The Process of Reviewing Information and Finding Value in It Is Called ____
7.3 Unit of assay and unit of observation
Learning Objectives
- Ascertain units of analysis and units of observation, and describe the two mutual errors people make when they confuse the two
When designing a research project, information technology is imperative to consider units of analysis and units of ascertainment. These may differ slightly in quantitative and qualitative research designs. These two items concern what the researcher observes in their information collection and what they hope to say about those observations. A unit of analysis is the entity that you wish to say something well-nigh at the terminate of your report, and information technology is considered the focus of your report. A unit of observation is the item (or items) that you observe, measure, or collect while trying to acquire something nearly your unit of analysis.
In some studies, the unit of observation may exist the same equally the unit of analysis. For case, a report on electronic gadget habit may interview undergraduate students (our unit of observation) for the purpose of saying something about undergraduate students (our unit of assay) and their gadget addiction. Maybe, if we were investigating gadget addiction in unproblematic school children (our unit of assay), we might collect observations from teachers and parents (our units of observation) considering younger children may non written report their behavior accurately. In this case and many others, units of assay are non the same as units of observation. However, researchers are required to clearly define their units of analysis and units of observation to themselves and their audiences.
More specifically, your unit of analysis will be determined by your research question. Your unit of observation, on the other hand, is determined largely by the method of data collection that y'all utilize to answer that research question. We'll accept a closer look at methods of data drove later on in the textbook. For at present, allow'due south consider our previous example report that sought to accost students' addictions to electronic gadgets. We'll consider first how dissimilar types of research questions about this topic may yield dissimilar units of assay. Then, we'll think virtually how those questions might exist answered and with what kinds of data. This leads us to a variety of units of observation.
Allow's say that we are going to explore which students are virtually probable to be fond to their electronic gadgets. Our unit of measurement of analysis would be the individual students. We would likely mail a survey to students on campus. Nosotros would classify individuals based on social group membership to encounter how membership in certain specific social groups correlates with electronic gadget habit. For example, nosotros might find that students majoring in new media, students that place as men, and students with high socioeconomic condition are more likely than other students to get addicted to their electronic gadgets. We could also explore how students' gadget addictions differ and how are they similar. In this case, nosotros could conduct observations of addicted students and tape when, where, why, and how they utilise their gadgets. Whether the information nigh students' addictions to electronic gadgets is nerveless by survey response or by direct observation, data are collected from individual students. Thus, the unit of observation in both examples is the individual.
Another common unit of measurement of analysis in social science inquiry is the group. Of course, groups vary in size, merely nigh no group is likewise minor or likewise large to exist of interest to social scientists. Families, friendship groups, and grouping therapy participants are some common examples of micro-level groups examined past social scientists. Employees in an organization, professionals in a particular domain (e.grand., chefs, lawyers, social workers), and members of clubs (e.chiliad., Girl Scouts, Rotary, Ruddy Hat Society) are all meso-level groups that social scientists might study. Finally, at the macro-level, social scientists sometimes examine citizens of entire nations or residents of different continents or other regions.
A report of pupil addictions to their electronic gadgets at the grouping level might consider whether certain types of social clubs have more than or fewer gadget-addicted members than other sorts of clubs. Perhaps we would find concrete fitness clubs, such as the rugby club and the scuba lodge, have fewer gadget-addicted members than cerebral activity clubs, similar the chess club and the women'southward studies order. Our unit of analysis in this instance is groups because groups are what we hope to say something most. If we had asked whether individuals who bring together cognitive clubs are more probable to exist gadget-fond than those who bring together social clubs, then our unit of analysis would accept been individuals. In either case, however, our unit of measurement of observation would be individuals.
Organizations are yet some other potential unit of analysis that social scientists might wish to say something about. Organizations include entities like corporations, colleges and universities, and fifty-fifty nightclubs. At the organization level, a study of students' electronic gadget addictions might explore how different colleges address this social issue. In this instance, our interest lies non in the experience of individual students merely instead in the campus-to-campus differences in against gadget addictions. A researcher conducting a study of this type might examine schools' written policies and procedures, and then their unit of observation would exist documents. However, because they ultimately wish to describe differences beyond campuses, the college would be their unit of analysis.
In sum, there are many potential units of analysis that a social worker might examine, but some of the virtually common units include the post-obit:
- Individuals
- Groups
- Organizations
| Research question | Unit of measurement of analysis | Data collection | Unit of measurement of ascertainment | Statement of findings |
| Which students are most likely to be fond to their electronic gadgets? | Individuals | Survey of students on campus | Individuals | New Media majors, men, and students with high socioeconomic status are all more probable than other students to become addicted to their electronic gadgets. |
| Do certain types of social clubs have more gadget-fond members than other sorts of clubs? | Groups | Survey of students on campus | Individuals | Clubs with a scholarly focus, such as social work club and the math club, have more than gadget-addicted members than clubs with a social focus, such equally the 100-bottles-of- beer-on-the-wall club and the knitting club. |
| How do unlike colleges address the problem of electronic gadget addiction? | Organizations | Content assay of policies | Documents | Campuses without strong computer science programs are more probable than those with such programs to miscarry students who have been institute to have addictions to their electronic gadgets. |
| Note: Please remember that the findings described here are hypothetical. At that place is no reason to recall that whatever of the hypothetical findings described here would actually bear out if tested with empirical inquiry. | ||||
One common mistake people brand when it comes to both causality and units of assay is something called the ecological fallacy. This occurs when claims well-nigh one lower-level unit of measurement of assay are made based on data from some college-level unit of measurement of assay. In many cases, this occurs when claims are made about individuals, but simply group-level data have been gathered. For instance, we might want to understand whether electronic gadget addictions are more common on certain campuses than others. Possibly different campuses around the country have provided united states with their campus percentage of gadget-addicted students, and we acquire from these information that electronic gadget addictions are more common on campuses that take business organization programs than on campuses without them. We then conclude that business organization students are more than likely than non-business students to become fond to their electronic gadgets. However, this would be an inappropriate conclusion to draw. We but accept addiction rates past campus, so we can only draw conclusions about campuses, non nigh the individual students on those campuses. Perhaps the social work majors on the concern campuses are the ones that caused the addiction rates on those campuses to exist and so high. The point is we simply don't know because we only have campus-level information. Therefore, nosotros run the risk of committing the ecological fallacy if we draw conclusions virtually students when our data are virtually the campus.
In addition, another fault to be aware of it reductionism. Reductionism occurs when claims well-nigh some higher-level unit of measurement of analysis are made based on data from some lower-level unit of assay. In this case, claims about groups or macro-level phenomena are made based on private-level data. An example of reductionism can be seen in some descriptions of the civil rights movement. On occasion, people have proclaimed that Rosa Parks started the ceremonious rights movement in the United States by refusing to give upward her seat to a White person while on a city motorbus in Montgomery, Alabama, in December 1955. Although Parks played an invaluable part in the movement and her act of civil defiance inspired courage in others, it would be reductionist to credit her with starting the movement. Surely, many factors contributed to the rise and success of the American civil rights movement, including legalized racial segregation, the historic 1954 Supreme Court determination to desegregate schools, and the creation of the Student Irenic Analogous Committee to name a few. In other words, the motion is owing to many factors—some social, others political and others economic. Rosa Parks played a very important role in this development in American history, but to say that she acquired the entire civil rights movement would be reductionist.
The preceding discussion was not meant to deter y'all from making claims near data or relationships between levels of analysis. While it is important to exist attentive to the possibility for error in causal reasoning about dissimilar levels of analysis, this alert should not forbid yous from drawing well-reasoned analytic conclusions from your information. The signal is to be cautious and conscientious in making conclusions between levels of analysis. Errors in assay stem from a lack of rigor and deviation from the scientific method.
Fundamental Takeaways
- A unit of assay is the item you wish to be able to say something about at the terminate of your study while a unit of observation is the item that you actually observe.
- When researchers confuse their units of analysis and observation, they may exist prone to committing either the ecological fallacy or reductionism.
Glossary
Ecological fallacy– claims almost one lower-level unit of analysis are made based on information from some higher-level unit of measurement of analysis
Reductionism– when claims near some higher-level unit of measurement of assay are made based on data at some lower-level unit of analysis
Unit of analysis– the entity that a researcher wants to say something about at the end of their study
Unit of observation– the detail that a researcher actually observes, measures, or collects in the form of trying to acquire something about their unit of analysis
Epitome attributions
Binoculars by nightowl CC-0
Source: https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/7-3-unit-of-analysis-and-unit-of-observation/
0 Response to "The Process of Reviewing Information and Finding Value in It Is Called ____"
Enviar um comentário