secondary sources Flashcards
official stats - practical strengths
OS are free source of huge amount of quantitative data produced from large samples
useful for making comparisons of social change over time
official stats - practical limitations
gov collects data for its own purpose - may not be data available on specific topic researcher is interested in
gov may use different definitions than sociologists so making comparisons is hard - ‘unemployed’ can refer to children too
official stats - ethical strengths
OS refers to groups rather than individuals so no need for informed consent
OS already gathered so issues of anonymity have been dealt with my original researcher and data presented in graphs so impossible to identify PPs
official stats - theoretical strengths
positivists:
reliable - OS gathered using standardised methods so easily replicable
large samples - representative
official stats - theoretical limitations
interpretivists:
lack validity - OS are a social construct - created by professionals and are based on labels they attach to others’ behaviour.
marxists:
OS are part of r/c ideology designed to serve capitalism - OS underestimate unemployment to make capitalism look good
documents - practical strengths
may be only available source of info
public docs are free source of large amounts of info
documents - practical limitations
not always possible to gain access to docs - gov reports can be classified as secret and difficult to obtain personal docs are private individuals may not want to share them
organisations and individuals create docs for their own use - may not include specific info researcher needs
documents - ethical strengths
historical personal docs - fewer ethical issues especially if from someone who’s passed away
public docs - confidentiality and consent addressed by original researcher who gathered the data
documents - ethical limitations
personal docs from living individuals - informed consent and consent of anyone mentioned in docs required
documents - theoretical strengths
interpretivists:
docs aren’t written with a researcher in mind - authentic statement of writer’s views - valid
qualitative - provide validity and insight into human behaviour
documents - theoretical limitations
positivists:
unrepresentative - only literate can write so unrepresentative of illiterate especially in historical docs
invalid if it lacks authenticity - may be forged and not real
content analysis - practical strengths
cheap and quick
accessible - analysis newspapers, tv programmes which can easily be obtained
content analysis - theoretical strength
objective
reliable
content analysis - theoretical limitation
invalid - tells us ‘how much’ of something happens but not why
