Theme Of Doubt In 12 Angry Men

Theme Of Doubt In 12 Angry Men
Abdulhakim Seid Rose illuminates the concept of reasonable doubt by Juror Eight's constant questioning of the credibility of the testimonies(thesis).
Introduction Paragraph
Everyone is biased. Everyone prefers a certain group, place, person and/or people, consciously or subconsciously. In 12 Angry Men, these biases are
carried to the testimonies, where they threaten the life of a 18 year old Hispanic boy. Fortunately for him, there is one man who will stand for his
innocence. This man questions all the evidence and links it to the testimonies, where he unearths many flaws and inaccuracies. Rose illuminates the
concept of reasonable doubt by Juror Eight's constant questioning of the credibility of the testimonies.
Rose shows that Juror Eight...show more content...
Rose sets up the plot in such a way that the audience could feel holes in the alleged evidence. Rose put Juror Eight in the middle of the chaos
between Juror Ten, Juror Three and even Juror Seven. Juror Eight's sole purpose seems to be to help the readers open their eyes on the shadows of
this case. He is there to unearth hidden inconsistencies and uncover the basis that all the jurors initially had against the boy. Juror Eight isn't a hero. He
isn't doing this to save the boy because he cares about him. In fact, if there was solid evidence that the boy committed the crime, Juror Eight wouldn't
hesitate to give the twelfth vote for a guilty verdict. Rather, Juror Eight is a token of justice that is blind to all
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Twelve Angry Men Essay
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young
man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or
innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer
pressures three of the jurors used.
The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm,
whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is...show more content...
Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of
#7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying
to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name
calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third
and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all
the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the
evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch–blade in the chest
of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.
Quotes like this one convinced me that #8 was very wise and intelligent person: "If he heard anything at all, he still couldn't have identified to
voice with the el roaring by..." (The el is a train)I believe Twelve Angry Men situation could happen in the real life, and I am almost

Summary : ' 12 Angry Men ' Essay
Amit Erez
Professor Huppin
Communication Studies 170
May 14, 2016 Thought Paper #2 The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties
should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The
chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule
that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross–section of the community.
In the film, 12 Angry Men, the chosen jury panel was far from what we would consider today to be "representative of the community." As we saw in
the film, a jury non–representative of its peers can provoke prejudice and indifference in the trial process. The jury panel in 12 Angry Men consisted
of all white men who were all middle–aged with the exception of two elder fellows. The defendant in this case was a young, Puerto Rican male.
Before deliberation, the jurors took an initial vote count to see which men were leaning toward a verdict of guilty, and which ones were leaning to
vote not guilty. The count was 11 to 1. Only one man was reasonable and brave enough to challenge the majority, and presume the boy's innocence.
From the very beginning, a more diverse jury could have remedied this imbalance. It is a concern that a jury consisting of all white members

"Its not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others". Twelve Angry Men is more than a play, it is a reminder of our social responsibility. Discuss.
Twelve Angry Men is a legal drama, written by Reginald Rose during the heightened period of 1950's McCarthyism. The didactic play presents a
cross section, examining 1950's America during a period of immense suspicion and uncertainty. Roses' play reminds us of the importance of
responsibility and integrity, emphasising qualities such as courage that aid in preserving justice. The play examines the power of the "lone voice" and
places a special emphasis on the serving of justice over the quest for truth through a central plot and strategic framing. The idea of time versus...show
more content...
Rose utilises a central plot and setting to ensure the jurors remain focused on deliberating and the audience's engagement is limited to the deliberation
process. The central focus creates a narrow spectrum in which the didactic themes of the play can be reiterated and emphasised. The play's juror 8
emphasises that "the boys life is not a game", constantly refocusing the jurors to the deliberation process when they digress. Through juror 8 Rose
further highlights the importance of the juror's roles and their responsibility as civil servants. This also serves as a reminder to society to remain
integral to their responsibility as civilians and thus Rose's non fictional undertone is carried through his fictional plot and characters.
The play is limited to a timeline in which Rose aims to convey his didactic message and hence the importance of social responsibility. The time
elapsed in the play is synonymous with the amount of time the audience spend viewing, to create a sense of realism and dire importance. Within this
period Rose addresses the issue of time versus responsibility as apathy within jurors serves to undermine the justice system and compromise the
mechanisms of justice. "This better be quick" is a notion adopted by juror 7 serving as a justification behind his impulsive "guilty" verdict. The clock on
the wall acts as a motif that exposes apathetic jurors

The Movie ' Twelve Angry Men ' Essay
The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father.
A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would
send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any
acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty.
Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8
(Henry Fonda) registers a shocking "not guilty" vote; Immediately the room is in an uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his
decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour.
Eventually, as the talks proceed juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that
the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors
hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty.
Arriving at an unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each
other. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as

Twelve Angry Men
Does Twelve Angry Men show that prejudice can obscure the truth?
In the play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose shows that prejudices can prevent jurors from seeing the truth. This is evident throughout the play as
juror 10 blinded to the facts because prejudice clouds his judgement. However, besides prejudice, Rose also show personal bias, ignorance and a weak
characteristic can take away jurors' abilities to see the truth. For instance, juror 3's bad relationship with his son in the past and juror7's ignorant attitude
towards the case ultimately affect their perspective about the facts and evidence presented in the case. As a result, these factors not only obscure the
truth but also make it hard for the jury to reach a just verdict and...show more content...
This is why juror 3 refuses to listen to facts and doubts, which consequently makes him unable to see the truth. We can see this when he says: "That
goddam rotten kid. I know him what they're like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day" (p.g 59). Personal bias takes over his thinking
abilities so he cannot understand facts and evidence. Without the understanding of facts and evidence, he will never be able to reach for the truth so in
order to reach for the truth he needs to triumph over his personal bias. Even though prejudice has the power to obscure the truth, it seems personal bias
has the same power in preventing jurors from seeing the truth.
Another factor that can obscure the truth of the case is the ignorance and weak characteristics of some jurors. This particularly applies to juror 7 who
is ignorant, impatient and just wants to finish early so that he can watch the ball game. In juror 7's opinion, the case is a "Goddam waste of time" (p.g
4) and he has better things to do rather than being a juror. His statement indicates that he does not understand how significant the jury process is and
how is the truth affects the defendant's life. Due to his ignorant attitude, he cannot see how facts are important in determining the truth and
consequently unwilling to understand the facts. We can see this when he says: "You couldn't change my kind if you talked for one

12 Angry Men Interview Questions
Three Questions?
What questions would I ask to state to develop my characters? I have three and the reasons why I would ask them.
1.Who are his enemies? We are often defined who we are not and who we are compared against. Examples: Cops and Criminals, Batman and The
Joker, God and the Devil. They, your enemies, say more about you than you can say for yourself. Cops fight for order and public safety. Criminals
fight for the freedom to do what they want when the want it. By asking who my character's enemies I can determine what they are not and what they are
fighting against.
2.Who/What do they love? Who they love often tells who they will die to protect. Their husbands and wives, their kids, and in some cases their pets. If
they love

Twelve Angry Men
The objective of this paper is to relate the movie twelve angry men to the course book social psychology. The film is about twelve men who are on
are deciding the fait of a young man who is accused of killing his father. In the jury room the discussions, reactions, and occurances that took place can
relate to the course book (NAME HERE AND AUTHOR) in many ways. The conections that can me
First off one major concept that was apparent through out the movie is prejudice which in its slef has three components. There is evidence of prejudice
because of the attitudes, actions and thoughts that some of the jury members exhibit throughout there deliberation. Prejudice is defined as our negative
attitudes towards people in a certain group soley because...show more content...
Which is " defined as a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a
realistic manner". This theory first came about from Ivering Janis. He belived there had to be certain criteria met for group think to be likely to occur.
Some criteria are things such as group cohesion or having a distinct leader. Recen re–evaluate of janis's has shown that group think occurs more often
then original thought and all criteria does not have to be apperent for it to occur. The jury in twelve angry men did exibit signs that were common
when group think was apparent. In the beginning majority of the men wanted to come to a decision quickly they felt the young boy was guilty and
didn't want to waist there time. So we can assume the group was mostly unified in there opinions. As well the men were isolated from outside
opinion. You can even assume there is a group leader, although there was never really a distinct leader a couple men were very opinionated and made
there thoughts heard. Next is is said that to create groupthink there needs to be a supposed threat . while the majority voted guilty there was one man
who voted not guilty. We can see as a threat because many of the jury members tried to convince him to conform to the groups verdict. The group was
very hostile towards the man that disagreed with the majority. An indicator of groupthink is

Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions Essay
Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions 1. What type of decision was the group instructed to reach (e.g. majority, consensus, authoritarian, etc.) * When
the 12 person jury meets in the room to vote on a guilty or non–guilty verdict, the method used to vote was 1st based on a majority decision–making
process where those would raise their hands for guilty and a non–guilty verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 voting not guilty.
Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juror voted non–guilty. The 1 non–guilty, disrupted the dynamics of everyone else's
vote; which leads to a major conflict. They now needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non–guilty parties.
2. How...show more content...
4. What, if anything, did the foremen do well that helped the group's conflict management and decision–making process? * The foreman in order to
diffuse conflict from escalating is the mediator. His job is to mediate conflict by calming everyone down through their presentations. The foreman
suggests that the group should, one by one, explain why they think the boy is guilty.
5. What, if anything, could the foremen have done differently to help the group's conflict management and decision–making process? * The foreman
should've been more involved when conflict rose between all the men. Thirty minutes into the movie, an insensitive comment was made by one of the
jurors. Another juror found his comment unnecessary and believed that it shouldn't be joked about. As he looked at the foreman and told him this, the
foreman simply said with an (I don't care attitude), "now what do you want me to do about that?" It seems to me that while arguments got out of hand,
the foreman didn't care to mediate the situation. I believe he needed to be a little more proactive.
6. Who was most influential on the group's decision–making process? What did he do that was so influential on the group? And what interaction style
did he appear to be using? * The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who's
trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where

Twelve Angry Men
Reaction
The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to
determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on
the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the
twelve men to determine if this young man should be sentenced to death. The twelve men then file into the jury room and sit in exact order as given in
court. They proceed to take a vote by stating whether they think the individual is guilty of committing murder. Starting...show more content...
Majority influence occurs when individual decisions within a group are influenced by others in the group. (Keyton, 2006) With members first group
decision starting out with them openly going around the table stating the defendant was guilty could have initially changed the votes of some members
to agree with the majority. Under majority influence, the decision making process showed symptoms of groupthink. Groupthink occurred within this
particular group of men as the majority of the jurors overestimated their power and invulnerability. (Keyton, 2006) This therefore caused all eleven
jurors who believed the defendant was guilty to not question any evidence or circumstances presented in the case. This was apparent throughout the
film as the majority of the jurors were narrow minded coming into the jury room. This is found to be true as the jurors failed to critically examine and
analyze the evidence stated in the case. All jurors except for juror # 8 took the evidence at face value and did not want to accept any other
circumstances that could have happened that night the boy 's father was killed. Groupthink effected the groups cohesiveness as it was moderately high
causing the group to not challenge any evidence. (Keyton, 2006) Group cohesion is an important factor of a group, which shows members have a
desire to remain in a group. (Keyton, 2006) Presented in the play the initial reaction of the twelve men was through more of an individual

Analytical Essay: Twelve Angry Men
Marissa marrufo 4b For a moment i stood shocked because my mom wouldn't even listen to my side of the story. She was so convinced by my
sister's words believing that i had done something wrong. In the play twelve angry men,by reginald rose, he focuses on proving if a boy is guilty or
innocent. From the play we begin to understand we can not always trust words of others without breaking down evidence for ourselves. In act one the
men discuss the switch knife that the boy had purchased. In the courtroom the young man mentioned that he lost it and it made him seem suspicious.
Typically when we hear a suspect admit to something like this we automatically assume that they are guilty. How ever later in the play the men discuss
the wound. They

Norms:
В· Respect elders (e.g., the laborer is the self–appointed enforcer of good manners)
В· The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were
respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from
the others.
В· The decision has to be unanimous (hung jury was something nobody liked)
В· No racial prejudices were tolerated (everybody turned their backs to juror 10 when he started saying that "he knew people of these kind very well")
Processes:
The...show more content...
The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8
triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the
process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.
Roles:
Role Explanation Portrayed by Reasons
Task Oriented Roles initiator–contributor suggests new ideas to solve group problem or new ways for the group to organize the task Juror 8 (Henry
Fonda) Suggested that the jury deliberate for at least and hour information giver/seeker deals with information and facts about the group's task Juror 8
(Henry Fonda) В· Produced an identical knifeВ· Asked for the floor plan opinion seeker/giver deals with the group's values regarding its tasks Juror 8
(Henry Fonda) Presented an in–depth analysis of the facts of the case rather than a superficial viewpoint

