Choosing a method
Introduced| English | Meaning |
|---|---|
| mixed methods/mɪkst ˈmeθədz/ | mixed methods |
| validity/væˈlɪdɪti/ | How well a measure or study represents the concept or conclusion it is intended to address. |
| reliability/rɪˌlaɪəˈbɪlɪti/ | The consistency of a measurement or assessment when repeated under comparable conditions. |
| research ethics/rɪˈsɜːtʃ ˈeθɪks/ | research ethics |
Choose methods for the question
- Quantitative methods record counts or amounts. Qualitative methods examine descriptions and meaning. A questionnaire or interview can collect more than one kind of data.
- Mixed methods 混合方法 combine evidence where it helps the question. Two methods do not automatically make a study stronger or prove a cause.
Check the measure and the sample
- Validity 效度 concerns whether the measure fits the question. Reliability 信度 concerns consistency. A consistent measure can still miss the idea you want to study.
- Describe selection, participants, timing and missing responses. Volunteer reports may reveal useful experiences without representing every student or establishing their causes.
A badly worded question returns the same wrong answer every time. What is it?
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
It repeats consistently, so it is reliable — and it is not measuring what was claimed, so it is invalid.
Respect participation and data
- Research ethics 研究伦理 include understandable information, appropriate consent, voluntary participation and careful data handling. Explain any withdrawal limits before collection.
- Avoid unnecessary names and identifying details. Not using names reduces risks but does not guarantee anonymity; respect refusal without public pressure.
An excellent measurement design allows researchers to ignore participant consent and data risks.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
A feasible design also needs appropriate permission, informed voluntary participation and careful data handling. Explain withdrawal limits and avoid unnecessary identification.
An observed amount and reported reasons. Three invented groups return 6.0 kg of waste from 30 served meals: 0.20 kg per served meal. Eight interview volunteers report reasons, with overlap allowed. These results describe the observed lunches and volunteers, not the whole school or a demonstrated cause.
Weighing recorded plate waste provides amounts. What can optional interviews add?
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Accounts can inform a question about reported reasons. They do not demonstrate a cause, represent every pupil or guarantee that combining methods establishes a recommendation.
Name one aspect of a food-waste study that optional interviews could explore but weighing alone cannot establish.
Difficulty 3/5 · 200 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Example: “Interviews could explore whether students felt the portion was too large.” This is a reported perception, not a weighed amount or demonstrated cause.
Choose a feasible method that fits a bounded question. Use the same checked scale and category rules for amounts, neutral optional questions for accounts, and approval before extending collection.
Order these planning steps for matching a method to an initial research question.
Difficulty 3/5 · 200 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
This is a useful planning sequence. Feasibility and ethical review may require revision; it is not the only possible research workflow.
“Do you agree that our careless canteen wastes too much?” pushes a judgement. Ask a neutral question that allows no problem, another reason or a declined response. Do not collect extra data without a purpose and permission.