WLR Book Chapter 1 Activities

This is for the activities found in Chapter 1 of our WLR textbook. (Chapters 2&3) to be found in module 2.

The study: Basketball Shot Types and Shot Success in Different Levels of Competitive Basketball, by Frane Erčulj & Erik Štrumbelj https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128885 

1. The study “analysed video footage and categorized 5024 basketball shots from 40 basketball games and 5 different levels of competitive basketball.” The sample issue being that because of the variety in level of basketball, the results could not apply to one group. As in if they had only sampled 40 different NBA games, their findings could be applied to a smaller more capturable group. However because the sample was so varied, there is little to suggest that a rule for youth basketball is the same as it is for professionals. Further by trying to draw out trends from 4 games per level, they are limiting their sample size within the subgroups.

2. Yes, because the researchers chose to observe multiple levels of basketball, looking for the most effective shots. However by choosing multiple levels of basketball they skewed their study since the different levels have unique rules, equipment, and ball size. Ball size is amazingly important in basketball at the youth level the diameter of the ball decreases- while the diameter of the “hoop” stays the same.This prevalence of unique variables is a concern for the study. Further, by choosing multiple levels the reader does not know the skill of the participants or the teams in their respective levels. Example: If they watched 4 NBA playoff games where the participants have shown themselves to be the elite of the elite, or 4 pre-season games where rosters are allowed to be double their normal size and often feature local celebrities?

3. More than I can count to be honest, and that is exactly why I chose an article regarding empirical research in sport. Because there are an indefinite number of unique variables in the game down to the participants, setting, refereeing, and  many others. The main issue I would highlight is that while the title of the study is “Basketball Shot Types and Shot Success in Different Levels of Competitive Basketball”, the author writes in the study that there are many “uncategorised shot types” a major problem when the study is trying to say which is the most effective.

4. I think the attempt is very important and impressive, but there are too many issues to suggest it would be a major contribution. I think that there are many good ideas that further, larger studies could build on, but overall I think the study lags behind the “data revolution” occurring in sports right now, that try to categorise the unique variables in each game. Also the scope of the study left much to be desired. 

2. 

1. The title indicates the topic, and while it does stick to it, I think the paper spends a little too much time introducing a background of what is infidelity. However I think it does a wonderful job examining the limitations of the study. They explain the main subject “Demand and Withdraw” communication styles, and further dive into the gender differences found in those behaviors.

2. Yes, I felt the paper did a fantastic job of tying all of its subtopics together into one cohesive paper. This was very important given that each subtopic fed into the other, culminating in understanding what “demand and withdraw” is, and the variables found within it. All of which made for a strong essay and clear indicator as to why the study is called for.

3. I feel that it was mostly a summary of other works. In this example, “Dissatisfied couples are more likely to engage in negative conflict communication behaviors including criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and withdrawal (Gottman, 1993)” the authors merely summarize a conclusion made in 1993, as fact to support their hypothesis. I found this section to be the closest the authors get to critiquing a previous work on the subject  “Several theoretical perspectives have been proposed to account for this gender difference in conflict behavior including power differences, intimacy regulation, and gender roles (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Nichols & Rohrbaugh, 1997). However, recent empirical evidence suggests that demand and withdraw behavior is often dependent on the context in which it occurs (Holley, Sturm & Levenson, 2010; Vogel, Murphy, Werner Wilson, Cutrona, & Seeman, 2007) and that one omnibus theoretical model may not adequately explain variations in demand and withdraw behavior.” Here they are at least comparing a school of thought or group of theories with statistical evidence, and suggesting their line of thinking will follow the data, not the theory.

4. Yes, I think they do. Because the point of a literature review is to condense and summarize the previous research, and data collected on your subject. Throughout they not only summarized previous research but said clearly how they would be building on it with their own.