Research methods in education

Strengths

Limitations

Questionnaires

Practical- quick and easy

Ethics- consent, anonymous

Potential to be representative as can be sent out to lots of people for cheap

Reliable- easy to do so repeatable

Positivists like as can see trends

Validity- lying and right answerism where you change answers to be socially desirable

Unrepresentative- low response rate and only a certain demographic reply

Lack of flexiblity due to set questions and responses- lack of validity

Potential to answer inaccurately as cannot ask for clarification- lack of validity

Structured Interviews

Reliable- set questions so repeatable

Validity- can ask for clarification over misunderstandings, less likely to lie

Representative- can control the sample

Ethics- get informed consent

Positivists like- see trends

Reliability- set questions means less intervewer bias

Responses are slightly qualitative but you can still compare

Do not need a skilled interviewer- more practical and reliable

Validity- cannot ask follow up questions so lacks real truth

Practical- logistically challenging, time consuming and costly

Takes time so repeated less and group not as representative

Validity- interviewer bias

Practical/ validity- limited question design

Social desirability- lack of validity

Unstructured Interviews

Validity- can ask follow up questions to clarify meaning, and build rapport with the interviewee through a more normal conversation to create trust

Theories- interpretivists like as it allows for deeper questioning to get meaning through qualitative data so more likely to be valid

Practical (TLC)- harder to organise, takes more time and requires more skill on the part of the interviewerso is less practical

Reliable- less practical so not easy to repeat so less reliable

Representative- as it is less practical, it is harder to make it representative

Theories- positivists dislike as there is no quantitative data to compare

Ethical- more likley to be unethical as could ask inapproriate questions which you did not get informed consent for- could make people upset

Validity- interviewer bias, may ask leading questions

Non- participant covert observations

Validity- can take notes as you go along and there is no hawthorne effect so more true to life

Theories- Positivists like, as it is objective so can get a bird’s eye view

Reliability- as it is covert and non-participant the research does not change what is being observed so it is easier to repeat

Ethical- deception as cannot get informed consent

Validity- distance means you cannot fully understand a situation

Practical- need a skilled observer and a way to be hidden

Theories- interpretivists dislike as cannot build empathy/ understanding due to being non-participant- so less valid

Non-participant overt observations

Validity- can take notes as you go along

Theories- more Positivist as objective and bird’s eye view

Ethics- will have got informed consent

Practical- have to organise, have a skilled observer

Validity- despite not participating you are in the room so due to the hawthorne effect you may change people’s behaviour

Theories- interpretivists dislike as you cannot understand meaning behind behaviour

Participant covert observations

Validity- gain first hand knowledge by building a relationship of trust so can gather more in depth date. Sociologist will not influence group as undercover so no Hawthorne effect. Can adapt as you go along to include new issues.

Practical- takes time but may be easiest to do e.g. criminals won’t be interviewed but you could study them this way

Theories- interpretevists like as can generate rich data

Reliability- as it is covert it is easy to repeat

Ethics- taking part without them knowing that you are researching so deceiving meaning no informed consent.

Practical- hard to accurately record information while undercover

Representative- only studying a small group of people

Ethics- may be put in danger or witness unpleasant things

Evidence e.g. chelse headhunters

Validity- may become so involved you are biased ‘going native’

Participant overt observation

Validity- gain first hand knowledge by building a relationship of trust so that you can gather more indepth data. Can adapt to include new topics.

Theories- interpretivists like as generates rich data with meaning

Ethics- have informed consent

Validity- Ps know you are there so may show social desirability bias due to hawthorne effect making behaviour less valid. May become so involved you go native, and become biased.

Practical- time consuming.

Representative- only a small group

Field experiments

Validity- as it is in their natural environment, Ps will act more genuinely and data is from a real world situation.

Interpretivists like- can understand meaning.

Validity- cannot control all the variables so cannot directly know cause and effect.

Ethics- usually don’t get informed consent in order to have no hawthorne effect

Representative- not of wider groups

Practical- hard to organise, stay undercover et.c

Official statistics

Practical- easy to get as secondary so cheap to use

Representative- of whole population due to large samples, and over time.

Theories- positivists like as can see trends and compare.

Ethical issues- avoids as readily available and confidential

Reliable- easily repeatable

Validity- completed by government so may be biased, or not show the whole picture e.g. dfoc

Theories- interpretivists dislike as see them as socially constrcted and manipulated

Documents

Practical- easy, cheap to get as large amount publicly available

Ethics- public documents have been kept confidential

Reliability- many done in systematic format so repeatable

Theories- done in different ways so pleases both

Representative- large samples

Ethics- personal documents may breach confidentiality and informed consent

Validity- may present themselves in best ways so not true.