Evaluate social practical investigation
(8)
One strength of my practical investigation is that it has validity. We approached participants
and explained to them the aims of the study and an overview of the ethical considerations.
We gave them a questionnaire to answer in 10 minutes in silence to see whether males or
females perceived themselves to be more obedient. The questionnaire had open-ended
questions, such as “What is your opinion on why we have college rules?” which left
participants the choice to expand on their answers. This means that data greater in depth
can be gathered about why males or females perceive themselves to be more obedient. This
is a strength as this allows for valid data to be collected about obedience which cannot be
measured through only quantitative data or closed questions. However, there may have
been a potential for participants to display social desirability bias. This is where they may
answer in a way that is deemed as socially desirable. This means that the answers in the
questionnaire may lack validity because they may not reflect participants’s true feelings or
beliefs about their obedience levels.
One weakness of this practical investigation is that it lacks generalisability. Findings show
that there is no significant difference in obedience between males and females, thus
accepting the null hypothesis. This was based on the quantitative data gathered, which show
that the mean for males was 5.2 regarding their obedience levels, and 5.8 for females. A
small sample of 10 college students was used, which may not be representative of the
general population. This is because they had a very narrow range of cultural diversity,
therefore the findings can not be generalised to other cultures. This is a weakness as the
results may be different depending on which cultures are tested. However, the study had
clear standardised instructions which included giving participants the same questionnaire
with the same questions to complete in the same amount of time. This means that these
procedures can be easily replicated on a larger sample to assess for their reliability.
In conclusion, this practical investigation aimed to see whether males or females perceive
themselves to be more obedient through a questionnaire. Although the sample size was
small, the standardised procedures were reliable meaning that they can be replicated on a
larger scale to assess the reliability of the findings. Nonetheless, using a questionnaire might
limit the validity of the findings since participants may only pick out options which are
deemed as socially desirable, which do not necessarily match their opinions on their
obedience levels. To improve this study, a larger sample should be used so that the findings
can be generalised to a larger range of cultural backgrounds.
(8)
One strength of my practical investigation is that it has validity. We approached participants
and explained to them the aims of the study and an overview of the ethical considerations.
We gave them a questionnaire to answer in 10 minutes in silence to see whether males or
females perceived themselves to be more obedient. The questionnaire had open-ended
questions, such as “What is your opinion on why we have college rules?” which left
participants the choice to expand on their answers. This means that data greater in depth
can be gathered about why males or females perceive themselves to be more obedient. This
is a strength as this allows for valid data to be collected about obedience which cannot be
measured through only quantitative data or closed questions. However, there may have
been a potential for participants to display social desirability bias. This is where they may
answer in a way that is deemed as socially desirable. This means that the answers in the
questionnaire may lack validity because they may not reflect participants’s true feelings or
beliefs about their obedience levels.
One weakness of this practical investigation is that it lacks generalisability. Findings show
that there is no significant difference in obedience between males and females, thus
accepting the null hypothesis. This was based on the quantitative data gathered, which show
that the mean for males was 5.2 regarding their obedience levels, and 5.8 for females. A
small sample of 10 college students was used, which may not be representative of the
general population. This is because they had a very narrow range of cultural diversity,
therefore the findings can not be generalised to other cultures. This is a weakness as the
results may be different depending on which cultures are tested. However, the study had
clear standardised instructions which included giving participants the same questionnaire
with the same questions to complete in the same amount of time. This means that these
procedures can be easily replicated on a larger sample to assess for their reliability.
In conclusion, this practical investigation aimed to see whether males or females perceive
themselves to be more obedient through a questionnaire. Although the sample size was
small, the standardised procedures were reliable meaning that they can be replicated on a
larger scale to assess the reliability of the findings. Nonetheless, using a questionnaire might
limit the validity of the findings since participants may only pick out options which are
deemed as socially desirable, which do not necessarily match their opinions on their
obedience levels. To improve this study, a larger sample should be used so that the findings
can be generalised to a larger range of cultural backgrounds.
