Primary data Flashcards
questionnaires
- ‘closed’ or’open’
- right questions, neutral & objective
- clear and short
- eg: CENSUS, CSEW, Jackson
general questionnaire strengths
- P) time & cost: cheap & fast
- sensitive topic
- E) informed consent
- T) minimal contact, researcher bias
general questionnaire weaknesses
- P) low response rate
- cant be sure who completes
- E) deception of research purpose
- T) low response =x representative
- interpret the questions
- social desirability
- operationalisation
structured questionnaires strengths
- P) time & cost, standardised
- T) high reliability
- cover large scale, representative
structured questionnaires weakness
-T) low validity, fixed responses
unstructured questionnaire strengths
-T) high validity & qualitative
unstructured questionnaire weakness
- T) low validity, lack of space
- low reliability, interpret
longitudinal study strength
-T) can pick up trends> snapshot
longitudinal study weakness
- P) time consuming
- T) ‘drop out’ rate = less representative
- hawthorne effect
interviews
-structured: i schedule & quant
-unstructured: guided convo & qual
-focus groups, panel interviews
-eg : SI, Humphreys, CSEW
UI, D&D, Jackson
unstructured interviews strengths
- P) flexibility of i schedule
- check understanding
- groups, more comfortable to open up
- suited to sensitive topics
- T) high validity, trust & rapport
- groups, throw around ideas
- can explore unfamiliar topics
unstructured interviews weakness
- P) high time & cost, transcribing
- respondents unwilling to verbalise
- E) protection harm (questions)
- T) dominating convo
- smale scale, x generalise/rep
- low reliability
- validity, interviewer bias of q’s or c’s
structured interviews strengths
- P) time & cost, stick to script
- T) representative, large scale
- higher response rate
- high reliability, standardised
structured interviews weakness
- P) inappropriate for sensitive
- validity, fixed responses
- interviewer bias
observation
- ethnography (Humphrey, Blackman)
- overt (Willis, Venkatesh)
- covert (Patrick, Williams)
- participant/ non-participant
general observation strengths
- T) high validity, people unaware of acts
- insider view of natural environment
- develop rapport
general observation weakness
- P) time consuming & access to group
- T) small scale, low rep/gen
- validity, Hawthorne effect
covert participation strengths
- P) topic studied, access to hard to reach
- high flexibility
- T) provides clear, valid picture
covert participation weakness
- P) access to group, gatekeeper
- researcher characteristics
- E) legality & immorality (Patrick)
- protection from harm (Ken Pryce)
- deception
- T) can become biased, ‘go native’ & ‘getting out’
- low representativeness & reliability
- validity & note taking
overt non-participant strength
- P) researcher characteristics
- E) informed consent, deception, protection
- T) reliability, structured observation table
- validity & note taking
- more objective
overt non-particpant weakness
-T) hawthorne effect
experiments
- make hypothesis
- control ind (cause) and dep (effect) variables
- field (Humphrey, Blackman) and lab (Milgram)
field experiments strengths
- P) access to group
- T) high validity, unaware of observation
field experiment weakness
- P) difficult to control variables
- E) deception, informed consent
- T) certainty of variables
- representativeness
lab experiment strengths
- E) informed consent
- T) controlled enviroment, cause/effect
- more objective and reliable
lab experiment weakness
- P) open system & snapshot
- E) deception (Milgram)
- T) hawthorne effect
- low representativeness
official statistics
- carried out by gov, usually social policy
- eg CENSUS, General Lifestyle Survey, National Chidl Development Study, crime, health, suicide…
official statistics strength
- P) time & cost
- wide range of topics in detail
- E) collected by gov, no deception, consent
- T) cover large scale, representative
- shows patterns/trends over time
- allows comp between groups
- generally reliable
official statistics weakness
- P) topic studied, unavailable
- operationalisation eg poverty
- E) protection from harm (stereotypes)
- T) lack validity, ‘dark figure of crime’
- may be massaged for political purpose
- lack reliability, definitions change
documents
- personal: diaries, photos, letters, biographies, social media
- egs Anne Frank
- public: produced by gov agencies, held in National Archive
- eg Macpherson Report, Lammy Review, OFSTED
personal docs strength
- P) sometimes only available source
- prov background info
- offers extra check for primary
- cost and time
- T) very valid, achieve verstehen
- offers extra check w/ triangulation
personal docs weakness
- P) access, confidential diaries
- E) informed consent
- protectin from harm if illegality
- T) authenticity, credibility, representativeness, meaning
- unreliable, unstandardised
