MIC possibilities Flashcards
Official Statistics – Practical Strength (Large-scale and Low Cost)
A: Official statistics provide ready-made, large datasets on achievement by class, gender, and ethnicity. → Positivists value them for being reliable, quick, and cost-effective. → Patterns like GCSE attainment gaps across ethnic groups are easily accessible. → This means researchers can spot broad trends without collecting primary data. → Counterpoint: May miss deeper causes behind the pattern
Official Statistics – Theoretical Strength (Comparability and Objectivity)
: Official statistics allow cross-group and longitudinal comparisons. → Positivists value objectivity and replicability. → Researchers can track whether gender gaps are closing over time. → This means greater reliability when assessing educational reforms. → Counterpoint: Categories are created by the state and may not reflect lived experience.
Official Statistics – Practical/Theoretical Limitation (Interpretation and Definitions)
Statistics may use broad or misleading categories (e.g., “Asian” covering many groups). → Interpretivists argue they fail to capture internal diversity and meaning. → This risks stereotyping or masking inequality within groups. → This means statistics can oversimplify complex social realities. → Counterpoint: Still useful for initial hypothesis generation.
Official Statistics – Ethical Strength (Non-intrusive Research)
A: Using secondary data avoids direct contact with vulnerable groups (e.g., pupils). → This reduces risk of harm, stress, or ethical breaches. → Researchers do not need consent when using anonymised public data. → This means research is ethically safer and avoids potential exploitation. → Counterpoint: Researchers must still be critical of how the data was originally collected.
Official Statistics – Conclusion (Usefulness for Researching Inequalities)
A: Official statistics are useful for identifying large-scale patterns of inequality in education. → They align with positivist aims of reliability and generalisability. → But they may lack validity and cultural sensitivity. → This means they are best used alongside qualitative research to understand processes behind patterns.
Documents – Practical Strength (Availability and Access)
School records, policy documents, and inspection reports are readily available and low-cost. → Positivists value them for providing official evidence over time. → Researchers can study admissions policies, exclusions, and curriculum reforms. → This means rich historical and contemporary data without direct intrusion. → Counterpoint: Access to confidential records may still be restricted.
Documents – Theoretical Strength (Insight into Institutional Values)
Documents reveal the values, priorities, and biases of schools and policymakers. → Interpretivists value qualitative data for uncovering hidden meanings. → Studying exclusion policies can show how certain groups are disadvantaged. → This means deeper verstehen into school practices and inequalities. → Counterpoint: Official documents may reflect a school’s public image rather than reality.
Documents – Practical/Theoretical Limitation (Authenticity and Representativeness)
A: Documents may be incomplete, biased, or designed for external audiences. → Researchers must assess authenticity and credibility critically. → Some documents might not represent everyday school experiences. → This means findings risk being unrepresentative or distorted. → Counterpoint: Cross-checking multiple documents improves reliability.
Documents – Ethical Strength (Non-intrusive Data Collection)
Using public documents avoids harming participants or breaching confidentiality. → No new data needs to be collected from vulnerable groups like pupils. → This means ethical issues like informed consent are less problematic. → Counterpoint: Researchers must handle sensitive information with care, especially if names or incidents are identifiable.
Documents – Conclusion (Usefulness in Researching Educational Inequalities)
Documents offer insight into school policies and hidden biases that contribute to inequality. → They align with interpretivist aims for verstehen but also provide factual trends valued by positivists. → However, authenticity and selective representation can be issues. → This means documents are best used alongside interviews or observations to build a fuller picture.
Covert Participant Observation – Theoretical Strength (Natural Behaviour and Validity)
Covert observation allows researchers to study pupils’ peer interactions without altering behaviour. → Interpretivists value this for capturing genuine attitudes and informal norms. → This means truer insights into subcultures, bullying, or rule-breaking. → Counterpoint: Researcher bias still possible when interpreting actions.
Covert Participant Observation – Ethical Limitation (Deception and Consent)
Pupils are unaware they are being studied, breaching informed consent. → This raises ethical concerns, especially with vulnerable groups like children. → It risks emotional harm if covert status is later revealed. → This means researchers must balance validity with ethical responsibilities. → Counterpoint: Some argue the greater good (uncovering hidden issues) can sometimes justify it.
Covert Participant Observation – Practical Limitation (Access and Role Conflict)
Gaining access and maintaining a convincing covert role in a school is difficult. → Researchers may face suspicion or be unable to witness key events. → Balancing researcher and participant roles can cause stress or bias. → This means covert studies are hard to sustain and manage. → Counterpoint: Careful planning and insider contacts can improve success.
Covert Participant Observation – Theoretical Limitation (Reliability and Replication)
Covert studies are unique and situation-dependent, making replication difficult. → Positivists criticise the lack of standardisation and comparability. → Findings may be seen as subjective or anecdotal. → This means results are harder to generalise across schools. → Counterpoint: Rich depth compensates for lack of breadth.
Covert Participant Observation – Conclusion (Usefulness in Researching Peer Culture)
Covert participant observation is useful for accessing hidden peer group dynamics in schools. → It offers rich verstehen and genuine behaviour. → However, ethical risks and practical difficulties are significant. → This means it is best suited to exploratory research rather than large-scale generalisations.
Q: Field Experiment – Practical Strength (Control and Causality)
Field experiments allow researchers to isolate variables like teacher expectations. → Positivists value the ability to establish cause and effect. → Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study showed how teacher perceptions influenced pupil achievement. → This means stronger evidence of the self-fulfilling prophecy. → Counterpoint: Control is harder in real-world school settings.
Field Experiment – Theoretical Strength (Realism Compared to Lab Experiments)
Field experiments take place in natural school settings, increasing ecological validity. → Pupils and teachers behave more naturally than in artificial lab environments. → This means findings about labelling and expectations are more believable. → Counterpoint: Some awareness of being studied may still alter behaviour (Hawthorne effect).
Field Experiment – Practical Limitation (Access and Implementation)
Gaining permission to manipulate variables like expectations is difficult in schools. → Ethical concerns around deception and unfair treatment make access harder. → This means fewer opportunities to conduct genuine experiments in education. → Counterpoint: Natural experiments or simulations can sometimes substitute.
Field Experiment – Ethical Limitation (Deception and Harm)
Field experiments often involve deceiving teachers or pupils (e.g., giving false information about ability). → This risks harming self-esteem or future achievement. → Ethical guidelines stress avoiding deception, especially with vulnerable groups like children. → This means strong justification and post-study debriefing are needed. → Counterpoint: Some argue knowledge gained can prevent broader long-term harm.
Field Experiment – Conclusion (Usefulness for Researching Labelling and Expectations)
A: Field experiments offer valuable evidence of how teacher expectations affect pupils. → They balance control with some ecological validity. → However, ethical risks and practical barriers limit their widespread use. → This means they are powerful but rare tools best combined with observations and interviews.
Lab Experiment – Practical Strength (High Control and Replication)
Lab experiments allow precise control over variables influencing pupil behaviour. → Positivists value their ability to replicate findings reliably. → Researchers can isolate factors like obedience to authority (e.g., replicating aspects of Milgram studies in a school context). → This means findings can be tested for consistency across samples. → Counterpoint: Artificiality may reduce external validity.
Lab Experiment – Theoretical Strength (Establishing Cause and Effect)
High control means researchers can directly link variables to outcomes (e.g., authority figure’s effect on obedience). → Causality is clearer than in naturalistic studies. → This means stronger empirical evidence for social processes in education. → Counterpoint: Overemphasis on control can oversimplify complex behaviours.
Lab Experiment – Practical Limitation (Artificial Setting and Behaviour)
School-based lab experiments often create artificial scenarios. → Pupils may act differently when they know they are being studied. → This reduces ecological validity, making findings less applicable to real-world classrooms. → This means behaviour may reflect performance rather than true attitudes. → Counterpoint: Carefully designed simulations can reduce artificiality.
Lab Experiment – Ethical Limitation (Deception and Psychological Harm)
Simulating obedience, failure, or punishment may distress pupils. → Vulnerable groups like children require additional ethical protections. → Deception without informed consent breaches ethical guidelines. → This means researchers must debrief participants thoroughly and minimise risk. → Counterpoint: Ethics committees can oversee and approve minimal-risk designs.
