Hypothesis:
“The more information people have about their (national or local) government’s
activities, the more likely they are to trust the government.”
The operational hypothesis is
the higher the percentage of citizens who watch television on government’s development
activities, the higher the percentage of citizens’ trust in the government. The
independent variable is the level of information about the government’s
actions, while the dependent variable is trust in government. The independent
variable is thought to cause the dependent variable, and it is this causality
that this research attempts to measure. The unit of analysis is individuals
(watching or not watching television programmes on government’s activities). An
opinion research will be conducted to ascertain whether an individual watches
national television programmes on government’s activities, and whether or not s/he
trusts the government. The true experimental and quasi-experimental designs
would be used to undertake this research in Liberia.
True Experimental Design
A Social Science 102 class
comprising 100 students will constitute the experimental study group. A total
of 100 tickets will be printed with number one written on 50 of them, and
number two on the rest. All the tickets
will then be mixed in a sealed box. During Wednesday’s class, each student will
be asked to pick only one ticket from the box containing the 100 tickets. This
process constitutes the randomized selection in the true experimental design.
The randomization assumes that the two experimental groups selected for the
research would be statistically identical in their distribution on both the
dependent variable and all other variables whether or not they are being
measured.
Following the random selection
of tickets, all 50 students with number one tickets would be assembled in a
class room to be used as the treatment group to which the stimulus (television
news on government’s activities) will be administered. The remaining 50
students with the number two tickets will be the control group. They will sit
in a separate class room while the treatment group watches two hours television
programme on government’s development activities (the stimulus). At the end of
the television programme, all the 100 students will be requested to complete a
questionnaire about trust and confidence in the Liberian government. This
questionnaire would measure the posttest results. The level of trust in
government as measured from students who watched the television programme will
be compared with that of the students who did not. If higher number of students who watched the
television programme expresses trust in the government, it would then be
concluded that the independent variable (more information about government’s
activities) causes the dependent variable (trust in government).
Quasi-Experimental Design
Using the same 100 students,
the dependent variable would be tested before and after the independent
variable has been applied (Monroe 2000, p.38).
Students will not be assigned in groups.
All 100 students would be asked to complete a questionnaire about trust
in the Liberian government. This questionnaire is intended (as a pretest) to
measure the level of trust all of them have in the Liberian government. After
this pretest, the students would be requested to watch two hours television
programme on the government’s development activities. This will serve as a
stimulus after which a posttest measuring the extent to which a change in the
level of trust in government has occurred. All the students will be asked again
to complete a questionnaire measuring their trust in government (posttest).
The posttest would be carried out irrespective of whether or not all the
students watched the television programme. If the level of trust expressed in
the government in the posttest exceeds that of the pretest, this change
(increased trust in government) would be attributed to the stimulus thereby
leading to the conclusion that high level of information about government’s
activities leads to trust in the government.
Validity
The same unit of analysis
(individuals) will be used to measure the hypothesis. These two designs have
high face validity because the measure looks right to the researcher. The
internal validity of the true experimental design is higher compared to the
quasi-experimental because the manipulation and randomization of the
experimental groups ensured that no other variable interfered. We can therefore
claim causality in the true experimental research compared to the
quasi-experimental one under which the experimental group was not manipulated
or controlled. The content validity and construct validity are low in both
designs. For example, this research cannot be content valid when it does not
actually consider all the causal elements that increase trust in the government.
It is possible that citizens may be adequately informed about their government,
but yet have less trust in it, or this could be the reverse. The external
validity of these two designs is low because generalizable claims cannot be
made across the general population, in all settings and at all times. Regarding
construct validity, it cannot be claimed with absolute certainty that
inferences from this research can become a functioning reality (Bollen 1989). Finally,
the credibility of the television programme is another factor to consider. An
independent television would have an objective analysis of government’s
activities compared to a state owned television. Hence the ownership or control
of the television programme could affect validity.
Causality
We can claim causality because
these two designs have accounted for correlation, time order and nonspuriousness
(Monroe 2000, p.32). The posttest comparisons in both designs indicate that
there is a correlation between the independent and dependent variables due to
the change observed in the level of trust as an effect of the stimulus.
Nonspuriousness is ensured in the true experimental design because the
treatment and controlled groups were considered to be exactly the same in all
aspects due to the use of the randomized selection process, but nonspuriousness
in the quasi-experimental design is questionable because the pretest of the
students must have aroused their interest in the study thus affecting their
responses in the posttest. Also, outside influences (previous exposure,
maturation and conversations during the interval between the pretest and
posttest) must have affected their responses. It is therefore difficult to
attribute change to the stimulus in the quasi-experiment as the students were
not controlled, randomized and equal in all aspects. Regarding time order, this
criterion has been addressed because the stimulus was applied prior to the
posttest measurement of the dependent variable in both experimental designs.
Strengths & Weaknesses
The artificial setting and
manipulation of students in the true experiment is problematic because humans
cannot be controlled like laboratory animals. Therefore, the results from the
true experiment may not be obtained in real life situation. However, we can use
this design to study general features of a small group of people. These designs
lack genuine representative sample to back claims for generalizability and
external validity. It would be difficult to conduct such research nationwide or
amongst a group of countries. In the quasi-experimental design, it is uncertain
that all other causal variables have been eliminated (Shively 2013, p.85).
These designs are cost and time efficient, but replicating them nationwide
would be cost intensive.
References
Bollen, A 1989, Structural equations with latent variables,
Wiley & Sons, USA.
Shively, W 2013, The craft of political research, Pearson
Prentice Hall, USA.
Monroe, A 2000, Essentials of
political research, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment