methods used by sociologists

Question 1

strengths of questionnaires

Answer 1

-Quick and cheap
-Data is easy to quantify
-No training required e.g. with interviewer/observers
-Researcher does not need to be present
-Ethical as not forced to complete the questionnaire and consent and right to withdraw is required
-Questionnaires mainly consist of the same questions in the same order, so consistent and reliable easy to replicate
-Good for hypothesis testing and cause-and-effect of correlation as can make predictions so preferred by positivists
-they are also detached and objective as sociologist’s person involvement is very limited.

Question 2

weaknesses of questionnaires

Answer 2

-cheap, but sometimes incentives/rewards may need to be offered
-Questionnaires are inflexible because of the set structure
-too detached Hawthorne effect as mainline answers or forget research isn’t percent, so participants can’t ask questions - all affect validity
-low response rate means less data collected collected so less representative
-Cannot explore new areas of interest will get a full valid insight as inflexible
-Only a snapshot- give a picture of social reality at a new one moment in Time does not capture changes in peoples attitudes and behaviours
-Not used by interpretivists as questionnaires and too detached so there is no way to clarify meaning questionnaires
-More likely to impose researcher’s own meanings, so there is bias in analysis of data.

Question 3

strengths of participant observations

Answer 3

-flexible methods, as you were entering with an open mind, and experiencing second form, new explanations, and have avenues to explore
-‘verstehen’ is achieved because you are living in the reality with those who are being observed, so you have empathy and understanding
-Rich data from the perspective of who you are observing
-Preferred by interpretivists due to ‘verstehen’

Question 4

weaknesses of participant observations

Answer 4

-time-consuming and impractical as you need a lot of training and it is difficult to try to be accepted to stay in get in and get out and also personal characteristics may make a restrictive
-Difficult to take notes when involved in activities
-deception to be accepted
-Depending on your own personal experiences are unlikely to generate reliable data due to the researchers personal skills and characteristics having an impact
-Researcher present as part of the group can order the group dynamics through the Hawthorne effect
-Often group study is very small and and is unlikely to be chosen at random so unrepresentative

Question 5

weaknesses of non participant observations

Answer 5

-‘verstehen’ is not achieved, so you cannot fully understand the perspective of the group
-Difficult to carry out covertly, so there is risk of the Hawthorn effect

Question 6

strengths of non participant observations

Answer 6

-more practical as less training is needed, and you don’t need acceptance, which would be time consuming
-Can easily take notes as you’re not involved in activity so you won’t miss anything
-you have to be open about the fact you’re starting to participants so need consent and right to withdraw
-More reliable, less likely to be swayed by research is experiences as part of the group and researcher is likely to be more objective
-Less likely to disrupt groups normal behaviour
-More groups may be open to you coming to observe so more representative sample
-Positivists prefer as it is objective and reliable data

Question 7

strengths of unstructured observations

Answer 7

-Qualitative data, so you have a deep inside so more valid
-Does not make assumptions in advance about the key research issues, so more valid
-Preferred by interpretivists as there is qualitative data, and you can understand meaning

Question 8

weaknesses of unstructured observations

Answer 8

-difficult to analyse qualitative data
-Time-consuming to write everything down
-Difficult to know what to look for
-Difficult to replicate
-May be greater risk of observer bias, as there are no behavioural categories

Question 9

strengths of overt observations

Answer 9

-can openly take notes are less likely to forget or falsely, write something down
-Less time-consuming, as you don’t need to practice blending in
-Required to get informed consent
-No deception
-Can have into observer reliability, when more than one observer is taking notes
-Can ask follow-up questions

Question 10

weaknesses of overt observations

Answer 10

-longer to prepare for as you need to gain access and get permission from everyone being observed
-Greater risk of the Hawthorne effect as participants are whether they are being studied
-Probably will study less people as need permission from everyone taking part so less representative. Gatekeepers also prevent access.

