Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Sociological Method P2, Eduqas > Primary data > Flashcards

Primary data Flashcards

(64 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

questionnaires

A
  • ‘closed’ or’open’
  • right questions, neutral & objective
  • clear and short
  • eg: CENSUS, CSEW, Jackson
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

general questionnaire strengths

A
  • P) time & cost: cheap & fast
  • sensitive topic
  • E) informed consent
  • T) minimal contact, researcher bias
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

general questionnaire weaknesses

A
  • P) low response rate
  • cant be sure who completes
  • E) deception of research purpose
  • T) low response =x representative
  • interpret the questions
  • social desirability
  • operationalisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

structured questionnaires strengths

A
  • P) time & cost, standardised
  • T) high reliability
  • cover large scale, representative
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

structured questionnaires weakness

A

-T) low validity, fixed responses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

unstructured questionnaire strengths

A

-T) high validity & qualitative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

unstructured questionnaire weakness

A
  • T) low validity, lack of space
  • low reliability, interpret
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

longitudinal study strength

A

-T) can pick up trends> snapshot

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

longitudinal study weakness

A
  • P) time consuming
  • T) ‘drop out’ rate = less representative
  • hawthorne effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

interviews

A

-structured: i schedule & quant
-unstructured: guided convo & qual
-focus groups, panel interviews
-eg : SI, Humphreys, CSEW
UI, D&D, Jackson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

unstructured interviews strengths

A
  • P) flexibility of i schedule
  • check understanding
  • groups, more comfortable to open up
  • suited to sensitive topics
  • T) high validity, trust & rapport
  • groups, throw around ideas
  • can explore unfamiliar topics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

unstructured interviews weakness

A
  • P) high time & cost, transcribing
  • respondents unwilling to verbalise
  • E) protection harm (questions)
  • T) dominating convo
  • smale scale, x generalise/rep
  • low reliability
  • validity, interviewer bias of q’s or c’s
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

structured interviews strengths

A
  • P) time & cost, stick to script
  • T) representative, large scale
  • higher response rate
  • high reliability, standardised
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

structured interviews weakness

A
  • P) inappropriate for sensitive
  • validity, fixed responses
  • interviewer bias
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

observation

A
  • ethnography (Humphrey, Blackman)
  • overt (Willis, Venkatesh)
  • covert (Patrick, Williams)
  • participant/ non-participant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

general observation strengths

A
  • T) high validity, people unaware of acts
  • insider view of natural environment
  • develop rapport
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

general observation weakness

A
  • P) time consuming & access to group
  • T) small scale, low rep/gen
  • validity, Hawthorne effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

covert participation strengths

A
  • P) topic studied, access to hard to reach
  • high flexibility
  • T) provides clear, valid picture
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

covert participation weakness

A
  • P) access to group, gatekeeper
  • researcher characteristics
  • E) legality & immorality (Patrick)
  • protection from harm (Ken Pryce)
  • deception
  • T) can become biased, ‘go native’ & ‘getting out’
  • low representativeness & reliability
  • validity & note taking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

overt non-participant strength

A
  • P) researcher characteristics
  • E) informed consent, deception, protection
  • T) reliability, structured observation table
  • validity & note taking
  • more objective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

overt non-particpant weakness

A

-T) hawthorne effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

experiments

A
  • make hypothesis
  • control ind (cause) and dep (effect) variables
  • field (Humphrey, Blackman) and lab (Milgram)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

field experiments strengths

A
  • P) access to group
  • T) high validity, unaware of observation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

