How your daily observations mirror academic 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.
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?
Entry #2: Record a time when you “Questioned Authority,” as defined in the course presentation above.
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.
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.
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
Did the noise observation fully follow the scientific method?
✅ 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).
Why question a .org source?
🔎 Even reputable domains can host biased work:
Red flags checked: Author credentials, peer-reviewed citations, clear methodology.
Tip: Cross-reference with Google Scholar.
How to improve hypothesis reliability?
📊 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.
What makes qualitative ethics research valid?
✔️ Criteria met in the article:
Clear purpose (“explore unethical experiments”)
Transparent methodology (case studies, interviews)
Peer-reviewed backing
People Say About AllEssay
Isabella W.
1937 completed ordersGreat quality!
Clara Bowman
937 completed ordersThank you so much!
Josh
543 completed ordersExcellent work!
Henry H.
214 completed ordersOutstanding work!
Alice T.
37 completed ordersHigh-quality work!
