Jose A Salandanan | Maria Gwenetha Ybanez Pusta
A fundamental question that can be posed within any field of research is: What constitutes a high quality research practice? Since research is ontologically challenging, different views remain ambiguous. Patton (1990) mentioned that it is important to identify the purpose of research. Gall et al (1996) discussed how research might contribute in the field of education. Grinnell, 2000 considered the balance between realism and constructivism in everyday life. In our view, the practice of evaluation of research can be defined as an activity in which certain aspects of the quality of research practice are investigated. The current debate highlighting the problem of having evaluation is ‘led by the data rather than judgment’ (Hicks et al, 2015:429). An often cited definition of evaluation is “...a process for collecting and synthesizing evidence that can make conclusions about the state of affairs, value, merit, worth, significance or quality of a program” (Mathison, 2005) which implies that evaluation can use numerous methods and measure a wide variety of aspects. Quality is the focus and is examined in a variety of contexts such as (1) research grant evaluation (2) research manuscripts and publications (3) specific research topics (4) research groups and constellations (5) institutions and (6) national systems for producing innovation. The lack of widely acknowledged quality standards for research practice is somewhat surprising. A consequence of it is that judges of quality research university boards, scholars, funding agencies and journal reviewers apply the values and standards of their own minds, fields or discipline. This paper examines empirically and theoretically the interface of innovation, technology and research in designing a communication style guide. In order to achieve this policies on research design and practice will be drawn by the department to guide the crafting of the style guide.
ISSN 2012-2353 (Print)
Philippine E-Journals
