AICE Sociology 1 AS Chapter Two Lecture Slides PDF

CHAPTER TWO L E C T U AICE SOCIOLOGY 1 AS R Mr. Buchanan, G. E Piper High School SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH  PRIMARY DATA Primary data involves...

CHAPTER TWO L E C T U AICE SOCIOLOGY 1 AS R Mr. Buchanan, G. E Piper High School SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH  PRIMARY DATA Primary data involves information collected personally by a researcher. The researcher may use a range of methods, such as questionnaires, interviews and observational studies. Strengths - The researcher has complete control over how data is collected, by whom and for what purpose. In addition, where a researcher designs and carries out their own research they have greater control over the reliability and validity of the data, as well as how representative it is. Limitations - Primary research can be time-consuming to design, construct and carry out, especially if it involves personally interviewing large numbers of people. Primary research can also be expensive. In addition, the researcher may have difficulty gaining access to the target group. Some people may refuse to participate or, in the case of historical research, potential respondents may no longer be alive.  SECONDARY DATA Secondary data is data that already exists in some form, such as documents (government reports and statistics, personal letters and diaries) or previous research completed by other sociologists. Strengths- The researcher is able to save time, money and effort by using existing data such as official government statistics about crime, marriage or divorce. There may also be situations where secondary data is the only available resource, such as when researching suicide. Secondary data is also useful for historical and comparative purposes. Some forms of secondary data, such as official statistics, may be highly reliable because the data is collected consistently, in the same way from the same sources. This type of data is also more likely to represent what it claims to represent. Limitations - Secondary data is not always produced with the needs of sociologists in mind. For example, official definitions of poverty, class or ethnicity may be different from sociological definitions. Sources, such as personal documents, can be unreliable. Some forms of secondary data, such as historical documents, may only reflect the views of a single individual rather than representing wider opinions.  QUANTITATIVE DATA Quantitative data expresses information numerically- Number, Percentage, Rate. Strengths - The ability to express relationships statistically can be useful if the researcher does not need to explore the reasons for people’s behavior – if they simply need to compare numbers. Quantitative data allows sociologists to summarize sources of information and make comparisons. Statistical comparisons and correlations can test whether a hypothesis is true or false. They can also track changes in the behavior of the same group over time (a longitudinal study). Quantitative research is more reliable because it is easier to replicate the study. Standardized questions that do not change, for example, can be asked of different groups or the same group at different times. The results can then be quantified and compared. If the answers are the same, or very similar, then the research is more likely to be reliable. Quantitative data also makes it easier for researchers to remain objective. They do not need to have a close personal involvement with the subjects of the study, so their personal views or biases are less likely to get in the way of (intrude into) the data-collection process. Limitations - Quantification is often achieved by placing the respondent in an ‘artificial social setting’ to control the responses and the data collected. People rarely, if ever, encounter situations where they are asked to respond to a list of questions from a stranger, or have their behavior observed in a laboratory. Some argue that it is impossible to capture people’s ‘normal’ behavior or collect ‘real’ responses when the subjects are placed in such an artificial environment. Quantitative data only captures a relatively narrow range of information – the ‘who, what, when and where’ of people’s behavior. Quantitative data does not usually reveal the reasons for behavior because it lacks depth; the more detailed the behavioral data, the more difficult it is to quantify. As a result, quantitative data is often seen as surface level only data and superficial.  QUALITATIVE DATA Qualitative data aims to capture the quality of people’s behavior by exploring the ‘why’ rather than the ‘what, when and where’. It involves questions about how people feel about their experiences and can be used to understand the meanings applied to behavior. For example, in the USA Venkatesh (2009) studied a young gang from the viewpoint of its members, while Goffman (1961) examined the experiences of patients in a mental institution. Both were trying to capture the quality of people’s behavior: what the subjects understand, how they feel and, most importantly, why they behave in particular ways in different situations. Strengths - The aim of qualitative research is to understand people’s behavior, so they must be allowed to talk and act freely. This allows the researcher to capture the complex reasons for behavior. Qualitative methods, such as participant observation involve the researcher establishing a strong personal relationship or rapport with respondents in order to experience their lives. By collecting qualitative data in this way, researchers have greater freedom to study people in their ‘normal’ settings. The results are more likely to show how people really behave and what they really believe. Limitations - Qualitative research focuses on the intensive study of relatively small groups, which may limit the opportunity for applying the data more widely – such groups may not be representative of anything but themselves. It is also difficult to compare qualitative data across time and location because no two groups will ever be qualitatively the same. The depth and detail of the data also makes such research difficult to replicate, which means their reliability is generally lower than that of quantitative research.  OFFICIAL STATISTICS Official statistics created and published by governments are a major source of secondary quantitative data used by sociologists to examine trends and patterns within and between societies. Strengths- In practical terms, official statistics may be the only available source covering a particular area of study, such as suicide. In addition, data that would be costly, time-consuming and difficult to collect, such as statistics on marriage, divorce or crime, is readily available – especially since the development of the internet. Another strength of official statistics is their representativeness because they are often based on carefully chosen large samples. Many official statistics, in areas including crime, unemployment, marriages, births and divorces, are recorded by law. Sociologists use the term ‘hard statistics’ to refer to those that have a high level of accuracy and cannot be doubted. For example, statistics about the number of divorces in a society can be viewed as ‘hard’ evidence. This is because a divorce has to be legally registered, so clear and accurate records are available. Statistics that are considered to be less accurate are referred to as ‘soft statistics’. Official statistics about the unemployment rate may be ‘soft’, because there are different ways of defining ‘unemployment’; depending on which definition is used, the figures may vary greatly. Limitations - Apart from not providing any great depth or detail, official statistics involve problems of validity due to what governments include in or exclude from published data. Governments occasionally change the definition of key concepts. Different governments may also define a concept differently. Such changes and differences bring into question the reliability of the data, because when making comparisons the researcher must compare like with like.  PERSONAL DOCUMENTS Some of the personal documents which can be used by sociologists are letters, diaries, oral histories, autobiographies and photographs. The media, such as newspapers, books and moving images, are also valuable sources of information. Increasing use is also now being made of online sources such as blogs and websites. The strengths and limitations of these three categories of sources are similar and will be treated together. Strengths - Documents give the researcher access to data that would cost a lot of money, time and effort to collect personally. They can provide secondary data in situations where it is not possible to collect primary data (about things that happened in the past, for example). Historical documents can also be used for comparative purposes; contrasting how people once lived with how we live now is useful for tracking and understanding social change. Historical analysis also reveals the differences in people’s behavior – things we now take for granted may have been seen differently in the past, and the other way around. Limitations - Practical limitations tend to focus on the availability of documentary sources – they are not always easy to find – and where they come from. Paper documents can be faked and a researcher needs to know whether they are originals or copies that may have been changed by other authors. Similar considerations apply to digital text, photographic and video sources. We do not always know why or by whom a document was created, which means we cannot always be sure if it is a believable source. Digital sources can be subject to change; old websites become inaccessible while others may be updated so that the original content is lost.  QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaires consist of written questions that take one of two forms: ✓ Postal questionnaires are normally completed in private without the researcher being present. Today this includes web-based or emailed questionnaires. ✓ Researcher-administered questionnaires are completed in the presence of the researcher, with respondents answering questions verbally: these are structured interviews.  POSTAL QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaires involve two basic types of question. Closed-ended or pre-coded questions involve the researcher providing a set of answers from which the respondent can choose. There are variations on this type of question, such as those that measure respondent attitud es, but their defining characteristic is that they do not allow the respondent to develop an answer beyond the listed categories. In open-ended questions, the researcher does not provide possible answers. Rather, the respondent answers in their own words. For example: ‘What do you li ke about studying sociology?’ This type of question finds out more about the respondent’s opinions and produces a limited form of qualitative d ata – although the main aim of a questionnaire is usually to quantify responses. Many questionnaires contain a mix of open and closed questions. Strengths- Pre-coded questions make it easier to quantify data, because the options are already known, they are limited in number and easy to count. Such questions are also quick and easy to code; this can be just a simple count of the number of responses. Pre -coded questions are useful when the researcher needs to contact large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. The respondents do the time -consuming work of completing the questionnaire. Questionnaires can result in highly reliable data; because everyone answers the same questions, it is easy to replicate the research. The fact that respondents often remain unknown (anonymous) means that the validity of the research is improved, especially when it involves questions that might be seen as personal. There is also less risk that the respondent will give b iased answers or try to anticipate what the researcher wants to hear. Limitations - One significant practical problem with questionnaires is a low response rate, where only a small number of those receiving a questionnaire return it. This can result in a carefully designed sample becoming unrepresentative, because it effectively sel ects itself. There is also nothing the researcher can do if respondents ignore questions or respond incorrectly, such as choosing two answers when only one was requested. The questionnaire format makes it difficult to examine complex issues and opinions. Another weakness is the fact t hat the researcher has to decide at the start of the study what is and is not significant. There is no opportunity to change this later on. The researcher has no way of knowing whether a respondent has understood a question properly. The researcher also has to trust that the questions mean the same thing to all respondents. While remaining unknown (anonymity) may encourage honesty, if someone other than the intended respondent completes the questionnaire, it will affect the validity and representativeness of the research. Some of these problems can be avoided by p ilot studies (see below), but they cannot be totally removed. A further problem involves (unintentional) biased questions.  STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS A structured interview is where the researcher asks questions to respondents in person. To achieve consistent and comparable results, the same questions are asked in the same order each time; there is no flexibility to change the order or the questions. Strengths- Potential reliability problems, such as respondents misunderstanding or not answering questions, can be fixed by the researcher. In addition, a structured interview avoids the problem of unrepresentative samples – the response rates will be 100%. Limitations - Structured interviews involve assumptions (pre-judgements) about people’s behavior and, like questionnaires, can also contain (not on purpose) biased questions. The lack of anonymity in an interview also contributes to two related limitations: ▪ The interview effect occurs when a respondent tries to ‘help’ the researcher by providing answers designed to please. This reduces validity because respondents simply provide answers they think the researcher wants or which will make a good impression. ▪ The researcher effect is when the relationship between researcher and respondent may bias responses: ✓ Aggressive interviewers, for example, may introduce bias by forcing (intimidating) respondents into giving answers that they do not really believe. ✓ Status considerations, based on factors such as gender, age, class and ethnicity, may also bias the data. For example, a female respondent may fee l embarrassed about answering personal questions posed by a male interviewer, and vice versa.  EXPERIMENTS Experiments involve testing the relationship between different variables – things that can change under controlled conditions. The researcher changes (manipulates) independent variables to see whether they produce a change in dependent variables that are not changed by the researcher; any changes must be caused by a change in the independent variable. Experiments, therefore, are based on changing an independent variable and measuring any later change in a dependent variable. This relationship can be one of two types: ▪ Correlations occur when two or more things happen at roughly the same time. These only suggest a relationship, however, because it is possible for them to occur by chance. ▪ Causation involves the idea that when one action occurs, another always follows. Causal relationships are powerful because they allow a researcher to predict the future behavior of something. It is not always easy to distinguish between correlation and causation in the real world of sociological research, because things often happen at the same time by chance or coincidence. However, there are two ways to separate correlation from causality: Test and retest a relationship. The more times a test is replicated with the same result, the greater the chances that the relationship is causal. Use different groups with exactly the same characteristics: ▪ an experimental group whose behavior is manipulated ▪ a control group whose behavior is not manipulated.  LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS Laboratory experiments take place in a closed environment where conditions can be precisely monitored and controlled. This ensures that no ‘outside’ or uncontrolled variables affect the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. These kind of experiments are unusual in sociology, because they involve an artificially created situation and so it is unlikely that the findings will apply to the ‘real’ world. Participants will be aware that research is taking place and this will affect how they behave. Laboratory experiments also raise ethical issues about permission (consent).  