Final answer:
Persistent observation is crucial for gathering in-depth, reliable, and valid data making it a true quality-enhancement strategy for research coding and analysis. Data that contradicts a hypothesis remains useful for furthering scientific understanding, and multiple methods apart from experimentation are valid for scientific investigation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that persistent observation is a quality-enhancement strategy useful for coding and analysis is True. Persistent observation in research refers to the in-depth and prolonged engagement in data collection with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of the subject matter. This type of rigorous observation ensures that the data is reliable (consistent and replicable) and valid (accurate), which is paramount in qualitative research for producing trustworthy outcomes. Moreover, persistent observation helps in identifying and exploring subtle nuances in the data that may otherwise be overlooked.
Data that does not support a hypothesis can still be very useful. It may provide new insights into the research question, lead to the development of new hypotheses, or uncover areas where further study is needed. Thus, all data, whether supportive or not, contributes to the scientific process.
It is False that experimentation is the only valid type of scientific investigation. Other methods such as naturalistic observation, case studies, and archival research also play vital roles in scientific inquiry. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and the choice depends on the nature of the research question and the practicalities of the situation.
In conclusion, larger sample sizes are indeed generally better than smaller ones in scientific experiments because they tend to provide more reliable results and a better representation of the population being studied.