Mouton, Johann, and Astrid Valentine. 2017. “The Extent of South African Authored Articles in: Predatory Journals.” South African Journal of Science 113 (7–8): 1–9. doi:10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010.

1. Penelitian deskriptif dibuat terutama untuk menjelaskan apa yang sedang terjadi. Misalnya polling opini publik dilakukan untuk menerangkan persentase berbagai pendapat orang tentang sesuatu hal, pilihan calon pemimpin atau partai politik.
2. Penelitian relasional melihat hubungan antara dua atau lebih variabel. Misalnya polling opini yang membandingkan proporsi laki-laki dan perempuan dalam memilih suatu partai, merupakan studi tentang hubungan antara jenis kelamin dengan preferensi partai yang dipilih.
3. Penelitian sebab-akibat dirancang untuk menentukan apakah satu atau lebih variabel dapat menyebabkan atau mempengaruhi variabel-variabel lainnya. Misalnya penelitian tentang hubungan antara iklan politik dengan preferensi pemilihan partai.

Ketiga jenis penelitian tersebut dapat dilakukan sekaligus. Penelitian relasional megasumsikan adanya penjelasan (dengan pengamatan maupun pengukuran) variabel-variabel yang ingin dihubungkan. Penelitian sebab-akibat mengasumsikan peneliti telah menjelaskan masing-masing variabel penyebab mapun variabel akibat, serta menunjukkan bagaimana variabel-variabel tersebut berhubungan satu sama lain.

Hubungan adalah korespondensi antara dua variabel. Hubungan ini ada yang bukan hanya korelasional, tapi juga sebab-akibat. Hubungan korelasional menunjukkan dua variabel yang bergerak secara sinkron. Misalnya hubungan antara jumlah jalan di Eropa dengan jumlah anak yang lahir di Amerika. Ini merupakan hubungan korelasional, bukan sebab-akibat. Contoh hubungan sebab akibat: apabila pendapatan meningkat, permintaan akan barang juga meningkat.

Pola-pola hubungan

Contoh figure 1.1d adalah hubungan antara dosis obat dengan keparahan penyakit. Bila dosis obat ditingkatkan, keparahan akan berkurang; namun pada titik tertentu karena over dosis, justru meningkatkan keparahannya.

William Trochim, James P. Donnelly (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Penelitian studi kasus dapat bersifat kualitatif maupun kuantitatif. Perkembangan penelitian ini dapat dijelaskan melalui gambar berikut.

Selengkapnya:
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 18(1). http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04998.x

1. Jangan menyerah
2. Kebaruan
3. Baca dan kritik
4. Independen
5. Tulis
6. Baca tesis
7. Publikasi
8. Jangan malu
9. Kenali penguji

Key TAKEAWAYS:
✅No Quitting, MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!
✅Novelty, ALWAYS BE UNIQUE!
✅Read and Criticize, BOLDNESS!
✅Your SV will only Guide You, BE INDEPENDENT!
✅Writing, THE KEY TO EVERYTHING!
✅Read some Theses as well, GET TO KNOW END-PRODUCT!
✅Publish, PUBLISHING SHOULD BE YOUR SOUL!
✅Shy?, NOTHING SHOULD STOP YOU FROM ATTAINING A SOLUTION!
✅Examiner, GET TO KNOW HIS BACKGROUND!

Choosing  or Designing Effective Survey Instruments: Tips to Apply

Norsiah binti Mat – Survey Instruments 7 NOV 2017

Choosing The Right Sampling Technique for Your Research

AWANIS PRESENTATION ON SAMPLING.pdf

AWANIS PRESENTATION ON SAMPLING.pptx

1. ISI-Journal: Institute for Scientific Information Journal 
2. Sekarang dikendalikan oleh Clarivate Analytics 
3. Dahulunya, Clarivate Analytics adalah di bawah Thomson Reuters 
4. Thomson Reuters adalah perusahaan yang mengelola THE World University Rankings

Syahrir Bin Zaini

Koma Oxford (the Oxford comma) atau koma serial, merupakan koma yang digunakan sebelum kata sambung (dan, atau) pada akhir penyebutan tiga istilah atau lebih. Ketiadaan koma dapat menyebabkan tafsiran berbeda.

