What do Positivists believe in? How do they conduct research processes? What do Interpretivists believe in? How do they conduct research processes? What are the three key concepts that judge the usefulness of research methods? What is primary and secondary data? What are Positivists and Interpretivists methodological preferences? What are some practical factors that may restrict the sociologists choice of methods? What are some of the ethical factors that may effect people’s lives in research? Evaluation: which factor is the most important in research methods? What factors can affect a researchers choice of topic?

Reliability: the methods must be replicable if it is to be reliable Reliability: the methods must be replicable if it is to be reliable. They must be repeatable to obtain the same results, regardless of who actually carries out the research. It also means using standardised forms of measurement. Positivists prefer a scientific approach emphasising the need for reliability. Representativeness: characteristics of the sample need to be the same of those as a wider group. Allows research to be more confident and allow them to make generalisations. Validity: how authentic and true/accurate the data is. Claim that there is no objective social reality, just the subjective meanings that social actors give to events. Therefore, the aim of research is to uncover actors’ meanings or worldview. Use open-ended research methods that produce valid, qualitative data like unstructured interviews, participant observation and personal documents These methods enable the sociologist to gain understanding by experiencing the group’s lifestyle for themselves, or by allowing individuals to explain their worldview in theirs own words without the sociologist imposing their own views Argue that there is a measurable, objective social reality that exists. See behaviour as the result of social forces shaping what we do, and the aim of research is to discover the underlying causes of our behaviour. Use standardised methods of research like questionnaires, structured interviews and observations, and official statistics. This can obtain reliable and representative quantitative data. Use the data they find to identify general patterns and trends in behaviour, from which they produce cause-and-effect explanations. Time: some methods take more time. Finance: the availability of finance can affect the number of researchers, responders and the amount of research time Source of funding: research reflects the concerns of funding bodies such as the gov. Often easier to get funding for quantitative research. Personal factors: researcher careers, family time etc. may get in the way of doing lengthy research Research subjects: some groups are less open, so methods such as structured aren’t appropriate Research opportunity: if an opportunity appears, researcher may not have time to prepare Personal danger: methods involving direct contact with group can increase possibility of danger to researchers Positivists prefer quantitative data. In their view, the aim of research is to reveal cause-and-effect relationships. This requires quantitative data to identify patterns and trends in behaviour. They thus prefer to use structured research techniques. Interpretivists prefer qualitative data. In their view, the aim of research is to uncover the meanings people hold. The only way to do this is to allow them to act or speak in the always they feel are appropriate. This is best achieved by unstructured research methods. Primary data is evidence collected by sociologists themselves for their own sociological purposes. This is material collected first-hand by researchers using methods such as questionnaires, observation and interviews. Secondary data is any information that has already been collected by someone else for their own purposes and that may then be used by the sociologists. Official statistics, business records, media reports, diaries and personal documents are common forms of secondary data. Practical factors: some topics may not be easily studied. E.g. high level political decision making may be inaccessible to the researcher Funding bodies: have enormous influence as they will only fund things which they think are important Society’s values: can change and the interest in particular topics and issues change with them Researcher's theoretical perspective: may affect whether or not they will become involved in studying a particular topic. E.g. feminists are likely to study gender issues Chance: sometimes, researchers find themselves in a potential research situation by pure chance Theoretical factors are a positive influence because they are about the kind of data the sociologist prefers to have Practical and ethical factors are more of a limitation on choice of method Practical, ethical and theoretical concerns are often interrelated. E.g. collecting qualitative data produces practical problems, whilst gathering quantitative data creates ethical problems. Some sociologists see advantages in both types of data. Triangulation means combining quantitative and qualitative methods so that the strengths of one balance the others weaknesses Informed consent: researchers need permission from participants to carry out research Confidentiality: participants have right to anonymity so they cannot be identified when research is published. Can be difficult to achieve with small groups Effects on research subjects: findings can be used by political groups or the media that may damage the research subjects Vulnerable groups: special care should be taken when investigating groups that are vulnerable because of age, gender disability etc. additional consents often required Covert research: ethical problem of deception when withholding researcher’s real identity and the difficulty of gaining access to groups who don’t want to be investigated

What is the process of research? What is operationalisation? What is a sampling frame? What are the different types of sampling? Are all samples representative? How are samples representative?

