RESEARCH METHODOLOGY &

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

21RMI56

Module 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Course Objectives
CO1. To Understand the knowledge on basics of research
and its types.
CO2. To Learn the concept of Literature Review, Technical
Reading, Attributions and Citations.
CO3. To learn Ethics in Engineering Research.
CO4. To Discuss the concepts of Intellectual Property Rights
in engineering.
 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 that which is unknown and useful
on a particular aspect so as to make an original contribution to expand
the existing knowledge base.

• Research is a process of creating, or formulating knowledge that does

not yet exist.
• Booth explains that the 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

Fig. 1.1 The research flow diagram
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
The ways of developing and accessing knowledge come in three, somewhat overlapping,
broad categories:

(i) Observation is the most fundamental way of obtaining information

from a source, and it could be significant in itself if the thing that we are
trying to observe is really 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 .
(ii) 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 modeling equation captures the
relationship between different attributes or the behavior of the device in an
abstract form and enables us to understand the observed phenomena.

(iii) 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.
Fig. 1.2 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: AdaptiveControl of Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells) (Area-
> Topic-> Problem).

• Getting a good problem to solve is more than half the work done. However,
sometimes the journey 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.
1.1 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 has to 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.
• 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.
1.2 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:
(i) Wanting to do better than what has been achieved in the world,
(ii) improve the state of the art in technology,
(iii) Contribute to the improvement of society,
(iv) Fulfillment 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.
 1.3 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.

• (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 behavioral studies such as clustering effect in intersections in
Transportation engineering to make a proposition.
1.4
•
Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem
The recommended steps to solve a research problem are
(i) Understand the problem, restate it as if its 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.
 Chapter 5
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.

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,

5.1 Ethics in Engineering Research Practice
• 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.

• Engineering ethics gives us the rule book; tells us, how to

decide what is okay to do and what is not.
Researchers make many choices that matter from an ethical perspective
and influence the effects of technology in many different 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 fulfill 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 have to choose between different

alternatives fulfilling similar functions.
 5.2 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 so as to
avoid errors, protecting the welfare of research subjects, ensuring laboratory
safety, and so forth. In order to prevent mistakes, peer reviews should take place
before the research output is published.

• 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.
• 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.

• 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 ownwithout 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.
• A commonly used tool among researchers is iTheticate: http://www.ithenticate.com/.
• iThenticate is a plagiarism detection service for the corporate market, from Turnitin, LLC, which
also runs Plagiarism.org.
How are supervisors, reviewers or editors alerted to plagiarism?
(i) Original author comes to know and informs everyone concerned.
(ii) Sometimes a reviewer finds out about it during the review process.
(iii) Or, readers who come across the article or book, while doing research.

(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.
5.3 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
honors.

• 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” (coauthorship bestowed on someone with little or no contribution to
the work) authors dilutes the contribution of those who actually did the work, inappropriately
inflates credentials of the listed authors, and is ethically a red flag highlighting research
misconduct.

• There is also an unfortunate malpractice of coauthorship 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.

• 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 else- where, and strongly discourage double submission.
 MODULE-I

1. What is Research? With the help of neat diagram explain Research Flow?
2. Explain categories of knowledge research with a diagram?
3. Mention and explain the objective of Engineering Research?
4. Explain the motivation of Engineering Research?
5. Mention the different types of Research?
6. Explain analytical, descriptive, and applied research?
7. What is Ethics? Explain Ethics in Engineering Research Practice?
8. Explain different types of Research Misconduct?

9. What are the ethical issues related to Authorship?

 MODULE-2
Chapter 2
Literature Review and Technical Reading

A lit review surveys, summarizes, and links information about a given topic.

A good lit review assesses this information and distills it for the reader.
“A lit review should provide
a conceptual framework.” –
Dean Schwartz
• The primary goal of literature review is to know the use of
content/ideas/approaches in the literature to correctly identify the problem that is
vaguely known beforehand, to advocate a specific approach adopted to
understanding the problem, and to access the choice of methods used.

• It also helps the researcher understand clearly that the research to be undertaken
would contribute something new and innovative. The quality of such review can
be determined by evaluating if it includes appropriate breadth and depth of the
area under study, clarity, rigor, consistency, effective analysis.
2.1 New and Existing Knowledge
• New knowledge in research can only be interpreted within the context of what is
already known, and cannot exist without the foundation of existing knowledge.

• The existing knowledge is needed to make the case that there is a problem and
that it is important.

