bruh Flashcards
some criteria for causality
- Plausibility Good reason why cause leads
to effect (theory) - Temporality Cause comes before effect
- Consistency Cause invariably leads to effect
types of causation
Causation A→B
* Reverse causation A←B
* Intervening effect A→C→B
* Cyclic effect A→B→A→B→…
A
* Confounding effect C
B
* Spurious relation A & B (mere coincidence)
Randomized controlled trial
two (or more) highly similar groups → Randomization
Subjects are assigned to groups on the basis of
coincidence
* Differ in only one controlled respect → Conditions
Control group (no manipulation)
Experimental group (manipulation)
→ Differences in outcomes can be attributed to differences in
conditions
→ Strong causality claim (high internal validity)
Laboratory experiment
- Excluding any confounding effects → high internal validity
- But very ‘sterile’ → low ecological validity
- And people are aware of being part → reactive effects
Field experiment
- More realistic circumstances → higher ecological validity
- But less control over confounds → lower internal validity
However, manipulation of conditions often implies small
group of participants
→Low external validity (in both cases)
→EXPERIMENTS ARE LESS COMMON IN SOCIOLOGY
Cohort
Different people are selected on the basis of a recurring
criterion (age, sex, …)
Surveying 18 year-olds in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021, …
internal reliability
If a variable cannot be observed directly, it can be captured
using several indicators (or items)
→Indicators should point to a single variable
→Observations for various indicators (answers to various
statements) should be similar
→Internal reliability = consistency of indicators
[Split-half method – half of the indicators is compared
with other half]
[Cronbach’s alpha – correlations (0-1) between
indicators]
Reliability – stability
If a study is replicated (using similar methods) at a
later moment, the results should be highly similar
→TEST–RETEST
Example
Asking people’s attitudes using a Likert scale,
and then asking their attitudes again using the
Likert scale
→ Attitudes have not changed
→ Reliable Likert scale
Example
Likert scale
Attitudes about importance of art
* I like art
* Art makes you a better person
* Art is interesting
* Art is important for society
→ On average, people who agree with one
statement, should also agree with the other
statements
Reliability – inter-rater reliability
If one researcher does certain findings, so should
another one
Especially relevant when interpretation is needed
Example
Researcher considers science fiction
novels a form of lowbrow reading
Do other researchers agree?
Face validity
Does the operationalization make sense?
Convergent validity
How does the operationalization compare to
another operationalization of that concept?
If a concept can be studied in various ways, the results
should nonetheless be similar
Example
Popularity of films
* could be studied by counting visitors
* or by looking at box-office revenue
* or by looking at streams
→ Similar figures should result
Construct validity
Theories establish patterns between concepts,
and variables are operationalizations of concepts,
so if variables behave in the way it is theoretically expected,
they are likely to be valid operationalizations of concepts
Descriptive
What are things like?
→ Characteristics
* Which things go together?
→ Associations between characteristics, typologies
BUT often not so clear-cut
* Probabilistic
Which things usually go together?
* Gradual
To which extent … ?
Causal
What causes something?
* What is the effect of something?
BUT often more complex
* Multi-causality
What are the causes, what are the effects of … ?
* Gradual
To what extent does something cause … ?
* Probabilistic
What generally causes … ?
Example
Why do people go to museums?
Comparative
What are the differences?
* Between cases
* Between places
* Between time periods
BUT often including …
* descriptive
In which respects do cases differ, in which respects similar?
* causal
How do causes differ?
* probabilistic and gradual
To which extent do they differ or are they similar?
Example
How do visitors of modern art museums differ from visitors
of natural science museums?
Interpretive
How are things? How can we make sense of reality?
→ Often qualitative
Example
How do visitors of modern art museums experience the
collection?
Some types of research questions
Criteria for research questions
Clear and unambiguous
* Researchable … and testable (for quantitative)
* Connection with theory and earlier research
* Links between various research (sub-)questions
* Original … except in the case of replications
* Not too broad – not too narrow
* They should indeed be questions (not hypotheses)
Criteria for research questions
