Six Weeks, One Researcher, 900 Students
A sixth-form college in Msida has 900 students aged 16–18. Its counselling service wants to know whether TikTok use is associated with body-image concerns. The counsellor has six weeks, no research budget, and one part-time assistant. Weeks 4–6 are the exam period. The college principal offers a compulsory assembly in week 2 where every student present can complete a questionnaire, but the counsellor worries about coercion and absentees. Alternatives include an anonymous online survey sent by college email, four focus groups of six to eight students, or a seven-day photo diary. The counsellor must choose a design that can be completed, is ethical, and gives findings credible enough for a staff training session. The college wants results before the next academic year, and the counsellor has never run a mixed-methods study.
1. Recommend a research design for the counsellor. Justify it in terms of sampling, response rate, validity and ethics, and explain why the compulsory assembly should or should not be used.
Read the worked answer
The compulsory assembly should not be the main design. It is coercive in a school setting, it misses absentees, it is not anonymous, and it would produce a captive sample that students may associate with the counselling service. It might yield a high raw number, but not a credible one for sensitive body-image questions.
A better six-week design is a mixed-methods study: an anonymous online survey in weeks 1–3, followed by four focus groups in week 3 before exams. For the survey, draw a stratified random sample of about 300 students by year group and gender, send two reminders, and report the response rate honestly. With 900 students, a 40–50% response from the sample would give roughly 120–150 returns, enough for descriptive comparisons and cautious associations, not causal claims. The focus groups provide meaning and help interpret survey patterns.
Ethically, use opt-in consent, make counselling support visible, avoid questions that diagnose, and keep focus groups to six to eight students with a clear confidentiality rule. The design is feasible within six weeks and avoids exam weeks, though the low budget means no incentives and limited follow-up.
2. Operationalise 'TikTok use' and 'body-image concerns' for this study. Identify one threat to validity and one way to reduce it.
Read the worked answer
'TikTok use' should not be a single yes/no item. Operationalise it as: estimated hours per day on a six-point scale; days per week; passive scrolling versus active posting; and types of content viewed (fitness, beauty, comedy, news, etc.). This distinguishes amount from mode of use.
'Body-image concerns' should be measured with several Likert items on appearance satisfaction, appearance comparison, weight or shape worry, and avoidance of photos or social situations because of appearance. A validated short scale may be used if available, but the counsellor should not diagnose. A composite score can be reported descriptively.
One major threat is reverse causality: students with existing body-image concerns may use TikTok more, so a cross-sectional association cannot show that TikTok causes harm. Reduce this by asking when concerns began relative to TikTok use, and by using focus groups to explore sequences. A second threat is social desirability; anonymity and self-completion reduce it. Common-method variance is also reduced by combining survey and focus-group data.
3. The principal says: 'If 70% of students say TikTok harms body image, we have our answer.' Critique this statement.
Read the worked answer
The statement confuses a self-report with a causal finding. A figure of 70% would depend on who was asked, how the question was worded, and whether students felt safe answering honestly. If the survey used a non-random or captive sample, 70% may not represent the college. If the item asks 'Does TikTok harm body image?', it invites a culturally available answer and may measure awareness, not experience.
The principal also assumes that a majority statement is an explanation. To show harm, the study would need comparison: do heavy users report more concerns than light users or non-users? Do concerns predate use? Are there alternative explanations such as exam stress, peer comparison or existing mental-health difficulties? The focus groups can help, but they cannot prove causation either.
The defensible answer is: the study can describe how many students report concerns and how they connect these to TikTok, but it cannot say TikTok harms 70% of students. The staff training should present the findings as patterns and interpretations, with limits stated.