• Where does this existing knowledge come from? Normally, one finds this
knowledge by reading and surveying the literature in the field that was
established long ago and also about the more recent knowledge which is in fact
always changing.
• Often, but not always, the textbooks contain the older established
knowledge and the research papers the newer work. Reading the
textbooks on one’s topic provide the established knowledge and the
background to be able to read the newer work usually recorded in the
research papers.

• Researcher may find oneself continually going back to other sources to

try and interpret what is going on in a particular research paper. It can be
difficult to find the right work to read, but the objective with all this
reading and learning is to be able to get the knowledge that one needs to
build the foundation.
• The review process must explain how a research item builds on another
one. This is because useful research should elucidate how and why
certain technical development took place, so that it is easy for the
reader to comprehend why the present talk is being undertaken, and a
good literature survey would provide a convincing under to that
question.

• An effective review of literature ensures a firm foundation for

advancing knowledge, facilitates theoretical growth, eliminates as areas
that might be of interest, and opens new avenues of possible work. An
efficient literature review is centered around concepts and not authors.
• Generally, a good literature survey is the first expectation of a supervisor from
the research student, and when done well can create a good impression that the
state of art in the chosen field is well understood.

• A good literature review would not draw hasty conclusions and look into the
individual references to determine the underlying causes/assumptions/mechanisms
in each of them so as to synthesize the available information in a much more
meaningful way.
• A literature review should be able to summarize as to what is already
known from the state of the art, detail the key concepts and the main
factors or parameters and the underlying relationships between those,
describe any complementary existing approaches, enumerate the
inconsistencies or shortcomings in the published work, identify the
reported results that are inconclusive or contradictory, and provide a
compulsive reason to do further work in the field.
A good literature survey is typically a two-step process as enumerated below:
(i) Identify the major topics or subtopics or concepts relevant to the subject under
consideration.
(ii) Place the citation of the relevant source(article/patent/website/data, etc.) in the
correct category of the concept/topic/subtopic.

It could be that as one is reading and comes across something that one considers to be
very important for one’s work, a core principle or a description of something that just
sounds really good, and one is excited to have found it. Naturally, one highlights that
section or underlines it, or put an asterisk in the margin, so that one could come back
to it later. Effectively, one is saying that it is important and hence the marking so as
not to forget it.
Then one should write about the highlighted part without copying
it. As one writes about why one thinks that part is important and what it
contains, one is automatically changing it and making it fit into one’s
foundation in the way that makes sense. There are shaping and crafting
of that piece of knowledge to fit where one needs it to be. To build the
knowledge foundation, one needs to be reading and learning
continually. But that is not enough, one also needs to be writing about
what one has read.
A comprehensive literature survey should methodically analyze and
synthesize quality archived work, provide a firm foundation to a topic of
interest and the choice of suitable research methodologies, and
demonstrate that the proposed work would make a novel contribution to
the overall field of research.
2.2 Analysis and Synthesis of Prior Art

A literature survey grid of N topics and M sources is shown below to help

crystallize the information in different categories.
A researcher should analyze the relevant information ascertained in Table 2.1
by undertaking the following steps:

(i) Understanding the hypothesis,

(ii) Understanding the models and the experimental conditions used,
(iii) Making connections,
(iv) Comparing and contrasting the various information, and
(v) Finding out the strong points and the loopholes.
“The best lit reviews tell a good story.” – Regina Winters
• A lit review provides context and background for your work.

• It’s an essay, a synthesis of information relevant to your work.

Table 2.1 The literature survey grid

• The goal of literature survey is to bring out something new to work on through the
identification of unsolved issues, determine the problems in the existing models or
experimental designs, and present a novel idea and recommendations.

Here are a few criteria that could help the researcher in the evaluation of the information under
study:
• Authority: What are the author’s credentials and affiliation? Who publishes the information?
• Accuracy: Based on what one already knows about the topic or from reading other sources,
does the information seem credible? Does the author cite other sources in a reference list or
bibliography, to support the information presented?
• Scope: Is the source at an appropriate comprehension or research level?
There are other criteria to consider as well, such as currency, objectivity, and purpose. It is
important to ensure that the search question is neither too narrow nor too broad.
 2.3 Bibliographic Databases
• “Bibliographic databases” refer to “abstracting and indexing services” useful for
collecting citation-related information and possibly abstracts of research articles
from scholarly literature and making them available through search.

