Statistical Foundations - Essay Example

?Table of Contents Page of the study 2 Detailed of the statistical inference 3 Critique on inferential methods and tools used, and presentation of results 5 Other quantitative aspects in the study 9 Conclusion 10 References 11 Description of the study The study was all about understanding the pattern and enjoyment of daily activities among heterosexual couples. The study was conducted in order to understand which activities were taken simultaneously by couples and which of those were separately done. Furthermore, it was the concern of the study to find out if activities conducted together by couples were more enjoyable than those done separately by them. In order to find out the above objectives, the study was able to make use of diaries given to couples in order that they could provide information on the quality of time and ways in which they could manipulate their proportion of time in order to maximize their enjoyment of it. Thus, the time diary analysis can significantly provide information on the domestic division of labour, the quality of time and couples’ significant ways on manipulating time to increase the proportion of enjoyable time (Sullivan, 1996). Unlike any other studies, this study was able to make use of diary instead of survey questionnaires. The bottom line of this was to include the concept and important issues in sociology of emotions. The proponent of this study believed that it may be encompassed by the context of sociology of emotion when it comes to creating an empirical link between the debates on the domestic division of labour and affective relationship between couples (Sullivan, 1996). Detailed description of the statistical inference The study was clearly able to emphasise the use of statistical inference especially on the part of finding the average enjoyment ratings for activities by both partners (Sullivan, 1996). When it comes to statistical inference, the whole thing about it talks more about the analysis and interpretation of data in order to come up with statistically relevant conclusion (Broto, 2007; Bajpai, 2009; Boyd et al; 1977; Dorofeev and Grant, 2006). This was absolutely attempted to be identified in the study of Sullivan. In order to further justify this, it is important to clearly elaborate the detailed description of the statistical inference used in the study. The first consideration of this study was the selection of samples which primarily involved those coming from the whole population of married couples. However, the study was able to make use of stratified sampling considering that there were different categories of couples which primarily involved a.) young couples (under 40) with no children, b.) households with young children (youngest under five) and woman was employed, c.) households with young children (youngest under five) and woman was not employed d.) households with older children (youngest over five) and woman was employed, e.) households with older children (youngest over five) and woman was not employed, and f.) retired employees (Sullivan, 1996). This was all about setting parameters which in this case was trying to come up with information that the author of the study believed to have eradicated the probable bias in data gathering. The respondents who were couples were given diaries and out from them the following information were gathered: ‘the sequential pattern of activities for the entire day for both women and men, the proportion of men’s and women’s time spent in various activities, the proportion of that time spent doing the same activity as a spouse or known as simultaneous activity, women and men’s enjoyment of different activities, and the enjoyment of different activities undertaken and non-simultaneously’ (Sullivan, 1996). Since there was no generally accepted definition of enjoyment as discussed by the proponent based on the available related literature, the study was able to come up with enjoyment rating scale from 1 to 5, 1 - enjoying a lot, 2 – enjoying a little, 3 – neutral, 4 – not enjoying much, and 5 – not enjoying at all (Sullivan, 1996). Based on these scales, there is substantial information of leisure and enjoyment among couples. This however, could not give substantial definition of enjoyment or leisure knowing that the respondents’ emotion may substantially influence the level of how happiness or enjoyment was defined at certain point of time. The proponent was able to gather data for the analysis from the respondent using diaries. The proponent argued that this was the best possible option compared to survey questionnaire because of its important implications in the sociological context of emotion (Sullivan, 1996). Based on the data gathered our from the couple’s diaries, information was processed and analysis was made. Based on the analysis, the proponent tried to come up with inference that may somehow employ statistical components. The proponent was able to come up with inference based on the information obtained from the diaries of couples. It was clear that the statistical inference made was strongly backed up by graphical representations (Sullivan, 1996). In figure 1 of the study, a certain graph shows the proportion of time spent in different activities. Based on this figure, the proponent pointed out an inference that couple’s activities do not link together. Figures 2 and 3 on the other hand show simultaneous activity of couples. Based on these figures, the proponent was able to come up with inference that couples were making efforts to co-ordinate their working and leisure time (Sullivan, 1996). Critique on inferential methods and tools used, and presentation of results In this section, the proponent of this paper tries to establish some important points on Sullivan’s way of using statistics under inferential methods, tools and presentation of results. Sullivan in his own way was able to come up with studies combining the basic principle of statistics and sociology. There can be no question raised how he come up with the theoretical framework of the study but there can be more questions to be raised when it comes to how the analysis progressed in the study. First, there is a clear question on the right approach how statistics should be used in the study in order to come up with more reliable inference. As it can be clearly observed, Sullivan was purely trying to justify his results based on graphical representations of results. In this case, there can be no question about it because it may sound that the whole thing or practice is made out of empirical considerations. However, in the case of statistics, there are two major functions that most of the studies should employ. The first function is in line with descriptive statistics and the second is composed of inferential statistics (Broto, 2007; Agresti and Finlay, 2009). The details of inferential statics was strongly emphasised by Sullivan. However, his way of presenting results and the use of inferential methods and tools were purely descriptive in nature. This means that the proponent was relying purely on the graphical representations of results and based on it, the conclusion was deduced which significantly became the basis of the result of the study. This only points out that statistical considerations are very important prior to coming up with results. The analysis is strongly link with statistical discipline as it can be clearly observed from the study of Sullivan. It may substantially look good to rely on the results of Sullivan, but there is still lacking despite of everything. In fact, there are some major ideas that can be properly expounded just like on his presentation of proportion of time spent in different activities and the simultaneous activity for partners (Sullivan, 1996). His presentation clearly stated that the conclusion was based on observation made out from the graphs and figures presented. However, there was no clear evidence to suggest that everything was statistically significant. When it comes to statistically significant results, the whole thing should not only consider pure descriptive nature of statistics. Inferential statistics is very important prior to coming up with inference and in depth analysis and interpretation of data. This is one of the things Sullivan missed in his presentation of results. There was no proper guidance of the statistical principles when it comes to the attempt to come up with inferential method and use of statistical tools. When it comes to inferential statistics, Sullivan should have tested if parametric or non-parametric test should be used (Broto, 2007). In detail, there should have been significant tests such as test of difference, test of relationship and test of association which are all important components of inferential statistics (Agresti and Finlay, 2009; Jiang, 2010; Neelankavil, 2007; Spiegel and Stephens, 1999). For instance, it would have been much better if Sullivan was able to use tests of relationship and associations on simultaneous activity of partners. On the other hand, it would also be much better if the test of difference was employed in the proportion of time spent in different activities. These are all practical tests in inferential statistics that if employed correctly will lead to statistically significant results. On the other hand, there was no clear population parameter considering that it was not clear where the couples were coming from. The study would probably imply that the selected respondents were representative enough of the entire population of married couples in the world. In this case, it was not clear where these couples were coming from. Since the study had absolutely linked sociology, there is another important issue of the use on parameter. It is important to consider that the representativeness of samples is very important prior to making inference of the entire population. In this case, there should be other significant factors that need to be considered especially the inclusion of culture and any other socially-relevant issues. Thus, another significant weakness of the study of Sullivan was his failure to consider the sample size, population parameters and other essential components that would prove the representativeness of his samples. If the samples were not representative enough then the entire inference on the entire population of married couples cannot be statistically significant (Anderson, 2004). Other quantitative aspects in the study In this section, the proponent tries to emphasise the use of descriptive statistics in the study. As it can be clearly observed, the study was able to get its strong evidence based on graphical representations of results as shown in figures 1-3 and other figures (Sullivan, 1996). The descriptive statistics deals with the collection and presentation of data, as well as describing the characteristics of individual objects or groups of individuals under study (Broto, 2007; Agresti and Finlay, 2009). This was purely employed in the case of Sullivan’s study, just prior to coming up with important results. Sullivan clearly employed tables, graphs and figures in order to describe the characteristics of the data. In short, Sullivan did not actually come into a point of in-depth analysis and interpretation of data which can only be employed in inferential statistics. The use of graphs and other related method was central to Sullivan’s generation of conclusion. These were his main tools used to quantitatively define information that could be relevant to his objectives. Furthermore, the use of tables was his clear representation of quantitative information that could back up his hypothesis. In short, all of Sullivan’s statistical tools used in analysing data and information were entirely anchored to a purely descriptive nature particularly in the data analysis. Conclusion The study of Sullivan is an important contribution to the body of knowledge, not only in providing information about the couple’s way of life but including the important use of statistics in a real life situation. The use of statistics in Sullivan’s study is very crucial considering that the credibility of his results was anchored to the analysis which primarily employed statistical tools. Statistical tools are very important consideration in study just like Sullivan’s. However, prior to claiming any significant conclusion especially when statistics is involved, statistically significant results should be well considered in detail so as to align academic practice and principles. The practice of Sullivan in employing statistics in a study is among of the common approaches of individuals who do no have sufficient ideas about the correct usage of statistical tools. Individuals are trying to link empirical considerations just to make justification on the results of their study but the entire attempt still missing something which is the complete understanding of statistical principles. For some just like Sullivan statistical inference can be established clearly if graphs and the descriptive nature of statistics are employed. However, there is an important implication of this finding and that is to educate every user of statistical tools the very essence of statistics and its major functions. References Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (2009) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Michigan: Pearson Prentice Hall. Anderson, V. (2004) Research methods in human resource management. Great Britain: CIDP Publishing. Bajpai, N. (2009) Business Statistics. India: Pearson Education. Boyd, H. W., Westfall, R., and Stasch, S. F. (1977) Marketing Research: Text and Cases. USA: IRWIN. Broto, A. S. (2007) Simplified Approach to Inferential Statistics. Manila: National Book Store. Dorofeev, S. and Grant, P. (2006) Statistics for real-life sample surveys: non-simple-random samples and weighted data. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Evans, M., Hastings, N. A. J., and Peacock, B. (2000) Statistical Distributions. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley. Jiang, J. (2010) Large Sample Techniques for Statistics. London: Springer. Neelankavil, J. P. (2007) International Business Research. USA: M. E. Sharpe. Spiegel, M. R., and Stephens, L. J. (1999) Schaum’s outline of theory and problems of statistics. USA: McGraw-Hill Professional. Sullivan, O. (1996) ‘Time co-ordination, the domestic division of labour and affective relations: time use and the enjoyment of activities within couples.’ Sociology, Vol. 30(1): 79-100. Read More