Twelve Angry Men
Oftentimes in life, people are faced with situations in which they must work together as a group, with the intention of solving a particular problem.
This is seen throughout "Twelve Angry Men" as the jurors collaborate, in an attempt to find a verdict for the murder case. Even though these people
have never met each other before, it's necessary for them to cope with one another and their thoughts, so that they can come to an agreement. In order
to come to a conclusion, the jurors had to grow as a group through the five stages of development. Stage one is typically known as the forming phase, in
which the group tends to look towards the leader for guidance, in an attempt to keep things simple and avoid controversy. Mostly throughout the
beginning,...show more content...
After the jury had their time to share their opinions, groups based on their decision started to form. Jurors slowly started to have a reasonable
doubt in their mind and change their opinion. In the beginning all but one, juror no. 8, felt that the boy must have been guilty. Since most of jurors
were uncomfortable with each other in the beginning they grouped together because they felt it was right, but as the case progressed they started
to see what is right and group with those who supported them. It came to a point where juror no. 3 was "[all] alone," (Rose 29). Every other juror
grouped together in support that the boy who was being trialed was not guilty, in which led to connections being formed between the jurors. Even
through all of the convincing and effort put into having juror no. 3 change his opinion, they were not able to make any progress. Juror no. 3,
being an extremely opinionated man, nothing was going to change his mind so the jury had to wrap up their vote. Having the jury wrap of their
discussion and come to a final vote begins the fifth stage of development. The jury is going to submit their final decision and say goodbye. Not
much is said because there is still disagreement between the two groups of jurors. Before juror no. 8 leaves he hopes that "maybe in a few months,
[juror no. 3 will] get some sleep," (Rose 30). That was his way of saying

Twelve Angry Men
The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that
the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, logic and emotion will
collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I'm talking about is in the movie TwelveAngry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to
each other have the fate of a young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty except one who has one
reasonable doubt in his mind. The single man on his own was able to convince each of them by using logic to examine the...show more content...
Not because of fact but because of past experiences and other issues. That is why today in our legal system the jurors are now questioned to
ensure they aren't racist or hold a personal bias against anyone. During certain points in the arguments of the jurors it is obvious through what they
say that peer pressure plays a small part in deciding whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. When the first vote was cast and only one juror
voted not guilty he was under intense and hostile scrutiny. The entire group cannot see why he voted not guilty and they simply say, "tell us what
you're thinking and we'll tell you where you're all mixed up." The way I see it they are implying that the defendant is definitely guilty and the
juror who voted not guilty is just simply confused. Some of the jurors even vote guilty because they don't want to be the one who keeps the other
jurors from being able to leave. The system of voir dire has its advantages and disadvantages. Some lawyers use it to their advantage and hire jury
consultants, who try and come up with the best jury for their case, they look for things such as race, gender, and past experiences to help them
determine the person's biases. That is the lawyer's advantage and our disadvantage. That is exactly the opposite of what a jury is supposed to be made
up of. However sometimes voir dire helps to rid the jury of the racist people and helps to make it a fair trial. I believe the best way to achieve

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men Act I Vocabulary unanimous– complete agreement with no one dissenting refugee – a person who flees one country and seeks
safety somewhere else el – a train of the same design as a subway train that runs on tracks elevated a few stories above street level. retire – to leave the
open court to go to a private room calculus – a complicated mathematical process belligerently – in a hostile or angry manner monopoly – the exclusive
ownership of a business switch knife – more commonly referred to as switchblade, one whose spring–loaded blade is concealed inside the body of the
knife proposition – a deal; bargain bickering – arguing mugging – a physical attack to take money or goods from another person breeding ground – a
place...show more content...
12. Juror Twelve is in advertising, and cannot conceive of people on any level other than images. 9. What is the cause of Three's anger toward all
young men? His anger toward his own son seems to be why he feels as he does. His son, who was beaten by his father when he was young,
knocked his father down as a teenager. Then he ran away from home and has not seen his father since. 10. What does Ten's following comment
reveal about himself? "How can you believe him, knowing what he is? I lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say." Clearly he is
a very prejudiced person. He distrusts a whole race or class of people based on very limited exposure. 11. Juror Eight says he had a peculiar feeling
about this trial. What does he think was wrong? Eight feels the defense counsel did not conduct a thorough cross–examination, and many questions
were left unasked. 12. The foreman asks the guard to bring in the switchblade knife. Why? Juror Four says he feels that the jurors have a right to see
the exhibits in evidence. 13. Juror Four questions the logic of Eight's premise that the boy did lose the knife. What is his sarcastic question to Eight?
Four wants Eight to explain if he thinks someone else found the knife and stabbed the boy's father to be amusing. 14. What dramatic climax occurs
toward the end of Act I? Juror Eight jabs a knife into the wall. The knife is identical to the murder weapon. 15. What proposal does Juror Eight make
at end of the

12 Angry Men Essay Questions
11) What was the relationship between the defendant and the victim? The defendant and the victim was a son and a father respectively. Nonetheless,
the father abused the son consistently. Juror Eight stated that the defendant "'has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a
normal state of affairs for him.'" (Rose 17). 12) Why do most of the jurors get frustrated with Juror 10 (to the point that Juror Four threatens to "split
(his) skull"? Juror Ten concocted more prejudiced remarks against individuals that reside in the slums after the votes shifts to nine to three in favor of
not guilty. He rambled that "'[t]hese people are born to lie. Now, it's the way they are and no intelligent man is gonna tell me otherwise.

Twelve Angry Men
Twelve angry men essay 'Twelve angry men' shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing human decision–making processes.'
Discuss Twelve angry men by Reginald Rose is an intriguing play that explores the idea of personal experience affecting ones decision. Indeed Rose
shows that decision–making is based on personal experiences. This is evident in the play when the 3rd Juror's personal experience with his own son
influences his decision and as a result he votes for guilty, the 9th Jurors old age becomes one of the greatest factors which influences his judgement of
the boy ; when the 5th Jurors personal experience in a slum causes further doubts to form in his mind It is clear throughout the play that personal...show
more content...
Therefore personal experience is a very important factor that affects a person's

Topic: 'The 8th Juror's heroism lies in the individual courage and integrity he displays.' Reginald Rose's 'Twelve Angry Men' is a play which displays
the twelve individual jurors' characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an
outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the
other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it
fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his...show more content...
These statements display that the 8th Juror, as an individual, know exactly what he has to do as a jury member and is also honest, moral and
trustworthy enough to lead the other jurors. For that reason, we observer the 8th Juror stepping forward to become a 'saviour' of the jury system.
At last, the 8th Juror triumphs to persuade all of the jurors and accomplishes a verdict of "not guilty". Throughout the play, he tries hard to gain a
reasonable doubt and successes in doing so, resulting in acquittal of the defendant. This undoubtedly reveals the 8th Juror's fortitude in performing
his duty as a jury member. Reginald Rose uses the stage directions to leave the 8th Juror until the very end and help out the 3rd Juror who has been
exposed and broken by the 8th Juror's power in jury deliberations: 'The 8th Juror puts on his own jacket and brings the 3rd Juror's jacket to him... The
8th Juror helps him on with his jacket'. Rose's technique of using this stage direction works effectively to the audience members, giving a strong
indication of the 8th Juror's goodness, adding onto the success of persuading the 3rd Juror. Consequently, the 8th Juror is clarified as a 'favourer' to the
3rd Juror. Through the 8th Juror's characteristic of a brave individual, it is evident that the play is symbolising him as a 'hero'. From the beginning, he
puts himself

Essay about Twelve angry men
An examination of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms will help to identify their strengths and weaknesses and how their divergent approaches
can complement each other. In most cases, researchers fall into one of the two camps––either relying exclusively upon "objective" survey
questionnaires and statistical analyses and eschewing warm and fuzzy qualitative methods, or using only qualitative methodologies, rejecting the
quantitative approach as decontextualizing human behaviour. However, social researchers recognise that each approach has positive attributes, and
that combining different methods can result in gaining the best of both research worlds.
Quantitative research uses methods adopted from the physical sciences...show more content...
The greatest weakness of the quantitative approach is that it decontextualizes human behaviour in a way that removes the event from its real world
setting and ignores the effects of variables that have not been included in the model.
Qualitative research methodologies are designed to provide the researcher with the perspective of target audience members through immersion in a
culture or situation and direct interaction with the people under study. Qualitative methods used include observations, in–depth interviews and focus
groups. These methods are designed to help researchers understand the meaning people assign to social phenomena and to elucidate the mental
processes underlying behaviours. Hypotheses are generated during data collection and analysis, and measurement tends to be subjective. In the
qualitative paradigm, the researcher becomes the instrument of data collection, and results may vary greatly depending upon who conducts the research.
The advantage of using qualitative methods is that they generate rich, detailed data that leave the participants' perspectives intact and provide a context
for health behaviour. The focus upon processes and "reasons why" differs from that of quantitative research, which addresses correlation's
between variables. A disadvantage is that data collection and analysis may be labour intensive and time–consuming. In addition, these methods are not
yet totally

Theme Of Doubt In 12 Angry Men

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Theme Of Doubt In 12 Angry Men