You're facing criticism on your research methodology. How do you defend its objectivity?

Todo pesquisador/investigador procura maneiras de como alcançar o objectivo da sua investigação ou pesquisa, neste caso as várias maneiras que o investigador vai levar até alcançar seu objectivo chamamos de metodologias de pesquisa (em linguagem "terra-a-terra). Neste sentido quando depara-se com uma situação de crítica da sua pesquisa é necessário mostrar de forma objectiva o que lhe levou a usar àquela metodologia. Contudo para evitar misunderstandings, é necessário que opte por metodologias claras, éticas, não subjectivas.

For example, while determining whether a rule or logic is actually working on a horoscope, we conduct a blind study of at least 30 samples and use research participants who have no knowledge of the individuals life. Thus our concern becomes a stronger case to justify the effect of such combinations upon an individual.

Take the criticism positively because it gives you different feedback and also helps you to know and analyze your research. To defend the objectivity of your research, explain your clear and detailed research design, ensuring it follows standard practices. Highlight your unbiased sampling methods and the use of standardized procedures. Show transparency by documenting your methods for others to replicate. Address potential biases and how you minimized them. Mention any peer reviews or expert feedback your work received. Discuss how ethical standards were followed, and explain your robust data analysis techniques. Acknowledge any limitations and how they were managed, ensuring they don't affect the overall validity of your findings.

Research methodology is very crucial and rigorous. The researchers must determine the research objective(s) that match the research question(s) and hypotheses. However, research strategy or design depends on the type of research, such as quantitative, qualitative approach, or mixed method. Research hypotheses are found only in quantitative research that employs inferential statistics at the significant values at *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001. Examples of hypotheses in statistical analysis using Chi-Square, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson Correlation, Multiple Regression Analysis, and PLS-SEM. However, hypotheses are not found in qualitative research. Sampling techniques and data collection are also crucial and linked to objective(s).

Defending the objectivity of your research methodology is crucial in ensuring its credibility and acceptance. Start by highlighting the robustness of your research design, emphasizing how it minimizes bias and ensures impartiality. Outline the steps taken to maintain neutrality, such as using random sampling, blinding procedures, and objective measurement tools. Addressing potential critiques transparently and showcasing how they were mitigated strengthens your position. Additionally, underline the methodological rigor by detailing the thoroughness of your procedures and the replicability of your results. Ethical considerations and peer perspectives also play a vital role in reinforcing the trustworthiness of your research.

All criticism on your methodology points to an areas that could possible be discussion points. When you are defending, take a mental note and later on expound on the answer in your discussions. This gives an added dimension to your defense.

Never look down at the intentions of the critiques. Whether it's a positive or a negative critique, respect the fact that they took time to evaluate your work. Genuinely consider their criticisms, it might point you out to a dimension of your study that you overlooked. It might result in a better, robust data. Even if the criticism would not help you improve your data/experimental outcome, try to defend it with the strength of your data, backed up with peer review and existing literature. Always be open to criticisms.

In my honest opinion engaging in a constructive dialogue with critics and being really open to feedback can help demonstrate your commitment to objectivity in your research methodology. By addressing concerns and being responsive to criticisms, you can show that you are willing to consider other perspectives and improve the rigor and validity of your study.

Embrace criticism. In a healthy environment, criticism comes to lead you to better results. Everyone wants the success of the team. So, it's common to face criticism. Some criticisms arise from misunderstandings of your process, which can help you make your explanations more didactic. Others come from comparisons between your methodology and others that someone might consider better. It's okay - look into these comparisons and consider whether there is a better approach than the one you chose. Learning new things and improving the research is part of the process.

The methodology depends on the research type; quantitative or qualitative research. In the case of quantitative, it needs to identify the study setting, sampling technique, sample size determination, sample selection criteria, data collection (such as a self-administered questionnaire survey using Likert-scale), and data analysis. Two types of statistics are employed for descriptive analysis (such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation). Another is inferential statistics, such as Regression and Structural Equation Modelling. A data collection period is also necessary. The most essential aspect of respondent participation is ethical approval.

To enhance the objectivity of your research, discuss the methodological rigor of your study. Highlight steps taken for quality control, such as: - **Peer review:** Submission to and evaluation by independent experts in the field. - **Pre-registration:** Registering study design, methods, and analysis plan before conducting research to prevent bias. - **Transparent reporting:** Clearly documenting procedures and results to facilitate reproducibility and scrutiny. - **Statistical rigor:** Applying robust statistical methods to ensure accurate interpretation of data. Emphasizing these aspects demonstrates your commitment to rigorous research standards, reinforcing the credibility and reliability of your findings.

Emphasize methodological rigor to defend the objectivity of your research. Highlight the systematic approach, detailed protocols, and ethical considerations embedded in your methodology. Explain how these factors contribute to unbiased data collection and reliable analysis. By showcasing your commitment to rigorous standards and ethical practices, you uphold the integrity of your research against criticism, fostering confidence in your findings among peers and stakeholders.

Highlight the replicability factor to strengthen your defense of research methodology objectivity. Discuss how you designed your study to be replicable, ensuring that other researchers can duplicate your methods and achieve similar results. Explain the steps you took to document procedures, maintain consistency, and validate findings through replication exercises or independent verification. By emphasizing replicability, you demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability, assuring critics that your findings are based on reliable, repeatable processes, thus reinforcing the credibility and robustness of your research.

In my experience these two points are essential when it comes to ethical considerations 1. Disclosure of any conflicts of interest: Researchers should disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that may bias their research or influence their findings. 2. Avoidance of undue influence or manipulation: Researchers should refrain from manipulating data or results to fit a particular narrative or agenda. They should also avoid allowing external pressures, such as funding sources or the desire for publication, to influence their research design or conclusions.

Ethical considerations are crucial for research methodology, especially in reputable journals, such as Scopus and WOS, in Q1 and Q2 categories. These journals require ethical approval from the nomination of the ethical team. If the researchers do research, please consider excluding the sample size of those younger than 18 to avoid ethical issues. Obtaining informed consent from participants is the way to address this ethical concern.

Ethical standard is the major factor a researcher must consider while going through the research process. A researcher must give credit to all those authors whom research work have been referred to. Secondly, Artificial intelligence is the tool available for researchers for all kinds of research works such as article writing, data analytics, reference management and so on. However, a researcher must rely on natural intelligence more then AI as a part of ensuring ethical standards. Use AI as your assistant don't become assistant of AI.

Ethical Considerations and Objectivity: Ethics and objectivity are intrinsically linked in research. Adherence to ethical standards, including informed consent and confidentiality, reinforces research integrity and objectivity. It demonstrates responsible conduct and absence of participant exploitation or harm. Emphasizing ethical compliance underscores the research's credibility and commitment to unbiased inquiry, enhancing its perceived objectivity and scientific value.

Peer reviews are beneficial for researchers, providing constructive comments to the authors. Ethics in research related to the reviewing process. Declaring a conflict of interest or competing interest helps the reviewer avoid these ethical issues. When the reviewer declares to the editorial team, consideration depends on choosing the appropriate reviewer for a manuscript.

Consider peer perspectives to bolster the defense of your research methodology's objectivity. Engage with fellow researchers or experts in your field to seek their independent assessments and feedback. Highlight any peer reviews or validations that support the reliability and validity of your methodology. Discuss how these perspectives contribute to a broader consensus on the robustness of your approach. Emphasizing peer validation demonstrates your methodology's credibility and strengthens your position against criticism, showing a commitment to rigorous standards and collective scrutiny within the scientific community.

Peer Perspectives and Validation: Leveraging peer perspectives is crucial in defending research objectivity. Endorsements from field experts who have reviewed and approved the methodology provide strong evidence of its soundness. Sharing positive feedback from colleagues or peer reviewers supports the research's validity and neutrality. Peer validation, a fundamental aspect of scholarly work, significantly enhances the perceived objectivity and credibility of the research within the academic community.

Anecdotes of defending my research methodology include one example where I needed to address concerns about sample size. I may have conducted a study with a small sample size, but I could point to how I mitigated this limitation by using rigorous statistical analysis or by comparing my findings with other studies in the field. Overall, defending the objectivity of our research methodology requires us to be transparent, thorough, and extremely open to feedback. By addressing criticisms head-on and incorporating constructive feedback, we can strengthen the credibility and validity of the research.