Question

Think yourself as a basic researcher and answer the questions below based on your developed model in Question 1.

a.  What would be the nature of the study that would be designed - Exploratory, descriptive, or hypothesis-testing?

b.  Give reasons for your answer to (a) above.

c.  Would it be a Field study, Comparative study, Lab experiment or Field experiment? Why?

d.  Would it be a causal or correlational study?

e.  Justify the reasons for your answer to (d).

f.   Would it be a longitudinal or cross-sectional study? Why?

h. What would be the unit of analysis? Why?

Answer 1

(A)                                        Being a basic researcher the nature of the research i would like to choose would rather be descriptive research. Descriptiveresearch is characterized as an research method that depicts the qualities of the populace or wonder that is being considered. This procedure concentrates more on the "what" of the examination subject as opposed to the "why" of the exploration subject. At the end of the day,descriptive research essentially centers around depicting the idea of a segment section, without concentrating on "why" a specific marvel happens. As it were, it "portrays" the subject of the research, without covering "why" it occurs.
(B) Some particular attributes descriptiveresearch are:
Quantitative research: Descriptive research is a quantitative research technique that endeavors to gather quantifiable data to be utilized for measurable examination of the populace test. It is a well known statistical surveying device that permits to gather and portray the idea of the segment fragment.
Uncontrolled factors: In engaging exploration, none of the factors are affected in any capacity. This uses observational techniques to direct the examination. Thus, the nature of the factors or their conduct isn't in the hands of the scientist.
Cross-sectional examinations: Descriptive research is commonly a cross-sectional investigation where various areas having a place with a similar gathering are considered.
Reason for additional exploration: The information gathered and broke down from elucidating examination would then be able to be additionally looked into utilizing changed research methods. The information likewise can help point towards the kinds of research strategies are to be utilized for the resulting research.
(C) Going for the comparative research as Comparative research, basically, is the demonstration of contrasting at least two things and a view to finding something around one or everything being thought about. This strategy regularly uses various teaches in a single report. With regards to technique, the larger part understanding is that there is no philosophy unconventional to near research.The multidisciplinary approach is useful for the adaptability it offers, yet similar projects do have an argument to reply against the call that their examination does not have a "consistent whole."
(D) A correlational study is a sort of research plan where a specialist tries to comprehend what sort of connections normally happening factors have with each other. In basic terms, correlational research tries to make sense of if at least two factors are connected and, assuming this is the case, how. Obviously, it would assist with understanding what a variable is, isn't that so? Factors can be viewed as subjects of intrigue that can take on various qualities. A normally happening variable is a variable that has not experienced any control by the specialist.  
(E) Correlational research is a kind of non-exploratory research strategy, in which an analyst estimates two factors, comprehends and survey the factual connection between them with no impact from any unessential variable. Our brain can do some splendid things. For instance, it can remember the jingle of a pizza truck. Stronger the jingle, closer is the pizza truck to us. Who instructed us that? No one! We depended on our comprehension and reached a resolution. We simply don't stop there, isn't that right? In the event that there are numerous pizza trucks in the territory and every one has an alternate jingle, we would have the option to remember everything and relate the jingle to its pizza truck.
This is exactly what correlational research is, setting up a connection between two factors, "jingle" and "separation of the truck" in this specific model. Correlational research is searching for factors that appear to collaborate with one another so when you see one variable transforming, you have a reasonable thought how the other variable will change.
(F) Both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal studies are observational examinations. This implies specialists record data about their subjects without controlling the examination condition. In our investigation, we would essentially gauge the cholesterol levels of day by day walkers and non-walkers alongside whatever other qualities that may hold any importance with us. We would not impact non-walkers to take up that action, or encourage day by day walkers to change their conduct. To put it plainly, we'd do whatever it takes not to meddle.
The characterizing highlight of a cross-sectional examination is that it can think about various populace bunches at a solitary point in time. Consider it as far as taking a preview. Discoveries are drawn from whatever fits into the edge. To come back to our model, we may decide to quantify cholesterol levels in day by day walkers across two age gatherings, more than 40 and under 40, and contrast these with cholesterol levels among non-walkers in a similar age gatherings. We may even make subgroups for sexual orientation. Be that as it may, we would not consider past or future cholesterol levels, for these would fall outside the casing. We would take a gander at cholesterol levels at one point in time.
The advantage of a cross-sectional study configuration is that it permits analysts to look at various factors simultaneously. We could, for instance, take a gander at age, sexual orientation, salary and instructive level comparable to strolling and cholesterol levels, with next to zero extra cost.
Nonetheless, cross-sectional investigations may not give clear data about circumstances and logical results connections. This is on the grounds that such examinations offer a preview of a solitary second in time; they don't consider what occurs previously or after the depiction is taken. In this way, we can't know without a doubt if our day by day walkers had low cholesterol levels before taking up their activity systems, or if the conduct of day by day strolling assisted with lessening cholesterol levels that beforehand were high.  
(H) Using GROUP as a unit of analysis because A group can be seen as a get together of individual individuals yet in addition as an aggregate substance with its own qualities and elements. We contend that so as to comprehend associations between the people and the gathering in general, one needs to accept that gatherings are frameworks which can be broke down at various, not only two levels. Beneath the degree of the 'group in general', there are many middle levels fabricated one on each other. At each degree of deliberation, another association rises which has some causal control over the components at lower levels. More elevated level wonders can be portrayed as examples worked from components at lower levels. In this part we survey the current hypotheses that take a staggered point of view on gatherings and presume that this methodology empowers an all around established exact investigation of development of gathering as an aggregate substance.