The issue of the legality of marijuana in America is gradually becoming mute as more states allow for its use for medical use and/or otherwise. However, little if anything is actually know regarding the short term and long term use of marijuana premised on actual scientific research. A careful perusal of the available literature relating to the subject as well as evaluation of the components of marijuana has led to the hypothesis that long term marijuana use cause lung cancer due to the continuous smoke inhalation. The short term effects on the other hand would be short term memory loss, low motivation and law self-drive. A long term marijuana user will therefore manifest both the short term and long term effects. For the confirmation of these effects, it is vital to select the appropriate research method and kindred processes geared towards the creation of an effective tailor-made research procedure.
Different Research Methods to Confirm the Hypothesis
The hypothesis on the long term use of marijuana relates to medical condition can be scientifically assessed and proven. However, long term use of marijuana is a relative term since long term use can relate to daily use or regular use. Further, the amount of marijuana use will vary from individual to individual. Finally, with or without marijuana use, lung cancer is still a common disease in the USA caused by a variety of known and unknown factors key among them being cigarette smoking. Therefore, a singular research method may not be effective in confirming the hypothesis. Further, an independent research method will be necessary to arrive at a research sample population upon which the final research will be undertaken. It should also be noted that the effects of short term use of marijuana as depicted by the hypothesis indicated above is also pertinent to the research hence the need for a research method to ascertain the same.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The short term effects of marijuana are psychological in nature and can, therefore, not be verified using a scientific method that relies on quantities. The suitable method for confirming the hypothesis relating to short term effects of the use of marijuana is therefore the In-depth interview. This will enable a careful assessment of the individuals sampled from a psychological perspective. Further, interviews can only inventory part of the hypothesis for the short term use of marijuana with the second part being better evaluated through observation. Participant observation would therefore be the secondary best method for this research (Bryman, 2015).
With regard to the hypothesis for long term use, arriving at a sample will require a careful study that eliminates other causes of cancer. Secondary analysis of prior research relating to the patient would be the effective way to undertake this. After the sample is arrived at, there is a need to establish whether or not the individuals sampled develop lung cancer which can be achieved through the Quantitative methods of research. This results in a total of 4 research methods to wit In-depth interviewing alongside participant observation for the short term hypothesis and secondary analysis together with quantitative methods for the long term effects hypothesis (Bryman, 2015).
Alternatively, instead of using the hybrid system that combines 4 methods of study, a careful evaluation of a selected general population through the method ethnography can be applied. This will entail the transformation of the research sample from individuals into a target group or society (Bryman, 2015). A fitting group of people will be arrived at and considered as a whole for trends and statistics relating to both short term and long term use of marijuana. This will be established and used to either confirm or disproof the hypothesis arrived at.
Relative Appropriateness of the two Methods
The first method that entails a combination of 4 methods and has a sample comprised of individual users of marijuana is appropriate due to its propensity for accuracy. This exponentially enhances its reliability and validity. However, it has the manifest disadvantage of higher cost, taking longer to accomplish and also the predicament of finding such a large sample of marijuana users. According to the hypothesis, a long term user of marijuana will most probably have a combination of psychological and physiological problems. This individual may not be very cooperative. It will, therefore, be difficult to find a probable sample of willing individuals. Further, the carrying out of all 4 procedures entailed in the combine method will require more man hours therefore more cost. Availability of medical records to carry out the secondary analysis will also be a challenge due to the ethical and legal issues involved.
The second method which entails ethnography may not be as accurate as the first method but it is extremely appropriate due to its ease of undertaking as well as the law cost in both time and expenses (Bryman, 2015). Instead of having actual data about individuals as with the first method, the second method will comprise of trends and general statistics about a populace. This will adversely affect the reliability and validity of the results. However, the propensity for carrying out a successful research is much higher due to the ease of the entire process.
The Most Appropriate Method
Whereas both processes have valid pros and cons, the second method which involves ethnography is clearly the most appropriate. This is because the nature of the research involved entails an exponentially great number of variables. The research method to be used should therefore lessen the variable instead of increasing them. Albeit the first method provides the best way to arrive at highly accurate deductions, it also provides a high probability for failure which would result in no deductions at all. Further, some areas such as the short term effects are not scientific in nature thus it is impossible to be absolutely accurate about them. This reduces the value of accuracy as compared with general probability for success. The ethnographical process therefore stands out as the more appropriate of the two.
How I would use the Ethnographical Method to Confirm the Hypothesis
The first step in the process would be to arrive at an appropriate group, society or community upon which to carry out the research. Through a comprehensive literature review, I would arrive at the modalities that would create the highest probability of success. The right sample would be people who have something in common be it the use of marijuana or otherwise. This common bond can be an AA group for marijuana users or a community which is known to have a high propensity for marijuana use. Each of the two will have the right samples to enable the successful carrying out of the research. Due to the professional, ethical, and legal issues involved, data collection would best be undertaken by a recognized social worker. A social worker will be able to evaluate the psychological aspects emanating from short term use. Further, it will be possible for the social worker to obtain permission from a cross section of the sample population to access their medical records. These medical records would provide the information necessary to assess the long term use. To enhance reliability and validity, I would repeat the process for several samples including AA groups and communities with high marijuana consumption. This will be an appropriate, possible, reliable and valid way to confirm the hypothesis on marijuana use.
Reference
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods . Oxford: Oxford university press.
