Abstract
The present article is a critique of the book “Research Methods in Psychology and Educational Sciences” authored by Ali Delavar and published by Nashr-e Virayesh in 2024. This book serves as a university-level textbook for undergraduate studies and as a reference for national graduate entrance examinations (Master's and PhD). This study was conducted using a qualitative approach and employed a descriptive–critical content analysis method. Data was analyzed inductively through open, axial, and selective coding, leading to the extraction of categories and overarching themes. The book covers a wide range of topics, including scientific methods, fundamental research concepts, problem selection, sampling, survey research, experimental research, and data analysis. It demonstrates several strengths, such as the use of instructional examples to clarify methodological concepts, relatively clear prose in some sections, and the inclusion of conventional textbook elements such as chapter objectives, summaries, and self-assessment questions. However, the findings of the content analysis reveal numerous issues related to structure, content, writing, and referencing. Content-related problems include inaccurate examples, unclear sentences, contradictory statements, and incomplete material. Structural issues involve the absence of a comprehensive overview, improper segmentation, and a lack of coherence in the organization of topics. Writing deficiencies, such as incorrect use of conjunctions, flawed and incomplete sentence construction, and typographical errors, further diminish the overall quality of the work. In addition, referencing and citation problems, including incomplete references and failure to adhere to academic standards, constitute serious shortcomings. To improve the quality of the book, a comprehensive and substantive revision addressing content, approach, structure, writing, and referencing is recommended.

Introduction
Research, at its most fundamental level, is defined as an activity for seeking truth that necessitates inquiry to resolve ambiguity, understand the causes of phenomena, and solve problems (Bunge, 2012). Beveridge (2017) argues that an effective research method can enable even researchers of moderate ability to produce valuable findings, whereas an inappropriate method may prevent even highly gifted researchers from obtaining reliable results.
Therefore, teaching research methodology is a key factor in understanding and improving the quality of research programs at postgraduate levels. This training enriches students' overall experience and helps them gain a deeper understanding of specialized knowledge in their field. Learning research methodology, particularly in specialized fields, strengthens critical thinking skills and helps students critically evaluate scientific articles (Daniel, 2021).
Textbooks serve as the primary tool for transferring knowledge and teaching concepts in most specialized fields of education (Matos et al., 2023). As Torkar et al. (2022) point out, textbooks are the basic media through which the teaching and learning process is conducted and shape the mental structure of students' knowledge. Consequently, the adaptation of textbooks to standard scientific principles regarding structure, content, and writing is essential for the proper production of knowledge and scientific research in any field.
Shahlayi et al. (2022) proposed a model of the characteristics of a credible university textbook, drawing on the lived experiences of professors in the humanities. The model comprises two main categories: soft (non-technical) competencies and hard (technical) competencies. According to them, soft competencies include dimensions such as applying mental operations and strengthening critical thinking, observing correct writing principles, cultural and social approaches, challenging learning activities, and visual appeal, all of which play an important role in creating motivation and deepening learning. Hard competencies focus on structural and educational aspects, including precise determination of objectives, alignment with the approved curriculum and syllabus, and observing structural coherence to present the book as a unified and meaningful whole.
Several books have been authored in the field of research methodology across various disciplines, and critiques have been made of some of them. For example, in critiquing Maryam Sadeghi's work “Research Method in Simple Language,” issues such as inconsistency between the title and content, inattention to editing and writing principles, and use of invalid and secondary sources were raised (Esmaeili, 2018). The book “Research Methods in Language and Linguistics” by Aghagolzadeh, despite strengths such as observing writing rules and alignment of syllabi with objectives, suffers from shortcomings including lack of an integrated approach in classifying research types and dispersion in presenting certain concepts (Fayazi, 2022). Similarly, in critiquing the book “Understanding Research in Applied Linguistics” by Hashemi, the importance of observing academic standards including APA style, precise explanation of statistical tools like SPSS, and analysis of theoretical and philosophical approaches such as phenomenology in applied linguistics research was emphasized (Ahmadi Safa, 2019). These critiques collectively demonstrate the necessity of scientific precision, content coherence, and observance of formal standards in compiling research methodology resources.
