Advantages of Experimental Research

Disadvantages of Experimental Research

gain insight into methods of instruction

human response can be difficult to measure

intuitive practice shaped by research

subject to human error

teachers have bias but can be reflective

personal bias of researcher may intrude

researcher can have control over variables

sample may not be representative

humans perform experiments anyway

can produce artificial results

can be combined with other research methods for rigor

results may only apply to one situation and may be difficult to replicate

use to determine what is best for population

groups may not be comparable

provides for greater transferability than anecdotal research

political pressure may skew results

Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research: Discussion

In educational research, experimentation is a way to gain insight into methods of instruction. Although teaching is context specific, results can provide a starting point for further study. Often, a teacher/researcher will have a "gut" feeling about an issue which can be explored through experimentation and looking at causal relationships. Through research intuition can shape practice. A preconception exists that information obtained through scientific method is free of human inconsistencies. But, since scientific method is a matter of human construction, it is subject to human error. The researcher's Personal bias may intrude upon the experiment, as well. For example, certain preconceptions may dictate the course of the research and affect the behavior of the subjects. The issue may be compounded when, although many researchers are aware of the affect that their personal bias exerts on their own research, they are pressured to produce research that is accepted in their field of study as "legitimate" experimental research.

The researcher does bring bias to experimentation, but bias does not limit an ability to be reflective. An ethical researcher thinks critically about results and reports those results after careful reflection. Concerns over bias can be leveled against any research method. Often, the sample may not be representative of a population, because the researcher does not have an opportunity to ensure a representative sample. For example, subjects could be limited to one location, limited in number, studied under constrained conditions and for too short a time. Despite such inconsistencies in educational research, the researcher has control over the variables, increasing the possibility of more precisely determining individual effects of each variable. Also, determining interaction between variables is more possible. Even so, artificial results may result. It can be argued that variables are manipulated so the experiment measures what researchers want to examine; therefore, the results are merely contrived products and have no bearing in material reality. Artificial results are difficult to apply in practical situations, making generalizing from the results of a controlled study questionable. Experimental research essentially first decontextualizes a single question from a "real world" scenario, studies it under controlled conditions, and then tries to recontextualize the results back on the "real world" scenario. Results may be difficult to replicate. Perhaps, groups in an experiment may not be comparable. Quasi-experimentation in educational research is widespread because not only are many researchers also teachers, but many subjects are also students. With the classroom as laboratory, it is difficult to implement randomizing or matching strategies. Often, students self-select into certain sections of a course on the basis of their own agendas and scheduling needs. Thus when, as often happens, one class is treated and the other used for a control, the groups may not actually be comparable. As one might imagine, people who register for a class which meets three times a week at eleven o'clock in the morning (young, no full-time job, night people) differ significantly from those who register for one on Monday evenings from seven to ten p.m. (older, full-time job, possibly more highly motivated). Each situation presents different variables and your group might be completely different from that in the study. Long-term studies are expensive and hard to reproduce. And although often the same hypotheses are tested by different researchers, various factors complicate attempts to compare or synthesize them. It is nearly impossible to be as rigorous as the natural sciences model dictates. Even when randomization of students is possible, problems arise. First, depending on the class size and the number of classes, the sample may be too small for the extraneous variables to cancel out. Second, the study population is not strictly a sample, because the population of students registered for a given class at a particular university is obviously not representative of the population of all students at large. For example, students at a suburban private liberal-arts college are typically young, white, and upper-middle class. In contrast, students at an urban community college tend to be older, poorer, and members of a racial minority. The differences can be construed as confounding variables: the first group may have fewer demands on its time, have less self-discipline, and benefit from superior secondary education. The second may have more demands, including a job and/or children, have more self-discipline, but an inferior secondary education. Selecting a population of subjects which is representative of the average of

all post-secondary students is also a flawed solution, because the outcome of a treatment involving this group is not necessarily transferable to either the students at a community college or the students at the private college, nor are they universally generalizable. When a human population is involved, experimental research becomes concerned if behavior can be predicted or studied with validity. Human response can be difficult to measure. Human behavior is dependent on individual responses. Rationalizing behavior through experimentation does not account for the process of thought, making outcomes of that process fallible (Eisenberg, 1996). Nevertheless, we perform experiments daily anyway. When we brush our teeth every morning, we are experimenting to see if this behavior will result in fewer cavities. We are relying on previous experimentation and we are transferring the experimentation to our daily lives. Moreover, experimentation can be combined with other research methods to ensure rigor. Other qualitative methods such as case study, ethnography, observational research and interviews can function as preconditions for experimentation or conducted simultaneously to add validity to a study. We have few alternatives to experimentation. Mere anecdotal research, for example is unscientific, unreplicatable, and easily manipulated. Should we rely on Ed walking into a faculty meeting and telling the story of Sally? Sally screamed, "I love writing!" ten times before she wrote her essay and produced a quality paper. Therefore, all the other faculty members should hear this anecdote and know that all other students should employ this similar technique. On final disadvantage: frequently, political pressure drives experimentation and forces unreliable results. Specific funding and support may drive the outcomes of experimentation and cause the results to be skewed. The reader of these results may not be aware of these biases and should approach experimentation with a critical eye. Colorado State University Copyright 1993-2012, writing @CSU http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/experiment/pop5c.cfm Advantages and Disadvantages of Non Experimental R.D

Advantage: low effort

Sometimes research requires short, shallow data gathering, as in a survey. For example, if you wish to conduct a census, applying a treatment or otherwise involving the researcher in the process other than simply asking questions can disrupt the research. Short surveys also have the advantage of not requiring researchers to administer them. Researchers need only hand out the surveys and collect and study the data. This becomes a strong advantage when working with a minimum of researchers and funding or when keeping the number of variables in a study very low.

Disadvantage: Shallow

The concise nature of non-experimental design becomes a disadvantage because it does not allow for the gathering of data post-treatment. Gathering data post-treatment can introduce entire new areas for researchers to consider. Without the inclusion of experimentation or applied treatments, the research becomes mostly one-dimensional -focused on a small series of variables. The quick, grab-and-go nature of non-experimental quantitative design cannot deliver the same in-depth results as experimental design. Nonexperimental design often fails to produce an adequate amount of data from which researchers may draw complicated, revealing or truly valuable conclusions.

Advantage: Non-Invasive

Non-experimental design has a distinct advantage in research applications in which active involvement or experiment by the researchers might be unethical. Anthropological research illustrates this advantage quite well; when studying a human population, applying treatment or experimentation might interfere with the normal function, safety or peace-of-mind of the subjects. In some cases, experimental design in studies of humans can objectify the research subjects and, at its extreme, dehumanize them. Whether attempting to preserve the natural, observable activities of a population or preserving their self-possession and dignity with a non-invasive approach, non-experimental design works quite well.

Disadvantage: Proving Correlation

Gathering data with which to make an argument for correlation between variables lies at the center of research. Quantitative methods designed with experimentation or applied treatments multiply the variety of ways researchers alter the variables within the research. For example, observing subject reactions in a single scenario can only reveal information about the few variables in that scenario. When a treatment or treatments are applied to that scenario, the amount of data researchers can gather greatly increases. The more the researchers observe an effect across a variety of different scenarios, the stronger the case for correlation. Non-experimental quantitative method designs can fail to provide enough data to make a convincing argument for correlation, let alone causation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Research

Useful when researcher may be unsure of exactly what will be studied or what to focus on gives the researcher freedom to let the study unfold more naturally. looks at context and social meaning and how it affects individuals, researcher gains more detailed and rich data in the form of comprehensive written descriptions or visual evidence, such as photographs. It also gives individual opinions instead of one general opinion, that critics usually give.

gives the researcher a subjective view of the study and its participants

researcher interprets the research according to his or her own biased view this research method is very time consuming and can last for months or even years. because its opinion based, it cant be placed into a form of graph. incredibly biased, opinion can be really not suitable for the chosen topic

Advantages and Disadvantages of Quantitative Research

allows the researcher to measure and analyze data. relationship between an independent and dependent variable is studied in detail. used to test hypotheses in experiments because of its ability to measure data using statistics. when the research data is collated because its simply based on numbers its a lot easier to collate and place together into a form of chart.

he context of the study or experiment is ignored. does not study things in a natural setting or discuss the meaning things have for different people as qualitative research does. a large sample of the population must be studied; the larger the sample of people researched, the more statistically accurate the results will be. because its all based on figures, its not always up to date. Its usually in constant need of updating because numbers change

Advantages & Disadvantages of Cross-Sectional Studies

Ease of Data Gathering and Assessment

Inappropriate for Causal relationship

Low to Moderate Cost

prevalence-incidence bias known as the Neyman bias.

Researchers with different interest and models can Cannot measure change in variables over time

often work with data from a single cross sectional study Uncover relationships that can be studied further in experimental studies Using multivariate analysis allow researchers to obtain information on the influence of variables on one another

Weak implementation can ruin a research design and produce poor data Researcher have little or no control over environment

A cross-sectional study, a type of descriptive, observational study, involves measuring different variables in the population of interest at a single point in time. This simultaneous data gathering is often thought of as a snapshot of conditions present at that instant. Its most important application lies in the field of epidemiology and disease research. Although it offers several advantages, such as the ease of assessing the prevalence of diseases, a cross-sectional study nevertheless has limitations.

1. Ease of Data Gathering and Assessment

o

The nature of cross-sectional studies offers a quick and easy way for an epidemiologist or any kind of researcher to quickly amass data. While some special case studies do require more specific data, for most cross-sectional studies, routinely collected data will suffice. This allows for quick and easy data gathering even for a large target population. Assessment of outcomes and risk factors for the entire population is also done with little trouble, as the sample is a near-perfect snapshot of the whole.

Low to Moderate Cost

o

The ease of gathering the needed information translates to cost-effectiveness. Many hospitals and census bureaus have that information already in hand, saving the researcher the trouble of gathering it, a time-consuming and expensive activity. The low cost involved in cross-sectional studies make it possible to conduct more thorough investigations of the population's overall condition.

Causality Problems
o

The snapshot nature of cross-sectional studies, while convenient, does have its downside in that it doesn't provide a good basis for establishing causality. Two distinct variables are measured at the same point in time. Cross-sectional studies can say that the two are related somehow, but they cannot positively determine if one caused the other. Cross-sectional studies also fail on the part of confounding factors. Additional variables may affect the relationship between the variables of interest but not affect those variables themselves. Such observations are often lost in cross-sectional studies.

Neyman Bias
o

This limitation stems from the tools used for data gathering, either by the researcher himself or by hospital or census bureau employees. Tools such as pedometers, scales and sphygmomanometers are more or less accurate, but the most common tools used for data gathering, questionnaires, introduce a prevalence-incidence bias known as the Neyman bias. Even if the researcher uses a completely objective questionnaire, the person answering cannot answer questions involving past events with perfect accuracy. This either magnifies or minimizes the effects of certain variables, affecting the cross-sectional study's results.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Longitudinal Research

it allows researchers to look at changes over time.

participant may drop out, this is called subject attrition