Research Methods Flashcards
Strengths of questionnaires?
P- less time consuming and can be distributed to a large sample which increases generaliseability and wider claims can be made
E- self completion so consent is given which can increase validity as participants feel comfortable answering/being honest
T- Standardised questions, replicable, reliable, liked by positivists
Weaknesses of questionnaires?
P- Subject to low response rates, this can be made worse by standardised answers. Can affect generaliseability. Standardised answers may affect validity of the data.
E- If sensitive nature some respondents may feel emotional harm so may lie to give socially desireable answers. Impact validity.
T- Standardised answers may cause respondents to select the ‘closest’ answer which may not be fully relevant. Can’t explain meanings so not liked by Interpretivists.
Strengths of content analysis?
P- Cheap so can be carried out again to replicate data. High reliability.
E- No participants so guidelines are easy to follow and easily replicated
T- Quantitative data is reliable and can be cross-checked. Liked by positivists.
Weaknesses of content analysis?
P- time consuming eg watching films to count symbols
E- Subjective approach and text may be analysed out of context. Not all groups may therefore be presented fairly.
T- Not liked by Interpretavists as statistics provide little information. Decreases validity.
Strengths of structured interviews?
P- Closed and standardised questions means that data is objective and numerical and therefore increases reliability.
E- Interviewer can explain the aims and objectives of the research which builds a rapport and may make the participant feel more comfortable. Encourages informed consent.
T- Positivists would like due to strengths in reliability.
Weaknesses of structured interviews?
P- time consuming so can be difficult to access a large sample
E- If the questions are sensitive socially desireable answers may be given. Due to lack of conversation flow , may not state this or feel that they have the right to withdraw. Affect validity.
T- Interpretivists wouldn’t like this method if used for researching sensitive topics.
Strengths of semi-structured interviews?
P- Flexible so themes can be explored. In-depth.
E- Chance for a rapport to be built up. More empathy and understanding so better safeguarding.
T- Interpreatvists would like the unstructured elements and can produce more qualitative data.
Weaknesses of semi-structured interviews?
P- Can be time consuming so only a small sample size.
E- Interviewer effect may decrease the validity, may feel that they have to provide socially desirable answers.
T- Positivists would not like the flexibility of this method as rapport allows researcher to become biased and lose objectivity.
Strengths of unstructured interviews?
P- Interviews are pre-arranged so good response rate. Flexibility so allow exploration of other issues.
E- Rapport limits feelings of emotional harm.
Weaknesses of unstructured interviews?
P- Time consuming, so small sample
E- Interviewer effect decreasing validity
Strengths of focus groups?
P- Questions tailored to a specific group creating a relaxed environment. Pre-arranged increases reliability.
E-Rapport can be built up
Weaknesses of focus groups?
P- Data recording and analysis can be difficult due to varying accounts and opinions which will lower the reliability
E- Respondents may feel uncomfortable, emotional harm so would input differently decreasing validity
T- If a rapport builds then an interviewer may become biased which can decrease reliability and therefore is not liked by Positivists
Strengths of non participant observation - overt?
P- Not involved so easy and cost effective, reduces risk of becoming ‘too involved’ and unbiased
E- Consent, know that they are being researched
Weaknesses of non participant observation - overt?
P- Researcher is more distant from the group and so may not get a full picture.
E- Empathy and understanding may be reduced. Researcher effect.
Strengths of non participant observation - covert?
P- not involved so easy, less likely to become too involved
E- unlikley to influence group, no researcher effect. Less risk of harm if not fully involved in the group.
Weakness of non participant observation - covert?
P- more distant so not a full picture. Superficial insight
E- no informed consent
Strengths of participant observation - overt?
P- Can get in-depth data
E- Fully immersed/verstehen. Informed consent
Weaknesses of participant observation - covert?
HAwthorne effect
E- Researcher has the potential of being exposed to harm. Could become too involved and biased which would affect validity.
Strengths of participant observations - covert?
P- As involved in the group could probe respondents
E- Fully immersed so gain verstehn. True insight and rapport.
Weakness of participant observations - covert?
P- Difficult to take accurate field notes which could reduce validity, especially if recorded from memory.
E- No informed consent. Unethical. Higher possibility of ‘going native’.
Strengths of ethnographies?
P- Achieves verstehen. Can empathise.
E- Informed consent
Weaknesses of ethnographies?
P- Huge investment from the researcher as some studies can go on for years, and the researcher needs to be involved for all that time. Small sample which reduce generalisability.
E- Can be harmful to the researcher as immersed in the group eg gang culture. If they become too involved they may be biased. If the group is deemed as vulnerable eg children there may be safeguarding issues.
Strengths of official statistics?
P- Not time consuming, large and representative sample eg ONS. Easily accessible.
E- High in reliability as scientific and replicable.
Weaknesses of official statistics?
P- May not represent the whole picture of what is being researched eg specific enough. No in-depth data can be gained meaning true insight isnt gained either.
E- Open to political abuse, which can be manipulated to look better. Eg to give a good impression of government economic policies. This could lead to harm some groups by being represented badly.
