Research designs

“Validity” has a special meaning in research, usually indicating the truth of something, its authenticity. Many of our research activities can be seen as valid steps towards producing a dissertation, for example, but our conclusions will not be worthwhile unless our research was valid. If a measure proves unreliable (see question 2), it lacks “measurement validity” but “internal validity” is lost when the “internal” relationship between variables is lost, or ambiguous, or confused. Typically, we argue that “a” causes “b”, but if “b” can actually influence the value of “a”, then the causal relationship suggested doesn’t really exist.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 41,42

Key concept 3.4 explains that “naturalism” is an unusual expression which has many meanings, some contradictory! All of the definitions shown in this question are correct, although “a” is positivist as opposed to the interpretivism suggested by “b” and “c”. However, research methodologies like ethnography, or observation, or unstructured qualitative interviews try to come close to the natural context of the data, while being relatively non-intrusive.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 43

This is often called a survey design because researchers using this method may produce questionnaires to be filled in by many respondents in the same time period. The search is for variation within a social group, or between social groups, in attitudes or orientation to specific variables. Since no manipulation of variables is possible, co-relationships between variables is all that can be discovered. Answer (d) suggests experimentation; answer (a) thinks of respondents instead of the design; and answer (b) must be wrong because researchers are always cheerful and bright. Always!
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 53, Key concept 3.6

Bryman prefers “to reserve the term ‘case study’ for those instances where the ‘case’ is the focus of interest in its own right.” The case study design is usually focused on those aspects which could only have happened at that time, in that place, for whatever reason. The comparative design typically studies two contrasting cases, so that a better understanding of social phenomena can be formed. Clearly, cross-cultural studies are a good example, therefore, of comparative design in action. If you gave answer (a) you were moving in the right direction but you need more than one case; if you gave answer (c) you should go back to question 2 and page 41; answer (d) is also incorrect for reasons to be found in question 9.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 64-69

“A research design provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data”. The choice of methods to be used is, indeed, very important, as is an understanding of your fundamental research philosophy. But a research design will highlight these choices and other decisions about which elements are considered to be more important than others, as well as your hypotheses about causality and predictability. Consider it as a blueprint for the research you propose to conduct. This chapter looks at five different research designs from which you could choose.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 40

When conducting an experiment, it is essential to manipulate one variable, (conventionally called “independent”) so that changes in another (the dependent variable) can be identified as indicating a causal relationship. There is nothing ambiguous about this process in the slightest, nor do personal values intrude. Recalling that many “independent variables” cannot be manipulated in an actual social context, experimentation may be the only way of getting close to an identification of a causal relationship between variables.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 44

A survey attempts to discover the range of responses to a set of variables. The researcher can give a lot of details concerning procedures for selecting respondents, handling of the research instrument (perhaps a questionnaire) and the analysis methodology. In this way, replicability can be almost guaranteed. However, since the analysis can only pinpoint degrees of co-relation between variables, causality remains in the realm of inference, meaning low (or no) internal validity. Remember that internal validity depends on causality and reliability on replicability.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 54

Most tests of reliability and validity are applicable to quantitative data rather than to qualitative. Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose “trustworthiness” as an example of a criterion that could determine how good the qualitative research might have been. This criterion may be subdivided into dimensions of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (which Bryman examines in detail in chapter 16), to act as counterparts for reliability and validity in quantitative research. It is the view of many that whereas running a focus group, for example, may be ‘messier’ than conducting a survey, messiness should not be a goal of the research!
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 44

The essential question about research is its reliability. It is often the case that concepts in the social sciences can be construed differently in different social contexts, so the promise of repeatability makes readers feel the results can be relied on more. But what is even more important is that there should be not much variation (or none at all) in responses to the same instruments by the same type of respondent. Bryman gives the example of wild fluctuations in IQ test scores as an indicator of low reliability of the test itself. When reviewing literature or consulting secondary sources, we are certainly influenced by the reputation, or simply good standing in the academic community, of the researcher. This does not imply uncritical acceptance of their findings, however.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 41

Both panel and cohort studies are types of longitudinal design, similar to cross-sectional research but conducted over a considerable period of time. Cohorts are groups of people sharing a characteristic, like age or unemployed status, whereas panels are typically random samples of the population as a whole. It follows that a panel study should be able to distinguish between age effects (for example in the Understanding Society study) and cohort effects (where being born in the same time period is the shared characteristic) but the cohort study would only be able to identify aging effects. Both types of study suffer from attrition, through death and emigration, for example. Both are quantitative in nature.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 57