• A researcher should be able to quickly identify the databases that are of use in the
idea or problem that one wishes to explore.

• Web of Science
Web of Science (formerly known as ISI or Thomson Reuters) includes multiple
databases, as well as specialized tools. It is a good search tool for scholarly
materials requiring institutional license and allows the researcher to search in a
particular topic of interest, which can be made by selection in fields that are
available in drop down menu such as title, topic, author, address, etc. The tool also
allows sorting by number of citations (highest to lowest), publication date.
• A structured search like this that enables narrowing and refining what one is
looking for is effective to ensure that the results throw up relevant sources and
time spent in studying those is likely to bewell utilized. Based on the researcher’s
need the search result can be broadened or narrowed down using the built-in fields
provided in this website. When clicked on any of the search results, this website
provides the title of the paper, authors, the type of journal, volume, issue number
and year of publication, abstract, keywords, etc., so that the researcher has enough
information to decide if it is worthwhile to acquire the full version of the paper.
Google and Google Scholar
• Google is a great place to start one’s search when one is starting out on a topic. It
can be helpful in finding freely available information, such as reports from
governments, organizations, companies, and so on. However, there are limitations:

• (i) It’s a “black box” of information. It searches everything on the Internet, with
no quality control—one does not know where results are coming from.
• (ii) There are limited search functionality and refinement options.
Google Scholar limitations:
1. Some of the results are not actually scholarly. An article may look
scholarly at first glance, but is not a good source upon further
inspection.
2. It is not comprehensive. Some publishers do not make their content
available to Google Scholar.
3. There is limited search functionality and refinement options.
2.4 Effective Search: The Way Forward
Searching is an iterative process:
• Experiment with different keywords and operators;
• Evaluate and assess results, use filters;
• Modify the search as needed; and
• When relevant articles are found, look at their citations and references.

Literature survey is a continuous and cyclical process that may involve the
researcher going back and forth till the end of the research project.
• It is very important to not lose sight of the purpose of an extensive
search or literature survey, for it is possible to spend a very
significant amount of one’s time doing so and actually falsely think
that one is working hard.
• It is mandatory for a Ph.D. scholar to write a synopsis of the topic
and submit it to the doctoral committee for approval. During this
stage, the scholar needs to undertake an extensive literature survey
connected with the problem. For this purpose, the archived journals
and published or unpublished bibliographies are the first place to
check out. One source leads to another.
2.5 Introduction to Technical Reading

• Finding the right work to read can be difficult. The literature where knowledge is archived is very fragmented
and there are bits and pieces all over the place. Very rarely will one find everything that one wants close
together in one place.
• However, it is obvious that the number of papers relevant to a particular researcher is very few, compared to
the actual number of research papers available from peer-reviewed technical sources.

• Given the abundance of journal articles, it is useful to adopt a quick, purposeful, and useful way of reading
these manuscripts. It is not the same as reading a newspaper. It may require rereading the paper multiple
times and one might expect to spend many hours reading the paper.

• There will also be papers where it is notworth reading all the details in the first instance. It is quite possible
that the details are of limited value, or simply one does not feel competent to understand the information yet.
• Start out the skimming process by reading the title and keywords (these are any- ways, probably what caught
the initial attention in the first place). If on reading these, it does not sufficiently seem to be interesting; it is
better to stop reading and look forsomething else to read. One should then read the abstract to get an
overview of the paper in minimum time. Again, if it does not seem sufficiently important to the field of study,
one should stop reading further. If the abstract is of interest, one should skip most of the paper and go straight
to the conclusions to find if the paper is relevant to the intended purpose, and if so, then one should read the
figures, tables, and the captions therein, because these would not take much time but would provide a broad
enough idea as to what was done in the paper.

• If the paper has continued to be of interest so far, then one is now ready to delve into the Introduction section
to know the background information about the work and also to ascertain why the authors did that particular
study and in what ways the paper furthers the state of the art. The next sections to read are the Results and
Discussion sections which is really the heart of the paper. One should really read further sections like the
Experimental Setup/Modeling, etc., only if one is really interested and wishes to understand exactly what was
done to better understand the meaning of the data and its interpretation.
 MODULE-II

1. Write a short note on Literature Review?

2. Explain Existing knowledge and New Knowledge?
3. List and explain the criteria that could help the researcher in the evaluation of information under study?
4. Write a short note on Bibliographic Database?
5. Explain various search operators in Web of Science while doing effective research?
6. Explain Technical reading with respect to engineering research?