Research Design

Main Tasks of Research Design Specifying what you want to find out: this involves explaining the concepts you are interested in and how they will be measured (explication and meaning analysis). Determining the best way to do it: this involves determining whom or what you will explore, describe, or explain (unit of analysis); what time dimension is appropriate for your observations; and how you are going to do it (method).

Design Depends on Goals What is the purpose of the research? What shall we observe, among whom, for what purpose, and in what time frame? Exploration Often where inquiry begins Informal methods, feasibility testing Description Detail the features of elements under review E.g., U.S. Census Explanation Usually the aim of social scientists Relating variables to account for process

Unit of Observation & Analysis What we look at to make observation E.g., People in a survey, articles in content analysis Unit of analysis What we are interested in studying Usually same as unit of observation; sometimes different: E.g., Are “traditional” marriages more successful? Unit of observation: husbands, wives Unit of analysis: marriage type (couple)

Types of Units of Analysis Individuals Groups Organizations Social Interactions Social Artifacts - However, bear in mind this is only one typology. E.g., Lofland’s: practices, episodes, encounters, roles, relationships, groups, organizations, settlements, social worlds, lifestyles, and subcultures. - What is important is the logic of units of analysis.

Units of Analysis: Individuals Most common unit of analysis in social science/mass communication research Seek to explain differences between individuals and relationships among individual differences Variables and Relationships: E.g., Income, Age, Gender, Education E.g., Associated with differences in tolerance

Units of Analysis: Social Groups Examples: Households, families, neighborhoods, gangs Seek to explain differences between groups and relationships among those differences Variables: Households: income, media use (Nielsen) Marriages: types, communication patterns Neighborhoods: crime rates, income stratification

Units of Analysis: Organizations Examples: Corporations, Universities, Governments Groups with formal organizational structures Seek to explain differences between formal social organizations and the relationships among organizational differences Variables: E.g., Corporations: employees, benefits, productivity

Units of Analysis: Social Interactions Examples: Kisses, Arguments, Email exchanges, discussion styles Social interaction are usually the product of interplay between individuals. Studies seek to explain different types of social interactions (ex. discussion as unit of analysis), the types of people engaging in certain interactions (ex. Individual as the unit of analysis) Variables: Number of arguments, argumentative people

Units of Analysis: Social Artifacts Examples: TV programs, newspaper articles, documents Social artifacts are any product of social beings or their behaviors. Studies seek to explain differences between social artifacts, the artifacts produced by different source, and the relationships among these factors Variables: Level of violence, number of sources used

Faulty Reasoning & Units of Analysis Problems of drawing conclusions across units of analysis: Ecological fallacy Reductionism

Ecological Fallacy Observed characteristic of group leads to: Inference about individual members Similar to Prejudice Individual judgments based on beliefs about group E.g., Precinct voting records are unit of observation concerning support for democratic candidates Majority Black precincts vote against gay rights You can not assume that Blacks uniformly oppose gay rights Whites within precincts may be more consistently voting against

Reductionism Reducing complex phenomenon in a way that privileges particular units of analysis over others E.g., Crime is a function of individual characteristics What about social structures? Economists: Economic reductionism Psychologists: Psychological reductionism Sociologists: Sociological reductionism Dominant paradigms often limit views

Time Dimension & Research Design Time and issues of causation Static designs: Cross-sectional study Longitudinal designs: Trend studies Cohort studies Panel studies

Cross-sectional Studies Static snapshot Slice of population at one point in time E.g., An opinion poll Inherent limitations: Inability to capture change over time Making causal inferences is dangerous

Cross-sectional studies Top Global Concerns for 2003 % who list item among top 3 personal concerns Source: Roper Reports Worldwide 2003 Study of 30,000 consumers age 13 to 65 in 30 countries

Cross-sectional studies

Longitudinal Designs Multiple observations across time Tracking changes across time Maybe in response to stimulus that occurs between observations Testing for changes resulting from some intervening factor or event Pretest-Posttest design in experimentation

Longitudinal Designs: Trends Measures change in population over time Sequential cross-sections of the population E.g., Changes over time in: Public knowledge levels Voter turnout rates Presidential approval ratings Inherent limitations: Starting point Inability to capture individual change over time

Longitudinal Designs: Trends

Longitudinal Designs: Cohort Studies Tracking changes in a group as they age E.g., People born in 1940 sampled every 10 years Measure change across the aging process E.g., Do people become more conservative? Cannot answer this question with a cross-sectional design because differences in age may be due to cohort or lifecycle differences.

Longitudinal Designs: Cohort Studies

Longitudinal designs: panel studies Goes a step further: Interviewing the same people more than once Captures change in individuals over time E.g., NES (cross-sectional and panel) How do people react over time? E.g, Public health/info campaigns The respondent mortality problem Are those who drop out different?

Longitudinal designs: panel studies Statement: “Most people are honest” On a six point scale ranging from definitely disagree to definitely agree. Source: Life Style Study – conducted by Market Facts on behalf of DDB-Chicago and Dhavan V. Shah Wave 1 Feb. 1999 N= 3,348 Wave 2 June 2000 N= 1,886 Wave 3 Nov. 2000 N= 1,282 Wave 4 July 2001 N= 964

Longitudinal designs: comparisons Cross-sectional study 2000 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Trend study 1990 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 2000 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Cohort study Panel study 1990 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 1990 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 2000 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 2010 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 2000 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 2010 41-50* 51-60* 61-70* 71-80* 81-90*