Topic 2: Qualitative methods

What are the pros of unstructured interviews?

Practical:

• If interviewees do not understand the question, they can ask for clarification, as can the interviewer for the interviewees answer, improving validity on both ends

• Flexible, as they are unrestricted

Theoretical:

• Weber: Informality allows verstehen to develop, allowing interviewer to better relate to the interviewee and thus develop deeper insights, increasing valdity. Revealed in Dobashs study of DV, were showing empathy was essential

• Becker: Interviewing 60 school teachers for his study of teacher labelling) used aggression and “played dumb”, making teachers elaborate to expose information they may not have otherwise, reducing right-answerism

• Shipman: Doesnt impose researcher meaning

What are the cons of unstructured interviews?

Practical:

• Due to in depth nature, they take longer, adding problems of time and sample size

• Interviews need more training

• Interpersonal skills needed to develop rapport, something an researcher may not have

Ethical:

• Harder to gain consent: Head in Laceys studies of teacher labelling allowed participant observation but not interviews without parent consent

Theoretical:

• Detachment - Ann Oakley stated that as a mother, she found it had to remain unbiased when interviewing women about childbirth

• Not replicability, less reliable

• Small sample - representativeness

What are the types of observation? (6)

• Participant: Takes part in actions of group

• Non-participant: Detached from actions of group

• Overt: Participants aware of researchers presence

• Covert: Participants not aware of researchers presence

• Structured: Pre-categorised observational schedules. Eg Flanders system of interaction analysis categories (FIAC), using a stand chart of 10 categories to record classroom interactions every 3 seconds

• Unstructured: Glaser & Strauss “bottom-up”/”grounded” theory, letting hypothesis present themselves from, and during the research itself

What are the pros of participant operation?

Practical:

• Access: Sometimes the only suitable method of accessing certain groups. Eg deviant subcultures may be suspicious of outsiders who come asking to many questions, but may be more willing to cooperate with someone who seeks to share their way of life + certain groups may be unaware of stereotypes around them, and therefore to direct address this (eg in questionaires) would be fruitless, eg James Patricks study of Glaswegian gangs

• Flexibility: If the questions we deem as important turn out not to be the central issue, we can simple change them

Ethical:

• On terms of participants, putting them at ease and decreasing society. Eg would be wrong take take kids out of school

Theoretical:

• Weber: Informality allows verstehen to develop, allowing interviewer to better relate to the interviewee and thus develop deeper insights, increasing valdity. Revealed in Dobashs study of DV, were showing empathy was essential

• Shipman: Doesnt impose researcher meaning. Glasser and Strauss: Grounded Theory

• Whyte notes that by observing they “learned answers to questions that i would not have had the sense to ask”

What are the cons of participant operation?

Practical:

• Time: Can take years, Lacey stated they spend 3-6 months just getting to grips with the lay out of the school

• Researcher attributes: Need highly developed inter-personal skills + specific attributes to blend in, eg Relative simplicity means they are quicker, cheaper and require less training. Eg Patrick was young, happened to know one of the gang members

• Recording information: Hammersley had to note down staffroom conversations retrospectively in his ethnographic study of inner-city schools admitting this may have caused errors

Ethical:

• Deception for covert observation means consent cant be given

• Protection from harm, eg Patricks expose to gangs

• Immoral activities, eg Punchs verbal abuse of those that refused to comply with the Police

Theoretical:

• “Going native”, by overidentifying with research group, and thus becoming bias. Maurice Punchs study of Police found him verbally abusing those that challenged his fellow officer. This can damage validity

• Often small groups, less representative

• Difficult to repeat, less reliability

What are the pros of documents?

Practically:

• Often free source of huge volume of data

• Potentially only source of info, eg Aries studies of childhood in the past

Ethical;y:

• Detached, thus no ethical dilemma

Theoretical:

• Increases validity by creating Verstehen with the participants/ research topic. Eg Thomas and Znaniecki (1919) used 764 letters, autobiographies and public documents to understand the meaning individuals gave to their experience of migration

What are the cons of documents?

Practical:

• Authenticity: eg is it written by who it says it is

• Access: Eg the Reagan Daries, written his presidency from 1980-88, weren`t published until 2007

• Relevancy: Not designed for sociologists use. Eg for sociologists researching disease, historical documents may not name the symptoms as they were so obvious and aparent at the time of writing, or failing to define certain terms

Ethical:

• Gaining informed consent can be hard if the creator/authors identity is unknown, or has passed away. This is particularly problematic due to the nature of said sources, eg diaries often highly personal

Theoretical: John Scott

• Valid:

  • Credibility: Are its statements genuine, eg politicians autobiographies may wish to paint them in a certain light

  • Misinterpreting: Authors cant always be asked to affirm what they mean (like in unstructured interviews), and therefore sociologists may impose meaning – especially problematic with translated or archaic texts

• Representative:

  • Uniqueness undermines representativeness

  •  Not all groups represented: Eg illiterate people, countries with more of an oral tradition

  • Doc type that get released may skew our analysis, eg popular fiction or newspaper may saw something different to unreleased government documents (the 30-year rule)

• Reliable:

  • Was it written by who it said it was