Research Nethods (Lab Experiments) Flashcards
Reliability; What are the 2 reasons lab experiments are reliable?
-Once an experiment has been conducted, other scientists can then replicate it —> reliable:
1.) The original experimenter can specify precisely what steps were followed in the original experiment so other researchers can repeat in these in future.
2.) Detached method; the researcher merely manipulates the variables + records the results. The scientists personal feelings + opinions have no effect on the conduct or outcome of the experiment.
-Therefore has major advantages as the method used to identify cause-and-effect relationships in the natural sciences.
-We might expect positivists to use lab experiments, since they favour a scientific approach.
What are the reasons for lab experiments being rarely used in sociology (even by positivists)?
1.) Practical problems
2.) Ethical problems
3.) The Hawthorne Effect
What are the practical problems of lab experiments?
-It would be impossible to identify, let alone control, all the possible variables that might exert an influence on, say, ‘a child’s educational achievement or a worker’s attitude to work.’
-Lab experiments can’t be used to study the past, since by definition it is impossible to control variables that were acting in the past rather than the present.
-Usually only study small samples —> hard to investigate large-scale social phenomena (religion) + reduces representativeness.
What are the ethical problems?
1.) Lack of informed consent
2.) Deception
3.) Harm
Ethical problems; 1.) Lack of informed consent
-As a general principle, the researcher needs the informed consent of the research participants.
-However, this may be difficult to obtain from groups such as children or people with with learning difficulties who may be unable to understand the nature + purpose of the experiment.
Ethical problems; 2.) Deception - Milgram’s study
-Generally considered wrong to mislead people.
-Milgram’s (1974) study of obedience to authority:
-Lied to his research participants about the purpose of the research, telling them that they were assisting in an experiment on learning, in which they were ordered by the researcher to administer electric shocks when the learner fails to answer a ?
-However, the acc purpose of the experiment was to test people’s willingness to obey orders to inflict pain.
-Unbeknown to Milgram’s research participants, no electric shocks were acc used.
Ethical problems; 3.) Harm
-The experiment may also harm the participants.
-For example, in Milgram’s experiments, many research participants were observed to “sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bit their lips + dig their nails into their flesh. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects.”
-However, supporters of Milgram argue that his experiments can be justified ethically because they alert us to the dangers of blindly obeying authority figures. 74% of his participants said afterwards they had learned something of lasting value.
The Hawthorne effect
-A lab is not a natural environment —> behaviour in these conditions is also unnatural + therefore it lacks validity.
-If people know they’re being studied, they may behave differently, e.g. by trying to second-guess what the researcher wants them to do + acting accordingly = ruined experiment.
Free will
-Interpretivist sociologists argue that humans are fundamentally different from plants, rocks + other phenomena studied by natural scientists (unlike these we have free will, consciousness + choice.)
-This means our behaviour cannot be explained in terms of cause + effect. Instead the choices we freely make.
-In this view, the experimental method, with it’s searches for causes, is therefore not an appropriate method for studying human beings.
What are sociologists two alternatives to lab experiments?
1.) Field experiments
2.) The comparative method
1.) Field experiments
-Distinguished from lab experiments: ▪️Takes place in the subjects natural surroundings rather than an artificial lab.
▪️Those involved are generally not aware that they are the subjects of an experiment (No Hawthorne Effect).
-The researcher manipulates one or more of the variables in the situation to see what effect it has on the unwitting subjects of the experiment.
Field experiments; Roshenhan’s (1973) ‘pseudopatient’ experiment
-Researchers presented themselves at 12 California mental hospitals, saying they had been hearing voices. Each was admitted + diagnosed as schizophrenic.
-Once in hospital, they ceased to complain of hearing voices + acted normally. Nevertheless, hospital staff treated them as if they were mentally ill. None was found out.
-This suggests that it was not the patients’ behaviour that led to them being treated as sick, but the label ‘schizophrenic.’
Evaluation of Roshenhan’s (1973) ‘pseudopatient’ experiment
✅ Show’s the value of field experiments (more natural, valid, realistic, + they avoid the artificiality of lab experiments.)
❌ However, the more realistic we make the situation, the less control we have over the variables that might be operating. If so, we cannot be certain that the causes we have identified are correct.
❌ Unethical; involve carrying out an experiment on their subjects without their knowledge or consent.
The comparative method
-Carried out only in the mind of the sociologist (thought experiment).
-Does not involve the researcher experimenting on people.
-Like lab + field experiments it is designed to discover cause-and-effect relationships, it works as follows:
▪️Step 1: Identify two groups of people that are alike in all major respects except for the one variable we are interested in.
▪️Step 2: Then compare the two groups to see if this one difference between them has any effect.
The comparative method; Durkheim’s study of suicide
-His hypothesis was that low levels of integration of individuals into social groups = ^ rates of suicide.
-Argued that Catholicism produced higher levels of integration than Protestantism (therefore predicted Protestants would have a higher suicide rate than catholic’s.)
-Durkheim then tested his prediction by comparing suicide rates of C + P who were similar in all other important respects. His prediction was supported by the official stats, which showed Catholics to have lower suicide rates.
