Samenvatting
Kom Samenvatting Kwalitatief en Experimenteel
Samenvatting Kennismaking onderzoekssmethoden en statistiek, boek research methods van Beth Morling. Kwalitatief en Experimenteel deel
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 28 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 28 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
H1 4-22Empiricism: to base one’s conclusions on systematic observations. Empiricists aim to be
systematic, rigorous and to make their work independently verifiable by other observers or
scientists.
A producer of research is someone who makes the research, in practice, for example in a
lab or in the field etc.
Consumers of research read about research so they can later apply it to their work, hobbies,
relationships, etc.
In practice many psychologists engage in both roles. They might be consumers of other
research before being a producer of their own. Psychologists in both roles require a curiosity
about behavior, emotion and cognition. They also both share a commitment to the practice
of empiricism.
Evidence-based treatments: therapies that are supported by research.
The cupboard theory of mother-infant attachment: a mother is valuable to a baby
mammal because she is the source of food. The mother is the cupboard from which food
comes.
The contact comfort theory: babies are attached to their mothers because of the comfort
of cozy touch.
Theory: a set of statements that describes general principles about how variables relate to
one another.
Hypothesis (prediction): the specific outcome the researcher expects to observe in a study
if the theory is accurate.
Data: a set of observations. Data might match the theory’s hypotheses and strengthen the
researcher’s confidence in the theory. Data might also not match the theory’s hypotheses, so
the theory needs to be revised or the research design needs to be improved.
,Good theories are supported by data. In this way good theories are consistent with our
observations of the world. Scientists need to conduct multiple studies, using a variety of
methods, to address different aspects of their theories. A theory that is supported by a large
quantity and variety of evidence is a good theory.
Good theories are falsifiable. A theory must lead to hypotheses that, when tested, could
actually fail to support the theory. To be truly scientific, researchers must take risks,
including being prepared to accept data indicating their theory is not supported.
Good theories have parsimony. Theories are supposed to be simple. This sets a standard
for the theory-data cycle; as long as a simple theory explains the data well, there should be
no need to make the theory more complex.
Theories don’t ‘prove’ anything. Researchers will only say that the data support or are
consistent with a theory, or that they are inconsistent with or complicate a theory. Rather
than thinking of a theory as proved or disproved by a single study, scientists evaluate their
theories based on the weight of the evidence, for and against.
There are various types of research:
Applied research: done with a practical problem in mind; the researcher conducts their
work in a particular real-world context. Applied researchers might be looking for better ways
to identify those who are likely to do well at a particular job etc.
Basic research: is not intended to address a specific, practical problem; the goal is to
enhance the general body of knowledge. Basis researchers do not just gather facts at
random, the knowledge they generate may be applied to real-world issues later on.
Translational research: the use of lessons from basic research to develop and test
applications to health care, psychotherapy, or other forms of treatment and intervention.
Translational research represents a dynamic bridge from basic to applied research.
Scientists can write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal. Journals come out every
month and contain articles written by various qualified contributors. The articles in a scientific
journal are peer-reviewed. The journal editor sends the submission to a couple experts, the
experts then tell the editor about the work’s virtues and flaws, based upon which the editor
decides whether the paper deserves to be published in the journal.
This is a rigorous process. Peer reviewers remain anonymous. The process continues even
after the work is published, other scientists can do further work or find flaws in the research
and send letters, commentaries, etc.
Scientific journals are not read by the general public, but journalism is. Journalists can
summarise research for a popular audience. Journalists must describe the research
accurately.
It is important that journalists choose research that has been conducted rigorously, and not
just a study that is cute or eye-catching. The journalist must also get the story right, the
details must not be too dumbed down. They must also not wrap the details of a study with a
more dramatic headline than the research can support.
H2 25-52
Reasons as to why not to base beliefs solely on personal experience:
1. Personal experience has no comparison group. A comparison group enables us to
compare what would happen both with and without the thing we are interested in. When
, relying on your own personal experience you don’t have a systematic comparison group.
You will never know what the outcome of certain things were if you had acted differently.
2. Experience is confounded.
Confounds: alternate explanations. Confounds are another reason why you shouldn’t base
conclusions on personal experience. In real life, too much is going on at once and when a
change has occurred, we can not be sure what caused it. In a research setting scientists can
use careful controls to be sure they are changing only one factor at a time.
3. Research is better than experience
Confederate: an actor playing a specific role for the experimenter.
4. Research is probabilistic.
Sometimes our personal experiences contradict research. However, behavioral research is
probabilistic. Probabilistic: findings of the research are not expected to explain all cases all
of the time. Instead, the conclusions of research are meant to explain a certain proportion of
the possible cases.
Intuition is also not a good way to reach a conclusion. Why not?
1. You might be swayed by a good story, but when empirical evidence contradicts what
your common sense tells you, be ready to adjust your beliefs on the basis of the
research.
2. Another bias is the availability heuristic: things that pop up easily in our minds tend
to guide our thinking. When events or memories are vivid, recent or memorable, they
come to mind more easily, leading us to overestimate how often things happen.
3. Failing to think about what we cannot see. Sometimes, people forget to seek out the
information that isn’t there. When testing relationships, we often fail to look for
absences; in contrast, it is easy to note what is present. This tendency is referred to
as the present/present bias: a name for our failure to consider appropriate
comparison groups. We notice the times when both the treatment and the desired
outcome are present. The availability heuristic also plays a role here.
4. Focusing on the evidence we like best. Confirmation bias: is the tendency to only
look at information that agrees with what we already believe. One way we enact this
bias is by asking questions that are likely to give the desired or expected answers.
Without scientific training, we are not very rigorous in gathering evidence to test our
ideas.
5. Biased about being biased. The bias blind spot: the belief that we are unlikely to fall
prey to the other biases previously described. Most of us think we are less biased
than others. The bias blind pot is the sneakiest of all the biases because it makes us
trust our faulty reasoning even more. In addition it can make it difficult for us to
initiate the scientific theory-data cycle because we think we don’t need to test
conclusions.
A good researcher must strive to interpret the data in an objective way. You must also
potentially collect disconfirming evidence, not just confirming data. You must train yourself to
guard against the many pitfalls of intuition.
Sometimes people believe claims because they are made by an authority. But before taking
advice from authorities, ask yourself about the source of their ideas. They might be basing
their claims on empirical evidence, but are they qualified to accurately understand and
interpret scientific evidence? An authority can also base their advice on their own experience
or intuition, or only present the studies that support their own side. Not all research is equally
reliable, the study might have been conducted poorly.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rosavleemingh. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,89. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53340 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen