strengths and weaknesses in experiments

16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research

How do you make sure that a new product, theory, or idea has validity? There are multiple ways to test them, with one of the most common being the use of experimental research. When there is complete control over one variable, the other variables can be manipulated to determine the value or validity that has been proposed.

Then, through a process of monitoring and administration, the true effects of what is being studied can be determined. This creates an accurate outcome so conclusions about the final value potential. It is an efficient process, but one that can also be easily manipulated to meet specific metrics if oversight is not properly performed.

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of experimental research to consider.

What Are the Advantages of Experimental Research?

1. It provides researchers with a high level of control. By being able to isolate specific variables, it becomes possible to determine if a potential outcome is viable. Each variable can be controlled on its own or in different combinations to study what possible outcomes are available for a product, theory, or idea as well. This provides a tremendous advantage in an ability to find accurate results.

2. There is no limit to the subject matter or industry involved. Experimental research is not limited to a specific industry or type of idea. It can be used in a wide variety of situations. Teachers might use experimental research to determine if a new method of teaching or a new curriculum is better than an older system. Pharmaceutical companies use experimental research to determine the viability of a new product.

3. Experimental research provides conclusions that are specific. Because experimental research provides such a high level of control, it can produce results that are specific and relevant with consistency. It is possible to determine success or failure, making it possible to understand the validity of a product, theory, or idea in a much shorter amount of time compared to other verification methods. You know the outcome of the research because you bring the variable to its conclusion.

4. The results of experimental research can be duplicated. Experimental research is straightforward, basic form of research that allows for its duplication when the same variables are controlled by others. This helps to promote the validity of a concept for products, ideas, and theories. This allows anyone to be able to check and verify published results, which often allows for better results to be achieved, because the exact steps can produce the exact results.

5. Natural settings can be replicated with faster speeds. When conducting research within a laboratory environment, it becomes possible to replicate conditions that could take a long time so that the variables can be tested appropriately. This allows researchers to have a greater control of the extraneous variables which may exist as well, limiting the unpredictability of nature as each variable is being carefully studied.

6. Experimental research allows cause and effect to be determined. The manipulation of variables allows for researchers to be able to look at various cause-and-effect relationships that a product, theory, or idea can produce. It is a process which allows researchers to dig deeper into what is possible, showing how the various variable relationships can provide specific benefits. In return, a greater understanding of the specifics within the research can be understood, even if an understanding of why that relationship is present isn’t presented to the researcher.

7. It can be combined with other research methods. This allows experimental research to be able to provide the scientific rigor that may be needed for the results to stand on their own. It provides the possibility of determining what may be best for a specific demographic or population while also offering a better transference than anecdotal research can typically provide.

What Are the Disadvantages of Experimental Research?

1. Results are highly subjective due to the possibility of human error. Because experimental research requires specific levels of variable control, it is at a high risk of experiencing human error at some point during the research. Any error, whether it is systemic or random, can reveal information about the other variables and that would eliminate the validity of the experiment and research being conducted.

2. Experimental research can create situations that are not realistic. The variables of a product, theory, or idea are under such tight controls that the data being produced can be corrupted or inaccurate, but still seem like it is authentic. This can work in two negative ways for the researcher. First, the variables can be controlled in such a way that it skews the data toward a favorable or desired result. Secondly, the data can be corrupted to seem like it is positive, but because the real-life environment is so different from the controlled environment, the positive results could never be achieved outside of the experimental research.

3. It is a time-consuming process. For it to be done properly, experimental research must isolate each variable and conduct testing on it. Then combinations of variables must also be considered. This process can be lengthy and require a large amount of financial and personnel resources. Those costs may never be offset by consumer sales if the product or idea never makes it to market. If what is being tested is a theory, it can lead to a false sense of validity that may change how others approach their own research.

4. There may be ethical or practical problems with variable control. It might seem like a good idea to test new pharmaceuticals on animals before humans to see if they will work, but what happens if the animal dies because of the experimental research? Or what about human trials that fail and cause injury or death? Experimental research might be effective, but sometimes the approach has ethical or practical complications that cannot be ignored. Sometimes there are variables that cannot be manipulated as it should be so that results can be obtained.

5. Experimental research does not provide an actual explanation. Experimental research is an opportunity to answer a Yes or No question. It will either show you that it will work or it will not work as intended. One could argue that partial results could be achieved, but that would still fit into the “No” category because the desired results were not fully achieved. The answer is nice to have, but there is no explanation as to how you got to that answer. Experimental research is unable to answer the question of “Why” when looking at outcomes.

6. Extraneous variables cannot always be controlled. Although laboratory settings can control extraneous variables, natural environments provide certain challenges. Some studies need to be completed in a natural setting to be accurate. It may not always be possible to control the extraneous variables because of the unpredictability of Mother Nature. Even if the variables are controlled, the outcome may ensure internal validity, but do so at the expense of external validity. Either way, applying the results to the general population can be quite challenging in either scenario.

7. Participants can be influenced by their current situation. Human error isn’t just confined to the researchers. Participants in an experimental research study can also be influenced by extraneous variables. There could be something in the environment, such an allergy, that creates a distraction. In a conversation with a researcher, there may be a physical attraction that changes the responses of the participant. Even internal triggers, such as a fear of enclosed spaces, could influence the results that are obtained. It is also very common for participants to “go along” with what they think a researcher wants to see instead of providing an honest response.

8. Manipulating variables isn’t necessarily an objective standpoint. For research to be effective, it must be objective. Being able to manipulate variables reduces that objectivity. Although there are benefits to observing the consequences of such manipulation, those benefits may not provide realistic results that can be used in the future. Taking a sample is reflective of that sample and the results may not translate over to the general population.

9. Human responses in experimental research can be difficult to measure. There are many pressures that can be placed on people, from political to personal, and everything in-between. Different life experiences can cause people to react to the same situation in different ways. Not only does this mean that groups may not be comparable in experimental research, but it also makes it difficult to measure the human responses that are obtained or observed.

The advantages and disadvantages of experimental research show that it is a useful system to use, but it must be tightly controlled in order to be beneficial. It produces results that can be replicated, but it can also be easily influenced by internal or external influences that may alter the outcomes being achieved. By taking these key points into account, it will become possible to see if this research process is appropriate for your next product, theory, or idea.

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research Method in Psychology

There are numerous research methods used to determine if theories, ideas, or even products have validity in a market or community. One of the most common options utilized today is experimental research. Its popularity is due to the fact that it becomes possible to take complete control over a single variable while conducting the research efforts. This process makes it possible to manipulate the other variables involved to determine the validity of an idea or the value of what is being proposed.

Outcomes through experimental research come through a process of administration and monitoring. This structure makes it possible for researchers to determine the genuine impact of what is under observation. It is a process which creates outcomes with a high degree of accuracy in almost any field.

The conclusion can then offer a final value potential to consider, making it possible to know if a continued pursuit of the information is profitable in some way.

The pros and cons of experimental research show that this process is highly efficient, creating data points for evaluation with speed and regularity. It is also an option that can be manipulated easily when researchers want their work to draw specific conclusions.

List of the Pros of Experimental Research

1. Experimental research offers the highest levels of control. The procedures involved with experimental research make it possible to isolate specific variables within virtually any topic. This advantage makes it possible to determine if outcomes are viable. Variables are controllable on their own or in combination with others to determine what can happen when each scenario is brought to a conclusion. It is a benefit which applies to ideas, theories, and products, offering a significant advantage when accurate results or metrics are necessary for progress.

2. Experimental research is useful in every industry and subject. Since experimental research offers higher levels of control than other methods which are available, it offers results which provide higher levels of relevance and specificity. The outcomes that are possible come with superior consistency as well. It is useful in a variety of situations which can help everyone involved to see the value of their work before they must implement a series of events.

3. Experimental research replicates natural settings with significant speed benefits. This form of research makes it possible to replicate specific environmental settings within the controls of a laboratory setting. This structure makes it possible for the experiments to replicate variables that would require a significant time investment otherwise. It is a process which gives the researchers involved an opportunity to seize significant control over the extraneous variables which may occur, creating limits on the unpredictability of elements that are unknown or unexpected when driving toward results.

4. Experimental research offers results which can occur repetitively. The reason that experimental research is such an effective tool is that it produces a specific set of results from documented steps that anyone can follow. Researchers can duplicate the variables used during the work, then control the variables in the same way to create an exact outcome that duplicates the first one. This process makes it possible to validate scientific discoveries, understand the effectiveness of a program, or provide evidence that products address consumer pain points in beneficial ways.

5. Experimental research offers conclusions which are specific. Thanks to the high levels of control which are available through experimental research, the results which occur through this process are usually relevant and specific. Researchers an determine failure, success, or some other specific outcome because of the data points which become available from their work. That is why it is easier to take an idea of any type to the next level with the information that becomes available through this process. There is always a need to bring an outcome to its natural conclusion during variable manipulation to collect the desired data.

6. Experimental research works with other methods too. You can use experimental research with other methods to ensure that the data received from this process is as accurate as possible. The results that researchers obtain must be able to stand on their own for verification to have findings which are valid. This combination of factors makes it possible to become ultra-specific with the information being received through these studies while offering new ideas to other research formats simultaneously.

7. Experimental research allows for the determination of cause-and-effect. Because researchers can manipulate variables when performing experimental research, it becomes possible to look for the different cause-and-effect relationships which may exist when pursuing a new thought. This process allows the parties involved to dig deeply into the possibilities which are present, demonstrating whatever specific benefits are possible when outcomes are reached. It is a structure which seeks to understand the specific details of each situation as a way to create results.

List of the Cons of Experimental Research

1. Experimental research suffers from the potential of human errors. Experimental research requires those involved to maintain specific levels of variable control to create meaningful results. This process comes with a high risk of experiencing an error at some stage of the process when compared to other options that may be available. When this issue goes unnoticed as the results become transferable, the data it creates will reflect a misunderstanding of the issue under observation. It is a disadvantage which could eliminate the value of any information that develops from this process.

2. Experimental research is a time-consuming process to endure. Experimental research must isolate each possible variable when a subject matter is being studied. Then it must conduct testing on each element under consideration until a resolution becomes possible, which then requires data collection to occur. This process must continue to repeat itself for any findings to be valid from the effort. Then combinations of variables must go through evaluation in the same manner. It is a field of research that sometimes costs more than the potential benefits or profits that are achievable when a favorable outcome is eventually reached.

3. Experimental research creates unrealistic situations that still receive validity. The controls which are necessary when performing experimental research increase the risks of the data becoming inaccurate or corrupted over time. It will still seem authentic to the researchers involved because they may not see that a variable is an unrealistic situation. The variables can skew in a specific direction if the information shifts in a certain direction through the efforts of the researchers involved. The research environment can also be extremely different than real-life circumstances, which can invalidate the value of the findings.

4. Experimental research struggles to measure human responses. People experience stress in uncountable ways during the average day. Personal drama, political arguments, and workplace deadlines can influence the data that researchers collect when measuring human response tendencies. What happens inside of a controlled situation is not always what happens in real-life scenarios. That is why this method is not the correct choice to use in group or individual settings where a human response requires measurement.

5. Experimental research does not always create an objective view. Objective research is necessary for it to provide effective results. When researchers have permission to manipulate variables in whatever way they choose, then the process increases the risk of a personal bias, unconscious or otherwise, influencing the results which are eventually obtained. People can shift their focus because they become uncomfortable, are aroused by the event, or want to manipulate the results for their personal agenda. Data samples are therefore only a reflection of that one group instead of offering data across an entire demographic.

6. Experimental research can experience influences from real-time events. The issue with human error in experimental research often involves the researchers conducting the work, but it can also impact the people being studied as well. Numerous outside variables can impact responses or outcomes without the knowledge of researchers. External triggers, such as the environment, political stress, or physical attraction can alter a person’s regular perspective without it being apparent. Internal triggers, such as claustrophobia or social interactions, can alter responses as well. It is challenging to know if the data collected through this process offers an element of honesty.

7. Experimental research cannot always control all of the variables. Although experimental research attempts to control every variable or combination that is possible, laboratory settings cannot reach this limitation in every circumstance. If data must be collected in a natural setting, then the risk of inaccurate information rises. Some research efforts place an emphasis on one set of variables over another because of a perceived level of importance. That is why it becomes virtually impossible in some situations to apply obtained results to the overall population. Groups are not always comparable, even if this process provides for more significant transferability than other methods of research.

8. Experimental research does not always seek to find explanations. The goal of experimental research is to answer questions that people may have when evaluating specific data points. There is no concern given to the reason why specific outcomes are achievable through this system. When you are working in a world of black-and-white where something works or it does not, there are many shades of gray in-between these two colors where additional information is waiting to be discovered. This method ignores that information, settling for whatever answers are found along the extremes instead.

9. Experimental research does not make exceptions for ethical or moral violations. One of the most significant disadvantages of experimental research is that it does not take the ethical or moral violations that some variables may create out of the situation. Some variables cannot be manipulated in ways that are safe for people, the environment, or even the society as a whole. When researchers encounter this situation, they must either transfer their data points to another method, continue on to produce incomplete results, fabricate results, or set their personal convictions aside to work on the variable anyway.

10. Experimental research may offer results which apply to only one situation. Although one of the advantages of experimental research is that it allows for duplication by others to obtain the same results, this is not always the case in every situation. There are results that this method can find which may only apply to that specific situation. If this process is used to determine highly detailed data points which require unique circumstances to obtain, then future researchers may find that result replication is challenging to obtain.

These experimental research pros and cons offer a useful system that can help determine the validity of an idea in any industry. The only way to achieve this advantage is to place tight controls over the process, and then reduce any potential for bias within the system to appear. This makes it possible to determine if a new idea of any type offers current or future value.

8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research

Experimental research has become an important part of human life. Babies conduct their own rudimentary experiments (such as putting objects in their mouth) to learn about the world around them, while older children and teens conduct experiments at school to learn more science. Ancient scientists used experimental research to prove their hypotheses correct; Galileo Galilei and Antoine Lavoisier, for instance, did various experiments to uncover key concepts in physics and chemistry, respectively. The same goes for modern experts, who utilize this scientific method to see if new drugs are effective, discover treatments for illnesses, and create new electronic gadgets (among others).

Experimental research clearly has its advantages, but is it really a perfect way to verify and validate scientific concepts? Many people point out that it has several disadvantages and might even be harmful to subjects in some cases. To learn more about these, let’s take a look into the pros and cons of this type of procedure.

List of Advantages of Experimental Research

1. It gives researchers a high level of control. When people conduct experimental research, they can manipulate the variables so they can create a setting that lets them observe the phenomena they want. They can remove or control other factors that may affect the overall results, which means they can narrow their focus and concentrate solely on two or three variables.

In the pharmaceutical industry, for example, scientists conduct studies in which they give a new kind drug to a group of subjects and a placebo drug to another group. They then give the same kind of food to the subjects and even house them in the same area to ensure that they won’t be exposed to other factors that may affect how the drugs work. At the end of the study, the researchers analyze the results to see how the new drug affects the subjects and identify its side effects and adverse results.

2. It allows researchers to utilize many variations. As mentioned above, researchers have almost full control when they conduct experimental research studies. This lets them manipulate variables and use as many (or as few) variations as they want to create an environment where they can test their hypotheses — without destroying the validity of the research design. In the example above, the researchers can opt to add a third group of subjects (in addition to the new drug group and the placebo group), who would be given a well-known and widely available drug that has been used by many people for years. This way, they can compare how the new drug performs compared to the placebo drug as well as the widely used drug.

3. It can lead to excellent results. The very nature of experimental research allows researchers to easily understand the relationships between the variables, the subjects, and the environment and identify the causes and effects in whatever phenomena they’re studying. Experimental studies can also be easily replicated, which means the researchers themselves or other scientists can repeat their studies to confirm the results or test other variables.

4. It can be used in different fields. Experimental research is usually utilized in the medical and pharmaceutical industries to assess the effects of various treatments and drugs. It’s also used in other fields like chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, electronics, agriculture, social science, and even economics.

List of Disadvantages of Experimental Research

1. It can lead to artificial situations. In many scenarios, experimental researchers manipulate variables in an attempt to replicate real-world scenarios to understand the function of drugs, gadgets, treatments, and other new discoveries. This works most of the time, but there are cases when researchers over-manipulate their variables and end up creating an artificial environment that’s vastly different from the real world. The researchers can also skewer the study to fit whatever outcome they want (intentionally or unintentionally) and compromise the results of the research.

2. It can take a lot of time and money. Experimental research can be costly and time-consuming, especially if the researchers have to conduct numerous studies to test each variable. If the studies are supported by the government, they would consume millions or even billions of taxpayers’ dollars, which could otherwise have been spent on other community projects such as education, housing, and healthcare. If the studies are privately funded, they can be a huge burden on the companies involved who, in turn, would pass on the costs to the customers. As a result, consumers have to spend a large amount if they want to avail of these new treatments, gadgets, and other innovations.

3. It can be affected by errors. Just like any kind of research, experimental research isn’t always perfect. There might be blunders in the research design or in the methodology as well as random mistakes that can’t be controlled or predicted, which can seriously affect the outcome of the study and require the researchers to start all over again.

There might also be human errors; for instance, the researchers may allow their personal biases to affect the study. If they’re conducting a double-blind study (in which both the researchers and the subjects don’t know which the control group is), the researchers might be made aware of which subjects belong to the control group, destroying the validity of the research. The subjects may also make mistakes. There have been cases (particularly in social experiments) in which the subjects give answers that they think the researchers want to hear instead of truthfully saying what’s on their mind.

4. It might not be feasible in some situations. There are times when the variables simply can’t be manipulated or when the researchers need an impossibly large amount of money to conduct the study. There are also cases when the study would impede on the subjects’ human rights and/or would give rise to ethical issues. In these scenarios, it’s better to choose another kind of research design (such as review, meta-analysis, descriptive, or correlational research) instead of insisting on using the experimental research method.

Experimental research has become an important part of the history of the world and has led to numerous discoveries that have made people’s lives better, longer, and more comfortable. However, it can’t be denied that it also has its disadvantages, so it’s up to scientists and researchers to find a balance between the benefits it provides and the drawbacks it presents.

7 Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research

There are multiple ways to test and do research on new ideas, products, or theories. One of these ways is by experimental research. This is when the researcher has complete control over one set of the variable, and manipulates the others. A good example of this is pharmaceutical research. They will administer the new drug to one group of subjects, and not to the other, while monitoring them both. This way, they can tell the true effects of the drug by comparing them to people who are not taking it. With this type of research design, only one variable can be tested, which may make it more time consuming and open to error. However, if done properly, it is known as one of the most efficient and accurate ways to reach a conclusion. There are other things that go into the decision of whether or not to use experimental research, some bad and some good, let’s take a look at both of these.

The Advantages of Experimental Research

1. A High Level Of Control With experimental research groups, the people conducting the research have a very high level of control over their variables. By isolating and determining what they are looking for, they have a great advantage in finding accurate results.

2. Can Span Across Nearly All Fields Of Research Another great benefit of this type of research design is that it can be used in many different types of situations. Just like pharmaceutical companies can utilize it, so can teachers who want to test a new method of teaching. It is a basic, but efficient type of research.

3. Clear Cut Conclusions Since there is such a high level of control, and only one specific variable is being tested at a time, the results are much more relevant than some other forms of research. You can clearly see the success, failure, of effects when analyzing the data collected.

4. Many Variations Can Be Utilized There is a very wide variety of this type of research. Each can provide different benefits, depending on what is being explored. The investigator has the ability to tailor make the experiment for their own unique situation, while still remaining in the validity of the experimental research design.

The Disadvantages of Experimental Research

1. Largely Subject To Human Errors Just like anything, errors can occur. This is especially true when it comes to research and experiments. Any form of error, whether a systematic (error with the experiment) or random error (uncontrolled or unpredictable), or human errors such as revealing who the control group is, they can all completely destroy the validity of the experiment.

2. Can Create Artificial Situations By having such deep control over the variables being tested, it is very possible that the data can be skewed or corrupted to fit whatever outcome the researcher needs. This is especially true if it is being done for a business or market study.

3. Can Take An Extensive Amount of Time To Do Full Research With experimental testing individual experiments have to be done in order to fully research each variable. This can cause the testing to take a very long amount of time and use a large amount of resources and finances. These costs could transfer onto the company, which could inflate costs for consumers.

Important Facts About Experimental Research

• Experimental Research is most used in medical ways, with animals.
• Every single new medicine or drug is testing using this research design.
• There are countless variations of experimental research, including: probability, sequential, snowball, and quota.

You Might Also Like

Recent posts.

• Only Child Characteristics
• Does Music Affect Your Mood
• Negative Motivation
• Positive Motivation
• External and Internal Locus of Control
• How To Leave An Emotionally Abusive Relationship
• The Ability To Move Things With Your Mind
• How To Tell Is Someone Is Lying About Cheating
• Interpersonal Attraction Definition
• Napoleon Compex Symptoms

8 Main Advantages and Disadvantages of Experimental Research

Commonly used in sciences such as sociology, psychology, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, experimental research is a collection of research designs which make use of manipulation and controlled testing in order to understand casual processes. To determine the effect on a dependent variable, one or more variables need to be manipulated.

Experimental research is used where:

• time priority in a causal relationship.
• consistency in a causal relationship.
• magnitude of the correlation is great.

In the strictest sense, experimental research is called a true experiment. This is where a researcher manipulates one variable and controls or randomizers the rest of the variables. The study involves a control group where the subjects are randomly assigned between groups. A researcher only tests one effect at a time. The variables that need to be test and measured should be known beforehand as well.

Another way experimental research can be defined is as a quasi experiment. It’s where scientists are actively influencing something in order to observe the consequences.

The aim of experimental research is to predict phenomenons. In most cases, an experiment is constructed so that some kinds of causation can be explained. Experimental research is helpful for society as it helps improve everyday life.

When a researcher decides on a topic of interest, they try to define the research problem, which really helps as it makes the research area narrower thus they are able to study it more appropriately. Once the research problem is defined, a researcher formulates a research hypothesis which is then tested against the null hypothesis.

In experimental research, sampling groups play a huge part and should therefore be chosen correctly, especially of there is more than one condition involved in the experiment. One of the sample groups usually serves as the control group while the others are used for the experimental conditions. Determination of sampling groups is done through a variety of ways, and these include:

• probability sampling
• non-probability sampling
• simple random sampling
• convenience sampling
• stratified sampling
• systematic sampling
• cluster sampling
• sequential sampling
• disproportional sampling
• judgmental sampling
• snowball sampling
• quota sampling

Being able to reduce sampling errors is important when researchers want to get valid results from their experiments. As such, researchers often make adjustments to the sample size to lessen the chances of random errors.

All this said, what are the popular examples of experimental research?

Stanley Milgram Experiment – Conducted to determine whether people obey orders, even if its clearly dangerous. It was created to explain why many people were slaughtered by Nazis during World War II. The killings were done after certain orders were made. In fact, war criminals were deemed just following orders and therefore not responsible for their actions.

