Discussion and Conclusion
In conclusion, we believe we have proven our hypothesis to be correct; the humans on campus are less active physically than those off campus. Though our hypothesis could have been more concrete and specific, our observations more thorough, and our record of data more specific, we have conducted a successful experiment that could be tested continuously. In a perfectly un-awkward world, we could have studied the humans more closely in range than from afar. This would have made it easier to understand exactly what they were doing at any given movement than looking away from them when we felt like they suspected us studying them. But this is also the excitement in the study.
We have chosen groups of humans at random to conduct our experiment, and successfully recorded data in a well thought out table which allows others to know and understand what is happening at every minute of the experiment. What might be better done in the future is to expand our research location and to fully forget what we think we already know about the humans. To conduct a more thorough observation and record more specific data, we need to forget what we believe we already know about the humans as well as expanding our area of research so that we can fully grasp the activity of the humans.
The influence of power we had on this experiment were the two control groups because we decided in the hypothesis that there would be only two control groups that were similar in interactions but contrasted in locations and our study narrowed down which also allowed our research to be more accurate but not vague. On the other hand, there could have been an improvement on how each of our individual researchers observed the different human groups which means avoidance of being noticed by the two control groups so that there are no interference with the group interactions.
It is difficult to approach the humans as animals under study, since this is the first time any of us in our group have ever treated a human as such. We have always categorized humans as something other than animals, and to put them in that category felt a little strange.
Results in this experiment may be biased due to so much study of the humans taking place in central locations. Humans within crowds (when on campus) may act very differently than humans in solo settings. The reason for so much data taking place in the cafeteria and central quad is because there are a lot of subjects to take note on and it is much easier to do so without being noticed and confronted by the subjects. Upon finishing the research and comparing the different data collected, our research group agreed that upon commitment of a similar hypothesis; instead of observing on days of different weather we have to focus on trying to get observations on days with similar weather patterns as the previous observations in order to have a more discrete and detailed result.
If another primatologist were to conduct this experiment, I think they would have recorded much of the same observations as us. We paid diligent attention to each of the subjects to record as much data as we could in our minimal amount of time. After a few subjects were recorded, it was obvious to anyone that subjects on campus were much less physically active than those off, so any primatologist could have concluded that our hypothesis had much truth behind it. The humans are so much more than they appear to be and we have only seen a small portion of what these humans do.