The following is an incomplete list of topics covered in the course.

• Scientific knowledge
• Hypothesis testing
• Observations and measurements
• Experiments
• Models
• Statistical reasoning
• Causes and explanations
• Qualitative methods
• Economic methodology
• Risk and risk assessment
• Research ethics

After having completed the course, the student should, with regards to the theory and methodology of science, both orally as well as in writing, be able to:

• Identify definitions and descriptions of concepts, theories and problem areas, as well as identify the correct application of these concepts and theories.
• Account for concepts, theories and general problem areas, as well as apply concepts and theories to specific cases.
• Critically discuss the definitions and applications of concepts and theories as they applies to specific cases of scientific research.
• identify and critically discuss fundamental theoretical and methodological problems within the PhD-student's area of research,
• identify and critically discuss specific theoretical and methodological problems within the PhD-student's own research,
• identify and critically discuss specific theoretical and methodological problems within others' research.

Below follows an outline of the course learning activities. Detailed descriptions of the learning activities are found in later sections in this course memo. 

• One lecture on campus: Introduction and Scientific Knowledge. 
• Ten pre-recorded video lectures. Each video lecture has an associated voluntary lecture quiz and a text transcription. Video lectures are included in the TimeEdit course schedule as a planning recommendation but can be viewed throughout the course. Video lecture quizzes however, have deadlines. 
• Two flipped classroom sessions on campus related to a subset of the video lectures. Before each flipped classroom session, you post a question related to the relevant video lectures on a discussion board and upvote questions posted by other students that you wish to be discussed on the flipped classroom sessions. The lecturer selects among the questions and answers these during the flipped classroom sessions.  
• Four seminars on campus. Each seminar covers selected course contents from the video lectures and course readings. Before attending each seminar, you complete a mandatory seminar preparation quiz. On the seminar you work on group exercises and discussions. You take one seminar per seminar week. 
• Three exercise sessions on campus. 
• Three essay meetings, with submissions for each. In this part you take a look at your own research from a methodological perspective and write an essay about this. For this reason, we recommend a year of research before starting this part of the course. The other parts (seminars and exam) can be taken first, and you can re-register for the essay later.

Lectures

This course includes eleven lectures. Lecture 1 is held on campus and lectures 2-11 are available as videos via Canvas and can be viewed at any time during the course. The placement of video lectures in the TimeEdit course schedule is a planning suggestion for when you might view them.  

Each of the video lectures has an associated lecture quiz with a deadline. If you complete lecture quizzes with passing score upon the deadline, you receive course bonus points for the exam (see section on Schedule and see Canvas for quiz deadlines). For more information on bonus points, see section on Bonus point system below. 

1. Introduction and scientific knowledge (campus lecture), course week 1
2. Scientific inferences (59 minutes) (flipped classroom 1), course week 1
3. Observation and measurement (76 minutes) (flipped cl. 1), course week 2
4. Experiments (49 minutes) (flipped classroom 2), course week 2
5. Models (62 minutes) (flipped classroom 2), course week 3
6. Statistics (62 minutes), course week 3
7. Explanations and causes (81 minutes), course week 4
8. Economic methodology (95 minutes), course week 5
9. Qualitative methods (93 minutes), course week 5
10. Research ethics (103 minutes), course week 6
11. Anticipating risk in science and engineering (85 minutes), course week 6

Flipped classrooms 

Flipped classroom sessions function as an opportunity for receiving clarification from the lecturer on lecture contents. The flipped classroom sessions are intended for addressing questions on course topics that students find unclear, challenging or otherwise interesting.  

There are two flipped classroom sessions on campus, each based on two video lectures. Flipped classroom 1 focuses on the lectures on scientific inferences (lecture 2), and on observation and measurement (lecture 3). Flipped classroom 2 focuses on the lectures on experiments (lecture 4) and on models (lecture 5).  

