lessons 1 and 2 Flashcards

Question

we have to focus on specific aspects in reality -

Answer 1

complexity reduction

Answer 2

how well it captures the part of reality your theory aims to explain.

Answer 3

Is a study replicable? Can it be repeated? If a study supports a theory once, this means that a general pattern is identified. Theories are about establishing patterns on reality, so this criterion has to be fulfilled. This requires that you should be able to conduct a study more than once. It should be possible to repeat a study in more or less the same way as the original one * Systematic and transparent procedures. * Observations not bound to individual researcher. * It could be done over, even if it likely won’t be.

Answer 4

Are the results stable and not mere coincidence? * Very much related to replicability. But where replicability has to do with procedures, reliability has to do with outcomes. Replicability has to do with the procedures/methods of the study. However, we should also come to the same outcomes/findings; this is reliability. can we expect reliable an outcome trust that it will do what you expect

Answer 5

Is a study actually doing what it claims to be doing? Are the findings accurate? * Most critiqued aspect of studies. * Different from reliability. Indeed, results can be stable, but still, it does not tell us anything about what reality is really like (it does not make sense). Validity is concerned with the integrity of the conclusions that are generated from research. E.g. IQ test to measure intelligence. It’s definitely applicable and reliable. But does it also mean that an IQ test can actually tell you something about people’s intelligence. This is an entirely different question. Reliable – will you find an IQ score time and time again? Valid – does IQ score reflect intelligence?

Answer 6

1. Measurement validity. Are the measures that are used right? 2. Internal validity. Are the (causal) relations that are found really there? If we suggest that x (the independent variable) causes y (the dependent variable), can we be sure that it is x that is responsible for variation in y and not something else that is producing an apparent causal relationship? 3. External validity. Do findings hold for other people/cases than the ones studied? Can they be generalised (beyond the specific research context)? 4. Ecological validity. Is the research setting similar enough to reality? It is concerned with the question of whether social scientific findings are applicable to people’s everyday, natural social settings. The more the social scientist intervenes in natural settings or creates unnatural ones, such as a laboratory or even a special room to carry out interviews, the more likely it is that findings will be ecologically invalid.

Answer 7

Causality is what connects one process with another process or state, where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. 1. Two separate things occur together (relation). And 2. One of them is considered to provoke the other. Causality is a pattern that we see in reality, but we cannot be sure that it is in reality. Some criteria: * Plausibility o Good reason why cause may lead to effect (theory). A plausible mechanism is helpful. * Temporality o Cause comes before effect. * Consistency o Cause invariably leads to effect. Consistent findings.

Answer 8

* Causation = A -> B. * Reverse causation = A <-B. * Intervening effect = A- > C- > B. * Cyclic effect = A -> B -> A -> B -> … * Confounding effect = C -> A; C -> B. * Spurious relation = A & B (mere coincidence).

Answer 9

* Two (or more) highly similar groups - Randomisation. Subjects are assigned to groups on the basis of coincidence. * Differ in only one controlled respect - Conditions Control group (no treatment) and experimental group (manipulated treatment). - Differences in outcome can be attributed to differences in conditions. - Strong causality claim. In other words, true experiments tend to be very strong in terms of internal validity. True experiments require us to manipulate the independent variable. However, the vast majority of independent variables cannot be manipulated. For example, gender; we cannot manipulate gender so that some people are made male and others female

Answer 10

Takes place in a laboratory or in a contrived setting, such as in classrooms and organisations. This is mostly used in social psychology because the researcher has more influence over the experimental arrangements. The researcher has a higher level of control, and this is likely to enhance the internal validity of the study. It’s also more straightforward to replicate because they are less bound up with a certain setting that is difficult to reproduce. * Excluding any confounding effect  high internal validity. * But very ‘sterile’  low ecological validity. * And people are aware being part of an experiment  reactive effects.

Answer 11

* More realistic circumstances - higher ecological validity. * But less control over confounds - lower internal validity. However, manipulation of condition often implies small group of participants. - Low external validity (in both cases). - Experiments are quite rare in Sociology.

Answer 12

The cross-sectional design is often called a survey design, but the idea of the survey is so closely connected in most people’s minds with questionnaires and structured interviewing that the more generic-sounding term cross-sectional design is preferable. It’s basically a type of observational study that analyses data from a population, or a representative subset, at a specific point in time. It takes a snapshot of a population at a certain time, allowing conclusions about phenomena across a wide population to be drawn. An example of a cross-sectional study would be a medical study looking at the prevalence of breast cancer in a population. The researcher can look at a wide range of ages, ethnicities, and social background. If a significant number of women from a certain social background are found to have the disease, then the researcher can investigate further

Answer 13

Longitudinal design Just like cross-sectional design, but repeated (waves). It uses time as the main variable and tries to make an in-depth study of how a small sample changes and fluctuates over time. Longitudinal designs allow to see trends / evolutions over time, and it can say something about causality. The ground-breaking television documentary ‘UP’ is probably the most famous example of a long-term longitudinal study, a case study of a group of British people from birth.

Answer 14

Two forms: * Cohort In a cohort study, either an entire cohort of people or a random sample of them is selected as the focus of data collection. The cohort is made up of people who share a certain characteristic (age, sex, etc.) E.g. Surveying 18-year-olds in 1991, 2001, 2011, etc. * Panel Single group of people is selected once and then studied repeatedly. E.g. surveying people who were 18 in 1991, again in 2001, again in 2011, etc.  Internal validity better than cross-sectional. In terms of reliability, replication, and validity, the longitudinal design is a little different from cross-sectional research. However, a longitudinal design can allow some insight into the time order of variables and therefore may be more able to allow causal inferences to be made. But, one of the major flaws of a longitudinal study, the problem that there can be no retesting or restart. Cohort * Are the participants in waves sufficiently comparable? Internal validity? Panels * People stop participating (attrition). External validity? * People get used to participation. Internal validity?

Answer 15

In-depth analysis of the details of a single, interesting case (person, community, organisation, event, etc.) not just a sweeping statistical survey. It’s often qualitative research. The basic case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case. As Stake (1995) observes, case study research is concerned with the complexity and particular nature of the case in question. This method of study is especially useful for trying to test theoretical models by using them in real world situations. For example, if an anthropologist were to live amongst a remote tribe, whilst their observations might produce no quantitative data, they are still useful to science. Case is selected for being representative for a certain theory or extreme.  Ecological validity is high, but external validity is lower. How can a single case possibly be representative so that it might yield findings that can be applied more generally to other cases.

Answer 16

Put simply, this design entails studying two contrasting cases using more or less identical methods. It embodies the logic of comparison; in that it implies that we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations. The aim may be to seek explanations for similarities and differences or to gain a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of social reality in different (usually national) contexts. In terms of issues of reliability, validity, replicability, and generalisability, the comparative study is no different from the cross-sectional design. The comparative design is essentially two or more cross-sectional studies carried out at more or less the same point in time. By comparing two or more cases, the researcher is in a better position to establish the circumstances in which a theory will or will not hold. Comparing two (or more) research contexts: * Comparing cross-sections. o A research study being conducted at a point in time at two or more geographical locations or for two or more groups of people etc. for comparison purposes. * Comparing cases. o Survey in various countries, comparing two organisations, etc. * ‘Second order’ comparison. o Not just comparing differences in cross-sections. o Not just comparing conditions in experiment. Comparative and longitudinal are sub-forms of cross-sectional and case study designs.

lessons 1 and 2 Flashcards

(40 cards)