In Punishing Genocide, the scholars examine empirical data retrieved from numerous court cases that took place to sentence those involved in the heinous acts that tore Rwanda apart (Hola & Nyseth, 2016). Likewise, in Obtrusive Measures, Chambliss and Schutt explore the process of content analysis and how it enables individuals to make informed decisions. In both studies, the researchers use obtrusive measures to convey their desired information to their selected audiences with the hope of accomplishing their desired goals and objectives.
In the two studies, the scholars analyze observational and derived data to respond to their research objectives. The two types of data play a critical role in the studies established by the reviews. From this realization, understanding the impact of data on the nature of findings that can be retrieved from a study process plays a vital role in addressing the identified research problems. Likewise, creating an environment where people can observe and analyze empirical data enhances the research’s credibility by eliminating bias and lies.
Both studies rely on observational and derived data to formulate their research questions and objectives. In Punishing Genocide, the scholars utilize the derived data to examine the effectiveness of the court cases and identify their impact on individuals’ perspectives towards the judicial process. Likewise, Chambliss and Schutt use observational data to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of relying on oral history to make the future (Chambliss & Schutt, 2018).
Using the obtrusive measures, researchers can eliminate the Hawthorne effect and reduce the overall cost of the research process. Likewise, researchers can correct mistakes using the obtrusive method compared to the responsive tactic where participants are focused on satisfying their cultural and stereotypical projections.