Test 2

Credibility

Do conclusions align with people being studied

Dependability

Are we using a consistent, logical process

Confirmability

Researchers conclusions are due to the phenomenon and not their own biases

Transferability

Sufficient detail allows for transferring knowledge from one context to a similar context

Naturalism

Studying phenomenon in natural context

Interpretation

Understand participants view

Superimposing our knowledge on that topic

Goals of the participant observation

Describe and understand communication (interpretive paradigm)

Critical paradigm

The flow of inquiry

Warm up (getting started)

Floor exercise (gathering data)

Cool down (conclusion)

Theoretical sensitivity

Getting adequate background knowledge so you can make sense of what you are observing

Complete observer

The researcher doesn’t participate and the participants are unaware that they are being studied

Complete participant

The researcher participates but the participants are unaware they are being studied

Participant-as-observer

The researcher participates and the participants are aware they are being studied

Observer-as-participant

The researcher does not participate and the participants are aware they are being studied

Informed consent

Consent from the gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

The person who decides where the information goes

Jottings

Notes, reminders - can be quick

Re-writing notes

ASAP

Lots of detail

Triangulation

Looking at something from all perspectives that can give you the clearest, most conclusive pictures

Saturation

When you’re not incuring any new information

Why we use interviews

Used when we wish to understand what individuals think and/or feel about something

Great for things you can’t observe

Characteristics of qualitative interviews

Focus

Goal

Exploratory and emergent

Casual conversation

Focus

Peoples lived experiences

Goal

Describe and understand

Exploratory

in nature because we don’t know enough information

Emergent

You can change your design, questions, and/or goal as you study it

Casual conversation

A conversation with a purpose

7 stages of the interview process

Thematizing

Designing

Interviewing

Transcribing

Analyzing

Verifying

Reporting your results

Thematizing

Clarifying the purpose of our interviews

Goal: knowing background information

Help make questions beforehand

Designing

What will the interview look like

Interviewing

Conducting the interview

May change design during this stage (Emergent)

Analyzing

Developing common themes and determining meaning

Verifying

Taking back the analyzed data to the participants to see if they agree

Reporting

Report your results

Types of interviews

Structured

Semi-structured

Unstructured

Structured interview

Standardized questions

Semi-structured interviews

List of open ended questions with the opportunity for follow up

Unstructured interviews

Has a list of talking points/ideas but no list of questions (very flexible)

Interview format

Thematic

Sequence/chronological

Problem → solution

Cause → effect

Keys to asking good questions

Clear and simple

Everyday language

No double barreled questions

Avoid leading questions

Don’t jump to conclusions

Follow up questions

Writing introductions

Attention getter

Background information

Justification

Thesis

Preview

Survey

A method that asks questions about beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of respondents for the purpose of describing characteristics of samples and populations they represent

Correlational design

How is variable A related to variable B

Problems with surveys

Ecological fallacy

Response rate

Protection of individuals

Recall problems

Social desirability

Order effects

Ecological fallacy

Unit of analysis and conclusions don’t match

Response rate

The number of usable responses divided by the number of people you asked to fill out the survey

Aggregate data

Data as a whole

Recall problems

Can you remember accurately

Social desirability

The desire to answer in a way that makes you look good

Order effects

When one question influences you answer to another question

Types of surveys

Cross-sectional

Longitudinal

Cross-sectional survey

One time data collection

Most common

Types of longitudinal surveys

Trend

Panel

Accelerated

Panel survey

Same population but different samples at different times

Trend surveys

Same population, same time

Accelerated surveys

When studying for a longer amount of time, you break the time up to study it individually

Keys for closed ended questions

There needs to be an option for every answer

Mutually exclusive

Bias/emotional questions

When the question is meant to bias your answer

Double-Barreled questions

Two questions in one eliciting one response

Single/multiple item scales

Help improve

Double negatives

Using two negative words that cancel each other out

Layout

Make sure to use lots of space, or else feels cluttered

Sensitization

When people figure out what you’re studying

Response options

Nominal

Ordinal

Interval

Ratio

Nominal

Yes/no, sex/gender, occupation

Ordinal

Rankings (favorites, birth order, etc.)

Interval

Likert

Likert types

Semantic differential

Ratio

Age, income, etc

Likert scale

5 labeled options to choose from

Likert type scale

More than 5 labeled options to choose from (this often means the distance between the points are closer)

Semantic differential scale

Asks people to rate something on a scale

Experimental design

A functional research design with the purpose of explaining certain IV impact on certain DV

Three requirements for causation

IV must precede the DV

IV and DV must be related to one another

Changes in the DV must be results of changes in the IV

Exercising control

How researchers exposes participants to the IV

Initial differences between condition/groups to be the same

Effect of extraneous influences

Types of IVs

Manipulation: always gives more control

Observed/attribute variables

Random assignment

Each participant has an equal chance of being in either group

Random selection

A procedure in which each person in a population has an equal chance of being selected to be in the sample

Equivalence

Random assignment

Quasi-equivalence

Pretest

Types of experimental designs

True experiment

Quasi-experiment

Pre-experiment

True experiment

IV needs to be manipulated

2 or more groups

MUST use random assignment

Quasi-experimental design

No random assignment

ALWAYS has a pretest

Use pre-existing group

Pre-experimental design

No random assignment

Happens before experiment to see if it is worth studying

Participant blinds

The participants don’t know what the purpose of the experiment and what group they are in

Double blind experiment

Neither the participant nor the researcher knows what group the participant is in

Manipulation check

Making sure your manipulation is doing what it says you’re doing

Confederates

People whoa re working with the researchers but looks like any regular person

Factoral designs

More than one IV

Main v. interaction effects

2x2 design

Validity

Accuracy or correctness in what we are doing

Internal validity

Is the study logically sound and free of confounding variables

External validity

Are the results generalizable to the population

Threats to internal validity

Participant related threats

Researcher related threats

Procedure related threats

Participant related threats

Hawthorne effect

Selection bias

Mortality

Maturation

Interparticipant bias

Hawthorne effect

If participants know they are being observed/studied, they act differently

Selection bias

When selection procedures creates differences in the control and experimental groups

Mortality

When you lose participants

Maturation

Your participants change

Interparticipant bias

When one participant interacts with another that influences the outcomes of the study

Researcher related threats

Experimenter expectancy effect

Observation bias

Researcher attribute effect

Experimenter expectancy effect

When the researcher knows what the study is about and the groups participants are in and treat participants differently, changing the results

Observation bias

When those observing know about the experiment and the group changes how they observe, therefore changing the results