This means researchers may only be able to study a sample of it. It is often impractical to study all the members of the research population because of the size, lack of time and money and other resources. This means researchers may only be able to study a sample of it. Sampling frames are a list of all the members of the research population from which the sample can be chosen. The process of converting a concept into something measurable. For example, educational achievement might be defined as having passed five GCSEs. However, when different sociologists operationalise the same concept differently, it becomes harder to compare their findings. Once a topic is chosen, an aim or hypothesis is chosen. Before research can begin, the researcher needs to define their sociological concepts or ideas in ways that can be measured. This is called operationalising concepts If the researcher is using a survey method, the next stage is to produce a draft questionnaire or interview schedule and give them a trial run. This is called a pilot study and is used to iron out any problems and to refine questions A sample should have the same characteristics, in the same proportions, as the wider research population. It should be a cross-section of the whole group. If the sample is a representative cross-section, then what is true of the sample is likely to be true of the whole group. Representativeness is important to Positivists because they want to make generalisations and discover general laws of social behaviour. Small samples are less likely to be representative of large populations. Interpretivists are more interested in the meanings held by social actors. Because they are not trying to establish laws of social behaviour that might apply to large social groups, they feel it is less important to use representative samples. If the researcher does not have a sampling frame that includes all members of the research population, they cannot create a representative sample. Random sampling: every member of the sampling frame has an equal chance of being selected. Eliminates bias in sample selection. Not all random samples large enough to reflect characteristics of whole research population Systematic or quasi-random sampling: selecting every nth person in the sampling frame. Can reduce chance of a biased sample Stratified sampling: researcher stratifies population by age, class, gender etc. The sample is then created in the same proportions Quota sampling: population stratified as above, then each interviewer given a quota which they have to fill with respondents who fit characteristics

What is a laboratory experiment? What is a field experiment? What do Positivists argue about experiments? What do Interpretivists argue about experiments? What are the problems with lab experiments? What are the advantages of field experiments? What are the disadvantages of field experiments? What is the comparative method?

Positivists believe experiments are very reliable because they can be repeated exactly, allowing previous findings to be checked Experiments also meet the Positivists’ requirement that data should be quantitative and scientifically collected Field experiments take place in the real social world where the sociologist either creates a situation or adapts an existing real-life situation to their research purpose Those involved are usually unaware that an experiment is taking place. The aim of field experiments is to obtain some element of control while avoiding the artificiality of the laboratory A lab experiment is conducted in in controlled conditions so it has a high degree of control over other variables So the researcher can establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the IV and the DV. The control group receive no manipulation of the IV. The experimental group receive the manipulation of the IV. Experimenters then compare the results of the two groups to determine if there has been an effect There is less artificiality because field experiments are set in real-world situations Because people are unaware of the experimental situation and are in their usual social environment, they will act normally and their reactions will be genuine, giving it more validity Artificiality: doubtful whether the results can be transferred to real world. How people react in lab conditions not the same as real life. Lacks validity Identifying & controlling variables: complexity of social interactions with a large number of influences at works means it’s impossible to identify and control all variables The Hawthorne Effect: even if participants don’t know real purpose of experiment, their knowledge that they are part of it may affect their behaviour. Reduces validity Ethical problems: hiding purpose of experiment leads to deception which means researcher does not have informed consent. Some experiments may lead to emotional and psychological effects Limited application: lab is a small place, so only small-scale social interaction can be studied. Impossible to study past events or events of long duration Interpretivists claim that experiments do not translate easily to the study of social behaviour and they produce data that is low in validity They also argue that humans are fundamentally different from the natural phenomena that natural scientists study because of consciousness and free will, so experiments don’t really reflect The comparative method is a thought experiment that involves identifying two groups that are the same except for one characteristic The method avoids artificiality, can be used to study and poses no ethical problems It gives no control over variables so cannot be certain it has discovered the true cause of something Less control over variables: do not meet the rigorous scientific criteria of the lab experiment Limited application: relatively few situations can be adapted to become a field experiment. Testing the influence of one factor in a limited way is possible but more complex things becomes very problematic. Also tend to measure what people do and not why they do it Ethical problems: because people are usually unaware of the experiment, the researcher does not usually gain fully informed consent

What are questionnaires? Why do Positivists use questionnaires? What are the advantages of questionnaires? What are the disadvantages of questionnaires? What is a structured interview? Why do Positivists use structured interviews? What are the advantages of structured interviews? What are the disadvantages of structured interviews? Evaluation: how useful are structured interviews?

