Author: chris

You are required to complete an individual reflective essay which evaluates the strengths and shortcomings of the research strategies and actions adopted by your group. In order to do this you will need to:
 analyse relevant research methods theories and models
 assess the strengths and shortcomings of the strategies and actions adopted by your group, and consider how they may have been improved (bearing in mind reviewed literature)

you need o answer 1-6 questions is about rugby but you not going to talk rugby each section I will but a pages it will help the writer bit more.
I will put a file it has to look like that my work but only the topics are different. I will but a file It will help the writer to understand more.
Each sections needs to have referees
In particular you should reflect upon:
Intro
1. How a research question, which required secondary and primary data (qualitative and quantitative) to effectively address it, was formulated?
2. How it was decided the identified research question could best be answered?
3. The sourcing, evaluation and analysis of relevant secondary (existing) material for the development of a literature review.?
4. How relevant primary data (qualitative and quantitative) were accessed, gathered, recorded and analysed?
5. the presentation and defence of the research process and findings at the ‘Undergraduate Research Conference’?
6. how ethical issues were addressed?
Evidence to support statements/argument should be drawn from your methods of enquiry research journal entries. This evidence should be presented in the main body of the essay as description of critical incidents or as quotations in inverted commas (giving journal page number).
This part will help the writer
Ethics we considered throughout our research project

• integrity and objectivity of researcher – promoted honesty and avoided deceiving them
• Avoidance of harm – ensured confidentiality was kept
• Privacy – anonymous
• Avoided leading questions in interviews, questionnaires
• Ensured interviews were held at sociable times
• As we took a covert approach – had to debriefing them fully after observation

Qualitative data

When collecting our qualitative data we focused on the following things: locations, time and if fans showed any strange or special explicit behavior. To collect such data, we conducted covert ethnographic observations in different locations to gauge and record genuine reactions by rugby fans.

An ethnographic observation is an observation done from the point of view of the subject. This of course could only be conducted by sitting within rugby fans and watching the matches with them. Our data was only collected when each of us heard the sighs and cheers during the matches and felt the camaraderie after therefore taking a covert approach..

We conducted this observation in a few different places including pubs, the Oxford Brookes Sports Center, a stadium, and a local rugby club at different times and during different games. We observed not only behaviors that stood out to us during those games, but also filled out observation sheets to record behaviors observed before, during and after the game.

The behaviors we were looking for were if fans were drinking or eating, sitting or standing, cheering or shouting, and/or sitting with fans from opposing teams. These sheets also determined if there was a large scale of a certain gender or age in each location that differed in others.

With each observation sheet and personal experiences with strange or interesting behaviors observed during each game, we analysed a pattern of behaviors that intersect with different rugby fans.

Quantitative

Regarding quantitative findings we discovered that 68% of the participants that watch rugby agree or strongly agree that they cheer more with friends rather than when they watch it with families or on their own.

The most popular reason for why they watch rugby was for socialising.

The 80% of the participants prefer a close game and 58% of them watch it in big groups, so it is quite high too the percentage of people that watch rugby in small groups or alone.

Another fact we got to know by the questionnaires, was that 68% of the respondents drink and eat while watching rugby, no matter the result of the game.

Qualitative

By observing people in different locations we get to the conclusion that the location affects demographics of audience and who they attend with (for example, as we could see here, in the stadium the range of spectator’s age goes from 5 to 75 years old, while…. ).

As well as the quantitative data shows, no matter the result of the game, they were always drinking or eating something everywhere.

Research showed that when winning they were more cheering and happier, while when losing they focus more on socialising and they cheer less.

You are required to complete an individual reflective essay which evaluates the strengths and shortcomings of the research strategies and actions adopted by your group. In order to do this you will need to:
 analyse relevant research methods theories and models
 assess the strengths and shortcomings of the strategies and actions adopted by your group, and consider how they may have been improved (bearing in mind reviewed literature)

you need o answer 1-6 questions is about rugby but you not going to talk rugby each section I will but a pages it will help the writer bit more.
I will put a file it has to look like that my work but only the topics are different. I will but a file It will help the writer to understand more.
Each sections needs to have referees
In particular you should reflect upon:
Intro
1. How a research question, which required secondary and primary data (qualitative and quantitative) to effectively address it, was formulated?
2. How it was decided the identified research question could best be answered?
3. The sourcing, evaluation and analysis of relevant secondary (existing) material for the development of a literature review.?
4. How relevant primary data (qualitative and quantitative) were accessed, gathered, recorded and analysed?
5. the presentation and defence of the research process and findings at the ‘Undergraduate Research Conference’?
6. how ethical issues were addressed?
Evidence to support statements/argument should be drawn from your methods of enquiry research journal entries. This evidence should be presented in the main body of the essay as description of critical incidents or as quotations in inverted commas (giving journal page number).
This part will help the writer
Ethics we considered throughout our research project

• integrity and objectivity of researcher – promoted honesty and avoided deceiving them
• Avoidance of harm – ensured confidentiality was kept
• Privacy – anonymous
• Avoided leading questions in interviews, questionnaires
• Ensured interviews were held at sociable times
• As we took a covert approach – had to debriefing them fully after observation

Qualitative data

When collecting our qualitative data we focused on the following things: locations, time and if fans showed any strange or special explicit behavior. To collect such data, we conducted covert ethnographic observations in different locations to gauge and record genuine reactions by rugby fans.

An ethnographic observation is an observation done from the point of view of the subject. This of course could only be conducted by sitting within rugby fans and watching the matches with them. Our data was only collected when each of us heard the sighs and cheers during the matches and felt the camaraderie after therefore taking a covert approach..

We conducted this observation in a few different places including pubs, the Oxford Brookes Sports Center, a stadium, and a local rugby club at different times and during different games. We observed not only behaviors that stood out to us during those games, but also filled out observation sheets to record behaviors observed before, during and after the game.

The behaviors we were looking for were if fans were drinking or eating, sitting or standing, cheering or shouting, and/or sitting with fans from opposing teams. These sheets also determined if there was a large scale of a certain gender or age in each location that differed in others.

With each observation sheet and personal experiences with strange or interesting behaviors observed during each game, we analysed a pattern of behaviors that intersect with different rugby fans.

Quantitative

Regarding quantitative findings we discovered that 68% of the participants that watch rugby agree or strongly agree that they cheer more with friends rather than when they watch it with families or on their own.

The most popular reason for why they watch rugby was for socialising.

The 80% of the participants prefer a close game and 58% of them watch it in big groups, so it is quite high too the percentage of people that watch rugby in small groups or alone.

Another fact we got to know by the questionnaires, was that 68% of the respondents drink and eat while watching rugby, no matter the result of the game.

Qualitative

By observing people in different locations we get to the conclusion that the location affects demographics of audience and who they attend with (for example, as we could see here, in the stadium the range of spectator’s age goes from 5 to 75 years old, while…. ).

As well as the quantitative data shows, no matter the result of the game, they were always drinking or eating something everywhere.

Research showed that when winning they were more cheering and happier, while when losing they focus more on socialising and they cheer less.

You are required to complete an individual reflective essay which evaluates the strengths and shortcomings of the research strategies and actions adopted by your group. In order to do this you will need to:
 analyse relevant research methods theories and models
 assess the strengths and shortcomings of the strategies and actions adopted by your group, and consider how they may have been improved (bearing in mind reviewed literature)

you need o answer 1-6 questions is about rugby but you not going to talk rugby each section I will but a pages it will help the writer bit more.
I will put a file it has to look like that my work but only the topics are different. I will but a file It will help the writer to understand more.
Each sections needs to have referees
In particular you should reflect upon:
Intro
1. How a research question, which required secondary and primary data (qualitative and quantitative) to effectively address it, was formulated?
2. How it was decided the identified research question could best be answered?
3. The sourcing, evaluation and analysis of relevant secondary (existing) material for the development of a literature review.?
4. How relevant primary data (qualitative and quantitative) were accessed, gathered, recorded and analysed?
5. the presentation and defence of the research process and findings at the ‘Undergraduate Research Conference’?
6. how ethical issues were addressed?
Evidence to support statements/argument should be drawn from your methods of enquiry research journal entries. This evidence should be presented in the main body of the essay as description of critical incidents or as quotations in inverted commas (giving journal page number).
This part will help the writer
Ethics we considered throughout our research project

