Questions -Answers April.
- Are there any advantages to having more than one independent variable in an experimental design? If so, what are they? What about more than one dependent variable?
Including multiple dependent variables for a similar experiment permits one to respond to more research questions, so too does remembering multiple independent variables for the same analysis. For instance, rather than leading one examination on the impact of disgust on moral judgment and another on the effect of private body awareness on moral judgment, Schnall and associates had the option to direct one investigation that tended to the two inquiries. Be that as it may, including multiple independent variables likewise permits the analyst to respond to questions concerning whether the impact of one independent variable relies upon the degree of another (Howe et al., 1990, 2-9). This is alluded to as a cooperation between the independent variables
At the point when an experiment incorporates multiple dependent variables, there is again a chance of vestige impacts. For instance, it is conceivable that measuring members’ states of mind before measuring their apparent wellbeing could influence their visible wellbeing or that measuring their apparent wellbeing before their dispositions could influence their temperaments. So the order where multiple dependent variables are measured turns into an issue. One methodology is to quantify them in a similar request for all members for the most part with the most significant one first so it can’t be influenced by measuring the others. Another methodology is to balance, or efficiently differ, the order where the dependent variables are measured.
- What is the difference, if any, between the sign of a correlation and the strength of a correlation?
A correlation between variables demonstrates that as one variable changes in value, the other variable will, in general, alter in a particular course. Understanding that relationship is helpful because we can utilize the value of one variable to predict the value of the other variable. For instance, stature and weight are correlated as height increases; weight additionally tends to increase (Newmal et al., 1998, 1-20). The strength of a correlation showed by + or − sign, mirrors the bearing or incline of a correlation. A positive correlation is more grounded than a negative correlation.
- A professor at a private women’s college wishes to asses the degree of alienation present in undergraduates as compared to graduate students at her institution. She will use an instrument that she has developed.
The professor would apply the Canonical Correlation, which a multivariate analysis of correlation. Sanctioned is the statistical term for breaking down unused variables (which are not legitimately watched) that speak to multiple variables (which are straightforwardly observed). The term can likewise be found in authoritative relapse analysis and multivariate discriminant analysis.
Canonical Correlation analysis is the analysis of multiple-X multiple-Y correlation. The Canonical Correlation Coefficient quantifies the strength of the relationship between two Canonical Variates. A Canonical Variate is the weighted aggregate of the variables in the analysis (Sukumulson 2007, 2-3). The authoritative variate is signified by CV. Essentially to the conversations on for what reason to utilize factor analysis as opposed to making unweighted files as independent variables in relapse analysis, sanctioned correlation analysis is ideal in dissecting the strength of the relationship between two develops.
- Some researchers argue that conducting a careful cross-sectional survey of the population of the United States would be preferable to doing a census of the population every ten years. What do you think? What might be some arguments for and against this idea?
The cross-sectional survey is a great idea. With cross-sectional research, one can gather information on various variables is simply one examination. This empowers you to analyze whether a few variables are related to each other without leading multiple investigations. The drawback is you can just make the relationship between variables; one can’t demonstrate that one variable is causing changes in different variables. This is to a lesser degree an issue if one has the opportunity and assets to catch up the cross-sectional investigation with another sort of study, for example, a partner study, that can look at all the more intently the issue of causality among the variables (Johnson 2001, 3-12). Census is limited in terms of efficiency and amount of data captured.
- What do you see as the greatest strength of qualitative research? The biggest weakness?
Strength: Subject materials can be evaluated with detail. Many time limitations are put on research techniques. The objective of a period limitation is to make a quantifiable result with the goal that measurements can be set up. Subjective research concentrates less on the measures of the data that is being gathered and more on the nuances of what can be found in that data. This takes into consideration the data to have an upgraded degree of detail to it, which can give more chances to gather bits of knowledge from it during the assessment. The nature of the data assembled in subjective research is profoundly personal.
Weakness: This is the place the original idea of data gathering in subjective analysis can likewise be a negative segment of the procedure. What one researcher may feel is significant and essential to accumulate can be data that another researcher feels is futile and won’t invest energy seeking after it( Howe et al., 1990, 2-6). Having singular viewpoints and including instinctual choices can prompt unimaginably point by point data. It can likewise prompt data that is summed up or even erroneous as a result of its dependence on researcher subjectivisms.