Questionnaires ask respondents to answer pre-set questions Practical advantages: questionnaires are quick and cheap, don’t need to train interviewers or observers, they gather large quantities of data from large numbers of people, widely spread geographically Reliability: set questions means they can be easily replicated so that results obtained by different groups can be compared. Researcher isn’t present to influence answers Hypothesis testing: useful for testing hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships between different variables Detachment and objectivity: completed with little or no personal contact between researchers and respondents. No bias caused by presence of researcher Representativeness: collection of info from large numbers of people can obtain representative sample Positivists take a scientific approach and use standardised methods of research to obtain quantitative data. This allows them to produce generalisations and cause-and-effect statements They prefer questionnaires because they deliver reliable data by using the same questions Questionnaires generate quantitative data that can be used to test hypotheses and identify correlations between variables Can be used on a large scale to produce representative data Written or self-completed questionnaires are the most common form of social survey They can be distributed to people at game and returned by post, emailed, or collected on the spot Questionnaires ask respondents to answer pre-set questions Questions tend to be closed-ended, often with pre-coded answers Positivists prefer structured interviews because they employ fixed lists of close-ended questions so that answers can be classified, counted and quantified. This allows researchers to identify patterns and produce generalisations and cause-and-effect statements Reliable because they can be easily replicated and can produce fairly large-scale representative data A structured interview involves the face-to-face or over-the-phone delivery of a questionnaire. They use an interview schedule which is a pre-set list of questions designed by the researcher and asked of all interviewees in the same way Interviewees then choose from a limited list of possible answers They are relatively brief Practical problems: the briefness limits the amount of info that can be gathered. Cannot known if intended respondent actually answered the questions Response rate: few people return their questionnaires. Low samples can represent Inflexibility: one questionnaire has been finalised, researchers cant explore any new areas of interest during the course of research Detachment: little or no contact between researcher can make data lack validity as answers can’t be clarified & misunderstandings can’t be cleared up Lying, forgetting and right answerism: respondents may lie, not know, forget, not understand or try to please or annoy the researcher. Undermines the validity Imposing the researcher’s meanings: researcher chooses which questions to ask and decides response categories Positivists consider the quantitative data generated to be much more useful than the qualitative material that emerges from unstructured interviews Particularly useful for when a researcher wants to obtain basic factual info or gain some idea of general patterns of attitudes and behaviour Feminists argue that that they are patriarchal because the interviewer is in control and not female interviewees, making it difficult for women to express their experience of oppression Lack of validity: Interview schedule can’t be altered once it’s finalised, so participants can’t raise new issues. Fixed-response questions may prevent the interviewer from saying what they really think. Difficult to know if respondent is being truthful. Not completely free from interviewer effect Reliability: interviewers will have different social characteristics and setting will vary, not exactly replicable Cost: training interviewers costs significantly Sensitive issues: asking a fixed list of questions can be off-putting and not useful for investigating sensitive issues where a rapport is need Reliability: fixed list of question and pre-coded response categories make easily quantifiable data, replicable and can be used to verify earlier results or changes over time. Responses measured the same way means data from different interviews is directly comparable Representativeness: large samples interviewed more likely to produce more representative results and allow for generalisations. Also have a higher response rate Cost: cheapest form of interview Interviewer-interviewee contact: face-to-face interviews gather more responses and researcher’s presence explains importance of research Limited interviewer effect: contact is limited to asking and responding to a fixed list of questions and answers

What are unstructured interviews? Why do Interpretivists use unstructured interviews? Why do Interpretivists argue that unstructured interviews are high in validity? What are the disadvantages of unstructured interviews? Evaluation: how useful are unstructured interviews? What are the SIX types of observations? What observations do Interpretivists and Positivists tend to use? What are the typical characteristics of a participant observation? Why do Interpretivists use participant observations?

