Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 176–200 of 495 results
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 →If the relationship you expect does not appear, your study has not automatically failed. The important question is whether the evidence meaningfully challenges the expected relationship or whether the study remains too uncertain to tell.
Read Guide →A worthwhile study should not depend entirely on producing the result you hope to find. Before collecting data, ask what would actually be learned if the main relationship, difference, or effect turns out to be null.
Read Guide →Research does not become unnecessary merely because you expect the same result as previous studies. The real question is whether another study would meaningfully increase confidence, precision, generalizability, theoretical understanding, or the usefulness of the existing evidence.
Read Guide →A gap in the literature does not automatically justify another study. Before collecting new data, determine whether existing evidence already answers the important question with enough confidence that your proposed study would change very little.
Read Guide →A promising research idea becomes a viable project only when you can explain how it will actually be carried out. Learn how to turn your question into an aligned, feasible research plan.
Read Guide →Not every research decision needs to be finalized at the beginning. Some details can remain provisional, provided that flexibility does not compromise the research question, ethics, methodological integrity, or the credibility of the eventual findings.
Read Guide →Data collection is a major commitment point in a research project. Before it begins, finalize the decisions that determine who or what will be studied, what evidence will be collected, how it will be collected and protected, and how that evidence will answer the research question.
Read Guide →A research project becomes easier to manage when you divide it into stages based on meaningful outputs and dependencies rather than creating one enormous task list. The stages will vary by study, but each should move the project toward a clear readiness point or deliverable.
Read Guide →Research milestones are meaningful checkpoints that show whether a project has reached an important state of readiness or completion. The right milestones depend on the study, but they should be observable, consequential, and useful for deciding what happens next.
Read Guide →A fixed submission or graduation deadline should determine when earlier research milestones need to happen. Work backward from the true final requirement, account for dependencies and review time, and identify early when the proposed study no longer fits the available time.
Read Guide →Research delays often occur in the less visible work surrounding data collection, including approvals, access, recruitment, data preparation, analysis, review, and revision. Identifying these uncertainties early can make your timeline considerably more realistic.
Read Guide →A research protocol is the operational blueprint for how a study will actually be conducted. Create it once the research question and broad design are sufficiently developed, and before activities that require a stable, reviewable, or approved study plan begin.
Read Guide →A research plan should be detailed enough that the next consequential stage can proceed scientifically, ethically, and consistently without relying on important decisions being improvised later. It does not need to predict every minor operational detail or eliminate legitimate methodological flexibility.
Read Guide →Research plans sometimes need to change. When they do, assess why the change is necessary, determine what else it affects, document the decision, obtain any required approval before implementation, and report consequential departures transparently.
Read Guide →