UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Ex post facto research, also known as causal-comparative research, attempts to identify possible cause–effect relationships by observing existing differences after the effect has occurred. The researcher selects groups that differ on some outcome and then looks backward to see what factors might be associated with those differences. Because the independent variable is not manipulated and events have already taken place, this design is non-experimental. The stem describes exactly this situation, so it is correctly named ex post facto research.

Option A:
Experimental research involves deliberate manipulation of one or more independent variables and control of extraneous variables to observe their effect on a dependent variable. It requires careful planning of treatments and conditions before measuring outcomes, not investigation after the fact. Since the stem emphasises that the effect has already occurred and there is no manipulation, experimental research is not the correct option.

Option B:
Survey research typically aims to describe attitudes, opinions or characteristics of a population by collecting data from a sample at one point in time. While surveys can investigate relationships among variables, they do not inherently focus on post-hoc causal comparisons based on pre-existing groups. Thus, the survey label does not capture the causal-comparative nature emphasised in the question.

Option C:
Ethnographic research is a qualitative approach that involves immersion in a cultural or social setting to understand participants’ behaviours and meanings from the inside. It is more concerned with rich description and interpretation than with testing causal hypotheses based on existing differences. Consequently, ethnographic research does not fit the stem.

Option D:
Ex post facto research acknowledges that some variables, such as gender or socio-economic background, cannot be manipulated for ethical or practical reasons. Researchers therefore study them after the outcomes have occurred, using careful group selection and statistical controls. This approach is exactly what the stem describes, making ex post facto the correct answer.

Ex post facto research, literally meaning “after the fact”, investigates possible cause–effect relationships by observing existing differences and looking backward to identify potential causes. The researcher does not manipulate independent variables but selects groups that differ on some outcome. Because the events have already occurred, control over extraneous variables is limited and causal claims are cautious. Thus, the design described in the stem is correctly called ex post facto research.

Option A:
Ex post facto studies typically compare groups such as high and low achievers and then examine prior factors like teaching methods or socio-economic status that may be linked to these outcomes. The key feature is that the presumed causes are not controlled or introduced by the researcher. This fits the “after events have already occurred” emphasis in the stem, making this option correct.

Option B:
Experimental research deliberately manipulates an independent variable and randomly assigns participants to conditions, which is not possible once events have already taken place. It therefore does not match the non-manipulative, retrospective nature described.

Option C:
Longitudinal research follows the same participants over time to observe change, but it may or may not be concerned with inferring causes after the fact in the specific ex post facto sense. Hence, it is not the best completion here.

Option D:
Historical research uses documents and records to study past events in broader contexts, rather than comparing existing groups to infer immediate causal factors in the way ex post facto designs do. Therefore, it does not precisely fit the stem.

Correlational research measures variables as they naturally occur and uses statistical techniques such as correlation coefficients to assess the strength and direction of associations between them. It does not involve manipulation or random assignment and therefore cannot definitively establish causality. Nonetheless, it is valuable for identifying patterns, making predictions and generating hypotheses. Thus, the design described in the stem is correctly called correlational research.

Option A:
Experimental research manipulates independent variables and uses control groups to test causal claims, which is not the case when variables are simply observed. Therefore, experimental does not match the stem.

Option B:
Correlational designs may show that two variables vary together, but alternative explanations such as third variables or reverse causation may still exist. Because of this, researchers are cautious not to interpret correlations as proof of cause and effect. These characteristics align exactly with the description, so this option is correct.

Option C:
Historical research deals with past events and sources, not primarily with statistical association among contemporaneous variables.

Option D:
Action research focuses on practical problem solving and improvement in local settings, often using cycles of intervention, and is conceptually distinct from correlational association studies.

Causal-comparative research, also called ex post facto, compares groups that already differ on a dependent variable or on a presumed cause to explore possible causal relationships. The researcher does not manipulate the independent variable but attempts to identify factors associated with existing differences. Because groups are not formed randomly, causal inferences are tentative and based on logic rather than strict control. Therefore, the non-experimental design described is correctly termed causal-comparative research.

Option A:
Survey research collects information from respondents using questionnaires or interviews to describe attitudes, behaviours or characteristics; it is not defined by comparing pre-existing groups for causal explanation. Thus, it does not match the stem.

Option B:
Causal-comparative designs use careful selection of groups and statistical controls to reduce alternative explanations, but they cannot fully equate groups the way true experiments with random assignment can. They are useful when manipulation is impossible or unethical. These features align with the description of comparing existing groups to explore causes, so this option is correct.

Option C:
Experimental research introduces treatments and random assignment to groups to test causal hypotheses under controlled conditions, which goes beyond simply observing existing groups. Hence, it is not the best fit here.

Option D:
Ethnographic research focuses on in-depth cultural description through prolonged fieldwork and participant observation rather than formal group comparisons to explore causal factors, so it does not complete the stem.