A case

 It has been said that laboratory experiments are artificial, unrealistic, and not very useful to educators or education. Are you both sides of this question bringing out the characteristics and strengths or weaknesses of laboratory and field research?Outline plans for the design of a laboratory experiment, a field experiment, and a field study of the same basic problem, the relation between the cohesiveness of a group and its productivity. Keep the design simple, check back for a definition of cohesiveness, do the three designs, study the same problem, that is, is the problem altered by the differences in the three kinds of study? How? Which design is the best do you think?

 Central Research Question:

"What is the relationship between group cohesiveness and group productivity?"

·         Group cohesiveness: The degree to which group members are attracted to the group and motivated to remain part of it.

·         Group productivity: The output or effectiveness of a group in completing a task.

 Part 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Laboratory vs. Field Research

Aspect	Laboratory Research	Field Research (Experiments + Studies)
Control	High (manipulate variables precisely)	Low to Moderate (less control over environment)
Realism	Low (artificial setting)	High (natural behavior in real-world context)
Internal Validity	High	Moderate to Low
External Validity (Generalizability)	Low	Moderate to High
Usefulness in Education	Good for testing theory, causal inference	More useful for policy/practical application
Drawbacks	Artificiality, possible participant reactivity	Confounding variables, hard to infer causality

 Part 2: Research Design Plans for the Same Problem

Let’s apply the same research question (Cohesiveness ↔ Productivity) in three designs.

1.  Laboratory Experiment Design

·         Setting: A university psychology lab

·         Participants: College students randomly assigned to small groups

·         Manipulation:

o    Group 1: High cohesiveness (ice-breakers, shared goals, praise)

o    Group 2: Low cohesiveness (no interaction, competitive goals)

·         Task: Each group solves the same complex puzzle/problem

·         Measurement: Number of tasks solved in 30 minutes (productivity)

Purpose: Establish cause-and-effect relationship in a controlled setting.

Strength: High control and replicability
Weakness: Artificial setting may affect behavior and limit generalizability

2.  Field Experiment Design

·         Setting: Classrooms or workplace teams

·         Participants: Existing teams in an educational or organizational setting

·         Manipulation:

o    Intervene to increase cohesiveness in some groups (team-building exercises)

o    Leave others as control

·         Task: Groups complete a collaborative assignment or project

·         Measurement: Quality and quantity of output submitted by the groups

Purpose: Test the causal link in a more natural, real-world setting.

Strength: Balance of realism and control
Weakness: Less control over extraneous variables

3.  Field Study (Observational) Design

·         Setting: Observe real classroom/workplace teams over time

·         Participants: Naturally formed student groups or teacher teams

·         No manipulation: Just observe

·         Data Collection:

o    Measure cohesiveness (via surveys, attendance, interaction frequency)

o    Track productivity (via performance reviews, assignment scores)

·         Analysis: Correlational/statistical analysis

Purpose: Explore natural relationships without interference

Strength: High generalizability, real behavior
Weakness: Can’t infer causation, risk of confounding factors

Does the Problem Change With the Study Type?

Yes. Although the core problem remains the same, the way you understand and interpret it shifts:

Design Type	Nature of Evidence	What You Learn
Lab Experiment	Causal	If cohesiveness causes higher productivity
Field Experiment	Semi-Causal + Practical	If enhancing cohesiveness boosts productivity in real settings
Field Study	Correlational	Whether cohesiveness is associated with productivity in natural settings

 Which Design is Best?

It depends on your research goal:

·         To establish causality: ✅ Laboratory Experiment

·         To test practical interventions: ✅ Field Experiment

·         To understand real-world trends: ✅ Field Study

My recommendation:

Start with a lab experiment to establish causality, then test findings through a field experiment, and finally validate relevance via field studies. A triangulated approach ensures theoretical rigor and real-world relevance.