Research methods

Lab experiements

Lab experiements

→ High degree of control by researcher, but more artificial

→ Positivists like as reliable + quantitative

• But will rarely use due to problems with them

→ Interpretivists find them invalid

Milgram obedience experiment

Problems with lab experiments

→ Artificiality; can results be translated to IRL? people react differently in artificial situations, invalid

→ Identifying/controlling variables; only effective when ALL variables can be controlled, but hard to control social interactions

→ Hawthorne effect; knowledge of being experimented on makes it invalid

→ Ethical issues; lots of experiments have ‘blinds’ to conceal aims of research, cant obtain informed consent

→ Limited application; labs small, cant study large-scale or past events/long durations

Field experiments

→ More true to life as takes place in real world

→ Cant control all variables

→ Sociologists will create/adapt a situation to their purpose

→ Participants usually unaware

→ Aims to get some control, but more natural than lab

Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment

Advantages of field experiments

→ Less artificial; set in real world

→ Validity; people unaware of situation and in their normal environment, so act normally

Disadvantages of field experiments

→ Less ctrl over variables; cant control everything IRL

→ Limited applications; few situations can be turned into a field experiment

→ Ethical issues; usually dont gain informed consent, would ‘give the game away’

Comparative method -- experiments

A ‘thought experiment’ identifying 2 similar groups with 1 different characteristic e.g. religion

→ Avoids problems with experiments e.g. artificiality, ethics

→ Can study past events

→ BUT can't control variables

• have you discovered true cause?

Durkheim -- comparative method

Compared suicide rates of otherwise similar Protestants + Catholics

What are questionnaires?

→ Social surveys distributed then returned

→ Answer pre-set questions, usually close ended, pre-coded answers

The Census

Barker ‘making of a Moonie’

Why do positivsts use questionnaires?

→ Believe in objective social reality, scientific approach

→ Questionnaires are replicable, quant. data easy to do on large scale

→ But low in validity

Advantages of questionnaires

→ Quick/cheap; dont need to train interviewers, responders complete themselves

→ Large scale; can gather lots of data cheaply

→ Easy to quantify; precoded close-ended Qs

→ Reliable; easy to replicate + compare results between groups

→ No researcher; no Hawthorne effect

→ Hypothesis testing; can test hypotheses about cause/effect relationships between variables

→ Little/no personal contact; can maintain detachment

→ Representativeness; can collect from more people = more likely to be representativen

→ Fewer ethical issues; respondents dont have to answer

Disadvantages of questionnaires

→ May ask sensitive Qs which upset people

→ Need to be brief; limits amt of info that can be gathered, ppl wont answer if its too time-consuming

→ Respondent issues; have they received it? has the named respondent actually completed it?

→ Low response rates; esp with postal questionnaires

→ Unrepresentative; low RR distorts representativeness

• busy people may fail to respond e.g. w/c

• can increase by offering incentives/sending follow ups, but adds to cost/time

→ inflexible; after finalising, cant explore new areas of interest

→ lacks validity; no contact between subject + researcher, cant know of respondent interprets questions/answers the same way

• ‘occasionally’ may mean diff things to diff people

→ people can lie; e.g. not knowing, giving answers to please/annoy researcher. affects validity

→ imposing researcher’s meanings; via choosing questions + response categories, limiting answers, etc.

What are structured interviews?

→ formal interviews

→ use an interview schedule to ask interviewees Qs in same way

→ choose from limited list of answers

^^Young & Wilmott ^^to study the ext. family

Why do positivsts use structured interviews?

→ Standardised; easily quantified

→ Reliable + can produce large-scale representative data

Advantages of structured interviews

→ Reliability; fixed list of Qs, easily replicated

→ Representative; conducted quickly so can have a larger sample

→ Cost; cheapest type of interview as quick + dont need to train interviewers

→ Face-to-face; higher response rate + can explain research purpose

→ Limited interviewer effect; aka interviewer presence affecting responses, which is irrelevant here as contact is just asking/responding to fixed Qs

Disadvantages of structured interviews

→ Lack of validity; interviewee cant explain their meanings

→ Reliability; interviewer effect - diff in social characteristics/research setting, so cant exactly replicate

→ Cost; more expensive than questionnaires

→ Sensitive issues; not issues for these, as you need to build rapport

How useful are structured interviews?

→ ^^Positivsts ^^say more useful than unstruc, especially where aiming to obtain basic factual info

→ ^^Feminists ^^say patriarchal, as usually male interviewer in control. Hard for women to express experiences of oppression

Oakley -- feminism and interviews

There is a distinctively feminist approach to research

→ Value-committed; takes womens side, gives voice to their oppression

→ Requires involvement with lives of women they study

→ Aims for ==equality/collaboration ==between researcher/researched

What are unstructured interviews?

→ Ask open-ended Qs, no fixed set of Qs/answers

→ Qualitative; interviewee responds in words that are meaningful to them

→ Free-flowing; guided conversation

→ Can build a rapport

Why do interpretivists use unstructured interviews?

→ People can talk openly

→ Not restricted by fixed list of Qs

Advantages of unstructured interviews

→ Highly valid; informal, so can build rapport + more likely to open up

• helps with sensitive issues

→ cant impose ideas onto interview process; interviewees can reply in their own words + raise issues they value

→ flexible; can ask follow-up questions for a truer picture

→ in-depth responses as questions open-ended

Disadvantages of unstructured interviews

→ Questionable validity; closer bond may mean respondent gives answers to please researcher

→ Unreliable; cant recreate: Qs/responses are random

→ Unrepresentative; time, so cant research as many people

→ Sensitive issues; some people prefer anonymity of a questionnaire

→ Cost; must train researchers, so higher cost

→ Relevance; could waste time by ambling into irrelevant territories

→ Group interviews; conformist answers/peer pressure

How useful are unstructured interviews?

→ Some validity problems

→ Best to combine unstruc + struc techniques into a semi-structured interview

→ Standardised questions, open answers

Types of observation

→ Participant; joins in with activities of group

→ Non-participant; avoids direct involvement with group

→ Overt; subjects know theyre being observed

→ Covert; keep real identity/purpose secret

→ Structured; systematically classifying behaviour into categories

→ Unstructured; just recording what they see/experience in whatever way they can

Viewpoints on observation

→ Interpretivists unstructured PO

→ Positivsts structured NPO

Typical characteristics of participant observation

→ Observer finds a role within the group that lets them study behaviour

→ Record observation in field notes

→ Usually years-long fieldwork

→ Starting with open mind, ideas emerge during study

Why do interpretivists use PO?

→ Want to discover meanings underlying our actions

→ PO helps them do this by gaining understanding of their worldview

• Can check this via daily experiences, see what they actually do not just what they say they do

→ ^^Positivists ^^claim it lacks reliability/representativeness

Advantages of PO

→ Highly valid due to…

→ Naturalistic approach; observing group in natural setting acting normally (esp. if covert); likely to be accurate account of behaviour

→ Authenticity; observing regular routines is often more authentic than questions

→ Open research process; fluid/flexible, researcher can ‘go with the flow’ - other research ideas many emerge in process

→ Offer insight; deeper understanding of behaviour, rather than just skimming surface

→ Detail; recorded observations are detailed, feel true-to-life

→ ==Can study closed groups ==via covert PO

• e.g. cults, criminals

→ Research opportunity; flexible, so when opportunities arise suddenly, researcher can seize the chance

→ Flexibility; if new issues arise mid-study, can adapt PO accordingly

Disadvantages of PO

→ Unreliable/unrepresentative; open-ended so cant be replicated, and can only study small groups, cant generalise

→ Hawthorne effect; observer presence could affect group behaviour

• overt (presence of researcher) or covert (presence of new member)

→ Going native; observer may over-identify with group, can affect their interpretations

• Ventakesh ‘gang leader for a day’

→ Interpretation issues; observer cant be certain theyve understood meanings in the same way as the subjects

→ Deception; lack of informed consent

• could even BE IN DANGER (Humphreys)

→ Immoral activities; researchers may need to partake or risk blowing cover

→ Hard to ensure anonymity; especially in small-group PO

→ Getting in; may be hard to join

→ Staying in; especially with covert obvs, may have to maintain false identity long-term

Overt and Covert PO compared

ETHICS

→ overt: problem of protecting identities

→ covert: lack of informed consent

ACCESS

→ overt: could be denied

→ covert: hard to gain entry, need similar characteristics

MAINTAINING MEMBERSHIP

→ overt: easy once accepted

→ covert: risk of blowing cover, could cause danger or end research

ASKING QS

→ overt: can ask Qs openly, increased validity

→ covert: direct Qs could raise suspicions, restricts observer

VALIDITY

→ overt: Hawthorne effect

→ covert: acts more naturally

How useful is PO?

→ Lack reliability/representativeness

• But interpretivists more interests in validity, see PO as closest to being fully valid

→ May be ==only way to study some groups ==e.g. deviants

How does structured observation work?

→ Use an observation schedule to identify/measure patterns of behaviour

→ Researcher decides how to categorise behaviour in advance, codes so that data can be quantified + turned into statistics

e.g. recording frequency of event

→ Usually overt as difficult to conceal obs schedules

Why do positivists use structured observation?

→ Fixed categories = easily quantified

Advantages of structured obswervation

→ Produces reliable data; easily replicated by using same fixed categories

→ Comparing data; can quickly/easily produce quant. data by counting frequency of events observed

• Can directly compare different observations

Disadvantages of structured observation

→ Use of categories; events may not fit any categories/may fit multiple

→ Counting events; doesnt tell us their meaning

→ Different observers may put same event in diff categories

→ Observer may miss some events in an interaction

→ Only useful for small-scale interactions

→ ==Intensive ==to carry out

What are official statistics?

→ Quant data collected by govt bodies e.g. Census

→ Hard stats; counts of events e.g. birth/deaths

→ Soft stats; more easily manipulated e.g. crime stats

from the Office of National Statistics

Why do positivists use official statistics?

→ Deliver large-scale, rep, quant. data with reliable methods

→ Interpretivists say too socially constructed

Advantages of official statistics

→ Availability; already existing, cheap + readily available

• Some published regularly, can be compared

• Already categorised

→ Representativeness; big samples e.g. Census

→ Coverage; cover many important topics, especially which state are interested in

• ed, marriage, crime

→ Prompts to research; provide starting points e.g. patterns in need of further investigation

• boys’ educational underachievement first discovered by official stats

→ Background data; provide useful background material

• e.g. class/gender/ethnic makeup of a research group

→ Comparability of data; quantative, can draw comparisons

→ Reliability; same categories/modes of collection used every time, can be replicated

• BUT can be changed e.g. league tables

Disadvantages of official statistics

→ Definition/measurements of concepts may differ from those of the sociologists

• stats measure class in terms of occupation, but some sociologists see this as based on ownership of property

→ Reliability; may not be e.g. errors in recordings people completing forms wrong

→ Social construction; official stats are socially constructed, result of social processes

• for crime to appear in official stats, it has to go through a process. dark figure of crime

→ Political bias; Marxists say stats reflect r/c interests

• definitions used/how stats presented based on political choices

• definition of unemployment changed 30x during Conservative govt

→ Male bias; ^^Feminists ^^say stats biased against women

• e.g. definition of ‘work’ in Census excludes unpaid housework

Atkinson -- official stats

Variation in what is labelled a ‘suicide’ based on coroners’ choices

→ SHows how these are socially constructed

How useful are official statistics?

→ Presented as social facts by positivsts, but constructs by interpretivists

→ Hard stats less socially constructed

→ Soft stats more

What are documents?

→ Secondary data made by individuals/groups, which sociologists use for research

→ Personal docs; letters, diaries, memoirs, notes, albums

→ Public docs; reports from govt/charities/businesses

→ Usually qual. data experssing beliefs, some have statistical data

• Black Report into health inequality

Why do interpretivists use documents?

→ Docs usually qualitative; researcher can explore meanings people can attach to events

→ Highly valid; freely expressed meanings of those who produce them

Advantages of personal documents

→ Validity; written for personal purposes, genuine insight into people’s attitudes

→ Cheap/fast; save time + free/cheap to access, but might be hard to access

Disadvantages of personal documents

→ Unrepresentative; some groups (e.g. illiterate) arent likely to produce personal docs e.g. letters/diaries, so views aren't represented

• those with time/literacy may be overrepresented

→ Benefit of hindsight; some docs are created post-event with benefit of hindsight e.g. memoirs, autobiographies

→ Written with an audience/personal bias; e.g. letters written with audience in mind, may affect whats recorded

Advantages of public documents

→ Detailed

→ Cheap

→ Easy to access

Disadvantages of public documents

→ Content may be selective/biased + reflect views of journalist/media owner

→ Authors aware that documents are publicly available

Historical public documents

→ Often only way to study past societies

• Especially if all survivors are now dead

→ Can be issues with interpreting

• MEanings of things change over time

→ Some historical docs are lost/destroyed; incomplete/unrep picture of the past

Content analysis and documents

→ Quant content analysis measures amount of coverage given to issue

• News reports etc., amount of time/space given to particular POVs

• doesnt tell us about meaning

→ Interpretivists use qual content analysis to examine meanings given to particular words/images

Scott -- usefulness of documents

Four tests of any document

→ Authenticity; is it genuine?

→ Credibility; can we believe it? is author sincere?

→ Representativeness; how typical is the doc of a wider social group?

→ Meaning; can we interpret author’s meaning correctly?

Examples of PO

^^Barker ^^‘making of a moonie’, overt

^^Ventakesh ^^‘gang leader for a day’, overt

Whyte ‘street corner society’, covert

^^Patrick ^^‘glasgow gang observed’, covert

^^Humpreys ^^‘tea room trade’, covert