sociology + and -

structured interviews

structured interviews

+ standardized questions → reliable

+ standardization allows for more data to be gathered → representative

+ interviewer clear up misunderstandings → validity

- researcher effect → decreaases validity

- standardized questions may not allow respondents to reply with as much detail as they wish → lack of depth

unstructured interviews

+ flexibility in responses → respondents can give long responses that provide lots of data and depth

+ interviewer clears up misunderstandings → validity

+ lack of structure puts respondents at ease bc fluidity of conversation, so more honest → validity

- time consuming

- lack of standardization → unreliable

focus groups

+ group interactions encourage dynamic discussions → new perspectives and insights in data

+ can analyze body language → assess how honest respondent was, so validity

+ provides much qualitative data → rich in detail.

- time consuming

- unreliable

covert non-participant research

+ people observed in their natural setting → validity

+ good for collecting quantitative data → tends to be more reliable

+ avoid Hawthorne effect → valid

- ethical issues (deceit) → difficult to fund

- no interaction → lacks context

overt non-participant research

+ ethical → adheres to laws, preventing legal repercussions

+ opportunity for clarification → validity

+ trust is built between researcher and participants → honesty and validity

- Hawthorne effect → decreases validity

- lacks context → decreases validity

closed-ended questionnaires or surveys

+ more people studied → generalizable

+ often anonymous → respondents more likely to be honest, valid

+ often standardized/closed ?’s → reliable

- limited depth → less validity

- misinterpretation → less validity

open-ended questionnaires

+ more people studied → generalizable

+ more flexiblity → in-depth, rich qualitative data

+ no Hawtthorne effect → validity

- misinterpretation → less validity

- may be time-consuming → lower response rate

lab experiments

+ controlled variables → identify clear cause-and-effect relationship

+ controlled variables → reliable

+ isolate variables → reduce influence of external variables.

- artificial environment → less validity

- expensive → may not have funds available

case studies

+ detailed descriptions and in-depth analysis → rich qualitative data

+ often use multiple sources of data → validity

+ unique cases/contexts → may not suit other methods

- only focused on a single case or a small number → less generalizable

- very specific contexts → less reliable

longitudinal studies

+ detailed descriptions and in-depth analysis → rich qualitative data

+ intense focus on one/few cases, → validity

+ studies over a long period of time → identify patterns, deeper understanding

- time consuming → researcher needs to commit

- risk of participant dropout → incomplete data and wasted resources

content analysis

+ avoids ethical issues → easier to fund

+ can be easily replicated by other researchers → reliable

+ provides data about content in the media → used to test sociological theories and make changes in the media

- produces quantitative data → does not tell us why media is the way it is or how it affects audience

- difficult to decide what categories to use for media studied → difficult to make clear conclusions

triangulation

+ multiple sources → validity

+ multiple methods → reduction of bias in any one single method

+ gather much qualitative data → context and rich data

- interpretation bias → distort data, less validity

- may still only focus on a particular context or small sample → not guaranteed generalizable

structuralism

focuses on how the structures of society influence human behavior on a macro level

interpretivism

focuses on how small-scale interactions influence human behavior at a micro level

values qualitative data more, argues that quantitative data lacks context

positivism

approach that aims to study society in a scientific manner

values quantitative data more, argues that sociology should be studied with the same methods as other sciences, and that way the results will be unbiased

secondary data

+ readily available, accessible → less costly and less time consuming → efficient choice for researchers with limited resources

+ might be only way to gather evidence from past → primary data from living participants may not be possible → historical documents are invaluble

+ no ethical issues → no interaction betwen researcher and individuals being studied → easier to fund as it does not raise ethical issues

- lack of control → not be valid or what researcher is looking for

- may be outdated → less validity

primary data

+ original data → can cover more relevant and new topics of research

+ up-to-date → validity

+ flexibility/control → can study specific contexts and meet researchers specific aims

- costly and time-consuming → may not have funda available

- ethical concerns → difficult to fund, or gather participants

- risk of new biases (like interviewer bias) → less validity

Why do functionalists claim education is necessary?

• has a socialization function (hidden curriculum)

• teaches social control (rewards and sanctions)

• teaches meritocracy (rewards hard work and achievement, reinforcing the idea that social mobility is attainable for those willing to invest in their education)

10 mark explain why

aim for three/four fully developed points with sociological evidence

• focus on what question is asking

• no conclusion

Why might positivists criticize qualitative data?

• bias

• lack of reliability

• lack of generalizability

Why do positivists value quantitative data?

• seen as more objective because it relies on numerical data

• more people studied → generalizable

• standardization → consistency, reliable

Why might interpretivists value qualitative data?

• flexibility → can adapt to new insight, bringing new ideas to the conclusion

• detail-rich data → validity

• context → strong understanding

Why do interpretivists criticize quantitative data?

• lacks complexity → oversimplification

• limited insight into processes and patterns → lack of true understanding

• lacks context → more likely to be less valid

researcher present

+ clear up misunderstandings

+ gain trust → validity

+ assess honesty in body language

- Hawthorne effect

- interviewer effect

- interviewer bias

liberal feminism

believe major advances have been made and that equality can be achieved through further changes such as new laws

• view does not emphasize conflict

radical feminism

believe despite these advances, society is still fundamentally patriarchal and that radical changes are needed

marxist feminism

combines ideas of feminism and marxism to emphasize the division between people of different gender and class