Experimentation Critique Resource Imagine Analyzing an Article

Experimentation Critique Resource

Imagine analyzing an article in depth on its experimentation. What will one find? Will the variables impact the study? Will the researchers provide the necessary details for a person to or a group of people to replicate it? One will provide an analysis on a specific business article that deals with employment laws.

One needs to note the variables involved that are with the article. Since this is a business aspect studied in depth, one is able to make note of the experimentation used in the research. The independent variable is that of "discrimination, accommodation, race, age and gender. All of these are independent variables with this article. However, one needs to discuss the dependent variables involved in this particular study (Armstrong, Koch, Lewis, Hurley, Lewis, & McMahon, 2009). These include diseases, such as HIV / AIDS, heart, alcoholism, limbs, learning disability, and anything health related that could cause issues when it comes to getting and maintaining a position within a company. In regards to human resources (HR), one has to note that that a person needs to consider the dependent variables, such as hiring, layoff, reinstatement. These do include unfavorable references, standards of qualification, etc. (Armstrong, et. al., 2009). They focused in on all age groups as well as that of race, such as "white, Hispanic and mixed" (Armstrong, et. al., 2009).

While reading the article, one did not see anything on how the researchers gathered their subjects for this particular study. In fact, more emphasis was placed on the literature review and problem statement, but nothing was avaialble for the audience to read and discuss further. This is quite disturbing because the researchers could have used the Internet in order to find a way in which to have their participants take part by sending each of them a letter of request and a copy of the questions in advanced. What was mentioned, though, in this partiuclar article is that they used IMS to extract their dataset. They do not once metion what locations these individuals were selected from in order to have a signficant part in the study at hand. One needs to know this kind of information. For example, the participatns came from an online college and then they were narrowed further by having them take a test on their intellectual ability skills to work for an employer (Armstrong, Koch, et. al., 2009).

The researchers had much to discuss with their study. They found that "males slightly edged out females in reports of alleged discrimination (51.5 vs. 48.5%)" (Armstrong, et. al., 2009). However, males are more likely inclined to fill out a report based on social norms in regards to their disability (Armstrong, et. al., 2009). "In general, males and females present significantly different profiles in terms of impairment type, discrimination issue, age, and race" (Armstrong, et. al., 2009).

Through this experiment, one has to note what was found. When it comes to discrimination, the allegations set forth by the employee were in regards to those that were considered traditional. These include medical and stigmas that are associated with diagnosis providing treatment that usually has medication involved. However, females filed in proportion to their male counterparts that were on those impairment types that were considered emerging. These were considered those that were neurological or one that is not specified with regards to one's impairment. In regards to one exception, the number of those that are considered discrimination complaints is larger than that of HIV due to the stigma attached to the disability (Armstrong, et. al., 2009).

These findings and many others do impact a study; however, one needs to focus in on the reliability and validity of the research that was conducted. The reliability is worth mentioning first and foremost. One would have to conclude that the study is not as reliable as one hoped because it appears that the investigators failed to give poignant information that is needed in order to help another person replicate it. In fact, the majority of what was accomplished appears as opinion and only used a quantitative means in which to analyze the results. They failed to mention that some level of bias could occur because of their research, and each of those individuals involved also did not mention their research design (Armstrong, et. al., 2009).

They appear focused in on the various laws and if discrimination does occur base off one's age. Their results appear skewed because of failing to not use a mixed methods approach and not naming off how many participants took part. After all, the researchers could have taken the initiative to use pseudonames to hide the individuals' identity in order to maintain confidentiality through the entire process. Yes, they could have done a number of things differently in order to make their research more reliable. No one knows how many participated, locations and the details needed for demographics. Regardless, since many worked together for this particular research, they do have to consider the reliability of their work, and it shows that they did not (Armstrong, Koch, et. al., 2009).

The next area worth mentioning is that of validity. Since one knows that reliability is poor, one has to conclude that the validity is the same. The content is well thought out; however, anyone reading it cannot know for sure how to replicate it themselves; therefore, the content validity is not accurate. A lack of description was present for the audience because all of what was mentioned how they analyzed the results, and all the numbers involved. Each number is important because it shows what one found; however, if a person does not know how that number was found, then issues quickly arise. Regardless, this is the problem, and can ruin the reputation of those who conducted this experiment because many of them have their doctorate degrees. One has to wonder who wrote the paper, or if all of them did pieces of it and then combined their work (Armstrong, et. al., 2009).