Research Methods in Social Sciences - Essay Example

 Research Methods in Social Sciences Abstract Research methods in the social sciences emerge in two major designs i.e. quantitative and qualitative designs. Quantitative designs often use statistical analysis to generate genuine and dependable general assertions. On the other hand, qualitative designs concentrate in understanding social phenomena by use of direct observation, analysis of secondary data and direct integration with the participants. Social scientists in general, apply various methods to investigate broad social phenomena. This paper will concentrate on three major methods: experimental research, survey research and field research. It will analyze the purposes, strengths and weakness of all the three research methods. Introduction Social scientists apply experimental, survey and field research techniques to analyze social phenomena. Experimental survey is a pool of research methods that employ operation and restricted testing for analyzing causal procedures. Normally, the researcher controls one or more variables to establish their impact on a dependent variable. On the other hand, survey research uses questions posed on the respondent to collect primary data. The researcher then analyzes this data in order to make conclusions. Survey broadly uses interviews and questionnaires to collect data. Conversely, field research entails recording direct field observations by the researcher. In this case, the researcher may choose to be a participant observer or a non-participant observer. A participant observer takes place in the activities of the group that he is studying and becomes part of the group. On the other hand, the non-participant observer only observes at a distant, which means that he does not take part in the group that he is studying. Experimental Survey Experimental survey is a planed design that inflicts a great deal control over the conditions of the research procedure (Ruane, 2004). All experiments entail random task of participants in the phenomenon of the research, dependent and independent variables. The main aim of performing an experiment is to examine casual associations between the dependent variable and independent variable. Researchers might carry out experiments in extremely controlled laboratory settings or in field environments, in which the researcher has somewhat less control over the resultant forces that may influence the variables. In the laboratory, the researcher normally has adequate control over peripheral forces that may affect the participant (Lewis-Beck & Bryman, 2004). Simon (2003) indicates that the purpose of experimental technique is to generate data from which a researcher might obtain genuine conclusions as efficiently as possible. The disparities in outcomes displayed among the different experimental and control groups do not arise from disparities in original forms among the groups. Rather, they result from differences among the stimuli offered to the experimental groups. This is probably the most significant aspect of this technique. As Crano, & Brewer (2002) asserts, the researcher who prepares the study and plans the conclusion measures, also resolves how the independent variable is to be maneuvered in most experimental research. In addition, most experimental research aims at testing forecasts based on hypothesis rather than generalizing directly from the simulated setting of the laboratory to real experience. Babbie (2010) adds that using control groups in experiments permits the investigator to perceive any outcomes of the experiment itself. In some particular instances, an experimental technique needs more than one experimental or control group. Preferably, the control group symbolizes what the experimental group would be like if the experimental stimulus had no effect on it. Therefore, the basis of experiments necessitates control and experimental groups to be parallel as possible. Experimental research exhibits various strengths as a method of research in the social sciences. First, the randomization and limitation that typify the laboratory experiment assist in shielding the investigation from superfluous variables that un-accounted for in the research. Moreover, experiment is the perfect technique to establish cause-effect relationships. Researchers mostly use this method when substantial knowledge of the condition under study already exists. The experiment can also considerably help in understanding the specific nature of the creation in question. It is also a perfect technique to examine alternative descriptions of precise, forecasted casual relationship. This improves the identification of factors that intensify or hinder a given conclusion (Lewis-Beck & Bryman, 2004). In addition, the control of the experimental phenomena facilitates the researcher to deactivate the influence of substitute variables. This aids the researcher to eradicate efficiently the rival descriptions of changes in the dependent variable. Since the experimental technique is able to eradicate several standing rival explanations of conclusions, it becomes strong on internal soundness (Ruane, 2004). The main advantage of a controlled experiment is due to its seclusion of the experimental variable’s effect eventually. In a fundamental experimental form, a group of experimental subjects has a particular characteristic. However, after the introduction of an experimental stimulus at the outset of the experiment, the characteristics become different. Further, researchers can frequently duplicate a particular experiment several times using numerous diverse groups of subjects. This is because individual experiments are frequently rather imperfect in span, which requires less time and money and relatively not many subjects (Babbie, 2010). Experimental design however appears to be weak in some areas. To start with, it experiences problems of exterior validity since it is very artificial (Ruane, 2004). Moreover, the synthetically controlled aspect of the laboratory experiment initiates the likelihood that an observed relationship survives only under the controlled circumstances of a particular research setting (Crano, & Brewer, 2002). Moreover, the social processes that occur in a laboratory setting might not necessarily occur in natural social settings. For instance, an African American history film may indisputably lessen bias among a group of experimental subjects (Babbie, 2010). Field research Field research entails the researcher using observation to comprehend a social phenomenon and eventually