Paper 3

HL Paper 3, although works for ethical considerations & research methods for paper 1 & 2. Answers for entirety of paper 3 (HL).

list all 6 ethical considerations

informed consent
avoiding deception
right to withdraw
avoiding harm/stress
maintaining anonymity an confidentiality
debrief

Informed consent

participants agreeing to participate in a study + have been given enough info to make an informed decision

• participants should not be coerced into participation

Avoiding deception

ensuring participants are fully informed on the nature of the study (are not being deceived/lied to)

• if participants are unaware of the aims or deceived about particular aspects of the study they may find themselves in uncomfortable situations they did not agree to participate in

Right to withdraw

assuring participants (at the start of the study that) they can leave whenever they want during the study

• participants may feel uncomfortable during the experiment, especially when investigating sensitive issues, this could cause emotional/psychological harm. the researcher must be explicit about the participants R2W usually in the consent form

Avoiding harm/stress

if harm/stress is expected, it is kept minimal and reasonable (does not exceed normal day-to-day stress experience)

• this includes emotional, mental, physical stress, anxiety, fear, embarrasment

• if sensitive issues are dealt with participants should be offered counselling following the study

• participants should know they have the R2W at anytime to avoid further harm/stress , if they feel the need to

Maintaining anonymity and confidentiality

removing participants names from data the collecting, analysing and publishing process

• breach in confidentiality could bring harmful consequences

• suggested use of pseudonyms or numbers for participants (instead of names)

• if unable to maintain confidentiality, it should be explained to participants during consent form/period

Debrief

revealing the full intentions/aims/results of the study after it is over

list the 3 QUANTITATIVE research methods

experiment (true/lab, field, quasi, natural)
correlational study
survey

4 characteristics of a true experiment

take place in a controlled environment
variables are operationalised
random allocation of participants (into conditions)
researcher manipulates the independent variable (IV)

characteristics of a field experiment

examines the effect of IV on DV
takes place in a naturalistic environment
control of extraneous variables is not always possible

characteristics of a quasi experiment

examines effect of IV on DV
participants are allocated based on characteristics of interest
researcher does not manipulate the IV (pre-existing)
one of more conditions of a true experiment cannot be met
ptcps are NOT randomly allocated into conditions

characteristics of a natural experiment

examines effects of IV on DV
IV is naturally occuring
extraneous vars cannot always controlled

characteristics of correlational study

has co-vars (not investigating effect of IV on DV)
tests the strength of relationship between co-variables by calculating a correlational coefficient —coefficient ranges from -1.0 to 1.0

characteristics of survey

gathers data on a large number of participants
uses data gathering techniques such as questionnaires
often calcs correlations between co vars

list the 3 QUALITATIVE research methods

observations (naturalistic/covert/over/non-ptcp/ptcp)
interviews (focus-group/structured/semi-structured)
case study

characteristics of a covert observation

participants are unaware they are being observed (until study is complete)
usually take place in naturalistic environments in qualitative experiments

characteristics of a naturalistic observations

subjects behaviour take place in a naturalistic environment
field notes + other data gathering tehcniques are used
usually followed-up with interviews

overt observations

subjects are aware they are being observed
usually take place in naturalistic environments in qualitative experiments

participant observations

researcher participates as a member of the group they are observing

non-participant observations

researcher does NOT participate in the group they are observing

focus-group interview

interview with 6-10 participants
rely on group process, and the interaction between participants/individuals
allows for revelation of information not revealed between researcher + indiv ptcp
resembles group dicussion
interviewer acts as moderator

unstructured interviews

interviewer has topics to cover, with a lot of freedom (has no direct order or precise Qs to ask)
can include open & closed Qs
interview evolves based on the interactions between interviewer + ptcp

semi-structured interviews

has an interview schedule + topics to outline, but allows for elaboration/deviation
resembles a conversation
face-to-face discussion when researcher asking participants questions
combination of open & closed ended questions

characteristics of case study

in depth inv of an individual, small group or organisation
multiple methods are used to gather data
often a combo of quantiative + qualitative methods
uses contextual analysis
has longitudinal/retrospective design
holistic approach to investigation/analysis

state the 5 sampling methods

random
convenience/opportunity
volunteer/self-selected
purposive
snowball

random sampling

every member of the target pop has an equal chance of getting selected
reduces sampling bias
aims to obtain representative sample of target pop

convenience/opportunity sampling

participants collected based on convenience/availability
based on convenience for both researcher + participant
may lead to sampling/researcher bias

volunteering/self-selected sampling

participants approach researcher to participate
usually participants root from marketing

purposive sampling

participants selected based on relevant characteristics — invited to participate
possible use of snowball simultaneously
recruited through a range of methods (direct contact or referal)

snowball technique

an initial group of participants are selected, sample grows are those participants invite others.
useful when studying "hidden pops" — pops that wish not to be found/hard to be found

(methodological/researcher) triangulation

the use of additional research methods OR researchers

why use triangulation

increases credibility or validity (if similar results are found)

interviews (as a support for additional research methods)

follow-up interviews allow for the making-of-sense of the researcher's findings in observations

ethical considerations for before reporting findings

disclosing conflicts of interest
fair reporting by the media
informed consent
anonymity
right to withdraw

anonymity before reporting findings

participants names are removed from data — prevent participant's possible embarrasment

debreifing before reporting findings

asking ptcps follow-up questions ensuring the researchers findings are accurate
ensuring participants are aware of how the study is to be reported
ptcp can ask more questions about the study

fair reporting by media (before reporting)

anyone reporting results of a study have an ethical obligation to be truthful in how they report

informed consent before reporting findings

informing ptcps of HOW the results are to be reported, in order for them to make an informed decision

disclosing conflicts of interest(s) (before) reporting

if the researcher has possible conflicts of interest/personal link in relation to what was investigated, it must be disclosed when reporting the results

verifying findings (when reporting)

procedure of data should be shared w other researchers on controversial nature

ethical considerations for when applying findings

avoid misinterpretation + misunderstanding
ensure strengths AND limitations of research are understood
reliability (has it been replicated)
generalisability
justice and equitability

reliability when applying
findings

it could be considered unethical to apply findings of a study that has not been replicated

ways to better credibility

triangulation
larger sampling
using controls
replication/repetition of the study

define bias (+ researcher bias)

when existing thoughts/beliefs/ideas influence ones behaviour or thinking
researcher bias: when the factors above influence the results of a study

ways to avoid bias

triangulation (method/researcher/data)
different sampling methods (some are more prone to bias than others)
using controls (double-blind design)
replication
reflexivity

reflexivity

the reseacher constantly reflecting on their role in the research and how it might be affecting them — this allows for the researcher to be more aware of their bias and thus try to reduce/prevent it

data triangulation (to avoid bias)

gathering data at more than one time to improve validity/credibilty of findings (increasing chances the findings being accurate reflection of reality and not being a random chance)

replication (to avoid bias)

replicating a study and finding similar/same results increases credibilty/reliability of the study

define credibility

the extent to which the results of a study accurately represent(s) what was being studied/investigated
qualitative research only

define validity

the accuracy of the methods of acquiring quantitative data (for what was being investigated)
quantitative research only

factors affecting credibility [4]

triangulation
sampling
controls
replication

sampling to ensure credibility/validity

a larger sample = more representative of population = credibility/validity

controls to ensure credibility/validity

employing controls eliminate extraneous variables, confirming that the results are as a result of the manipulation of the var
possible controls include:
counterbalance
single- double- blind design(s)
repeated measures
control conditions
random allocation of ptcps
etc.

generalisability (or external validity)

the extent to which conclusions of a study can be applied/generalised to contexts beyond the study itself

transferability

the extent to which we can transfer the findings of a study to another context
qualitative

things to consider doing when generalising/transferring the findings of a study

1. how representational the sample is
2. extent of ecological validity (bc of procedure)
3. has the study been replicated (include S&L of RM, samplign tech etc!!!)

ecological validity

the degree to which research (findings) can be generalised/applied to non-artificial contexts (real-world, everyday circumstances & experiences)

internal validity

the degree of confidence in a causal relationship in a study is trustworthy (that it was not influenced by other factors)

construct validity

how accurately the tools used to measure abstract/concepts was in measurement