Sociology-theory and methods-qualitative research methods

Question 1

What are the qualitative research methods?

Answer 1

Unstructured interviews, participant observation and documents

Question 2

What are the practical issues with unstructured interviews?

Answer 2

Informality allows interviewer to develop rapport, training needs to be more thorough, take a long time, produce large amounts of data that can take time to transcribe, easier to clarify meaning and understanding, very flexible and not restricted by pre-determined questions, useful when we know little about the subject being studied as they are open-ended and exploratory , and they allow more opportunity for interviewee to speak up about what they believe to be important

Question 3

What theoretical factors do interpretivists talk about in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 3

Validity through involvement , grounded theory, and the interviewee’s view

Question 4

What do interpretivists say about about validity through involvement in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 4

For interpretivists, valid data can only be obtained by getting close to people’s experiences and meanings-understanding only comes through involvement. Argue that unstructured interviews allow us to do this. By becoming involved and developing a rapport with the interviewee, we can see the world through their eyes and appreciate what is important to them and why they act as they do

Question 5

What do interpretivists say about about ‘a grounded theory’?

Answer 5

Interpretivists such as Glaser and Strauss reject positivist idea that research involves beginning with fixed hypothesis that can be tested by collecting data, eg through set of predetermined questions. Argue it is important to approach the research with open mind; otherwise we are unlikely to discover truth about situation or actors’ meanings. In their view, we should develop grounded theory-we build up and modify hypothesis during actual course of research itself, based on facts we discover as we learn more about the subject

Question 6

What do interpretivists say about making a ‘grounded theory’ in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 6

In their view, unstructured interviews are an ideal research tool, particularly when investigating unfamiliar subjects. Allow us to ask whatever questions we like, and to pursue lines of enquiry that appear important as and when they arise-they are not fixed and inflexible. Unstructured interviews therefore fit will with interpretivist view of research as a flexible, open ended and open minded process of exploration

Question 7

What do interpretivists say about about the interviewee’s view in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 7

Absence of pre-set structure of fixed questions gives interviewees freedom to raise issues and discuss what is important to them, which may bring fresh insights that had not previously occurred to sociologist. Conversely, interviewer’s probing/encouragement can help interviewee formulate their thoughts more clearly. Open-ended questions used permit interviewee’s express themselves as they choose, rather than having to select one from limited range of forced choice answers, none of which may fully match their real opinions

Question 8

What theoretical factors do positivists talk about in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 8

Reliability, quantification, representativeness, and lack of validity

Question 9

What do positivists say about reliability in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 9

Argue unstructured interview is not reliable because it is not a standardised measuring instrument as each interview is unique, as a result it is virtually impossible for other researchers to replicate interviews and check the findings or compare them with their own-this is a major problem for positivists

Question 10

What do positivists say about quantification in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 10

Because unstructured interviews use open-ended questions, answers cannot easily be categorised and quantified. In turn, this makes unstructured interviews less useful for correlating variables, testing hypotheses and establishing cause-and-effect relationships

Question 11

What do positivists say about representativeness in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 11

Dislike unstructured interviews because they are less likely to produce representative data from which generalisations can be made and causal laws discovered. They take longer so sample sizes are often much smaller than with structured interviews making it less likely that the sample will be representative, so it will be harder to make valid generalisations about the wider population, however interpretivists see this as less of a problem as they care less about representativeness/generalisations and seek to discover individual actors’ meanings

Question 12

What do positivists say about lack of validity in relation to unstructured interviews?

Answer 12

Argue interaction between interviewer/interviewee inevitably undermines validity. Success of these interviews often rely on establishing rapport so there is danger of distorting information obtained. However they don’t all rely on rapport eg Becker used aggression etc get teachers to reveal how they classified pupils in stereotypical ways. The interviews yield qualitative data and positivists argue this too can undermine validity as answers are not pre-coded so they only give a picture through sociologist’s eyes and involve imposing researcher’s categories on the data-lacks validity

Question 13

What do feminists argue about unstructured interviews?

Answer 13

Some feminists such as Oakley argue there is a superior/distinctively feminist approach to research. This kind of research is value committed (takes women’s side and aims to give voice to their experiences and free them from patriarchal oppression), requires researcher’s involvement with, rather than detached from, the lives of the women she studies. Aims for equality and collaboration between researcher and researched, rather than hierarchy and control by researcher

Question 14

What is an example of feminists views of unstructured interviews?

Answer 14

Oakley draws on her own experience of conducting 178 unstructured interviews with women about becoming mothers. On average, she spent over 9 hours interviewing each woman and even attended some births. She wished to involve the women as active collaborators and friends, and willingly answered their questions about herself. She also helped them with housework and childcare, and many of the women showed interest in the research and assisted by phoning her up with more information

Question 15

What does Oakley argue about her use of unstructured interviews?

Answer 15

Developing a more equal and intimate relationship improved the quality of her research by allowing her to get closer to women’s experiences and point of view. As a feminist it was also important to her that the research helped improve women’s lives, eg many of them found being interviewed helped reduce their anxieties about childbirth

Question 16

What is the evaluation of Oakley?

Answer 16

Pawson argues there is nothing distinctively feminist or original about her approach, it is basically the same as interpretivism, with its ‘time-honoured tradition of positivism-bashing in general, and structured-interviewing bashing in particular’. However feminists argue Oakley goes beyond the interpretivist approach eg she had direct involvement in the women’s lives outside the interview situation, offering them help and advice-reflects the value committed nature of feminist research which explicitly takes women’s side and seeks to improve their lives

Question 17

What are the two types of observation?

Answer 17

Non-participant (researcher observes the group without taking part), and participant (researcher takes part in the life of the group while observing it)

Question 18

What type of observation is most often used?

Answer 18

Participant observation is used much more often than non-participant observation

Question 19

What type of observation is preferred by positivists and interpretivists?

Answer 19

Interpretivists favour participant observation as a way of gaining insight into actors’ meanings. However, positivists sometimes use structured non-participant observation. This involves using a structured observational schedule. This is a pre-determined list of the types of behaviour the sociologist is interested in. Each time the behaviour occurs, the observer records it on the schedule. The number of times each event occurs is added up to produce quantitative data, from which patterns and correlations can be established

Question 20

What are the two ways that observations can be carried out?

Answer 20

Overt (researcher reveals their true identify and purpose to those being studied and asks their permission to observe), and covert (researcher conceals their true identity and purpose, usually posing as a genuine member of the group)

Question 21

What is the main observation used in sociology?

Answer 21

In sociology, most observation is unstructured participant observation. The main reason for using this method is the insight it offers into a group’s way of life. For this reason, it is often used by interpretivists. Whether sociologists use overt or covert participant observation, they face problems of getting into, staying in and finally getting out of the group that they are studying

Question 22

What is the problem with ‘getting in’ for an observation?

Answer 22

Some groups may be easier to get into than others, eg a football crowd would be easier than a criminal gang. Making initial contact with group may depend on factors such as personal skills/connections/chance. Once contact is made the researcher has to gain trust and overcome suspicions, however researchers age/gender/class/ethnicity may act as an obstacle. On entering group researcher may need to adopt particular role which ideally gives good vantage point. At same time it shouldn’t disrupt group’s normal behaviour though this isn’t always possible. Some roles may involve taking sides in conflicts meaning researcher may become estranged from one faction or the other, making observation more difficult

Question 23

What is the problem with ‘staying in’ for an observation?

Answer 23

Once accepted, researcher is faced with a dilemma: must be involved in group and activities to understand fully, yet they also must be detached from group to remain objective/unbiased. If too detached, they risk not understanding what they observe but if too-involved they risk going native (over-identifying with the group). A further problem is the longer researcher spends with group, the less strange its ways will appear and researcher gradually ceases to notice things that would earlier have struck them as noteworthy: observer becomes less observant

Question 24

What did Whyte say about the problems with ‘staying in’ an observation?

Answer 24

“I started as a non-participating observer and ended as a non-observing participator”

Question 25

What is the problem with ‘getting out’ of an observation?

Answer 25

This is generally less of a problem: if worst comes to worst, the researcher can usually just leave. Nevertheless, leaving a group with whom one has become close can be difficult- as re-entering one’s normal world. These problems can be worse if the research is conducted on and off over a period of time, with multiple ‘crossings’ between the two worlds. Researchers may also find that loyalty to the group prevents them from fully disclosing everything they have learnt, for fear that this might harm group members

Question 26

What are the practical advantages in participant observation?

Answer 26

Insight, access, and flexibility

Question 27

What is the ‘insight’ practical advantage in practical observations?

Answer 27

Supporters of participant observation say it’s best way to truly understand what something is like to experience it for oneself. Gives insight into other people’s lives by allowing us to put ourselves in their place-process called verstehen. Participant observation allows sociologist to gain verstehen through first hand experience. By living as a member of a group, in their natural environment, we can develop a rapport with its members and gain insight into their way of life, meanings, values and problems. Can come to understand life-world as they themselves understand it. In the process, the observations produce large amounts of rich, detailed qualitative data that gives ‘feel’ for what it’s like to be member of group

Question 28

What is the ‘access’ practical advantage in practical observations?

Answer 28

Sometimes participant observation may be only suitable method for accessing/studying certain groups: groups who engage in deviant activities may be suspicious of outsiders who come asking questions, but may be more willing to cooperate with someone who seeks to share their way of life. Where members of a group are unaware of the unconscious stereotypes behind their actions, observation may be only means of uncovering them-since it would be pointless asking questions about them

Question 29

What is the ‘flexibility’ practical advantage in practical observations?

Answer 29

Very flexible compared with survey methods which begin with fixed-hypothesis and pre-set questions. With participant observations we can enter research with relatively open mind and formulate new hypotheses and research questions as and when we encounter new situations, allowing researcher to discover things that other methods miss

Question 30

What did Whyte note about the flexibility of participant observation?

Answer 30

“I learned answers to questions that I would not have had the sense to ask if I had been using interviews”. Similarly, Polsky offers some sound, if blunt, advice: “initially, keep your eyes and ears open but keep your mouth shut”

Question 31

What are the practical limitations of participant observation?

Answer 31

Fieldwork is time-consuming and may take years to complete (also the large amounts of qualitative data can be hard to analyse/categorise). Researcher needs to be sociologically trained so they recognise aspects of a situation that are significant and worth investigating. Can be personally stressful and demanding, and sometimes dangerous. Requires observational and interpersonal skills that no everyone possesses. Powerful groups may be able to prevent sociologists participating in them, which is a reason why participant observation often focuses on relatively powerless groups

Question 32

What factors of participant observations do interpretivists focus on?

Answer 32

Validity through involvement, and flexibility and grounded theory

Question 33

What do interpretivists say about ‘validity through involvement’ with participant observations?

Answer 33

Requires sociologist to have higher level of involvement with group being studied than any other method. Interpretivists argue by experiencing life of group first hand, the sociologist is able to get close to people’s lived reality and gain deep subjective understanding of their meanings producing uniquely valid, insightful, qualitative data. Compares favourably with methods such as questionnaires and interviews. While people may life when answering questions about themselves, direct observation can give truer picture of how they really live

Question 34

What do interpretivists say about ‘flexibility and grounded theory’ with participant observations?

Answer 34

Flexibility helps produce valid data that is useful when studying unfamiliar situations/groups/cultures about which we know little before starting research. Glaser and Strauss argue being able to enter research without pre-formed hypothesis or questions, researcher can develop/modify ideas in course of research to produce grounded theory. Concepts/categories/hypotheses are grounded in observed realities rather than imposed on data by researcher. Similarly, by spending lengthy periods with group, able to see actors’ meanings as they develop, so give more valid picture than ‘snapshots’ taken at single moment in time by interviews/questionnaires

Question 35

What factors of participant observations do positivists focus on?

Answer 35

Representativeness, reliability, bias and lack of objectivity, lack of validity, the Hawthorne effect, and structure versus action perspectives

Question 36

What do positivists say about ‘representativeness’ with participant observations?

Answer 36

Quantitative methods usually study large, carefully selected representative samples providing sound basis for making generalisations. But participant observations use usually very small groups and the ‘sample’ is often selected haphazardly eg through chance encounter with someone who turns out to be key informant. Means group studied may be unrepresentative of wider population and therefore not suitable basis for making generalisations

Question 37

What do Downes and Rock note about representativeness and participant observations?

Answer 37

Although participant observation may provide valid insights into particular group being studied, it is doubtful how dat these ‘internally valid’ insights are ‘extremely valid’-that is, generalisable to wider population

Question 38

What do positivists say about ‘reliability’ with participant observations?

Answer 38

Positivists criticise participant observation as unsystematic and lacking reliability. Unlike structured methods, it is not standardised, scientific, measuring instrument. Instead, success of research depends heavily on personal skills/characteristics of lone researcher. Fact that participant observation usually produces qualitative data also makes comparisons with other studies difficult. This is a further reason why method is unlikely to produce reliable data

Question 39

What does Whyte note about reliability in participant observations?

Answer 39

As Whyte recognised, his method was to some extent unique to him. This means it is impossible for any other investigator to check the original study by replacing it, so we cannot be as confident its findings are true

Question 40

What do positivists say about ‘bias and lack of objectivity’ with participant observations?

Answer 40

Positivists argue researcher’s close involvement with group results in lack of objectivity. Involvement means sociologist risks ‘going native’ so producing biased or over-sympathetic view. Involvement breeds loyalty to group and may lead sociologist to conceal sensitive information-this denies those who read the published study a full and objective account of the research. Participant observation appeals to sociologists whose sympathies often lie with underdog, because it is seen as effective method for ‘telling it like it is’ from actor’s point of view, those who use it may be biased in favour of their subjects’ viewpoint

Question 41

What do positivists say about ‘lack of validity’ with participant observations?

Answer 41

Positivists reject interpretivists claim that participant observations have validity. Argue findings of such studies are merely biased subjective impressions of observer. Rather than being actor’s view of world, it is merely observer’s view. Observer selects only those facts they think are worth recording, and these are likely to fit in with their own values/prejudices. In any case, participant observation studies generally collect masses of qualitative data, only a small portion of which is likely to be published. The sociologist therefore has to make judgements about what to omit from the final account, and this too will reflect their values

Question 42

What do positivists say about ‘the Hawthorne effect’ with participant observations?

Answer 42

Hawthorne effect can also undermine validity of participant observation studies because observer’s presence can make subjects act differently. Defeats central aim of participant observation, namely to produce a ‘naturalistic’ account of behaviour. This is more of a problem in overt observation, but even in covert studies, presence of an extra member (researcher) may change group’s behaviour. However, interpretivists argue that, over time, the group generally gets used to observer’s presence and behaves normally. The researcher can also try to adopt a less obtrusive role to minimise the threat to validity

Question 43

What do positivists say about ‘structure versus action perspectives’ with participant observations?

Answer 43

Participant observation normally associated with ‘action’ perspectives, especially interactionism. This is because interactionists see society as constructed ‘bottom up’ through small-scale, face to face interactions of individual actors and meanings. Participant observation is valuable tool for examining these micro-level interactions and meanings at first hand because it allows us to see them through actor’s eyes

Question 44

What do structural sociologists say about participant observations?

Answer 44

Structural sociologists such as Marxists and functionalists see this as inadequate. They argue that, because participant observation focuses on micro level of actors’ meanings, it tends to ignore macro structural forces that shape our behaviour, such as class inequality or the shared value system into which we are socialised. In structuralist view, therefore, seeings things only through individual actors’ eyes will never give adequate picture. Eg Marxists argue actors may suffer from false consciousness and misunderstand true position or class interests. So own account of lives will only give distorted or partial view. However theoretical perspective is not the only factor affecting choice of method

Question 45

What kind of information sources can be documents?

Answer 45

Written texts (diaries, letters, emails, texts, novels, reports, timetables, shopping lists etc) and other texts (paintings, photographs, maps, radio etc)

Question 46

What types of documents to sociologists use?

Answer 46

Public documents (produced by organisations such as government departments, schools etc), personal documents (including Facebook pages, diaries etc) and historical documents (personal or public documents created in the past)

Question 47

What are the practical advantages of documents?

Answer 47

May be only available source of information eg in studying the past. They are a free/cheap source of large amounts of data because someone else has already gathered the information. For the same reason, using existing documents saves the sociologist time

Question 48

What are the practical disadvantages of documents?

Answer 48

It is not always possible to gain access to them. Individuals and organisations create documents for their own purposes, not the sociologists’s, therefore they may not contain answers to the kinds of questions the sociologist wishes to ask

Question 49

What are the theoretical issues with documents?

Answer 49

Validity, reliability and representativeness

Question 50

What is the ‘validity’ theoretical issue with documents?

Answer 50

Interpretivists’ prefer documents as they give valid picture of actors’ meanings/insight into their worldview. Eg Thomas and Znaniecki’s interactionist study of migration and social change. Documents aren’t written with sociologist in mind so are more likely to be authentic statement of author’s views. However may lack validity as a source of data-Scott identifies three reasons for this (can only yield valid data if its authentic, there is issue of credibility, and while interpretivists value documents because they give us access to their authors’ meanings, there is a danger of misinterpreting what the document means to the writer and audience, imposing instead out own meaning on the data)

Question 51

What is the ‘reliability’ theoretical issue with documents?

Answer 51

Positivists regard documents as unreliable sources of data. Unlike official statistics on a topic, which are compiled in standard format according to fixed criteria that allow us to compare them, documents are not standardised in this way. Eg every person’s diary is unique, compiled in its own way according to writer’s own meanings and concerns. This is true even when each diarist is recording same events, such as experiences of a war. Their uniqueness also undermines their representativeness and makes it difficult to draw generalisations from them

Question 52

What is the ‘representativeness’ theoretical issue with documents?

Answer 52

Scott notes some groups may not be represented in documents, eg the illiterate and those with limited leisure time are unlikely to keep dairies. In addition, the evidence in documents we have access to may not be typical of evidence in other documents we don’t have access to. Eg not all documents survive and not all documents are available. If we cannot be sure that the data from the documents is representative, we cannot safely generalise from it

Question 53

What is a content analysis?

Answer 53

Method for dealing with the contents of documents, especially those produced by madd media. It has also been used to analyse new broadcasts, advertisements, children’s reading schemes, newspaper articles and so on. There are two main types of content analysis: formal content analysis and thematic analysis

Question 54

What does Gill say about formal content analysis?

Answer 54

Gill describes how formal content analysis works. If we want to measure particular aspects of a media message, eg how many female characters are portrayed as being in paid employment in women’s magazine stories. First select representative sample of women’s magazine stories, then decide what categories to use, then study the stories and place the characters in them into the categories (coding) and then quantify how women are characterised in stories by counting up number in each category

Question 55

What theoretical perspective is attracted to formal content analysis?

Answer 55

Formal content analysis is attractive to positivists because they regard it as producing objective, representative, quantitative data from which generalisations can be made. It is also a reliable method as it is easy for others to repeat and check findings. Repeating studies allow us to identify trends over time, eg to see if media images of a group have changed

Question 56

What do feminists say about formal content analysis?

Answer 56

Formal content analysis have also proved attractive to feminists in analysing media representations of gender. Eg Best analysed gender roles in children’s reading schemes. She found that females were portrayed in a limited range of stereotyped roles

Question 57

How do interpretivists feel about formal content analysis?

Answer 57

However, interpretivists criticise formal content analysis for its lack of validity. They argue that simply counting up how many times something appears in a document tells us nothing about its meaning, either to its author or its audience. The method is also not as objective as positivists claim, eg the processes of drawing up the categories and deciding in which one to place each case are subjective processes involving value judgements by the sociologist

Question 58

What is a thematic analysis?

Answer 58

This is a qualitative analysis of the content of media texts and has been used by interpretivists and feminists. It usually involves selecting a small number of cases for in-depth analysis. The aim is to reveal the underlying meanings that have been ‘encoded’ in the documents, as a way of uncovering the author’s ideological bias. Eg working from a feminist perspective, Soothill and Walby made a thematic analysis of the ways newspapers reported rape cases

Question 59

How can thematic analysis be criticised?

Answer 59

Does not attempt to obtain representative sample so its findings cannot be safely generalised to a wider range of documents. There is often a tendency to select evidence that supports the sociologist’s hypothesis rather than seeking to falsify it, which Popper argues is unscientific. There is no proof that the meaning the sociologist gives to the document is the true one eg postmodernists would argue there is no fixed or ‘correct’ meaning to a text and that the sociologist’s reading of it is just one among many

Question 60

What are the advantages of content analysis?

Answer 60

Content analysis, whether formal or thematic, has practical advantages: it is cheap and it is easy to find sources of material in the form of newspapers, television broadcasts and so on-however in both formal and thematic analysis, coding or analysing the data can be very time-consuming