study of social class in modern Britain

(4 Marks)

Based on the above research, it can be identified that the researcher used multi-stage cluster sampling. The researcher begins by sampling the cluster first and proceeds with further clusters. Unlike stratified sampling, multi-stage cluster sampling allows the interviewer to be far more geographically concentrated. In this case, Marshal et al. Incorporated three stages including a sampling of parliamentary constituencies, sampling of polling districts and then a sampling of individuals.

(26 Marks)

In the study, the men selected were to be between 16-64 and women aged 16-59. As such, there would be a probability of being selected if one was between the specified range. For instance, the odds of being selected at the age of 25 years can be established, thus making the initial sampling a probability sampling. Thus, the researchers were able to attain a considerable amount of data within a short time. The selection of parliamentary constituencies and polling districts were selected with a corresponding probability that was proportionate to the sizes. On the other hand, determining eligible households would entail non-probability sampling since certain requirements would be applied.

The sampling of polling districts would entail the judgment of the researchers to identify the appropriate districts. The pre-defined rules would also be applied when selecting addresses to identify individuals. For instance, the researchers would select eighteen addresses from the sampled polling districts. As a result, this would be followed by a selection of individuals from each of the eighteen addresses. This approach would, therefore, involved certain guidelines that would determine the person to be selected. As opposed to the probability sampling, this case would apply non-probability sampling where the individuals would not have certain odds of being selected (Acharya et al. 2013)

Table 1

(10 Marks)

From the above table, the researcher found there is a strong connection between employee satisfaction and job compensation with a significance of 0.012. In this case, employees with a higher rate of compensation are likely to be satisfied with their positions. Employee satisfaction was also found to have an impact on job performance. Since the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, job performance and immediate supervisor were not correlated.  The immediate supervisor and job compensation were closely linked following the significance of 0.34.

The significance 2-tailed indicated a statistically significant correlation between the variables. In this case, the level of correlation was varied while considering different components of impacting employees. From the findings, it is clear that job satisfaction is dependent on compensation. Put simply, employees will be satisfied when the compensation aligns with the amount of work they perform in their work settings. As such, employees receiving a lower salary can be demoralized, thus reducing their satisfaction. On the other hand, the performance of employees is determined by compensation. Since salaries act as incentives, employees performance is dependent on the compensation. The table shows no relation between the immediate supervisor and employee satisfaction. It is evident that the immediate supervisor does not affect the satisfaction of employees. Also, there is no correlation between job performance and the work environment. It is, therefore, justifiable to state that the two variables do not depend on each other. These findings are useful for employers and management teams in determining the variables that are likely to impact each other.

        (20 Marks)                                                                        

From the above table, it is evident that the Pearson correlation was used. The reason for using this type of correlation was to establish the association between two variables. From the table, it is possible to identify the connection between various variables one at a time. In this case, the Pearson correlation is based on covariance, thus making it appropriate for measuring the relationship between variables of interest. In this case, the variables of interests including immediate supervisor, employee satisfaction and job compensation were analyzed. Consequently, this correlation provides the magnitude of the correlation and the direction of the relationship between various variables (Benesty et al 2009).

The most important aspect about this method, however, is the ability to indicate the extent to which two variables are linearly related. From the table, the variables showing a correlation of 0.000, therefore, do not have any linear relation. For instance, it is evident that the correlation between job performance and immediate supervisor is 0.000. In this case, the Pearson correlation has been successful in revealing the lack of association between the two variables. For this reason, the correlation can be helpful in job settings to notify the management of the variables that are likely to affect others.

While job satisfaction is important in the work setting, it is dependent on other variables that determine how employees behave I the workplace. Through job satisfaction, employers are able to improve other areas in their companies. Therefore, it is essential to use Pearson correlation in identifying the components that tend to show a relation to employee satisfaction.

By doing so, it is possible to improve the key areas that directly impact the employees and their satisfaction in their current positions. In accordance with research and findings I the table, it is possible to identify the motivating factors that work to ensure the efficiency of the employees in the work setting. Through this correlation, the study is able to establish the degree of relationship between job satisfaction and other variables like compensation. The approach helped answer several questions including whether there is any relationship between the employee satisfaction component and the immediate supervisor. In this case, the study was aimed at identifying whether the efficiency of the immediate supervisor could potentially affect the satisfaction of employees while handling their job tasks. In summary, the Pearson correlation was appropriate for this study to reveal several relationships between different variables.

(10 Marks)    

The correlation, in this case, is 0.74. The relevant independent variables from the table include the immediate supervisor and work environment. Notably, the work environment is not affected by other variables. The immediate supervisor also is not influenced by other variables like employee performance and compensation. The independent variables are therefore not affected during the correlation since they do not require the change in other variables. For instance, an increase in employee compensation cannot have an effect on the immediate supervisor and vice versa.

(30 Marks)

Informed Consent

In this case, informed consent is an ethical issue since the researcher would be required to acquire consent from the participants. In this study, one group of students were taught using two ways of presenting learning materials. On the other hand, the other group was not given any lessons regarding the use of two ways of presenting learning material. In this case, the experiment was split into two groups where some students would not receive any learning. As such, the researcher would be required to obtain the consent of the students, thus giving them a chance to select the group they would prefer to be allocated. The most intriguing aspect of the experiment is that placing some students in one group without their consent would potentially resulting in biased results. The idea of randomizing the students in the two groups without proper consultation would, therefore, violate their rights and potentially lead to the wrong results from the experiment.

Assessing the risks and benefits

The risks to the participants is a major concern in this research. In this experiment, the participants would be equipped with different levels of knowledge. The researcher is therefore required to consider the intrinsic harm caused by the participants. For instance, the frustrations arising from the results of the experiments may negatively impact the students. The students taught how to present learning material in two ways can emerge as superior to the other students. In such a scenario, the students in the second group that does not receive the lessons can be demoralized, thus decreasing their willingness to participate in another experimental study.

Reporting of the results

The researcher is obligated to report the results in an understandable manner to the participants. In this case, the two groups received different levels of knowledge, therefore making it possible for the researcher to obtain varied results. However, several respects from the two groups were comparable. In this case, reporting would play an important role in the participants and third parties which may include the administration. Notably, the lack of reporting can make the experiment insignificant since the students would not know the results.

Discrimination

The allocation of students in two different groups may have been perceived as a form of discrimination by some of the students. In this case, one group would be taught on ways of presenting learning materials. Therefore, the other group without any knowledge on how to present materials in two ways may view this approach as discriminating, thus instilling intrinsic harm. This is, therefore, an ethical challenge that the researcher is faced with while conducting the above experiment. Given the circumstances of the experiment, it can be difficult to control the harm on the participants. However, the researcher can apply a randomized approach to select students to be allocated in the two groups. By doing so, the researcher would create an equal opportunity for each of the participants to fall into the group being offered teachings on how to present learning material in two ways.

Justification and validity of the results

In this case, the researcher would be required to justify the results of the experiment. As mentioned in the case, the participants were comparable in several respects. Although the research contains features of a quasi-experiment, it does not represent a true experiment. In this case, this can be perceived as an evaluation experiment since the researcher was striving to make the treatments as comparable as possible. While the students in both groups did not show any significant differences, those in the first group with teachings on the new ways of presenting learning materials may find various aspects of their course simpler than the others. In this case, the researcher may be countered with the issue of justifying the significance of the study. This would, therefore, entail subjecting the same groups in another experiment or long-term observation to determine students who found the course material easier to present in future (Miller et al. 2007).