Discussion Week 1: The Logic Of Inference And The Science Of

Discussion Week 1the Logic Of Inference The Science Of Uncertaintyd

Discussion - Week 1 The Logic of Inference: The Science of Uncertainty Describing and explaining social phenomena is a complex task. Box’s quote speaks to the point that it is a near impossible undertaking to fully explain such systems—physical or social—using a set of models. Yet even though these models contain some error, the models nevertheless assist with illuminating how the world works and advancing social change. The competent quantitative researcher understands the balance between making statements related to theoretical understanding of relationships and recognizing that our social systems are of such complexity that we will always have some error. The key, for the rigorous researcher, is recognizing and mitigating the error as much as possible.

As a graduate student and consumer of research, you must recognize the error that might be present within your research and the research of others. Post a very brief description (1–3 sentences) of the article you found and address the following: Describe how you think the research in the article is useful (e.g., what population is it helping? What problem is it solving?). Using Y= f (X) +E notation, identify the independent and dependent variables. How might the research models presented be wrong? What types of error might be present in the reported research? Be sure to support your Main Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

Paper For Above instruction

The article I selected examines the impact of community-based intervention programs on reducing juvenile delinquency among adolescents in urban settings. This research is valuable as it helps policymakers and social workers formulate targeted strategies to address youth crime, thereby supporting vulnerable populations and enhancing social stability. In terms of the Y= f (X) + E notation, the independent variable (X) is the type and intensity of intervention programs implemented, while the dependent variable (Y) is the rate of juvenile delinquency within the community.

The models used in the research may be flawed due to several reasons. Firstly, there could be measurement error in recording the intervention intensity or juvenile delinquency rates, which would lead to inaccuracies in estimating the true relationship. Secondly, omitted variable bias is a concern; factors such as socioeconomic status, family environment, or peer influence might influence juvenile behavior but are not fully accounted for in the models. Thirdly, the model assumes a linear relationship between interventions and delinquency reduction, which may oversimplify complex social processes that might involve nonlinear dynamics or threshold effects.

Errors in the research can stem from measurement errors, such as inaccurate data collection or reporting biases. Additionally, there may be sampling errors if the sample is not representative of the broader population, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, there is the possibility of confounding variables that are not controlled for, which could lead to spurious correlations, thus misrepresenting the true causal relationships. Recognizing these potential errors aligns with Box’s assertion about the importance of understanding and mitigating errors in social science models, emphasizing the need for rigorous methodology and cautious interpretation of results (Box, 1979; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

References

  • Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. Biometrika, 66(2), 305–332.
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
  • Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
  • Meinzen-Dick, R., et al. (2004). Research-based advocacy and policy change: A case study from the nutrition field. Public Health Nutrition, 7(4), 505–517.
  • McComas, W. F. (2002). Risks and benefits of progress in science and technology. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 747–754.
  • Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Vardeman, J., & Jobe, J. M. (2016). Statistical inference: How the game is played. The American Statistician, 70(3), 163–171.
  • Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. Springer.
  • Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.

Related Assignments