Research methods Flashcards
which methods do positivists prefer?
- ‘social facts’ that can be studied objectively using scientific techniques
- lab experiements, social surveys, structured questionnaires,structured interviews, non-ppt observation, official stats, content analysis
which methods do interpretivists prefer?
- people have a consciousness involving personal beliefs and meanings that influence the way they act
- researcher should gain an in-depth understanding of the world around them by putting themself in position of person being studied
- uncontrolled field experiments, open questionnaires, unstructured interviews, overt or cover ppt observation, personal documents
examples of practical issues
- time and funding
- access
- researcher’s personal skills or characteristics to carry it out (desire to prove hypothesis)
- availability of existing data
- career interests and need for researchers to meet deadlines (desire for career success)
examples of ethical issues
- avoiding harmful consequences
- deception
- informed consent
- respecting privacy and anonymity
examples of theoretical issues
- whether a marxist, functionalist or feminist approach is used and how it will influence the topic
- whether a positivist or interpretivist approach is used - qualitative or quantitative methods
reliability
whether the method can be replicated by others to check results
generalisability
whether the method enables findings to be generalised to similar groups
validity
whether the method provides a true, genuine picture of what is being studied
- qualitative data usually has high validity but is less reliable
strengths of secondary data
- may be only available data in an area
- readily available and cheap
- often representative - official stats
- may cover long time span - show trends over time
- qualitative data eg. personal diaries, letters, newspapers - give interpretivists insight into ideologies of those who produced them
weaknesses of secondary data
- may not be representative
- official stats may lack validity eg. being manipulated by government to avoid political embarrassment
- difficulties in deciding if data is; authentic, credible - biased, representative of wider social group, same meaning as time it was produced, collected using sound methods
Hawthorne effect
- presence of a researcher changes the behaviour of the group
- affects validity of research
- eg. people not telling the truth in questionnaires or interviews or ‘playing up’ for the researcher in ppt observation
laboratory experiment
all variables or causes are under control of researcher
field experiment
conducted in real world under normal social conditions but control some element
strengths of lab experiments
- controlled conditions
- easy to isolate and manipulate variables to identify causes of events
- enable comparisons between other experimental research
- detached, objective and scientific
(positivists)
strengths of field experiments
- not artificial situations so more valid
- ppts may not be aware researcher is present so avoid Hawthorne effect
- producing more valid info than lab experiments
(interpretivists)
weaknesses of experiments
- in sociology it’s hard to isolate particular cause of social issue
- ethical issues - need to treat one group different from the other eg. Rosenthal and Jacobson
- people may not consent to being experimented on and if researcher carries on it will be deception
- often only possible on small scale settings - unrepresentative
- risk Hawthorne effect
the comparative method
- researcher collects data about different societies then compares them to identify conditions present in one but lacking in the other as a way of explaining some social event
- positivists - isolates causes
random sampling
every individual in population has an equal chance of being picked
systematic sampling
names selected from sampling frame at regular intervals until desired size is reached
stratified random sampling
sampling frame is divided into subgroups based on characteristics according to proportions of population and random sample is taken from each group
quota smapling
population is stratified, interviews find a quota of people who fit into certain categories
snowball sampling
researcher find one or two people with desired characteristics and asks them to introduce them to others willing to cooperate, then asks them to find others and so on#
- not random or representative
what does a survey need?
- hypothesis
- to operationalise concepts - putting an abstract idea into a form which is measurable
- pilot study
longitudinal studies
an on-going survey where people are selected and data is collected at regular intervals over a period of years eg. 7 up
longitudinal studies strengths
- ethical issues avoided as requires informed consent of selected ppts
- positivists - can compare data over time - discover patterns
- more valid - data about the past doesn’t rely on memory
longitudinal studies weaknesses
- funding - long term financial commitments
- getting sample of ppl willing to participate over time is difficult, may drop out
- Hawthorne effect
the imposition problem
risk of researchers imposing their own views on the ppts
closed questionnaires weaknesses
- interpretivist - The Imposition problem - researchers may be imposing their own views by only giving set choice of answers that may not apply to ppt
- literacy
- questions may not be clear to ppts
- extra questions can’t be asked to explain fully
strengths of closed questionnaires
- quick and cheap
- produces easily classified quantitative data - positivists
- high reliability
- enable comparisons between groups - answering same questions
- few ethical problems
strengths of open questionnaires
- more valid - can use their own words to express what they mean - interpretivists
- more detailed
weaknesses of open questionnaires
- lots of different answers - hard to quantify/compare results
- meaning of answers unclear
strengths of postal questionnaires
- cheap - large representative sample
- results quickly
- people reply at their leisure - more thoughtful answers
- more likely to get answers on sensitive subjects
- no interviewer bias
- positivists - detachment and objectivity
weaknesses of postal questionnaires
- low response rate
- those who respond may be unrepresentative - more educated, interested in topic
- no one present to explain questions
- no way of knowing right person completed it
strengths of structured interviews
- good response rate - persuade to answer questions
- reliable - results compared, replicated
- positivists - quantitative data
- reduced risk of interviewer bias as little involvement with ppt
- few ethical problems - choice
weaknesses of structured interviews
- time consuming, costly, interviewers trained and paid - smaller less representative sample
- interpretivist - imposition problem - reduces validity
- interviewer bias
strengths of unstructured interviews
- interpretivist - flexibility enables greater insights and opportunity for ppts to be more open
- questions can be clarified
- interviewer can change direction if new ideas come to mind
- rapport can be built up - more valid answers on sensitive topics
weaknesses of unstructured interviews
- time-consuming, costly, takes longer to analyse
- time/cost may mean fewer interviews
- positivists - less reliable, not standardised
- success depends on personality and skills of interviewer
- positivists - hard to compare and measure responses
- group interviews - peer pressure
practical issues with ppt observation
- being accepted into group
- overt: helps gain info that may be hidden if they had something to gain in the group, ask direct question
- covert: reduces Hawthorne effect, hard to gain insight without raising suspicion, ethics
- risk of getting involved in acts they don’t agree with
- note-taking
- leaving group without damaging relationships
- becoming detached to write an impartial account
- confidentiality of group
ethical issues with ppt observation
- observing and reporting activities in secret (if covert) without informed consent
- deception can be overcome afterwards
- deception may be justified to protect researcher eg. Patrick - Glasgow gang
theoretical issues with ppt observation
- reliability - positivists - data rarely quantifiable, depends on personal characteristics of researcher so hard to replicate
- validity - relies on memory, observational and interpretive skills of observer, selective observation - their interpretation of what is significant in a group
strengths of ppt observation
- studies normal everyday behaviour over time rather than the ‘snapshot’ of questionnaires or interviews
- in-depth, valid qualitative data
- hypotheses can emerge as research goes on
- insight into meanings of social activity by seeing it through their eyes
- only practical method for researching closed groups eg. gangs, religious sects
weaknesses of ppt observation
- time-consuming, expensive
- stressful
- positivists - data lacks validity and reliability, no way of checking findings, evidence is subjective
- overt roles - hawthorne effect
- ‘going native’ - too involved, objectivity is lost
- covert - ethically unsound
strengths of non-ppt observation
- less time-consuming, cheaper
- replicate and check findings
- reduced risk of hawthorne effect - researcher is detached
- positivists - comparisons can be made - qualitative data
- consent can be gained
weaknesses of non-ppt observation
- not practical to observe all groups - hard to observe all incidents
- categorisation of behaviour is subjective
- presence of observer - hawthorne effect eg. ofsted
- covert - ethics, spying
- only small group can be observed - lacks representativeness
case study
- an in-depth study of a single example
- eg. Willis - anti-school subculture
- interpretivist qualitative methods most common eg. unstructured interview, ppt observation
life history
- case studies of the overall life of an individual or small group
- favoured by interpretivists - emphasis on person’s own interpretations and explanations
case studies strengths
- can be used to study wider theories
- useful for generating new hypotheses
- valid, in-depth detail and understanding from POV of individual or group
- can be collected by positivist or interpretivist techniques
case studies weaknesses
- not representative - positivists - findings not generalisable
- not reliable or valid - eg. life histories view the past from POV of present, facts may not be recalled correctly, might generate reinterpretation of past
personal documents
- usually private documents for a person’s own use
- eg. diaries, letters, emails, photos, videos, school reports, medical files
public documents
- produced for public knowledge available to all
- eg. government, charity, council, businness and media reports - newspapers, TV, novel, autobiography
criteria for judging value of documents
- authenticity - is it genuine or forgery?
- credibility - is it honest, biased, exaggerated? Who is it written for?
- representativeness - is it typical for the time? is there any missing, does it reflect a minority who can read and write?
- meaning - do they have the same meaning now as when they were produced?
content analysis strengths
- cheap - readily available documents
- reliable - quantitative statistical data easily checked
- enables discovery of things not obvious or considered
content analysis weaknesses
- positivists - not reliable - depends on categories they choose and how they interpret, differs between researchers
- describes what’s being studied, doesn’t explain it
official stats strengths
- useful for evaluating social policies
- may be only source for particular area
- cheap easy to access
- positivists - objective and reliable - usually collected with statistical rules publicly available
- cover long time-span, use large samples or whole population - discovery of patterns
- useful for time or cultural comparisons
- useful background data eg. poverty and exam results
- publicly available - ethical
weaknesses of official stats
- collected for administrative purposes not sociological - definitions and classifications may not be suitable
- produced by state - biased to avoid political embarrassment
- may not be accurate or complete - not valid picture
- interpretivists - not objective, simply social constructs, product of process of interpretation, decision making by authority eg. crime stats - unreported crimes