Each flipped classroom session has an associated discussion board. Before each flipped classroom session, you post a question for the lecturer on the board related to the relevant video lectures, and you upvote questions posted by other students that you would like the lecturer to address during the session. See section on Schedule and see Canvas for further instructions and deadlines. 

The lecturer selects a set of questions from the discussion board and devotes the flipped classroom sessions to answering these questions. During the sessions, you will also be invited to participate on voluntary exercise activities.  

If you complete the flipped classroom activities, you receive course bonus points for the exam. For more information on bonus points, see section on Bonus point system below.  

It is possible to attend flipped classroom sessions without having posted on the discussion board and without participating on exercises in the classroom, but this will yield no bonus points. 

The flipped classroom sessions are taken together with students from other, similar courses. 

Bonus point system 

Completing video lecture quizzes with a passing score, as well as participating on the flipped classroom activities, gives course bonus points for the exam. Bonus point activities are voluntary, optional activities intended at incentivising students to engage with the course contents continuously throughout the course. 

Each video lecture has an associated video lecture quiz, comprised of 15 questions. If you complete a quiz with a 14 point score or higher, you get 0.5 course bonus points. All video lecture quizzes have deadlines (See section on Schedule and see Canvas for deadlines). There is no limit on number of attempts up until the quiz deadlines. 

Course bonus points can also be awarded for the two flipped classrooms. Attending the flipped classroom session and carrying out tasks as per instructed by the lecturer results in 0.5 course bonus points per each of the two flipped classrooms. 

In order to make the number of bonus points fit the exam format, course bonus points are scaled in the following way before the exam (C = course bonus points, E = exam bonus points): E = C * 5/6, rounded up to the closest .5-value. Example: 4.5 course bonus points will be scaled as 4.5 * 5/6 = 3.75, then rounded up to 4 exam points. You can maximally obtain 5 exam bonus points.  

Exam bonus points are added to part 1 of the exam. For example, if part 1 has a maximum score of 15 points, then 3.5 exam bonus points plus 10 points on part 1 results in a total score of 13.5 points on part 1 of the exam. 4 exam bonus points plus 13 points on part 1 results in a total score of 15 points on part 1 of the exam. 

For more information about the exam, see section on Examination and completion. 

Bonus points collected during one and the same course period are valid for, and only for, the scheduled exam and the corresponding re-exam for that period. 

Seminars 

The course includes a mandatory seminar series comprised of four seminars. Each seminar covers selected course contents from the video lectures and course readings, and following the first seminar, each subsequent seminar connects to the previous seminars. Seminars are intended as a collaborative learning activity where you practice critically discussing course contents and practice applying course contents to cases, with instruction and support from teaching staff. The overall topics covered during the seminar series are as follows: 

1. Definitions, operationalizations and hypotheses (course week 3) 
2. Designing a scientific study (course week 4)
3. Philosophy of social sciences (course week 6)
4. Risk and research ethics (course week 7)

Since completion of the seminar series yields course credits, the seminars feature mandatory activities: (1) preparing and passing a seminar quiz, and (2) actively participating on the seminar. Missing activities result in seminar incompletion and thus no seminar course credits. 

Before each seminar, you read the assigned readings (reading instructions available on Canvas). Before attending each seminar, you must also pass a mandatory seminar preparation quiz (See section on Schedule and see Canvas for deadlines). There is no limit on number of quiz attempts up until the quiz deadline. You must complete the quiz with a passing score of 14 points before the deadline (indicated in Canvas as “Passed”).  

The preparation quizzes are intended to ensure that all participants come prepared to the seminar for a more rewarding seminar learning experience. If you attend the seminar without completing the preparation quiz beforehand, you will not be marked as attending.  

On the seminar, you will be working together with other students on exercises as per instructed by the teacher. The exercises are formulated in such a way as to promote critical reflection and discussion, as well as to practice application of course concepts to case scenarios.  

You are expected to engage actively with the course contents and work on the exercises during the seminar. Passive attendance on the seminar will be marked as not attending. Active participation on the seminar does not mean that you are expected to demonstrate full proficiency of course contents. Rather, it means that you are expected to have properly engaged with the relevant course material beforehand and made an honest attempt at understanding it. Arisen questions and reflections can be addressed on the seminar. 

For information on what to do if you have not completed a preparation quiz or actively attended on a seminar, see the section on Examination and completion. 

Seminar contents and reading instructions

All the texts can be found on Canvas. 

Seminar 1 – Definitions, operationalizations and hypotheses

Texts: 

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 1, 2, 3, 13 
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 2.2-2.8, 3.1-3.2, 5.0-5.1, and 5.8 

Topics relevant for the seminar:   

• Stipulative and lexical definitions 
• Narrowness and broadness (as applied to definitions) 
• Vagueness 
• Hypotheses (and their quality criteria)
• Direct, aided and indirect observation
• Operationalization
• Accuracy and precision (as qualities of observations and measurements)
• Measurement error (random and systematic error)
• Convergent validity and divergent validity 

Seminar 2 – Designing a scientific study

Texts: 

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 4, 5. 
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 3.7, 4.2-4, and 5.1-3. 

Topics relevant for the seminar:  

• Experiment, observational studies and model studies 
• Mill’s method of difference 
• Internal validity and external validity 
• Experimental control 
• Constancy, elimination and effect separation
• Randomization
• Control group and treatment group
• Observer influence
• Confirmation bias
• Blinding
• Epistemic virtues of models (Parameter precision, Similarity, Robustness, Simplicity, Tractability, Transparency) 
• Analogies (positive, negative, neutral) 

Seminar 3: Interpretation, analysis and evidence. 

Texts: 

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice: chapters 2, 6, 7. 
• Seminar 3 article(s) (provided on Canvas). 
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 1.6-7, 3.7, 3.9, 5.3-5, 5.7, 7, 8 and the box on p. 24. 

Topics relevant for the seminar:   

• Repeatability, reproducibility and replicability 
• Statistical evaluation 
• Statistical significance 
• Correlation and causality 
• Explanatory virtues (Accuracy [of explanations], Non-sensitivity, Precision in the explanans, Precision of the explanandum, Cognitive salience) 
• Duhem-Quine thesis 
• Ad-hoc hypothesis 
• Falsificationism (Popper) 
• Inductive and deductive inferences 

Seminar 4: Risk and research ethics

Texts: 

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 11, 12.
• “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research”, National academy of Sciences.
• Ahlin, Jesper, “Ethical Thinking”.
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove - Art of Doing Science: Section 9. 

Topics relevant for the seminar:   

• Gift authorship and ghost authorship 
• Scientific misconduct (falsification, fabrication and plagiarism) 
• Informed consent 
• Deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics 
• Precautionary principle 
• Decision making (under certainty/risk/ignorance/deep uncertainty) 

Essay Part

The essay part is a chance to analyse and reflect upon the methodological aspects of your own Ph.D. research. It is recommended that Ph.D. students that intend to take the project part have completed at least one year of research. The module consists of three mandatory meetings and three text submissions that eventually add up to an essay in which you describe, discuss and attempt to solve a methodological issue relating to your research project. For meetings two and three, there are also mandatory peer-reviews. All meetings must be attended in person during the same course period. Before the first meeting you submit an abstract where you describe a methodological problem you wish to write about. In the first meeting you present your first draft and get peer feedback. In the final meeting you present your final version. Are you not sure you know what a methodological problem is? Watch the first video lecture! Prepare for the meetings by carefully studying the TaMoS course material. 

Note that each submission has a strict deadline. If you miss a deadline, you may not continue with the essay part in that period and must start over in another period (note that this does not affect the other parts of the course). For more information about compensatory activities, see Examination and completion. 

Outline of the essay tasks: 

Detailed schedule on Canvas. 

