Split the overall research design into the following parts:

(a) The sampling design which deals with the method of selecting items to be observed for the
given study

(b) The observational design which relates to the conditions under which the observations are to be
made

(c) The statistical design which concerns with the question of how many items are to be observed
and how the information and data gathered are to be analysed

(d) The operational design which deals with the techniques by which the procedures specified in
the sampling, statistical and observational designs can be carried out.

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RELATING TO RESEARCH DESIGN

1. Dependent and independent variables: A concept which can take on different quantitative values
is called a variable. As such the concepts like weight, height, income are all examples of variables.
Qualitative phenomena (or the attributes) are also quantified on the basis of the presence or absence of
the concerning attribute(s). Phenomena which can take on quantitatively different values even in
decimal points are called ‘continuous variables’.* But all variables are not continuous.
If they can only be expressed in integer values, they are non-continuous variables or in statistical
language ‘discrete variables.

2. Extraneous variable: Independent variables that are not related to the purpose of the study, but
may affect the dependent variable are termed as extraneous variables. Suppose the researcher wants to
test the hypothesis that there is a relationship between children’s gains in social studies achievement
and their self-concepts. In this case self-concept is an independent variable and social studies
achievement is a dependent variable. Intelligence may as well affect the social studies achievement,
but since it is not related to the purpose of the study undertaken by the researcher, it will be termed as
an extraneous variable

3. Control: One important characteristic of a good research design is to minimise the influence or
effect of extraneous variable(s). The technical term ‘control’ is used when we design the study
minimising the effects of extraneous independent variables. In experimental researches, the term
‘control’ is used to refer to restrain experimental conditions.

4. Confounded relationship: When the dependent variable is not free from the influence of
extraneous variable(s), the relationship between the dependent and independent variables is said to be
confounded by an extraneous variable(s).

5. Research hypothesis: When a prediction or a hypothesised relationship is to be tested by scientific

methods, it is termed as research hypothesis. The research hypothesis is a predictive statement that
relates an independent variable to a dependent variable. Usually a research hypothesis must contain, at
least, one independent and one dependent variable. Predictive statements which are not to be
objectively verified or the relationships that are assumed but not to be tested, are not termed research
hypotheses

6. Experimental and non-experimental hypothesis-testing research: When the purpose of research

is to test a research hypothesis, it is termed as hypothesis-testing research. It can be of the
experimental design or of the non-experimental design. Research in which the independent variable is
manipulated is termed ‘experimental hypothesis-testing research’ and a research in which an
independent variable is not manipulated is called ‘non-experimental hypothesis-testing research’. For
instance, suppose a researcher wants to study whether intelligence affects reading ability for a group
of students and for this purpose he randomly selects 50 students and tests their intelligence and
reading ability by calculating the coefficient of correlation between the two sets of scores. This is an
example of non-experimental hypothesis-testing research because herein the independent variable,
intelligence, is not manipulated. But now suppose that our researcher randomly selects 50 students
from a group of students who are to take a course in statistics and then divides them into two groups
by randomly assigning 25 to Group A, the usual studies programme, and 25 to Group B, the special
studies programme. At the end of the course, he administers a test to each group in order to judge the
effectiveness of the training programme on the student’s performance-level. This is an example of
experimental hypothesis-testing research because in this case the independent variable, viz., the type
of training programme, is manipulated.

8. Treatments: The different conditions under which experimental and control groups are put are
usually referred to as ‘treatments’. In the illustration taken above, the two treatments are the usual
studies programme and the special studies programme. Similarly, if we want to determine through an
experiment the comparative impact of three varieties of fertilizers on the yield of wheat, in that
casethe three varieties of fertilizers will be treated as three treatments.

9. Experiment: The process of examining the truth of a statistical hypothesis, relating to some
research problem, is known as an experiment. For example, we can conduct an experiment to examine
the usefulness of a certain newly developed drug. Experiments can be of two types viz., absolute
experiment and comparative experiment. If we want to determine the impact of a fertilizer on the
yield of a crop, it is a case of absolute experiment; but if we want to determine the impact of one
fertilizer as compared to the impact of some other fertilizer, our experiment then will be termed as a
comparative experiment. Often, we undertake comparative experiments when we talk of designs of
experiments.

10. Experimental unit(s): The pre-determined plots or the blocks, where different treatments are
used, are known as experimental units. Such experimental units must be selected (defined) very
carefully.
In general, this literature search has five steps:
1. Define your management dilemma or management question.
2. Consult encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks, and textbooks to identify key terms, people, or
events relevant to your management dilemma or management question.
3. Apply these key terms, names of people, or events in searching indexes, bibliographies, and the
Web to identify specific secondary sources.
4. Locate and review specific secondary sources for relevance to your management dilemma.
5. Evaluate the value of each source and its content
Levels of Information
As you explore your problem or topic, you may consider many different types of information sources,
some much more valuable than others. Information sources are generally categorized into three
levels:
(1) primary sources, (2) secondary sources, and (3) tertiary sources.

Primary sources are original works of research or raw data without interpretation or pronouncements
that represent an official opinion or position. Included among the primary sources are memos; letters;
complete interviews or speeches (in audio, video, or written transcript formats); laws; regulations;
court decisions or standards; and most government data, including census, economic, and labor data.
Primary sources are always the most authoritative because the information has not been filtered or
interpreted by a second party. Other internal sources of primary data are inventory records, personnel
records, purchasing requisition forms, statistical process control charts, and similar data.
Secondary sources are interpretations of primary data. Encyclopedias, textbooks, handbooks,
magazine and newspaper articles, and most newscasts are considered secondary information
sources.
Indeed, nearly all reference materials fall into this category. Internally, sales analysis summaries and
investor annual reports would be examples of secondary sources, because they are compiled from a
variety of primary sources. To an outsider, however, the annual report is viewed as a primary source,
because it represents the official position of the corporation. A firm searching for secondary sources
can search either internally or externally, as Exhibit 5-2 depicts
Tertiary sources may be interpretations of a secondary source but generally are represented by
indexes, bibliographies, and other finding aids (e.g., Internet search engines).
From the beginning, it is important to remember that all information is not of equal value. As the
source levels indicate, primary sources have more value than secondary sources, and secondary
sources have more value than tertiary sources

1. Information regarding the Immediate Conditions: The design offers information relating
to the conditions of the problem. When the researcher doesn’t have resources and capacity
to test the hypothesis he is in a position to discover facts through exploratory design that is
appropriate to or in compliance with the hypothesis.
2. Presentations of Crucial Issues: Through exploratory and formulative designs, you’ll be
able to present crucial research problems. When the problems have been presented, the
researcher is automatically drawn towards the study of the difficulty which has higher
significance for our society.
3. Study of the Unknown Fields: For research, theory or hypothesis is unavoidable. They
offer appropriate basis. To be able to formulate a hypothesis, we will need to obtain the related
information and through exploratory design this task is accomplished.
4. Theoretical Base: The research problem relates to our social life and social problems and
data about the subject could only be gathered through exploratory design. This design is useful
in offering a theoretical base to the hypothesis and theories.
5. Presentation of uncertain problem for study in Research: Through exploratory designs
we can easily figure out these problems. This process on the one hand, focuses the attention
of the researcher on the problem and, on the other, it assists him to gather facts on scientific
lines to ensure that research may be completed correctly.

Experience Survey
While published data are a valuable resource, it is seldom that more than a fraction of the existing
knowledge in a field is put into writing. A significant portion of what is known on a topic, while in
writing, may be proprietary to a given organization and thus unavailable to an outside searcher. Also,
internal data archives are rarely well organized, making secondary sources, even when known,
difficult to locate. Thus, we will profit by seeking information from persons experienced in the area of
study, tapping into their collective memories and experiences.
When we interview persons in an experience survey, we should seek their ideas about important
issues or aspects of the subject and discover what is important across the subject’s range of
knowledge.
The investigative format we use should be flexible enough so that we can explore various avenues
that emerge during the interview.
People who might provide insightful information include:
• Newcomers to the scene —employees or personnel who may have been recently transferred to this
plant from similar plants.
• Marginal or peripheral individuals —persons whose jobs place them on the margin between
contending groups. First-line supervisors and lead workers are often neither management nor worker
but something in between.
• Individuals in transition —recently promoted employees who have been transferred to new
departments.
• Deviants and isolates —those in a given group who hold a different position from the majority, as
well as workers who are happy with the present situation, highly productive departments and workers,
and loners of one sort or another.
• “Pure” cases or cases that show extreme examples of the conditions under study—the most
unproductive departments, the most antagonistic workers, and so forth.
• Those who fit well and those who do not —the workers who are well established in their
organizations versus those who are not, those executives who fully reflect management views and
those who do not.
• Those who represent different positions in the system —unskilled workers, assemblers,
superintendents, and so forth

Focus Groups
Focus groups became widely used in research during the 1980s and are used for increasingly diverse
research applications today. 11 A focus group is a group of people (typically 6 to 10 participants), led
by a trained moderator, who meet for 90 minutes to 2 hours. The facilitator or moderator uses group
dynamics principles to focus or guide the group in an exchange of ideas, feelings, and experiences on
a specific topic.
One topical objective of a focus group might be a new product or product concept, a new employee
motivation program, or improved production-line organization. The basic output of the session is a list
of ideas and behavioral observations, with recommendations by the moderator.
These ideas and observations are often used for later quantitative testing. In exploratory research, the
qualitative data that focus groups produce may be used for enriching all levels of research questions
and hypotheses and comparing the effectiveness of design options. The most common application of
focus group research continues to be in the consumer arena. However, corporations are using focus
group results for diverse exploratory applications

Exploratory Case Study

There are several types of case study distinguished today. They are illustrative, explanatory,
descriptive, critical, exploratory ones; other scientists divide it into program implementation, program
effects and cumulative ones. Today we will focus on exploratory case studies that answer the
question how and why a definite event has happened. What are the main peculiarities of this task? It
requires collecting of only reliable data and use reputable resources if you wish to write a worthy
paper.

What is the Main Idea of This Task?

According to the exploratory case study definition, it is a paper that provides an in-depth analysis on
the provided topic. In general, it is an initial research conducting which a writer tries to make up a
model and view a received data within it, and, after collecting all the necessary data, the task of the
writer is to make sense of it. It can be achieved answering “what” research questions

Explanatory case studies aim to answer ‘how’ or ’why’ questions with little control on behalf of
researcher over occurrence of events. This type of case studies focus on phenomena within the
contexts of real-life situations. Example: “An investigation into the reasons of the global financial and
economic crisis of 2008 – 2010.”
Exploratory case studies aim to find answers to the questions of ‘what’ or ‘who’. Exploratory case
study data collection method is often accompanied by additional data collection method(s) such as
interviews, questionnaires, experiments etc. Example: “A study into differences of leadership practices
between private and public sector organizations in Atlanta, USA.”
Advantages of case study method include data collection and analysis within the context of
phenomenon, integration of qualitative and quantitative data in data analysis, and the ability to capture
complexities of real-life situations so that the phenomenon can be studied in greater levels of depth.
Case studies do have certain disadvantages that may include lack of rigor, challenges associated with
data analysis and very little basis for generalizations of findings and conclusions.
Secondary Data Analysis:
The first step in an exploratory study is a search of the secondary literature. Studies made by others
for their own purposes represent secondary data. It is inefficient to discover anew through the
collection of primary data or original research what has already been done and reported at a level
sufficient for management to make a decision.
Within secondary data exploration (refer to Chapter 5), a researcher should start first with an
organization’s own data archives. Reports of prior research studies often reveal an extensive amount
of historical data or decision-making patterns. By reviewing prior studies, you can identify
methodologies that proved successful and unsuccessful. Solutions that didn’t receive attention in the
past due to different environmental circumstances are revealed as potential subjects for further study.
The researcher needs to avoid duplication in instances when prior collected data can provide
sufficient information for resolving the current decision-making dilemma. While MindWriter’s
CompleteCare program is newly introduced, it is likely that one or more studies of the previous
servicing practices and policies revealed customer attitudes on which MindWriter based the design of
the current program.
The second source of secondary data is published documents prepared by authors outside the
sponsor organization. There are tens of thousands of periodicals and hundreds of thousands of books
on all aspects of business. Data from secondary sources help us decide what needs to be done and
can be a rich source of hypotheses. Special catalogs, subject guides, and electronic indexes—
available in most libraries—will help in this search. In many cases you can conduct a secondary
search from your home or office using a computer, an online service, or an Internet gateway.
Regarding MindWriter, thousands of articles have been written on customer service, and an Internet
search using the keyword customer service reveals tens of thousands of hits.
If one is creative, a search of secondary sources will supply excellent background information as well
as many good leads. Yet if we confine the investigation to obvious subjects in bibliographic sources,
we will often miss much of the best information. Suppose the Copper Industry Association is
interested in estimating the outlook for the copper industry over the next 10 years. We could search
through the literature under the headings “copper production” and “copper consumption.” However, a
search restricted to these two topics would miss more than it finds. When a creative search of the
copper industry is undertaken, useful information turns up under the following reference headings:
mines and minerals; nonferrous metals; forecasting; planning; econometrics; consuming industries
such as automotive and communications; countries where copper is produced, such as Chile; and
companies prominent in the industry, such as Anaconda and Kennecott.

Descriptive Studies
In contrast to exploratory studies, more formalized studies are typically structured with clearly stated
hypotheses or investigative questions. Formal studies serve a variety of research objectives:
1. Descriptions of phenomena or characteristics associated with a subject population (the who, what,
when, where, and how of a topic).
2. Estimates of the proportions of a population that have these characteristics.
3. Discovery of associations among different variables.
The third study objective is sometimes labeled a correlational study, a subset of descriptive studies.
A descriptive study may be simple or complex; it may be done in many settings. Whatever the form, a
descriptive study can be just as demanding of research skills as the causal study, and we should
insist on the same high standards for design and execution.
The simplest descriptive study concerns a univariate question or hypothesis in which we ask about, or
state something about, the size, form, distribution, or existence of a variable. In the account analysis
at BankChoice (introduced in Chapters 4 and 5) we might be interested in developing a profile of
savers. We first may want to locate them in relation to the main office. The question might be, What
percentage of the savers live within a two-mile radius of the office? Using the hypothesis format, we
might predict, 60 percent or more of the savers live within a two-mile radius of the office.

We may also be interested in securing information about other variables, such as the relative size of
accounts, the number of accounts for minors, the number of accounts opened within the last six
months, and the amount of activity (number of deposits and withdrawals per year) in accounts. Data
on each of these variables, by themselves, may have value for management decisions. Bivariate
relationships between these or other variables may be of even greater interest. Cross-tabulations
between the distance from the account owner’s residence or employment to the branch and account
activity may suggest that differential rates of activity are related to account owner location. A cross-
tabulation of account size and gender of account owner may also show interrelation. Such findings do
not imply a causal relationship. In fact, our task is to determine if the variables are independent (or
unrelated) and if they are not, then to determine the strength or magnitude of the relationship. Neither
procedure tells us which variable is the cause. For example, we might be able to conclude that gender
and account size are related but not that gender is a causal factor in account size.
Descriptive studies are often much more complex than this example. One study of savers began as
described and then went into much greater depth. Part of the study included an observation of
account records that revealed a concentration of nearby savers. Their accounts were typically larger
and more active than those whose owners lived at a distance. A sample survey of savers provided
information on stages in the family life cycle, attitudes toward savings, family income levels, and other
matters. Correlation of this information with known savings data showed that women owned larger
accounts. Further investigation suggested that women with larger accounts were often widowed or
working single women who were older than the average account holder. Information about their
attitudes and savings practices led to new business strategies at the bank.

Some evidence collected led to causal questions. The correlation between nearness to the office and
the probability of having an account at the office suggested the question, Why would people who live
far from the office have an account there? In this type of question a hypothesis makes its greatest
contribution by pointing out directions that the research might follow. It might be hypothesized that:
1. Distant savers (operationally defined as those with addresses more than two miles from the office)
have accounts at the office because they once lived near the office; they were “near” when the
account decision was made.
2. Distant savers actually live near the office, but the address on the account is outside the 2-mile
radius; they are “near,” but the records do not show this.
3. Distant savers work near the office; they are “near” by virtue of their work location.
4. Distant savers are not normally near the office but responded to a promotion that encouraged
savers to bank via computer; this is another form of “nearness” in which this concept is transformed
into one of “convenience.”
When these hypotheses were tested, it was learned that a substantial portion of the distant savers
could be accounted for by hypotheses 1 and 3. The conclusion: Location was closely related to saving
at a given association. The determination of cause is not so simple, however, and these findings still
fall within the definition of a descriptive study.
MindWriter could benefit from a descriptive study that profiles satisfied service customers versus
dissatisfied ones. Service customer characteristics could then be matched with specific types of
service problems, which could lead to identifying changes in product design or customer service
policies.

Descriptive Research
As the name implies, the major purpose of descriptive research is to describe characteristics of objects,
people, groups, organizations, or environments. In other words, descriptive research tries to “paint a
picture” of a given situation by addressing who, what, when, where, and how questions.
For example, every month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts descriptive research in the
form of the Current Population Survey. Official statistics on a variety of characteristics of the labor
force are derived from this survey (the Current Population Survey can be found at
http://www.bls.gov/CPS/). This research describes the who, what, when, where, and how regarding the
current economic and employment situation.
Unlike exploratory research, descriptive studies are conducted after the researcher has gained a firm
grasp of the situation being studied. This understanding, which may have been developed in part from
exploratory research, directs the study toward specific issues. Later, we will discuss the role of
research questions and hypotheses. These statements help greatly in designing and implementing a
descriptive study. Without these, the researcher would have little or no idea of what questions to ask.
The Research Snapshot on the next page illustrates an application of descriptive research.

Descriptive research often helps describe market segments. For example, researchers used
descriptive surveys to describe consumers who are heavy consumers (buy a lot) of organic food
products. The resulting report showed that these consumers tend to live in coastal cities with
populations over 500,000, with the majority residing on the West Coast. The most frequent buyers of
organic foods are affluent men and women ages 45–54 (36 percent) and 18–34 (35 percent).
5 Interestingly, consumers who buy organic foods are not very brand-oriented—81 percent of them
cannot name a single organic brand. Research such as this helps high-quality supermarkets such as
Whole Foods make location decisions. Over half of Whole Foods’ food products are organic.
Similarly, the university considering the addition of an online MBA program might benefit from
descriptive research profiling the current and the potential customers. Online customers are not
identical to the traditional
MBA student. They tend to be older than the average 24-yearold traditional student, averaging about
30 years of age. Also, they tend to live in rural communities, be more introverted, and expect a higher
workload than traditional students. Another key statistic is that the dropout rate for online students is
significantly higher than for traditional MBA students. Nearly 14 percent of online students drop before
completing a course as compared to 7.2 percent for traditional in-class students. For this and other
reasons, online students are much more costly to serve

Accuracy is critically important in descriptive research. If a descriptive study incorrectly estimates a

university’s demand for its MBA offering by even a few students, it can mean the difference between
the program sustaining itself or being a drain on already scarce resources.
For instance, if a cohort group of 25 students is predicted, but only 15 students actually sign up, the
program will likely not generate enough revenue to sustain itself. Therefore, it is easy to see that
descriptive research forecasting sales revenue and costs or describing consumer attitudes,
satisfaction, and commitment must be accurate or decision making will suffer.
Survey research typifies a descriptive study. For example, state societies of certified public
accountants (CPAs) conduct annual practice management surveys that ask questions such as “Do
you charge clients for travel time at regular rates?” “Do you have a program of continuing education
on a regular basis for professional employees?” “Do you pay incentive bonuses to professional staff?”
Although the researcher may have a general understanding of the business practices of CPAs,
conclusive evidence in the form of answers to questions of fact must be collected to determine the
actual activities.
A diagnostic analysis seeks to diagnose reasons for business outcomes and focuses specifically on the
beliefs and feelings respondents have about and toward specific issues. A research study trying to
diagnose slumping French wine sales might ask consumers their beliefs about the taste of French,
Australian, and American wines. The results might indicate a deficiency in taste, suggesting that
consumers do not believe French wines taste as fruity as do the others. Descriptive research can
sometimes provide an explanation by diagnosing differences among competitors, but descriptive
research does not provide direct evidence of causality.
The 3 Basic Types of Descriptive Research Methods
One of the goals of science is description (other goals include prediction and
explanation). Descriptive research methods are pretty much as they sound —
they describe situations. They do not make accurate predictions, and they do not determine
cause and effect.
There are three main types of descriptive methods: observational methods, case-study
methods and survey methods. This article will briefly describe each of these methods, their
advantages, and their drawbacks. This may help you better understand research findings,
whether reported in the mainstream media, or when reading a research study on your own.

Observational Method

With the observational method (sometimes referred to as field observation) animal and
human behavior is closely observed. There are two main categories of the observational
method — naturalistic observation and laboratory observation.

The biggest advantage of the naturalistic method of research is that researchers view
participants in their natural environments. This leads to greater ecological validity than
laboratory observation, proponents say.

Ecological validity refers to the extent to which research can be used in real-life situations.
Proponents of laboratory observation often suggest that due to more control in the laboratory,
the results found when using laboratory observation are more meaningful than those obtained
with naturalistic observation.

Laboratory observations are usually less time-consuming and cheaper than naturalistic
observations. Of course, both naturalistic and laboratory observation are important in regard
to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Case Study Method

Case study research involves an in-depth study of an individual or group of indviduals. Case
studies often lead to testable hypotheses and allow us to study rare phenomena. Case studies
should not be used to determine cause and effect, and they have limited use for making
accurate predictions.

There are two serious problems with case studies — expectancy effects and atypical
individuals. Expectancy effects include the experimenter’s underlying biases that might affect
the actions taken while conducting research. These biases can lead to misrepresenting
participants’ descriptions. Describing atypical individuals may lead to poor generalizations
and detract from external validity.

Survey Method

In survey method research, participants answer questions administered through interviews or

questionnaires. After participants answer the questions, researchers describe the responses
given. In order for the survey to be both reliable and valid it is important that the questions
are constructed properly. Questions should be written so they are clear and easy to
comprehend.

Another consideration when designing questions is whether to include open-ended, closed-

ended, partially open-ended, or rating-scale questions (for a detailed discussion refer to
Jackson, 2009). Advantages and disadvantages can be found with each type:

Open-ended questions allow for a greater variety of responses from participants but are
difficult to analyze statistically because the data must be coded or reduced in some
manner. Closed-ended questions are easy to analyze statistically, but they seriously limit the
responses that participants can give. Many researchers prefer to use a Likert-type scale
because it’s very easy to analyze statistically. (Jackson, 2009, p. 89)

In addition to the methods listed above some individuals also include qualitative (as a distinct
method) and archival methods when discussing descriptive research methods.

It is important to emphasize that descriptive research methods can only describe a set of
observations or the data collected. It cannot draw conclusions from that data about which way
the relationship goes — Does A cause B, or does B cause A?
Unfortunately, in many studies published today, researchers forget this fundamental
limitation of their research and suggest their data can actually demonstrate or “suggest”
causal relationships. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Descriptive research is commonly used in social sciences to study characteristics or

phenomenons. Also known as statistical research, researchers look into the frequency,
average or other qualitative methods to understand a subject being studied. It involves
case studies, observation, survey and archival research. You can use descriptive
research to find out the prevalence of an illness in a certain demographic area.

Case Study
This type of research method is used to understand a complex s ubject. A case study is
usually intended to consolidate or extend existing knowledge based on previous
research by using qualitative methods to evaluate contemporary real -life situations.
Start by defining the research question and selecting the cases you want to probe. You
then have to determine data gathering and analysis techniques. Data collected is
evaluated and analyzed before a report is made. Critics argue the small number of
cases normally used doesn't offer sufficient grounds to provide a conclusi ve outcome.
The other problem is the person presenting the case might be biased, leading to
selectively choosing facts to support a certain conclusion.

Observation
This kind of research is used to understand the behavior and characteristics of
demographics. Market researchers, for instance, use passive and active observational
research and ethnography to understand the behavior of consumers in a certain area.
Ethnographers spend time interacting with research participants and gleaning data on
lifestyle, values, culture influence and what they purchase. Passive observation
involves watching what customers are purchasing, whereas you look at the way a
customer is interacting with a product in active observation before asking questions.
Observational research involves the use of sampling to reach a research conclusion.

Survey Research
Survey research is one of the most commonly used research methods in social
sciences. Researchers randomly selects respondents from a population to answer a
standardized questionnaire, or conduct a face-to-face interview or telephone interview
to collect data to assess people's behavior, beliefs and attitudes.

Archival Research
This type of descriptive research method uses existing data or records to answer a
research question. It involves content and qualitative analysis of research material.
You can, for instance, use data in an archive including the U.S. Census, economic and
political surveys to reach a research conclusion. You can also use it to determine, for
example, the number of women taking up the role of breadwinner in America in 2011
has increased compared to 1990 and the reason behind the phenomenon.

Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal studies

Study design depends greatly on the nature of the research question. In other words, knowing
what kind of information the study should collect is a first step in determining how the study
will be carried out (also known as the methodology).

Let’s say we want to investigate the relationship between daily walking and cholesterol levels
in the body. One of the first things we’d have to determine is the type of study that will tell us
the most about that relationship. Do we want to compare cholesterol levels among different
populations of walkers and non-walkers at the same point in time? Or, do we want to measure
cholesterol levels in a single population of daily walkers over an extended period of time?

The first approach is typical of a cross-sectional study. The second requires a longitudinal
study. To make our choice, we need to know more about the benefits and purpose of each
study type.

Cross-sectional study

Both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal studies are observational studies. This means
that researchers record information about their subjects without manipulating the study
environment. In our study, we would simply measure the cholesterol levels of daily walkers
and non-walkers along with any other characteristics that might be of interest to us. We
would not influence non-walkers to take up that activity, or advise daily walkers to modify
their behaviour. In short, we’d try not to interfere.

The defining feature of a cross-sectional study is that it can compare different population
groups at a single point in time. Think of it in terms of taking a snapshot. Findings are drawn
from whatever fits into the frame.

To return to our example, we might choose to measure cholesterol levels in daily walkers
across two age groups, over 40 and under 40, and compare these to cholesterol levels among
non-walkers in the same age groups. We might even create subgroups for gender. However,
we would not consider past or future cholesterol levels, for these would fall outside the
frame. We would look only at cholesterol levels at one point in time.

The benefit of a cross-sectional study design is that it allows researchers to compare many
different variables at the same time. We could, for example, look at age, gender, income and
educational level in relation to walking and cholesterol levels, with little or no additional cost.

However, cross-sectional studies may not provide definite information about cause-and-effect
relationships. This is because such studies offer a snapshot of a single moment in time; they
do not consider what happens before or after the snapshot is taken. Therefore, we can’t know
for sure if our daily walkers had low cholesterol levels before taking up their exercise
regimes, or if the behaviour of daily walking helped to reduce cholesterol levels that
previously were high.

Longitudinal study

A longitudinal study, like a cross-sectional one, is observational. So, once again, researchers
do not interfere with their subjects. However, in a longitudinal study, researchers conduct
several observations of the same subjects over a period of time, sometimes lasting many
years.

The benefit of a longitudinal study is that researchers are able to detect developments or
changes in the characteristics of the target population at both the group and the individual
level. The key here is that longitudinal studies extend beyond a single moment in time. As a
result, they can establish sequences of events.

To return to our example, we might choose to look at the change in cholesterol levels among
women over 40 who walk daily for a period of 20 years. The longitudinal study design would
account for cholesterol levels at the onset of a walking regime and as the walking behaviour
continued over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study is more likely to suggest cause-and-
effect relationships than a cross-sectional study by virtue of its scope.

In general, the research should drive the design. But sometimes, the progression of the
research helps determine which design is most appropriate. Cross-sectional studies can be
done more quickly than longitudinal studies. That’s why researchers might start with a cross-
sectional study to first establish whether there are links or associations between certain
variables. Then they would set up a longitudinal study to study cause and effect.

Source: At Work, Issue 81, Summer 2015: Institute for Work & Health, Toronto

This column updates a previous column describing the same term, originally published in
2009.

Survey projects can fall into one of two main categories: longitudinal and cross-sectional.

Each one has its strengths and weaknesses, and which category is right for you will depend
on what kind of data you are collecting and what kind of insights you need to glean from the
results.

Let’s take a look at longitudinal and cross-sectional studies and when they work best for
business.

What is the Definition of a Longitudinal Study?

A longitudinal study occurs over many touch points across an extended period of time. They
are usually observational in nature. By observational, we mean that the survey makers are not
interfering with the subjects or survey respondents.
The most important distinction between longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, for our
purposes, is the timeline. Instead of a researcher collecting data from varying subjects in
order to study the same variables, the same subjects are surveyed multiple times, in some
cases, over the course of many years.
Many medical studies are longitudinal, following the same 100 individuals over the course of
years. Using the same subjects in a longitudinal study allows for measurable change over a
period of time to be collected.

While popular for the medical and scientific communities, longitudinal studies can have big
benefits for business.

With them, you can track and measure topics as varied as:

 Market trends
 Brand awareness
 Product feedback
 Customer satisfaction
 Employee engagement
 and much more

The Three Kinds of Longitudinal Studies

There are three distinct kinds of longitudinal studies. They are:

 Panel
 Cohort
 Retrospective

A panel study will involve a representative sample of subjects, usually found through a panel
services company.
In contrast, a cohort study observes subjects that fall in a similar group or demographic based
on shared characteristics. This could include region, age, or common experience.
A retroactive study takes advantage of historical data, often times in comparison to updated
data.

What is a Cross-Sectional Study?

A cross-sectional study, the not-so-distant cousin to longitudinal, is intended to compare
multiple population groups at a single point in time. Instead of collecting data over time on a
single variable, a cross-section is framed, allowing a researcher to see differences among
population subsets in several categories.
An example would be a study on the benefits of jogging. In this study, multiple
measurements are taken like resting heart rate, body mass index, and blood pressure. These
would be taken all across groups of varying levels of exercise.

Researchers aren’t collecting data from a single subject over several years to learn about the
effects of jogging, but from many subjects just once. This is often referred to as a ‘snapshot.’

Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Studies: Advantages and Disadvantages

The key advantage to longitudinal studies is the ability to show the patterns of a variable over
time. This is one powerful way in which we come to learn about cause-and-effect
relationships. Depending on the scope of the study, longitudinal observation can also help to
discover “sleeper effects” or connections between different events over a long period of time;
events that might otherwise not be linked.
There are, of course, drawbacks to longitudinal studies, panel attrition being one of them. If
you are dependent on the same group of 2,000 subjects for a study that takes place once every
year, for twenty years, obviously some of those subjects will no longer be able to participate,
either due to death, refusal, or even changes in contact information and address. That cuts
down on usable data you can draw conclusions from.

Another weakness is that while longitudinal data is being collected at multiple points, those
observation periods are pre-determined and cannot take into account whatever has happened
in between those touch points. A third disadvantage is the idea of panel conditioning, where
over time, respondents can often unknowingly change their qualitative responses to better fit
what they consider to be the observer’s intended goal. The process of the study itself has
changed how the subject or respondent views the questions.

Cross-sectional studies aren’t perfect either. Because of their single survey nature, they aren’t
fit to make conclusive observations about the direction of any given association between
variables. However, the benefits could outweigh the narrow scope disadvantages for many
businesses.
For one, cross-sectional studies are affordable when compared to a similar longitudinal study.
With fewer touch points (no follow up), they are also much quicker in reaching an
observational conclusion. Also, provided the sample size is carefully chosen, cross-sectional
studies can be helpful in representing entire populations, rather than subsets. This can be very
beneficial when considering policy changes.

Logintudinal Studies vs. Cross Sectional: Which is better?

Neither, really. It all depends on what you need for your business.

The idea behind both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies is, again, to create the best
process in order to collect the most useful and actionable data. One is certainly not better than
the other. They both serve a very important purpose, in different ways.

The deciding factor on which you use may be the number of variables you’re trying to study,
the amount of time you have before published results are expected, your budget, or, perhaps
most importantly, the nature of the event you’re studying

The key to understanding the difference between cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal
studies is time and the amound of measurements required. Cross-sectional studies are much
easier and quicker to perform if you need to solve a research question here and now.
Usually you have a population with a specific outcome (i.e. a disease) and want to find out if
a certain exposure (i.e. smoking) could cause the outcome. A cross-sectional design requires
only one contact to the patients/persons with the outcome to find out if the person is exposed
or not.
Longitudinal studies require a constant follow-up where the outcome of interest has not yet
happend at baseline. A number of exposures are measured at baseline and from there you
need to observe the population for the outcome. Much more time and ressource consuming.
The cause and effect pathway is much more reliable in a longitudinal study. However, much
research is based on short-term scientist such as PhD students and therefore longitudinal
studies are reported less frequently.
However, a cross-sectional survey can have a very long sampling period. That means that it
can take a long time to sample the amount of people required to make statistical analyses.
This is the case when the outcome of interest is infrequent in the population. But the people
included in the study are not followed over time.