Ali Delavar's “Research Methods in Psychology and Educational Sciences” is one of the most widely used resources in the fields of educational sciences and psychology in Iranian universities, having reached its 59th printing in 2024. This book serves as a source for the research methods course at the undergraduate level and as one of the reference sources for national examinations (master's and doctoral) in educational sciences. The reason for selecting this book for the present critique is its extensive influential position in the academic community of behavioral and educational sciences, making its in-depth critique and revision a scientific necessity.

Research Methodology
This research employed a qualitative approach utilizing descriptive-critical content analysis. Content analysis is an analytical technique used to examine written or visual materials such as textbooks, newspapers, web pages, and advertisements (Ary et al., 2010). The research process began with a thorough and in-depth study of the book. In the second stage, during re-reading, key points and notable sections were extracted and documented from relevant pages. Subsequently, through data analysis, the collected materials were coded using three methods—open, axial, and selective coding—and categories and themes were extracted. The coding approach in this study was inductive, meaning that at the coding stage, open codes were gathered from the text without relying on a pre-existing theoretical framework and then organized into categories. Writing issues were examined based on the Persian grammar book by Basserian (2011).
To validate the data analysis, the “inter-coder agreement” method (Halpin, 2024) was employed. In this method, two researchers independently coded 10% of the book. The number of agreements between coders based on applied codes was calculated and expressed as a percentage agreement. This simple and direct method allows assessment of coordination between coders and serves as a quantitative criterion for ensuring reliability in qualitative analyses (Halpin, 2024). After independent coding, the codes applied by the two researchers were compared, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. After reaching final agreement, the revised codes were used in the analysis, with inter-coder agreement reaching 94% for weaknesses and 87% for strengths, indicating high consistency in the coding process.

Discussion
Positive Aspects and Pedagogical Strengths
The analysis identified several strengths in Delavar's book that contribute positively to the learning experience. First, the book employs diverse and comprehensible examples in various sections, effectively concretizing abstract concepts and facilitating reader understanding. Examples such as the horse teeth analogy for explaining inductive reasoning (pp. 9-10), the relationship between intelligence and physical health for demonstrating problems in incomplete inductive reasoning (p. 11), the story of “Little Bo Peep's roasted pork” (p. 22), and the pressure-volume theory example for explaining the importance of theory (p. 24) illustrate the author's attempt to make methodological concepts accessible. The example provided for the relationship between theory and research (p. 37), the distinction between problem perception and problem statement (p. 59), and the difference between hypothesis and observation (p. 70) further demonstrate this pedagogical approach.
Second, the book employs relatively fluent prose in explaining certain concepts, particularly in sections on the history of science (p. 9) and survey research (p. 116). In these sections, the author presents questions, introductions, and concepts in an accessible and comprehensible manner. Third, the inclusion of chapter objectives at the beginning of some chapters, summaries, and self-test questions at the end of most chapters represents a structured design that enhances learning. However, it should be noted that these structural elements are not consistently applied across all chapters.
The use of three complementary strategies—concretization through diverse examples, simplicity and clarity in explaining some topics, and structured design through objectives, summaries, and self-test questions—creates conditions for tangible learning of certain concepts. These positive aspects, however, are undermined by significant shortcomings that transform potential strengths into weaknesses.
Content Weaknesses: Incorrect and Inappropriate Examples
Despite the presence of helpful examples, the book contains numerous incorrect, incomprehensible, and irrelevant examples that can lead to misunderstanding or confusion. For instance, the example of “detectives in police films collecting scattered facts and reaching conclusions” (p. 8) is presented as an example of deductive reasoning but is actually a description of inductive reasoning, where reasoning moves from parts to whole through observation. This fundamental confusion between inductive and deductive logic represents a serious pedagogical error.
In discussing confounding variables (pp. 45-47), the book provides contradictory and incorrect examples. The example stating that “children who have difficulty achieving their goals are more aggressive than children who do not face such difficulty” presents access to goals as the independent variable, aggression as the dependent variable, and frustration as the confounding variable. This is incorrect because individuals experiencing frustration would no longer be participants in the study—the research would likely be a correlational study. In another example, the book identifies classroom structure and regulations as confounding variables when studying four different teaching methods, whereas these are variables that should be controlled. According to the book's own definition, a confounding variable is “not observable, measurable, or manipulable.” The example about “students with black hair and high dictation scores” (pp. 10-11) for generalizing research results, while superficially acceptable, is inappropriate because the correlation lacks substantive validity.
These erroneous examples are particularly concerning because implicit learning occurs within the content, and inappropriate examples can lead to incorrect implicit learning. The book's failure to distinguish between correlational and experimental research designs, exemplified by the frustration-aggression example, indicates a fundamental conceptual confusion that undermines its pedagogical value.
Moreover, some formulas and statistical calculations contain several errors that may confuse readers and lead to incorrect interpretations of key concepts. Given that the book is intended to teach research methods and data analysis, the accuracy of mathematical formulas and computational procedures is essential. Identified issues include the incorrect placement of a highlighted row in Table 3–14 (p. 334), an error in the composite mean calculation in which the class frequency is incorrectly placed in the denominator rather than the numerator, the omission of the "+1" term in the formula for calculating the range, an incorrect presentation of the population variance formula in which the entire expression is mistakenly squared instead of only the numerator, and an incorrectly stated formula for Pearson's correlation coefficient. These errors have the potential to mislead readers and produce inaccurate statistical calculations, particularly among novice researchers.
Structural Weaknesses: Lack of Comprehensive Picture and Incoherence
One of the most significant structural weaknesses is the failure to provide a comprehensive picture of research methods before addressing details. According to Reigeluth's elaboration theory of instructional design (Reigeluth et al., 1980), which draws on Gestalt principles, learners should first be presented with a broader picture before delving into detailed concepts. This hierarchical presentation should be evident in the book's partitioning and table of contents. The absence of advance organizers, lack of a conceptual map of research types, and discontinuity between chapters indicate that the book's structure is not fully aligned with hierarchical organization principles.
From a Gestalt perspective (Pettersson, 2017), learners need to understand the whole before the parts to construct meaning; however, the book's sudden entry into subtopics without establishing a conceptual framework disrupts this process. The absence of a unified typology of research methods creates confusion for readers who struggle to understand the relationships between different research approaches. Furthermore, the book suffers from incorrect segmentation, where topics are divided inappropriately, and lack of coherence in organizing material, with concepts dispersed across chapters without logical connection
Writing and Editorial Issues: Grammatical Errors and Incomplete Sentences
The book contains numerous writing deficiencies that significantly impair readability and academic credibility. These include incorrect use of conjunctions, incomplete sentence structures, and typographical errors. Examples of incomplete sentences include: “The study of sources means the study of all sources that are directly or indirectly related to the research topic” (p. 86) — lacking a clear predicate; “The main importance of analysis is a process through which the scientist approaches the truth and consequently redefinition of the problem due to the success or failure of this proximity” (p. 21) — a fragment requiring a verb such as “occurs”; “A theory that has few assumptions and is expressed in simple language...” (p. 26) — missing the predicate after “few assumptions”; and “Other advantages include its low cost, in addition, the researcher can...” (p. 125) — an incomplete construction.
Incorrect punctuation usage is also prevalent. For example, a comma appears between “analysis” and “conclusion” where it should not (p. 32); a period appears in the middle of a sentence after “are used” when the sentence continues (p. 81); a period is used instead of a semicolon in “it can be done. For example, face-to-face with groups or individuals, by post or telephone” (p. 115); and a period appears incorrectly in the middle of a sentence discussing response rates (p. 125). These errors, while seemingly minor collectively, significantly undermine the book's professional presentation and can impede comprehension.
Referencing and Citation Deficiencies
A particularly serious weakness concerns referencing and citation practices. The book contains numerous incomplete and inaccurate references that fail to comply with academic standards. For instance, in the bibliography, references are listed as:
- “Conant, J. B. Modern science and modern man. Columbia University Press.” (missing date)
- “Christensen, L. B. Experimental methodology. Allyn & Bacon.” (missing date)
- “Longman, Ch. Introduction to Educational Research.” (missing date and publication details)
- “Wiersma, W. Research methods in education. By Alyn and Bacon.” (incorrect publisher, missing date)
The correct forms should include publication years and proper publisher information:
Conant, J. B. (1952). Modern science and modern man. Columbia University Press.
Christensen, L. B. (1977). Experimental methodology. Allyn & Bacon.
Charles, C. M. (1998). Introduction to educational research (3rd ed.). Longman.
Wiersma, W. (1976). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Additionally, the book contains instances of direct translation from Ary et al. (2010) without proper citation, which constitutes academic misconduct. For example, sentences on pages 91-93 including “ Avoid the temptation to present the literature as a series of abstracts,” “Begin reading the most recent studies in the field and then work backward through earlier volumes,” and “Read the abstract or summary sections of a report first to determine whether it is relevant to the question” are directly translated from the source without attribution. This failure to observe proper citation standards is particularly egregious in a book intended to teach research methodology.
Conceptual Gaps and Outdated Content
The book fails to address numerous significant methodological concepts and recent developments in research methodology. While the concept of null hypothesis is mentioned, there is no comprehensive explanation of its philosophical foundations, application, and interpretation—including proof by contradiction and decision-making for hypothesis testing. In the section on research types, the book explains experimental research but neglects important distinctions among true experimental, quasi-experimental, and pre-experimental designs. Although ex post facto research is explained, correlational research is only mentioned briefly in the statistics section without proper treatment as a research design. While the book includes historical research as an example of qualitative research, it neglects other qualitative research methods.
More significantly, the book has not incorporated recent methodological innovations including virtual research methods (Fielding et al., 2016), data mining, social network analysis, text mining (Puntambekar, 2018), formative research approaches such as design-based research (Vindrola-Padros, 2021), and rapid research methods; for example, traditional ethnography, typically a time-consuming method, has been supplemented by “rapid ethnography” during the COVID-19 pandemic, but such developments are absent from the book. This lack of currency is particularly problematic for a textbook in its 59th printing.
Conclusion
This critical analysis of Ali Delavar's “Research Methods in Psychology and Educational Sciences” reveals that despite its widespread use and numerous printings, the book suffers from significant shortcomings across multiple dimensions. While the book demonstrates positive pedagogical features including diverse examples, relatively fluent prose in some sections, and structured elements such as chapter objectives and summaries, these strengths are overshadowed by substantial weaknesses in content, structure, writing style, and referencing.
Content weaknesses include incorrect and inappropriate examples, incomprehensible sentences, contradictory statements, and conceptual confusion in classifying research designs. Structural weaknesses encompass failure to provide a comprehensive picture, incorrect segmentation, and lack of coherence in organizing material. Writing issues include incorrect use of conjunctions, incomplete sentence structures, typographical errors, and improper punctuation. Referencing deficiencies include incomplete and inaccurate citations, failure to cite translated material, and non-compliance with academic citation standards. Furthermore, the book fails to address numerous significant methodological concepts and recent innovations in research methodology.
The book can best be characterized not as a comprehensive and coherent methodological textbook, but as a compressed and encyclopedic collection that has attempted to cover a wide range of research methods and strategies while only superficially addressing selected concepts and techniques from some (but not all) areas and paradigms. To improve the book's quality, a comprehensive and in-depth revision addressing content, structure, writing, and referencing is essential. Specific recommendations include: incorporating a conceptual map of research types, providing a comprehensive picture before details, correcting erroneous examples and calculations, addressing writing and editorial issues, properly citing sources according to academic standards, updating content to include recent methodological innovations, including English equivalents for key concepts, and ensuring structural consistency throughout. Despite its popularity and widespread use in Iran, the book has considerable distance to cover to meet the standards of an analytical, instructive, and practical work for guiding researchers in behavioral and educational sciences.