Research Methods

Practical

• Time

• Cost

• Researcher skills

• Researcher character

• Access

• Subject Matter

Ethical

• Consent

• Right to withdraw

• Privacy and anonymity

• Protectiom from harm

Reliability

• Repeatability

Validity

• Accuracy

Representative

• Generalisability

Theoretical

• Positivist

• Interpretevist

Questionnaire

Primary source of quantative data

Questionnaire Strengths (Practical)

• Quick and cheap to gather lots of data

• Researcher characteristics have no influence

• Few skills are needed for completion

Questionnaire Strengths (Ethical)

• Easy to obtain informed consent

• Easy to ensure right to withdraw

• Easy to protect confidentiality and anonymity

Questionnaire Strengths (Reliability)

• Fixed questions so easily repeatable

Questionnaire Strengths (Validity)

• Anonymity means participants may be more likely to be truthful

Questionnaire Strengths (Representative)

• Data can be obtained across many areas

Questionnaire Strengths (Theoretical)

• Favoured by positivists as trends and patterns can be established

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Practical)

• May need incentives for completion - cost

• Very low response rates

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Ethical)

• Detached so innappropriate for sensitive topics

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Reliability)

• Inflexible, can not be tailored to participants

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Validity)

• Pigeon holing of predetermined responses

• May lie or exaggerate to appear better

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Representative)

• Low response rate = low representation

Questionnaire Weaknesses (Theoretical)

• Interpretevists argue they lack depth

Questionnaire Examples

The Census - 10 year, legal requirement, demographic/economic/social data

Hite/Female Sexuality - 100,000 anonymous questionnaires, 4.5% response rate

Structured Interveiws

Primary source of quantitative data

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Practical)

• Relatively quick and cheap

• Higher response rate than questionnaires

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Ethical)

• Easy to obtain informed consent

• Easy to protect confidentiality and anonymity

• No deception involved

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Reliability)

• Can be repeated in the same way multiple times

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Validity)

• Hard to lie - face to face

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Representative)

• Higher response rate

Structured Interveiw Strengths (Theoretical)

• Positivists since trends and patterns can be established

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Practical)

• Relatively time consuming

• Researcher skills required

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Ethical)

• Hard to withdraw, face to face

• Can be insensitive

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Reliability)

• Inflexible as prepared in advance

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Validity)

• Halo effect, socially desiravle response

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Representative)

• Low geographical area, researcher must be present

Structured Interveiw Weaknesses (Theoretical)

• Interpretevists argue gives shallow detail

Structured Interveiw Examples

Young and Wilmott/Family - knocked on doors in Bethnal Green

Unstructured Interveiws

Primary source of qualitative data

Unstructured Interveiw Strengths (Practical)

• may be only way to reserach some topics

• highly personal method, willingness

Unstructured Interveiw Strengths (Ethical)

• Easy to obtain informed consent

• No deception involved

• Can change topic if participant becomes upset

Unstructured Interveiw Strengths (Reliability)

• Flexible so adaptable to the participants needs

Unstructured Interveiw Strengths (Validity)

• Answers in own words so likely truthful

Unstructured Interveiw Strengths (Theoretical)

Interpretevists say they give rich detailed data

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Practical)

• Very time consuming

• Researcher skills required to get people to open up

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Ethical)

• Hard to withdraw, face to face

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Reliabilty)

• Unique so not repeatable

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Validity)

• Halo effect, socially desirable answers

• Leading questions may be problematic

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Representative)

• Likely small sample

Unstructured Interveiw Weaknesses (Theoretical)

• Positivists say trends and patterns can not be made

Unstructured Interveiw Examples

Becker/Teacher Labelling - open ended questions with follow ups to 60 high school teachers in Chicago

Dobash and Dobash/Domestic Violence - 106 women in shelters in Scotland

Group Interveiw Strengths

• May feel more comfortable to open up

• Ideas will be thrown around

• Increased sample size in same time

• Combination of observation of dynamics and interveiws

Group Interveiw Weaknessss

• One or more may dominate conversation

• Peer pressure

• Hard to keep group on topic

• Complex to analyse

Overt Non Participant Observation

Primary form of qualitative data

Overt Non Participant Observation Strengths (Practical)

• Easy to record data

• Few researcher skills needed

Overt Non Participant Observation Strengths (Ethical)

• Informed consent can be gained

• Easy to withdraw

• No decieving

Overt Non Participant Observation Strengths (Reliability)

• Flexible as unstructured nature

Overt Non Participant Observation Strengths (Validity)

• Researcher observes in a real life setting

• Researcher can ask questions for clarification

Overt Non Participant Observation Strengths (Theoretical)

• Interpretevists like the great detail

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Practical)

• Time consuming

• Unlikely to gain access to hard reach groups

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Ethical)

• Participants may feel guilty about withdrawing

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Reliability)

• Unique so can not be repeated

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Validity)

• Hawthorne effect, changing behaviour due to being watched

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Representative)

• Likely very small sample

Overt Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Theoretical)

• Positivists say trends and patterns can not be established

Overt Non Participant Observation Examples

French and French/Gender and Teacher Attention - multiple classes in multiple schools, 48 hours observation time

Stanworth/Wallpaper Girls - multiple claasrooms in multiple schools, classroom interactions

Covert Participant Observation

Primary source of qualitative data

Covert Participant Observation Strengths (Practical)

• May be only way to research hard reach groups

• May be only method that can be carried out

Covert Participant Observation Strengths (Reliability)

• Flexible, unstructured nature

Covert Participant Observation Strengths (Validity)

• Behaviour observed will be natural

Covert Participant Observation Strengths (Theoretical)

• Interpretevists argue they give rich detail

Covert Participant Observation Weaknesses (Practical)

• Getting in, staying in, getting out

• Many researcher skills required

• Researcher needs to share characteristics

• Very time consuming

• Hard to record data

Covert Participant Observation Weaknesses (Ethical)

• No informed consent

• High level of deception

• Invades privacy

• Researcher may need to do immoral things to remain part of the group

Covert Participant Obervation Weaknesses (Reliability)

• Unique so can not be repeated

Covert Participant Obervation Weaknesses (Validity)

• Researcher may go native and become too involved

Covert Participant Observation Weaknesses (Representative)

• Small sample

Covert Participant Observation Example

Griffin/Racism - skin darkening medication to experience racism firsthand

Overt Participant Observation

Primary source of qualitative data

Overt Participant Observation Strengths (Practical)

• Easy to record data

Overt Participant Observation Strengths (Ethical)

• Informed consent can be gained

• Participants can withdraw

• Researcher does not have to lie or decieve

Overt Participant Observation Strengths (Reliability)

• Flexible, unstructured nature

Overt Participant Observation Strengths (Validity)

• Observation in real life settings

• Researcher can ask questions

Overt Participant Observation Strengths (Theoretical)

• Interpretevists argue they give rich detail

Overt Participant Observation Weaknesses (Practical)

• Unlikely to access hard reach groups

• Many skills are required

• Very time consuming

Overt Participant Observation Weaknesses (Ethical)

• may feel guilty withdrawing

Overt Participant Observation Weaknesses (Reliability)

• Unique, not repeatable

Overt Participant Observation Weaknesses (Validity)

• Hawthorne effect, changing behaviour

Overt Participant Observation Weaknesses (Representative)

• Small sample

Overt Participant Observation Examples

Willis/Working Class - 12 working class boys, joined in with behaviours

Covert Non Participant Observation

Primary source of qualitative data

Covert Non Participant Observation Strengths (Practical)

• May be only way to access hard reach groups

• May be only method for some topics

• Fewer skills may be required

Covert Non Participant Observation Strengths (Reliability)

• Flexible, unique and unstructured

Covert Non Participant Observation Strengths (Validity)

• Observed behaviour will be natural

Covert Non Participant Observation Strengths (Theoretical)

Interpretevists argue they give rich detail

Covert Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Practical)

• Very time consuming

• Hard to make notes without suspicion

Covert Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Ethical)

• No informed consent

• High level of deception

• Invades an individuals privacy

Covert Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Reliabilty)

• Unique, can not be compared

Covert Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Validity)

• Only one persons interpretation

Covert Non Participant Observation Weaknesses (Representative)

• Small sample

Covert Non Particiapant Observation Example

Humphrey/Tearoom Trade - 100 mens sexual encounters, ‘watch queen’