Positivists tend to use structured non-participant observation The informal, conversational nature of the interviews means that trust and rapport can develop between the interviewer and respondent They avoid the danger of the sociologist imposing their ideas onto the interview process because there are no set questions or fixed response categories The flexibility adds to validity because the interviewer can follow up any issues raised by the interviewee Open-ended questioning allows interviewees to give detailed, in depth answers. Sociologist can understand interviewee’s worldview Because they give people the opportunity to talk openly, unrestricted by a fixed list of questions and possible responses. As a result, it is likely that their meanings and worldview will emerge more clearly. Interpretivists prefer this because they seek to discover the meanings that underlie our actions Unstructured interviews ask mainly open-ended questions with no fixed set of question to be asked of every participant Produce qualitative data because the interviewee can respond in words that are meaningful to them Are guided by the asker and respondent equally Are informal and free flowing, more like a guided conversation Build stronger relationship between researcher and research subject Participant (PO): researcher joins in the activities of the group they are studying Non-participant: observer avoids any direct involvement with research group Overt: researcher explains their intention to the group so they now they’re being observed Covert: researcher keeps real identity and purpose a secret from group Structured: researcher systematically classifies the behaviour they observe into distinct categories Unstructured: observer simply records what they see and experience in whatever way they can Interpretivists have a strong preference for them but they have difficulties in achieving the degree of validity they seek An unstructured approach with open-ended questions can be used when the researcher wants to explore interviewees’ meanings and attitudes in depth Lack of validity: rapport can lead to participant seeking to please interviewer. Issue of being selective with huge final amount of data Lack of reliability: impossible to count and classify responses, statistical evidence can’t be created Lack of representativeness: the time they take to complete means smaller sample size Unsuitability for sensitive issues: people prefer to be anonymous when talking about issues Cost: researchers need to be trained, data takes longer to process Relevance: interviewee may talk about irrelevant issues Group interviews: danger of conformity Sustained participation in a group’s activities allows the observer to gain a clear understanding of their worldview that can be constantly checked against their daily experience of the group The observer finds a role within the group that allows them to study group behaviour Observations are recorded in field notes The research often involves years of field work Researchers start with an open mind and research ideas emerge during the study It can be either covert or overt Interpretivists tend to use overt or covert participant observations and record their observations in an unstructured way Positivists tend to use structured non-participant observation

Why do participant observations have the advantage of having high validity? What are some other advantages of participant observations? What are the disadvantages of participant observations? Why are participant observations unreliable and unrepresentative? What are the ethical issues with participant observations? What are the practical problems with participant observations? Why do participant observations have problems with validity? Compare overt and covert PO. Evaluation: how useful are participant observations?

They are unreliable and unrepresentative Produce problems with validity Produce ethical problems Produce practical problems Studying closed groups: some social groups are difficult to research. Covert PO is the only way of studying a particular group or issue Research opportunity: PO is very flexible so if a research opportunity occurs the researcher can seize the chance to join and study Flexibility: if a new issue arises in a study, the PO can be adapted accordingly Its naturalistic approach: the group is observed in its natural setting so is more likely to act normally & unaffected by researcher presence Authenticity: observation of a group’s normal social routines more likely to produce authentic account of their worldview than asking questions would An open research process: researcher goes with the flow allowing research ideas to emerge in the process Offers insight: sharing experiences with group allows sociologist to see beneath the surface The data generated is richly detailed Getting in: joining the group one wishes to study can be difficult Staying in: may be problematic since it will involve maintaining a false identity and role for long periods. Also threatens validity. Many find the work stressful Getting out: can be difficult if emotional bonds to the group have been formed With covert PO, the group are under the false impression that the new member is genuinely committed to the group when it is actually the researcher. Deliberate deception The covert observer may also witness or have to participate in illegal or immoral activities or risk blowing their cover With small group research, it is difficult to ensure anonymity of those being studied Positivists see PO as fundamentally flawed because it is unscientific Being open open-ended and having subjective research means study cannot be replicated PO gives control of research process to the research subjects which removes any chance of the data being reliable Most studies are one-off investigations of small social groups that are unlikely to be representative so generalisations can’t be made PO lacks reliability and representativeness but Interpretivists are more interested in validity and they see PO as the technique that gets closet to this aim Doubtful whether this approach can produce research evidence that is completely valid Has a particular strength in that it is sometimes the only way to study certain groups and issues Ethics: overt has the problem of protecting group’s identity. Covert lacks informed consent Access: with overt access can be denied if group refuses to be involved in research. With covert it can be hard to gain entry Maintaining group membership: with overt it’s easy. With covert there is a constant risk of being discovered Asking questions: overt can openly question members to clarify points. With covert, direct questions can raise suspicions Validity of data: in overt, group members may act differently. With covert they act normal The Hawthorne Effect: observer’s presence is likely to affect the group’s behaviour, particularly in an overt observation Going native: observer may also be affected by the group. The researcher’s attitude to the group will affect their interpretation of the group’s actions Interpretation problems: observer can never really be absolutely certain that they have understood the meaning of events in the same way as the research subjects

What is a structured observation? Why do Positivists use structured observation? What are the advantages of structured observations? What are the disadvantages of structured observations? What are official statistics? Why do Positivists use official statistics? What are the advantages of official statistics? What are the problems with official statistics? Evaluation: how useful are official statistics?

Reliability: structured observation produces reliable data because they can be easily replicated by other researchers using the same fixed categories as the original Comparing data: allows quantitative data to be produced quickly and easily by counting the frequency or duration of the events. This means the results of different observations can be directly compared so the researcher can see patterns and relationships Positivists prefer to use structured observation because it uses fixed categories, so they can be easily quantified Uses an observation schedule to identify and measure patterns of behaviour Researcher decides in advance how to categorise behaviour they will observe Categories on the schedule are coded so that the data collected can be easily counted and turned into statistics Recording of observations may take place every five seconds or so It is for a researcher to conceal that they are using an observation schedule, so structured observation is usually overt Positivists prefer official statistics because they deliver large-scale, representative, quantitative data, collected by reliable methods such as questionnaires Quantitative data collected by government bodies They come from two main sources; the day-to-day activities of government departments, and surveys Hard statistics: simple counts that register events such as births and deaths. These are not easily manipulated Soft statistics: these are more easily manipulated Loss of validity: counting the frequency of events doesn’t tell anything about their meaning. Events may not fit any of the categories, or may overlap several categories. Different observers may place the same event into different categories. The observer cannot always observe and record everything in an interaction Other problems: only useful when studying small-scale interactions. It is also a very intensive method to carry out Positivists present them as social facts but Interpretivists see them as social constructs that aren’t true representations of reality Hard statistics are less socially constructed and more accurate because they are simple counts of events Soft statistics are less reliable and less valid because they are more likely to be politically manipulated or are the outcome of interactions and labelling Definition and measurement: definitions of concepts, how they have been operationalised and how the data is presented may differ Reliability: recording errors can be made, people may complete forms inaccurately Social construction: Interpretivists argue official statistics are social constructs and not objective truth Political bias: Marxists claim official statistics reflect ruling class interests and ideology. Definitions used, areas covered and presentation of data are all political decisions Male bias: feminists argue official statistics are biased against women Availability: cheap and readily available in an accessible form. Data is already categorised and in immediately usable form. Representativeness: they are usually based on a very large sample. Coverage: cover most important aspects of social life Prompts to research: can provide the starting point for research Background data: often provide background material Comparability of data: quantitative nature makes it easy to draw comparisons and identify trends Reliability: research can be replicated because the same categories and mode of collection are usually used. The basis on which the statistics have been collected is also usually publicly stated

What are documents? Why do Interpretivists use documents? Advantages and disadvantages of personal documents? What are public documents? Why are historical documents important? What are the problems with them? What is content analysis? Why is it used? What four tests did John Scott recommend to test the usefulness of documents in 1990? Evaluation: how useful are documents?

Authenticity: is it genuine? Is it what it claims to be? Mostly written for personal purposes meaning they often have a fairly high degree of validity and provide genuine insight into people’s attitudes Most are cheap and save the researcher time Some groups such as illiterate can’t represent their views, whilst literate group views may be over-represent Some documents are created after the event with the benefit of hindsight Some are written with an audience, may affect what is recorded. Personal bias is likely Most documents meet Interpretivists’ requirement that data should be qualitative and allow the researcher to explore the meanings people attach to events They regard documents as high in validity because they are the freely expressed meanings of those who produce them Documents are secondary data collected by individuals, groups and organisations. Personal documents: letter, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, notes and photo collections Public documents: reports from governments, charities and businesses Documents contain mainly qualitative data that expresses the beliefs and meanings held by individuals and organisations Some documents contain statistical data Quantitative content analysis of documents measures the amount of coverage given to a particular issue Knowing how much coverage there is of something doesn’t tell us about its meaning Interpretivists use qualitative content analysis to examine the meanings attached to particular words and image Historical documents are often the only way in which past societies can be studied, especially if there are no longer any survivors who can be questions Meanings of words can change over time so can be difficult to interpret Some documents may be lost or destroyed and give an incomplete and unrepresentative picture of the past Produced by bodes such as the government, business, media and voluntary organisations. Often plentiful, detailed, cheap and easy to access. There are government reports on all areas of social policy Because their authors are aware that the documents are publicly available, the content is likely to be selective and presented with a particular bias. Media reports may reflect the political views of the journalist or media owner Documents can provide insights into social behaviour that are useful to sociologists, particularly Interpretivists Can provide a historical or insider perspective Limited in terms of availability, representativeness, and lack of systematisation May not cover all areas of sociological interest Rarely the main element in a study but often contribute an important dimension to research Authenticity: is it genuine? Is it what it claims to be? Credibility: can we believe the document and the sincerity of the author? Representativeness: how typical is the document of a wider social group? Meaning: can we interpret the author’s meanings correctly?

Using experiments to study education – factors? Using questionnaires to study education – factors? Using structured interviews to study education – factors? Using structured observation to study education – factors? Using official statistics to study education – factors? Using documents to study education – factors? Using unstructured interviews to study education – factors? Using participant observation to study education – factors?

Validity: open to manipulation Response rate: more likely to receive official support, may increase rate Reliability: easy to replicate Validity: young people better with verbal than literacy skills however formal nature may discomfort them Question design: more difficult to create questions for young people Ethical issues: parental permission may be required Power and status differences: pupils and teachers not equal, may affect their behaviour and alter responses Practical issues: useful for gathering large quantities of information quickly and cheaply Sampling frames: good source, ready-made Response rate: often low. However when conducted in school can be higher once head teacher puts authority behind research Researching pupils: children have short attention span so short questionnaires are more effective Operationalising concepts: less likely to understand researcher’s questions Samples: may not reflect researchers’ interests Validity: experiences of kids are narrower, may not know answers to questions Application in classroom: classroom has clear boundaries of space and time, makes it easier for researcher to have control over situation Reliability: similar features in schools = replicable Ethical problems: pupils more vulnerable and less likely to understand Limited application: small scale, can usually only examine one aspect on behaviour Controlling all the variables: schools are large and complex, impossible to control all variables that can influence behaviour Practical issues: large amount of info is made public, easy to reach Ethical issues: only with using personal documents Reliability: most are in systematic format so comparisons can be made. Mistakes can be made though Credibility: schools want to present themselves good, can be constructed Representativeness: legally required however not all behaviour is recorded Validity: can provide important insights into meanings held by teachers and pupils Practical issues: easy to collect and make comparisons. Definitions may differ from those of the sociologist Representativeness: all state schools complete a census every three years Reliability: governments may change definitions and categories but comparisons can be easily made through them Validity: open to manipulation Practical issues: easy for observer to sit at back of a classroom and record behaviour into set categories Reliability: range of classroom behaviours limited = limited number of behaviour categories = easily replicated Validity: Interpretivists believe counting and classifying classroom behaviour doesn’t find meaning behind it Observer presence: likely to affect teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour Validity: more likely to overcome problem of status differences, allowing observer to gain acceptance from pupils. Can still alter behaviour Practical issues: difficult to understand complexity of schools. Not much privacy in schools Ethical issues: pupils more vulnerable than adults may not be able to give informed consent Hawthorne effect: alter of behaviour Representativeness: can only be carried out on a very small scale Power and status inequality: informality can establish rapport more easily Practical issues: give time, space and encouragement to pupils to work out responses Validity: interviewer can clear up misunderstandings, accurate responses Reliability: some interviewers try to put young ones at ease but cannot be standardised so different interviews may obtain different results Social desirability: children likely to change response if question is asked twice because they think it’s wrong. Teachers may represent themselves better