5a - Intersection of factors – trends and explanations. Flashcards
Sampling
Sampling is the process of selecting a group of respondents from your target population. Many researchers use a sampling frame (a list such as a school register) to gain access to their sample and to make it more representative. However, to get hold of a sampling frame or to gain access to a sample researchers sometimes need a gatekeeper. The gate keeper is the person who has access and may grant it in the form of an introduction to others in the target population or by granting access to lists or files which otherwise may not be available.
Random sampling
is the simplest way to select a large sample. Using random sampling the researcher ensures that each sample unit has an equal chance of being chosen to take part in the research. This is often achieved by assigning numbers to each sample unit and selecting members of the sample by using a random number table. Random sampling is not ideal. It relies on statistical probability to ensure the representativeness of the sample. In simple terms, it is based upon the so-called ‘law of averages’, and a relatively large sample is needed for the researcher to be confident that the sample will be genuinely representative.
Stratified random sampling
involves the division of the sampling frame into groups in order to ensure that the sample is representative. The researcher identifies the important variables that need to be controlled and allocates the sampling units to different groups according to these variables. For example, the researcher might identify gender and class as important variables. In this case the population would be divided by the 2 variables (e.g working-class males etc). The proportions of the sample in each category is the same as the proportions in the population as a whole - If 20 per cent of the population were found to be working-class females, 20 per cent of the sample would be working-class females.
Stratified random sampling eval
This is an effective method of choosing a representative sample because it allows the researcher to control the variables that are seen as important. It requires a smaller sample size to ensure representativeness than random sampling. However, stratified random sampling is often not practicable. Even if a sampling frame is available, it often does not contain the information necessary to divide the population into groups.
Quota sampling
allows researchers to control variables without having a sampling frame. When quota sampling is used, the interviewers are told how many respondents with particular characteristics to question, so that the overall sample reflects the characteristics of the population as a whole. For example, an interviewer might be required to administer a questionnaire to ten married females and ten married males aged between 20 and 35. Once the quota for a particular category has been filled, responses will not be collected from those in that category.
This is a particularly useful method of sampling when the overall proportions of different groups within a population are known. Government population statistics could be used to set the quota for a representative sample of different age groups in the British population.
Quota sampling eval
Quota sampling is not truly random because each person within the population does not have an equal chance of being chosen. For example, a researcher stopping people on a particular street at a particular time can only question people who happen to be in that place at that time. The lack of genuine randomness may distort the results. Quota sampling usually requires the researcher to ask a number of personal questions to determine whether the respondent has the characteristics of a quota group which might put some interviewees off or on their guard, so that their responses are not as open and honest as they might otherwise have been. Furthermore, practical problems can arise in filling quotas. Malcolm Williams (2003) points out that it can be difficult to fill quotas of people from minority groups, such as religious sects or cults
Snowballing
involves using personal contacts to build up a sample of the group to be studied. This type of sampling is most appropriate where examples of the people to be studied are rare or widely spread, and where the people of interest are likely to know each other and they will help the researcher find more contacts. For example, it was used by Laurie Taylor when he persuaded a former criminal, to obtain introductions to members of the London underworld of professional crime. Taylor then used these contacts to obtain introductions to more criminals. Clearly, such samples cannot be representative since, to have any chance of being included, those studied must be part of a network of personal contacts.But for groups such as professional criminals it is not easy to use other ways of obtaining a sample.
Purposeful sampling
is used when the resaercher chooses people who fit their purpose i.e. they seek a particular type of person, similar to a quota sample but less rigourous.
Value free sociology
Many of the founders of sociology believed sociology could and should be value-free. Early positivists such as Comte and Durkheim argued that objectivity was attainable by adopting a ‘scientific’ methodology. Marx also believed his sociology was objective and ‘scientific’, although he saw society very differently. Weber did not think complete value-freedom was possible, but he did believe that, once a topic for research had been chosen, the researcher could be objective. He argued that sociologists should not make value judgements, that is, they should not state what aspects of society they found desirable or undesirable.
Value free sociology - funcs, marx, weber
Functionalists in general have been accused of holding politically conservative views in assuming that existing social institutions serve a useful purpose. This implies that anything other than slow evolutionary change is harmful to society.
Few would claim that Marx’s sociology was free from his political and moral beliefs. Marx’s desire for proletarian revolution influenced most aspects of his work.
Weber’s work often appears more value-free than that of functionalists or Marxists, but there is little doubt that his personal values influenced his research.
Value free sociology - impossible
Even if it is true that such eminent sociologists allowed their values to influence their research, it does not necessarily follow that it is impossible to achieve value-freedom in sociology. To many contemporary sociologists, there is, however, no prospect of a completely value-free sociology. According to this view, total objectivity is impossible because values inevitably enter every stage of the production of sociological knowledge.A sociologist also uses their own opinions and values to decide whether quantitative or qualitative methods are adopted. In designing and carrying out research all researchers have to be selective. When producing a questionnaire or planning an interview some questions have to be chosen and others excluded. The choice will be influenced by the theories and hypotheses to which a particular researcher attaches credibility.
Interpretive sociologists on quantitative methods.
Interpretive sociologists have tended to be very critical of those using quantitative methods. They have argued that many sociologists simply impose their own views of reality on the social world. As a result, they distort and misrepresent the very reality they seek to understand. Research techniques such as interviews, questionnaires and social surveys are a part of this process of distortion. They come between the sociologist and the social world and so remove any opportunity he or she might have of discovering social reality.
Weber
Weber argued that sociologists’ values should be kept out of their research, and that they should not make value judgements – judgements about right or wrong. Gouldner regards this as dishonest. Since sociologists must have values, they should be open about them so that others can decide for themselves to what degree values have influenced the research.
Some postmodernists, such as Lyotard
reject altogether the possibility of producing any objective knowledge. To Lyotard, the creation of knowledge is just a language-game which can only be judged in terms of its saleability. There is no way of distinguishing between true and untrue knowledge, no way of being objective. For many postmodern writers, knowledge simply reflects the viewpoint and the values of different social groups. No one viewpoint and set of values can be seen as superior to any other.
