Image Descriptions
Figure 1.1
Flowchart showing the Research Ethics Board (REB) review process. The process begins with the researcher submitting an ethics application, followed by REB review, feedback and revisions, revised application re-submission, REB review of revised application, and REB application approval. After approval, the researcher conducts research and submits the final report to REB when complete. The flowchart includes several feedback loops and possibilities for additional revisions, adverse event reporting, protocol modifications, and project reconsideration.
Figure 2.1
Hierarchical diagram showing the research framework from ontology to analysis. Starting with ontology at the top, flowing down through epistemology, paradigm (with five branches: positivism, social constructionism, critical paradigm, postmodernism, and indigenous paradigm), theory, research question, approach (deductive or inductive), method (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), and finally analysis (quantitative analysis or qualitative analysis). The quantitative methods options listed and reviewed in the text include surveys, experiments and quantitative content analysis, while the qualitative methods options listed and reviewed in the text include interviews and focus groups, field research and qualitative content analysis.
Figure 2.2
Horizontal double-ended arrow diagram showing the continuum from positivism to postmodernism. Positivism is positioned on the left, representing total objectivity, postmodernism on the right, representing total subjectivity, with social constructionism, critical paradigm and Indigenous paradigm in the centre.
Figure 3.1
Circular diagram illustrating the four purposes of social science research. The centre shows ‘Social Science Research Purposes’ with four connected circles around it labelled: Exploration, Explanation, Description, and Application. Dotted lines connect all four purposes to show that they are not mutually exclusive, and often, research projects have more than one purpose.
Figure 3.2
A pyramid diagram showing an inductive research approach with three levels. At the top (specific level): ‘1. Observations’, in the middle: ‘2. Analyse data & Look for patterns’, and at the bottom (general level): ‘3. Develop theory’. Arrows indicate the flow from specific observations down to general theory development.
Figure 3.3
Inverted pyramid diagram showing deductive research approach with three levels. At the top (general level): ‘1. Theory’, in the middle: ‘2. Observations’, and at the bottom (specific level): ‘3. Test Theory’. Arrows indicate the flow from general theory upward to specific testing.
Figure 5.1
Inverted triangle funnel diagram illustrating the literature review process. Three sections from top to bottom: ‘BROAD’ (General Overview of Research Topic), ‘NARROW’ (More Focused Review in the Area of Interest; Identify Ideas and Hypotheses; Critical Evaluation of Literature), and ‘SPECIFIC’ (Develop Research Question(s) to Address Gaps in Literature). With each level, the focus becomes clearer and more refined.
Figure 5.2
Circular flowchart showing the iterative literature review process. Eight connected stages: Identify Topic leads to Broad Literature Search leads to Critical Review of Relevant Research leads to Revise Research Question leads to Synthesis of Literature leads to Data Collection leads to Revise Literature Review Based on Method leads to Data Analysis leads to Revise Literature Review Based on Results leads to Discussion and Conclusion Placing Results in the Context of the Broader Literature (which connects back to the beginning).
Figure 5.3
Literature map diagram that uses intimate partner violence research categories as an example of how to organise literature. Central circle labeled ‘Literature Map Topic: Intimate Partner Violence’ with four connected categories: Physical Violence (examples: hitting, punching, shoving, weapons; differences in injuries), Emotional & Mental Abuse (examples: insults, put-downs, gaslighting; told ‘crazy’ or ‘stupid’), Coercive Control (isolation tactics, controlling where someone goes or what they do; listening to phone calls), and Financial Abuse (controlling finances, not allowing access to money, taking paycheques). Each category includes relevant research citations.
Figure 6a.1
Diagram illustrating the concept of Socioeconomic Status (SES) with three elements: occupation, education and income. A survey question is provided to measure the element of Income, asking about annual household income with categories from under 50k to over 100k. A survey question is provided to measure the element of Occupation, including categories from unemployed to white collar professions. Lastly, a survey question is provided to measure the element of Education, including categories from less than high school to a graduate degree.
Figure 6a.2
Hierarchical diagram showing the process of conceptualisation, moving from a general research question to specific indicators. Starting with the research question ‘How does crime vary across Canada?’ at the top, flowing down through: Conceptualisation (crime as socially constructed categorisation), Nominal Definition (crime as acts prohibited in the Canadian Criminal Code), Operational Definition (crime as Criminal Code offences recorded by police), and Indicators (bodily harm offences, property crime offences).
Figure 6a.3
A stepped diagram showing levels of measurement from least to most sophisticated. Four ascending levels: Nominal (Attributes are only named – least sophisticated), Ordinal (Attributes can be ordered), Interval (Distance is meaningful), and Ratio (Absolute zero – most sophisticated).
Figure 6b.1
Comparison diagram showing two research design types. Left side: Cross-sectional Study – ‘Data collected at a single point in time’ with a timeline showing one data collection point. Right side: Longitudinal Study – ‘Data collected over multiple points in time’ with a timeline showing multiple data collection points.
Figure 6c.1
Diagram illustrating the concepts of reliability and validity using a shooting target analogy. The image shows four circular shooting targets, each demonstrating different combinations of reliability and validity through the clustering and positioning of shots (representing measurement attempts). Top left: low reliability and low validity – the shooter’s aim is all over the place and is neither consistent (unreliable) nor accurate (it is not valid). Top right: low reliability and high validity – shows an unreliable and inconsistent shot, but it is centred around the target (accurate). Bottom left: high reliability and low validity – the shots are clustered in one spot so the target demonstrates consistency, but the shooter’s aim is reliably off-target and therefore invalid. Bottom right: high reliability and high validity – the shots are all clustered reliably in the same spot and are centred directly and accurately on the target. This visualisation demonstrates how measurements can be consistent (reliable) without being accurate (valid), and vice versa.
Figure 7a.1
Cross-shaped diagram showing four units of analysis in social research. Centre: ‘Units of Analysis’ with four connected ovals: ‘Individual’ (top), ‘Group’ (right), ‘Organisation’ (left), and ‘Social Artefact’ (bottom), representing the different units of analysis that can be the focus of a social science research study.
Figure 7a.2
Triangular hierarchy showing the relationship between population, sampling frame, and sample. Bottom level: ‘POPULATION’ (large, diverse group of multicoloured figures). Middle level: ‘SAMPLING FRAME’ (smaller subset of figures with arrows pointing up from the population). Top level: ‘SAMPLE’ (smallest group of three figures with arrow pointing up from sampling frame), illustrating how samples are drawn from sampling frames, which represent accessible portions of the target population.
Figure 7a.3
Diagram comparing representative versus unrepresentative sampling. The top shows ‘Target Population’ with six distinct groups of figures in different colours arranged in a grid. Bottom shows two sampling outcomes: ‘Representative Sample’ (left) contains figures proportionally representing all six population groups, while ‘Unrepresentative Sample’ (right) contains figures from only some population groups, missing key demographic segments.
Figure 7a.4
Two circles comparing sample composition. The left circle labelled ‘Homogeneous’ shows uniform dark-coloured dots representing similar participants. The right circle labelled ‘Heterogeneous’ shows mixed dark and light dots representing diverse participants with varying characteristics.
Figure 7b.1
Convenience sampling illustration showing the selection of participants from a diverse group who are closest to us and easy to access, with no systematic method of selection.
Figure 7b.2
Quota sampling illustration showing six different demographic groups (represented by different colored figures) with dashed outlines indicating how the same number of participants are selected from each group, and the selection of new participants halts once the quota per group is satisfied.
Figure 7b.3
Purposive sampling diagram showing the strategic, specific selection of participants with salient characteristics of interest.
Figure 7b.4
Snowball sampling diagram illustrating how research participants recruit additional participants through their social networks. Initial participants connect to and recruit others in their networks, creating a chain reaction effect. The diagram shows two distinct network clusters – one in black/grey figures and another in blue figures – demonstrating how snowball sampling spreads through connected social groups.
Figure 7b.5
Simple random sampling illustration showing that diverse participants that are randomly distributed throughout the population are selected for the sample, with each potential participant having an equal chance of being selected regardless of their characteristics or position.
Figure 7b.6
Systematic random sampling diagram showing participants arranged in a line with every 3rd person selected, illustrating the systematic random selection process where researchers select every nth individual from a list or sequence.
Figure 7b.7
Stratified random sampling diagram showing six distinct strata or groups. Once the researcher divides participants into these homogenous groups, simple random sampling is used to ensure that each group is equally represented in the sample, even if they are not equally represented in the population.
Figure 7b.8
A cluster sampling illustration showing that cluster sampling occurs in stages. The first stage involves dividing the population into clusters for which a list exists. Then, clusters are randomly selected. Next, participants within each of these clusters are randomly selected. This multi-stage process is needed as there is no list or sampling frame for each unit in the population, but there is a list of clusters of units.
