IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v53y2019i3d10.1007_s11135-018-0824-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomness is problematic for social science research purposes

Author

Listed:
  • Merton S. Krause

Abstract

Mathematically defined random chance requires that every possible alternative sampling or assignment outcome has an equal or known probability of occurring. This is very different than haphazard chance for the outcomes of which there are no such statistical expectations. Because random chance cannot be sufficiently ensured for social science research purposes is logically arguable, what is actually relied upon must be haphazard chance. This needs to be made clear for several key aspects of social science research methodology: generalizing from samples, making treatment contrasts unbiased by unmeasured on subject dimensions, meta-analysis, interpreting comparative experiments’ residual outcome variance and so their statistical significance testing, the meaning of psychological measurement unreliability and of latent variables, and the imputation of missing data.

Suggested Citation

  • Merton S. Krause, 2019. "Randomness is problematic for social science research purposes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1495-1504, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0824-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-0824-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-018-0824-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-018-0824-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Di Franco, 2014. "An alternative procedure for imputing missing data based on principal components analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1149-1163, May.
    2. Joseph R. Baker & John K. Yardley & Kerri McCaul, 2001. "Characteristics of Responding-, Nonresponding- and Refusing-Parents in an Adolescent Lifestyle Choice Study," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(6), pages 605-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio Zinilli, 2021. "Imputation methods for estimating public R&D funding: evidence from longitudinal data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 707-729, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0824-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.