field experiment weakness

A
  • P) difficult to control variables
  • E) deception, informed consent
  • T) certainty of variables
  • representativeness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
lab experiment strengths
- E) informed consent - T) controlled enviroment, cause/effect - more objective and reliable
26
lab experiment weakness
- P) open system & snapshot - E) deception (Milgram) - T) hawthorne effect - low representativeness
27
official statistics
- carried out by gov, usually social policy - eg CENSUS, General Lifestyle Survey, National Chidl Development Study, crime, health, suicide...
28
official statistics strength
- P) time & cost - wide range of topics in detail - E) collected by gov, no deception, consent - T) cover large scale, representative - shows patterns/trends over time - allows comp between groups - generally reliable
29
official statistics weakness
- P) topic studied, unavailable - operationalisation eg poverty - E) protection from harm (stereotypes) - T) lack validity, 'dark figure of crime' - may be massaged for political purpose - lack reliability, definitions change
30
documents
- personal: diaries, photos, letters, biographies, social media - egs Anne Frank - public: produced by gov agencies, held in National Archive - eg Macpherson Report, Lammy Review, OFSTED
31
personal docs strength
- P) sometimes only available source - prov background info - offers extra check for primary - cost and time - T) very valid, achieve verstehen - offers extra check w/ triangulation
32
personal docs weakness
- P) access, confidential diaries - E) informed consent - protectin from harm if illegality - T) authenticity, credibility, representativeness, meaning - unreliable, unstandardised - highly subjective
33
- 'closed' or'open' - right questions, neutral & objective - clear and short - eg: CENSUS, CSEW, Jackson
questionnaires
34
- P) time & cost: cheap & fast - sensitive topic - E) informed consent - T) minimal contact, researcher bias
general questionnaire strengths
35
- P) low response rate - cant be sure who completes - E) deception of research purpose - T) low response =x representative - interpret the questions - social desirability - operationalisation
general questionnaire weaknesses
36
- P) time & cost, standardised - T) high reliability - cover large scale, representative
structured questionnaires strengths
37
-T) low validity, fixed responses
structured questionnaires weakness
38
-T) high validity & qualitative
unstructured questionnaire strengths
39
- T) low validity, lack of space - low reliability, interpret
unstructured questionnaire weakness
40
-T) can pick up trends\> snapshot
longitudinal study strength
41
- P) time consuming - T) 'drop out' rate = less representative - hawthorne effect
longitudinal study weakness
42
-structured: i schedule & quant -unstructured: guided convo & qual -focus groups, panel interviews -eg : SI, Humphreys, CSEW UI, D&D, Jackson
interviews
43
- P) flexibility of i schedule - check understanding - groups, more comfortable to open up - suited to sensitive topics - T) high validity, trust & rapport - groups, throw around ideas - can explore unfamiliar topics
unstructured interviews strengths
44
- P) high time & cost, transcribing - respondents unwilling to verbalise - E) protection harm (questions) - T) dominating convo - smale scale, x generalise/rep - low reliability - validity, interviewer bias of q's or c's
unstructured interviews weakness
45
- P) time & cost, stick to script - T) representative, large scale - higher response rate - high reliability, standardised
structured interviews strengths
46
- P) inappropriate for sensitive - validity, fixed responses - interviewer bias
structured interviews weakness
47
- ethnography (Humphrey, Blackman) - overt (Willis, Venkatesh) - covert (Patrick, Williams) - participant/ non-participant
observation
48
- T) high validity, people unaware of acts - insider view of natural environment - develop rapport
general observation strengths
49
- P) time consuming & access to group - T) small scale, low rep/gen - validity, Hawthorne effect
general observation weakness
50
- P) topic studied, access to hard to reach - high flexibility - T) provides clear, valid picture
covert participation strengths
51
- P) access to group, gatekeeper - researcher characteristics - E) legality & immorality (Patrick) - protection from harm (Ken Pryce) - deception - T) can become biased, 'go native' & 'getting out' - low representativeness & reliability - validity & note taking
covert participation weakness
52
- P) researcher characteristics - E) informed consent, deception, protection - T) reliability, structured observation table - validity & note taking - more objective
overt non-participant strength
53
-T) hawthorne effect
overt non-particpant weakness
54
- make hypothesis - control ind (cause) and dep (effect) variables - field (Humphrey, Blackman) and lab (Milgram)
experiments
55
- P) access to group - T) high validity, unaware of observation
field experiments strengths
56
- P) difficult to control variables - E) deception, informed consent - T) certainty of variables - representativeness
field experiment weakness
57
- E) informed consent - T) controlled enviroment, cause/effect - more objective and reliable
lab experiment strengths
58
- P) open system & snapshot - E) deception (Milgram) - T) hawthorne effect - low representativeness
lab experiment weakness
59
- carried out by gov, usually social policy - eg CENSUS, General Lifestyle Survey, National Chidl Development Study, crime, health, suicide...
official statistics
60
- P) time & cost - wide range of topics in detail - E) collected by gov, no deception, consent - T) cover large scale, representative - shows patterns/trends over time - allows comp between groups - generally reliable
official statistics strength
61
- P) topic studied, unavailable - operationalisation eg poverty - E) protection from harm (stereotypes) - T) lack validity, 'dark figure of crime' - may be massaged for political purpose - lack reliability, definitions change
official statistics weakness
62
- personal: diaries, photos, letters, biographies, social media - egs Anne Frank - public: produced by gov agencies, held in National Archive - eg Macpherson Report, Lammy Review, OFSTED
documents
63
- P) sometimes only available source - prov background info - offers extra check for primary - cost and time - T) very valid, achieve verstehen - offers extra check w/ triangulation
personal docs strength
64
- P) access, confidential diaries - E) informed consent - protectin from harm if illegality - T) authenticity, credibility, representativeness, meaning - unreliable, unstandardised - highly subjective
personal docs weakness

Sociological Method P2, Eduqas (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions