Unit 2 (Other Descriptive Methods)

The scientific method is a way of finding answers to questions by using careful steps. It includes
observing something, making a guess (hypothesis), testing it through experiments, studying the
results, and then deciding if the guess was right or wrong.

Descriptive research methods are scientific tools used by researchers and psychologists for
gathering information and describing the specifics of behaviors, patterns, and other phenomena.

This method involves observing and describing behavior without manipulating variables. It often
involves naturalistic observations, surveys, and case studies.

OBSERVATIONAL METHODS

Observational methods can be classified as direct observation or indirect observation.

There are two types of observation
1. Direct observation
2. Indirect observation/ unobtrusive (nonreactive) observation

In this chapter, we will discuss Indirect observation

Indirect (unobtrusive) observational methods

Behavior can also be observed indirectly through records and other evidence of people’s
behavior. These methods are often called unobtrusive measures because the researcher does not
intervene in the situation and individuals are not aware of the observations. An important
advantage of indirect observational methods is that they are nonreactive.

Indirect, or unobtrusive, observations can be obtained by examining physical traces and archival
records.

2.1 Physical traces

Examining physical evidence of past behavior can provide important clues about the
characteristics of individuals and events. For example, the size of footprints in the ground
says something about the size and age of the person who stepped there. The distance
between footprints can indicate whether the person was walking or running.

Physical traces are the remnants, fragments, and products of past behavior. Two
categories of physical traces are “use traces” and “products.
2 broad categories of physical traces are-

a. Use traces: Use traces are what the label implies—the physical evidence that
results from the use (or nonuse) of an item. Remains of cigarettes in ashtrays,
aluminum cans in a recycling bin, and fingerprints on a murder weapon are
examples of using traces.
 In addition, we can classify use traces according to whether the researcher
intervenes while collecting data regarding the use of items.
• Natural-use traces are observed without any intervention by a researcher
and reflect naturally occurring events.
• In contrast, controlled-use traces result from some intervention by a
researcher.

A study by Friedman and Wilson (1975) illustrates the distinction between these two
types of use measures. The investigators used both natural- and controlled-use traces to
investigate college students’ use of textbooks. Prior to the start of a course, they affixed
tiny glue seals between pages of the textbooks. At the end of the course, they examined
the textbooks to determine how many seals had been broken and where the broken seals
were located. Because they controlled the presence of glue seals in books, this would be
an example of a controlled-use trace. These investigators also analyzed the frequency and
nature of underlining in textbooks, a natural-use measure because underlining is typically
associated with textbook use. Analysis of both types of use traces indicated that students
more often read the early chapters of the book than the later chapters.

b. Products: Products and decorations constructions or other artifacts of behavior.

And anthropologists often are interested in the surviving products of ancient
cultures. By examining the type of vessels, paintings, tools and other artifacts
anthropologists can describe patterns of behavior from thousands of years ago.

The examination of products allows researchers to test important hypotheses

about behavior. For example, psychologists examined food-related products in the
United States and France to investigate the “French paradox” (Rozin et al., 2003).
The term “French paradox” refers to the fact that obesity rates and the mortality
rate from heart disease are much lower in France than the U.S., even though the
French eat more fatty foods and fewer reduced-fat foods than Americans.

Their observation of products supported their hypothesis that the differences in

obesity and mortality due to heart disease are because the French eat less than
Americans.

Advantage and Disadvantages of Physical traces

The indirect observation of physical traces offers researchers valuable and sometimes innovative
means to study behavior, and the measures available are limited only by the ingenuity and
resourcefulness of the investigator.
Advantages

1. Records the result of actual behavior

2. Are usually non-reactive and unobtrusive
3. They are readily available
4. Human cooperation is not usually required
5. Not very expensive to examine
6. They can be studied over long periods of time

Disadvantages

1. Traces are physical and can often occur in clusters where new traces continually overlay
or eradicate old traces. They are easily obscured or altered.
2. Many behaviors leave no permanent traces.
3. Different behaviors can produce similar traces or lack thereof.

2.2 Archival Records

Archival records are public and private documents describing the activities of individual
schools in these productions and governments, and comprise running records and records
of specific, episodic events.

Why we use Archival records?

1. Archival records are non-reactive and therefore provide an alternative to data
collection via surveys and questionnaires.
2. Archival records can be used to check the validity of other measures and as a part of
multimethod approaches to hypothesis testing.
3. To establish the external validity of laboratory findings.
4. To assess the effects of natural treatments.

2.2.2 Types of archival data

• Running Records: Records that are continuously kept and updated are
referred to as running records. The records of your academic life (e.g., grades,
activities) are an example of running records, as are the continuous records of
sports teams and the stock market.
• Media: Facebook entries which provide a window on behavior in a
naturalistic setting. One researcher for example examines “national
happiness” by recording and analyzing millions of statuses on Facebook.
• Episodic Records: Other records, such as personal documents (e.g., birth
certificates, marriage licenses), are more likely to describe specific events or
episodes, and are referred to as episodic records (Webb et al., 1981)
Advantages

As measures of behavior, archival data share some of the same advantages as physical traces

Archival data are used to test hypotheses as part of the multimethod approach (such as, direct
observation, laboratory experiments, and surveys), to establish the external validity of laboratory
findings, and to assess the effects of natural treatments.

Researchers gain several practical advantages by using archival records. Archival data are
plentiful, and researchers can avoid extensive data collection stage—data are simply waiting for
researchers.

Disadvantages

Researchers, however, need to be aware of the problems and limitations of archival records. Two
problems are selective deposit and selective survival (see Webb et al., 1981). These problems
occur because there are biases in how archives are produced. Selective deposit occurs when
some information is selected to be deposited in archives, but other information is not. For
example, consider that great archive, the high school yearbook. Not all activities, events, and
groups are selected to appear in the yearbook.

Researchers who analyze Facebook profile recognize that information displayed may sometimes
be false or may represent an “idealized self” rather than a user’s actual personality (e.g., Back et
al., 2010).

• Selective survival arises when records are missing or incomplete (something an

investigator may not even be aware of). Researchers must consider whether some records
“survived,” whereas others did not. Documents that are particularly damaging to certain
individuals or groups may vanish.
• Another problem that can occur in the analysis of archival data is the possibility of
identifying a spurious relationship. A spurious (fake) relationship exists when evidence
falsely indicates that two or more variables are associated. False evidence can arise
because of inadequate or improper statistical analyses, or more often, when variables are
accidentally or coincidentally related. An association, or correlation, between two
variables can occur when another, usually unidentified, third variable accounts for the
relationship. For instance, archival records indicate that ice cream sales and crime rates
are associated (as ice cream sales increase, so also do crime rates).

Before we can conclude that eating ice cream causes people to commit crimes, it is important to
consider that both variables, ice cream sales and crime rates, are likely affected by a third
variable, seasonal temperatures. The spurious relationship between ice cream sales and crime
rates can be accounted for by the third variable, temperature.
 2.3 Case study
A case study is an intensive description and analysis of a single individual.

The design is based upon the assumption that the case being studied is typically of cases
of a certain type and therefore a single case can provide insight into the events and
situations prevalent in a group from where the case has been drawn.

According to Burns, to qualify as a case study it must be a bounded system, and entity. A
case study should focus on a boundary subject or unit that is either very representative or
extremely atypical.

Characteristics

Case studies frequently make use of qualitative data, but this is not always the case (e.g., Smith
et al., 1995). Researchers who use the case study method obtain their data from several sources,
including naturalistic observation and archival records, interviews, and psychological tests.

Case studies are widely used in psychology and amongst the best known were the ones carried
out by Sigmund Freud. He conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his
patients to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

A clinical case study frequently describes the application and results of a particular treatment.
For example, a clinical case study may describe an individual’s symptoms, the methods used to
understand and treat the symptoms, and evidence for the treatment’s effectiveness. Thus, case
studies provide a potentially rich source of information about individuals.
Treatment variables in clinical case studies are rarely controlled systematically. Instead, several
treatments may be applied simultaneously, and the psychologist may have little control over
extraneous variables (e.g., home and work environments that influence the client’s symptoms).

Thus, a fundamental characteristic of case studies is that they often lack a high degree of control.
The case study method is often characterized as “exploratory” in nature and a source of
hypotheses and ideas about normal and abnormal behavior.

Advantages of the Case Study Method

• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information

• Provide new ideas and hypotheses
• Provides an opportunity “to try out” new therapeutic techniques or to try unique
applications of existing techniques
• Useful for studying rare Phenomena or events
• Challenge to Theoretical Assumptions
 • Provide tentative support for a psychological theory
• Idiographic research (the study of the individuals) complement to the nomothetic study of
behavior (The nomothetic approach involves large numbers of participants, and it seeks
to determine the “average” or typical performance of a group)

Disadvantages of the Case Study Method

• Difficulty of Drawing Cause-Effect Conclusions

Researchers are unable to make valid causal inferences using the case study method
because extraneous variables are not controlled and several “treatments” may be applied
simultaneously in case studies.

• Potential Sources of Bias

Observer bias and biases in data collection can lead to incorrect interpretations of case
study outcomes. Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study

• Problem of Generalizing from a Single Individual

Whether results from a case study may be generalized depends on the variability within
the population from which the case was selected; some characteristics (e.g., personality)
vary more across individuals than others (e.g., visual acuity).

• Difficult to replicate
Every case is unique, so it’s hard for other researchers to repeat the same study and get
the same results.
• Time consuming
Case studies take a lot of time because they need deep observation, interviews, and
detailed analysis of one person or situation.