- highly subjective
- ‘closed’ or’open’
- right questions, neutral & objective
- clear and short
- eg: CENSUS, CSEW, Jackson
questionnaires
- P) time & cost: cheap & fast
- sensitive topic
- E) informed consent
- T) minimal contact, researcher bias
general questionnaire strengths
- P) low response rate
- cant be sure who completes
- E) deception of research purpose
- T) low response =x representative
- interpret the questions
- social desirability
- operationalisation
general questionnaire weaknesses
- P) time & cost, standardised
- T) high reliability
- cover large scale, representative
structured questionnaires strengths
-T) low validity, fixed responses
structured questionnaires weakness
-T) high validity & qualitative
unstructured questionnaire strengths
- T) low validity, lack of space
- low reliability, interpret
unstructured questionnaire weakness
-T) can pick up trends> snapshot
longitudinal study strength
- P) time consuming
- T) ‘drop out’ rate = less representative
- hawthorne effect
longitudinal study weakness
-structured: i schedule & quant
-unstructured: guided convo & qual
-focus groups, panel interviews
-eg : SI, Humphreys, CSEW
UI, D&D, Jackson
interviews
- P) flexibility of i schedule
- check understanding
- groups, more comfortable to open up
- suited to sensitive topics
- T) high validity, trust & rapport
- groups, throw around ideas
- can explore unfamiliar topics
unstructured interviews strengths
- P) high time & cost, transcribing
- respondents unwilling to verbalise
- E) protection harm (questions)
- T) dominating convo
- smale scale, x generalise/rep
- low reliability
- validity, interviewer bias of q’s or c’s
unstructured interviews weakness
- P) time & cost, stick to script
- T) representative, large scale
- higher response rate
- high reliability, standardised
structured interviews strengths
- P) inappropriate for sensitive
- validity, fixed responses
- interviewer bias
structured interviews weakness
- ethnography (Humphrey, Blackman)
- overt (Willis, Venkatesh)
- covert (Patrick, Williams)
- participant/ non-participant
observation
- T) high validity, people unaware of acts
- insider view of natural environment
- develop rapport
general observation strengths
- P) time consuming & access to group
- T) small scale, low rep/gen
- validity, Hawthorne effect
general observation weakness
- P) topic studied, access to hard to reach
- high flexibility
- T) provides clear, valid picture
covert participation strengths
- P) access to group, gatekeeper
- researcher characteristics
- E) legality & immorality (Patrick)
- protection from harm (Ken Pryce)
- deception
- T) can become biased, ‘go native’ & ‘getting out’
- low representativeness & reliability
- validity & note taking
covert participation weakness
- P) researcher characteristics
- E) informed consent, deception, protection
- T) reliability, structured observation table
- validity & note taking
- more objective
overt non-participant strength
-T) hawthorne effect
overt non-particpant weakness
- make hypothesis
- control ind (cause) and dep (effect) variables
- field (Humphrey, Blackman) and lab (Milgram)
experiments
- P) access to group
- T) high validity, unaware of observation
field experiments strengths
- P) difficult to control variables
- E) deception, informed consent
- T) certainty of variables
- representativeness
field experiment weakness
- E) informed consent
- T) controlled enviroment, cause/effect
- more objective and reliable
lab experiment strengths
- P) open system & snapshot
- E) deception (Milgram)
- T) hawthorne effect
- low representativeness
lab experiment weakness
- carried out by gov, usually social policy
- eg CENSUS, General Lifestyle Survey, National Chidl Development Study, crime, health, suicide…
official statistics
- P) time & cost
- wide range of topics in detail
- E) collected by gov, no deception, consent
- T) cover large scale, representative
- shows patterns/trends over time
- allows comp between groups
- generally reliable
official statistics strength
- P) topic studied, unavailable
- operationalisation eg poverty
- E) protection from harm (stereotypes)
- T) lack validity, ‘dark figure of crime’
- may be massaged for political purpose
- lack reliability, definitions change
official statistics weakness
- personal: diaries, photos, letters, biographies, social media
- egs Anne Frank
- public: produced by gov agencies, held in National Archive
- eg Macpherson Report, Lammy Review, OFSTED
documents
- P) sometimes only available source
- prov background info
- offers extra check for primary
- cost and time
- T) very valid, achieve verstehen
- offers extra check w/ triangulation
personal docs strength
- P) access, confidential diaries
- E) informed consent
- protectin from harm if illegality
- T) authenticity, credibility, representativeness, meaning
- unreliable, unstandardised
- highly subjective
personal docs weakness