• integrity and objectivity of researcher – promoted honesty and avoided deceiving them
• Avoidance of harm – ensured confidentiality was kept
• Privacy – anonymous
• Avoided leading questions in interviews, questionnaires
• Ensured interviews were held at sociable times
• As we took a covert approach – had to debriefing them fully after observation

Qualitative data

When collecting our qualitative data we focused on the following things: locations, time and if fans showed any strange or special explicit behavior. To collect such data, we conducted covert ethnographic observations in different locations to gauge and record genuine reactions by rugby fans.

An ethnographic observation is an observation done from the point of view of the subject. This of course could only be conducted by sitting within rugby fans and watching the matches with them. Our data was only collected when each of us heard the sighs and cheers during the matches and felt the camaraderie after therefore taking a covert approach..

We conducted this observation in a few different places including pubs, the Oxford Brookes Sports Center, a stadium, and a local rugby club at different times and during different games. We observed not only behaviors that stood out to us during those games, but also filled out observation sheets to record behaviors observed before, during and after the game.

The behaviors we were looking for were if fans were drinking or eating, sitting or standing, cheering or shouting, and/or sitting with fans from opposing teams. These sheets also determined if there was a large scale of a certain gender or age in each location that differed in others.

With each observation sheet and personal experiences with strange or interesting behaviors observed during each game, we analysed a pattern of behaviors that intersect with different rugby fans.

Quantitative

Regarding quantitative findings we discovered that 68% of the participants that watch rugby agree or strongly agree that they cheer more with friends rather than when they watch it with families or on their own.

The most popular reason for why they watch rugby was for socialising.

The 80% of the participants prefer a close game and 58% of them watch it in big groups, so it is quite high too the percentage of people that watch rugby in small groups or alone.

Another fact we got to know by the questionnaires, was that 68% of the respondents drink and eat while watching rugby, no matter the result of the game.

Qualitative

By observing people in different locations we get to the conclusion that the location affects demographics of audience and who they attend with (for example, as we could see here, in the stadium the range of spectator’s age goes from 5 to 75 years old, while…. ).

As well as the quantitative data shows, no matter the result of the game, they were always drinking or eating something everywhere.

Research showed that when winning they were more cheering and happier, while when losing they focus more on socialising and they cheer less.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Part I – Answer the following questions:

Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter?
If you randomly assign participants to groups, can you assume the groups are equivalent at the beginning of the study? At the end? Why or why not? If you cannot assume equivalence at either end, what can you do? Please explain.
Explain and give examples of how the particular outcomes of a study can suggest if a particular threat is likely to have been present.
Describe each of the following types of designs, explain its logic, and why the design does or does not address the selection threats discussed in Chapter 7 of Trochim and Donnelly (2006):
Non-equivalent control group pretest only
Non-equivalent control group pretest/posttest
Cross-sectional
Regression-Discontinuity
Why are quasi-experimental designs used more often than experimental designs?
One conclusion you might reach (hint) after completing the readings for this assignment is that there are no bad designs, only bad design choices (and implementations). State a research question for which a single-group post-test only design can yield relatively unambiguous findings.

Part II – Answer the following questions:

What research question(s) does the study address?
What is Goldberg’s rationale for the study? Was the study designed to contribute to theory? Do the results of the study contribute to theory? For both questions: If so, how? If not, why not?
What constructs does the study address? How are they operationalized?
What are the independent and dependent variables in the study?
Name the type of design the researchers used.
What internal and external validity threats did the researchers address in their design? How did they address them? Are there threats they did not address? If so how does the failure to address the threats affect the researchers’ interpretations of their findings? Are Goldberg’s conclusions convincing? Why or why not?

Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pages
References: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.