John Young 12A-35 IB Psychology HL 1. a) Identify the research method and outline two characteristics of the method. The researcher primarily used a case study, which is mainly a qualitative research method. A characteristic of this method would be its focused nature, in which the researcher explores a certain situation (or case) thoroughly. This allows researchers to create limitations and analyze human behavior in regards to specific scenarios. The method enables psychologists to establish hypotheses by analyzing the each participant’s response towards the case indepth, allowing researchers to theorycraft and gather subjective data for a much deeper understanding of the human mind. Because it case studies require thorough examination, they usually take place over a long period of time. Another characteristic of the method would be its dependence on context. This refers to how the method would be used to observe human behavior in certain situations in a natural environment, or in a certain case. By doing this, the researchers can derive realistic and valid results from the study, as it would express natural human response in a real-life context. These characteristics allow researchers to use the case study method when formulating theories by simply observing natural human behavior in-depth. b) Describe the sampling method used in the study. The sampling method used was purposive sampling. This is exemplified when the researcher deliberately chose to conduct her study at a hospice which she was working at. Her deliberate and non-random choosing of a sample population exclusively found in a hospice is a defining characteristic of purposive sampling. The sampling method itself is known for its purposive selection of participants who possess characteristics which are relevant to the study––in this case, terminally ill patients. These characteristics often relate to the given psychological study which the researcher is conducting, allowing said researcher to quickly establish formal connections or correlations by observing a certain group of people. While it can be criticized for allowing too much subjectivity, it is arguably the most efficient method for researchers to use in order to obtain qualitative data. That being said, the bias present in the sampling method does not necessarily invalidate the data gathered, but in fact makes the data more credible so long as the researcher’s prejudice is justified. Ergo, purposive sampling begets high validity and reliability due to a predetermined characteristic defining the sample gathered; this allows researchers to draw hypotheses from the credible results. c) Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason from your choice. An additional research method that can be used in this study would perhaps be individual interviews. While this the case study mentioned that the participants were interviewed already, these were done in a focus group. This group setting may lead to contaminated data from the participants, perhaps because they were influenced by herd mentality. Being in the presence of other participants, they might not have stated their true insights or feelings and therefore may provide inaccurate data. I suggest the use of individual interviews to counter this and evaluate the data gathered from the focus group. This triangulation of data allows the John Young 12A-35 IB Psychology HL researcher to ensure the trustworthiness of the results’ conclusions. Having said that, the validity of the result will increase by using two sources of data. By methodologically triangulating the data concluded by using focus groups and personal interviews, the researcher can construct a more accurate and bigger grasp of the phenomena being studied. 2. Describe the ethical considerations in reporting the results and explain additional ethical considerations that could be taken into account when applying the findings of the study. The experiment exhibited an acceptable level of ethical consideration when reporting the results. It maintained that the participants were anonymous and their identities confidential. None of the participants’ names were explicitly mentioned throughout the entire report, just the methodology and conclusion drawn from the results. The specific hospice which the study took place in also had its name withheld in the report, granting further anonymity to both patients and facility staff. The researcher did a great job keeping their identities private. However, a key ethical aspect which the study did not display would be its lack of concern in regards to stigmatization. While the study investigates the effects of group sessions to terminally-ill patients, it also insinuates that said patients are typically depressed and often despair at their hopeless situation. This may broadcast an idea or stereotype which gives the public the idea that said patients may even be suicidal––something that can further isolate and worsen the future well-being of terminally-ill patients. Moreover, there is the issue of using terminally-ill patients for a study in the first place. It seems quite taboo and out of the social norm for a researcher to conduct a study with participants who may be nearing the end of their lives. I recommend that the report include a copy of the consent form which was given to the participants to ensure they were not coerced with regards to their current situation into participating in the experiment. 3. Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study. I believe that the study can cannot generalize its findings, primarily due to its nature as a case study. This method of research allows for an in-depth analysis of human behavior to be explored. This can create valid data due to its subjective nature allowing the researcher to personally probe individual perspectives during the study. Another reason for its generalizability would be how the study took place in a natural environment, with minimal intervention from the researcher. This allowed the participants to relax and be themselves, which provides real and accurate data. Ergo, the findings of this study can be generalized due to its realistic data and its high focus on generating qualitative results. The natural environment and setting at a facility’s hospice also gives the study some credibility. However, one can also infer that the results cannot be generalized despite reflecting real-life patient behavior. Even though the data is accurate, it may not be representative of all populations of terminally ill patients. Case studies are usually ultra-specific, and the results are limited to a certain scenario or case. That means that since the environment is thoroughly defined, the results gathered may not be very applicable to all real-life scenarios. Moreover, purposive sampling was used. This method––though efficient and fruitful––is can be completely unrepresentative. It limits the participants to the terminally-ill patients of a certain hospice only, which does not reflect all of the terminally-ill patients in the world. Additionally, it was mentioned in the topic that the study was open to any patient well enough to attend; this implies that other patients who were perhaps bedridden or indisposed most likely did not John Young 12A-35 IB Psychology HL participate in the study. Having said that, the results would most likely only reflect the findings from the more able-bodied patients of a certain hospice. A further concern would be the fact that while the study attempts to find the effect of occupational therapy on said patients, one can also note that not all terminally-ill patients would live in hospices. I personally believe that the findings cannot be generalized because of these factors. Though its internal validity is quite high, the study lacks external validity to increase the credibility of its findings. The researcher also fails to use any other method to triangulate and ensure that the data gathered was indeed accurate, leading to a lot of flaws which damage the accuracy of the findings. To conclude, despite its nature as a case study providing natural, realistic, in-depth results, these results cannot be generalized as they are unrepresentative of all the terminally-ill patients.