Figure 7b.9
A diagram illustrating the relationship between population and sample in research. Shows a large population group in one box with an arrow labelled ‘sampling’ pointing to a smaller sample group in another box. A return arrow labelled ‘Inference’ shows how findings from the sample are applied back to understand the population.
Figure 9.1
A horizontal double-ended arrow diagram showing the continuum of the various roles that a field researcher can take, from full participation on the left to full observation on the right. Full participation involves fully participating in the group or community in question in a covert fashion, which may raise ethical concerns. This role provides a deep subjective understanding of the phenomenon but risks losing objectivity. Full observation, on the other hand, involves no participation on the part of the researcher. While this is the most objective role a field researcher can take, as there is no way to influence participants, they have no access to the meaning people ascribe to their behaviour. In the middle of the diagram are 2 other roles: participant-as-observer, where the researcher participates somewhat while also observing, allowing the researcher to develop a rapport with the participants, and observer-as-participant where the researcher observes from afar, making it more objective but also making it more difficult to access the subjective meaning of the participants. There are pros and cons to each role.
Figure 12.1
Solomon Four Group Design diagram showing the two groups in a true experimental design – the experimental group (pre-test, stimulus and then a post-test) and control group (pre-test and post-test only) – as well as two additional groups. These two additional groups include the experimental group 2, which receives only the stimulus and a post-test, and the control group 2, which receives only the post-test. This design variation allows for a more nuanced look at the role of the stimulus.
Figure 12.2
Circular diagram illustrating the connection between the Two-Eyed Seeing approach and Participatory Action Research (PAR) with Indigenous Research Methodology. The circle shows different stages. Research Planning connects with Community Engagement, which involves defining research needs, community sanction, negotiating partnership, and accountability. Research Implementation connects with Capacity Building, which involves tools, training, individual consent, gathering stories, member checking, and making meaning. Production of Knowledge connects with Empowerment, which involves academic publications, sharing collective stories, results to communities, and results to participants. Lastly, Action connects with Self-Determination, which involves proposal development, program development, and knowledge for use. Central principles include relevance, reciprocity, respect, and responsibility.
Figure 13.1
Linear research process diagram showing six connected stages: Research Questions lead to Theory leads to Research Design lead to Data Collection leads to Analysis leads to Dissemination. Multiple feedback arrows show how later stages can inform earlier ones, demonstrating the iterative nature of research where findings may lead to refinement of theory, research design, or data collection methods.
Figure 13.3
Thematic map showing relationships between candidate themes. This map uses themes that emerged in interviews examining the human-animal bond. Candidate themes include ‘Unconditional Love’ (always happy to see you, no judgment), ‘Pet Parent’ (part of the family, like my child), ‘Responsibility’ (time, financial/money, energy), ‘Rescuing’ (saving pet from bad situation, they saved me for mental health), ‘Good for people’ (distraction from problems, social/way to meet people, good for kids), and ‘Burden’ (connecting responsibility and burden with bidirectional arrows). Various connections are shown between candidate themes with descriptive arrows.
Figure 14.1
A balance scale diagram illustrating the measure of central tendency called the median. Two groups of five diverse figures each are shown balanced on a scale, representing how the median is the case that divides the frequency distribution in half.
Figure 14.6
Pie chart example showing homicide data for each year in Canada from 2019-2023. The chart displays segments in different colours (teal, orange, green, light blue, and purple) with values labelled as 691 for 2019, 765 for 2020, 801 for 2021, 882 for 2022, and 778 for 2023.
Figure 14.7
Bar chart example displaying the proportion of persons accused of intimate partner violence by ethnicity. Four vertical bars show percentages: Caucasian at 61% (orange bar, tallest), Indigenous at 26% (purple bar), South Asian at 8% (green bar), and Other Ethnicities at 5% (red bar, shortest).
Figure 14.8
Line graph example showing homicide rate per 100,000 population by Indigenous identity and gender over time, from 2009 to 2021. Three lines track different groups: Indigenous Women & Girls (blue line, fluctuating between approximately 3.5-5.2), Non-Indigenous Women & Girls (orange line, relatively stable around 0.7-0.9), and Men & Boys (green line, gradually increasing from about 2.7 to 3.1). This demonstrates how line graphs display changes in multiple variables over time periods.