Law of Segregation – based on the Mendel Pea Plant Experiment and was performed in the 19th century. Gregory Mendel was an Austrian monk who was studying at the University of Vienna. He didn’t know anything about the process behind inherited behavior, but found rules about how characteristics are passed down through generations. Mendel was able to generate testable rather than observational data.

Ben Franklin Kite Experiment – it is believed that Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity by flying his kite into a storm cloud therefore receiving an electric shock. This isn’t necessarily true but the kite experiment was a major contribution to physics as it increased our knowledge on natural phenomena.

But just like any other type of research, there are certain sides who are in support of this method and others who are on the opposing side. Here’s why that’s the case:

List of Advantages of Experimental Research

1. Control over variables This kind of research looks into controlling independent variables so that extraneous and unwanted variables are removed.

2. Determination of cause and effect relationship is easy Because of its experimental design, this kind of research looks manipulates variables so that a cause and effect relationship can be easily determined.

3. Provides better results When performing experimental research, there are specific control set ups as well as strict conditions to adhere to. With these two in place, better results can be achieved. With this kind of research, the experiments can be repeated and the results checked again. Getting better results also gives a researcher a boost of confidence.

Other advantages of experimental research include getting insights into instruction methods, performing experiments and combining methods for rigidity, determining the best for the people and providing great transferability.

List of Disadvantages of Experimental Research

1. Can’t always do experiments Several issues such as ethical or practical reasons can hinder an experiment from ever getting started. For one, not every variable that can be manipulated should be.

2. Creates artificial situations Experimental research also means controlling irrelevant variables on certain occasions. As such, this creates a situation that is somewhat artificial.

3. Subject to human error Researchers are human too and they can commit mistakes. However, whether the error was made by machine or man, one thing remains certain: it will affect the results of a study.

Other issues cited as disadvantages include personal biases, unreliable samples, results that can only be applied in one situation and the difficulty in measuring the human experience.

Also cited as a disadvantage, is that the results of the research can’t be generalized into real-life situation. In addition, experimental research takes a lot of time and can be really expensive.

4. Participants can be influenced by environment Those who participate in trials may be influenced by the environment around them. As such, they might give answers not based on how they truly feel but on what they think the researcher wants to hear. Rather than thinking through what they feel and think about a subject, a participant may just go along with what they believe the researcher is trying to achieve.

5. Manipulation of variables isn’t seen as completely objective Experimental research mainly involves the manipulation of variables, a practice that isn’t seen as being objective. As mentioned earlier, researchers are actively trying to influence variable so that they can observe the consequences.

Mar 8 Different Research Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses

By Megan Sumeracki

Image from Pixabay

There are a lot of different methods of conducting research, and each comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. I've been thinking a lot about the various research approaches because I'm teaching a senior-level research methods class with a lab this spring. This has led me to think a lot about how these different research methodologies might work together. While most researchers are exposed to a variety of methodologies throughout graduate training, we tend to become engrossed with our own specialty. This makes sense, at least to me, as there are so many nuances that it can take years to become truly proficient in conducting research in our own areas. Specialization seems necessary; however, this is exactly why effective communication and collaboration is key. Given the strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies, a mixed method approach can be used to balance these strengths and weaknesses.

We have said many times before that "it takes a village" and open communication to solve large problems. When it comes to student learning, I feel strongly that it takes a diverse group of experts from different research backgrounds and various experiences teaching in schools. With the amount of time and dedication that it takes to become an expert researcher and an expert teacher, it would be hard for one person to become both! The same is true for research methodologies. There are pros and cons to each, and science is best served when we combine our efforts and tackle our questions from many different directions.

In this spirit, in today's blog I am writing about the general research methodologies that might be used to help us understand student learning. For each methodology, I describe what it is and how it might be used, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. This blog is a bit longer than our typical blogs because I'm tackling some big topics, but hopefully you'll find the discussion of various research methodologies, together in one place, as important as I do!

Descriptive Research

The main purpose of descriptive research is exactly what it sounds like it should be: to describe what is going on. There are a lot of individual approaches that fall under the descriptive research umbrella. Here are a few:

Case studies are a very in-depth analysis of an individual person, small group of people, or even an event. A researcher might conduct a case study on an individual who has a specific learning disability, or on a classroom that is engaging in a particular mode of instruction. 

Observation research involves sitting back (so to speak) and watching how individuals interact in natural environments. A researcher might (with permission from the school and parents of the children, of course) watch a group of preschoolers through a 2-way mirror to see how the children interact with one another. There is also a special type of observation research called participatory observation . This method is used when it would be difficult or impossible to simply watch from a distance. You can think of this as going under cover, where the researcher joins a group to learn about the group. A classic example involves a researcher, Leon Festinger, who joined a cult who believed the world was going to be destroyed by a flood in the 1950s. From this work, Festinger proposed Cognitive Dissonance Theory (to read more, check out this page ).

Survey research is considered descriptive research. In this work, the researcher compiles a set of questions and asks people to answer these questions. The types of questions can vary. Some surveys might people to rate their feelings or beliefs on a scale from 1-7 (also known as a "Likert" scale) or answer yes-no questions. Some surveys might ask more open-ended questions, and there are many that utilize a mix of these types of questions. If the researcher is asking a lot of open-ended questions, then we might call the research an interview , or a focus group if there are a few people discussing a topic and answering questions in a group. In this research, the participants may actually be guiding the direction of the research.

There is another important distinction to be made under the descriptive research umbrella: quantitative research vs. qualitative research . In quantitative research, data is collected in the forms of numbers. If a researcher asks a student to indicate on a scale from 1-10 how much they think they will remember from a lesson, then we are quantifying the student's perception of their own learning. In qualitative research, words are collected, and sometimes those words might be quantified in some way to use for statistical analysis. If a researcher asks a student to describe their learning process, or conducts in-depth interviews with teachers about classroom learning, then we are dealing with qualitative research.

Descriptive research can provide an in-depth view of any topic we might want to study, and the level of detail that we can find in descriptive research is extremely valuable. This is particularly true of descriptive research that is collected qualitatively. In this form of research, we may find information that we never even knew to look for! This type of research can be used to create new research questions, or form hypotheses about cause and effect relationships (though we cannot determine cause and effect from this research alone). Observation research has an added benefit of allowing us to see how things work in their natural environments. 

Weaknesses:

We cannot determine a cause and effect relationship from descriptive research. For example, if a student talks about engaging with a particular learning strategy, and then provides an in-depth account of why they think it helped them learn, we cannot conclude that this strategy actually did help the student learn.

We also have to be very careful of reactivity in this type of research. Sometimes, people (and animals too) change their behavior if they know they're being observed. Similarly, in surveys we have to worry about participants providing responses that are considered desirable or in line with social norms. (For example, if a parent is asked, "did you ever smoke while pregnant with your child?" we have to worry about parents saying "no, never" because that is the more desirable answer, or the one that aligns with social norms.)

Correlational Research

Correlational studies involve measuring two or more variables. For that reason, this research is inherently quantitative. The researchers can then look at how related to variables are to one another. If two variables are related, or correlated, then we can use one variable to predict the value of another variable. The greater the correlation, the greater accuracy our prediction will have. For example, correlational research might be able to tell us what factors at home are related to greater student learning in the classroom. These factors might include things like eating a healthy breakfast, getting enough sleep, having access to a lot of books, feeling safe, etc. 

I often have my students think about car insurance to explain correlational research. Car insurance companies measure a lot of different variables, and then try to do their best to predict which customers are likely to cost them the most money (e.g., cause a car accident, have their car damaged, etc.). They know that on average younger males are more likely to cost them money, and that drivers who have received speeding tickets are more likely to cost them money. They also know that people living in certain areas are more likely to get into car accidents due to dense populations, or to have their car damaged while parked. Does this mean that a 16-year old boy who got a speeding ticket and lives in the city is definitely going to cause a car accident? No, of course not. Does this mean that getting a speeding ticket specifically causes later car accidents? No. It just means that the car insurance company knows that this type of person is more likely to cause the car accident, for any number of reasons, and uses this information to determine premiums. 

Correlational research can help us understand the complex relationships between a lot of different variables. If we measure these variables in realistic settings, then we can learn more about how the world really works. This type of research allows us to make predictions, and can tell us if two variables are not related, and thus searching for a cause-effect relationship between the two is a huge waste of time.

Correlation is not the same as causation! Even if two variables are related to one another, that does not mean we can say for certain how the cause and effect relationship works. Take caffeine average consumption and average test. Lets say we find that the two are correlated, where increased caffeine is related to higher test performance. We cannot say that caffeine caused greater test performance, or that greater test performance caused greater caffeine consumption. In reality, either of those could work! For example, students may drink more caffeine and this might lead them to perform better on tests. Or, the students who perform better on tests are then more likely to drink more caffeine. A third variable could be related to both of these as well! It could be that students who are more concerned about their grades might study more and achieve better test performance, and might also drink more caffeine to help them stay awake to study! We just don't know from the correlation alone, but knowing that the two variables are in some way related can be very useful information.

