In natural experiment the researcher must take the results of a situation that was created naturally and conduct the research as it is presented. The text uses the example of a hurricane destroying a home while the ones close by are left unharmed. The researcher may ask question in a manner to understand why this occurred. The lack of controls placed on the situation is  key to what makes a natural experiment different from a traditional experiment. The researcher may ask questions that would help provide insight into why one home was able to survive vs the others that were not. An example provided by the text is , what type of precautionary actions were taken by the different homeowners? (Babbie,2017 pg 248)

In traditional experiments the researcher is in control. They will set up experiments with the idea of gaining an understanding on a specific result. Everything (for the most part ) is controlled by the researcher in a controlled environment prior to conducting the experiment. Another aspect that differs is the idea of bias. whether it is intentional or otherwise, researcher who set up experiments will generally have a predetermined idea of the result. it can prove very difficult to conduct the experiment without altering numbers to match what was hypothesized. This is less of an issue with natural experiments, but not absent. The book gives several example of traditional experiments using small groups of people to come to a conclusion. One example is gathering a group to popularize carpooling, all the while observe the group to determine how they organize and deal with the problem. There is no shortage of examples for traditional experimentation to choose from.

3. A natural experiment is seen as an observational study in a situation where a random assignment of studied participants or group of people is prepared in order to answer a question needed. In most situations, natural experiments cannot be controlled and you will usually find natural experiments being used in a social science or a psychology setting. Some of the advantages of natural experiments is that you’ll be able to experience that person as they are in real life within their element. The variable which is being observed or questioned can’t be manipulated or adjusted for ethical reasoning as well. The disadvantages of natural experiments is they seem to take up a lot of time while being very strenuous process. Also, one this particular experiment or study has taken place then is can’t be redone again.

For the traditional study, the observation study is usually controlled and structured with little to no limitations. This allows better accessibility for the variable which is tied into the final result or outcome of the research. The disadvantage of the traditional experiment is due to the lack of random selection in the process, researchers will find it hard to confirm the external validity of the experiment. Both forms of experiments needs to make sure that the ethical guidelines are followed throughout the process and study. I believe the traditional experiment would be more beneficial than the natural experiment seeing that there’s more control and stability with less factors of the study being disturbed in the process. The validity will not be questioned as much and the subject are more protected within the ethical guidelines.

4. The difference between a natural experiment and a traditional one is the execution of the test.   In a natural experiment people are taking advantage of a natural occurring incident and testing to see how people reacted to it.  In a traditional experiment the test is set up by the testers in a more or less controlled environment.

Traditional experiments are set up and executed by the testers.  They would have a hypothesis they wanted to test, select test subjects, do some pretesting, have the experiment, and then measure the results.  They can be in a lab where there is a lot of control or field experiments that occur outside the lab, but either way the tradition experiment is set up and executed by the testers. Our text had the example of showing a sensitivity film to a group and testing them before and after to see if their racial views change.  The plus side to this is  that there is more control by the testers to customize the experiment to their hypothesis they are testing.  They also have more control over who they pick to test and represent  the larger part of the population.  The down side is that most of the time the subjects will know they are in some kind of test and just that knowledge will affect how they react (Babbie, 2017, pp. 234-236).

A natural experiment would have to take things the way nature threw at them.  It would be like surveying people after a hurricane to see how their preparations faired.  It doesn’t have to be a natural disaster either.  Putting out a questionnaire to a group of nuclear power plant melt down to see how the workers were affected by the incident like people did for the 1979 Three Mile Island incident.  The advantage of the natural experiment is that the testers will get a more true reaction from the test subjects. You are seeing real people and real reactions to a real situation.  The disadvantage to the testers is that they have to take what they get.  They can’t select the test group based on any other variable than that they were there and can be questioned after the incident. There is no control over the test itself (Babbie, 2017,  pp. 249).

I would think that the truest test results would come from a natural experiment.  You see what real people do in real situations.  But I think that the traditional experiment would be more useful.  Testers can take time to set up the experiment.  They can pick the test group to better reflect a larger population.  They can set up a control group.  That is a group that is reflective of the test group but is not subjected to the experiment so that they can act as a measuring rule for the test group.

Of the four types of survey methods discussed in the text – self-administered questionnaire, interview survey, telephone survey and online survey – discuss how each might be applied to your research proposal. Based upon your research question/hypothesis, what do you think would be the most appropriate method of conducting a survey? Why?

5. What limitations do you see with survey research? Any thoughts anyone?

6. An interview is separate from a survey and both have limitations. Any thoughts anyone?

7. If you are doing qualitative research, what are the problems using telephone interviews? Any thoughts anyone?

8. Conducting research involves sometimes putting together a list of questions that pertain to the research we are conducting. In my research proposal we will be gaining knowledge of people who have been convicted of committing a domestic violence crime and after rehabilitation still end up committing the crime once again. The objective would be to see if these rehabilitative methods actually work. “There are four main methods of administering survey questionnaires to a sample of respondents: traditional self- administered questionnaires, in which respondents are asked to complete a hard copy of the questionnaire themselves; surveys administered by interviewers in face-to-face encounters; surveys conducted by telephone; and surveys presented online” (Babbie, 2017, pg. 268). Each of these options could be very beneficial in some way shape of form, but it depends on the type of scenario. When dealing with someone who has committed some type of crime or is ashamed off the wrong they have done, you have to take a certain approach to get the answers you need out of them. We can even see when suspects are being interviewed by cops, it takes a reverse psychology approach to get the answers you need. I am pretty sure if these people were given the option to complete a survey on the phone, online, or through the mail, the survey wouldn’t get completed and it will be ignored. In my research it would be beneficial to set up a face to face interview so that some type of results can be gained from the questioning. Although I might not be able to get the person being interviewed to answer every question, there is a possibility that some of the questions I need will get answered and that’s a start. When we are dealing with suspects or people who have committed a crime, sometimes making them feel comfortable could change the way they view you. This could possibly result in you getting the answers you need as well. We must understand that different types of research require different approaches. Once we understand this, we will get the best results out of each situation.

9. Survey research is a useful tool of social inquiry. It is the best way to collect original data for describing a population that is too large to observe directly. The data collated through surveys may be used for descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory purposes (Babbie, 2017).

In my position, a combination of online and self-administered surveying would be the most appropriate method to reach out to the necessary participants. Rather than sending questionnaires to individuals, my focus would be to reach out to criminal justice agencies. The intent would be to capture the amount of crimes reported by law enforcement agencies. This could also be accomplished through telephone surveys; however, it is not the preferred approach. I fear that there would be very little cooperation due to the bogus calls that one can receive nowadays.

There are also several containment facilities that primarily house individuals who are awaiting for their capital punishment sentencing to be carried out. The Terre Haute federal prison is a perfect example. If given the opportunity, an interview survey would be a perfect approach in this setting. Not only would I gather the information that I am seeking, but this setting would give me the opportunity to note other details of the individuals that may be useful down the road. (Babbie, 2017) states that this method gives the researcher an opportunity to notice details of the participant that otherwise would not be available such as his/her presence and the behavior of the respondent towards the study.