UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Causal comparative research attempts to investigate possible cause–effect relationships by examining differences between natural groups. The researcher does not manipulate the independent variable but observes the effects of variables that have already occurred or that cannot ethically be controlled, such as gender or past experiences. Internal validity is weaker than in true experiments because rival explanations may remain.

Option A:
Option A describes essential features of true experiments, including manipulation and random assignment, which are absent in causal comparative studies.

Option B:
Option B correctly states that ex post facto studies use existing groups and nonmanipulated variables. The researcher works backward from observed differences to infer possible causes.

Option C:
Option C claims complete control over extraneous variables, which is rarely achievable even in experiments and certainly not in causal comparative designs.

Option D:
Option D restricts research to laboratory conditions, which is not a defining feature of either design; many studies of both types occur in natural settings.

In this question statements A, B, D and E reflect core features of research design, while statement C is incorrect. Statement A is true because a research design indeed acts as a blueprint guiding data collection, measurement and analysis. Statement B is correct since a well-planned design seeks to minimise bias and enhance the reliability of data, and statement D properly characterises descriptive designs as portraying characteristics of populations or phenomena. Statement E is also true as causal-comparative research explores cause–effect relationships without direct manipulation of independent variables, whereas statement C is false because even exploratory studies require at least a tentative design or plan.

Option A:
Option A includes A, B and E but leaves out D. Although A, B and E are correct, D is also a true statement about descriptive research designs. By omitting D, this combination does not include all the correct statements and so cannot be accepted as the right answer.

Option B:
Option B selects B, D and E but omits A. While B, D and E are accurate, excluding A means the crucial general idea of research design as a blueprint for the entire study is missing. A complete set of correct statements must include A as well, so this option is incomplete.

Option C:
Option C correctly groups A, B, D and E, all of which present a coherent understanding of research design and related types of studies. It omits statement C, which wrongly suggests that exploratory studies do not need any design. Since this option contains all and only the true statements, it is the correct answer.

Option D:
Option D adds statement C to the otherwise correct combination of A, D and E. Because C is false, claiming that exploratory studies never require a design, its inclusion makes the entire combination incorrect. A valid option cannot mix misleading statements with true ones, so this choice is not acceptable.

Statements A, C and D correctly portray causal-comparative research as non-experimental studies that use existing groups and try to manage extraneous variables statistically or through design. Such studies are conducted after the critical conditions have occurred, hence the term ex post facto. Statement B is false because there is no manipulation or random assignment and E is false because unmeasured factors may also explain differences, so strong causal claims are not guaranteed. Therefore, the set including A, C and D, and excluding B and E, is the only correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it includes only A and C, omitting D, which notes the attempts to control extraneous variables statistically or through design. Without D, the description understates the strategies used to strengthen inferences in causal-comparative research.

Option B:
Option B includes C and D but leaves out A, so it does not explicitly state that existing groups differing on some variable are central to this design. The absence of A means an essential definitional feature of causal-comparative studies is missing.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it combines the three statements that accurately describe what ex post facto research is, how it is timed and how it seeks to handle confounding influences. It explicitly excludes B and E, which wrongly equate it with true experimental manipulation and unjustified strong causal inference.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it contains E, the claim that group differences are necessarily due to the independent variable, which ignores possible confounds. It also omits C, thereby failing to emphasise the “after the fact” nature of these studies.