Research Methods
- Created by: HollyEldridge
- Created on: 08-03-15 20:33
View mindmap
- Research Methods
- Key features of science
- Theory Construction
- Using facts to construct theories, help us to predict and understand world around us should explain much of the data and create a testable hypothesis
- Replicability
- Way to demonstrate validity of research. Same result found more than once - a repeat
- Empiricism
- Information gained from direct observation or experiment rather than arguments or beliefs
- Objectivity
- Removal of ones own thoughts or beliefs. Avoidance of expectations affecting observations and results - demand characteristic experimenter bias
- Control
- The manipulation of the IV, DV and all other variables in order to find causal relationships
- Deduction
- Theory first and then looking for results that prove this
- Theory Construction
- Experimental Methods
- Natural Experiments
- Variables are not manipulated - causal relationships cannot be drawn
- Strong mundane realism but lacks validity
- Ethics are less of a problem because the study is observational - everything seen would happen anyway
- Lab Experiments
- Strong internal validity - variables controlled and easily replicated
- Lacks external validity as it has less realism - PPs know they are being studied
- Experimenter effects and demand characteristic may reduce internal validity
- Field Experiment
- Conducted in a natural setting - higher mundane realism than lab
- More control than natural but less than lab
- Experimenter effects reduced because PPs are usually unaware they are being studied
- Experimental Designs
- Repeated measures: same groups in all conditions
- Independent groups; different groups in each condition
- Matched pairs: different groups in different conditions but matched based on similar characteristic
- Natural Experiments
- Peer Review
- 1) Allocation of research funding: research paid for by government and charities. Need to know which to fund, which is worthwhile
- 2)Publication of research: gives scientists chance to share results. Prevent false research being circulated
- 3) Assessing the research rating of universities: science departments conduct research and get rated, further funding relies on good ratings
- Assessment from others in the same field, ensures research conducted and published is of quality
- Problems with: finding an expert, anonymity and peer competition, publication bias of positive results, preserving current status quo, published research remains published
- Validating New Knowledge
- Ethics Committee
- Studied by an expert in the area of research. Ascertain's that research follows ethical guidelines of BPS Code of Conduct
- Publishing review
- Conducted by experts in same field. Makes sure research has been carefully conducted and found something worthwhile (is valid). Is what is found worth of being published, 3 peer review experts decide
- Funding Reviews
- Conducted by peers. Committees allocate to worthwhile researchers from government and charity money
- Ethics Committee
- Hypothesis Testing
- 1) Researcher has an idea after reading previous research
- 2) Formulate an aim and construct a hypothesis
- 3) Researcher runs a piece of evidence to test the hypothesis
- 4) If research supports the hypothesis then it is publlished
- 5) If research does not support the hypothesis then an experiment is conducted to find out why or the hypothesis is changed as it is wrong
- 4) If research supports the hypothesis then it is publlished
- 3) Researcher runs a piece of evidence to test the hypothesis
- 2) Formulate an aim and construct a hypothesis
- Lab experiments provide most control because IV and DV can be controlled and operationalis-ed = reliable testing
- Hypotheses are used to help create controlled research where the aims have been carefully stated and variables carefully controlled
- 1) Researcher has an idea after reading previous research
- Psychological Report
- Abstract
- A summary of the study covering the aims, hypothesis, the method (procedures), results and conclusions.
- Introduction/aim
- Begins with review of previous research which should lead to a study with a hypothesis.
- Method
- A detailed description of what the researcher did with enough info for replication
- Design: 'repeated measures', 'matched pairs', 'independent groups'. Design decisicions must be justified.
- Participants: sampling methods, how many participants and details about them.
- Materials: descriptions of any materials used
- Procedures: standardised instructions, testing environment, order of events etc.
- Ethics: ethical issues and how they were dealt with. 'Harm', 'consent', 'privacy', 'confidentialit-y', 'debrief', 'perception'
- A detailed description of what the researcher did with enough info for replication
- Results
- What the researcher found
- Descriptive statistics: tables and graphs with frequencies and measures of central tendency and dispersion.
- Inferential tests: observed value and significance level reported. Statement about null hypothesis rejected or accepted
- What the researcher found
- Discussion
- The researcher aims to interpret the results and consider their implications for future research and suggest RWAs.
- Summary of results
- Relationship to other research is discussed
- Considerations of methodology:improvement and criticisms of methods
- Suggestions for future research
- The researcher aims to interpret the results and consider their implications for future research and suggest RWAs.
- References
- The full details of any journal articles or books that are mentioned.
- Abstract
- Key features of science
Comments
No comments have yet been made