By looking at on line discussions you are able to come across information that

By looking at on line discussions you are able to

This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 45 pages.

By looking at on-line discussions, you are able to come across information that you would normally not have access to (on-line discussions have no censorship and are brutally honest) Strengths Inexpensive Less time consuming Socio-historic analyses Weaknesses Level of control over quality of information Difficulty creating a reliable and valid study Inconsistent or missing information in archives
Image of page 7
Experiments High level of control for the researcher They are composed of two characteristics: 1. The researcher must manipulate the independent variables - the researcher is better able to understand the relationship between the variables 2. Participants must be assigned randomly - this helps with any mitigating factors that might impact the experiment Lab Experiment Researchers have more control Can control the physical space (such as the temperature) Field Experiment Less control More generalizable Mitigation of reactivity You cannot control anything like weather, temperature, other external factors You are able to see people in their natural setting, so they are more likely to behave like themselves Since the participants are in their natural settings, they are less self-conscious of their behaviours and actions like they would be in a lab experiment Strengths High level of internal validity More control for the researcher Weaknesses Limits to what can be studied Ethical concerns Costly Subject effects and experimenter effects- participants might not act naturally and instead act the way they think the experimenter wants them to. Experimenter might also expect participants to act a certain way. Low external validity Ethics Protecting and respecting research participants Ethics approval is required for any research involving human subjects The Nuremberg Trials and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (Syphilis treatment was withheld from participants, consent was not given to withhold treatment) Protecting our Participants
Image of page 8
Volunteer Informed consent Avoiding harm Ensuring confidentiality- crucial, give the participants pseudonyms and do not use their names Sources of Harm Physical Psychological Breach of confidentiality Ex: The Stanford Prison Experiment 1971, randomly assigned male college students to the roles of “prison guard” and “prisoner” Prison guards became sadistic and prisoners became depressed very quickly In the first few hours, a ‘prisoner’ became so stressed that they had to be removed from the experiment Zimbardo- lead psychologist, continued this experiment for several days before urged by a grad student to shut it down since it was such a disaster No one questioned the morality of the experiment before this A number of ethical issues with this Violation of the harm participant Consent was not informed, participants were not given an accurate picture of what the experiment would involve
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 45 pages?

  • Winter '18
  • Erica Speakman
  • Sociology, person, ex

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture