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.
Various approaches could have been used to compensate for the lack of personal privacy and informed consent but were not. Due to the sensitive nature of this study and the violation of many commonly accepted guidelines for research, this experiment shows to be unethical.
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
This could be especially true in the case of researching court proceedings as it is unlikely many researchers have gone through one themselves. Recordings could also be tainted as researchers must rely on memory as notes cannot be made openly. However, this research method is arguably far more useful than just collecting statistical data. Covert observation has long been regarded as unethical. This is due to an absence of informed consent from participants, however Humphreys justified covert observation by suggesting it is the only way to study
A null hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specific populations, where observed differences are due to errors. The Hardy-Weinberg Theory is a null hypothesis and that is what we tested in this experiment. The only time a null hypothesis can be accepted or rejected but cannot be proven. It may be quantified as true, but it cannot be proven. The reason for this is because in tests like these observed differences are usually due to chance differences in sampling.
Are the findings consistent with those from previous studies? There are no RCT’s only the open studies and the comparison groups from those studies were lacking. Lack of comparison conditions in these trials limits the conclusions that can be made about the efficacy of DBT for these disorders, their improvements may be due to factors unrelated to
In her essay, Why Juvenile Detention makes Teens Worse, Maia Szalavitz claims that those adolescent who entered the Juvenile justice system even briefly are more likely to be arrested later on in their adult life than those who have never been in the Juvenile system. Jennifer Gonnerman agrees. In her essay entitled, “The lost Boys of Tyron” she confirms the problem and suggests a solution. They both feel that that the Juvenile system is poor, but Szalavitz further believes that it has to do with the lack of positive direction in peer groups that cause kids to be worst. “By having them together, they form relationships.” When they are among so many different criminal associations with different behaviors this is more likely to increase the problem plus group experience tends to glamorize delinquency and drug use.
The results showed informational conformity. The participants who individually made an estimate like 6 inches made smaller judgment and vice versa. Sherif’s experiment lacks external validity because the experiment is quite artificial as well as the task given to the participants. Internal validity is high because the experiment was well controlled. The experiment is unethical because the participants were not informed of real purpose.
While the study is better than many others that make use of snowball samples and the like, it is perhaps negligent in its objectivity and use of data that cannot be fully explained or explored. While utilizing databases is good, there is a lack of depth. Therefore, more research is necessary to confirm the findings of this important
Conclusion - Age has an effect on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. *Evaluation Methodological strengths -This was a lab experiment and this means there was a high control of variables. This is a good thing as it means it is reliable and if replicated, similar results will be obtained. Methodological weaknesses -This study lacks external validity as it is artificial and will not arouse the participants in the same way that they would have been if they were faced with the same situation in real life. Therefore the finding cannot be used as and indication of what may happen in reality.