Comm 150 Week 6 Notes
Comm 150 Week 6 Notes Communication Studies 150
Popular in Methodologies in Communication Research
Communication Studies 150
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alyssa Notetaker on Saturday November 7, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to Communication Studies 150 at University of California - Los Angeles taught by PJ Lamberson in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 40 views. For similar materials see Methodologies in Communication Research in Communication Studies at University of California - Los Angeles.
Reviews for Comm 150 Week 6 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/07/15
Week 6 Lecture 10 Research Ethics A code of conduct for conducting research in an ethical ie morally right way Brief history 0 German physicians under the Nazis experimented on prisoners kept them in subzero temperature cells and intentionally infected them with diseases 0 The Tuskegee Experiment I Recruited 600 impoverished sharecroppers in Alabama I 399 had syphilis 201 did not They were given free medical care meals and burial insurance But none of the infected men were told they were infected nor were they treated after penicillin was proven as treatment 0 Results many of the subjects died 40 wives contracted it 19 children were born with congenital syphilis o 9 No more trust of researchers to remain ethical on their own I Office of government created to manage ethical research practices have to be reviewed 0 American Psychological Association worked with Dept of Defense in torturing at Guantanamo Bay contrary to policy of do no harm o The Stanford Prison Experiment Human Subjects research 0 Not allowed unethical I Potential harm I Lack of informed consent I Deception I Privacy violations 0 Researchers must be sure none of the above exist in their study 0 Further defined I Potential types of harm Physical harm Humiliation or embarrassment Loss of selfesteem Loss of trust in others Is any harm ever okay 0 Costbenefit analysis 0 Look at benefits to both individuals and society 0 Hard to measure cost of harms cost of being embarrassed etc how can you measure it o A requirement is that risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefitsquot I The Common Rule defines terms such as human subjectquot and minimal riskquot I Minimal risk expedited review by IRB sometimes Informed Consent Subjects should have the freedom to choose whether or not to participate Default written documented informed consent that they understand and agree to the research 0 Usually explains what will happen why the risks and benefits compensation info and confidentiality o In most situations this will not mess up the research I Ex how caffeine affects ability to solve puzzles Difficulty with informed consent if the subject is fully informed the subject s responses could be biased So how much should they know about the study before they take part 0 Definitely list risks include sources types of potential harm including psychological o If there are possibilities for real psychological harm should have psychological pretests 0 Lack of informed consent in some cases is okay if no risk is anticipated and there s a debrief afterward I Official definition of minimal harm harm that is at the same level that you could expect to experience on a normal day I If it s minimal informed consent can be waived Coercion is another challenge to informed consent 0 Pressure from researcher professor requiring participation in study etc 0 There are guidelines for this have multiple options or at least multiple possible studies to choose from etc Deception Deliberately misleading or misinforming subjects about some aspect of the study 0 Used to be more common about 70 of studies now is about 13 of all studies 0 Can include lack of informed consent informed consent for a stated different type of study deception about what the study is testing etc I A lot of the time is like a cover story to avoid testing bias I Some argue even this is unethical Violates subject s right to informed consent Violates trust in the investigatorsubject relationship Violated trust can damage credibility of behavioral scientists and undermines trust in science and authority figures for the subject 0 Psychological harm Routine deception of subjects in studies it becomes common knowledge and thus doesn t actually work causes people to try to figure out what the researchers are really testing Requires debriefing I Privacy The right for an individual to decide when where to whom and to what extent his or her attitudes beliefs and behaviors will be revealed Need to maintain anonymity and or confidentiality Common to run into this without previously knowing it would be an issue easy to mess up here 0 Common route anonymize the data I Then either destroy or lock away subject s true names info 0 BUT depending on how much information is given about the subject someone could figure out who it is I Not as hard to do as we might think I 9 Have to be extremely careful what data you allow out for public consumption avoid leaks The Good Sciencequot Ethic 0 Scientists also have an ethical obligation to be as honest and accurate in their research as possible Fabrication falsification and plagiarism are unethical research misconduct More possible issues Most of the time journals won t publish findings that find no statistically significant effect it s not sexy But this is actually showing something two things we thought might be connected aren t it s important to see studies where the null hypothesis is what s proven true SO in a bunch of studies looking at the same things the one that is published could be erroneous happen by chance that the variables are correlated when in reality they are not Some journals are getting better about this 0 Choosing research plans to publish rather than choosing by the research results I Research can be funded by companies that hope for a certain result 0 Remember As opposed to the value neutralityquot that used to be believed there is no way for a researcher to be completely unbiased Keep an eye on your biases values and cultural relativity to avoid tainting your research Lecture 1 1 Field Research and Secondary Data Field Research Research conducted by observing naturally occurring