http://ksgs.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/importance-of-reliability/#comment-14
Archive | October 2011
Do qualitative research methods violate the scientific method?
‘a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses’ http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientific+method
I have decided to look at whether qualitative research methods violate the scientific method. Above is the definition of the scientific method found in the Oxford Dictionary. So lets see if qualitative research methods covers what the definition tells us….
Qualitative research looks at the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’ of its topic through the analysis of unstructured information, so for example, interviews, open-ended surveys, photos and videos etc. Which means that qualitative research doesn’t just rely on the statistics or numbers, which are the main focus for quantitative research methods. The qualitative research is used to gain insights into people’s attitudes, behaviours and motivations etc. A lot of people believe that this information cannot be generalised to the population so they are not scientific, but is that what main focus is on the scientific method? With qualitative research will still observe different situations and we measure the results obtained, sure enough it’s not always full of numbers and the analysis is more time-consuming but we still get results that we can compare and measure. In terms of experiments, the qualitative method avoid these as they are unnatural and do not truly measure natural behaviours. However, case studies are a qualitative research method that is widely used. Case studies are a rich in detail analysis that focusses on a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships and examine contemporary real life situations. The scientific method consists of ‘formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses’ which some people will believe that only quantitative methods can achieve. But, without the qualitative method and without these in depth studies of certain behaviours how can we generate hypotheses linked to these events. Case studies brings us understanding to complex issues and sometimes strengthens what we already know from other research (which is the re-testing of other research if you look at it like that) but not only that, it can provide a basis of application of ideas and also the extension of methods. Which means they do formulate new hypotheses that can be tested and modified!
Therefore, I believe that qualitative research methods DO NOT violate the scientific method and without these we would not be able to understand the reasons why certain behaviours happen and we wouldn’t be able to formulate new hypotheses in order to test these findings.
Website References:
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
http://www.qsrinternational.com/what-is-qualitative-research.aspx
Homework for my TA
http://sinaealice.wordpress.com/
http://repugh18.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/do-we-need-statistics-to-understand-data/#comment-11
http://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/do-you-need-statistics/#comment-34
http://psuca2.wordpress.com/do-you-need-statistics-to-understand-your-data/#comment-9
I did comment on the blog below as well, but that is a blog from this week not last week, so I don’t know if it counts :/!
Is it possible to prove a research hypothesis?
The answer to this, I can say with confidence, is no.
When a researcher identifies a certain pattern or problem occuring in observations or maybe in real life situations they start to ask questions as to why this might be happening; this is how a hypothesis is formed. A good example would be Milgram’s Study of Obedience (1961). Adolf Eichmann ordered millions of Jews to be murdered in World War II, as his defense as to why he did it he said he was simply following orders. This interested Milgram and so he formed his research hypothesis; as it poses the question, whether an authority figure really could have such a great effect on obedience? If you fancy reading about the whole experiment then follow this link: http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm I always find it a very interesting read!
Now if Milgram was to test every single person in the world and they all had the same results that he predicted in his hypothesis then it may be safe to say that his research would be ‘proven’. But with any experiment, that would be impossible to do, instead, what researchers usually do is take a sample and generalize it to the population. Now within that sample, Milgram might find that all the participants have the same results to his hypothesis therefore his theory is correct but it still does not mean it is proven. You might test this theory over and over and still get 100% but it is still not proven as there are still other environmental or personal factors to consider. In Milgram’s first experiment in ’61 for example, he used all male particpants, so how could he generalize for the population of women too? All it would take to disapprove that theory is for someone else to do it on women and get the opposite results. Even if a huge sample in several countries was used and 99% of the data is what was predicted in the hypothesis, all it take is that 1%, just one person, to have a different outcome of results to disapprove that data.
Therefore a hypothesis can be supported and can be true as long as you have the evidence to support it. Milgram’s experiment was supported by evidence but not proven. Milgram coincedently did not get 100% results that agreed with his hypothesis, this does not mean his hypothesis is untrue, this just creates questions like ‘why were some people effected more than others’ or ‘is there a different effect between men and women’ which then lead on to another research hypothesis being created.
If you feel like reading on here’s another example of how a hypothesis is formed and how it cannot be proven is on this website: http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-hypothesis.html
spearmint123 