• Text submission: Essay proposal, 100-300 words. On Canvas. 
• Meeting: Essay proposal discussion. On Zoom. 
• Text submission: First draft, 3000 words. On Canvas.
• Text submission: Peer review. On Canvas.
• Meeting: First draft discussion. On Zoom.
• Text submission: Final draft, 3000-3500 words. On Canvas.
• Text submission: Peer review. On Canvas.
• Meeting: Final draft discussion. On Zoom. 

Note that since you will be divided into groups and discuss each other's work, it is important that you submit your tasks and attend the meetings. Otherwise, not only will you fail the essay assignment, but one of your fellow students might end up not getting a peer review. Therefore, you should always contact the course coordinator well in advance with any scheduling conflicts. 

Meeting 1 – Essay proposal 

The first meeting is an introduction lecture. In preparation for this, you submit a short essay proposal comprised of at least 100 words and at most 300 words. Make sure you upload this proposal on the correct submission page before deadline. 

In the essay proposal, you present a methodological problem, relating to your own research, that you intend to describe, discuss and solve in your essay. Make sure to choose one problem – not many! Describing this problem requires describing the purpose of the method being discussed (i.e., what you want to achieve by using this method) and the alternative methods that you could have chosen instead. What is the justification for choosing this method over the alternatives? Does your choice result in any compromises (that alternative methods might have avoided)? Outline the reasons for or against your method choice. One of the most common mistakes is to write about your own research only, instead of framing your research in a wider methodological perspective. Avoid this mistake by making sure that you understand what is expected of you. 

Take great care to make your essay proposal as clear and accurate as possible. Do not think of the abstract-submission task as a hurdle to be cleared and forgotten, but as an aid to help you ensure that you have understood the nature of the upcoming task correctly. Some more tips and guidelines can be found in the Canvas course room. In particular, you are recommended to read the addendum (available on Canvas as a pdf), which outlines some common mistakes and how to avoid them. 

Meeting 2 – First draft 

In preparation for this meeting, you submit a first draft version of the essay. The draft version should contain at least 3000 words. Note that your draft version should already resemble a final version; the overall structure of the essay should already be in place. Make sure you upload your draft on the correct submission page before deadline. 

Before the meeting, you must also provide written peer-feedback on the submission of one other PhD student in your group, pointing out its strengths and drawbacks. At the meeting, the submissions will be further discussed, and you are expected to have carefully read the submissions of the other attendants – especially the one you’ve been tasked with reviewing. 

In the draft version of your essay, you will develop a discussion based on the outline you submitted before the first meeting. You continue to discuss one, and only one, methodological concern. In the beginning of the text, you should clearly state what methodological problem(s) you will address and outline the structure of your text. Then you move on to presenting reasons that justify your chosen method over the alternatives. Does your choice result in any compromises (that alternative methods may not have resulted in)? Why is your method of choice nevertheless better than the relevant alternatives? Discuss! Your conclusion will most likely be that careful methodological reasoning favours your method choice over the relevant alternatives. If, however, you come to the conclusion that an alternative method would have been better, make sure you present the reasons for why you think so.  

Note that the purpose of this meeting is not to get an authoritative quality verdict. The seminar leader serves only as a facilitator; they will not subject your submission to the kind of careful scrutiny that your final version will get from an examining teacher after the third meeting. Rather, the main purpose of this draft meeting is student peer review. It is therefore important that you acquaint yourself with the other students’ draft submissions and carefully read and comment on the draft that has been assigned to you for peer-reviewing. Whatever comments your submission received before and at the second meeting, take these into consideration when working on improvements for your final version.  

Questions that you should address when commenting on another student’s essay:  

• Is the method described in a concise and understandable way? Give suggestions on improvements!  
• Is the methodological problem discussed in the paper well-described and clearly demarcated from other problems? Can you suggest an improved formulation of the problem?  
• Are relevant concepts from TaMoS applied?   
• Are the concepts correctly used? Explain where you think the author has made an error!  
• Is there anything left out of the discussion that you think should have been included?  
• Can structure, choice of words or grammar be improved? 

Meeting 3 – Final draft 

In preparation for this meeting, you submit the final draft version of your essay. This version should consist of at least 3000 words, and at most 3500 words. Make sure you submit your essay on the correct submission page before deadline.  

The final version of your essay should be a revision of your essay draft. When reworking your essay, take the comments you received on the first draft into consideration. Prepare to give a brief presentation (a few minutes) of your essay on the third meeting. You will receive feedback from the other attendants as well as from a senior teacher. Also, you should acquaint yourself with the other students’ submissions before the meeting. Moreover, just as in preparation for the second meeting, you will be tasked with reviewing one other student’s submission. After the meeting, the senior teacher will then assess and grade your essay. The essay may receive a passing grade, or it may receive a failing grade. You may also be asked to revise the essay. A revision will in turn result in either a pass or fail.  

Importantly, please put your full name and kth-email address on the cover of your essay! 

Exercise sessions 

The exercise sessions are extra opportunities to practice on the course content. They are held on campus and shared with other course codes. They are voluntary and have no associated submissions. The format is tested for the first time this semester. More information will follow on Canvas. 

Expected workload 

Expected workload is calculated based on number of course credits per period.  

FAK3138= 7.5 ECTS one period: 20 h / week 

Literature

The main text for the course is:

• Justified Method Choice - Scientific Methodology for Scientists and Engineers by Till Grüne-Yanoff. Based on the video lectures. 

In addition, there are three supplemental texts:

• On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, which is an excerpt from a text by the National Academy of Sciences.
• Ethical Thinking by Jesper Ahlin.

Finally, there is one additional optional text, mainly targeting the same topics as the main course text: 

• The Art of Doing Science by Sven Ove Hansson. 

In addition to above mentioned readings, you may be asked to read short texts in preparation for some seminars. All course readings will be available in pdf file format on Canvas together with associated reading instructions. Physical copies of course readings cannot be bought, but you are welcome to print them for personal use. 

Students at KTH with a permanent disability can get support during studies from Funka:

Funka - compensatory support for students with disabilities

P, F

• SEM1 - Seminars, 1.5 credits, Grading scale: P, F
• TENA - Written exam, 3.0 credits, Grading scale: P, F
• UPP1 - Essay, 3.0 credits, Grading scale: P, F

Based on recommendation from KTH’s coordinator for disabilities, the examiner will decide how to adapt an examination for students with documented disability.

The examiner may apply another examination format when re-examining individual students.

A student may request a home exam, if it is not possible for the student to attend the written exam because the student is, at the point of the request, residing outside of Sweden and will be residing outside of Sweden for at least twelve months following the request. The examiner approves or denies these requests.

Seminars

There are four seminars, all mandatory. To pass a seminar you need to: 

• read the required material 
• watch the required videos 
• pass a seminar quiz 
• actively participate in the seminar 

The seminar module is graded P/F. If you have passed all seminars, you get the grade P. 

Exam

The examination is based on the lectures and the seminars, as well as the course literature. It is given on campus on the date and time indicated in the schedule. It consists of three parts. The first part is a multiple-choice part asking you to identify the definitions and applications of course concepts. The second part is an essay part where you are to submit essay answers to two problems. In this part you are asked to account for the course concepts. The third part is an essay part where you choose one out of a list of problems, which require you to account for, apply and discuss course concepts.

The exam is open-book, which means that one is allowed to bring printed copies of the course literature or any other literature as well as one’s own notes. A dictionary (published paper dictionary, such as Swedish-English) is also allowed. All such material must be printed or hand-written on paper. No electronic devices, such as computers or phones, are allowed during the exam. 

During the course there are quizzes and flipped classroom sessions where students can collect bonus points. The bonus points are scaled to fit the exam format: maximum five points. The points are then added to the part 1 exam score, capped at the maximum for that part. Bonus points are valid for the exam and re-exam belonging to the period and year when they were collected. One may collect points valid for another exam by re-registering for that period and re-taking the quizzes. 

Essay

Active participation in three meetings, three essay submissions and peer feedback. The final version of the essay is graded by a senior teacher. This essay can be passed, failed or you might be asked to revise to reach the criteria for passing. Once your final version is passed, you get the grade P. 

Grade P. Studenten redogör korrekt och tydligt för kursbegrepp, teorier och problemområden samt gör rimliga tillämpningar av dessa begrepp och teorier på specifika fall. Studenten framställer en diskussion av definitionerna och tillämpningar av begrepp och teorier med avseende på vetenskaplig forskning på ett precist sätt med ansats till argumentation och självständighet. (Official formulation)

Translation. The student accounts, correctly and clearly for concepts, theories and general problem areas, and provides reasonable applications of these concepts and theories to specific cases. The student presents a discussion of the definitions and applications of concepts and theories as they apply to specific cases of scientific research in a precise way with an attempt at independent and argumentative reasoning.

Grade F. Kriterierna för P är inte uppfyllda. (Official formulation)

Translation. The criteria for P are not fulfilled.

A student may request a home exam, with the maximum grade of E, if two requirements are fulfilled: (1) This is the last remaining exam left before graduation. (2) It is not possible for the student to attend the written exam because the student is, at the point of the request, residing outside of Sweden and will be residing outside of Sweden for at least twelve months following the request. The examiner approves or denies these requests. 

If you are unable to attend a seminar at a particular time and day, you might be able to join another seminar group during the same seminar week. Consult with your course coordinator before changing seminar group.

If you fail or are unable to attend one or more of the seminars, you can sign up for a compensation seminar, offered towards the end of the course. See course schedule in TimeEdit for scheduling of the compensation seminars. Alternatively, you may re-register and attend remaining seminars during an ensuing course period, conditional on that the seminar is offered in that period. If you complete the seminar module over the course of more than one period, please inform the course coordinator that you have passed all seminars. 

If you miss or fail the exam, you may take the corresponding re-exam. It may also be possible to take the exam during another period. Note however that any bonus points collected during a course period are only valid for the exam and re-exam for that period. If you wish to take the exam after the designated exam or re-exam, check which periods the course is offered in and see corresponding examination dates. Note that you must register on the course and sign up for the exam in order to take the exam. 

Failing to submit or failing the final version of the essay means you have to re-take the essay part in another period. You may re-use your own material when re-taking the module, but you must attend all meetings and complete all additional tasks anew.

Exam results will be communicated to students within 15 workdays following the day of the exam. This might not be met if there is a need to validate a submission or there is suspicion of cheating. 

• All members of a group are responsible for the group's work.
• In any assessment, every student shall honestly disclose any help received and sources used.
• In an oral assessment, every student shall be able to present and answer questions about the entire assignment and solution.

Plagiarism and other forms of misconduct 

All texts are automatically checked for plagiarism, and high plagiarism indication scores are then manually checked. If, after this, there arises suspicion of plagiarism, we are obliged to report this to the disciplinary committee. 

In particular, it is not allowed to: 

• copy words or ideas from a published source straight into your assignment without acknowledging the source, 
• copy ideas by making a summary or paraphrasing the original text (that is, by writing it differently) without acknowledging the source of the original idea or words,
• copy another student's work and then claim or pretend it is your own,
• work so closely with other students on individually-assigned tasks that the final result turns out to be identical or near identical. (However, where to draw the line is not always that clear; ask the teacher if you are uncertain.) 

All sources should be stated using any standard referencing system (see the KTH library). Citations should be marked with citation marks – " " – and the source should be provided. As a simple rule, consider five words or more from a source a citation. To avoid plagiarism charges, a tip is to make notes when reading a text and write your assignment by looking at your notes instead of the text. 

It is not allowed to have someone else write the text or parts thereof for you (ghost writing), nor to have it automatically generated.