Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Behavioral science is a dynamic and evolving field shaped by the context of its broader environment. This evolution is marked by a bidirectional relationship involving a two-way interaction, where behavioral science both influences and is influenced by other scientific disciplines. Consequently, research in this field adopts various perspectives, tailored to factors such as age, gender, physical, and environmental conditions, depending on the study’s objectives. The diversity of perspectives results in a wide range of valid research methodologies, with each study employing distinct methods, tools, and approaches to meet its goals. However, despite this diversity, there is a notable lack of consistency and coherence in the methodological approaches used across behavioral science studies. This inconsistency affects multiple aspects of research, including data collection and analysis tools, methods, strategies, aims, and overarching paradigms. The outcome is a proliferation of varied research approaches that often lack alignment, leading to dissonance among different research components. This methodological inconsistency presents significant challenges, limiting researchers’ ability to effectively achieve their objectives. Given the inherent complexity of urban issues within behavioral and social sciences, there is a strong need for innovation throughout all stages of research. This need extends from the initial phases of problem formulation and the definition of objectives and hypotheses to the development of various theories. Achieving such innovation and ensuring research effectiveness in this field requires the creation of a systematic methodological framework. This study aims to address this critical gap by proposing a suitable methodological framework to improve the efficiency, coherence, and overall vision of research in behavioral sciences. To achieve this, the study utilizes a Meta-Method approach, reviewing methodological considerations in behavioral sciences research conducted from 2011-2023.
Methods: The research methodology for this study is qualitative, involving a comprehensive content analysis of existing behavioral sciences studies related to behavioral sciences. The approach is grounded in Meta-Method considerations, which offer a structured framework for the analysis. The Meta-Method approach follows a seven-stage process: 1) Formulation of the research question, 2) an extensive literature review and selection of relevant articles, 3) a systematic review of the articles, 4) data extraction, 5) data analysis and findings, 6) presentation and interpretation of findings, and 7) drawing conclusions based on the analysis. Initially, 70 articles related to the research topic were identified from reputable domestic scientific databases. A rigorous selection process was then applied to exclude articles with minimal relevance, involving a detailed review of titles, abstracts, and full texts. This ultimately led to the selection of 30 articles for in-depth analysis. To further refine the methodological framework, the onion model of research was used in analyzing these studies, with the aim of proposing an appropriate methodological model for conducting research in behavioral sciences.
Findings: The analysis of the selected studies uncovered a significant gap in the methodological orientation of behavioral sciences research. Many studies lack a clear methodological framework that aligns with their research objectives, often concentrating narrowly on one or two behavioral aspects, such as walking or standing, without using a structured methodology. Furthermore, most of these studies are field-based and focus on micro-urban and meso-urban scales, reflecting a localized and indigenous approach to problem-solving. While this localized focus is valuable, it limits the ability to generalize and apply findings to broader contexts within behavioral sciences research. Additionally, these studies primarily follow a pragmatism paradigm, employing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Common tools include interviews, questionnaires, observations, and statistical analysis, all aimed at practical, applied research rather than foundational or developmental studies.
Conclusion: To address the identified gaps, this study presents a new methodological model tailored to the specific research questions and objectives in behavioral sciences. This model provides a clear research pathway, outlining the appropriate methodological approach based on the nature of the research question. According to this model, behavioral sciences research can be divided into three distinct types. The first type includes revelatory and descriptive studies that focus on “what” questions, using strategies like surveys, ethnography, and case studies to explore user behaviors within the environment. The second type consists of explanatory and understanding studies that tackle “why” questions related to urban issues, employing a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, along with strategies such as surveys, correlation studies, ethnography, and case studies. The third type involves intervention studies, which focus on “how” questions, following the stages of revelation, explanation, description, and understanding. These studies use mixed methods within a pragmatism paradigm, incorporating a survey strategy aimed at achieving environmental and behavioral change.