FIELD EXPERIMENTS Field experiments are more appropriate for sociological research, because they are not conducted in a closed, controlled environment. It is very difficult to control all possible independent variables in a natural setting, which means that natural experiments tend to establish correlations rather than causation. However, the basic principles of the experiments are the same. Researchers use dependent and independent variables to test a hypothesis or answer a research question. Strengths- Laboratory experiments are easier to replicate than field experiments because the researcher has more control over both the research conditions and the variables being tested. Standardized research conditions give experiments a high level of reliability. Experiments can also create powerful, highly valid statements about behavior based on cause-and-effect relationships. Field experiments can be used to manipulate situations in the real world to understand the underlying reasons for everyday behavior. Limitations - It can be difficult to control all possible influences on behavior, even in a laboratory setting. A simple awareness of being studied, for example, may introduce an uncontrolled independent variable into an experiment. The Hawthorne (or observer) effect, named after a study by Mayo (1933) at the Hawthorne factory in Chicago, refers to changes in people’s behavior directly resulting from their knowledge of being studied. The working conditions at the factory were manipulated in different ways, such as changing the brightness of the lighting and the temperature in the factory. However, the results were always the same: the work rate of the workers increased, because they knew they were being studied.  CONTENT ANALYSIS Content analysis has both quantitative and qualitative forms. What both types have in common is the study of texts (data sources such as television, written documents and so on). Quantitative analysis of media texts, for example, uses statistical techniques to categories and count the frequency of people’s behavior using a content analysis table or grid. Meehan’s (1983) study of US daytime television, for example, identified and analyzed the stereotypical roles played by female characters in soap operas. Strengths - Content analysis can identify underlying themes and patterns of behavior that may not be immediately apparent; for example, the extent to which women in television or magazine advertisements are associated with housework and cleaning. Content analysis can also be used for ‘concept mapping’. Page (2005) tracked how media professionals portrayed global warming in order to show how far global warming was reported in terms of ‘natural’ or ‘social’ causes. The quantification of such behavior allows researchers to draw complex conclusions from quite simple data-collection techniques. The use of a standardized framework (the grid) also means that data can be checked and replicated. Limitations - In some types of content analysis, reliability may be limited because researchers must make subjective judgements about what they are counting. Not only do they have to decide which categories will and will not be used, they may also have to judge which forms of behavior fit which categories. This raises questions about whether all observed behavior can be neatly categorized. Content analysis does not tell us very much about how or why audiences receive, understand, accept or ignore themes and patterns discovered by the research.  UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Unstructured interviews enable researchers to acquire an understanding of how people think and feel. Respondents are encouraged to talk freely about the things they feel are important. Strengths - The researcher’s limited input means that data reflects the interests of the respondent. It is therefore more likely to be an accurate and detailed expression of their beliefs. Allowing the respondents to talk freely in their own words avoids the problem of the researcher pre-judging what makes important or irrelevant data. The researcher must establish a strong understanding with respondents. If this is achieved, people who don’t trust being studied can open up to the researcher, allowing sensitive issues to be explored in depth. If the research is relatively informal, it can take place somewhere the respondent will feel at ease, such as in their own home. Limitations - Carrying out unstructured interviews requires considerable skill. The researcher must resist the temptation to influence, encourage or interrupt. The researcher, by design, has little control over the direction of the interview and the conversation may lead into areas that later prove irrelevant to the research. The interviews are time-consuming and so are analyzing and interpreting all the data they generate (analyzing may involve listening to a recording of the interview and transcribing it). Reliability is low because the non -standardized format makes the interview impossible to replicate. Another limitation is that all forms of interviewing are naturally biased by interview effects. Respondents may try to please the researcher by telling them what they believe the researcher wants to hear, perhaps influenced by what they know of the interviewer from their interaction.  SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS This type of interview attempts to combine the strengths of unstructured and structured interviews. Researchers are free to a sk questions in any order and to phrase the questions as they think best. Semi-structured interviews, therefore, allow a respondent to talk at length and in depth about a particular subject. The interview has a structure or ‘interview schedule’ – the areas the interviewer wants to focus on – but there is no list of specific questions. Different respondents may be asked different questions on the same topic, depending on how the intervi ew develops. The aim is to understand things from the respondent’s viewpoint, rather than to make generalizations about behavior. Open -ended questions are frequently used in semi-structured interviews. Some of these are created before the interview, while others arise naturally from whatever the respondent wants to talk about. Strengths - As there are no specific questions prepared, there is less risk of the researcher deciding (predetermining) what will be discussed. Where the respondent can talk about things that interest them, it is possible to pick up ideas and information that may not h ave occurred to the interviewer or of which they had no previous knowledge. This new knowledge can be used to inform later interviews with differ ent respondents and to suggest further questions. By allowing respondents to develop their ideas, the researcher tries to discover what someo ne really means, thinks or believes. The focus on issues that the respondent considers important results in a much greater depth of informatio n. This may increase the validity of the data as it is more likely that the research will achieve its real aims. Limitations - This method demands certain skills in the researcher, such as asking the right questions, establishing a good rapport and thi nking quickly about relevant question opportunities. Semi-structured interviews are not only more time-consuming than questionnaires but the large amounts of information they produce must also be analyzed and interpreted. This data is rarely tightly focused on a particula r topic, so a researcher may spend a lot of time analyzing data that has little or no use to the study. Respondents must remember and descr ibe past events, and this creates problems for both researcher and respondent. While a researcher has no way of knowing whether someone is tel ling the truth, a further problem is that it may not only be difficult to remember things that have happened months or years ago, but memories can also be selective – respondents only remember those things that seem important to them: imperfect recall. Finally, semi-structured interviews lack standardization; the same questions are not necessarily put to all respondents and similar questions may be phrased different ly. This makes analyzing data and generalizing difficult.  GROUP INTERVIEWS Group interviews involve respondents gathering to discuss a topic decided in advance by the researcher. These groups may be selected as representative samples – a cross-section of society, for example – or they may simply represent a group that the researcher wants to explore in detail. Focus groups are often same-sex and from similar backgrounds to prevent gender and class variables affecting the reliability and validity of the data. The success of group interviews depends on: an interview structure with clear guidelines for the participants, to avoid arguments within the group advance (predetermined) questions through which the experiences of participants can be explored interaction within the group, which Gibbs (1997) argues gives ‘unique insights into people’s shared understandings of everyday life’ the skill of the researcher who must, for example, try to ensure that the discussion is not dominated by one or two individua ls. Strengths - Strengths In group interviews, the researcher can help the discussion. They can: control the pace and extent (scope) of the discussion plan a schedule that allows them to focus and refocus the discussion ask questions, stop or change the focus of discussions create a situation that reflects how people naturally share and discuss ideas. Limitations - Because social life does not involve individuals on their own, those who prefer group interviews argue that they are more rea listic. We decide how we think and feel about things not on our own but by talking to and listening to others; this is what happens i n a group interview. Limitations - The researcher must control the behavior of the group to allow people to speak freely and openly about an issue wh ile maintaining the focus of the research, which can require considerable skill. There may also be problems with representativeness: if in a carefully selected group of ten, one person does not show up, the sample becomes unrepresentative. Group interviews are also at risk from anothe r type of ‘interview effect’, which has been called ‘Groupthink’. This refers to the pressure people feel to arrive at ‘desired outcomes’, such as saying what they believe the researcher or the rest of the group wants to hear. Group interviews also run the risk of simply reflecting a ‘group consensus’ rather than revealing what individuals really believe; individuals may not want to say what they really think if they feel th at they are on their own.  OBSERVATION Observational methods are based on the idea that data are more valid if they are gathered by seeing how people behave, rather than taking on trust that people do what they say they do. There are two main observational techniques: non- participant and participant. Participant observation is when the researcher takes part in the behavior being studied. It is based, in part, on what Weber (1922) termed verstehen – ‘to understand by experiencing’ or, as Mead (1934) described it, the researcher’s ability to take the part of the other and see things from their viewpoint (empathy). Participant observation can take two forms: overt and covert.  MAX WEBER The German sociologist Max Weber is, with Marx and Durkheim, seen as one of the ‘founding fathers’ of modern sociology. Much of his work develops an anti- positivist approach, rejecting the idea that there are social facts to be discovered and instead focusing on understanding the meanings that people attach to their actions. This led to the social action and interpretivist approaches within sociology. Weber’s concept of ‘verstehen’ (meaning ‘empathy’) is still widely used. He argued that social life was complex so that it is pointless to look for single causes. He is also known for his essay ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, in which he argued that capitalism developed in parts of Europe because religious beliefs encouraged people to save money, rather than spend it on worldly goods, and this saved money was then invested as capital in business. This challenges the Marxist view that ideology cannot bring about social change.  HARRIET MARTINEAU The idea of ‘founding fathers’ of sociology plays down the role of women such as Harriet Martineau, who helped shape sociology today. Martineau introduced sociology to Britain by translating Comte, and also conducted her own research while travelling around the United States. She argued that the study of society must include understanding the lives of women, and also issues which tended to be ignored at the time, such as race relations and domestic life. She campaigned for women’s rights and the emancipation of slaves. She thus belongs at the start of a long tradition, involving many feminists, race theorists and others, of sociologists combining the study of society with advocating change and progress towards a better society.  OVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION Overt participant observation involves participating in the behavior of people who know they are being studied. The researcher joins the group openly, and usually conducts the research with the permission and cooperation of the group (or significant members of the group).  OVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION - STRENGTHS On a practical level, recording data is relatively easy because the group knows and understands the role of the researcher. The researcher can ask questions, take notes and observe behavior openly. With groups that have hierarchical structures, such as large businesses, the researcher can gain access to all levels – the boardroom as well as the shop floor. It can be difficult to get access to some groups, so researchers may use sponsorship to find a way in. This involves gaining the trust and cooperation of an important group member. Venkatesh’s (2009) study of a black American gang, for example, was only possible because a gang leader called ‘JT’ ‘sponsored’ and protected Venkatesh while he observed the gang and eventually gained access to some of its more powerful members. Sponsorship makes it easier to separate the roles of participant and observer. It reduces the chance of researchers becoming so involved in a group that they stop observing and simply become participants (known as ‘going native’). Even so, Venkatesh found there were times when his involvement was so complete that he acted ‘like one of them’ and effectively ceased to be an objective and fair observer. The ability to ask questions, observe individual behaviors and experience the day-to-day life of respondents helps researchers to build up a highly detailed picture of the lives they are describing. This means that the researcher not only gets to understand what people say they do, but also witnesses and experiences what people actually do (which may be different). This increases the validity of the data. Where the observer’s role is clearly defined, there is also less risk of involvement in unethical, criminal, dangerous or destructive behaviors. The researcher can, for example, pull back from risky situations without necessarily losing the trust or causing the suspicions of those being studied.  OVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION - LIMITATIONS If a group refuses the researcher permission to observe it, then the research cannot be carried out. In addition, overt obser vation requires substantial amounts of time, effort and money. Venkatesh, for example, spent around eight years on his study of a single gang in a small area of one US city. Theoretical criticisms focus on the observer/Hawthorne effect and the extent to w hich knowledge of being watched changes how people behave. While people may be studied in their natural environment, an awareness of the presence of the researcher may make them behave unnaturally. For example, Venkatesh witnessed a fake punishment beating designed to demonstrate the limits of his observational role; higher -level gang members were ‘putting on a show’ for his benefit. A further limitation is the researcher’s level of involvement: Without full participation, researcher involvement may be too superficial to allow a true understanding of behavior. Ethical concerns, such as not participating in illegal behavior, may affect the extent to which the researcher is truly experiencing how people normally behave. There is a risk that the researcher will become too involved and effectively ‘become the story’ they are reporting. Their presence becomes the focal point around which people adapt their behavior. Venkatesh was given ‘special treatment’; he was invited to meetings and was introduced to people he would not have met if he had not been known as a researcher sponsored by a gang leader. Overt participant observation is impossible to replicate; others must trust that the researcher saw and experienced the behav ior they document. In addition, it can be difficult for researchers to accurately record behavior while they are in the middle of it. No researcher can record and document everything that happens, which means that this method will always involve the selection, interpretation and retelling of ideas and events. COVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION In covert participant observation, the researcher secretly (covertly) joins the group, so the subjects are unaware that they are being studied. The main aim is to experience behavior in its ‘natural setting’; to watch people behave as they normally behave. Unlike overt participation, the researcher must balance the roles of researcher and participant without revealing their true role to other group members.  COVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION - STRENGHS Covert observation may be the only way to study people who would not normally allow themselves to be researched. Such people may include: Criminal or deviant groups: Ward (2008) ‘was a member of the rave dance drugs culture’ when she began her five-year study ‘in London nightclubs, dance parties, bars, pubs and people’s houses’. Her knowledge of the ‘dance scene’, added to her friendship with those involved, meant that she was able to gain easy access to this world. Closed groups: Lofland and Stark (1965) secretly studied the behavior of a religious sect because this was the only way to gain access. Defensive groups: Ray (1987) covertly studied Australian environmental groups who would have been suspicious of his motives if he had tried to study them openly. Covert participation avoids the observer effect – the subjects’ behavior is largely unaffected by the researcher’s presence. Through personal experience, the researcher gains valuable understanding (insights) of the meanings, motivations and relationships within a group. These can explain why people behave in certain ways. The ability to experience things from the point of view of those involved, coupled with the sociological insights a researcher brings to the role of observer, means that they can make sense of behavior even in situations where group members may not fully understand the reasons for that behavior.  COVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION - LIMITATIONS Goffman’s study of a US mental institution identified three major problems for the covert participant observer: Getting in: while gaining covert entry to any group can be a problem, some groups are more difficult to enter than others: Entry to some groups is by invitation only. Unless researchers are invited, they cannot join. Some groups have entry requirements. To covertly study accountants or doctors, the researcher would need to hold the qualific ations these professions require. The characteristics of the observer must match those of the observed. A man, for example, could not covertly participate in a group of female nuns. (There are, however, ways around this problem. Goffman, while neither a doctor nor mentally ill, was able to covertly observe by taking a manual job within the institution.) Staying in: once inside, the researcher may not have access to all areas. For example, an observer pretending to be a school student co uld not freely enter places, such as staff rooms, reserved for teachers. Someone being where they are not supposed to be would raise suspici ons, and the researcher runs the risk of being discovered by ‘gatekeepers’ – those whose job it is to limit access. The researcher has to quickly learn the culture and dynamics of a group if they are to participate fully. This can require a range of skills, including the ability to mix easily with strangers, create and maintain a believable and convincing ‘ back story’ (past) and to think quickly on their feet when questioned or challenged. If a researcher lacks the ‘insider knowledge’, they risk being found out. The ability to successfully mix into a group carries its own problems. It can be difficult to separate the roles of participant and observer, especially if the researcher is well mixed (integrated) i nto a group: At one extreme, the researcher may have to choose between participation and observation, for example if a group participates in criminal activities. At the other extreme, the researcher may become so much a part of the group they go native and stop being an observer, which can raise doubts about the validity of the research. Getting out: it can be difficult to stop participating. A member of a criminal gang, for example, cannot simply leave. In other groups l eaving may raise ethical questions, such as the effect of leaving people who have grown to trust and depend on the researcher. This type of re search raises further ethical questions, such as whether a researcher has the right to pretend to be one of the group or use its members for their own purposes. In addition to problems of entrance, acceptance and departure, further limitations include: research cannot be replicated we have to trust that the researcher saw what they claim to have seen recording data is frequently difficult; the researcher cannot take notes, ask too many questions or openly record conversatio ns.  NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION Non-participant observation involves observing behavior from a distance so that the research subjects do not know they are being observed. The ethical issue of consent may not be a problem here. A researcher observing behavior in a shopping mall or the crowd at a sporting event could not be expected to get permission from everyone. Non-participant observation usually means that the researcher does not become personally involved in the behavior they are studying. This kind of research, unlike participant observation, can be used to produce quantitative data, such as the number of times people are observed carrying out a particular act. Strengths - Access is one practical advantage of non-participant observation. It allows research on people who may not want to be studied because their behavior is illegal, secret or personally embarrassing, for example. When the researcher does not participate in the behavior being observed, respondents can be objectively studied in a natural setting. The researcher gets to see ‘everyday behavior’ just as it would normally occur. Limitations - Observational studies cannot be easily or exactly replicated because the characteristics and structure of a group may change over time. Observing people ‘from a distance’ may also produce data that fails to capture the depth, richness and personal (intimate) details of their behavior. This type of study also raises ethical questions, because people are being observed without their permission.  RESEARCH DESIGN Oberg (1999) suggests that there are four linked stages of research design: 1. Planning is where the researcher decides on the strategy – such as what to research and how to research it – and plans (formulates) research hypotheses or questions. 2. Information gathering involves identifying a sample to study, conducting an initial pilot study and applying research methods to collect data. 3. Information processing relates to the idea that once data has been gathered, its meaning must be analyzed and interpreted. 4. Evaluation involves both an internal analysis that asks questions about how the research was conducted (whether the research method was appropriate, for example) and an external analysis, by which conclusions are reported to a wider public audience for their analysis and criticism.  RESEARCH PROBLEM This is the initial stage, when the sociologist decides things such as the general topic to study and then develops more specific ideas about what aspect to study. This decision may be based on factors such as: The personal interests of the researcher. Current interest in the topic, among sociologists or society in general. Whether money (funding) can be obtained. Practical factors such as whether it will be possible to contact respondents easily. At this stage, the researcher will review previous research in the area under consideration. A review like this may generate ideas about what to study, whether to replicate previous research and how to avoid errors made in previous research.  RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS This sets the basic theme for a study: If a hypothesis is used – for example, Ginn and Arber’s (2002) analysis of how motherhood affects the lives of graduate women was based on the hypothesis ‘The effect of motherhood on full-time employment is minimal for graduate women’ – it must be tested and this means using research methods suitable for this purpose. Hypotheses are associated more with methods that produce quantitative data. If a research question is used – Conway’s (1997) examination of parental choice in secondary education was based on the question ‘Does parental choice help to strengthen the advantage of the middle classes over the working class?’– the research method used must be capable of generating high levels of descriptive data. Research questions are associated more with methods that produce qualitative data.  COLLECTING DATA Before data can be collected, the researcher needs to identify the people – or respondents – who will be the subject of the research. Although it would be ideal to select and study everyone in a particular group (the target population), this is not always possible. For example, if the target population was ‘doctors in India’, the size and geographic distribution of such a population would make it impossible to observe or question everyone personally. This is where sampling enters the research process. A sample is a relatively small number of people who belong to the target population. In the example above, the researcher might choose 1000 doctors in India and, by studying their behavior draw certain conclusions about all doctors in India. However, this only works if the sample is representative of the target population. Representativeness may be more significant than sample size because it relates to whether the characteristics of the sample accurately reflect those of the target population. For example, if 60% of doctors are male, then 60% of the sample should be also. If the sample is representative, anything discovered can be generalized to the target population. A researcher can make statements about the larger group they have not studied (the target population) based on the behavior of the smaller group they have studied (the sample).  SAMPLING FRAME Constructing a representative sample often requires a sampling frame. This is a list of everyone in a target population, such as a voting (an electoral) or school register, and it is used for two main reasons: 1. Unless everyone in the target population can be identified, the sample drawn may not accurately reflect the characteristics of the population. 2. For a researcher to contact people in their sample, to interview them for example, they must know who they are. However, simply because a sampling frame exists does not mean that a researcher will automatically have access to it. This may be denied for reasons of: Legality: names cannot be revealed by law. Confidentiality: a business may deny access to its payment records, for example. Privacy: some groups do not want to be studied. There are a number of sampling techniques for choosing the sample.  RANDOM SAMPLING This is based on the probability that the random selection of names from a sampling frame will produce a representative sample. For the sample to be truly random, everyone in the target population must have an equal chance of being chosen. A simple random sample, therefore, is similar to a lottery.  SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING This is a variation on simple random sampling that is often used when the target population is very large. It involves taking a sample directly from a sampling frame. For a 25% sample of a target population containing 100 names, every fourth name would be chosen. This technique is not truly random – for example, the fifth name on the list could never be included in the sample so not everyone has an equal chance of being included. However, it is random enough for most samples.  STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLING Although simple and stratified (divided) random samples can be used in many research situations, problems can occur when a target population is made up of small groups, such as a population with many age groups. A biased sample can easily occur by chance, with some groups over-represented and others under-represented. Stratified random sampling avoids these problems by stratifying the target population into groups whose characteristics are known to the researcher, such as different age groups. Each group is then treated as a separate random sample in its own right.  STRATIFIED QUOTA SAMPLING Although a sampling frame is always useful, it is not strictly necessary. It is enough just to know the characteristics of the respondents in order to construct a sample. The selection is done on an opportunity basis. The researcher may, for example, need 20 males for the sample; they then ask men to be part of the sample and once 20 males have agreed, the quota (allowed amount) is complete and no further males can be selected.  NON-REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING Researchers generally find representative samples useful, but there are times when a non-representative sample serves the purpose. For some types of research, the sociologist might not want to make generalizations about a very large group based only on a small sample. They might simply be interested in the behavior of the group itself, rather than what it represents. In Venkatesh’s gang study, the fact that the gang was only representative of itself was unimportant, as he did not want to generalize from his findings and simply wanted to understand that gang in depth.  OPPORTUNITY SAMPLING In some circumstances, it may not be possible to create a representative sample. Here, the researcher may be forced to settle for opportunity sampling, a general type of sampling – with two main sub- divisions: 1. Best opportunity sampling involves deliberately choosing a sample that gives the best possible opportunity to test a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is false for this group, it will probably be false for other similar groups. Goldthorpe et al. (1968), for example, wanted to test the claim that the working class in the UK was becoming hard to tell from the middle class. Their best opportunity sample consisted of highly paid car assembly workers in Luton. This group was chosen because if any working-class group was likely to show lifestyles similar to their middle -class peers, it would be these ‘affluent workers’. 2. Snowball samples work on the principle of ‘rolling up’ more and more people to include in the sample over time, like a snowball. The researcher would identify someone in the target population who was willing to participate in their research. This person then suggests more people who are also willing to participate. These then suggest further possible participants, until the researcher has a usable sample. Although this technique is unrepresentative, it may be the only option in certain situations. Opportunity sampling can be a useful technique when no sampling frame is available and the researcher knows little or nothing about the characteristics of their target population.  PILOT STUDIES Before starting a full-scale study, many researchers choose to run a pilot study to test the various elements of their research design. Pilot studies are a research tool normally used for one of two reasons: 1. As a ‘mini version’ of a full-scale study designed to test the feasibility of carrying out such a study. In other words, before starting a study that may take up large amounts of time, money and effort, a researcher may conduct a smaller study to identify any problems, such as access to respondents, that may occur in a larger study. A pilot study is also helpful in working out the resources, such as staffing and finance, needed for a study. The results of a pilot study can be used to demonstrate to funding bodies that a full study would be feasible and worthwhile. 2. To pre-test a research method, such as a questionnaire. This might involve testing different types of question, examining and analyzing the data it produces to ensure the questions will get the data required, and identifying and removing possible sources of bias or unreliability, such as leading or unclear (ambiguous) questions.  OPERATIONALIZATION Sociological research often involves ideas and concepts that non-sociologists may find difficult or unclear. In carrying out research and in asking questions, sociologists need to make decisions about how to put these ideas and concepts into practice – that is, to operationalize them. An example is the term ‘social class’. Most people are familiar with the term, and with terms such as ‘middleclass’ and ‘working-class’ but they won’t agree on exactly what they mean or how to measure then. If respondents were asked which social class they belong to, they would give answers based on their different understandings of these terms. The researcher will therefore operationalize the term by asking questions, the answers to which enable the researcher to judge what class the respondent belongs to. For example, they might ask about occupation or income.  INTERPRETING RESULTS Research findings do not simply ‘speak for themselves’; the researcher needs to analyze them to work out what they mean. The researcher will look for common themes and trends in the data and will reflect on the data, asking, for example, whether the data supports the hypothesis or not. Once the data has been analyzed and interpreted, the data can be presented in terms of: Findings Conclusions about the hypothesis or research question Limitations, which might include discussion of various research problems that may have affected the study, such as sample, response rate or questions about validity Suggestions for further research Improvements to the research design.  CASE STUDIES Case Studies - research studies the characteristics of a particular group or ‘case’, such as Westwood’s (1984) 12- month participant observation study of female workers in a ‘Stitchco’ factory. A case study is not really a research method, but rather a technique, in which different methods can be used to generate data. Such studies are usually based on qualitative methods. Strengths - The focus on a single group studied over time provides great depth and detail of information that has greater validity than simple quantitative studies. In cases where the sample is relatively small and self -contained, such as a factory (Westwood), a school (Lacey, 1970) or a gang (Venkatesh), large amounts of data can be collected in a relatively cost-effective way. Such studies help to uncover the meanings that people give to everyday behavior. They often make use of participant observation, but other methods are also used in case studies. Small - scale case studies can also be used as pilot studies to allow a researcher to develop hypotheses, test data - collection methods and identify potential problems in preparation for a larger study. Limitations - Case studies have a range of practical limitations that depend to some extent on their size and scope. Largescale, in-depth studies can take a lot of time, effort and money. Regardless of their size, the intensive and detailed nature of case studies means that they make higher demands on the skills of researchers, who may spend months or years living and working with their subjects, and respondents, who may be subject to extensive and detailed questioning and observation throughout the study. It is difficult to generalize from case studies because they tend to focus on small groups that may only be representative of themselves. It might, however, be possible to draw comparisons between similar groups.  