final performances of the three groups of subjects and finally they compared them. Then they published their findings and toured the world giving talks about their work before moving on to develop their work further. Nice work if you can get it!
Research is the art of the possible!
References
1 Fox NS, Brennan JS, Chasen ST. (2008). Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 141 (2): 111.
2 Hiroto DS. (1974). Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102: 187–193.
3 Hiroto DS and Seligman MEP. (1974). Generality of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(2): 311–327.
4 Kolata G. (1998). Scientific myths that are too good to die. New York Times (6 December).
5 Landsberger HA. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited. The New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations: Ithaca.
6 Levitt SD and John AL. (2011). Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(1): 224–238.
7 McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, et al. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7: 30.
8 Renee D. (1959). Mirage of Health. Harper & Row Publishers: New York.
9 Seligman M. (1975). Learned Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. WH Freeman and Company: San Francisco.
10 Tuckett D. (1976) An Introduction to Medical Sociology. Tavistock Publications: London.
CHAPTER 3 Experimental Quantitative Approaches: Real‐Life (Field) Experiments
Introduction
It is time now for us to move out of the laboratory. Let's consider some experiments which have been done in real‐life situations. There have been experimental studies which have been set up in real‐life situations – in everyday settings.
They tend to involve work which could not be conducted in laboratories – they are naturalistic – i.e., they are done in real‐life situations. In many, it may not be possible to introduce experimental variables, or to randomise participants to experimental and control groups. However, at times situations may arise which result in there being an ‘experimental‐like’ situation, or a quasi‐experimental situation, which allows us to make observations and measurements – as though it were a laboratory experiment. In this chapter we shall have a look at them and the issues that come up in them.
So, real‐life experiments:
Are still in the quantitative domain – we measure and count, we use numbers.
They are usually hypothetico‐deductive – we have a clear purpose and set of expectations in mind before we begin.
They are in the interventional sector – we introduce an experimental variable which was not there at the start.
They are prospective – we have a start point where we make our initial measurements, we have our interventions, and we have an end point when we make our final measurements.
They are useful for answering questions about what would happen in a real‐life situation if we changed one or more of the factors in that situation.
We have less control over them because they are being conducted in a natural setting – often like the ‘Candid Camera’ or ‘You've Been Framed’ TV programmes where hidden cameras or observers record what happens. Sometimes situations occur when an experiment is not being conducted deliberately, but the circumstances are such that we can make comparisons between two different approaches to tackling the same issue and we can compare the findings – insofar as we can – for the different results. Let's begin with a classic case study.
Example 1: The Nineteenth‐Century Cholera Epidemic in London
At the time of the cholera outbreak in London in 1854, the prevailing medical view was that it, like some other diseases, such as plague and malaria, were caused by a ‘miasma’ or ‘bad air’ which emanated from the ground. John Snow was a sceptic of this theory (Figure 3.1). So, during the outbreak of cholera in the Soho area of London, he talked to local residents and mapped the pattern of the disease. As a result, he identified what he thought to be the source of the outbreak as the public water pump on Broad Street, and his ‘experiment’ was to remove the handle of the pump! This controlled the outbreak and demonstrated to his satisfaction the role of water in the transmission of cholera (Snow 1849).
After the outbreak had passed, the authorities replaced the pump handle. They rejected Snow's explanation that faecal contamination of the water supply was responsible for the cholera outbreak, as it was too unpleasant at that time to accept the faecal–oral route of transmission (Chapelle 2005). How times have changed!
FIGURE 3.1 John Snow – being very smart and learned.
Source: Unknown author / Wikimedia Commons / Public domain.
Example 2: The Paddington Station Experiment
Mary Sissons conducted her classic study of interactions between people of different social classes in Paddington Station in London (Sissons, 1971). Thinking of all the happy hours I have spent waiting for trains there between 1967 and now makes me realise how much it has changed. It used to be much larger inside before the shops and restaurants were added, and therefore there were many more offices overlooking the vast station concourse. It was the perfect place for ‘people watching’. So, Mary was able to set up her cameras in the offices overlooking the station concourse. Of course, this sort of study raises many more ethical issues now than it did then – see Reece and Siegal’s (1991) book on the ethics of social research.
She hired an actor who dressed up in one of two different roles. In his ‘middle‐class’ role he dressed up in manual worker's clothes and spoke and behaved as though he was ‘working‐class’. In his ‘middle‐class’ role, he was dressed like a businessman and talked and behaved as though he was ‘middle‐class’. He approached 80 people and asked them if they could tell him the way to Hyde Park (which is a five‐minute walk from the station). For half, he was in his ‘middle‐class’ role and for half, he was in his ‘working‐class’ role. The interactions were filmed from the offices and audio‐recorded by a hidden microphone carried by the actor. Once the interactions had ended, a researcher approached the ‘subjects’, explained the study to them, interviewed them and obtained their consent for their participation in the study.
She found that middle‐class to middle‐class interactions went more smoothly than any others. Instant rapport was more likely, the interactions lasted longer, there was more smiling and there was a definite ending. This experiment was used by the Open University and the BBC as a featured example of Field Research. Google it! Watch the video.
Example