Why We Do It The Hard Way: Observational Studies Tell A Different Story From Questionnaires

E. Oberzaucher
{"title":"Why We Do It The Hard Way: Observational Studies Tell A Different Story From Questionnaires","authors":"E. Oberzaucher","doi":"10.22330/heb/324/021-026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When analysing humans, issues of bias are a major concern affecting the validity of research. Objectivity is never guaranteed since we are observing conspecifics. Questionnaire studies aggravate the problem by adding additional sources of data filtering and bias. This article provides a short outline of the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that data collected in observational studies are valid. It is aimed to raise awareness for the requirements of observational studies in order to meet the standard definition of ethology, and describes the limits and potential of observation in comparison to questionnaire studies.","PeriodicalId":91082,"journal":{"name":"Human ethology bulletin","volume":"32 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human ethology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22330/heb/324/021-026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

When analysing humans, issues of bias are a major concern affecting the validity of research. Objectivity is never guaranteed since we are observing conspecifics. Questionnaire studies aggravate the problem by adding additional sources of data filtering and bias. This article provides a short outline of the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that data collected in observational studies are valid. It is aimed to raise awareness for the requirements of observational studies in order to meet the standard definition of ethology, and describes the limits and potential of observation in comparison to questionnaire studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么我们这么做:观察性研究与问卷调查的结果不同
在分析人类时,偏见问题是影响研究有效性的主要问题。因为我们观察的是同质性,所以客观性是无法保证的。问卷调查研究通过增加额外的数据过滤和偏见来源而加剧了这个问题。本文简要概述了需要采取的步骤,以确保观察性研究中收集的数据是有效的。它旨在提高人们对观察性研究要求的认识,以满足动物行为学的标准定义,并描述了与问卷研究相比观察的局限性和潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ISHE Travels to Amazon: A Narrative of a Special Issue Based on the XXII ISHE Conference, 5-9 August 2014 in Belém, Brazil The Ethologist’s Corner The Trouble With Certainty in the Study of Human Evolution Women at the “Sight” of Evolution A Lost Idea in Psychology: Observation as Starting Point for the Scientific Investigation of Human Behavior
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1