SOCIAL SURVEYS One particular type of survey is the cross-sectional survey, which is explicitly designed to produce a ‘snapshot’ of behavior at any given time: Qualitative forms of cross-sectional surveys are generally descriptive, with the aim being to illustrate a particular type of behavior. It may involve, for example, looking at a certain population characteristic, such as suicide, income or poverty, applied to a single country, a large area within a country or a specific feature of different countries. Quantitative forms, the more common type, are analytic: the aim is to analyze both correlations and causations between different phenomena. Durkheim’s study of suicide, for example, used cross - sectional surveys taken from different societies to build up a comparative analysis of variable suicide rates. He used these as the basis for a theoretical explanation of different types of suicide. Both types of cross-sectional survey normally require representative samples because one of the main goals is to make generalizations about behavior. Cross-sectional surveys tend to focus on identifying groups that share broad similarities, such as income, education and gender. They measure differences using a single variable, such as death or suicide rates. By comparing standardized groups, it is possible to explain differences in death or suicide rates using variations in standardized variables – whether, for example, people with a high level of education have higher rates of suicide than those with a lower level of education.  ETHNOGRAPHY Ethnography (also sometimes called fieldwork) is a way of researching which tries to achieve a detailed, in-depth understanding of a group of people or of a social situation. It began in anthropology, the study of different cultures, when researchers took part in the daily lives of people, often in traditional and pre-modern societies, in an attempt to understand their view of the world. In sociology, it is strongly associated with participant observation, whether overt or covert, but ethnographers may also use a range of other methods such as unstructured interviews and qualitative documents. It can also involve some collection of quantitative data.  LONGITUDINAL STUDIES These are a form of comparative analysis that involves tracking changes among a representative sample over time, from a few months to many years. The same group is analyzed at different stages in their lives, using methods ranging from questionnaires to non-participant observation. Longitudinal surveys are carried out at intervals (referred to as ‘waves’) over a significant period of time; they can last many years. The researcher remains removed from the study group, having contact with the research subjects only on a limited basis at set intervals. Strengths - Longitudinal studies allow the researcher to identify and track personal and social changes over long periods, revealing trends that would otherwise remain hidden. A further advantage of longitudinal surveys is that they are usually based on large representative samples and so can be used to suggest correlations and causal relationships. Limitations - Sample attrition, or the number of people who drop out from the original sample over time, is a major limitation of these surveys. People drop out of the research for a range of reasons; they may lose interest, move away without leaving contact details or may die. High levels of attrition can reduce the representativeness of the sample over time – a problem that grows the longer the study lasts. While longitudinal studies can identify trends or allow researchers to make correlations and causal connections between phenomena, such as income and life expectancy, they are only ever a quick look at behavior at any given moment. They can, therefore, be criticized for lacking depth and validity.  METHODOLOGICAL PLURALISM Many research projects involve more than one method; this is referred to as methodological pluralism. This can include combining methods that produce quantitative and qualitative data. Researchers often use methodological pluralism because different research methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Questionnaires may produce reliable data, but this data has low validity, while the reverse may be true for covert participant observation. Rather than approaching research methodology from the perspective of a ‘design problem’ – how to test a hypothesis (positivism) or answer a research question (interpretivism) – we can approach it from a methodological perspective. This involves considering how to collect data with the highest possible levels of reliability and validity, regardless of the methods or data types used.  TRIANGULATION If methodological pluralism represents the theoretical argument for using mixed methods, triangulation is the means through which this theory is put into practice. It refers to the various ways in which a researcher can attempt to improve research reliability and validity. Methodological triangulation involves the use of two or more research methods. Denzin (1970) suggests that this allows the researcher to offset the weaknesses of one method with the strengths of another. For example: A general weakness of questionnaires is that the researcher must assume that a respondent is telling the truth. A researcher could offset this by using an observational method, such as participant observation, to check that respondents actually do what they say they do. Alternatively, the researcher could compare the results from two different methods used on the same people (such as a semi-structured interview and a focus group). If the conclusions drawn are broadly the same, this helps confirm the reliability and validity of the data. Methodological triangulation can involve any combination of: Two or more researchers using the same research technique. One researcher using two or more research techniques. Two or more researchers using two or more research techniques.  RESEARCHER TRIANGULATION AND DATA TRIANGULATION Researcher triangulation can be used in studies that rely heavily on a researcher’s interpretations to generate data. If different researchers using the same research method arrive at the same results, this can confirm the reliability of the data. Alternatively, using researchers from different ethnic, age, gender and class groups can help check for factors such as observer and interviewer bias that may lower reliability and validity. Data triangulation involves gathering information through different sampling strategies – such as collecting data at different times, in different contexts and from different people. This can be extended to include gathering data from both the individuals involved in a particular situation and the researcher’s own experiences in that situation. Venkatesh, for example, was able to make sense of certain forms of behavior, such as drug dealing, and experiences, such as being black and poor, in ways that would not have been possible if he had not been intimately involved in the world he was studying. He gathered data from both those involved and from his own experience of living in their world.  BARKER AND HEY Barker (1984) used overt participant observation, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews in her research on the Unification Church (‘Moonies’). Hey (1997) studied girls’ friendships in two London schools using a combination of participant observation and personal documentation. Some of the girls allowed her to read their diaries and she was also given access to the notes the girls passed between themselves in the classroom.  