As I’ve been writing articles on psychology for some time now, I’ve begun to realise just how important an understanding of the research methods behind the subject are in discussing psychological findings. Only by understanding how particular results about behaviour and the mind were found can we really understand them themselves. This knowledge of the research behind psychological understanding, I have realised, is something I certainly take for granted when writing articles on the subject, and so I have decided over a series of articles to briefly look at the considerations that must take place when carrying out or reviewing a study. This will also teach how to identify problems with the studies, as well as how to know how much to trust the information we are reading.
To begin with, we will be looking at the types of research that can be carried out in order to retrieve data. There are 4 main types that are generally considered when completing a study, which are experiments, correlations, observations and interviews, each with their own merits and drawbacks.
Firstly, experiments can probably make the most valid conclusions about behaviour, since they are the best at determining cause-effect relationships, whereby one factor directly effects another. They involve manipulating one variable (the independent variable) to see its effect on another (the dependant variable). If there is a significant effect on the dependant variable, then we can say that the independent variable is causing a change and will do so in the real world as well. There are various types of experiment which are used dependant on the variables being studied. A lab experiment takes place in a specialised facility, meaning that it can be much more controlled, and so the results will be more valid and reliable, however they will lack ecological validity, meaning the results may not be relatable to real life, when there is not such a controlled environment. Field experiments take place in the real world, and are more ecologically valid, particularly when the participants are unaware that they are taking part, yet in an uncontrolled environment, there are far greater influences that could contaminate the validity of the results. Quasi experiments take place when it would be too unethical to directly manipulate the dependant variable, or it cannot be done, so instead the change takes place indirectly. For example, we cannot change the time of day ourselves, but we can instead wait for the time of day to change to carry out a part of the experiment. Though experiments are perhaps the most valid and reliable form of data, they are extremely difficult to set up and carry out effectively, can be less ethical, and may have lower ecological validity.
Correlation studies are much simpler. They involve measuring data for two different variables and seeing how strongly the two relate, for example, age and general knowledge. The relationship between these two variables may be a positive one, since general knowledge is likely to improve with age. Correlation data can predict relationships ranging from +1 (strongly positive), meaning that as one variable increases so does the other, and -1 (strongly negative), meaning that as one variable increases, the other decreases. This is a simpler procedure to carry out than experiments, but it cannot identify that a cause-effect relationship is present, since it may be that the two variables are linked indirectly (there may be another variable affecting both of them together).
Observations involve simply watching a group of participants, and using what is seen to understand their behaviour. It is certainly an acceptable method for knowing which behaviours occur, but it is less effective at understanding why. One method of observation involves making a tally of how many times certain behaviours occur in order to see which are the most common in a particular scenario. Problems with this method are that each individual will make different observations with some may categorising certain behaviours in one way and some in another, meaning that observation can be unreliable.
Interviews are the final form we’ll cover here, and are based around simply asking an individual, so also suffer from low reliability, in that people can lie or forget things. On the other hand, since psychology involves looking at the personal experience of individuals, in some cases interviews and questionnaires can be effective. Questionnaires are essentially a written form of interview, and so are also included as a potential research method. Interviews can involve open ended questions or closed questions. Open ended ones allow for richer detail, but do have the issue that they allow the participant to stray from giving information that is useful, and the data they retrieve is much harder to sort. On the other hand, closed question data is much easier to sort since it only gives the participant set options to choose from, yet it restricts the findings somewhat.
Annoyingly, it seems that each of these research styles has some problems to overcome, so it may be impossible to create research that is flawless. However, it is important to remember, that a researcher does not just have to use one of these research methods. By using a variety of different methods to test the same hypothesis, a researcher can be much surer of their results, and it is through rigorous testing like this, that theories can become accepted psychological truths.
Image from: http://iserotope.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/research-paper.jpg
0 Comment:
Be the first one to comment on this article.