The internet is utilised by many people in a way to express certain aspects of their personality. Whether it’s a status’ on facebook, individual’s blogs or posting view points on forums. It then seems that I’ve already come to my conclusion as to whether it’s ethical to analyse sources from the internet as the person themselves is allowing anyone to see this information. Unfortunately this concept is not so simple, especially when such analyses are published on this information and generally available for anyone to see.
Shank (2002) defined qualitative studies “a form of systematic empirical inquiry into meaning”. Thus as we know, if someone is going to use such internet sources as what individual’s post online, then it is assumed that they would be delving into and explaining what the true meaning is of what someone is saying. This can end up unveiling personal truths, thoughts and feelings of someone which if for example they tried to hide these, it can almost be seen as an incredible invasion of privacy. These issues become incredibly heightened if a psychologist was do analyse information from websites and forums for groups of people with certain issues or conditions, such as anorexia. This can feel like a safe and private place for people to express feelings and gain help and guidance and not a place where they will feel they will be judged, as would happen if a psychologist were to analyse it. Ethical boundaries would also be crossed if a psychologist were to sign up to such websites, pretending to be someone their not in order to get hold of the information, or to befriend someone on facebook etc. so as to gain personal information. An ethical principal is to not mislead participants and such methods would mean the psychologists were carrying out an unethical experiment.
Whilst using some internet sources can only be achieved by misleading users and falsifying themselves in order to gain private and personal information, information made allowed to be public may be in breach of fewer ethical concerns if analysed. Anyone in the world is able to read this information, and naturally people make their own assumptions about what the person is saying. They are also up for opposing views as many sites allow comments to be made back. They are therefore allowing themselves to be up for judgement and analysing and if this information is deemed private and personal to them, then it should not be posted in a public setting. One way the ethical concerns can be addressed is by asking the individual if it is ok to use their information in a psychological paper. If they are given permission, then I think this is deemed perfectly acceptable.
Overall, I think misleading participants in order to gain information on private websites and pages is unethical and should not be practiced in any form of psychological research, not purely qualitative. When an individual however allows information to be made public then I think they should take some responsibility in that anyone can use it. A better way to carry out qualitative research with internet resources is to ask permission before using it so as they have given consent, as with any normal participant in psychology.
Sources:
http://wagner.nyu.edu/leadership/publications/files/Qualitative_Research.pdf
Unfortunately as undergraduates, we can have the false impression that all of our research will be published, as long as it was a good study and well written. Well, it seems we have been misled. It seems that within science, and particularly psychology, research is generally only published when a significant result is found. This form of publication bias is known as the file drawer problem. Named aptly because those psychologists who have slaved months and potentially years of their lives on a piece of research but don’t find a significant result, often file these away, never for it to be read again because they will not be published.
The publication bias in publishing more statistically significant results than non-significant has been shown to occur even though the significant papers have a poorer research design than the null result ones (Easterbrook, Berlin, Gopalan, Matthews, 1991). This level of publication bias can have detrimental effects on psychology. With papers finding a significant result, three times more likely to be published over non-significant ones, psychology is potentially missing on many crucial papers (Dickersin, Chan, & Chalmers, 1987). Even though a paper may not find a significant result, this does not mean that these results are enlightening. For example, results finding that say the attentional spotlight doesn’t exist and this was carried out in a very well designed study with accurate findings are likely to not be known and thus not informing psychology that a theory is disproven.
On the other hand, not publishing non-significant results does hold some benefit. With regards to say treating a psychological disorder; if a patient researches treatment and finds that many papers say there is no treatment or it doesn’t work well, this can have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of the individual. Also, one study questioned researchers as to why some papers were not published and they themselves said that they did not send it to be published, with many reporting a change in interest to another topic as theirs now held little significance.
It appears therefore that the file drawer problem can seriously hinder psychological research by not publishing non-psychological research, despite the chance it could change ideas on particular theories. It is apparent though that not publishing non-significant research can protect individuals from being aware of this research in treatment, and that sometimes, research isn’t published due to the researches own choosing. I guess this explains why we find it hard to find opposing research for our essays!
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf
When people think of what psychologists do, they are those annoying people who stand in a crowded room and judge every move you make, seen to know what you’re thinking and you feel you can’t do anything correctly without being told that something went wrong in your childhood and that’s why you’re the way you are. The type of research I guess you could blame for this is observation research. It is the method of collecting data by observing and recording behaviour as it happens in its natural environment. However, can you get a true picture of people’s behaviours, motives and thoughts processes through the observation method?
Experimental methods of research and predominantly only possible due to prior research carried out by non-experimental designs, such as the observational method. The observational method gives the researcher a real picture of the reasons for particular behaviours so that artificial conditions in a lab can be adapted ad reviewed in order to yield consistent results, thus ensuring generalisability. Certain situations such as crowd behaviour, animal behaviour, mother and child interactions are best recorded on their natural environment and a lab could result in unreliable invalid results.
When studying individuals in their natural environment, allowing them to do as they wish, it is obvious that the researcher has little to no control, and thus extraneous factors become a major drawback of the observational method. The result of confounding variables can lead the researcher to conclude results that are due to alternative factors to that of which they are researching, thus leaving the results with little validity. The logistics of also carrying out an observational research design can be very hard as there can be issues of ethics and consent. On one hand you don’t want the individuals to know they are being observed, as this is likely to alter their environment and remove the element of a natural setting, however, ensuring that ethics are not breached can be a very fine line and one that is easy to cross. Whilst as stated above, recording behaviour in a natural setting for say the bond between a mother and child can aid results far beyond brining them into a lab environment however the issue still stands that the presence of the researcher can still alter the behaviour of the participants. It is suggested that using the observational research method alone is often not sufficient; as it is needed to be combined with other research methods in order to ensure the strength of the research.
Overall, the observational method can collect results that may not be possible in a lab setting and thus are very important to psychological research. As is shown however, it is not all good. With issues of ethics and that some people argue that this type of research alone is not sufficient, this type of research is good but should not be wholly relied upon by itself.
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/pop4a.cfm
http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/observation/obshome.htm
As we’ve all been learning, case studies are an in-depth look at an individual’s experience and behaviour, and trying to relate this to their context (Flyybjerg, 2011). These studies are often longitudinal and can be studied in a wide variety of ways, such as interviews, observations etc. and provide a means for investigating cases that cannot be carried out in a lab. Generalisability of such studies however holds much reservation amongst some psychologists and drawing cause an effect relationships can be questioned. With such limitations however, do case studies hold much strength for further development in psychology?
Case studies are often used in qualitative research, and as is such the case for much of this type of research, they are frequently used in order to generate new hypotheses. This in-depth research often investigates ideas that are otherwise hard to research and thus these new findings can lead to testing of such topics by other methods, such as quantitative research. It was such investigations of Phineas Gage for example that showed how vital the left frontal lobe was in the control of personality and behaviour (Barker, 1955). Without a case study on this individual, it is unlikely that such information would have been found, certainly at this time (Campbell, 1851). It then appears that case studies can aid psychologists in novel findings. It is particularly useful for humanistic psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view, however, many limitations still stand.
As indicated above, one of the main issues of concern with validity of case studies is their generalisability. This is concerned with whether the research can be applied beyond the lab environment and out to the general population. As case studies are often conducted because the participant(s) are unique and/or their cases are incredibly rare, taking one individual’s behaviour and personality and saying either this is how people with such cases will act the same or certain issues result in certain behaviour. Variables in such studies are very hard to control and the results are often descriptive. Drawing a valid conclusion as to the cause of the results therefore is limited too if they results are often descriptive, rather than inferential. Surely, the whole point of psychology is to draw conclusions and to explain how this affects the population. Whilst studies may look in-depth into cases, if these results cannot be generalised and often draw cause and effect relationships, then this form of research is very weak and can do little to assist in further research based on these findings.
Overall, case studies are very good at showing in-depth relationships, particularly in unique participants. However, when it comes to psychology, their generalisability is very weak, the conclusions they can draw do not often show cause relationships, and therefore are a weak form of research for the future of psychology.
I’d like to cover my back here and state that I do think psychological studies can show very unique things and can have a big impact on society and our knowledge of the brain etc. It’s the past few months however that I’ve started to question how much this research is actually used in the real world. Unfortunately finding research backing up this subject can be tough, but I don’t think that’s a reason not to do this blog as ultimately, shouldn’t the main aim of research be to find new information and to inform the general public about it so it can be used?
For example, Jesse Martin’s research project this year for us second years is a way to take psychological research and finding a way to take it into education as currently there’s psychology research and educational research and never shall the two mix it seems! Whilst I am obviously not involved in research, it appears that psychologists spend a lot of time on research, ensuring it’s accurate and their results are well written up and potentially published. This is an amazing feet, I cannot knock that, but it seems that once the work is written it, it stays as a book on a shelf or as an online article for undergraduates to cite in their own research projects or essays.
There are many options which could be implemented, or improved if already in place. One options is that a faculty is set up in order to integrate the latest research and to inform the general population about it. Whether that be liaising with education boards, producing information books/leaflets or setting up conferences with senior staff in businesses for example. I think it does go too far to expect it to be the job of the researcher to do this, but I do think their research papers could be more user friendly in order to be understood by those outside of psychology and the scientific community.
Ultimately, I think psychology is almost a very cut off aspect of science. Whilst it has grown leaps and bounds and improved vastly in its research, this is not being used in the real world as it should be and therefore in a way, so far, current research is merely stocking up and of little use.
dy bannee diu 