Quantitative Research Session 4 & 5 PDF

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Session 4 and 5  THE RATIONALE OF RESEARCH A research project has a well-known structure: a beginning, middle, and end. Before the modern idea of research emerged, there was a term for what philosophers used to call research: logical reasoning. H...

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Session 4 and 5  THE RATIONALE OF RESEARCH A research project has a well-known structure: a beginning, middle, and end. Before the modern idea of research emerged, there was a term for what philosophers used to call research: logical reasoning. How two major logical systems—the inductive and deductive methods of reasoning—are related to modern research. An error in logic is often called a fallacy, and there are a number of fallacies that tend to come up repeatedly in conducting research. Issues of Validity: How do we know whether the answers we get from research are sensible and accurate? How valid are the results of your research? What factors contribute to making a study more or less valid, stronger or weaker?  STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH The Hourglass Metaphor for the Research Process Both ends of the hourglass represent the realm of ideas and the research questions that guide the project. The hourglass center is the most concrete or specific part of the process. The parts in between show how we translate the research questions into procedures for measurement (top part of the hourglass) and how we translate the data we observe into conclusions and new or revised questions (bottom part).  COMPONENTS OF A STUDY Most social research originates from some general research problem. Usually, the problem is broad enough that you could not hope to address it adequately in a single research study. the problem is typically narrowed down to a more specific research question that can be addressed. Research question  The central issue being addressed in the study, which is typically phrased in the language of theory. The problem with such a question is that it is still too general to be studied directly. Consequently, in much research, an even more specific statement, called a hypothesis, is developed that describes in operational terms exactly what you think will happen in the study.  COMPONENTS OF A STUDY Notice that hypothesis is specific enough that a reader can understand quite well what the study is trying to assess. In causal studies, there are at least two major variables of interest: the cause and the effect. A distinction is made between causes that the researcher can control (such as a program) versus causes that occur naturally or outside the researcher’s influence (such as a change in interest rates, or the occurrence of an earthquake). The effect (or dependent variable) is the outcome that you wish to study.  COMPONENTS OF A STUDY For both the cause and effect, a distinction is made between the idea of the cause or effect (the construct) and how they are actually manifested in reality. In research, a distinction is made between your view of an entity (the construct) versus the entity as it exists (the operationalization) Ideally, the two should agree, but in most situations, the reality falls short of your ideal. Issues of Units and Sampling: Social research is always conducted in a social context. Researchers ask people questions, observe families interacting, or measure the opinions of people in a city.  COMPONENTS OF A STUDY Causal Studies The interest is in the effects of some cause on one or more outcomes. The outcomes are directly related to the research problem; usually, the greatest interest is in outcomes that are most reflective of the problem.  In a causal study, the effects of the cause of interest (for example, the program) are usually compared to other conditions (for example, another program or no program at all).  Thus, a key component in a causal study concerns how you decide which units (people) receive the program and which are placed in an alternative condition. This issue is directly related to the research design that you use in the study. One of the central themes in research design is determining how people wind up in or are placed in various programs or treatments that you are comparing.  DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION In logic, a distinction is often made between two broad methods of reasoning known as the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific -Sometimes, this is informally called a top-down approach -This ultimately leads you to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data—a confirmation (or not) of your original theories DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, this is sometimes called a bottom-up approach You begin with specific observations and measures, begin detecting patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that you can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.  DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Nota bene: Inductive reasoning, by its Even though a particular study nature, is more open-ended and may look like it’s purely deductive exploratory, especially at the (for example, an experiment beginning. designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some Deductive reasoning is outcome), most social research narrower in nature and is involves both inductive and concerned with testing or deductive reasoning processes confirming hypotheses. at some time in the project.  TWO RESEARCH FALLACIES Ecological fallacy Exception fallacy - Faulty reasoning that results from - A faulty conclusion reached as a making conclusions about result of basing a conclusion on individuals based only on analyses exceptional or unique cases. of group data. ALIDITY OF RESEARCH Validity -The best available approximation of the truth of a given proposition, inference, or conclusion. Cause construct - Your abstract idea or theory of what the cause is in a cause-effect relationship you are investigating. Effect construct - Your abstract idea or theory of what the outcome is in a cause-effect relationship you are investigating.  VALIDITY OF RESEARCH Remember the Acronym CICE Conclusion Validity - In this study, is there a relationship between the two variables? Internal Validity -Assuming that there is a relationship in this study, is the relationship a causal one?  VALIDITY OF RESEARCH Remember the Acronym CICE Construct Validity -Assuming that there is a causal relationship in this study, can you claim that the program reflected well your construct of the program and that your measure reflected well your idea of the construct of the measure? -In simpler terms, did you implement the program you intended to implement, and did you measure the outcome you wanted to measure? -In yet other terms, did you operationalize well the ideas of the cause and the effect?  VALIDITY OF RESEARCH Remember the Acronym CICE External Validity -Assuming that there is a causal relationship in this study between the constructs of the cause and the effect, can you generalize this effect to other persons, places, or times? Threats to validity -Reasons your conclusion or inference might be wrong.  VALIDITY OF RESEARCH Remember the Acronym CICE  ETHICS IN RESEARCH (VICAR) Voluntary participation - For ethical reasons, researchers must ensure that study participants are taking part in a study voluntarily and are not coerced. Informed consent -A policy of informing study participants about the procedures and risks involved in research that ensures that all participants must give their consent to participate. Confidentiality -An assurance made to study participants that identifying information about them acquired through the study will not be released to anyone outside of the study.  ETHICS IN RESEARCH Anonymity -The assurance that no one, including the researchers, will be able to link data to a specific individual. Right to service -The ethical issue involved when participants do not receive a service that they would be eligible for if they were not in your study. For example, members of a control group might not receive a drug because they are in a study. Institutional Review Board (IRB) A panel of people who review research proposals with respect to ethical implications and decide whether additional actions need to be taken to assure the safety and rights of participants.  CONCEPTUALIZING Where Research Topics Come From? Feasibility – SMART The Literature Review First, concentrate your efforts on the scientific literature. Second, do the review early in the research process.  CONCEPTUALIZING WHAT SHOULD YOU LOOK FOR IN THE LITERATURE REVIEW? First, you might be able to find a study that is quite similar to the one you are thinking of doing. Since all credible research studies have to review the literature themselves, you can check their literature review to get a quick start on your own. Second, prior research will help ensure that you include all of the major relevant constructs in your study. You may find that other similar studies routinely look at an outcome that you might not have included. Your study would not be judged credible if it ignored a major construct.  CONCEPTUALIZING WHAT SHOULD YOU LOOK FOR IN THE LITERATURE REVIEW? Third, the literature review will help you to find and select appropriate measurement instruments. You will readily see what measurement instruments researchers used themselves in contexts similar to yours. Finally, the literature review will help you to anticipate common problems in your research context. You can use the prior experiences of others to avoid common traps and pitfalls.