- Which do you think would be hardest to master and do well, observing or interviewing? Why?
Interviewing and observation are two techniques for gathering subjective data as a significant aspect of research. The two devices are utilized by scholarly researchers and in fields, for example, statistical surveying. Observing seems hard to master. There are two kinds of observation. In a member observation, the researcher will make herself part of the network that she is watching. An immediate consideration can be progressively engaged, as the researcher regularly brings in her subjects and watches them for a predetermined measure of time (Vanderstoep et al., 2008, 1-10). Interviews differ from organized, in which a set rundown of inquiries is posed of each interviewee, to unstructured, which is open-finished but easy to conduct. These various procedures lead to numerous distinctions in directing and breaking down the research data.
- In terms of difficulty, how would you compare a content analysis approach to the study of social bias on television with a survey approach? In terms of useful information?
The content analysis approach limits researcher predisposition and usually has excellent unwavering quality because there is less space for the researcher’s understandings to inclination the analysis. It is speedier to do than subjective types of content analysis (Sukamulson 2007, 2-3). Weaknesses rise when you begin to utilize more extensive classes which can be deciphered diversely by various people. Merely observing the content of a media content discloses to one nothing about the setting in which it happens, or the more extensive significance which the words or pictures pass on. TV can’t sensibly be relied upon to portray the social world, yet they important to sociologists since they can mention to us what media makers think individuals need to see, and it likewise intriguing to perceive how various gatherings are spoken to in anecdotal TV appearances, and the degree to which twisting happens.
- A significant criticism of ethnographic research is that there is no way for the researcher to be objective about what he or she observes. Would you agree? What might an ethnographer say to refute this charge?
Almost all research of methods generates some bias, as the very act of collecting data “touches” study participants in a way that may affect the response. Ethnographic studies, however, take this to an entirely different level, since researchers put themselves into the lives of those being studied (Howe et al., 1990-5-9). The risk of changing behavior and, therefore, research results is much higher.
- Which of the steps involved in historical research that we have described do you think would be the hardest to complete? The easiest? Why?
The most challenging step in historical research is learning what others have already detected. A historian first researches the discoveries that have already been made, and this takes time and effort. This will keep him from being forced to rediscover previously known facts. Skipping this step is similar to trying to learn algebra without having first mastered arithmetic. The easiest step is sharing the discoveries as historian gains insights from others by showing them what he has learned and asking if they agree with his conclusions (Newmal et al., 1998,1-18). This keeps him from overlooking some obvious or essential facts.
- What do you see as the greatest strength of mixed-methods research? The greatest weakness?
A single-approach design might only include experiments to determine cause and effect regarding a specific issue. Conversely, it might only use observation to tell the story of why a problem has arisen. A mixed-approach design uses the strengths of both methodologies to provide a broader perspective on the overall issue (Jonson 2001, 5-10). One major weakness is Personal Bias because people are different; some are more adept at performing one research methodology over the other.
- Do you think the assumptions that underlie action research are true? Explain your reasoning. Are any of them questionable?
In other words, one of the main characteristic traits of action research relates to collaboration between researchers and members of the organization to solve organizational problems (Vanderstoep et al., 2008, 2-8). Action study assumes the social world to be continually changing, both researcher and research being one part of that change. Generally, action researches can be divided into three categories: positivist, interpretive, and critical.
References
Howe, Kenneth, and Margaret Eisenhart. “Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon.” Educational researcher 19.4 (1990): 2-9.
Johnson, Burke. “Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research.” Educational Researcher 30.2 (2001): 3-13.
Newman, Isadore, Carolyn R. Benz, and Carolyn S. Ridenour. Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. SIU Press, 1998.
Sukamolson, Sulfate. “Fundamentals of quantitative research.” Language Institute Chulalongkorn University 1 (2007): 2-3.
Vanderstoep, Scott W., and Deidre D. Johnson. Research methods for everyday life: blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. Vol. 32. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.