge the participant’s right to privacy of personal data, anonymity in their role as survey participant, and the voluntary nature of that participation, meaning that sample respondent can leave the project at any time.

Another common means to ensure anonymity is to ensure that there are no personal data references of private information anywhere in the project’s public presentation. There may be, however, a key to correlate a person with a designator, such as Respondent #35. This key can be used for internal logistics, such as for coding of results, when a follow-up contact is required, or for participant contact when sending a notice that the results are ready to be posted in a public setting. All our projects included some disclaimer at the top of their surveys to address anonymity and voluntariness. And disclaimers included a project contact (i.e. an email and person’s name) for further or interim correspondence in regard to the research project.

Participant consent is also required to acknowledge that respondents have given their permission to the project research team for use of the data provided in participant responses. All five research projects herein issued a consent form for participants to sign prior to engagement with any data collection instrument.

One further thought on research ethics deserves consideration. A third realm of ethical considerations for public research with human subjects is the institutional, in this case, students and faculty of MacEwan University are required to comply with the school’s guidelines as administered by the Research Ethics Board (REB). One of the common limitations of student research conducted in one discrete school term is that any participant reach that extends the cohort beyond the educational institution requires REB approval. While none of the five projects acknowledged that limit explicitly in relation to MacEwan University’s REB, all noted the limitation of scope in their sample populations as derived from only the student population within MacEwan’s Communication Studies department. And “REB approval” is presented in the project’s introductory disclaimer to the survey instrument, as in, “This project has been approved by the REB of MacEwan University.”

Abstracts

The final evaluative component required of a research team with the aim to have their monograph published, is an abstract written after all the project’s results have been interpreted. Students new to empirical research often struggle to include all the essential components of an abstract in a concise declarative manner.  Moreover, while a common mistake is to use the future tense, this treats an abstract as a summative proposal. Yet, while some reference to the future use of results based on the project’s conclusion are often present and appropriate, most abstracts are written in the present, past or past participle tense as an executive summary of what has already happened. Among our projects this post-hoc nature of abstracts was demonstrated in the abstracts on Covid mandates and on student hobby use during lockdown.

Content-wise, the abstract from our project on SM addiction included the topical field and focus of inquiry, a statement of the project’s intent, notes on the steps of the research process and a summation of the project’s conclusions. In addition to these components, the project on hobby use included a thesis, a hypothetical RQ for testing, and a succinct sample of key results. The project on vaccine mandates further included some of the basic assumptions required for derivation of their thesis and research questions. However, the abstracts did not make explicit distinctions between their primary research question and any secondary RQs or sub-questions.

A Conclusion

In review, this introduction has considered the breadth and depth in the parts, nature, and process of a cohesive whole, as required for effective project design and reportage. The survey of features from the five sample research projects has demonstrated not only aspects of the learning process confronted by students and instructors of mixed methods research but also a cautionary review of the challenges involved for the design, implementation and presentation of advanced academic research. As stated above, the intent was to explore the content and process of the learning journey of a senior undergraduate student, confronted by the challenges of original academic research. As readers progress through each research project, we can be mindful of both the challenges of quality research, and of the sense of achievement in completion of a rich educational experience. What is exciting for instructors is not only to follow the learning journey of five teams but to realize their efforts deserve to be recognized as comparable to graduate level research.