I am completely stuck as to what constitutes a Methodological weakness and strength. For example one of the studies I had to read for a research paper I’m doing that is asking me to list the weakness and strengths mentions Conduct Disorder as it relates to Native Americans and generational trains, but didn’t break it down by specific tribes and just lumped them all together as a monolith. Would that constitute a weakness? Or another study was about how parents of children with CD need to be active in the prevention, and they made sure to provide taxis to and from the treatment center so is that a strength? And if it is how would I classify it? I’m genuinely so lost on this aspect and I would greatly appreciate the help and assistance.
In: 2
It’s related to the strength and weaknesses of how you carried out the study. Often these conversations will come down to a discussion about what you got out of the study versus what you put in, because most studies ultimately end up as some sort of trade-off between efficiency and accuracy/detail.
e.g. You can make your study quick, cheap, and logistically straightforward (‘strength’), but it may not give as accurate or detailed results, or rely on a lot of assumptions (‘weakness’).
Alternatively, you can construct a study that is incredibly detailed and drills down on every possible variable (‘strength’)….but it may be extremely expensive, difficult and time-consuming (‘weakness’).
You haven’t specifically called it out, but often these sorts of assessments look at the *relative* strength and weakness. If you only lose a small amount of detail when you do the quick-and-easy study, then the strength outweighs the weakness. If you NEED to delve into detail for the study, then maybe the ‘easy’ option doesn’t give you good results, so its weakness outweighs the strength.
Latest Answers