RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

Political Science | Research

HYPOTHESIS
AND
OBSERVATION (Written Report)

Ong, Anessa
 Emolaga, Alvin A.

HYPOTHESIS
Every true experimental design must have this statement at the core of its
structure, as the ultimate aim of any experiment.
The hypothesis is generated via a number of means, but is usually the result
of a process of inductive reasoning where observations lead to the formation of a
theory. Scientists then use a large battery of deductive methods to arrive at a
hypothesis that is testable, falsifiable and realistic.
REASONING CYCLE - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The precursor to a hypothesis is a problem, usually framed as a question.
The precursor to a hypothesis is a research problem, usually framed as a
question. It might ask what, or why, something is happening.
For example, to use a topical subject, we might wonder why the stocks of
cod in the North Atlantic are declining. The problem question might be Why are the
numbers of Cod in the North Atlantic declining?
This is too broad as a statement and is not testable by any reasonable
scientific means. It is merely a tentative question arising from literature reviews and
intuition. Many people would think that instinct and intuition are unscientific, but
many of the greatest scientific leaps were a result of hunches.
The research hypothesis is a paring down of the problem into something
testable and falsifiable. In the aforementioned example, a researcher might
speculate that the decline in the fish stocks is due to prolonged over fishing.
Scientists must generate a realistic and testable hypothesis around which they can
build the experiment.
This might be a question, a statement or an If/Or statement. Some examples
could be:

Is over-fishing causing a decline in the stocks of Cod in the North Atlantic?

Over-fishing affects the stocks of cod.
If over-fishing is causing a decline in the numbers of Cod, reducing the
amount of trawlers will increase cod stocks.
These are all acceptable statements and they all give the researcher a focus for
constructing a research experiment. Science tends to formalize things and use the
If statement, measuring the effect that manipulating one variable has upon
another, but the other forms are perfectly acceptable. An ideal research hypothesis
should contain a prediction, which is why the more formal ones are favored.
A hypothesis must be testable, but must also be falsifiable for its acceptance as
true science.
 A scientist who becomes fixated on proving a research hypothesis loses their
impartiality and credibility. Statistical tests often uncover trends, but rarely give a
clear-cut answer, with other factors often affecting the outcome and influencing the
results.
Whilst gut instinct and logic tells us that fish stocks are affected by over fishing,
it is not necessarily true and the researcher must consider that outcome. Perhaps
environmental factors or pollution are causal effects influencing fish stocks.
A hypothesis must be testable, taking into account current knowledge and
techniques, and be realistic. If the researcher does not have a multi-million dollar
budget then there is no point in generating complicated hypotheses. A hypothesis
must be verifiable by statistical and analytical means, to allow a verification or
falsification.
In fact, a hypothesis is never proved, and it is better practice to use the terms
supported or verified. This means that the research showed that the evidence
supported the hypothesis and further research is built upon that.
A research hypothesis, which stands the test of time, eventually becomes a
theory, such as Einsteins General Relativity. Even then, as with Newtons Laws, they
can still be falsified or adapted.

OBSERVATION
Observation (watching what people do) would seem to be an obvious
method of carrying out research in psychology. However, there are different
types of observational methods and distinctions need to be made between:

Controlled Observations
Natural Observations
Participant Observations

In addition to the above categories observations can also be either

overt/disclosed (the participants know they are being studied) or
covert/undisclosed (the research keeps their real identity a secret from the
research subjects, acting as a genuine member of the group).

In general observations, are relatively cheap to carry out and few

resources are needed by the researcher. However, they can often be very
time consuming and longitudinal.

Controlled Observation
 Controlled observations (usually a structured observation) are likely to
be carried out in a psychology laboratory. The researcher decides where the
observation will take place, at what time, with which participants, in what
circumstances and uses a standardised procedure. Participants are randomly
allocated to each independent variable group.

Rather than writing a detailed description of all behaviour observed, it

is often easier to code behaviour according to a previously agreed scale
using a behavior schedule (i.e. conducting a structured observation).
The researcher systematically classifies the behaviour they observe
into distinct categories. Coding might involve numbers or letters to describe
a characteristics, or use of a scale to measure behavior intensity. The
categories on the schedule are coded so that the data collected can be easily
counted and turned into statistics.
For example, Mary Ainsworth used a behavior schedule to study how
infants responded to brief periods of separation from their mothers. During
the Strange Situation procedure infant's interaction behaviors directed
toward the mother were measured, e.g.

Proximity and contacting seeking

Contact maintaining
Avoidance of proximity and contact
Resistance to contact and comforting

The observer noted down the behavior displayed during 15 second

intervals and scored the behavior for intensity on a scale of 1 to 7.
 Sometimes the behaviour of participants is observed through a two-
way mirror or they are secretly filmed. This method was used by Albert
Bandura to study aggression in children (the Bobo doll studies).

A lot of research has been carried out in sleep laboratories as well.

Here electrodes are attached to the scalp of participants and what is
observed are the changes in electrical activity in the brain during sleep (the
machine is called an electroencephalogram an EEG).
Controlled observations are usually overt as the researcher explains the
research aim to the group, so the participants know they are being observed.
Controlled observations are also usually non-participant as the researcher
avoids any direct contact with the group, keeping a distance (e.g. observing
behind a two-way mirror).
Strengths
1. Controlled observations can be easily replicated by other researchers by
using the same observation schedule. This means it is easy to test for
reliability.
2. The data obtained from structured observations is easier and quicker to
analyze as it is quantitative (i.e. numerical) - making this a less time
consuming method compared to naturalistic observations.
3. Controlled observations are fairly quick to conduct which means that many
observations can take place within a short amount of time. This means a
large sample can be obtained resulting in the findings being representative
and having the ability to be generalized to a large population..
Limitations
1. Controlled observations can lack validity due to the Hawthorne
effect/demand characteristics. When participants know they are being
watched they may act differently.

Naturalistic Observation
Naturalistic observation (i.e. unstructured observation) involves
studying the spontaneous behaviour of participants in natural surroundings.
The researcher simply records what they see in whatever way they can.
Compared with controlled/structured methods it is like the difference
between studying wild animals in a zoo and studying them in their natural
habitat.
With regard to human subjects Margaret Mead used this method to
research the way of life of different tribes living on islands in the South
Pacific. Kathy Sylva used it to study children at play by observing their
behaviour in a playgroup in Oxfordshire.

Strengths
1 By being able to observe the flow of behaviour in its own setting studies
have greater ecological validity.
2. Like case studies naturalistic observation is often used to generate new
ideas. Because it gives the researcher the opportunity to study the total
situation it often suggests avenues of enquiry not thought of before.
Limitations
1. These observations are often conducted on a micro (small) scale and may
lack a representative sample (biased in relation to age, gender, social class
or ethnicity). This may result in the findings lacking the ability to be
generalized to wider society.
2. Natural observations are less reliable as other variables cannot be
controlled. This makes it difficult for another researcher to repeat the study
in exactly the same way.
3. A further disadvantage is that the researcher needs to be trained to be
able to recognise aspects of a situation that are psychologically significant
and worth further attention.
4. With observations we do not have manipulations of variables (or control
over extraneous variables) which means cause and effect relationships
cannot be established.

Participant Observation
Participant observation is a variant of the above (natural observations)
but here the researcher joins in and becomes part of the group they are
studying to get a deeper insight into their lives. If it were research on
animals we would now not only be studying them in their natural habitat but
be living alongside them as well!
This approach was used by Leon Festinger in a famous study into a
religious cult who believed that the end of the world was about to occur. He
joined the cult and studied how they reacted when the prophecy did not
come true.
Participant observations can be either cover or overt. Covert is where
the study is carried out 'under cover'. The researcher's real identity and
purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied.
The researcher takes a false identity and role, usually posing as a
genuine member of the group. On the other hand, overt is where the
researcher reveals his or her true identity and purpose to the group and asks
permission to observe.

Limitations
1. It can be difficult to get time / privacy for recording. For example, with
covert observations researchers cant take notes openly as this would blow
their cover. This means they have to wait until they are alone and reply on
their memory. This is a problem as they may forget details and are unlikely to
remember direct quotations.
2. If the researcher becomes too involved they may lose objectivity and
become bias. There is always the danger that we will see what we expect
(or want) to see. This is a problem as they could selectively report
information instead of noting everything they observe. Thus reducing the
validity of their data.
Recording of Data
With all observation studies an important decision the researcher has to
make is how to classify and record the data. Usually this will involve a
method of sampling. The three main sampling methods are:
Event sampling. The observer decides in advance what types of behaviour
(events) she is interested in and records all occurrences. All other types of
behaviour are ignored.
Time sampling. The observer decides in advance that observation will take
place only during specified time periods (e.g. 10 minutes every hour, 1 hour
per day) and records the occurrence of the specified behaviour during that
period only.
Instantaneous (target time) sampling. The observer decides in advance the
pre-selected moments when observation will take place and records what is
happening at that instant. Everything happening before or after is ignored.