The Process of Randomization - Essay Example

Q Ans. Randomization, as the implies, is the process in which something is made random. This means that a random sample is selected from thepopulation. Randomization involves random allocation of the units of experiment across the treatment groups. Biological experiments and human clinical trials have invariably used randomization as experimental control method since randomization helps prevent the bias of selection. Randomization produces groups that are comparable to each other and allows for the use of probability theory to express the possibility of chance as a causal factor for the end outcome’s difference. Randomization works by ensuring that all patients’ chances of getting the treatment under study is the same and by generating comparable groups of intervention that are similar in all aspects of importance other than the intervention received by each group. The most rigorous means of finding out the existence of a cause and effect relation between a dependent and an independent variable or for determining the cost effectiveness of a treatment for a certain outcome is randomized controlled trials. An experiment is a kind of investigation which involves scientific testing of a hypothesis. Experiment includes manipulation of an independent variable and measurement of a dependent variable. In simple experiments, researchers tend to find out whether administering a medicine causes the symptoms to improve or not. Therefore, such studies encompass random assignment of the research participants to either of the two groups. One of these groups receives no treatment and is called as the control group whereas the other group which receives the treatment is termed as the experimental group. It is the presence of both control group and experimental group which makes experiments the best method of determining cause and effect relationship between two variables. Experiments not only show what happens when a certain treatment is given, but also depict what happens when the same treatment is not given. Furthermore, experiments employ the use of inferential statistics to determine the meaningfulness or reliability of the results since the outcomes might be affected by a range of factors particular to the individual research participants. Most experiments include a mechanism of controlling the extraneous variables from affecting the outcome of the treatment. Inferential statistics includes drawing inferences about a population on the basis of measures taken from a sample which represents that population. Experimenters also measure statistical significance in order to determine the effect of the treatment given to the experimental group. Statistical significance depicts that the two variables do not have a cause and effect relationship by chance and rather there is most likely a real relationship between them. Another factor that makes experiments most suitable means of determining the cause and effect relationship between two variables is that they are objective; the outcomes of the experiment are not affected by the personal views and opinions of the researchers, which often happens to be a source of bias and lack of validity in other research methods that do not involve experiments. Experiments are, therefore, less biased and more valid. Q. 2: Ans. Sociology and journalism have a lot in common. Both fields explore the underlying and critical reasons for events, though their angle of viewing is different. The strong impact of sociology and media on people at large makes sociology strongly connected with journalism. While sociology provides content for journalism, it is the journalists that create news drawing the information from the sociologists. Journalists have a greater access to the masses because of their regular reporting and exposure in the media, so they are more capable of making news whereas sociologists’ access to common people and exposure is relatively lesser. Time is a very important factor in both sociology and journalism. Journalists inform masses on what events happen on a certain day or point in time. While time is also of prime importance to sociologists, they have more luxury on it compared to journalists; while the journalists have to report what is happening right now, sociologists report the results of research based on experiments or tests conducted at least a year ago in most cases. Studies range in period anywhere from less than a year to several years. This does not imply that the research is outdated, rather it suggests that time is needed for analysis and reflection in sociology whereas journalism itself includes analysis. The stories shared by journalists make news while the reports of sociologists are not news because journalists report current events whereas sociologists summarize and conclude events happened long ago. Their emphasis on theory makes sociologists different from journalists. While most academic research is dry without being based on, linked with, or directing towards a theory; journalists do not need theories. Many sociologists tend to come up with a theory based on the findings of their research or draw a connection between their findings and an existing theory. While the analytical approach of sociologists is similar to that of journalists, the content generated by the two differs both in quantity and nature; on one hand, journalists make news because their work caters to the interest of a wider audience or the whole nation at large. On the other hand, sociologists do not make news because their work addresses the concerns of a certain section of society or a certain community e.g. psychologists, educationalists, or other professionals. Owing to the similarity of the nature of their job, sociologists and journalists can learn a lot from each other. Journalists can benefit by using sociological research and thinking more often while reporting the news so that the audience can have thorough understanding of the general context in which the news is grounded. This imparts a need for the sociologists to broaden their scope and make a more generic interpretation of their findings. Sociologists also need to improve their ability to communicate their ideas to masses at large. The common factor between sociologists and journalists is that both study what, when, where, who, and why; it is the “how” which makes sociologists different from journalists and this is where journalists use news as a medium while sociologists do not. Q. 3: Ans. Qualitative research includes in-depth interviews, focus groups, and documents’ review for types of themes whereas quantitative research uses structured interviews, surveys, observations, and documents’ review for numeric information. Qualitative research is primarily an inductive process in which hypotheses or theories are formulated whereas quantitative research is primarily a deductive process in which pre-specified concepts making up a theory are tested. Traditionally, qualitative and quantitative research stand divided, with researchers on both sides defending their particular choice of research type. The distinction between the two kinds of research was valid at the 20th century’s turn, but with continued evolution of the ideas about research, distinction between qualitative and quantitative research has become more of a matter of the past. Techniques employed in both qualitative and quantitative research studies are more similar than different. Researchers usually offer four main areas in which qualitative research is argued to be different from quantitative research i.e. research methodology; data, participants, and analysis; context, involvement, and values; and a common error. Differences between qualitative and quantitative research grounded in research methodology are described as realism vs idealism. While realism implies that things only exist in the real world, idealism suggests that things only exist in the mind. Realism underpins quantitative research whereas idealism underpins qualitative research. A reasonable person can give examples that contradict the basic definitions of idealism and realism. For example, the answer to the question ‘do thoughts exist?’ is ‘yes’ which indicates lack of completeness of the definition of realism. On the other hand, the fact that the world would continue to exist even if all humans disappear points out lack of completeness in the definition of idealism. Regardless of what kind of research technique researchers use, most researchers are critical realists; some of their perceptions represent the world accurately the way it is whereas their other perceptions contradict the way the world is. Quantitative research is meant to be conducted independent of context whereas qualitative research is supposed to be conducted in a way that it is context dependent. Fact is that all research, qualitative or quantitative, has a context. Quantitative research controls for the context by using controlling variables to limit the context, but it is impossible to achieve in certain developmental studies and the research’s context becomes more important in such quantitative techniques. On the other hand, all qualitative research does not take place in naturalistic settings e.g. focus groups, so qualitative research may have to control for context in such cases. Furthermore, both qualitative and quantitative research studies have to allow the subject being studied to retain its complexity if it cannot be reduced to quantitative data and in such cases, the data is analyzed qualitatively regardless of the primary research type. Despite the fact that qualitative research and quantitative research are more similar than different, they are continued to be thought as two different streams of research because most of the literature explains it to the learners like that.   Read More