Www.scuc.txed.net



DP PsychologySpecimen PaperPaper 3 (HL only)1aThe method used to collect data was a semi-structured interview. One characteristic of semi-structured interviews is that they contain both open and closed questions. This allows for data to be compared and collated across participants, but also allows for the collection of rich data. Another characteristic of semi-structured interviews is that they are typically led by the interviewer rather than the speaker. This can be useful to ensure that the time constraints of the interview are met, but may also make participants feel that as though they are giving specific answers. 1 mark for correct identification of research method (semi-structured interview)2 marks for outlining two relevant characteristics (closed and open-ended questions allowing for richer data; led by the interviewer to ensure time constraints3 marks1bParticipants were obtained by purposive sample, which is a form of non probability sampling where participants are selected for certain characteristics they possess. In the case of this study, participants would have been selected based on their age, and probably location due to the method of data collection (semi-structured interviews) and the fact that the advertising done to recruit participants was done in a communal area, (youth clubs, night clubs, shelters and schools).2 marks here for describing some characteristics of purposive sampling and reference to age as a selection criteria. The rest does not really address purposive sampling. 2 marks. 1cA group interview in addition to a semi structured interview could be an effective means of collecting rich data, as discussions usually occur which in turn can prompt participants to a point they may not have said or thought of previously.An alternative method is identified (1 mark) and explained (2 marks)3 marks2. It has been said that participants signed an informed consent form both for the study overall and permission to videotape their interview. Informed consent is essential in any psychological study, as it ensures that both the participants are aware of what they have volunteered for, and the researchers are covered for liability.It has also been written that participants were guaranteed anonymity. This is important, especially with the nature of the study as some participants would have willingly committed unlawful behaviour (drug taking). However, what hasn’t been stated, which links to anonymity, is the issue of confidentiality. This may be due to illegal behaviour needing to be reported to the police, however confidentially is one of the ethical cornerstones of psychological research and as such should have been an ethical consideration made in this study.Another issue which hasn’t been stated in the text of whether or not the study was cleared by an ethical committee. If the research was published, it is assumed that a committee allowed it to be conducted, however, as different committees have slightly different guidelines it would be more suitable to state in the report which (if any) ethical committee oversaw the research.Relating to the participants themselves, and linking to the aforementioned informed consent, it is both surprising and negative that participants did not receive a debrief. Debriefs are essential to ensure participants understand the full nature of the research and have the right to withdraw the data that has been collected about them.Finally, it could be deemed as an ethical issue that participants were not able to see and give feedback on the transcripts and inductive content analysis of the qualitative data. Participants should be able to review these to ensure they are comfortable with the way their responses have been interpreted.3marks. 3.There are several factors affecting the generalisability of findings from this research, sample size and characteristics, methodology and the use of the research.In terms of sampling, the sample size of the participants (30) is relatively large compared to some studies, and would be large enough to make statistical inferences. However, in terms of generalisability a group of 30 individuals will not be representative enough to generalise findings on to the whole population. As such, a repetition of the study, or more participants to start with, would be suggested. However, as it states that further research is planned, it may be that the current research acts more like a pilot study.In terms of sample characteristics, there was a good variety, as participants come from several ethnicities and the sample group contained both males and females. This helps to build the generalisability of this research.However, it is assumed that participants are from a similar region, due to the community aspect of the purposive sample advertising (which took place in youth clubs, nightclubs, shelters and schools). As such the study should be replicated in several regions cross-nationally if the goal of the research is to develop new approaches to drug prevention programmes nation-wide.The fact that (regardless of whether it is a nation or just one area) the research aim is to guide prevention strategies of drug-taking in adolescents may have influenced the researchers – researcher bias. It is unclear whether the findings have been affected by researcher bias as participants did not have the chance to review the transcripts and inductive content analysis of their semi-structured interview. Due to this potential bias, it would not be appropriate to generalise findings, as they may simply reflect the researcher’s own theories and trends rather than those to naturally emerge through induction content analysis.Whilst the sample characteristics in this study are good and generalizable, this study alone would not be enough to generalise the decision making findings of drug-taking to the entire population. However, issues could easily be resolved simply by replicating the study in several different areas and allow participants to give feedback as part of inductive content analysis.4 marksMarkband 4-6: The question is understood, but only partially answered resulting in an argument of limited scope . The response is arguing based on criteria of generalization from quantitative research rahter than qualitative, which means that the focus is not clearly on the findings of the actual study but rather on the possibility of doing a quantitative study instead. This indicates less understanding of the qualitative research study in the stimulus material and how findings could perhaps be generalised or transferred. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download