Question 11

strengths of structured observations

Answer 11

-easier and quicker to analyse data as quantitative and easier to code behaviour and to know what to look for
-Can easily be replicated to confirm results, and measure consistency so reliable
-Less likely for there to be researcher bias as no interpretation is needed
-Positivists prefer this, as is quantitative data and data can easily be directly compare to see patterns and relationships

Question 12

weaknesses of structured interviews

Answer 12

-then maybe inconsistencies in numbers and tallies, if you miss out on behaviour
-Quantitative data means a loss of validity as frequency doesn’t tell us a lot about meaning
-Only useful in small scale interactions, so less people means it’s less representative

Question 13

strengths of covert observations

Answer 13

-easier to gain access, because the researcher does not have to seek permission
-High ecological validity, people observed in their natural setting/surroundings
- don’t know they’re being studied so no Hawthorne effect
-Can study more people so a more representative sample

Question 14

weaknesses of covert observations

Answer 14

-requires the researcher to keep up an act and always has a risk to cover might be blown so time consuming to learn to blend in in order to avoid suspicion
-If you don’t know you’re in a study, you can’t t get informed consent and us the right to withdraw
-Deception as you are keeping information secret, and may have to lie about the reasons for leaving the group at the end
-May have to participate in immoral/illegal activities as part of their cover, and may have a moral legal duty to intervene- guilty knowledge
-cannot ask important questions so lack of insight as you don’t reach the full picture
-Have to rely on memory accuracy
-Can’t ask follow up questions

Question 15

strengths of the comparative method

Answer 15

-ethical issues are limited if you have permission to use the data
-More likely to be practical as use of secondary data
-Can be used to study historical topics
-accessing real data, so more likely to be valid
-More likely to be representative than other experiments, if you have access to lots of data
-Positivists prefer it as it is good for establishing cause-and-effect

Question 16

weaknesses of the comparative method

Answer 16

-practicality depends on how easy it is to access the secondary data
-May not have permission to use some data
-Data may be out of date/original collection may not have been valid
-Data might not be available on certain groups of people so less representative

Question 17

strengths of field experiments

Answer 17

-can be more practical than a lab experiment as less control is needed
-More valid as experiment takes place in a natural setting so high, ecological validity
-participants are unaware they are in a study, so there is low/no risk of the Hawthorne effect
-Interpretivist may use them as a more valid, but they are still unlikely to use any experiments as the aim is to establish cause-and-effect, and they are not interested in this -social action

Question 18

weaknesses of field experiments

Answer 18

-cannot study the past
-Lack of consent, don’t know they’re being studied so do m not have a right to withdraw
-It is difficult to control oh variables extraneous variables may have an impact making it more difficult to establish cause-and-effect
-Difficult to replicate and produce consistent results
Depending on the location, you choose, you are more likely to use who is available, so the sample may be unrepresentative
-Positivists would avoid field experiments because there is less control over extraneous variables

Question 19

strengths of lab experiments

Answer 19

-likely to have to ask for their permission so consent is required and they can leave the study if they want to say there is right to withdraw
-They attempt to control variables, consistent, step-by-step instructions, ensure all participants experience the same thing and measures data objectively so reliable
-positivists prefer this as lab experiments are useful for identifying cause-and-effect, which makes behaviour predictable

Question 20

weaknesses of lab experiments

Answer 20

-can only be based on the present because you cannot control variables are acting in the past, so makes it difficult to look at historical information
-KEAT AND URRY- and society is an open system(predictions will never be 100% accurate as countless factors, interact), while labs are closed systems (variables can be controlled and measured)
-More likely to show the Hawthorne effect as participants know they are being studied
-Recruiting participants for lab experiment can be difficult because often requires staff to come to a designated location where you can control the variables so the sample might be smaller and less representative
-Interpretivists believe we have free will and can make choices about what we do, so cause-and-effect is not important to them

Question 21

strengths of structured interviews

Answer 21

-Quick and fairly cheap to administer
-Training is relatively straightforward and inexpensive
-Can cover quite large numbers of people with limited resources
-Easily quantified
-Easy for the researcher to standardise and control so reliable
-Inflexible so reliable
-Higher response rates compared to questionnaires as people may find it hard to turn down a face-to-face request, and some may welcome the opportunity to talk
-Preferred by positives, because the results are easily quantified

Question 22

weaknesses of structured interviews

Answer 22

-more costly than emailing questionnaires
-Inflexible, so cannot ask follow-up questions
-Usually have close ended questions
-Interviewers have very little freedom to clarify, misunderstandings, or explain questions
-People may lie or exaggerate
-No rapport is built
-merely snapshots taken at one time
-Time-consuming, so may have lower response rates
-Criticised by interpretivist and feminists

Question 23

weaknesses of unstructured interviews

Answer 23

-need more thorough training
-More time-consuming to conduct
-Difficult to quantify
-Flexible, so less reliable and not standardised as each interview as unique
-Takes a long time to conduct, so often a smaller sample and less representative
-not used by positivists as it is difficult to pre-code answers and there is a lack of quantitative data so it is difficult to establish cause-and-effect

Question 24

strengths of unstructured interviews

Answer 24

-sensitive issues can be covered as a rapport has been built BUT LACK OF CONFIDENTIALITY
-Informed consent and right to withdraw so ethical
-Rapport and sensitivity can put interviewee at is so they could be more honest
-flexible, so can avoid answering uncomfortable questions
-Can elaborate on answers
-easier for interviewer/ee to check each other’s meanings
-Preferred by interpretivists as there a open ended questions with qualitative data

Question 25

strengths of group interviews

Answer 25

-participants may feel more comfortable being with others and are more likely to open up
-in a discussion participants of them through ideas around stimulating each other’s thinking which produces richer and more reflective data
-They can be a useful way of generating initial ideas that can be followed up by later research
-The research can combine questioning with the opportunity to observe group dynamics and norms

Question 26

weaknesses of group interviews

Answer 26

-one or two individuals may dominate the discussion so less representative
-Much depends on the researcher’s ability to keep the group focused on the discussion topic- training needed
-Peer group pressure to conform to group norms may lead to participants not saying what they really think
-Data generated from group interaction is more complex and difficult to analyse

Question 27

strengths of documents

Answer 27

-public documents are often easily accessible (e.g. because of parental choice, Gillborn had access to lots of docs: policy statements, guidelines on anti-racism)
-public sources are free- not costly
-public docs do not require permission
-many public documents e.g. attendance registers are produced in a systematic format-highly reliable as can make direct comparisons of absence rates
-some education docs can be replicated e.g. by analysing using systematic content analysis to compare data e.g. LOBBAN- 179 stories from 6 reading schemes
-can provide important insights compared to with observations and interviews e.g. HEY used notes passed by students
-some official docs are legally required by all schools e.g. racist incidents means highly representative data

Question 28

weaknesses of documents

Answer 28

-personal documents are harder to access e.g. girls good at hiding notes and require permission, sometimes NO informed consent e.g. HEY got notes from wastepaper bin
-some educational docs are confidential (e.g. teachers’ personal files and pupils’ disciplinary records) so hard to access
-deliberate falsifications/ accidental mistakes when filling out docs (e.g. attendance registers) lowers reliability and thus validity
-all docs are open to interpretation (e.g. HEY’s interpretations may not match the girls’ meanings) so less valid
-personal documents are less representative (e.g. unsystematic way HEY came by- unrepresentative sample)

Question 29

strengths of official statistics

Answer 29

-a free source of huge amounts of data ( from over 30,000 primary and 4,000 secondary)
-allows comparisons between groups
-collected at regular intervals (e.g. annually gathered exam results)
-govs gather stats to monitor effectiveness of policies
-compiled in a standardised way by properly trained people- can be replicated so highly reliable
-hard statistics are valid and soft statistics attempt to compensate using self-report methods
-cover very large numbers and care is taken with sampling procedure (all state schools have to complete a school census 3x a yr: attendance, ethnicity, gender, no. of FSM)
-favoured by Positivists: standardised, QN data, representative, shows trends
DURKHEIM said they are social facts, objective and can test their hypotheses to find cause-and-effect

Question 30

weaknesses of official statistics

Answer 30

-gov collects statistics for its own purpose and not benefit of sociologists
-definitions state uses might be different to those sociologists use and definitions may change over time
-census coders may make errors or omit info or public may fill our incorrectly so less reliable and thus less valid
-soft stats are less valid as all incidents may not be recorded, less standardised, may not realise they have been victims of e.g. crime
-schools may try to be socially desirable
- (ATKINSON) socially constructed- truancy reports can be manipulated (e.g. redefining poor attenders as being on study leave/work experience) SO LESS VALID
-Marxists argue that the statistics the state produces are part of the ruling-class ideology, helping to maintain the capitalist class of power

Question 31

strengths of longitudinal studies

Answer 31

-trace developments over time rather than just taking one ‘snapshot’ of one moment
-can identify causes by making comparisons over time

Question 32

weaknesses of longitudinal studies

Answer 32

-sample attrition: people dropping out, the dropouts may not be typical of those who stay in making the sample less representative
-large amounts of data can be difficult to analyse and results can not be obtained quickly
-costly