People who take part in RESEARCH involving
experiments might be asked to complete various tests to measure their cognitive
abilities (e.g. word recall, attention, concentration, reasoning ability etc.)
usually verbally, on paper or by computer. The results of different groups are
then compared. Participants should not be anxious about performing well but
simply do their best. The aim of these tests is not to judge people or measure
so-called intelligence, but to look for links between performance and other
factors. If computers are used, this has to be done in such a way that no
previous knowledge of computers is necessary. So people should not be put off
by this either.
Surveys involve
collecting information, usually from fairly large groups of people, by means of
questionnaires but other techniques such as interviews or telephoning may also
be used. There are different types of survey. The most straightforward type
(the “one shot survey”) is administered to a sample of people at a set point in
time. Another type is the “before and after survey” which people complete
before a major event or experience and then again afterwards.
Questionnaires are a
good way to obtain information from a large number of people and/or people who
may not have the time to attend an interview or take part in experiments. They
enable people to take their time, think about it and come back to the
questionnaire later. Participants can state their views or feelings privately
without worrying about the possible reaction of the researcher. Unfortunately,
some people may still be inclined to try to give socially acceptable answers.
People should be encouraged to answer the questions as honestly as possible so
as to avoid the researchers drawing false conclusions from their study.
Questionnaires
typically contain multiple choice questions, attitude scales, closed questions
and open-ended questions. The drawback for researchers is that they usually
have a fairly low response rate and people do not always answer all the
questions and/or do not answer them correctly. Questionnaires can be
administered in a number of different ways (e.g. sent by post or as email
attachments, posted on Internet sites, handed out personally or administered to
captive audience (such as people attending conferences). Researchers may even
decide to administer the questionnaire in person which has the advantage of
including people who have difficulties reading and writing. In this case, the
participant may feel that s/he is taking part in an interview rather than
completing a questionnaire as the researcher will be noting down the responses
on his/her behalf.
Interviews are usually
carried out in person i.e. face-to-face but can also be administered by
telephone or using more advance computer technology such as Skype. Sometimes
they are held in the interviewee’s home, sometimes at a more neutral place. It
is important for interviewees to decide whether they are comfortable about
inviting the researcher into their home and whether they have a room or area
where they can speak freely without disturbing other members of the household.
The interviewer (which
is not necessarily the researcher) could adopt a formal or informal approach,
either letting the interviewee speak freely about a particular issue or asking
specific pre-determined questions. This will have been decided in advance and
depend on the approach used by the researchers. A semi-structured approach
would enable the interviewee to speak relatively freely, at the same time
allowing the researcher to ensure that certain issues were covered.
Case studies usually
involve the detailed study of a particular case (a person or small group).
Various methods of data collection and analysis are used but this typically
includes observation and interviews and may involve consulting other people and
personal or public records. The researchers may be interested in a particular
phenomenon (e.g. coping with a diagnosis or a move into residential care) and
select one or more individuals in the respective situation on whom to base
their case study/studies. Case studies have a very narrow focus which results
in detailed descriptive data which is unique to the case(s) studied.
Nevertheless, it can be useful in clinical settings and may even challenge
existing theories and practices in other domains.
Studies which involve
observing people can be divided into two main categories, namely participant
observation and non-participant observation.
In participant
observation studies, the researcher becomes (or is already) part of the group
to be observed. This involves fitting in, gaining the trust of members of the
group and at the same time remaining sufficiently detached as to be able to
carry out the observation. The observations made might be based on what people
do, the explanations they give for what they do, the roles they have,
relationships amongst them and features of the situation in which they find
themselves. The researcher should be open about what s/he is doing, give the
participants in the study the chance see the results and comment on them, and
take their comments seriously.
In non-participant
observation studies, the researcher is not part of the group being studied. The
researcher decides in advance precisely what kind of behaviour is relevant to
the study and can be realistically and ethically observed. The observation can
be carried out in a few different ways. For example, it could be continuous
over a set period of time (e.g. one hour) or regularly for shorter periods of
time (for 60 seconds every so often) or on a random basis. Observation does not
only include noting what happened or was said but also the fact that a specific
behaviour did not occur at the time of observation.
The Delphi method
was developed in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s in the military
domain. It has been considered particularly useful in helping researchers
determine the range of opinions which exist on a particular subject, in
investigating issues of policy or clinical relevance and in trying to come to a
consensus on controversial issues. The objectives can be roughly divided into
those which aim to measure diversity and those which aim to reach consensus.
Different ways to
employ this method have been devised but they tend to share common features,
namely a series of “rounds” in which the participants (known as “panellists”)
generate ideas or identify salient issues, comment on a questionnaire
(constructed on the basis of the results from the first round) and re-evaluate
their original responses. After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous
summary of the forecasts/opinions made by the experts and of their reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment