Research Methods Flashcards
Questionnaire strengths
Practical- less time consuming (can be distributed to large sample- improves generalisability and wider claims can be made
Ethical- self completion means informed consent is given which can increase validity as participants feel comfortable- more likely to be honest
Theoretical- standardised questions makes method replicable and more reliable- positivists would like
Questionnaire weaknesses
Practical- low response rate can affect generalisability & standardised responses may lead to socially desirable answers which can affect validity
Ethical- if there are sensitive questions some respondents may feel emotional harm which could lead to socially desirable answers- impact validity
Theoretical- closed questions can mean respondents select closest answer which doesn’t fully represent their answer- low in validity- Interpretivist would not like
Content analysis strengths
Practical- cheap method so easy to replicate which is high in reliability
Ethical- no participants required- easy to uphold- increase reliability as easily replicable
Theoretical- quantitative data high in reliability and data can be cross checked- positivists would like
Content analysis weaknesses
Practical- can be time consuming, so not easily replicable so reliability can be reduced
Ethical- analysing can be done out of context which means some groups may not feel fairly represented- low representativeness- cause harm
Theoretical- quantitative data doesn’t give information on their real stories/feelings- low validity- Interpretivist would not like
Structured interview strengths
Practical- closed questions and standardised Qs means data likely objective & numerical- high reliability as replicable
Ethical- interviewer can add context and aims of research so informed consent can be given which increased validity- more likely to answer honestly
Theoretical- numerical data can be easily collected without bias of researcher meaning high reliability- positivists would like
Structured interview weaknesses
Practical- interviews more time consuming which can make it more difficult to get big sample- low generalisability so wider claims cannot be made
Ethical- lack of conversational flow may lead to participants not feeling they have right to withdraw- this may make them uncomfortable and they may not answer honestly leading to low validity
Theoretical- not suitable when researching sensitive issues, can lower validity- Interpretivists would not like
Semi structured interview strengths
Practical- flexible and interviewers can explore different themes relevant to aims- increase validity
Ethical- more chance for rapport then structured- better safeguarding and more comfortable- high validity
Theoretical- unstructured elements mean more in depth data can be gained- Interpretivist would like
Semi structured interview weakness
Practical- time consuming so may only get smaller sample- decreasing generalisability as wider claims can’t be made
Ethical- respondent may feel they have to give socially desirable answers- may face emotional harm which can lead to dishonest answers- low validity
Theoretical- flexibility of method may mean hard to repeat and rapport may lead to bias- positivists may not like
Unstructured interviews strengths
Practical- flexible, allowing explorations of other issues which increases validity
Ethical- rapport can be built which prevents emotional harm and makes them comfortable- increase validity with honesty
Theoretical- in depth data is high in validity- interpretivists would like
Unstructured interviews weakness
Practical- time consuming which may mean small sample- low representativeness
Ethical- socially desirable answers may be caused if they feel uncomfortable (emotional harm) low validity
Theoretical- lack of structure makes it hard to repeat and interviewer can lose objectivity- low reliability- positivists would not like
Focus group strength
Practical- relaxed group setting leads to high validity. Need to be pre arranged which may lead to higher response rate- representative
Ethical- relaxed environment can mean less emotional harm- more detailed and honest- high validity
Theoretical- rich in depth discussion increases validity- Interpretivist would like
Focus group weakness
Practical- recording data can be difficult when there are varying accounts/opinions- low reliability
Ethical- respondents may feel uncomfortable answering questions in front of a group, may suffer emotional harm- decrease validity
Theoretical- rapport can lead to biased interviewer so reliability decreased- positivists would not like
Non-participant observation: overt
Strength
Practical- researcher not involved in group, less time consuming and cost effective, less likely to become too involved- increase validity
Ethical- participants know they’re being observed, informed consent likely gained- increase validity
Theoretical- rich, detailed insight increases validity- interpretivists would like
Non-participant observation: overt
Weakness
Practical- researcher is more distant so may not get full picture/real insight- reduced validity
Ethical- awareness of observer may lead to distress and reduce validity
Theoretical- difficult to replicate- positivists would not like
Non- participant observation: covert
Practical- not involved with the group means easier and cost effective, less likely to become too involved with group- increase validity
Ethical- researcher at less risk of harm when not with group- group less likely to change behaviour so validity increased
Theoretical- rich in depth data- interpretivists would like
