Using a quantitative approach to this study would not normally be appropriate, but the fact that Jason
and Daphne were constrained from meeting with the participants forced them to use only quantitative measurements regarding qualitative data. The quantitative approach was appropriate in this case because it was the only reliable measurement based on the available data.
The ethical issues of a study conducted in such a manner is that the evaluators did not have a chance to talk to the participants in order to discern reasons why they integrated certain technology, why they did not integrate other technology and their thoughts and concerns about their actions or lack thereof.
Part Two:
Jason and Daphne did not use a qualitative approach to this evaluation. The assessment tool measured numbers, increases and decreases. The evaluators were evaluating evidence of certain events taking place, not the perceptions, thoughts, ideals, beliefs or values of why those events were happening, rather whether they were happening or not was more important than the reasons why.
Part Three:
When Climategate surfaced, it provided those who had been naysayers all along with further fodder for denigrating the efforts of the scientists wishing to prove that humans are the scapegoats for climate change. Taking shortcuts, much like the climategate scientists did, and then attempting to hide the results, continues to provide those naysayers with additional material. If the climategate scientists had been upfront with the world to begin with, then the negative effects would not still be reverberating around the world.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now