events Includes 0 Qualitative research 0 Observational research 0 Case studies 0 Ethnography Examples 0 Ritualized Embarrassment at coed wedding and baby showersquot I Attended the showers and took notes of how people interacted I Qualitative results Allows for new categorization of response to be noticed and added in Allows for detailed understanding of the interaction Researcher is a nonparticipant 0 Communication Practices in the Social construction of health in an AIDS residencequot I Researcher was resident faculty more of a participant known to the community I Qualitative allows for more complex emotional findings thick descriptions More nebulous concepts allowed but can be less clear and straightforward o quotDisclosing and responding to cancer fears during oncology interviewsquot I Smaller case study looks at a few cases Qualitative detailed descriptions of everything that s going on thick descriptions Where quantitative would narrow it down to a few numbers thin description Why field research 0 Allows an insider s viewquot of reality See things as believers see them as the community studied sees them quotMethodological empathyquot 0 Good for dynamic rapidly changing or unique events Because field research is exible Ex studying reactions to a natural disaster have to act quickly So an experimental design might quickly become obsolete where qualitative research can show trends for future similar events too allows for quickly gathering a lot of information 0 Ethical constraints so can t do experiment but can observe what s already happening ex rape gangs murder crime 0 Exploration of complex causal mechanisms When it is essential to preserve quotwholequot events in all their detail and immediacy When a situation is complex involving interrelated phenomena that must be studied simultaneously and as a whole When the focus is on the relationship between the subject and their setting so shouldn t separate one from the other 0 Hypothesis formation Can make theory etc later after collecting data on a unique event ex Tunisian uprising Conduct field research first go into the field to observe one case THEN formulate your theory of how it works and then go into field and observe other cases to see if your hypothesis holds Ex studying parliamentary democracy observe Canadian government in the field form theory and hypothesis travel to other Mixed methods very similar 0 Using observations and data to notice patterns and so form your ideas and theories 0 Then the quantitative side can verify the hypothesis or if it doesn t can tweak your theory and hypothesis and keep going testing more cases to see if your new hypothesis holds I Qualitative research allows for this tweaking don t have to throw out your very specific data if you change your hypothesis Nonparticipant o Observing as an outsider often without the knowledge of those being observed 0 Lo and A World of Strangers observed in bus depots airports etc I Ex looking in on the Fishbowl atrium noticed people would do a second of grooming in the glass of the window going into the next building 9 she starts looking for that pattern of behavior at all the other places found this to be a norm of behavior when you re about to go into a new setting Participant 0 Observing as an quotinsiderquot the researcher actively participates in the daily lives of the people and situation under study Stages of Field Research not always this linear O O O O O 0 Topic setting selection Gain access Present oneself establish roles Take notes begin analysis Develop analysis Leave the field report findings Selecting the setting case 0 O 0 Tip start where you are I Trying to study what already comes naturally for you to observe Also depends on topic of interest Pitfall do not sample on the dependent variable I Ex if your question is Why do wars happenquot don t go to a war zone war is the result the dependent variable You need to look at nonwar areas too places without war and before war Instead of this look at your hypothesis what variable you think causes war and study areas with those dynamics Gaining access 0 In many cases you can just show up I For example with covert researcher totally fine in open and public spaces just sitting and observing In others need to talk to a gatekeeper In some cases it s helpful to have a sponsorinformant to introduce you I But this can be an issue if the sponsor is not well regarded I Can also be not very safe for you Ex guy who wrote about Hell s Angels was badly beaten after publishing the book Sampling usually is nonrandom selection of a small number of settings and subjects I Usually focusing on interactive social units encounters organizations etc I Convenience accessibility happenstance needs of the study I Rigorous sampling can occur in the field however though usually not beforehand I Theoretical sampling sampling broad categories to gain theoretical insight sampling directed toward gathering information relevant to a specific working hypothesis 0 What membership role to adopt I Peripheral member I Active member I Complete member Field interviewing o Allows researcher to get info on what happens in their absence 0 Carefully question the informants for the information o More indepth and intensive interviews after researchers have been in the field a while can help gain more perspectives and understanding of the situation 0 To help with interview on topic have guidelines in their interview guides Data Analysis 0 3 stages I Organizing information and identifying patterns Coding 0 You have a thick narrative description of what s going on and coding can help narrow clarify the results 0 Come up with typology categories you observe and sort people into based on what they do I Developing ideas I Drawing and verifying conclusions Q selection bias with selfselection do you avoid this with random assignment to the treatment control groups or by not allowing selfselection and going with random sampling of the sample frame Okay to selfselect into the study but not into the treatment control groups Random assignment into each groups will avoid messing up the internal validity Only issue if there is a systematic difference between the population and the sample external validity is messed up
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'