draw conclusions from the study. The main purpose of field research is to analyze people or events closely in their natural settings. The researcher observes certain behavior closely over time while recording the drawn conclusions. The researcher may choose to live or stay temporarily with the group he is studying or just observe at a distant without becoming part of the group. According to Babbie (2010), the researcher in field research faces an essential choice between peculiarity and extent of understanding the phenomenon. This frequently signifies a choice between soundness and dependability, correspondingly. Characteristically, field researchers choose depth, preferring to found their decisions on a wide range of inspections and information. They do this even at the menace that another researcher may reach a different decision of the same condition. Ruane (2004) asserts that with field research, the social researcher openly observes people or occurrences in their natural settings. He adds that the main aim of field research is to record the natural flow or order of events. Most field researchers reveal an increased readiness to assert an existing membership in the group they are conducting the research. Moreover, they understand that it may be neither practicable nor advantageous to sieve out their own insights in pursuit for the truth of a given social condition. Different from laboratory researchers, field researchers redefine the people they investigate. Rather than calling them subjects, they call them colleagues or collaborators (Lewis-Beck & Bryman, 2004). This is because they engage the people that they are studying in their investigation. Moreover, they have to establish a good relationship with the people they are studying. This will help the people to develop confidence with the researcher eventually cooperating with him. By so doing, the researcher will collect precise first hand information. Field research consists of documented field notes, which are the images or words that the researcher used to document his field surveillances. More often, field researchers are capable of making some informed generalizations. The researcher can generalize from several research findings by recurring one field study in the other settings, or with other groups. In addition, field research logically aids in the idiographic approach of casual investigation. The dedication of field research to openly observing occasions and people over time enables the thorough assessment of casual sequencing (Ruane, 2004). A key strength of field research is its likelihood of acquiring samples of behaviors under naturally occurring situations. This helps the researcher to gather a wide range of data that helps him to make more ascertained decisions. The researcher is not limited to the amount of data that he can collect and des not rely on prepared questions. This ensures that he gets access even to information that may be very confidential and in-depth. However, field research presents a variety of weaknesses. First, field researchers are not able to assign respondents randomly to several phenomena of a study. This is because there is no systematic preparation prior to the research. The researcher only gets into the field and observes the conditions under study. Secondly, there is the incapability of the researcher to control the existence, absence, or very influential factors that would apparently have key influences on decisive behaviors. In some field research attempts, the researcher might be able to allocate participants randomly to experimental situations but, once allocated, some participants might fail to take part or to experience the experimental maneuvering (Crano, & Brewer, 2002). Though they present differing strengths, purposes and weaknesses, both field and experimental research strengthen the worth of each other. For instance, the field can become a ground of retesting the results obtained in the laboratory. Similarly, the laboratory can act as a ground for more thorough tests of the less-than-entirely controlled observations of the field researcher. This helps the two methods supplement each other hence mitigate some of their individual weaknesses (Crano, & Brewer, 2002). Survey research Survey is a research instrument that collects vital research data through asking questions. The researcher can pose these questions to the respondent in form of questionnaires or interviews. Questionnaires are structured questions in which the respondents fill. On the other hand, interviews are prepared one on one encounter with a respondent where the respondent answers questions as the researcher asks him or her. Since the survey researchers gather all survey information at one moment in time, they do not have the alternative of imposing the independent variable and then estimating succeeding changes in the dependent variable. Accordingly, the survey researcher has to pursue other ways of ascertaining that the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time (Ruane, 2004). A more contemporary survey method is the internet survey. Generally, the sampling frame for a web-based survey is the population of individuals who have easy access to computers and feel at ease using them frequently. In most survey research, the researcher asks the participant a question and offers him a pre-set and restricted set of permissible responses. Survey researchers have come up with several inventive methods to lessen non-responsiveness in data collection. For instance, in mail surveys, cash inducements to take part and follow-ups sent to those who do not return the survey within a particular period have had positive effect on the reaction rate (Crano, & Brewer, 2002). In ethical considerations, surveys frequently ask personal information, and researchers have to keep such information a secret. Moreover, since asking questions can lead to psychological uneasiness or harm to respondents, the researcher should reduce the risk (Babbie, 2010). In a classic survey, the researcher chooses a sample of respondents and directs a standard questionnaire to them. Surveys are essential for instructive, investigative and expressive purposes. Their main use is in studies where individual people are the characters for investigation. Survey research is most likely the best technique available to the social researcher who focuses in generating original data for analyzing a population that is too big to observe directly (Babbie, 2010). The main purpose of survey research is to generate approximations of population values that are as precise as possible and that will represent the conditions of the entire population. Generally, survey research centers on external validity instead of internal validity. However, one shortcoming of the research is how well the information from a part of the population actually represents the principal opinions or feelings of the entire population (Crano, & Brewer, 2002). Web surveys provide the capability to enhance clearly on other forms of self-administered surveys. This is due to its special aspects in terms of skip pattern automation, the removal of transcription errors and data validation, all of which facilitate in minimizing measurement error. In addition, a researcher can programme web survey to perform input validation as a reasonable test of the respondent’s answers. These types of checks enhance data quality and consequently save time in the preparation of the evaluation file. A researcher can also programme internet surveys to handle the process of skipping queries as with logic checks. This will get rid of errors and, make simpler the process of taking the survey from the respondent’s standpoint. For internet surveys, the researcher downloads the respondents’ responses directly into a folder, thereby avoiding recording errors. This is different from other surveys, which need some form of change into an electronic form for investigation (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). In general, survey research is very strong in terms of economy. This is because there is the opportunity to sample a big population such that the quantity of data that the researcher can collect is minimal. In addition, the homogeny of the data collected signifies another special strength of the survey. Moreover, cautious probability sampling offers a group of respondents whom the researcher can take their features to reflect those of the larger population. Cautiously created uniform questionnaires present data in the same form from all respondents, which help to avoid complicated analysis of the data. Surveys are also outstanding vehicles for measuring feelings and directions in a large population for example public opinion polls (Babbie, 2010). Web-based surveys present exclusive new capabilities as either an option or an addition to other survey methods. For instance, an internet survey can comparatively simply integrate multi-media graphics and sound into the survey mechanism. Likewise, self-administered internet surveys can integrate other attributes that were once limited to more costly interviewer-assisted methods, for example automatic branching and real-time randomization of survey questions or answers (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). Despite its purpose and strengths, survey has several weaknesses. First, it is hard for surveys to tackle convincingly the issue of counter explanations of dependent variables. This is because the formation of randomly allocated experimental and control groups is not part of surveys. Moreover, real encounter has taught survey researchers that aspects of age of the respondents can be very undependable. If the researcher does not use sensible sampling approaches, generalizing from survey information can be difficult (Ruane, 2004). In the case of internet surveys, the assumption is that the possible respondents have access to computer and internet. This often reduces the coverage of the system. The data collected may not be enough and the researcher might consequently be restricted to the amount of information gathered. Currently, the general population coverage for web-based surveys still considerably lags behind the exposure realizable using other survey modes (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). Other assertions allege that the survey method is potentially apparent, relatively rigid and somewhat simulated. Another weakness is that it is hard to use surveys to achieve a full sense of social phenomena in their natural settings. Since survey limits it self to certain segments of the population, the information collected may not be entirely strong and may not wholly represent the general perception of the entire population. Generally, survey research is relatively weak on validity and strong on reliability (Babbie, 2010). A chief issue for internet surveys is that their ease of execution gives way for naïve maltreatment. Another particular concern for this method is that the easy generation of large numbers of surveys can effect in surveyors and survey data consumers mystifying quality with quantity (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). Conclusion The above three techniques of social research: experimental, field and survey differ in their purposes, and somewhat counter each other’s strengths and weaknesses. At the point where experimental method is weak for instance in its external validity, the field method becomes strong in that area. The social scientists widely apply these techniques to study various aspects of social phenomena. The experimental technique is widely used by researchers who want to establish relationships between dependent and independent variables of certain conditions. On the other hand, the survey researchers study certain social phenomena in an area where the population is very large. The researcher therefore selects a portion of the population as a representative of the whole population. In the case of field research, the researcher aspires to study social phenomena under the natural conditions that the phenomena occur by observation. In order to make adequate and efficient conclusions, the social scientists should integrate all the three techniques. This is because they will substitute each other hence providing more generalized conclusions that are reliable. References Lewis-Beck, S.M. & Bryman, A. (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods, Volume 3. California: Sage. Ruane, M. J. (2004). Essentials of research methods: a guide to social research. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell. Simon, J. L. (2003). The art of empirical investigation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,. Crano, D.W. & Brewer, M.B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research Inquiry and Pedagogy across Diverse Contexts Series. New York: Routledge. Fricker, R.D. & Rand, M. S. (2002). Field Methods, Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Research Surveys. Evidence from the Literature, 14, 4, 347-367. Babbie, E.R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Boulevard: Cengage Learning. Read More