![]()
1
The Nature of Applied Research
More and more frequently, public and private institutions are calling upon social scientists and other analysts to apply their research skills to assist in tackling real-world social problems. The requests are extremely varied. They include studying physiciansâ efforts to improve patientsâ compliance with medical regimens, determining whether drug use is decreasing at a local high school, providing up-to-date information on the operations of new educational programs or policies, evaluating the impact of environmental disasters, or even analyzing the likely effects of yet-to-be-tried programs to reduce teenage pregnancy. Researchers are asked to estimate the costs of everything from shopping center proposals to weapons systems, and to address the relative effectiveness of alternative programs and policies. Increasingly, applied researchers are asked to contribute to major public policy debates and decisions. These activities often challenge the skills researchers have learned in the classroom, because the environment of applied research differs substantially from the environment of basic research.
This text is designed to help the applied social research practitioner translate what he or she has learned in the classroom to the applied research environment. Applied research can encompass a wide range of approaches and contexts. As a result of the authorsâ collective backgrounds in social psychology, social experimentation, and program evaluation, the book clearly reflects these orientations, particularly in the examples used. Thus less attention is given to survey research, epidemiologic research, and research outside of human services. Yet we believe the basic framework of the book can be applied to a variety of applied research problems and situations.
In addition, many of the examples used are based on our work as external researchers and evaluators in a variety of contextsâuniversity, state and federal government, and contract research firms. Again, we feel that much of the material in this volume is applicable to those who are in the role of internal evaluators; however, those readers interested in obtaining a greater understanding of the role of the internal evaluator are encouraged to review Love (1991).
We begin this first chapter by highlighting several of the differences between applied and basic research. We then stress a commonality: the need to engage in planning for research. Adequate planning is critical for conducting successful research, whether basic or applied. Planning to determine the focus of the research, planning to select the most appropriate design strategy, and planning to carry out the research are all stressed. At the end of this chapter, a research planning model is presented that will be used as the organizational framework throughout the text.
CONTRASTING BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH
Basic research is grounded firmly in the experimental method and has as its goal the creation of new knowledge about how fundamental processes work. In many ways, it is relatively protected research, allowed to build facts and theory incrementally in an environment generally of low stress and few outside influences or interruptions. Applied research also has its roots in the experimental method, but it uses scientific methodology to develop information aimed at clarifying or confronting an immediate societal problem. Its environment is often a messy one, with pressures for quick and conclusive answers, sometimes in very political contexts.
Outlining differences between basic and applied research is a risky undertaking. As quantitatively trained researchers, we are committed to the scientific method (i.e., designing rigorous research that aids in ruling out alternative explanations in drawing causal inferences), and we desire to carry out research that is technically sound. Highlighting differences between basic and applied research contexts can, at times, seem artificial to the reader or may create the impression that researchers in the applied community are âwilling to settleâ for something less than good science. This is not at all the case. Basic and applied research have many more commonalities than differences; however, their differences are critical for the applied researcher (and research consumer) to understand. A thorough understanding of the differences can help ensure that confusion and misunderstandings do not reign and that studies produce useful results as well as good science.
Basic and applied research differ in purposes, context, and methods. For ease of presentation we will discuss the differences as dichotomies; in reality, however, they fall on continua.
Differences in Purpose
One of the major differences between basic and applied research is the purpose, or the intentions, of the investigators or research sponsors (Nagi & Corwin, 1972). A summary of these differences is contained in Table 1.1 (adapted from Bickman, 1981).
The distinguishing feature of basic research is that it is intended to expand knowledge (i.e., to identify universal principles that contribute to our understanding of how the world operates). Thus it is knowledge, as an end in itself, that motivates basic research. Though it is often hoped that basic research findings will eventually be helpful in solving particular problems, such problem solving is not the immediate or driving goal of basic research. Applied research, in contrast, strives to improve our understanding of a specific problem, with the intent of contributing to the solution of that problem. Applied research also may result in new knowledge, but often on a more limited basis defined by the nature of an immediate problem.
Even though basic research is concerned much more with identifying universal principles, if one were to analyze the scope of basic and applied research studies, a much narrower scope would be found for most basic research investigations. Usually the basic researcher is investigating a very specific topic, and often this is a very tightly focused question. For example, what is the effect of white noise on the short-term recall of nonsense syllables? Or, what is the effect of cocaine use on fine motor coordination? The limited focus enables the researcher to concentrate on a single measurement task and to use rigorous design approaches that allow for maximum control of potentially confounding (disturbance) variables. In an experiment on the effects of white noise, the laboratory situation enables all other noise variables to be eliminated from the environment so that the focus can be exclusively on the effects of the variable of interest (i.e., the independent variable).
In contrast, the applied researcher often is faced with âfuzzyâ issues underneath which lie multiple, often broad research questions, and he or she is asked to address them in a rather âmessyâ or uncontrolled environment. For example, what was the effect of the former First Lady Nancy Reaganâs âJust Say Noâ drug abuse prevention program on high school students? Or, what are the causes of homelessness? In the first instance there are underlying questions of whether, and to what degree, the program was ever implemented. What was the program supposed to accomplish? What kinds of effects are relevantâknowledge of major drugs, use of drugs, attitudes toward drugs, and so forth?
Table 1.1
Comparison of the Purposes of Basic and Applied Research
Basic | Applied |
Develop universal knowledge | Understand/address problems |
Answer single questions | Answer multiple questions |
Discover statistically significant relationships or effects | Discover practically significant relationships or effects |
Even when the questions are well-defined, the environment is a complex one, one that makes it difficult for the researcher to eliminate competing explanations (i.e., events other than the program could be likely causes for changes in attitudes or behavior). Obviously, there were many other drug-related initiatives under way at the same time as the âJust Say Noâ campaign. The number and complexity of measurement tasks and the complex real-world research settings pose major challenges for applied researchers. They also often necessitate making conscious choices (or trade-offs) concerning the relative importance of answering various questions and the degree of confidence necessary for each answer.
Finally, there are differences between the analytic goals of basic and applied research. Basic researchers generally are concerned most with determining if an effect or causal relationship exists, if it is in the direction predicted, and if it is statistically significant (e.g., if the differences observed in short-term recall in the presence and absence of white noise would not be expected by chance). Here the ultimate goal is to determine the existence or nonexistence of a universal principle (e.g., the interfering nature of noise distractions on short-term memory). In applied research, however, both practical and statistical significance criteria are important. Applied research also is concerned with determining if a causal relationship exists, but when studying causal relationships, applied researchers tend to study variables that they hope will produce societally significant results, effects that are of sufficient size to be meaningful. The focus of the research and the criteria for practical significance must be set in consultation with the stakeholders for the researchâall parties with an investment in the research outcomes. From the research userâs standpoint, discovering that a specific reading exercise is capable of increasing reading ability by only 5% may be very uninteresting and unhelpful. The user will be much more interested in determining whether students have acquired reading skills that are of practical significance and in whether the program appears to be replicable elsewhere.
These differences obviously have implications for research design planning, necessitating extensive work for the applied researcher in understanding the purpose of the endeavor and in focusing the studyâs research questions. It is critical, therefore, that the applied researcher understand the level of outcome that will be considered meaningful by key audiences and interest groups. For example, what level of reduced drug use is considered a practically significant outcome of the âJust Say Noâ drug program? As with basic research, it is equally important in applied research to establish causal connections between the intervention (independent variable) and the effects or outcomes that are statistically significant. Applied research has the added responsibility of determining if the level of outcome attained is important or trivial.
Differences in Context
It is in the research context that some of the biggest differences between basic research and applied research are found. A summary of these differences is presented in Table 1.2. The contrasts in Table 1.2 are oversimplified greatly; it is very easy to find exceptions to specific dimensions. The contrasts, however, highlight some of the most important differences that generally distinguish the two types of research.
Where the research occurs is itself a major factor in these differences. Basic research most typically is conducted in universities or similar academic environments, relatively isolated from the government or business worlds. Applied research also may be conducted in universities, but generally its contexts are more numerous and diverse. Applied research often is conducted in or focuses on federal and congressional agencies, state governments and legislatures, local governments, oversight agencies, professional or advocacy groups, private research institutions, foundations, business corporations and organizations, and service delivery agencies, among others. These settings, and their corresponding characteristics, can pose quite different demands on the applied researcher; these demands are discussed in Chapter 5.
University basic research usually is self-initiated. The idea for the study, the approach to executing it, and even the time line generally are determined by the researcher. This is the case even when funding is obtained from the government through the rather flexible mechanism of a federal grant. The researcher behaves fairly autonomously, setting the study scope and approach. If there is a research team, it generally will comprise persons the researcher chooses from the same or similar disciplines.
Table 1.2
Comparison of the Contexts of Basic and Applied Research
