Menyusun pertanyaan riset, tujuan dan sasaran baik untuk riset kuantitatif maupun kualitatif

Kuantitatif: deskriptif, komparatif dan hubungan
Kualitatif: kontekstual, eksplanatori, evaluatif, generatif, ideologis, eksploratori, deskriptif, emansipatori

Doody O, Bailey ME (2016) Setting a research question, aim and objective.
Nurse Researcher. 23, 4, 19-23.

https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/NURS239/%CE%A0%CE%95%CE%A4%CE%A1%CE%9F%CE%A3%20%CE%93%CE%91%CE%9B%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%97%CE%A3/%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%98%CE%A1%CE%91/research.pdf

Kopertis12

Jurnal Scopus Indonesia – link

Jurnal Scopus Malaysia – link

ANTARA YANG MENARIK GUIDE INI

1. 8 STEP GUIDE CONDUCTING SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW (SLR).
2. FIGURE: A SYSTEMATIC GUIDE TO LITERATURE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
3. ARTICLE OKOLI (2015) INI TURUT MENYEDIAKAN PELABAGAI GUIDE LAIN CONTOHNYA SYNTHESIS, TERMINOLOGY, PROTOCOL, PRACTICAL TIPS & MACAM2 LAGI.

Nurul Fadly Habidin

Okoli, Chitu. “A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37 (2015).

40 questions often asked during viva.

1. Can you start by summarising your thesis?
2. Now, can you summarise it in one sentence?
3. What is the idea that binds your thesis together?
4. What motivated and inspired you to carry out this research?
5. What are the main issues and debates in this subject area?
6. Which of these does your research address?
7. Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
8. Who has had the strongest influence in the development of your subject area in       theory and practice?.
9. Which are the three most important papers that relate to your thesis?
10. What published work is closest to yours? How is your work different?
11. What do you know about the history of [insert something relevant]?
12. How does your work relate to [insert something relevant]?
13. What are the most recent major developments in your area?
14. How did your research questions emerge?
15. What were the crucial research decisions you made?
16. Why did you use this research methodology?
17. What did you gain from it?
18. What were the alternatives to this methodology?
19. What would you have gained by using another approach?
20. How did you deal with the ethical implications of your work?
21. How has your view of your research topic changed?
22. How have you evaluated your work?
23. How do you know that your findings are correct?
24. What are the strongest/weakest parts of your work?
25. What would have improved your work?
26. To what extent do your contributions generalise?
27. Who will be most interested in your work?
28. What is the relevance of your work to other researchers?
29. What is the relevance of your work to practitioners?
30. Which aspects of your work do you intend to publish – and where?
31. Summarise your key findings.
32. Which of these findings are the most interesting to you? Why?
33. How do your findings relate to literature in your field?
34. What are the contributions to knowledge of your thesis?
35. How long-term are these contributions?
36. What are the main achievements of your research?
37. What have you learned from the process of doing your PhD?
38. What advice would you give to a research student entering this area?
39. You propose future research. How would you start this?
40. What would be the difficulties?
41. And, finally… What have you done that merits a PhD?

http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156

Trafford and Leshem (2008). Map your thesis.

• Mengapa survei, apa kelebihannya?
• Apa yang dimaksud dengan desain survei?
• Populasi, sapling, unit analisis
• Pengembangan instrumen survei
• Variabel
• Jenis pertanyaan survei Penjelasan analsis data dan pelaporan

Priscilla A. Glasow. 2005. Fundamentals of Survey Research Methodology

Mohd Yusri Ibrahim

Sumber Dana Riset…

Sumber Dana Riset-1

Sumber :

Ristekdikti

1. Guilfort (1954) recommend minimum sample size 200 for consistent factor recovery.
2. Comrey (1973) suggest a range minimum sample sizes, from 50 (very poor) to 1000 (excellent) and advised to researcher sample size larger than 500.
3. Gorsuch (1974) sample size below 50 (small) & above 200 (larger).
4. Cattell (1978) proposed 500 would be a good sample size & however 200 or 250 could be acceptable.
5. Boomsma (1982) sample size less 100 (dangerous) & recommend 200 (safe) sample size.
6. Maccallum et al., (199) & maccallum et al., (2001) minum sample size of 60.
7. Sapnas and Zeller (2002) sample size range 50-100 was adequate.
8. etc.

de Winter, JCF de, D. I. M. I. T. R. A. Dodou∗, and P. A. Wieringa. “Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes.” Multivariate behavioral research 44, no. 2 (2009): 147-181.

• Mengapa skala Likert?
• Variasi skala Likert
• Apakah skala 7 lebih baik dari skala 5?
• …

Joshi, Ankur, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel, and D. K. Pal. “Likert scale: Explored and explained.” British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7, no. 4 (2015): 396.

Diskusi Skala Likert:
DSG
ResearchGate