1 Flashcards
(13 cards)
Explain why findings from participant observation may be valid. (10)
- people are in their natural setting so behave normally, allowing the
researcher to gain an accurate picture of the topic under study; - it is possible to establish a complete understanding or verstehen
because the researcher sees things from the point of view of the
participants; - participant observation is able to achieve a better understanding of
social interaction because the researcher is accepted as a part of the
group and can therefore understand the internal relationships much
better; - even though the observer is there people get used to their presence
and they behave normally after a while; - if participant observation is done covertly, this is likely to be more valid
as it will avoid the Hawthorne Effect; - as a type of observation this method involves seeing behaviour with
one’s own eyes and not just accepting what people say about their
behaviour; - participant observations often yield in depth qualitative data which
produces a more valid picture;
Explain why ethical issues may be a problem when conducting sociological
research. (10)
- there is a requirement to do no harm and this may restrict the types of research
that can be carried out, e.g. experiments like Milgram’s electric shock
experiment would be unethical; - the requirement to get informed consent may be difficult to achieve especially
where the researcher wants to do the research covertly to avoid researcher
effect or wants to research a group who can’t give consent, e.g. children,
persons in institutions viewed as not of sound mind; - the requirement to not invade the participant’s privacy can limit any type of
observation or limit the use of personal documents; - the requirement to not deceive participants can make it difficult to achieve
validity, e.g. if participants are aware of why they are being researched they may
change their behaviour to please the researcher; - researchers should try to ensure anonymity but this can make follow up research
difficult, e.g. an anonymous survey where people don’t give personal details
cannot be followed up; - it can be difficult to achieve confidentiality if the researcher is researching a very
small social group they may be too readily identifiable;
Describe two strengths of using field experiments in sociological
research. (4)
- findings may be more ecologically valid as behaviour is more
naturalistic when participants are in their usual surroundings; - it can often give access to a larger scale research as it is not confined
to a laboratory, thus enhancing the representativeness and
generalisability of the study; - it is a good way of investigating institutions such as workplaces and
schools as researchers can be on site observing and recording in that
environment and so gain a more sophisticated understanding of the
processes involved; - the researcher may observe behaviour that they had not expected
because they are in the field and this is a dynamic environment, and
this may open up other avenues of research; - the observer effect may be avoided as the researcher may just blend in
to the background as participants go about their daily routines, thus
enhancing validity; - the researcher may develop greater understanding of a social situation
or internal group dynamic which may be difficult to research otherwise
e.g. how discrimination works in the workplace;
To what extent is validity the most important aspect of social research? (14)
Arguments for;
* interpretivist approaches prioritise micro or small-scale phenomena
favouring qualitative methods that are high in validity;
* in sociological research it is vital we are measuring what it is we want to
measure – hence validity is central to any research programme;
* validity is important because it refers to the extent to which the research
findings accurately reflect reality – without this the value of the research
is compromised;
* validity comes from detailed and in-depth research – this is useful as we
may need to uncover why people act as they do as well as the
meanings they attach to their actions;
* building validity into the research method allows for participants to
develop their point of view e.g. in more unstructured methods like
unstructured interviews, covert participant observations etc.;
* building validity into the research may enable us to achieve verstehen
or a holistic understanding – we seek to understand every aspect of the
subject’s experience;
* research high in validity allows us to see the subjective factors, such as
intent, motive, and unintended consequences etc – these add another
dimension to our understanding of social life which is missing in
‘scientific’ approaches;
* feminists regard validity as important so they can understand the
experiences of women in order then to fight for change – without a full
understanding appropriate action is impossible;
* validity is particularly important in ethnography field research – as it is a
sociological method that explores how people live, their culture and how
and make sense of their lives;
* the use of triangulation demonstrates the importance of validity in
research, it is the use of two or more research methods in a single piece
of research in order to check the validity of research evidence;
Arguments against:
* methods high in validity often suffer from the researcher effect – such as
the Hawthorne Effect or the Interviewer Effect and this can serious
detract from the worth of the study;
* positivists argue that it is important to be sure that if we repeated the
measurement we will get the same or similar results, so reliability is the
most important aspect of research;
* comparative studies are difficult with most methods that gather valid
data and hence if the aim is to compare different groups and social
factors then a more quantitative approach is likely to be more
appropriate;
* structuralists regard reliability as important so social policy can be
developed on the basis of solid ‘scientific’ results;
* without reliable measures, sociologists cannot build or test theory as in
an extreme case every research project would simply stand alone and
no real generalisations could be made;
* methods high in validity are often small scale and so difficult to
generalise findings from unrepresentative samples;
* ethics are more important than validity as it is crucial to safeguard
participants and their data – even high valid methods like covert
observation may be ruled out if ethics are breached;
Explain why case studies may be useful in sociological research. (10)
- interpretivists are in favour of case studies because they may be high in validity and may give
in-depth and detailed information on the group or event being studied; - case studies allow different aspects of the case being studied to be explored using appropriate
methods, thus giving the possibility of verstehen; - case studies can involve any method or combination of methods, and a combination of
qualitative and quantitative data, and so offer flexibility to researchers from both a positivist and
an interpretivist perspective; - in case studies participants are often based in a naturalistic environment thus giving an
opportunity for more honest and valid data; - a case study can provide the basis for a hypothesis and its findings can then be tested by other
research elsewhere; - if a case is carefully chosen it may be possible to draw wider conclusions, e.g. Goldthorpe and
Lockwood’s study of affluent car workers;
Answers which achieved high marks included links to the high
level of detail due to intense concentration on one event or social phenomena, the ability to mix
and triangulate methods, or the validity achieved when conducting research in a naturalistic
environment. Some of the candidate responses made good use of Goldthorpe’s study ‘The Affluent
Worker’ or case studies of gangs. M
Explain why objectivity is difficult to maintain when carrying out
sociological research. (10)
- sociological is not a pure science and so it is difficult to eradicate human
factors from research – sociological research does not take place in a test
tube; - with case studies the researcher can become too close to the subject
matter and lose a sense of objectivity; - questionnaires often suffer from the imposition problem – there may be
inherent bias in the questions; - observations may lead to the researcher ‘going native’ – hence the
researcher becomes too involved and loses objectivity; - focus groups may affect individuals differently – some may become
dominated by one respondent and so lose objectivity; - official statistics used as secondary data may have been recorded to
support the government’s position; - interviewees may give socially desirable answers and hence the data
gathered may be biased; - when designing content analyses researchers construct categories
according to their own preconceived ideas; - when using historical documents the body of material may only
represent a small portion of the views apparent at the time; - when using diaries as secondary data it can be difficult to verify the truth
of what was written, individuals may have lied or exaggerated;
Describe two strengths of using content analysis as a research
method. (4)
- it provides information about the content of the media in quantitative
form – this allows researchers to identify patterns and trends is media
content; - it is a reliable method as categories and concepts used are
standardised, so other researchers can repeat the study in order to
check findings; - it does not involve people as respondents thus avoiding ethical issues;
- it is relatively easy to do and analyse the tally charts, so is practical for
researchers; - it is the only way to study the media;
Better responses referenced the fact that it is a method used to study media content in a
quantitative fashion. These candidates were then able to describe the idea that the data can be
compared over time and patterns and trends in media use be identified. Others focused on the idea
that content analysis has fewer ethical issues than other methods as there are no research
participants as such, only media documents, programmes etc.
Explain why longitudinal studies can be useful for sociological
research. (10)
- because it shows change over time, this allows researchers to spot
trends and patterns; - because it is possible to identify social factors which have caused
change, this in turn enables research to inform social policy; - because the participants have had to show commitment to the research
over a time, so it is more likely to be valid; - researchers are committed to the project and hence are more likely to
develop a rapport with participants, enhancing validity; - it allows greater insight over time, which may lead to verstehen/high
validity; - because it allows a researcher to use qualitative and quantitative
methods it can glean all the benefits of triangulation e.g. more holistic
picture; - because subjects act naturally, as they are used to being studied, this
can increase the validity;
Explain why some sociologists prefer large scale research. (10)
- a large-scale study offers scope for multiple methods/triangulation and
thus can generate a huge amount of data leading to a more holistic
picture of social reality; - positivists believe that we can only generalise from findings based on a
large sample otherwise it would be unsafe to extend any conclusions
from the sample to the wider research population; - representativeness can only be achieved with a large sample,
particularly when studying different social groups, and an
unrepresentative sample would render any conclusions useless; - positivists are interested in uncovering scientific, law-like social facts
which are generalisations based on large samples or many cases; - positivists are interested in identifying patterns and trends in data in
order to make comparisons and large-scale quantitative methods, such
as surveys, are most likely to yield these;
To what extent can sociological research be generalisable? (14)
Arguments for:
* generalisation from research findings is made more likely if an appropriate
sample is used, e.g. one that is purposive and directed at the right group
e.g. Hodkinson’s study of Goths;
* generalisation is possible if the sample is representative, i.e. with the
same proportions of people of different gender, age, etc. according to
what is appropriate to the research – this is best achieved by using
stratified sampling techniques;
* positivists believe generalisations may be made with quantitative data as
it is often large scale thus increasing the likelihood of representativeness;
* positivists would argue that data which is high in reliability and repeatable
is more likely to be generalisable as researchers can be confident in their
findings;
* if the findings are valid for the representative research population then
generalisation can be made legitimately providing the sampling used is
appropriate;
* where qualitative methods are used to study small unique populations,
like sub-cultures it may be possible to generalise about that group without
using all its members in the research;
- sampling error is always a factor – as samples cannot be the same as the
whole research population, so there will always be a difference between
the results from the sample and the results from the whole population; - problems with generalisability may arise with certain sampling techniques
e.g. volunteer sampling may produce a skewed or biased sample that is
unrepresentative of the research population and therefore it is not
possible to extend findings beyond the sample group; - methods such as lab experiments that lack ecological validity, due to the
non-naturalistic environment, can mean that the research cannot be safely
applied beyond the lab and sample group; - response rates for some methods such as questionnaires, are often low
and therefore the possibility of generalising from research findings is
similarly low; - if data gathered is inaccurate to the sample, then it follows that it cannot
be safely applied elsewhere e.g. if there is evidence of interviewer bias or
effect then the findings will be low in validity and generalisations cannot
be made; - if the sample is small then it follows that there are insufficient grounds for
claims to be able to generalise from findings; - interpretivist sociologists believe that sociology should not mimic science
as human beings, their behaviour and interactions, are unique and thus
findings can never be fully generalised;
To what extent is representativeness the most important factor in
sociological research? (14)
Possible arguments for:
* if a sample is not representative of the research population biased
findings may be gained e.g. self-selecting samples;
* if the research sample is representative then the researcher can apply the
findings to the population being studied - this is called generalisation;
* large social surveys such as the census are representative because they
take in the views of all people, as such they are useful for developing
social policy and establishing social facts;
* structuralists are interested in studying society as a whole and being able
to draw wider conclusions from their research, for such an approach it is
vital that the data used is representative of the population;
* it is important as the use of incorrect samples can mean that it is difficult
to generalise findings e.g. when a researcher uses a random sample to
study a group with defined characteristics such as Black males;
* positivists are interested in trying to establish social facts and often use
large representative data sets (official statistics) to facilitate this, e.g.
Durkheim’s suicide study;
* researchers often try to use stratified samples as these are deemed the
best way to achieve a representative sample and therefore enable
generalisations to be made;
Possible arguments against:
* research methods are more important e.g. in a study aiming to find out
about people’s experiences qualitative methods such as in-depth
interviews would be appropriate;
* ethical issues are the more important as there is an ethical code to follow
which seeks to protect the reputation of sociology;
* practical issues are more important as without funding and resources the
research will not take place;
* validity and verstehen/empathy are more important as some researchers
prefer to focus on achieving a deep understanding of their respondents;
* the theoretical underpinning of the research is most important as many
researchers approach their research from a particular perspective e.g.
feminists, Marxists, positivists and interpretivists;
* objectivity in research is considered important by many researchers and
reducing the impact of researcher bias and the imposition problems is
often considered the most important part of research;
* the skill set of the researcher is more important as if not professionally
trained every aspect of the research could be negatively affected
including the sample, the results and how they are analysed and
interpreted;
To what extent is sociological research reliable? (14)
Arguments for:
* highly standardised methods are considered to be reliable e.g. using precoded questionnaires or highly structured interviews will ensure that the
research is reliable;
* social surveys are considered a reliable method and when applied to
similar samples it is likely that they will produce similar results;
* most countries conduct a census on their population and the data drawn
from these huge surveys is deemed reliable, this is particularly important
as it allows for comparative studies as the same questions are asked to
the population over a long period of time;
* laboratory experiments allow the researcher to tightly control all variables
and such a scientific approach to research is likely to make it reliable;
* positivists value reliability and achieve this by taking a scientific approach
to their research, they argue that it is important to be sure that if we
repeated the measurement, we will get the same or similar results;
* structuralist approaches try to determine social facts by using methods that
are free from bias and objective, such as questionnaires or experiments,
in which a standardised approach is used ensuring similar results would
result when repeated;
* content analysis is a highly systematic research approach and when used
to gather quantitative data it can be said to be reliable;
* using official sources of secondary data e.g. crime statistics is often
deemed to be a reliable approach and is favoured by positivists, using
secondary data gathered by the state in a standardised manner increases
researcher objectivity which can improve reliability;
- interpretivists use qualitative research methods which lack
standardisation e.g. unstructured interviews are unique thus whilst high in
validity are impossible to replicate; - covert observation is extremely difficult to repeat and as the focus is on
specific small groups of people the data gathered is only likely to be
relevant to them and so the research would not be considered reliable; - unstructured interview are like a conversation and as such the topics
discussed with participants will vary and therefore the approach lacks the
standardisation required to be deemed reliable; - the interviewer effect – in an interview social characteristics of each
researcher may influence the data gathered and therefore the research
could not be deemed reliable; - all researchers no matter how professional are likely to bring a certain level
of subjectivity to the research, therefore this lack of objectivity will mean
the research loses reliability; - field experiments lack reliability because it is almost impossible to control
the variables, e.g. Pygmallion in the Classroom, although the findings
gathered are of sociological interest the method can be said to be reliable;
Explain why some sociologists prefer a micro approach to research.
interpretivists believe that individuals are in control, pulling the strings of
society, so researching the thoughts and motivations of individuals on a
micro level is important;
interpretivists are interested in how people understand themselves and
their identities e.g. gender - a micro perspective will allow sociologists to
study such individual meanings;
smaller scale micro research is much less demanding in terms of
resources e.g. only requires a small sample;
in a micro approach, sociologists use research methods that allow us to
see and understand how people perceive and interpret the world around
them e.g. using participant observation to achieve verstehen;
a micro approach will be more likely to achieve validity in research - an
accurate picture of social behaviour will only be achieved if researchers
can understand the meanings and motivations behind people’s actions;
