Ashley Hedquist

Honors 375

Professor Ashley Singleton

23 April 2024

Research Development Essay

At Minnesota State University, Mankato, I have majored in political science and

minored in biology. I have been required to take classes that deal with understanding and

performing the research methods in each of the two fields. Biology research and political

analysis are very different from one another due to the subjects one is researching yet

surprisingly there are many similarities as well. I believe both courses offered a new perspective

on what research looks like to me through learning about the different research methods as well

as practicing it first-hand.

During my second year at MSU, I took General Biology 1 and 2. These courses both

explain in great detail what scientific research looked like and how it has impacted science and

the world as a whole. In general biology 1 and 2, we were taught the scientific method and how

to use it when performing our own experiment(s) in relation to a given discipline or area or

biology. In scientific research, the steps to performing scientific research are: make

observations, form a scientific question, form a scientific hypothesis based on the question,

perform an experiment, analyze the data/results, state whether the results support the hypothesis,

and draw/state conclusions. In most cases, when sharing your experiment and its results it is

done through a scientific paper along with a shorter presentation describing the main points. In a
scientific paper, the paper is divided into the abstract, introduction, materials and methods,

results, discussion, and conclusion.

In biology 1, myself and another student paired together to create an experiment in order

to determine the optimum environmental conditions (temperature, pH, and concentration) in

which peroxidase (the enzyme used) worked best in. In this experiment, cylinders of brassica

rapa (white turnips) were used as the source of peroxidase which were exposed to hydrogen

peroxide in various temperature and pH conditions as well as concentration levels. At the end of

the semester, we were to write a lab report explaining our findings. Our experiment was

conducted by manipulating the environment and observing the gas pressure of each environment

to determine the rate of the reaction. Prior to the experiment, we created a hypothesis stating

that we believed the environment does affect the enzyme activity which affects the rate of the

reaction. Our data at the conclusion of the experiment supported this hypothesis. When the

concentration of pH increased, so did the enzyme activity. When the temperature was at room

temperature, the enzyme activity was the greatest. Thus, when the enzyme activity was the

greatest, the rate of the reaction was fastest.

Within the experiment, many things could have gone wrong which could have led to

inaccurate results including: unequal sized brassica rapas (white turnips used in the experiment)

could have been trimmed, the stopper not immediately being placed onto the test tube to collect

data, the brassica rapa and liquid not sitting for long enough to equilibrate, the brassica rapa

not being rinsed/washed enough, incorrectly pipetted amounts of water and/or H2O2 ,or the

stopper of the Gas Pressure system may have not gotten tightly sealed on the test tube when the

desktop collected the data. As biologists, we had to look at what could have gone wrong and
how we would change our experiment in a way to minimize the sources of error if we were to

perform the experiment again (if time and resources allowed). With that being said, in the future

if the experiment was performed again, we conclude that, the time the brassica rapas and H2O2

and water (substrate) are exposed to the conditions could be extended to ensure that the results

are more accurate. Additionally, one should stress the importance of placing the stopper on the

test tube immediately after the contents were mixed to ensure the full reaction is captured and

recorded. With that said, identifying and disclosing the potential sources of error is an ethical

practice in biology. If sources of error are ignored or not disclosed, it would be highly unethical

because it undermines the trustworthiness of the results and compromises the integrity of the

scientist and the research itself. Other types of research misconduct consist of falsification,

fabrication and plagiarism of results. The consequences of research misconduct can erode trust

between other scientists, the research would fail to enhance human knowledge,

materials/resources would be wasted, and there could be academic sanctions.

In general biology 2, a partner and I set up and conducted our own experiment. The

experiment was set up to study the bean beetle’s preference of bean color and how it relates to

oviposition. Two beans of different colors were compared, pinto beans were the darker beans

that were used in the experiment, and Great Northern beans were the lighter beans used in the

experiment. An equal amount of each bean type was placed into each replication of the

experiment, but the two bean types were separated on different sides of the petri dish. After the

experiment was conducted, and the data from each replication was combined, the results showed

that the mean number of eggs laid on the beans was higher for the darker pinto beans. Because

of this finding, it can be concluded that Callosobruchus maculatus, bean beetles, prefer darker

colored beans to be hosts for their larva. However, the comparison between the number of eggs
laid on each bean type proved to be not significantly different. There were likely a few sources

of error throughout the experiment which would have affected our results as well. The overall

conclusion of the study was that our hypothesis was supported and there were higher oviposition

rates on the Pinto beans. We were also asked to write a full lab report based on our experiment.

Our data results in the experiment were not significantly different, which signified that

there were likely multiple sources of error. A potential source of error could include lack of

consideration of other seed characteristics, incorrect data collection/math and/or inability to

properly distinguish males versus females. Since the seeds used in this experiment are two

different seed types,the difference in texture, moisture, nutrient content, and size (etc.) may have

had an impact on the beetles' preferences rather than just the color. Therefore, the differences

between the seeds account for sources of error due to the lack of uniformity/constant

characteristics. Additionally, the eggs could have been incorrectly counted which would give us

inaccurate data. Not only so, but the math used to obtain our statistical results could have been

performed incorrectly due to a use of the wrong formula in Microsoft Excel, wrong number

input, or simply personal errors. In terms of the experiment set up, we could not correctly

distinguish males versus females. This may have caused an imbalance between males and

females which would not affect the results in deciphering if seed color affects oviposition, but it

would affect the overall egg count and statistical values.

As scientists, it's extremely important to reflect upon our results and address any

modifications needed if we were to do the experiment again. If we did this experiment again, we

concluded that we would add more replications to prevent variation within the individual data

sets. Additionally, adding more replications would produce more accurate results overall as
hopefully the data would show greater preference from one bean type to another. We also would

aim to control the bean variations/different characteristics as much as possible. When redoing

this experiment, we should decide on two of the same bean types with different seed coat colors.

We would aim for the seeds to be as close in size to one another as possible. Both approaches

would ensure that the seed size or type would not play a role in the beetles’ oviposition

preferences. Our experiment and the results can influence how farmers try to control the beetles

by altering their oviposition preferences which displays the impotence of scientific research.

Comparatively, social science research is quite different. Biology aims to understand the

natural world whereas social sciences seek to understand the human level. In social science,

people, groups, economies, and/or opinions are gathered and collected. From there a political

analyst or social scientist organizes the data to come to a conclusion. Similarly, in the biological

sciences, a hypothesis can be formed in some situations and then at the conclusion the

hypothesis is either supported or rejected. To come to conclusions, the same software can be

used to organize and formulate the results, but numbers of people or votes are used as the data

variables. Data can be collected through surveys, observations, interviews, and/or discussions.

For example, in my political science class, Political Analysis, we had to find a public

opinion poll and describe its findings. The poll I chose was, “Views on Medication for Weight

Management” which aimed to discover people's strategies for weight managements, awareness

and use of prescription medications for weight managements, as well as Medicare coverage on

the medications. NORC at the University of Chicago conducted the survey for the University of

Michigan’s Institute of Healthcare Policy and Innovation. The University of Michigan National

Poll on Healthy Aging took a national sample of 2,657 adults ranging from 50-80 years old
using NORC’s AmeriSpeak probability panel. The survey was given online and through phone

calls from July 17th to August 7th of 2023. The completion rate was 50 percent among

participants. The margin of error was ±1 to 5 percentage points for the questions asked to the

entire sample. It was higher among the subgroups. The poll’s sampling method was stratified

random sampling. The sampling method aimed to reflect populations throughout the United

States by randomly selecting people of that given age group (50-80 years old) which creates the

subgroup necessary for stratified sampling.

In contrast to biological science, the data results and possible errors come from

questions’ wording or the way in which questions can be answered. In the poll described above,

I think the questions were very straightforward and did not allow room for much influence or

swaying. The first three questions pertained to whether the participants had heard of the

medications, if they had taken any, and where they heard about the medications. Additionally,

the pollsters wrote underneath the questions “select all that apply”. I believe this helped to not

influence certain choices or cause bias in the answers as the participants could select multiple

different answers. I believe the last two questions of the poll were somewhat unclear. Question 8

asked “Have you ever been overweight?”. The final question, question 9, said “Currently, I

am…” and prompted participants to select “underweight, about the right weight, slightly

overweight, or overweight.” I believe these questions are unclear because they do not explicitly

state what being overweight (or any other category) is. One person might see one category

different from others or place themselves in a category different from what the pollsters had

assumed each category weight criteria was. Thus, when/if pollsters wanted to break down the

results by weight category, I think it would be partially inaccurate due to the inexplicit

breakdown of weight categories as it would not accurately describe the weight classes'
opinions/views. Yet, I believe the questions themselves, disregarding the last two, would be

useful to the pollsters and the information they are seeking. On the flip side, if answered

correctly with the same assumptions about weight classes, the pollsters would gain an

abundance of information broken down by the weight class subgroups. This would give

pollsters a greater understanding of the people who have positive views on the medications in

comparison to the negative viewpoints. Thus, I was able to see how crucial questions and their

wording really was.

Additionally in my political science class, we were given data sets based off of a

nationwide survey on a large variety of different subjects. For some assignments we were asked

to use the data sets to calculate other data results. From people’s answers we were able to

calculate using excel or R software other data sets such as margin of error, standard deviation,

etc. This was quite familiar to me as it was the same concepts used in biology 1 and 2 only using

different types of data. Even though the data being collected and observed were vastly different,

I believe the concept of analyzing the data was very similar between the two subjects.

In the future, I will continue to use both the research methods used in Biology as well as

Political Analysis. Furthermore, I plan to potentially conduct my own social science research

within the next year. That said, I will be able to build high quality, unbiased survey questions.

These survey questions will ensure that I receive the best possible results and a smaller margin

of error. In class, I learned how to analyze the results as well as figure out different statistical

marks such as the margin of error. With this knowledge, I will be able to interpret my own

research and present upon it. Since I have learned the steps to perform social science research, it

will increase my own confidence when in both the presentation as well as the research itself. My
exact research application plans are still to be decided yet I know that due to both of my classes

I will be able to form an accurate, well-thought out, research experience.