Another advantage of qualitative research is that it gives more thorough data in the shape of complete descriptions in written form or visual evidence, such as photographs. This type of research looks at context and social meaning and how it affects individuals, which is beneficial mostly in the social sciences. The disadvantage of qualitative research is the interpretation of researcher s’ own biased view, which can misinterpret the facts. Another disadvantage is that this research method is very time consuming. Quantitative research allows assessing and analyzing data.
However, they are opposed by Interpretivists who say they impose the researcher’s framework of ideas on the respondents and they claim this may influence the respondents’ view on the question being asked. A reason as to why some sociologists choose not to use questionnaires when conducting research is because of a chance of a low response rate. This may be a result of people who receive questionnaires being not bothered to complete and return it. This can be a problem as the people who do not respond having a different opinion to those who do respond, this does not provide accurate representativeness. A higher response rate can be obtained if follow-up questionnaires are sent, but this can add to the cost and time.
You would have to rely on the patient giving you the information for it not is socially desirable or have demand characteristics. On the other hand, it is better than individual differences as people may have the same thought patterns and processes. You can only obtain this information by self reports, which would probably give both of those issues; social desirability and demand characteristics. These would affect your results and therefore they would not be reliable or valid. If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way.
However participants who are interviewed are those with a lot of time on their hands this can make the sample unrepresentative of the whole population as they may be lonely people who have a lot of time on their hands. When conducting questionnaires participants may find it difficult to understand what a question is asking them, however with a structured interview the interviewer is able to explain and clarify the questions in order to gain a valid response. However as the interviewer has to follow a set of instructions they can’t give more detail to the respondent if they say something particularly interesting. Structured interviews have many advantages
Is Your Audience’s Perspective Likely to Be Narrow? This question directs you to consider how your audience’s tendency to mine-is-better thinking, face saving, resistance to change, conformity, stereotyping, and self-deception may interfere with their comprehension of your views. A clue to the way those ten- dencies are likely to influence your audience on a particular problem or issue is the way they have influenced you in the past. (The more honest you are with yourself about your own occasional irrationality, the more sensitive you will be to your audience’s
• Questions may be interpreted by respondents in ways the researcher did not foresee or intend. In relation to question: Advantages: - Teachers much less likely to disguise their true feelings in order to protect their professional image (Item B). - Anonymity in this kind of research is important because of the sensitiveness of the topic, questionnaires allow this. - Quick and easy, people do not have to put in much effort or allow someone to ‘get to know them’ at a more personal level, thus more people are likely to take part in the research, increasing the overall reliability. Disadvantages - The data collected is not qualitative, whereas the issue at hand really needs a qualitative response.
If the problems are quite vast and have deeply-rooted causes, you may want to secure the help of a neutral negotiator. This third party may be able to get inside the problem more thoroughly than an insider because when communication problems crop up, the group involved may choose to clam up or point fingers rather than admit to their role in creating the problem. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/652778, retrieved 01/10/2013. III. To maintain confidentiality, it is possible to use a tool such as a survey.
Strength / Weakness - research that is in the form of naturally occurring phenomena (Roberts and Lamb) has good ecological validity but is not scientific or replicable as variables were not highly controlled and because it is not artificial. It would also be unethical to test eye witness testimony when a real sensitive subject is being discussed. Strength / Weakness - the results could be due to a number of factors such as: young people may be more used to memory tests or older adults have poorer health leading to memory impairment. Weakness - the research findings are inconclusive. Weakness - the factors given by researchers, such as the ones stated, are only assumptions with no scientific evidence.
For a more explicit understanding, doubt by definition is the uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making. Knowledge by definition is the acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report. The correlation between the two is that the more you doubt, the more knowledge you gain because instead of being focused on one certain conclusion, you start thinking about other possible outcomes. This is due to the fact that we use doubt, as well as being open-minded. Being open-minded means to be receptive to arguments or ideas.
Weaknesses of Causal Comparative Two weaknesses in causal-comparative research are lack of randomization and inability to manipulate an independent variable. A major threat to the internal validity of a causal-comparative study is the possibility of a subject selection bias. The chief procedures that a researcher can use to reduce this threat include matching subjects on a related variable or creating homogeneous subgroups, and the technique of statistical matching. Other threats to internal validity in causal-comparative studies include location, instrumentation, and loss of subjects. In addition, type 3 studies are subject to implementation, history, maturation, attitude of subjects, regression, and testing threats.