True Experiments

True experiments involve manipulating (or changing) one variable and then measuring another. There are a few things that are required in order for research to be considered a true experiment. First, we need to randomly assign students to different groups. This random assignment helps create equivalent groups from the beginning. Second, we need to change something (for example, the type of learning strategy) across the two groups, holding everything else as constant as possible. The key here is to make sure to isolate the thing we are changing, so that it is the only difference between the groups. We also need to make sure at least one of the groups serves as a control group, or a group that serves as a comparison. We need to make sure that the only thing being systematically changed is our manipulation. (Note, sometimes we can systematically manipulate multiple things at once, but these are more complicated designs.) Finally, we then measure learning across the different groups. If we find that our manipulation led to greater learning compared to the control group, and we made sure to conduct the experiment properly with random assignment and appropriate controls, then we can say that our manipulation caused learning. Taking the example from the correlational section, if we want to know whether drinking coffee increases test performance, then we need to randomly assign some students drink coffee and other students to drink a non-caffeinated beverage (the control) and then measure test performance. And then, we repeat to be more confident in our conclusions! Usually, we're repeating experiments with little changes to continue obtaining new information.

Experiments can also be conducted in a “within-subjects” design. This means that each individual participating in the experiment is serving as their own control. In these experiments, each person participates in all of the conditions. To make sure that the order of conditions or materials are not affecting the results, the researcher randomizes the order of conditions and materials in a process called counterbalancing. The researcher then randomly assigns different participants to different versions of the experiment, with the conditions coming up in different orders. There are a number of ways to implement counterbalancing to maintain control in an experiment so that researchers can identify cause and effect relationships. The specifics of how to do this are not important for our purposes here. The important thing to note is that, even when participants are in within-subjects experiments and are participating in multiple learning conditions, in order to determine cause and effect we still need to maintain control and rule out alternate explanations for any findings (e.g., order or material effects).

This type of experiment allows us to determine cause and effect relationships! True experiments are often be designed based on descriptive research or correlational research to determine underlying causes. If we really want to know how to promote student learning in the classroom or at home, then we need to know what causes learning.

Of course, true experiments are not without weaknesses. True experiments require a lot of control so that we can isolate the variables that are causing changes to occur. The more control we have, the better measurement we have. However, at the same time, the more control we have, the more artificial the experiment becomes. Just because we that a learning strategy causes learning in one specific experiment, doesn't mean that it will work the same way with different types of students, or in live classroom settings. In other words, the effect might not be generalizable. The solution to this problem is to approach the question with a number of different experiments, and to include the other research approaches to get a better picture of what is going on. One way we've tried to do this in research about learning is to utilize the lab to classroom model.

Lab to Classroom Model:

What is one solution to the big weakness associated with true experiments? Do a bunch more experiments! Not just any experiments, of course, but experiments that, together, help combat the weaknesses described above. When we talk about the lab to classroom model*, we are talking primarily about true experiments. In the lab to classroom model, we start out with basic, highly controlled experiments in very artificial settings. This allows us to best determine cause and effect relationships. We then slowly work our way up to the more realistic setting. We lose control when we do this, and it is more difficult to determine cause and effect, but when we take all of the experimental evidence together we can be much more confident in our conclusions!

The Lab to Classroom Model, image by Learning Scientists

* If you're not familiar with the lab to classroom model,  see this blog for a brief description, or listen to this podcast to hear Yana and I talk about the model.

BONUS -- A Design to Avoid: Pre-test Post-test designs

Finally, there is one design that you might see pop up here and there, and it has so many problems that it's worth mentioning explicitly. Pre-test post-test designs are exactly like what they sound like: you measure something before an intervention and after the intervention, and compare. This is not a true experiment, and does not allow us to determine cause and effect relationships.

For example, you might (unfortunately) see someone provide students with a pre-test to assess prior knowledge, then implement some sort of learning strategy, and then provide students with a post-test to see how much they have learned (compared to the pre-test). This design is extremely problematic! We truly have no idea whether the learning intervention caused any learning in this case. It could be that the students just got better over time, or that they learned from taking the pre-test, or that because they knew they were being tested before and after they were more likely to study at home! We cannot say the learning strategy did anything for certain. Using pre-tests and post-tests in research is acceptable, but only if there is a control group for comparison!

While not all methodologies discussed in this blog allow us to determine cause and effect, but they have other strengths that go along with them. This design does not allow us to infer causality, nor does it give us the in-depth, detailed information we get from descriptive research, nor does it tell us the relationships among many different variables!

Mar 11 Weekly Digest #100: Teachers' Implementations Of Learning Strategies

Mar 4 Weekly Digest #99: In Defense of Inquiry Learning

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member.

Advantages and disadvantages of Experiments

• Created by: mariawindsor23
• Created on: 10-05-16 19:34
• Research Methods

No comments have yet been made

Similar Sociology resources:

sociology 2.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Questionnaires (by post, face to face, phone) 3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

experiments 0.0 / 5

Research Methods 0.0 / 5

OBSERVATION 0.0 / 5

Experiments 2.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Research methods (and context) checklist: 3.5 / 5 based on 4 ratings

Research Methods - Experiments 3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Research Methods- Experiments 0.0 / 5

Research methods-Other Types of Research 0.0 / 5