Nonprobability Sampling and Causal Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Kohler ◽  
Frauke Kreuter ◽  
Elizabeth A. Stuart
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Group Design ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Selection Probabilities

The long-standing approach of using probability samples in social science research has come under pressure through eroding survey response rates, advanced methodology, and easier access to large amounts of data. These factors, along with an increased awareness of the pitfalls of the nonequivalent comparison group design for the estimation of causal effects, have moved the attention of applied researchers away from issues of sampling and toward issues of identification. This article discusses the usability of samples with unknown selection probabilities for various research questions. In doing so, we review assumptions necessary for descriptive and causal inference and discuss research strategies developed to overcome sampling limitations.

scholarly journals Is Banning Significance Testing the Best Way to Improve Applied Social Science Research? – Questions on

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Thees F Spreckelsen ◽  
Mariska Van Der Horst
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Applied Social Science

Significance testing is widely used in social science research. It has long been criticised on statistical grounds and problems in the research practice. This paper is an applied researchers’ response to Gorard's (2016) ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). He participates in this debate concluding from the issues raised that the use and teaching of significance testing should cease immediately. In that, he goes beyond a mere ban of significance testing, but claims that researchers still doing this are being unethical. We argue that his attack on applied scientists is unlikely to improve social science research and we believe he does not sufficiently prove his claims. In particular we are concerned that with a narrow focus on statistical significance, Gorard misses alternative, if not more important, explanations for the often-lamented problems in social science research. Instead, we argue that it is important to take into account the full research process, not just the step of data analysis, to get a better idea of the best evidence regarding a hypothesis.

Office Hours: How (Critical) Norm Research Can Regain Its Voice

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Engelkamp ◽  
Katharina Glaab ◽  
Judith Renner
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Critical Research ◽  
Research Perspective ◽  
Political Position ◽  
Western Values

AbstractSocial Science research cannot be neutral. It always involves, so the argument of this article, the (re)production of social reality and thus has to be conceived as political practice. From this perspective, the present article looks into constructivist norm research. In the first part, we argue that constructivist norm research is political insofar as it tends to reproduce Western values that strengthen specific hegemonic discursive structures. However, this particular political position is hardly reflected on in norm research. Hence, it is our goal in the second part of the article to outline research strategies potentially useful in reflective and critical norm research. We propose a critical research program based upon three central methodological steps that are inspired by post-structuralism: first, the questioning of global hegemonic values; second, the reconstruction of marginalized knowledge; and third, the explicit reflection of one’s own research perspective.

scholarly journals What Is Our Research For? Responsibility, Humility and the Production of Knowledge about Burundi

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devon E. A. Curtis
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Structural Inequality ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Opening And Closing

Political space in Burundi underwent a remarkable opening during the Burundian peace process and its immediate aftermath, which led to a rise in social science scholarship in Burundi. This space has increasingly narrowed, particularly since the crisis in 2015, presenting important challenges for social science scholars of Burundi. This changing political environment has consequences for the production of knowledge on Burundi. It is therefore timely to ask what purposes does research on Burundi serve. This article reflects upon different motivations and goals for social science research in Burundi and how these affect the types of research questions that are asked and the formats for knowledge dissemination. It argues that both the opening and closing of the Burundian political landscape bring into sharp relief the need for greater scholarly reflexivity. The article argues that in contexts of structural inequality and increased political control such as Burundi, we need to be particularly attentive to the need for scholarly responsibility and humility, as well as an awareness of the dynamics that have led to calls for the decolonisation of knowledge within the social sciences.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research Strategies: Contrasting Epistemological And Ontological Assumptions

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Fatimah Bahari
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Intensive Research ◽  
Alternative Research

Kertas kerja ini membincangkan bagaimana strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan kuantitatif (ekstensif) berbeza dengan membandingkan aspek–aspek epistemologi dan ontologi dan bagaimana kepercayaan dan pandangan ini menepati objektif intelektual yang berbeza. Pertama sekali kertas kerja ini membincangkan kepentingan memahami falsafah dalam penyelidikan sains sosial dan hubungannya dengan strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Kemudian, perbincangan diteruskan dengan membandingkan dua jenis strategi penyelidikan ini berhubung dengan orientasi utama terhadap peranan teori, anggapan–anggapan epistemologi dan ontologi. Anggapan–anggapan epistemologi yang dibincangkan dalam kertas kerja ini termasuklah intepretivism bagi strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan positivisme bagi strategi penyelidikan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Manakala anggapan–anggapan ontologi yang dibincangkan dalam kertas kerja ini meragkumi subjectivism/constructivism bagi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan objektivisme bagi strategi penyelidikan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Seterusnya bahagian kedua kertas kerja ini, menerangkan bagaimana dua jenis strategi penyelidikan ini menepati objektif intelektual. Akhirnya, sebagai kesimpulan kertas kerja ini membincangkan strategi penyelidikan alternatif iaitu kaedah campuran (mixed methods) yang boleh diaplikasikan dalam penyelidikan sains sosial. Kata kunci: Kualitatif; kuantitatif; epistemologi; ontologi; strategi penyelidikan This paper attempts to discuss how qualitative (intensive) and quantitative (extensive) research strategies differ by contrasting epistemological and ontological aspects and how these beliefs and views fit with their different intellectual goals. Firstly, this paper discusses the importance of understanding philosophy in social science research and its relation to qualitative (intensive) and quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Then it develops by contrasting these two types of research strategies in relation to the principle orientation to the role of theory, epistemological and ontological assumptions. Epistemological assumptions consist of interpretivism for qualitative (intensive) research strategies and positivism for quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Whereas ontological assumptions constitute subjectivism/constructivism for qualitative (intensive) research and objectivism for quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Further it will explain how these two types of research strategies fit the different intellectual goals and finally concludes by discussing an alternative research strategi namely mixed method that may be employed in social science research. Key words: Qualitative; quantitative; epistemology; ontology; research strategies

scholarly journals Co-creating a Social Science Research Agenda for Clean Sport: An International Delphi Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Boardley ◽  
Martin Chandler ◽  
Susan H Backhouse ◽  
Andrea Petroczi
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Consensus Method ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
First Time

Background: Doping is a significant issue in sport. To date, research efforts to inform doping prevention have lacked any guiding framework for research priorities. To ensure future research endeavors are coordinated, sustainable and focused on end-user priorities, a research agenda, informed by practical needs and expert knowledge, is needed. For the first time, this study brought together an international group of practitioners and academic researchers to co-create a research agenda for doping prevention.Methods: The Delphi consensus method was used to identify the most important topics for social science research on doping prevention, as well as specific questions that need addressing. Based on eligibility criteria for key stakeholders in anti-doping, 82 academics, practitioners and representatives of anti-doping organizations were invited to participate in this agenda-setting project. Based upon two substantive reviews of the doping literature and 12 focus groups with elite athletes across five European countries, a questionnaire was developed by social science experts in anti-doping to assess the importance of 15 potential research topics and identify key research questions for each. In Round 1, an expert panel (n = 57) completed this questionnaire. In Round 2, expert panel members (n = 33; 42% attrition from Round 1) ranked the eight topic areas rated as most important in Round 1 on their relative importance, before doing the same for research questions within each topic area. Based on these rankings, a draft research agenda was created. In the final round, expert-panel members (n = 26; 54% attrition from Round 1) rated the degree to which they accepted this draft agenda and the feasibility of its delivery over the next ten years, as well as identifying possible barriers and facilitators to its implementation.Results: The results of Round 1 and Round 2 were used to create a research agenda consisting of 18 research questions stratified across eight topic areas. This draft agenda was either fully (n = 16) or mostly (n = 9) accepted by the expert panel in Round 3 (96.2%). These research topics focus on the effectiveness of anti-doping interventions/education programmes, athlete environment (developmental influences, role and knowledge of the athlete entourage), long-term development of protective and risk factors for doping in athletes and their entourage, athletes' experiences of key procedures and their perceived place in the anti-doping system. Conclusions: For the first time, a rigorous exercise was conducted to create a research agenda for doping prevention research. Adoption and application of this agenda should lead to better coordination, more efficient use of available funding resource, enhanced uptake of research findings by doping-prevention practitioners and in turn more effective anti-doping and clean-sport education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document