Examine the reasons why some sociologists choose not to use experiments when conducting research: Experiments can take the form of lab experiments (conducted in a controlled environment), field experiments (conducted in a natural setting where the independent variable and dependant variable are still observed), and the comparative method (a ‘thought experiment’, carried out in the researcher’s mind). There are many disadvantages to using laboratory experiments. Representativeness is very hard to achieve using this method as it is usually only done using small study samples. Another issue is ethical objections to conducting experiments on human beings. Obtaining informed consent from participants who are children or have learning difficulties may be difficult.
They criticise naturalistic field experiments for reducing control over variables. Interpretivists reject lab experiments because it fails to achieve their main goal of validity. It’s an artificial situation producing unnatural behaviour, and they favour more naturalistic field experiments. Field experiments have two features with make them different from lab experiments, which are it takes place in the subject’s natural surroundings for example a school, and the people who are involved generally aren’t aware that they’re the subjects of an experiment. A practical strength of field
However this would only apply if the embryo is regarded as a rational moral agent but the status of the embryo is unclear. Kant’s example of suicide can be used as in the same way as suicide, embryo testing and research can be seen as a contradiction in nature and therefore is not universalisable. Similarly to embryo research, consequences cannot be considered when looking at the issue of experimenting of humans and is also using people as a means to an end which goes against Kant’s second formula. In the case of testing on prisoners the formula would suggest that you can’t exploit a minority group, such as prisoners, for the sake of majority gain. However May suggests that there may be a duty to take part in non-invasive or riskless research as it would be beneficial to
The independent variable is controlled and manipulated by the researcher, in hope to affect the dependent variable and prove their hypothesis right or wrong. c) Suggest two criticisms of field experiments. (4 marks) Field experiments make it hard to verify that the causes that are identified are the real cause of the outcome. This is because the sociologist cannot control all of the variables in a scenario so it is hard to identify the correct causes.Field experiments do not usually gain the informed consent of the participants because it is thought that the participants will then act differently, due to it being an experiment and if they knew, it would 'give the game away'. d) Examine the reasons why some sociologists choose not to use experiments when conducting research.
b) Ethnocenrtrism is often found within the formation and maintenance of RS of social psychology. The social exchange theory (SET) suggests that RS are formed if there are benefits of the relationship (RS) to both individuals and the RS is maintained if those benefits outweigh the costs.Theories such as these are based on studies done with american students, this causes SET to culturly bias as all other cultures are ignored with no account for RS formed in collectivist cultures where arranged marrage would not fit. Since then psychologists have tested such theories of RS cross culturaly to see if they are valid. Gergan (1980) showed little evidence to support such thories as even in european RS valued equality over equity. Moghadden stated that individualist RS are voulentery and teporary where as collectivist RS are obligatory and perminant, Therefore some theories such as SET are seen as ethnocentric, due to the fact some cultures behaviours are not taken into consideration as in some collectevist
Behaviourists such as Watson believe that people do not have free will and that our environment determines the way in which we behave, either by reinforcement or a stimulus response. The behaviourist approach believes that psychology should be seen as a science with behaviour being observed and measured and not thought of internally like thoughts and emotions. Behaviourists believe that there is very little difference between the way humans and animals learn and therefore see this as an advantage as they can
6. People are too different from the subjects of natural scientific research. So many of the advantages of the scientific method are not applicable to the traditional scientific approach - for example, replication and control. Conclusion Generally, the methods of traditional science have either been radically adapted by sociologists so that they can still be used - the comparative method, structured questionnaires, or totally rejected - interpretive Sociology. Scientific research has been important in generating debate in Sociology as to how
The research is, therefore, unrepresentative of interests of wider population. Secondly, the questionnaires are seen as being inflexible. When the questionnaire’s responses are finalised, the researcher can see little scope for formulating new interests or ideas and exploring them as it can be done in participant observation. Furthermore, the interviewer may collect biased data because in standardised questions he/she already imposes interests of their own and excludes questions that might be important to respondent. Thirdly, where the sociologist has interpretivist perspective, detachment may seem a big barrier to overcome.
Research helps understand the states of consciousness, sensory experiences, emotions, motivations, and more (Willingham, 2007). Criticism of behaviorism Behaviorism failed to answer questions, explains aspects and human processes that cognitive psychology was able to do. Behaviorism’s main focus was what could be observed in behavior and why a behavior was done with a reward. Cognitive psychology came about because of what behaviorism was unable to explain and the criticisms that came with it. Such as, why behaviorism could not explain why a person did something without being given a reward.
Tamara Calixte Response Paper on Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved By Frans DeWaal Frans de Waal’s Thesis DeWaal is against Hobbes beliefs that humans are selfish naturally and that morality is unnatural to humans. DeWaal believes that morality is natural to humans and if we study nonhuman primates, we can understand behaviors of sympathy and empathy. He believes that nonhuman animals are social creatures whose survival is for the most part dependent on sympathy and sharing; and therefore humans, who are also primates, are social. He believes that just as nonhuman primates are social and display sharing and empathy, the same is true about the morality of humans because we are not different from nonhumans. Potential Disagreement’s With DeWaal’s Thesis If the purpose of DeWaal’s argument is to show that humans are social because animals are social then he has shown so but the purpose of the argument is to show that not only are humans social creatures but to show morality in humans.