Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
practical issues
- time + money (how much will it cost, where will the money come from, how long will it take?)
- skills of researcher (trained? how old? experience?)
- subject matter (some topics will lend themselves to certain types of methods e.g. don't use a questionnaire at a match)
- research opportunity (e.g. could be unexpected, must be ready)
- access (e.g. ease of access to students/covert observer's way in/out)
- recording information (e.g. how will covert observer record what they see)
ethical issues
- informed consent
- protection from physical and psychological harm
- confidentiality and privacy (anonymity)
- deception
theoretical issues
- theoretical perspectives (positivists and interpretivists)
- validity = accuracy
- reliability
- representativeness
- generalisability
positivism
the belief that knowledge should be derived from scientific observation, prefer quantitative data as it's more reliable and objective
interpretivism
a research perspective in which understanding and interpretation of the social world is derived from one's personal intuition and perspective, prefer qualitative data as it's in-depth and valid
practical advantages of lab experiments
- can control variables
- takes place in 1 setting so researchers don't have to chase respondents
- easy to attract funding because of the prestige of science
practical disadvantages of lab experiments
- rarely used in sociology because individuals are too complex
- it's impractical (time, money, convenience) to put people in a lab setting
- if lab space is limited, only a small sample can be used
- labs are artificial environments so people don't act as they would in the 'real world'
- there is the expectancy effect - a form of experimenter bias where what the experiment expects will actually come true
ethical considerations of lab experiments
- IC = need agreement to take part, but explaining the experiment can be self-defeating as the hawthorne effect needs to be avoided
- harm = psychological harm is hard to measure
- some specific lab experiments have led to physical harm e.g. milgram
theoretical advantages of lab experiments
positivism
- controlled conditions allow researchers to isolate variables, allowing for exact measurement
- you can establish cause and effect relationships
- you can collect objective knowledge
- good reliability as it's easy to replicate the same conditions, and there's a high level of detachment between respondent and researcher
theoretical disadvantages of lab experiments
interpretivism
- lab experiments are reductionist: believe human behaviour can't be explained through simple cause and effect (people aren't puppets)
- lab experiments lack external validity because of artificial environment
- hawthorne effect may reduce validity
- lab experiments are small scale so not representative
- true objectivity is impossible: no researcher is able to keep their personal thoughts out of their research
- as a result ^, lab experiments are inappropriate for explaining human behaviour as we are conscious actors and our meanings need to be understood
practical advantages of field experiments
- doesn't waste time sending out questionnaires
- takes place in the actors natural environment
- usually the actors don't know about it, so will act naturally
- larger scale settings: can observe large scale social processes
- a researcher can 'set up' a field experiment and let it run for a while, then come back later
practical disadvantages of field experiments
- can take a lot of time to conduct depending on the number of subjects
- the researcher must choose a sampling method and carry it out (taking time)
- researchers must be trained to conduct the experiment
- access may be difficult, schools may be reluctant to let researchers in
ethical considerations of field experiments
is it right to experiment on individuals without informing them so they try to act naturally?
- deception, protection from harm and lack of informed consent can apply here
theoretical advantages of field experiments
- generally have better validity than lab experiments as they take place in real life
theoretical disadvantages of field experiments
- it's not possible to control the variables as closely as with lab experiments (it's impossible to observe participants 100% of the time)
- weaker reliability (it's more difficult to replicate)
practical advantages of structured interviews
- quick + cheap to administer so can cover a large number of people
- good for gathering simple, factual information about someone e.g. age, job, religion
- results are easily quantifiable as questions are closed-ended
- training interviewers is cheap and easy
- response rates are higher than questionnaires because it's hard to say no to someone face-to-face
practical disadvantages of structured interviews
- they are inflexible as the interviewer must stick to the schedule - makes it harder to pursue any interesting leads
- researchers must have some knowledge of the topic as the schedule is done in advance
- ^ meaning they're unsuitable for unfamiliar topics
- they're only snapshots in time so fail to capture the dynamic nature of life
ethical considerations of structured interviews
- interviewee may feel pressured to answer every question
- if sensitive topics are being discussed, psychological harm needs to be avoided
- researcher must gain informed consent and inform them of right to withdraw
- researcher must guarantee anonymity and confidentiality
- special considerations when dealing with children, make sure not to pressure them + keep it brief + also parental consent
theoretical advantages of structured interviews
positivism
- hypothesis testing - correlations between variables can be established by analysing answers, allowing for generalisations about behaviour patterns
- reliability - easy to standardise and control, interviewers can be trained to conduct in the same way every time
- reliability - easy to replicate was it doesn't depend on the individual characteristics of the interviewer
- representativeness - quick and easy to conduct so large number can be surveyed, increasing chance of a representative sample
theoretical disadvantages of structured interviews
interpretivism
- it can't uncover meanings of actors as it's low in validity and doesn't give a true picture of the subject
- feminism: rejects survey methods such as structured interviews as the relationship between interviewer and interviewee reflects the exploitative nature of gender relationships in patriarchal society
practical advantages of unstructured interviews
- informality allows the interviewer to develop a rapport which: puts the interviewee at ease, helps them to open up, and allows them to discuss difficult subjects if empathy is shown
- qualitative data
- can check whether questions are fully understood
- flexible - no set questions
practical disadvantages of unstructured interviews
- cost - training must be thorough and they must have a background in sociology so they can recognise when a sociological point is made
- time (interview takes a long time, limited number can be interviewed, relatively small sample, qualitative data must be decrypted)
- interviewer bias
- social desirability bias
- relying on memory
ethical considerations of unstructured interviews
- anonymity
- psychological harm (sensitive issues may be mentioned)
- informed consent must be gained
- interviewee needs to know they don't have to answer if they're uncomfortable
theoretical advantages of unstructured interviews
interpretivism
- validity - true to real life as people able to give their thoughts and feelings
- prefer qualitative data (in-depth)
- subjective
theoretical disadvantages of unstructured interviews
positivism
- believe it's an unscientifical research method
- lacks objectivity and reliability
- less representativeness than questionnaires as sample is small and often selected haphazardly
- not standardised
- success solely relies on researchers characteristics and skills
- produces qualitative data so difficult to compare and unlikely to be reliable
practical advantages of non-participant observation
- quicker + simpler than participant, so a more representative sample can be studied, allowing firmer generalisations
- less risky as observer remains detached, meaning they avoid influencing the group and keep objectivity
- useful if an observer only needs to spend a short time observing
- covert methods suitable for groups that may not welcome observers
- researchers can record info easier
practical disadvantages of non-participant observation
- the presence of the observer can affect the group, group may not act naturally
- hawthorne effect/interviewer effect, could lead to invalid research
- time-consuming and expensive compared to other methods
- researchers can't ask further questions to attach meanings
ethical considerations of non-participant observation
- deception: it involves 'spying' on people (without their knowledge or consent if covert)
- intrudes on privacy
- confidentiality may be an issue e.g. researcher must attach numbers to people instead of names
theoretical advantages of non-participant observation
positivists
- pre-coded observational categories allow the sociologist to produce quantitative data
theoretical disadvantages of non-participant observation
interpretivists
- it imposes the researchers view on reality, risking invalid data
practical advantages of participant observation
- gives us insight into peoples lives by allowing us to put ourselves in their place (verstehen)
- produces large amounts of rich, detailed, qualitative data
overt -
- the participants know they're part of the experiment
- can take notes out openly without having to rely on memory
- researcher doesn't have to act
covert -
- participants don't know they're part of an experiment
- more chance of fitting in and finding out detailed information
practical disadvantages of participant observation
- very time-consuming (years)
- large amounts of qualitative data is hard to analyse
- observer must be well-trained
overt -
- the group may refuse entry
- risks creating the hawthorne effect
covert -
- have to rely on memory to keep notes a secret
- must keep up an act, which can be stressful and demanding
ethical considerations of participant observation
- confidentiality
- informed consent (this may be a problem in schools as that requires parental consent which can be time-consuming)
- deception
- may have to participate in illegal activities
- in covert observations, the observer needs to either abandon the group without explanation or lie
theoretical advantages of participant observation
interpretivists
- by experiencing the life of the group firsthand, researchers are able to get closer to people's lived reality and gain subjective understanding of their meanings
- flexibility of this method produces valid data from unfamiliar situations
- produces insightful qualitative data
theoretical disadvantages of participant observation
positivists
- unscientifical research method
- lacks objectivity/reliability
- not standardised
- less representativeness to questionnaires as the group studied is generally small and the sample is selected haphazardly
practical advantages of questionnaires
- a quick and cheap way of gathering large amounts of quantitative data from large groups of people
- there is no need to group/train interviewers, it's self-report
- data is usually easy to quantify, particularly when pre-coded questions are used
practical disadvantages of questionnaires
- data is often limited and superficial as questions need to be brief
- very low response rates
- it may be necessary to offer incentives for people to answer the questionnaire, adding to costs
- questionnaires are only snapshots
- with postal questionnaires you can't be sure that the respondent ever actually received the questionnaire
ethical considerations of questionnaires
- very few
- if people return their questionnaire, they are consenting to it's use
- u16's require parental consent about certain topics e.g. crime
- some questionnaires can ask retrospective questions, which rely on the respondents memory, which could be a problem
theoretical advantages of questionnaires
positivists
- scientific
- produce representative findings that can be generalised to wider populations
- can establish correlations because they yield quantitative data about links between different variables
- reliable because each questionnaire is identical, so different answers = real life differences, not the result of different questions
- view scientific research as objective, so unbiased, preventing subjective views from affecting results
theoretical disadvantages of questionnaires
interpretivists
- cannot yield data about actors meanings (no verstehen)
- if there are cultural/language differences between research and respondent, these go undetected which could result in misunderstandings and lack of validity
- validity of questionnaire depends on the respondents willingness to answer truthfully
- social desirability
- favour observations to questionnaires as it allows us to see for ourselves what people actually do rather than what they say they do
practical advantages of documents
- they may be the only source of information (e.g. if you're studying someone from the past)
- they are a free/cheap source of large amounts of data (as someone else has already gathered the info)
- ^ saves time
practical disadvantages of documents
- it's not always possible to gain access to them
- others create documents for their own intentions, therefore the documents may not always answer what we want to ask
ethical considerations of documents
- informed consent + confidentiality on the organisations identity may be essential (e.g. schools report on bullying)
- privacy - researcher should ensure that individuals are unable to be identified in cases using diaries, letters etc, unless they are dead in which case their relatives need to be informed
theoretical advantages of documents
interpretivists
- validity - not written with sociology in mind so often more authentic to the authors views
- they give a valid picture of the actor's meanings
theoretical disadvantages of documents
positivists
- may lack validity as it may not be what it claims to be, it may be forged, also could be misinterpreted
- lack representativeness as some groups cant be represented by documents e.g. the illiterate can't keep diaries
- unreliable as they're not composed in a way we can compare them
practical advantages of content analysis
- cheap
- material is easily sourced from newspapers, tv etc
practical disadvantages of content analysis
- coding/analysing the data can be very time-consuming
ethical considerations of content analysis
- a secondary source, so no problems with privacy and confidentiality
- informed consent is irrelevant as sociologists struggle to find the actual individual
- ^ however, documents must be published, otherwise this is still important
theoretical advantages of content analysis
positivists = formal content analysis
- produces objective, representative, quantifiable data, which can make generalisations
- reliable as it can be repeated by others, allowing us to see a trend develop overtime
interpretivists = thematic analysis (selecting a small number of cases to produce in-depth analysis)
- they aim to find it's underlying meanings that have been 'encoded' in documents to uncover the authors ideological bias
theoretical disadvantages of content analysis
interpretivists = formal content analysis
- lacks validity (counting how many times something appears tells us nothing about it's meanings)
- not as objective as positivists claim as making categories and deciding where to place data involves judgements by the sociologist
positivist = thematic analysis
- doesn't attempt to attain a representative sample, so findings can't be generalised
- there is no proof that the meaning the sociologist gives to the document gives the true picture
practical advantages of official statistics
- a free source of huge amounts of quantitative data
- as only the government has the power of the documents, they organise a census form which must be completed, reducing the problem of non-response
- allows us to make comparisons between groups
- help us to see trends in data over time as they are collected as regular intervals
practical disadvantages of official statistics
- the governments creates statistics for their own purposes, not sociologists so it could be difficult to find what we need
- there could be mismatches between sets of statistics, making it hard to see correlations
- the definitions of the state may be different to the definitions of the sociologists
- the states may change the definition they use overtime, and different states may define the same term differently, making comparisons difficult
ethical considerations of official statistics
- confidentiality
- people could criticise the methods used, and they could be deemed inappropriate as a 'quick fix' way of finding information
- research could bring up past memories, so researchers have to avoid psychological harm
theoretical advantages of official statistics
positivists
- reliable, objective, representative, quantitative data
- findings can be generalised
- large scale for the budget they have
- because of the staff involved, they are reliable and would be able to be repeated again in the same way
theoretical disadvantages of official statistics
interpretivists
- cicourel: statistics are a social construct that represent labels that have been attached to people
- official statistics for mental illness are invalid, they don't measure what they claim to measure
feminists
- reject the use of quantitative survey methods because they are regarded as 'masculine' model of research
- they give a distorted picture of gender and social class
gatekeepers
anyone/anything that has the authority to allow, prevent or limit your research
impression management
social actors try to manipulate the impression other people have of us; this can be a barrier to research as the researcher has to fight this image
peer group pressure
respondents may feel pressured into conforming to the views of the main reference groups; applies to teachers as well as pupils
hawthorne effect
when respondents act up because they are aware their behaviour is being studied
power relationships
researchers have to consider ways to overcome the power differences between adult researchers and young participants e.g. group interviews, or interviewer in casual clothes
child protection/legal issues
- personal data about children should not be kept
- researchers need to consider the potential stress on young children e.g. long interviews
- need to consider if the research is of benefit to the child
captive population
schools provide readymade groups of students to study
controlled setting
classrooms are closed environments where behaviour, noise, dress, language, layout are all controlled
studying children
- easy to find, but difficult to access (there are many gatekeepers e.g. CRB check, child protection laws)
- vulnerable due to their age, so questions must be simple
- may be more naive so more truthful
- informed consent - children need extra protection from harm
- less developed language capabilities , so misinterpretation
- lower attention span, studies need to be shortened
- memories may be partial/not recalled
- power/authority of researcher may intimidate student, meaning student gives answer they think will please them
- pupils with anti-school subculture may not be co-operative
- pupils not used to being observed/interviewed
- impression management
- pupils susceptible to peer group pressure (conformity)
- are likely to respond to peer pressure, so need to be supervised when completing questionnaires
studying teachers
- may answer questions in ways to protect there careers/schools/families rather than truthfully
- ethically/legally, the teacher can't disclose any info that may damage pupils of the school
- easy to find, but busy and might not have time for interviews
- strong language capabilities, can be asked complex question and give coherent answers that give the researcher what they want
- are regularly observed e.g. ofsted, so are used to being observed/researched (can be positive/negative)
- skilled at impression management, so getting behind the public face may be difficult
- backstage context may be the staffroom, where they're still observed by other teachers
- subject to peer pressure as they continue working at the school after the research
studying parents
- difficult to access as schools may not give out parents addresses/details, they're also busy and may have limited time
- varying language capabilities
- some people may be deferential towards people that take a position of power
- are keen to make a good impression of themselves as being good parents, so may adjust their behaviour
- may have personal issues with the school/are protective of it
- not usually used to being researched, so may find it unnerving and strange
- parents act to safeguard their children, causes ethical concerns
- backstage = the home, private spaces may be difficult to access but parents would be more comfortable
studying in classrooms
- easy to find but difficult to access (classroom is protected and permission is required from gatekeepers)
- those in the classroom are vulnerable
- spatially limited in classrooms: observation is easy, but observer is very noticeable (giving rise to hawthorne effect)
- only 2 roles can be observed - teacher and pupil
- clear boundaries and restrictions on access and behaviour
- most teachers are only going to be able to observe and handful (lacks representativeness)
- a front-stage context and behaviour is controlled by the teacher and school: this is genuine but may not give a complete picture
studying in schools
- access is difficult, though they are easy to find
- they're concerned with public image, helping them in the education market, so any research issues that may damage their image won't be approved (institutional impression management)
- schools are data-rich with tons of data sociologists could benefit from (e.g. exam results, attendance), though access is variable and some personal data is unavailable
- only open 200 days a year and 8 hours a day with fixed timetables
- are spatially large and organisationally complex, so finding their way around may take a while
- head teachers have a lot of power, including refusing access
- some areas may be 'off-limits' to researchers
