The Value of Scientific Research - Essay Example

If you were asked to consult on research methods, what would you say are the main reasons why findings from surveys and ethnographies are often questionable? Cite examples The value of scientific research partially depends on the ability of the individual researchers to demonstrate the credibility of their findings. Regardless of the discipline or methods used for data collection and analysis, all scientific methodologies of research strive to provide authentic results. Therefore, two things are crucial for credible findings. In any field of scientific inquiry, these two are the validity and reliability of the research findings. It is these reliability and validity issues that come up during the research process that make findings from surveys and ethnographies often questionable. Examining ethnographic research, it is characterized by participant and nonparticipant observation, focus on natural settings, use of participant constructs to structure the research, and investigator avoidance of purposive manipulation of study variables. For credibility, the canons of validity and reliability have to be addressed when ethnographic methods of research are used. In ethnographic research, reliability depends on the resolution of both internal and external design problems. External reliability tackles the issue of whether independent researchers would discover similar phenomena or generate the same construct in similar settings. Internal reliability addresses the degree to which other researchers, given a set of previously generated constructs, would match with data in the same way as did the original researcher. This is usually referred to as test-retest reliability. Therefore, reliability addresses the replicability of the research findings. On the other hand, validity is concerned with the accuracy of research findings, and it requires the determination of the degree to which the conclusions are effective in representing the empirical reality. Internal validity refers to the degree to which scientific measurements and observations are authentic representations of some reality. External validity refers to the extent to which such representations can be legitimately compared across groups. In ethnographic research, the results of the research findings are often regarded as unreliable and lacking in validity and generalizability, (Le Compte 35). This is because reliability demands that a researcher use the same methods to obtain the same findings as those of an earlier study. This creates a problem for researchers who study unique phenomena or naturalistic behavior. Therefore, establishing reliability in ethnographic design is complicated by the nature of the research process and data, by conventions in the presentation of findings, and by traditional modes of training researchers. Ethnographic reliability is constrained. If you compare a controlled laboratory experiments, ethnographic design appears to baffle attempts at replication. The research process and the type of data may preclude the use of standardized controls that are necessary in experimental research. In order to accommodate the strictures of experimental control, manipulation of phenomena is required, and this might distort the natural occurrence. Ethnographic research is conducted in natural settings. Since unique situations can not be precisely reconstructed, even the most exact replication of research methods can fail to give identical results. Take an example of Fuch’s study (1996) of a racial incident at an urban elementary school, (Le Compte 36). This study cannot be replicated exactly because such an event cannot be exactly reproduced. Therefore, since human behavior is not static, ethnographic research will always be termed as unreliable. In both survey research and ethnographic research, the problem of validity is almost similar. According to Le Compte (38), the problem of internal validity arises from the question: do researchers actually observe or measure what they think they are observing? The problem of external validity arises from the question: to what level are the abstract postulates and constructs generated, refined, or tested by researchers applicable across groups? The most notable threat to validity is observer effects. This is because participant observation and informant interviewing have specific problems. During this observation and interviewing, there are possible effects of the observer’s presence on the nature of the data collected. Usually, an observer will see and report the position which he or she occupies within the participant groups. Also, when a researcher avoids the problems of entanglement by assuming a position of neutrality, this can lead the researcher into other distortions. At the same time, Kasunic (4) observes that participants might behave abnormally since they are aware that they are under observation. Also, informants or respondents may lie, omit relevant data, or misrepresent their claims. These are some of the issues that lead to validity problems in various methods of research such as surveys and ethnographies. In survey research, the common goal is to collect data that is representative of a population. This means that the researcher used data gathered from a survey to generalize findings to the whole population. In survey research, the two of the most consistent flaws are the disregard for sampling error in the determination of the sample size, and the disregard for response and non-response bias. Several survey researches reveal numerous errors and questionable approaches to sample size selection. Therefore, findings from survey research are mainly questionable due to the sampling technique used, the sample size, and if the sample can be representative of the entire population, (Higgins & Chadwick 45). Conducting surveys and ethnographies can be expensive and time consuming. This can often lead to research exhaustion and this might compromise the credibility of the findings. Survey data is often superficial, and does not go into any detail. At the same time surveys can be obtrusive, just like ethnographic research. For example, when people find out that they are subjects of a study, they tend to respond differently than they might if they were unaware of the researcher’s interest in them. And since information is self-reported, it is not always the undiluted truth and is prone to bias. 2. In your opinion, what principles from the ASA Code of Ethnics should any researcher observe? How is the Code of Ethnic enforced? Researchers have to follow the five principles that are set forth by the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics. These principles act as the guidelines that examine the everyday professional activities of researchers are concerned with professional conduct and responsibilities of the researchers. These five principles are supported by a set of ethical standards that are used when enforcing the code. The first principle is professional competence. Researchers must always work hard so as to preserve the highest competency levels in the research work that they undertake in. this means that a researcher should engaged in the tasks in which they are competent either through education, experience, or training. It also means that a researcher must learn to accept and recognize the limits of their expertise. Researchers have to be in a constant learning process so that they remain relevant and competent professionally. If need be, consultations with fellow researchers is essential for the benefit of the users or consumers of the research findings. The second principle that researchers need to adhere to is integrity. In all the research work that they undertake, researchers have to be respectful to others, honest and fair in their professional work. This means that a researcher should act in ways that do not jeopardize their professional welfare or that of others. Therefore, in research, plagiarism is not tolerable. If a researcher borrows material or uses material from another body of knowledge or researcher, he or she should indicate this fact by citing the particular researcher. This is also stressed in the third principle which notes that researchers have a professional and scientific responsibility. Therefore, it is their duty to stick or uphold the highest professional and scientific standards, (ASA 4). As such, a researcher must accept responsibility for his or her work. Often, researchers will disagree with others on theoretical, methodological, or individual approaches to professional activities. However, this should not be an avenue for disrespect. It is the responsibilities of researchers to show respect one another since they create a community. Professionalism also requires that researchers value public trust by avoiding unethical conduct. The fourth principle that researchers need to adhere to is the respect for people’s rights, dignity, and diversity. Researchers should always value respect with regard to dignity, rights, and worth of every person. Therefore, a researcher always strives to do away with bias in his or her professional work. According to ASA (4), any form of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or health conditions is not tolerated by the code. This means that researchers need to be sensitive to individual, role, and cultural differences when researching on groups of people that have distinctive characteristics. Therefore, in all research undertakings, every researcher should acknowledge that others have the right to hold opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and values that are different from their own. The fifth principle is about social responsibility. Every researcher has a social responsibility. Therefore, every researcher needs to be aware of his or her scientific and professional responsibility to the people, societies, or communities in which they carry out their work as well as live. Thus, their research findings or knowledge that they create needs to be used in contributing to the overall public good. Therefore, the ethical standards provided by the code give provisions on how to engage in ethical conduct when conducting and presenting research work. Professionalism, competence, nondiscrimination, non-exploitation, and confidentiality are some of the aspects that are emphasized on in the code of ethics. Any violation of these standards during the undertaking of research work can attract stiff enforcement rules. The guidelines for enforcing the code are also stipulated by the ASA. The duty of enforcing the code of ethics is delegated to COPE. COPE is an acronym that refers to Committee on Professional Ethics. Therefore, the process of enforcing has twelve steps. The first process has to do with jurisdiction. ASA (22) observes that it is COPE that has jurisdiction of accepting and deciding on any complaint of an infringement of the code by an existing member of the ASA in any membership category. Therefore, before COPE can act on any issue of conduct, a complaint has to be filed. This can be done by any member of non-member of ASA who is of the view that a member has contravened an ethical standard. Once the complaint is filed, COPE’s executive officer performs a preliminary screening of the complaint. This is a process used to determine whether the complainee is ASA’s member, and if the alleged behavior is covered in the code. If there is enough information regarding the alleged conduct, the executive officer then issues a notice of complaint to the complainee. At this point, an informal dispute settlement is encouraged. If this is declined by both parties, the complainant and the complainee, the executive officer issues a response to complaint by informing he complainee that the case will go on according to the policies and procedures. The response and the complaint are then submitted to COPE’s Chair who then makes an initial determination, (ASA 23). If there is sufficient or enough evidence, the case goes on. What follows is the investigation, determination of violation, sanctions if found guilty, notice of determination, and then the appeal of termination. Works Cited ASA. Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures of the ASA COPE. New York: American Sociological Association, 1999. Higgins, Chadwick, and Bartlett, James. “Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research.” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 43-51. Kasunic, Mark. “Designing an Effective Survey.” Handbook CMU/SEI-2005-HB-004, September 2005, pp. 1-143. Le Compte, Margaret. “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research, Spring 1982, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 31-60. Read More