Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RESEARCH METHODS - Coggle Diagram
RESEARCH METHODS
METHODS
content analysis - This is the number of times a sign, symbol, word, picture etc is used within a media text - Think back to the boobies in lads mags activity we did!
strengths
Positivism - Allows for comparison over time (Longitudinal). Media content can be analysed over time to identify changes in patterns of representation or how media coverage of particular issues has evolved. For example, researchers might compare the representation of women in advertisements from the 1950s and today.
Quantitative content analysis is reliable. Using a standardised content analysis schedule that clearly defines the categories being analysed, means that other researchers can replicate the research and check the results
weaknesses
Can be subjective. The categories used in content analysis are created by the researcher and may be influenced by their own values and interpretations. This means that the results of content analysis can be subjective.
interpretivists would argue that you cannot get rich and valid data about the complexities of social life from this approach.
questionnaires/surveys - List of questions subject to self completion. Questions can either open or closed.
strengths
Useful for sensitive topics. Anonymity, where respondents do not have to reveal their identity, makes questionnaires suitable for researching sensitive or embarrassing topics that respondents might not want to discuss face-to-face.
Favoured by Positivists. Positivist sociologists like questionnaires because they see them as reliable and scientific. A well-designed questionnaire, using neutral and objective questions, can be replicated to achieve similar results. Questionnaires allow sociologists to collect a large amount of quantitative data that can be easily analysed statistically to identify patterns and trends.
weaknesses
Low response rates may limit the representativeness and generalisability. A major problem, especially with postal questionnaires, is that many people do not return them, leading to low response rates. Response rates of under 50% can affect the representativeness as they may not accurately represent the different subgroups in the research population.
Social desirability bias. Respondents may lie or misrepresent themselves to present a favourable impression of themselves. They might, for example, downplay negative behaviours or experiences.
Interpretivist sociologists are critical of questionnaires. They argue that closed questions and pre-set answers reduce the complexity of social life to a series of tick boxes and may not allow respondents to explain their views or experiences fully. They argue that questionnaires can lack validity as they impose the sociologist's view of the world rather than capturing the respondent's views. Respondents may also misinterpret questions as there is no opportunity to ask for clarification.
structured interviews -The researcher reads a list of closed questions and ticks boxes of pre-coded responses.
strengths
Positivists view structured interviews as scientific due to their standardized nature, reliability, objectivity, quantifiability, and ability to establish correlations. They employ closed questions and fixed-choice responses, generating quantitative data for analysis and comparison.
They are more likely to be representative due to their time-efficient nature to cover a large sample size due to the pre-set questions. This allows researchers to gather data from a large number of participants, enhancing representativeness and the ability to generalize findings.
Increased validity as researchers can explain the research's aims and objectives, clarifying instructions. This reduces number of participants who may misunderstand questions and therefore answer them incorrectly with irrelevant information.
weaknesses
Structured interviews are viewed as artificial and may not reflect real-life experiences, leading to interview bias and potentially affecting data validity. Interviewers might unintentionally influence responses through tone or facial expressions, creating demand characteristics. Social characteristics of the interviewer can impact participant responses, affecting rapport and trust.
They lack flexibility as interviewers must adhere to the pre-set questions, limiting exploration of emerging topics. Interpretivists argue this restricts in-depth understanding of participant experiences. Interpretivists criticize the imposition problem, where the researcher's pre-set questions limit the exploration of participants' experiences and perspectives. Lacks validity.
May lack validity as the data relies on participants' self-awareness and accurate recall of their behaviours, which may be influenced by memory limitations or a lack of conscious awareness of certain behaviours, impacting the accuracy of responses.
semi structred interviews - The researcher has some set/pre coded questions however they are able to probe respondents and ask extra questions if needed OR some semi-structured interviews have some set themes which are then discus
strengths
interpretivists would favour semi-structured interviews as they provide a balance between structure and flexibility: The flexibility of semi-structured interviews allows for clarification of vague answers, jogging respondents' memories, and gathering examples, enhancing the depth and detail of responses. This flexibility allows researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of participants' perspectives. This allows researchers to gain a deeper insight, gaining verstehen and increasing validity.
Due to the flexible nature you can build more rapport than in a structured interview. This means the participant will feel more comfortable due to the ease of relationship between them and the researcher. This could lead to the participant giving more honest and detailed answers increasing the validity.
weaknesses
Positivists would be critical of this method because the reliability of semi-structured interviews can be questioned due to variations in probing and follow-up questions between interviews. The level of probing required for different participants can make comparisons difficult and potentially affect data reliability.
Semi-structured interviews can still suffer from some of the limitations of structured interviews, such as interview bias and the imposition problem. While the inclusion of open-ended questions offers some flexibility, the researcher's predetermined questions can still influence participant responses and limit the exploration of unanticipated topics.
unstructured interviews - The researcher may have some themes to cover but no pre-determined questions or rigid themes that they should follow. These interviews take a conversational flow.
strengths
Building Rapport and Trust: Unstructured interviews foster a conversational dynamic, allowing researchers to establish rapport and trust with participants. This encourages open and honest sharing of experiences and feelings, particularly on sensitive topics, leading to potentially more valid data.
Participant-Centric Approach: Interpretivists would use unstructured interviews to prioritize the interviewee's perspective, placing them at the heart of the research process. This empowers participants to share their experiences and interpretations in their own words. The flexible nature of unstructured interviews allows researchers to adapt their line of questioning based on the participant's responses. This enables the exploration of emergent themes and deeper investigation of unexpected insights.
Rich and valid data: Unstructured interviews generate rich qualitative data, capturing the nuances and complexities of participants' experiences in detail. The data often "speaks for itself," providing compelling evidence to support research findings.
weaknesses
Potential for Bias: The absence of pre-coded answers and the sheer volume of qualitative data require researchers to be selective in their analysis and interpretation. This selectivity can introduce bias, consciously or unconsciously, as researchers may choose data that aligns with their hypotheses while overlooking contradictory evidence.
Positivists would criticise this method due to challenges in data analysis. The extensive qualitative data generated from unstructured interviews can be challenging to analyse and categorize. Unlike quantitative data, qualitative data is not easily quantifiable, making comparisons and identifying patterns difficult.
Limited Generalisability: Unstructured interviews often involve smaller sample sizes compared to surveys, which can limit the generalizability of findings to the wider population.
Reliance on participant self-awareness could lead to lower validity: Similar to structured interviews, the validity of data relies on participants' self-awareness and accurate recollection of their behaviours and experiences.
focus groups/group interviews - Focus Group - An unstructured interview directed to a group of respondents who are encourage to discuss with each other. The interviewer will set up themes and questions and manage the responses from participants.
Group Interviews - Are often set up with a researcher and a panel of participants - The presence of another participant can be seen as less threatening, therefore meaning they feel more comfortable to participate.
strengths
Focus groups encourage open discussion and shared understanding. Interaction between participants helps reveal how opinions are shaped socially, generating richer, more accurate data and enhancing validity.
Interpretivists use focus groups to centre participants’ perspectives, allowing them to express experiences in their own words. The flexible, unstructured format helps researchers follow emerging themes and explore deeper insights.
focus groups can be effective for exploring sensitive issues, as the supportive group setting helps the participants feel safer and more comfortable sharing peronal information
weaknesses
Some people may lie due to a social desirability bias. The desire for conformity within the group can lead to groupthink, where individuals suppress dissenting opinions to avoid conflict. This can result in a superficial consensus that doesn't accurately reflect the range of perspectives within the group. Limits validity.
Positivists would criticise use of this method - Analysing qualitative data from focus groups can be complex. This method does not generate patterns and trends. It is also lacks standardisation and objectivity which could lead to lower reliability if multiple focus groups were being conducted.
Limited Generalisability: Focus groups typically involve small sample sizes, limiting the generalizability of findings to the wider population.
overt non participant observations - The participants know they are being studied but the researcher is NOT involved with the group being researched.
strengths
Detached observation helps maintain objectivity and reduces researcher bias, as the observer’s limited involvement minimizes disruption to natural behaviour.
Overt observation ensures participants’ informed consent, promoting ethical integrity, trust, and transparency in the research process.
Using structured observation schedules increases reliability by providing a consistent framework for recording behaviours, allowing replication and comparison of results.
structured observation aligns with positivist approaches by producing quantitative data that can be statistically analysed to identify behavioural patterns and trends
weaknesses
Interpretivists criticise observation for lacking depth, as it focuses on visible behaviour without revealing participants’ motives, beliefs, or meanings behind their actions.
Even structured observation involves researcher interpretation, which can introduce subjectivity and reduce reliability if behaviours are categorised inconsistently.
Awareness of being observed may alter participants’ behaviour, leading to artificial results and reducing the validity of the findings.
Covert Non-Participant Observation - The researcher is NOT fully participating with the group and the participants are unaware they are being studied.
strengths
Covert observation captures genuine, uninfluenced behaviour in natural settings, reducing the Hawthorne effect and increasing validity.
It enables researchers to study secretive or deviant groups, offering insights into social worlds that are normally inaccessible to overt research.
Because participants are unaware of being studied, covert observation reveals authentic actions and attitudes that might otherwise be concealed.
When structured, covert observation aligns with positivist methods by using standardised, objective categories, enhancing reliability and replicability.
weaknesses
Covert observation breaches ethical standards by denying informed consent and deceiving participants, undermining trust and participant autonomy.
Both participants and researchers may face harm—participants if their identities are exposed, and researchers if studying dangerous or illegal groups.
Collecting data covertly is difficult, often relying on memory, which can lead to inaccuracies and reduce validity
Researcher interpretations may be subjective and unverifiable, lowering objectivity and validity.
interpretivists argue structured covert observation neglects participants subjective meanings and experiences offering little verstehen and limited validity
Overt Participant Observation - The participants know they are being studied and the researcher is fully involved with the group being researched.
strengths
Through active participation, researchers gain an insider’s perspective, developing empathetic understanding of participants’ meanings and motivations.
Long-term involvement fosters trust and rapport, allowing researchers to uncover hidden beliefs and practices, producing more detailed and valid insights.
Participant observation yields in-depth qualitative data—field notes, reflections, and case studies—that provide a holistic and valid understanding of social life.
weaknesses
Awareness of being observed can alter participants’ behaviour, creating artificiality and reducing the validity of findings.
Going Native: Researchers risk becoming too involved with the group, losing objectivity and producing biased interpretations.
Studying deviant or illegal groups raises ethical issues, as researchers must balance observation with legal and moral responsibilities.
the detailed study of one group provides deep insight but limits the ability to generalise findings to other settings or populations
Covert Participant Observation - The researcher is participating with the group and the participants are unaware they are being studied.
strengths
Covert participation allows genuine behaviour to be observed without the Hawthorne effect, providing authentic insights and increasing validity.
By observing from within rather than directing the research, the method captures participants’ own perspectives and meanings, producing more authentic and valid data.
-
weaknesses
Covert participation breaches ethical principles by deceiving participants and denying informed consent, potentially causing harm and undermining public trust in research.
Collecting data covertly is difficult and often relies on memory, leading to possible inaccuracies and reduced validity.
Close involvement with the group can blur researcher–participant boundaries, increasing the risk of bias and loss of objectivity.
Both researchers and participants may face risks, especially when studying dangerous or illegal groups, if identities are exposed or findings misused.
Small, context-specific studies are hard to replicate and not representative of wider populations, limiting reliability and generalisability.
Ethnography - Involves the researching immersing themselves into the natural setting of the social group being studied, and participating in and observing their daily activities.
strengths
Validity: Ethnography provides a detailed understanding of how people experience the social world. It enables researchers to go beyond what people say and observe what they actually do.
Interpretivism: Through prolonged engagement, researchers can develop an empathetic understanding (verstehen) of the group's culture and perspectives. Ethnographic research produces rich, qualitative data that provides insights into the meanings, interpretations, and motivations behind social actions.
Access to Sensitive Groups: Ethnography can be particularly effective in studying groups that are suspicious of outsiders or engage in sensitive activities, as it allows researchers to build trust and rapport over time.
weaknesses
researcher, even if covert, may influence the behaviour of the group being studied, affecting the naturalness of the data.
Generalisability: Ethnographic studies often involve small samples, making it difficult to generalise findings to wider populations.
Positivists would criticise due du a lack of reliability: The subjective nature of data collection and analysis can raise concerns about reliability, as different researchers may interpret the same data differently.
Ethical Considerations: Covert observation raises ethical concerns about deception and informed consent, and researchers may face challenges in protecting the identity and confidentiality of participants.
Researcher Bias: The researcher's own perspectives and interpretations can influence the data collected and analysed, potentially introducing bias.
Official Statistics - Quantitative data collected by the government which is often gathered through other research methods such as questionnaires. Two of the biggest sources of official statistics come from the Office for National Statistics and the Census.
strengths
From a positivist perspective, official statistics are considered reliable facts because they are collected systematically and scientifically.
Positivists would use this method as they allow sociologists to identify statistical relationships by comparing data from different sources, potentially revealing correlations between factors like poverty and mortality. Patterns and trends.
Data is often collected using large representative samples, allowing sociologists to generalize findings to similar populations.
weaknesses
May lack validity due to the way concepts are operationalised. The definitions used by the organizations collecting the data may differ from those used by sociologists, leading to an incomplete picture of the issue. For instance, the UK government's use of absolute poverty measurements might clash with a sociologist's preference for relative measurements.
Statistics can be manipulated for political/financial gain and therefore lack validity. For example, governments might adjust how they define and collect unemployment data to portray their economic policies more favourably. Therefore it may not show an accurate picture of what is happening.
Interpretivists would criticise as they lack the depth to capture the human stories behind the numbers. Poverty statistics, for example, do not fully convey the lived experiences of those facing poverty. They do not give detail on the subjective experiences of individuals and therefore lack verstehen and validity.
Longitudinal Studies - Research designed to collect data on a sample (of people/documents) on at least two occasions.
strengths
The lengthy time spent researching means that it may enable good ACCESS to a wider range of participants as time goes on.
Regular contact with the sample can create trust and rapport increasing validity as they will feel more comfortable (and less risk of emotional HARM) leading to more honest responses.
-
weaknesses
HIGH ‘DROP-OUT’ RATE and obviously a TIME CONSUMING METHOD - Participants may get bored, move address, school and change friendship groups. Tracking the sample can be complex and the sample size may be reduced, which reduces the generalisability of the research.
-
-
KEY CONCEPTS
Pilot studies - small scale studies that are a ‘practice run’ for the main research. They involve a small sub-sample that the main research tends to use. They are useful as they can give early warning signs of any problems that may arise in the main research.
Quantitative research - this produces numerical data that can easily be displayed in a table/graph. It can reveal patterns and trends but cannot reveal the reasons for them.
Primary data - data the sociologist collects themselves for the purpose of that specific piece of research.
Qualitative research - this produces textual information. Qualitative data can include a great deal of detail and can explore motivations and emotions rather than just empirical descriptions and correlations.
Secondary data - data that is already collected and available to the sociologists (i.e. they have not had to collect it for this experiment, or at all).
-
Reliability - refers to the extent to which if we were to repeat the method it would produce the same (or similar results). The results should be easily to replicate with a different (but similar) group of people.
Generalisability - Refers the ability to make claims about the wider target population from the research findings. Is it generalisable of ALL people who hold the characteristic of the group being researched?
Representativeness - Refers to the extent to which the sample selected is a fair reflection of the target population. Does it reflect the social characteristics of the group (e.g. gender, ethnicity etc)?
Gatekeeper - a gatekeeper is a point of contact who can put you into contact with the participants you wish to research.
SAMPLING METHODS
Random sample - A sampling technique where all people in the target population have an equal chance of being picked-chosen entirely by chance.
Strengths
-
-
Preferred by Positivists because of its scientific, objective nature - Reliable
weaknesses
Time consuming, people may pull out by the time research is carried out – Lowers representativeness and generalisability
The sampling frame won’t always provide useful information (E.g. gender, class) therefore can be biased – Lowers representativeness and generaliability
-
Non Random sample - A sampling technique in which people in the target population do not have an equal chance of being picked (sample is often chosen purposely because of their characteristics or are self-selected)
Systematic Random Sampling - Involves randomly choosing a number between one and ten (every nth number) – Every other nth number is then selected from the sampling frame
Stratified Random sampling - This involves dividing the research population into a number of different sampling frames
strengths
-
-
Preferred by Positivists because of its scientific, objective nature - Reliable
weaknesses
Time consuming, people may pull out – Lowers representativeness and generaliability
Sampling frame may not give specific groups to include – Lowers representativeness and generaliability
If some groups have a large number of people then they are more likely to be chosen/biased – Lowers representativeness and generaliability
-
Snowball sampling - Method mainly used by sociologists researching deviant groups. One contact will recruit other contacts to get involved in the research.
strengths
-
Good to use for studies with difficult groups to access or a specific type of person - Validity and Representativeness
Easy if one person acts as a gatekeeper, allows access and can build up a rapport - Validity
-
Purposive sampling - Used to test a particular hypothesis, researcher only targets those that are directly linked to hypothesis.
-
-
Opportunity sampling - Making the most of opportunities/situations where you are more likely to find the research population.
Volunteer sampling - An advert is placed for participants and participants put themselves forward to take part in the research.
-
-
THEORETICAL APPROACHES
positivists
-
Researchers should use methods which generate statistics such as questionnaires, structured interviews, experiments and analysis.
-
Humans often respond to their environment in a similar manner therefore causal relationships can be identified (think cause and effect).
interpretivists
-
Researchers should try to get into the minds of those they are studying and understand things from their point of view. They should use the ‘verstehen’ approach.
-
Researchers should use methods which enable the research to gain in-depth understanding such as in depth interviews and observations.
Researchers should use methods which enable the research to gain in-depth understanding such as in depth interviews and observations.