BRMK557

Research Methodology &

Intellectual Property Rights
Textbooks
1. Dr. Santosh M Nejakar, Dr. Harish Bendigeri “Research Methodology and Intellectual Property
Rights”, ISBN 978-93-5987-928-4, Edition: 2023-24.

Reference Book: 1. David V. Thiel “Research Methods for Engineers” Cambridge University
Press, 978-1-107-03488- 4 – 2. Intellectual Property Rights by [Link] Asia Law House 6th
Edition. ISBN: 978-93-81849-30-9
 Module I
Introduction: Meaning of Research, Objectives of Engineering Research, and
Motivation in Engineering Research, Types of Engineering Research, Finding
and Solving a Worthwhile Problem.
Ethics in Engineering Research, Ethics in Engineering Research Practice, Types
of Research Misconduct, Ethical Issues Related to Authorship.
Introduction: What Is 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 involves formulation of hypothesis or proposition of solutions, data
analysis, and deductions; and ascertaining whether the conclusions fit the hypothesis.
Research is a process of creating, or formulating knowledge that does not yet exist.
Booth et al. [1] 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 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
started with in the first place as shown in Fig. 1.1.
Meaning of Research Cont.,

Fig. 1.1

The research flow diagram

The building up of background for doing research includes one to
acquire the ability to connect different areas.

The purpose is to prepare the mind for active work as opposed to

becoming a repository or an encyclopaedia.

Research is not just about reading a lot of books and finding a lot of,
gathering a lot of existing information.

It is instead adding, maybe small and specific, yet original,

contribution to that existing body of knowledge.
So, research is about how one poses a question which has relevance to the
world that we are living in, and while looking for that answer one has to be as
systematic as one can be.
There must be a balance between what is achievable in a research program
with a finite endpoint and also, the contribution it is going to make.
The objective of a good research program is to try and gain insight into
something. Or indeed, to try and solve a problem.
Good research questions develop throughout the project actually and one can
even keep modifying them.
Through research, one would like to make, or develop, new knowledge about
the world around us which can be written down or recorded in some way, and
that knowledge can be accessed through that writing or recording.
There are 3 ways of developing and accessing knowledge
(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 such as
measurements in a laboratory,
survey among a group of subjects,
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.
The categories of knowledge as enumerated above are shown in Fig.
1.2.
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: Adaptive Control 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.
Engineering research is the process of developing the perspectives and seeking
improvements in knowledge and skills to enable the recognition, planning,
design, and execution of research in a wide range of forms relevant for
engineering and technology investigations and developments.
We can start off by describing some problem in the world that exists that is
bugging or worrying us and that we should be addressing.
It could be that there is something we would like to do or accomplish but
currently cannot because we lack the knowledge to do so.
It could be that there is something that already works, but we do not know why
and we would like to understand it better.
It could be that we want to do something to see what will happen.
1.2 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.
A guess gives a target to work toward, and after initial attempts, it may turn out that the
guess is incorrect.
But, the work may suggest new worthy avenues or targets which may be based on some
modifications of the initial target, or may need new techniques,
or one may obtain negative results which may render the initial target or some other targets
as not realizable, or
may lead to fortunate discoveries while looking for something else (serendipity).
Research objectives can sometimes be convoluted and difficult to follow.
Knowing where and how to find different types of information helps one solve
engineering problems, in both academic and professional career.
Lack of investigation into engineering guidelines, standards, and best practices
result in failures with severe repercussions.
As an engineer, the ability to conduct thorough and accurate research while
clearly communicating the results is extremely important in decision making.
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.
The objectives should be framed such that
in the event of not being able to achieve the desired result that is being
sought,
one can fall back to understanding why it is not possible,
because that is also a contribution toward ongoing research in solving
that problem.
Of course, someone else might come along and actually propose a different
approach where the desired objective is indeed possible to be achieved.
1.3 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) Fulfilment 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.
1.4 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 [3].
(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.
Research to identify social or economic trends, or those that find out whether certain
communications will be read and understood are examples of applied research.
The primary objective of applied research is to determine a solution for compelling
problems in actual practice, while basic research is aimed at seeking information which
could have a broad base of applications in the medium to long term.
(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.
1.5 Finding and Solving a Worthwhile Problem
A researcher may start out with the research problems stated by the Supervisor
or posed by others that are yet to be solved.
Alternately, it may involve rethinking of a basic theory, or need to be
formulated or put together from the information provided in a group of papers
suggested by the Supervisor.
Research scholars are faced with the task of finding an appropriate problem on
which to begin their research.
Skills needed to accomplish such a task at the outset, while taking care of
possible implications are critically important but often not taught.
• Once the problem is vaguely identified,
• the process of literature survey and technical reading would take place for
more certainty of the worthiness of the intended problem.
• However, an initial spark is ideally required before the process of literature
survey may duly begin.
• Sometimes, an oral presentation by somebody which is followed by asking
questions or introspection provides this perspective which reading papers do
not.
• At other times, a development in another subject may have produced a tool
or a result which has direct implications to the researcher’s subject and may
lead to problem identification.
• A worthwhile research problem would have one or more attributes.
• It could be nonintuitive/counterintuitive even to someone who knows the area,
something that
• the research community had been expecting for sometime,
• a major simplification of a central part of the theory,
• a new result which would start off a new subject or an area,
• provides a new method or
• improves upon known methods of doing something which has practical
applications, or
• a result which stops further work in an area.
• The researcher has to be convinced that the problem is worthwhile before
beginning to tackle it because best efforts come when the work is worth doing,
and the problem and/or solution has a better chance of being accepted by the
research community.
• Not all problems that one solves will be great, and sometimes major advancements
are made through solutions to small problems dealt with effectively.
• Some problems are universally considered hard and open, and have deep
implications and connections to different concepts.
• The reality is that most researchers in their lifetime do not get into such problems.
• However, hard problems get solved only because people tackle them.
• The question a researcher has to grapple with whether the time investment is worth
it given that the likely outcome is negative, and so it is a difficult personal decision
to make.
• At the same time, even in the case of failure to solve the intended hard problem,
there may be partial/side results that serve the immediate need of producing some
results for the dissertation.
George Pólya (1887–1985) suggested a 4-step procedure for mathematical problem-solving,
which is relevant to engineering researchers as well.
Recent work such as [6, 7] suggest the relevance of these recommendations.
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.
References
1. Booth, W., Colomb, G., & Williams, J. (2008). The craft of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Deb, D., Tao, G., Burkholder, J., & Smith, D. (2008). Adaptive synthetic jet actuator compensation for a
nonlinear aircraft model at low angles of attack. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 16(5), 983–
995.
3. Hill, F., &Collins, L. (2000). Adescriptive and analytical model of organisational transformation.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(9), 966–983.
4. Kandhway, K. (2015). Finding a research problem: Tips for newPh.D. students. IEEE Potentials, 34(3), 25–29.
5. Poyla, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
6. Lee, C. (2016). An appropriate prompts system based on the Polya method for mathematical problem-solving.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 893–910.
7. Brijlall, D. (2015). Exploring the stages of Polya’s problem-solving model during collaborative learning: A
case of fractions. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 291–299.