YesterdayMar 24 at 9:29pm
Manage Discussion Entry
Overview
Conducting research for an academic study is the primary way scholars support and persuade their premises and audiences. However, there are different approaches as to how scientists conduct research. One approach is the use of systematic observation to examine, detect, and quantify cause-and-effect relationships (Cozby & Bates, 2017). Through examples provided by researchers Hallman, Januario, Mathiassen, Heiden, Svensson, and Bergström (2021), the discussion below will demonstrate my understanding of systematic observations as a data collection procedure in quantitative research.
Observational Methods
According to our course materials, systematic observation refers to the "careful observation of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting" (Cozby & Bates, 2017, p. 125). In other words, systematic observation is an observation method that focuses explicitly on "very few" behavior traits to quantify relevant information that corresponds to the researcher's hypothesis. Depending on the researcher's inquiry, systematic observations can be conducted in both a laboratory or natural setting (Cozby & Bates, 2017).
Observational Method Example: Teleworking
For example, researchers Hallman, Januario, Mathiassen, Heiden, Svensson, and Bergström (2021) investigated the cause-and-effect relationships between physical behavior and teleworking among 27 Swedish subjects during the COVID-19 outbreak in May–July 2020. Essentially, the purpose of their study was to ascertain how different physical behaviors change between days working at the office (WAO) and days working from home (WFH) in office workers during the pandemic.
The researchers used several techniques to gather data, such as questionnaires and diary logs; however, the most quantifiable approach was their use of a wearable triaxial accelerometer (likened to a Fitbit) to observe and measure the subject's activity levels over seven days. The device was taped to the front of each subject's right thigh and "processed with [an] Acti4 algorithm" using "custom-made MATLAB software" to ensure validity (Hallman, et al., 2021, p. 4).
The data from these triaxial accelerometers were then analyzed and quantified using a time use composition analysis (CoDA). The CoDA compared and measured data from the researcher's six isometric log-ratios (ILRs) (dependent variables), and the subject's manipulated WAO and WFH days (independent variables). The results of the study found that office workers during the COVID-19 outbreak in Sweden spent more time sleeping relative to awake during days when they worked from home compared to days when they went to the office.
Limitations
Reviewing the observation method, timing, and sample size, it is possible that the study could sway in results provided the researchers investigated more than a 27-subject sample group. Moreover, the COVID-19 outbreak was reported to be worse in other parts of the world and at different times. Thus, the results could have been different provided the experiment was conducted in another country, organization, industry, or date. Lastly, the outcome of the experiment could have shifted if it were more generalized or randomized as the subjects were not selected based on a well-rounded subject group. In other words, effect modifiers, such as employment, age, gender, and the subjects' occupational status, could have influenced results (Cozby & Bates, 2017).
Concluding Remarks
Implementing observational methods within a research study is persuasive and beneficial in supporting claims because it deciphers information more objectively and scientifically. In short, observing and measuring data to determine variances and percentages validates research because it can be easily replicated or generalized for future applications.
References
Cozby, P. & Bates, S. (2017).Methods in behavioral research (13th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hallman, D. M., Januario, L. B., Mathiassen, S. E., Heiden, M., Svensson, S., & Bergström, G. (2021). Working from home during the COVID-19 outbreak in Sweden: effects on 24-h time-use in office workers.BMC Public Health,21(1), 1–10. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1186/s12889-021-10582-6
YesterdayMar 24 at 1:35pm
Manage Discussion Entry
Quantitative Research Observations linked to Systematic Process points
The ability to concentrate value-centric measurements using systematic observations of very specific traits or characteristics will lead to a more reliable data set. To accomplish this the observations need to be characterized as either a quantitative or qualitative process. In the case of the research conducted by Brown and Stav (2020), the quantitative approach was selected using a specific experimental design to collect the needed data. There are two approaches respectively when conducting observation data points; Naturalistic and Systematic (Cozby & Bates, 2017). Naturalistic would be considered a field-based study of in-person or similar observation. Systematic is defined by Cozby and Bates (2017) as, “...careful observation of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting” (p.125). To expand upon the definition, one can espouse that systematic will be specific to a defined target observation as opposed to the greater whole or as some refer to as a global observation (Cozby & Bates, 2017).
The research from Brown and Stav set out to define and observe changes and deltas in behaviors of occupational therapy students on an international experience. This premise would suggest naturalistic observation initially. Brown and Stav further explained in their observations and metrics that the specific behaviors the study was after were in relation to the student activities as they related to servant leadership tactics. Thinking from a specified cultural competency, the observations were grouped and recorded using a collection method that relied heavily on a particular assessment, the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) (Brown & Stav, 2020).
The quantitative details of the research were able to identify group subsets that showed professional and personal improvements in servant-based leadership attributes as show in the entry and exit assessments. The control in this case is the assessment itself, but could have extraneous variables on a global scale that may not have been measured due to scope or focus of the research.
Regards,
James
References
Brown, J., & Stav, W. (2020). Servant Leadership in Zambia: A Quantitative Study on Increased Critical Thinking and Cultural Competency of OT Students.AJOT: American Journal of Occupational Therapy,74(S1).https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S1-PO7028(Links to an external site.)
Cozby, P. & Bates, S. (2017).Methods in behavioral research (13th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill..