research methods
intro: definition - qualitative/quantitative
practical: time, cost, accessing participants, personal characteristics (social class, gender, ethnicity), response rate
ethical: consent, confidentiality, harm caused,
theoretical: positivists / interpretivists - why do they like/dislike the method
conclusion: strength + weakness, triangulate - pairing it with 2 others to improve validity/reliability
evaluate the strengths & limitations of using questionnaires to investigate parental involvement in education
intro: a fixed list of questions that are typically closed & it produced quantitative data
practical: cheap & quick, large numbers of questionnaires can be posted through mail, online, or given to students to pass to their parents - produces a large sample - provides representative data → this method is useful for identifying trends/patterns, e.g. working class parents providing less support to their children - less likely to help with homework or attend parents evenings
practical: low response rate - parents may not complete/ignore questionnaires - don’t want to show themselves in a negative light, busy working (especially working class parents - tend to work longer hours) - reduces the representativeness of it, stereotypes may be made about working class parents. language barriers - ethnic minority parents may not understand the questionnaire & therefore not fill it in because theres no opportunity to clarify the meaning of the question, or may fill it in wrong / working class restricted code- reduces validity
ethical: very few ethical concerns - they manage to gain informed consent, no deception involved, anonymous nature - parents may be more honest/open - improves validity
ethical: harm - parents may feel judged being questioned about their involvement & home life - may feel like they are being blamed for their child’s achievement → give dishonest answers / not respond
theoretical: (Durkheim) positivists prefer - they are reliable, easy to make comparisons & identify patterns - useful for creating policies & influencing gov
theoretical: (Weber) interpretivists criticise - dislike using because they have low validity, due to the fixed preset questions - limits peoples responses, cannot add more depth & detail to their answers, e.g. a parent may tick yes for providing support with homework but there is no way to investigate or analyse the quality of this support. social desirability bias - parents may exaggerate the amount of support or involvement they have to present themselves in a good image - lowers validity
conclusion: questionnaires are cheap & quick, but encourage dishonest answers. to overcome this, the researcher should triangulate their research by using observations & interviews to improve the validity.
evaluate the strengths & limitations of using official stats to investigate ethnic differences in educational achievement
intro: a secondary resource collected by governments & schools producing quantitative data
practical: large-scale & representative - stats cover huge numbers of students across the country (national) - allows sociologists to make comparisons between ethnic groups & their achievement levels - therefore identify trends: black Caribbean students are underachieving - higher exclusion rates - whereas Indian & Chinese pupils outperform white students. cheap & easy to access - already collected by gov/schools online for free. useful because schools are difficult places to gain access to - gatekeepers & children are a vulnerable group
practical: can be manipulated by gov & schools by removing certain students results from the data - makes schools appear more successful → league table/attracting students - avoids making the institution seem racist. ethnic categories may be simplistic - broad categories like ‘black' & ‘asian” tend to overlook small differences between ethnicities, e.g. Indian = outperform, Pakistani = underperform → false generalisations being made
ethical: few concerns - no need for consent, data is confidential, no direct contact with students (no safeguarding issues
ethical: official stats can lead to simplistic generalisations about ethnic groups & their intelligence - can create negative stereotypes & labels in the school system
theoretical: positivists (Durkheim) favour the use of official stats because - reliable, representative, find trends & patterns, influence policy, make comparisons, investigate issues in schools - institutional racism, ethnocentric curriculum. used official stats in suicide study.
theoretical: interpretivists (Weber) dislike stats - low in validity - don’t provide the depth, cannot reveal the experiences of pupils within schools, stats only tell you who is performing well but not the why - labelling, material deprivation, language barriers, don’t show us how & why teachers hold racialised expectations of black students.
conclusion: stats are freely available to access but may have been manipulated by schools or gov, to overcome this the researcher should triangulate using questionnaires & interviews to improve validity