2.4 Focus group discussion

A structured group process used to obtain detailed information about a particular
situation.

A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a qualitative research method and data collection
technique in which a selected group of people discusses a given topic or issue in-depth,
facilitated by a professional, external moderator.

Uses
• For exploring attitudes and feelings
• To draw out precise issues that may be unknown to the investigator
 Composition of FGD
• 6-9 participants brought together to discuss a clearly defined topic
• Composed of homogeneous people representing a particular segment of population (e.g.
gender, age social group-pastoralists, internally displaced persons)

Timing
• A group session should last 1 to 1 and a half hours, maximum 2 hours.
• Facilitator keeps discussion and track by asking a series of open-ended questions to
stimulate discussions

2.4.1 Rationale of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a qualitative data collection method used to gain
in-depth understanding of participants’ perspectives, experiences, attitudes, and
beliefs about a particular topic. The rationale for using FGDs in research or program
development includes the following key points.

1. To Gather Rich, Contextual Insights FGDs allow for open-ended discussions

that generate detailed and nuanced information. Unlike surveys or structured
interviews, FGDs capture the depth and complexity of participants’ opinions in
their own words, offering insights that may not emerge through quantitative
methods.
2. To Explore Group Dynamics and Shared Experiences FGDs provide a
platform where participants can interact, challenge, and build on each other’s
responses. This group interaction helps identify common experiences, social
norms, and differing viewpoints that may influence behavior, decision-making, or
perceptions on the topic of study.
3. To Inform Program or Policy Development
Insights from FGDs can inform the design, implementation, or evaluation of
policies, services, or programs. Understanding stakeholders’ needs, preferences,
and barriers can lead to more effective and culturally appropriate interventions.
4. To Validate or Complement Other Data FGDs are often used alongside surveys,
interviews, or secondary data to triangulate findings. They help explain why
certain trends or behaviors occur, adding depth to quantitative results or exploring
issues that numbers alone cannot fully capture.
5. To Engage Stakeholders and Empower Participants FGDs give voice to the
target population or community, fostering a sense of inclusion and ownership.
This participatory approach can strengthen trust between researchers and
communities, and improve the relevance and acceptance of research outcomes.
2.4.2 Characteristics
A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a structured, moderated discussion involving a
small group of participants, aimed at gaining insights into their perceptions, opinions,
beliefs, and attitudes about a specific topic. It is a widely used qualitative research
method. Below are the key characteristics that define an FGD:

1. Small, Homogeneous Group

• Typically consists of 6 to 12 participants.
• Participants usually share common characteristics relevant to the study
(e.g., age, occupation, experience).
• This homogeneity helps facilitate open and comfortable discussions.
Characteristics
2. Guided by a Moderator
• A trained moderator (or facilitator) leads the discussion.
• Their role is to encourage participation, keep the discussion on track, and
ensure that all voices are heard.
• A note-taker or recorder may also be present to document the discussion.
3. Use of a Discussion Guide
• The discussion is based on a pre-prepared guide with open ended
questions.
• The guide ensures consistency across multiple FGDs and focuses on the
study’s objectives.
• Flexibility is maintained to follow up on interesting or unexpected
responses.
4. Interactive and Dynamic Encourages interaction between participants rather
than a one-on-one interview style.
• Participants can build on each other's responses, agree, disagree, or
elaborate on each other’s views.
• This dynamic often reveals group norms, consensus, and variations in
perspectives.
5. Qualitative and Exploratory
• FGDs aim to explore how and why people think or feel a certain way, not
to quantify opinions.
• Responses are typically detailed and descriptive, providing rich contextual
data. Characteristics
6. Time-Bound
• Each session usually lasts 60 to 120 minutes.
• This allows sufficient time for discussion without causing fatigue or loss
of focus.
 7. Confidential and Respectful Environment
• Participants are encouraged to speak freely and honestly.
• Ground rules are established to ensure confidentiality, mutual respect, and
non-judgmental participation.
8. Audio or Video Recorded (Optional)
• With consent, sessions may be recorded for accurate transcription and
analysis.
• This ensures important details are not lost and allows the moderator to
focus on facilitating.
9. Used for Specific Research or Program Purposes
• FGDs are conducted with clear research or program objectives.
• They are often used in needs assessments, program evaluations, policy
research, marketing, and social science studies.
10. Not Statistically Generalizable
• Findings from FGDs are not meant to be generalized to a larger
population.
• Instead, they offer in-depth understanding and insights into a specific
group’s views or experiences.

Advantages

• Easy to undertake
• Results obtained in a short time
• Social interactions in the group produces freer and more complex responses
• The investigator can probe for clarification and solicit greater details
Disadvantages

• Groups are often difficult to assemble

• Individual responses are not independent of each other
• Group is hand selected therefore the results may not be representative of the
general population

Aupsory, 18th batch, JNU