How your daily observations mirror academic research

daily observations in research

Entry #1: Record a time that you have used the scientific method.

Notes
January 12, 2022. Around 6:00 AM. At home.
Description of everything observed or that can be remembered

     I woke up due to loud noise that was coming from the outside. I immediately thought that it must have been my neighbor. I decided to check if I was right and discovered that the noise was indeed coming from my neighbor’s house. At first, I was surprised that one person could produce so much noise, but then I realized that my neighbor came home with at least five of their friends who were laughing and screaming. I remember thinking that they must have come back from a party, and that they should go to sleep soon. However, the noise continued for several hours, which disrupted my sleep and affected my productivity that day.

Analysis

     After reviewing the information provided by Salkind (2012), I realize that I used the scientific method. When I woke up due to noise, I made an observation using my hearing. Then I did a little research by thinking as to the sources of noise. I suspected that the noise was coming from my neighbor’s house, meaning I developed a hypothesis. By checking if my suspicions were correct, I basically conducted an experiment, which allowed me to come to the conclusion that it indeed was my neighbor who came home from the party with their friends. My experiment included both qualitative and quantitative data, as I identified that loud noise was produced by six people.

Reflection

     After conducting my observation, some questions have arisen such as 1) how does a hypothesis fit into the scientific method? and 2) how can I develop hypotheses that produce reliable and valid results?

How your daily observations mirror academic research

Entry #2: Record a time when you “Questioned Authority,” as defined in the course presentation above.

Notes January 13, 2022. Around 11:00 AM. At home. Description of everything observed or that can be remembered

    For the purposes of this course, I investigated the topic of ethics in research. Specifically, I was interested in finding an article discussing an unethical experiment in the field of psychology. As I found the article, I read its content, but was uncertain if the conclusions of the author were reliable and valid. The article was published on a website using the .org domain, which is typically used by legitimate organizations, including governmental and other non-profit organizations. Then, I looked up the author of the article and discovered that he is a professor in psychology and philosophy who has authored and edited a number of books and peer-reviewed articles. This assured me that the information I found was not only useful but also credible, meaning it could be used for my assignment.

Analysis

     The investigation of reliability and accuracy of information provided in the article I used to complete my assignment helped me come to the conclusion that I found a valid study published in a reputable source. The information provided by the author was sufficient and valid, as he used reliable and relevant sources to support his findings. Seeing as the author investigated the question of ethics in research, I think that the use of qualitative methodology for the investigation was appropriate. The purpose of the research was stated clearly, and the arguments the author made were suitable, given the topic.

Reflection

     After questioning the authority of the source and author of the article I used to complete my assignment, some questions have arisen such as 1) how can I ensure that my research and investigations are free of bias? and 2) what tools should I use in my research process to increase the reliability and validity of findings?

Reference

Salkind, N. J. (2012). 100 questions (and answers) about research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Your questions answered

✅ Yes, but informally:

Observation: Woke to noise

Hypothesis: Neighbor’s party

Test: Verified source

Conclusion: Confirmed hypothesis
⚠️ Missing: Controlled variables (e.g., other noise sources).

🔎 Even reputable domains can host biased work:

Red flags checked: Author credentials, peer-reviewed citations, clear methodology.

Tip: Cross-reference with Google Scholar.

📊 3 Strategies:

Operationalize variables: *”Noise = >80dB for >30min”* (vs. subjective “loud”).

Control group: Compare other nights’ noise levels.

Blind verification: Ask roommate to identify noise source.

✔️ Criteria met in the article:

Clear purpose (“explore unethical experiments”)

Transparent methodology (case studies, interviews)

Peer-reviewed backing

Get Expert Help Here
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

People Say About AllEssay

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x