With this eliminating or better controlling

This preview shows page 6 - 9 out of 13 pages.

With this, eliminating or better controlling intervening, moderating and extraneous variables may prove causation at some point (Ittner, 2014). Although speaking about glorifying God in body and spirit, the following verse can sum up the fact that the type of data matters for the type of study, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful” (New King James Version, 1997, 1 Corinthians 6:12a).
As for weaknesses, I would have just gone a little more in depth with your answer about whether or not a causal study can be done without controlling for intervening, extraneous, and moderating variables. I agree that a causal study should control for these variables, otherwise it is not a proper causal study, but also, if these variables are not controlled, then only correlation is proven (Kang, 2008). With a causal study, more needs to be proven than just correlation and that causation actually involves variables that directly or indirectly affect one or the other (Kang, 2008). Correlation just shows that variables are related and without control for variables, there may be some unaccounted variable that will have some effect on the study and the study itself may then lose its reliability and validity (Kang, 2008). So, although a study such as the GEM study can give valuable insight and information that can at least prove minimal causal relationship with controlling for variables, the fact remains that sometimes research methods can be inaccurate as sometimes variables cannot be completely controlled, there can be no replication of the research, results may be reported vaguely, there may be a lack of attention paid to variables that may threaten results, or findings may not be properly put in context (Lederer et al., 2019). In other words, it is difficult even for researchers to conduct a proper causal study and prove causation over mere correlation and can be as though, “they sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind” (New King James Version, 1997, Hosea 8:7a). References Ittner, C. D. (2014). Strengthening causal inferences in positivist field studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39 (7), 545-549. Kang, J. (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13 (4), 279-313. Lederer, D. J., Bell, S. C., Branson, R. D., Chalmers, J. D., Marshall, R., Maslove, D. M., … Vincent, J. (2019). Control of confounding and reporting of results in causal inference studies: Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 16 (1), 22.
New King James Bible. (1997). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1979) Schindler, P. S. (2019). Business Research Methods (13 th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. - ui.mheducation.com/#/epub/sn_9b805#epubcfi(%2F6%2F46%5Bdata-uuid- 5da937f643944ebe8d7539fe95413d20%5D!%2F4%2F2%5Bdata-uuid- 79e802f6101c41f4943f5419c0a25518%5D%2F4%5Bdata-uuid- e04d0ccac635449a82dba6e045a52ccc%5D) Marquette Minner Minner: Discussion on GEM Study COLLAPSE Module 2: Week 3 - Discussion: A GEM of a Study

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture