Review The Discussion On Social Research In Chapter One

Review The Discussion On Social Research In Chapter One And Answer the

Review the discussion on social research in chapter one and answer the following questions: 1. Compare and contrast the ethnographic, survey and experimental research methods. (Length: at least 350 words. Points: . If you are asked to prove the causal relationship (i.e. cause and effect) between two variables (i.e. between a certain medication and its effectiveness) in the highest degree of certainty, generally speaking, which is the BEST research method among the above three to be used? What are the rationales behind your selection? Why the other two methods are not as good or proficient for such purposes? (Hints: Your response should not solely be based on unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is a general census in the literature on the research method (among the above three) that is more proficient in determining causal relationship.) Length: at least 300 words. Max Points: 20 You are welcome and encouraged to use outside sources. Please use ASA (American Sociological Association) citation format to cite references.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding different social research methods is crucial for sociologists and researchers aiming to study human behavior, social phenomena, and causal relationships effectively. Among the prevalent methods—ethnographic, survey, and experimental research—each serves unique purposes, possesses distinct characteristics, and varies in their suitability for establishing causality. This discussion provides a comparative analysis of these methods and evaluates which is most appropriate for determining cause-and-effect relationships, especially in highly controlled settings such as testing medication efficacy.

Comparison and Contrast of Ethnographic, Survey, and Experimental Methods

The ethnographic research method is qualitative in nature, focusing on the in-depth study of social phenomena within their natural context. Ethnographers immerse themselves in the community or setting they study, often participating in daily activities to gain a nuanced understanding of social interactions and cultural norms (Fetterman, 2010). This method excels in uncovering the meanings and interpretations individuals assign to their experiences, making it particularly valuable for exploratory research and understanding complex social processes. However, ethnography's strengths lie in depth and contextual richness rather than generalizability or causality; it inherently lacks the controls necessary to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011).

Conversely, survey research utilizes structured questionnaires to gather quantifiable data from a broad population sample. This method allows researchers to analyze patterns, correlations, and trends across large groups, making it highly useful for descriptive and inferential statistics (Bryman, 2016). Surveys are efficient and provide broad coverage, but they are limited in establishing causality because of their observational nature and reliance on self-reported data, which can introduce biases and confounding variables (Groves et al., 2009). Nonetheless, surveys are instrumental in identifying correlations that can be further examined through experimental research.

The experimental research method distinguishes itself through its emphasis on control and manipulation of variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships. Typically conducted in controlled environments or laboratories, experiments involve manipulating an independent variable and observing its effect on a dependent variable (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Random assignment of participants minimizes confounding factors, thus providing the highest degree of internal validity. Due to this rigorous control, experimental research is considered the gold standard when attempting to prove causality in scientific studies, including testing the efficacy of medications or interventions (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Most Suitable Method for Proving Causality (Medication Effectiveness)

Among the three methods—ethnographic, survey, and experimental—the experimental research design is universally recognized as the most appropriate for establishing causal relationships with the highest degree of certainty. The core strength of experiments lies in their capacity to control extraneous variables, allowing researchers to isolate the effect of the independent variable—such as a medication—on the outcome (Shadish et al., 2002). Random assignment and control groups facilitate causality inference by eliminating biases and confounding variables, which cannot be adequately addressed in ethnography or surveys.

While surveys can reveal correlations between medication use and health outcomes, they cannot definitively establish causation due to potential biases—such as self-selection and reporting biases—and the presence of unmeasured confounders. Ethnographic studies, though rich in contextual insights, are unsuitable for causality because they lack experimental manipulation and control, making it impossible to rule out alternative explanations for observed outcomes (Fetterman, 2010). Therefore, the experimental design remains the optimal method for testing causality in clinical settings involving medication efficacy, aligning with the consensus in research literature (Cook & Campbell, 1979). It provides a systematic approach to minimize biases and confidently attribute observed effects to the intervention.

Conclusion

In summary, while ethnographic and survey methods offer valuable insights into social phenomena and relationships, their limitations prevent them from establishing definitive causal links. Experimental research, by virtue of its controllability and capacity for manipulation, is best suited for determining causal relationships, including the effectiveness of medications. The selection of an appropriate research method ultimately depends on the research question, but for answering questions about cause-and-effect, experiments are unrivaled in their rigor and reliability.

References

• Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin.
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
• Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-Step. Sage Publications.
• Grofes, R. J., et al. (2009). Survey Methods in Social Research. Sage Publications.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-Step. Sage Publications.
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin.