Unit 2: Explaining the Findings

Research intends to display the internal beliefs, views or facts of participants. It must therefore extract such information from the participants and present them in such a way that they are evidently understandable to the intended audience. The interpretation is done to a certain degree of accuracy referred to as the interpretative validity. An accurate interpretative validity is informed by the views of the participants (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009).

Task 1

The research findings found that in a total of 900 democrats, there were a total of 200 males and 700 females. This represented a fraction of 22 % and 78 % respectively. On the other hand, there were 500 males and 200 females in a total of 700 republicans. These represented fractions of 71 % and 29 % respectively. At first glance, we may note that most females (700 out of 900) are democrats. On the other hand, most males are republicans. Men represent 500 of 700 hundred republicans. On the other hand, it is notable that there are more female voters than male voters and that there are more democrats than republicans.

On analyzing the data using chi-test, I picked a confidence interval of 0.05. A confidence interval leaves a 0.05 % allowance for error. It is the most used and is often deemed as appropriate for measurements that require absolute accuracy. The analysis showed that there is no correlation between gender and party orientation. Instead, it confirmed the alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in gender and party membership. The implication of this finding is that the probability of getting a woman who is inclined to the Republican Party is higher than 0.05. The scenario is the same for men being inclined to the Democratic Party.

Writing task 2

According to the study, there existed a bigger population of women voters than male voters.  Since voters were randomly selected, this should show the general direction of the general population in regard to the gender fractioning. According to an article by Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) (2014), the proportion of women voters has been rising steadily. On the other hand, the proportion of male voters has been dipping. The study reviewed the voter turnouts of both genders over the past years. The results showed that women had always turned out in larger fractions than men. Moreover, the turnout gap had always been increasing.

The study also shows that there were more democrats than republicans. While this seems representative of the general US population, there are other factors that may play a role. Different groups are likely to influence the distribution of membership in the population. First, the campaign strategies of individuals are likely to influence the political orientation of participants. If one party offers better perks for the entire population, he gets elected. The economic situation of the nation also determines the likelihood a certain party getting a bigger following. An incumbent leader gets a following if he has ensured a better state of living in the country. Second, the race of participants is likely to influence the orientation of voting. African Americans and Latinas are more likely to vote Democrat. It is for this reason that Democratic Party gets a bigger following as the colored population increases in certain regions.

Thirdly, the male population voted more for the republicans. The female population on the other hand voted more for the democrats. In other words, the Democratic Party would have won among women while the Republican Party would have won among men. The study can be supported by previous election results. In 2012, President Barrack Obama won among female voters against Mitt Romney by 56 % against 44 %. Mitt Romney on the other hand won among the male population by 54 % against 46 % (Jones, 2014). It could be representative of the general population in the country in some way.

The results do not show a direct correlation between the orientation of voting and the gender. This implies that the parties are not generally divided along the lines of gender. Indeed, there are people who vote along family lines such that the entire family votes for one individual.

This study could be important in the future for groups that want to strategize for elections. With this information, it is easier to understand how best to target certain communities. Certain communities are more likely to vote for a certain individuals. On another note, it is more likely that this report can be used to understand who to mobilize. As shown in the report, men’s turnout is poor. It would therefore be appropriate to mobilize more men to turnout. This would especially be important for the republicans who are voted more by men. Republicans would also strive to target and obtain a larger following among women. Women would also be mobilized more by Democrats to increase the turnout gap and to increase the number of votes for democrats. However, as noted, voting is not generally divided along gender lines.

References

Center for American Women and Politics (2014). Gender Differences in Voter Turnout: Fact sheet. Available at: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications Of Social Research Methods To Questions In Information And Library Science, 308–319. Available at: https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf

Jones, J. (2014). Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup’s History. Gallup.com. Retrieved 2 November 2014, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx

Discussion

Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos (2001) give their finding s by the use of themes. They also use tables in their findings to make the findings clearer. They move from theme to theme while explaining how the study impacted on such themes. The other two papers use quotations. They present their findings in the form of themes that support the themes. They however employ a combination of themes and quotes to present their results.

I employed the method used by Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos (2001). It was much easier to employ. I however did not use tables in my findings. I also felt that it was safer as far as participant information. There was no possibility that participant information would be misplaced if the themes alone method was used. In the method used by the other two studies, raw client data is used. The method is likely to cause the information to be misplaced. It could however be checked by ensuring that the information used is clear of all confidential information.

On the other hand, the method could be used efficiently for presenting data. The use of quotes is easier to comprehend than the use of themes. It is also evidence of its own kind. It gives credence to the findings as the information used is less likely to contain false information. It is most appropriate in situations where qualitative analysis is being done. Situations where face-to-face oral interviews are being conducted, the method could be employed efficiently. 

My case could not have used the quotes efficiently. There was little information that was provided other than whether one was a democrat or a republican. I would however have used tables to present my findings. The data obtained could have been presented in the form of tables. The data was also compared with the election results of various elections. These results could have been presented in the findings to give strength to the findings.

References

Erwin, E., Perkins, T., Ayala, J., Fine, M., & Rubin, E. (2001). ” You Don’t Have to Be Sighted to Be a Scientist, Do You?” Issues and Outcomes in Science Education. Journal Of Visual Impairment And Blindness, 95(6), 338–352.

Nye, B., Hedges, L., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2001). The long-term effects of small classes in early grades: Lasting benefits in mathematics achievement at grade 9. The Journal Of Experimental Education, 69(3), 245–257.

Onwuegbuzie, A., & DaRos-Voseles, D. (2001). The role of cooperative learning in research methodology courses: A mixed-methods analysis. Research In The Schools, 8(1), 61–75.