Di Amerika Serikat ketiadaan sebuah koma dapat menyebabkan gugatan hukum. Para sopir truk di sebuah perusahaan susu di negara bagian Maine melayangkan gugatan dan pengadilan federal menyatakan gugatan tersebut layak dilanjutkan. Para sopir truk menggugat perusahaan tempat mereka bekerja sebesar 10 juta dolar AS atau Rp 133 miliar karena upah lembur yang tidak dibayarkan selama empat tahun. Dasar gugatan itu adalah undang-undang ketenagakerjaan Maine yang menyatakan upah lembur tidak dibayarkan bagi pekerja “pengalengan, pemrosesan, pengawetan, pembekuan, pengeringan, pemasaran, penyimpanan, pengemasan untuk pengapalan atau distribusi” makanan.

Para sopir mengatakan pekerjaan mereka tidak termasuk dalam pengecualian upah lembur di atas sehingga layak atas bayaran tambahan. Kata-kata yang menjadi dasar para sopir dalam undang-undang adalah “pengemasan untuk pengapalan atau distribusi” yang dianggap menjadi satu dalam aktivitas pengemasan, sedangkan mereka hanya mendistribusikan saja. Pihak perusahaan dalam pembelaannya mengatakan, kalimat dalam UU di atas adalah dua aktivitas berbeda, yaitu pengapalan atau distribusi, sehingga sopir masuk dalam pengecualian itu.
Permasalahannya di sini adalah tidak adanya koma serial atau yang dikenal dengan nama Oxford Comma dalam kalimat tersebut.

Gambar berikut menjelaskan mengenai perbedaan arti sehubungan dengan koma Oxford.

Sumber:

Oxford Comma
Kumparan, 19 Maret 2017. Perkara Tanda Koma Berujung Gugatan Rp 133 Miliar di AS

Birukou

Berdasarkan informasi di bawah ini, kebanyakan jurnal terindeks Scopus memerlukan waktu minimum tiga bulan untuk menerbitkan artikel. Ada yang mengatakan paling cepat 3 atau 4 minggu.

https://www.editage.com/…/a-list-of-journals-and…
A list of journals and publishers that offer rapid publication | Editage …
http://www.jestr.org/
JESTR: Home
https://www.researchgate.net/…/Is_there_any_rapid…
Is there any rapid publication journals that are indexed by ISI or …
https://www.springer.com/…/springer-fast-track…/4418
Springer Fast Track Journal Publishing: 20 Days to Publication!
http://gssrr.org/
International Journals of Research Papers (IJRP)
https://www.iaeme.com/Reason-for-Choosing-IAEME-Journals.asp
IAEME Publication, IJMET, IJCIET Scopus Indexed Journal, IJCET …
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/…/new-fast-track…
New: Fast Track Publication Service – News – Elsevier
https://www.ripublication.com/call_for_papers/ijaer.pdf
SCOPUS Indexed Journal – Research India Publications
https://www.quora.com/How-should-I-get-my-paper-published…
How should I get my paper published on a Scopus-indexed journal …
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish
PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

FB DSG

lama waktu masa tunggu terbit dutation time fast rapid publication journal weeks months average review process period makalah 

Keywords:

Rigor, trustworthiness, internal, external, validity, reliability, credibility, transferability, coherence, replicability, dependability, authenticity, plausibility, confirmability, triangulation, consistency, neutrality, objectivity, applicability, fittingness, auditability, consistency, replicability.

)|(

To establish the “trustworthiness” of findings from studies using qualitative methods, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose that we assess the research in terms of its:

• Credibility. The “truth” of the findings, as viewed through the eyes of those being observed or interviewed and within the context in which the research is carried out.
• Transferability. The extent to which findings can be transferred to other settings. In order for findings to be transferable, the contexts must be similar. Therefore, it is the role of the researcher to identify key aspects of the context from which the findings emerge and the extent to which they may be applicable to other contexts.
• Dependability. The extent to which the research would produce similar or consistent findings if carried out as described, including taking into account any factors that may have affected the research results.
• Confirmability. Researchers need to provide evidence that corroborates the findings. Such evidence should come directly from subjects and research context, rather than the researcher’s biases, motivations, or perspectives.

(Devers, 1999)

)|(

(Creswell & Miller, 2000)

)|(

Reliability and Validity in Quantitative Research

Reliability means consistency or the degree to which a research instrument measures a given variable consistently every time it is used under the same condition with the same subjects. It is important to note that reliability applies to data not to measurement instruments. From different perspectives or approaches, researchers can evaluate the extent to which their instruments provide reliable data.

Validity refers to the accuracy of research data. A researcher’s data can be said to be valid if the results of the study measurement process are accurate. That is, a measurement instrument is valid to the degree that it measures what it is supposed to measure.

To judge the quality or (a) credibility and (b) dependability of a qualitative study, the following questions compiled from various studies can be asked (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 278–279):

Credibility (instead of validity) questions:

• How context-rich and detailed are the basic descriptions?
• Does the account ‘ring true’, make sense, seem convincing or plausible, enable a ‘vicarious presence’ for the reader?
• Is the account rendered comprehensive, respecting the configuration and temporal arrangement of elements in the local context?
• Did triangulation among complementary methods and data sources generally lead to converging conclusions? If not, is there a coherent explanation for this?
• Are the presented data linked to the categories of prior or emergent theory if used?
• Are the findings internally coherent and concepts systematically related?
• Were guiding principles used for confirmation of propositions made explicit?
• Are areas of uncertainty identified?
• Was negative case or evidence sought for? Found? What happened then?
• Have rival explanations been actively considered? What happened to them?
• Were the conclusions considered to be accurate by the participants involved in the study?
• If not, is there a coherent explanation for this?

Dependability (instead of reliability) questions:

• Are research questions clearly defined and the features of the study design congruent with them?
• Are basic paradigms and analytic constructs clearly specified?
• Are the researcher’s role and status within the site explicitly described?
• If multiple field-researchers are involved, do they have comparable data collection protocols?
• Do multiple observers’ accounts converge, in instances, settings, or times when they might be expected to?
• Were data connected across the full range of appropriate settings, times, respondents suggested by the research questions?
• Were coding checks made and did they show adequate agreements?
• Were data quality checks for bias, deceit, informant knowledgeability etc. made?
• Do findings show meaningful parallelism across data sources (informants, contexts, and times)?
• Were any forms of peer or colleague review employed?

To assess the rigour of qualitative research, Lincoln and Guba (1985) resort to the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to express the quantitative concepts of internal validity, external validity (generalisability), reliability, and objectivity respectively. Credibility means that the participants involved in the study find the results of the study true or credible.

Transferability is achieved if the findings of a qualitative study are transferable to other similar settings. Thick description of the setting, context, people, actions, and events studied is needed to ensure transferability or external validity in quantitative terms. The study has dependability (reliability) if the process of selecting, justifying and applying research strategies, procedures and methods is clearly explained and its effectiveness evaluated by the researcher and confirmed by an auditor, which is called ‘audit trail’. The study enjoys confirmability when its findings are based on the analysis of the collected data and examined via an auditing process, i.e. the auditor confirms that the study findings are grounded in the data and inferences based on the data are logical and have clarity, high utility or explanatory power.

In short, terms such as credibility, trustworthiness, authenticity, neutrality or confirmability, dependability, applicability or transferability and the like are those that qualitative researchers use most in their discussion of the concepts of reliability and validity

(Yilmaz, 2013)

)|(

While some argue for the same criteria as quantitative research (Morse et al., 2002), others argue for different criteria (Sandelowski, 1986; Koch and Harrington, 1998), while still others reject any pre-determined criteria (Hope and Waterman, 2003; Johnson and Waterfield, 2004; Rolfe, 2006).

While it has been argued that each approach requires different criteria (Koch and Harrington, 1998), the commonly accepted criteria that are applied across approaches are summarized Table 4. Transferability is contingent on credibility, which in turn is contingent on dependability and confirmability. Trustworthiness refers to the confidence or trust one can have of a study and its findings (Robson, 2011) and is determined by those assessing a study (c.f. quantitative research that refers to validity which is judged by researcher).

(Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012)

References

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Devers, K. J. (1999). How Will We Know “Good” Qualitative Research When We See It? Beginning the Dialogue in Health Services Research. HSR: Health Services Research, 34(5), 1153–1188. http://doi.org/http://www.hsr.org/

Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy, 17(5), 378–384. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.004

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions : epistemological , theoretical. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325. http://doi.org/doi:10.1111/ejed.12014