METHODOLOGICAL PLURALISM AND TRIANGULATION Methodological pluralism and triangulation are, therefore, frequently employed by sociologists because they improve reliability and validity. Using different methods and sampling strategies, a researcher can generally improve overall the reliability of a research approach and the validity of the data collected. More specifically, data collected using higher reliability methods, such as questionnaires, can offset the weaknesses in observational methods; the reverse applies to validity. Arguments in favor of methodological pluralism and triangulation are convincing, but these techniques still have practical problems. Triangulation adds another layer of time, effort and expense to research, in terms of things such as: The time needed to analyze different data types created from a number of different methods. The need to employ more researchers. The general co-ordination of a much larger research project. In addition, collecting and comparing different types of data can be complicated. Such data may not always be easily and neatly compared. Where a researcher gets contradicting data from two different sources, it can be difficult to distinguish ‘true’ from ‘false’. If the researcher receives two opposing accounts of the same thing, which account is true? And more importantly, how can the researcher tell?  POSITIVISM According to this approach, it is both possible and desirable to study social behavior using similar methods to those used when studying the natural world; in other words, sociology can be like a science. We can examine this belief by identifying some of its key ideas, beginning with the idea that social systems are made up of structures that exist independently of individuals. Institutions represent behavior at the macro (very large group) level of society. As individuals we experience social structures as forces bearing down on us, pushing us to behave in certain ways and shaping our behavioral choices. Although we have a measure of choice in our daily lives, this is limited by social structures. For positivists, where social action is decided by structural forces it makes sense to study the causes of behavior. This means looking at the structural forces that make people choose one action over another, rather than studying their effects – the choices themselves. Social structures are seen as real, objective forces; people cannot stop these forces from acting on them.  NATURAL SCIENCES Just as natural scientists have observed the effects of ‘unseen forces’ such as gravity or electro-magnetism, social structures are unseen forces whose effect can be observed by positivists using similar techniques to those of the natural sciences: Systematic observation Accurate testing Quantitative measurements that create reliable knowledge. This systematic process results in the development of theories that explain the initial observations and predict future behaviors.  POSITIVISM - RESEARCH Since this version of science is concerned only with what is, rather than how we might want something to be, scientists must be personally objective. They do not participate in the behavior being studied, so they do not bias or influence the data-collection process. They prefer quantitative methods because they allow for the collection of objective and reliable data. Positivists value reliability; they see it as essential that others can replicate the research. Questionnaires, structured interviews, experiments or comparative and observational studies offer higher levels of reliability than qualitative methods. They also allow the researcher to maintain a high level of personal objectivity by ‘standing apart’ from the behavior being researched. Research methods, therefore, should not depend on the subjective interpretations of a researcher; the researcher is objective, and their values do not influence the research. Positivism involves a value-free approach.  POSITIVIST METHODOLOGY In summary, positivist methodology involves these key ideas: The primary research goal is to explain, not describe, social phenomena. Scientific research involves the ability to discover the ‘general rules’ (or structures) that decide individual behavior. The social scientist must personally be objective – their research must not be influenced by their values, beliefs, opinions and prejudices – and systemically objective; that is, they should use objective methods. Scientific research involves the ability to quantify/measure behavior.  AUGUSTE COMTE The French philosopher Auguste Comte is widely regarded as the founder of sociology. He established the positivist approach in sociology, arguing that sociology was a science and could discover laws of human behavior, just as scientists discovered laws of nature. The methods of the sciences were therefore appropriate for sociology. He believed that sociology was the most important and the last of the sciences to develop. He argued for society to be run by sociologists, because they would have the best understanding of human behavior and would be able to act in society’s best interests. Comte’s ideas influenced much of later sociology, including the work of Durkheim and Marx and the development of anthropology.  INTERPRETIVISM For interpretivists, the crucial difference between society and physical nature is that social reality is formed through the interaction of people who have consciousness. This awareness of ourselves and our relationship to others gives us the ability to act. People are able to exercise free will over the choices they make about how to behave in different situations, rather tha n simply react to outside (structural) stimulation. In this sense, people are unpredictable – they do not always react in the same way. This means that behavior cannot be studied and explained in the way that natural scientists study and explain the non - human world, and that the positivist approach is not appropriate for sociology. For interpretivists, unpredictability is constructed through meanings. ‘Society’ does not exist in an objective form; it is created by the way people interact with each other and experienced subjectively because we give it meaning through behavior. People create and re-create a ‘sense of the social system’ on a daily basis. Society is not something ‘out there’ to be objectively observed but something ‘in here’ to be experienced and understood. The fact that people actively create the social world makes it impossible to establish causal relationships either in theory or in practice. Where social contexts define the meaning of behavior, the best a researcher can do is describe reality from the viewpoint of those who define it, whether they are in a classroom, a family or any other social situation. Seeing the soc ial world through the eyes of others involves empathy. Max Weber referred to this as verstehen. If researching social behavior involves understanding how people individually and collectively experience and interpret their situation, research methods must reflect this social construction of reality. The aim of interpretivist research is to help respondents ‘tell their story’ and, by so doing, understand and explain their behavioral choices.  INTERPRETIVIST METHODOLOGY We can summarize interpretivist methodology as follows: The primary aim is to describe social behavior in terms of the meanings and interpretations of those involved. Behavioral rules are context bound; they change in subtle ways depending on the situation. Uncovering and describing behavioral rules involves the close study of people’s behavior; the researcher must gain a good understanding of the context within which such rules are created. This is why researchers in this methodology often use participant observation. Participation can be desirable because this gives the researcher a deeper insight into behavior, the kind of ‘objective detachment’ valued by positivists is explicitly rejected. Sociologists should not be objective and should acknowledge their values rather than try to be value-free in their research. While reliability is important, interpretivists place greater emphasis on achieving validity.  SCIENCE Science is a way of producing a particular kind of knowledge, one that is factual and objective rather than based on opinion, guesses or faith. Science involves identifying a problem to study, collecting information about it and offering an explanation for it. Science, therefore, is a methodology – a way of producing knowledge that has two main qualities: 1. It is reliable. This refers to the idea that it is possible to check the accuracy of a piece of research by repeating (replicating) it to see whether the same, or very similar, results are obtained. 2. It is valid. Data are only useful if they actually measure or describe what it claims to measure or describe. It is possible to measure the extent of crime using government crime statistics. However, the validity of these statistics may be limited if they only record crimes that are reported to the police because many crimes go unreported. So, a scientific methodology encompasses certain procedural and ethical rules that should be followed in order to ‘do science’.  PROCEDURAL RULES Scientific knowledge is created by following a set of procedures, agreed by the scientific community, that control how data can be collected and analyzed. The hypothetico-deductive method is a standard example of a scientific procedure. A scientific procedure generally begins with a hypothesis or research question. This question must be tested or answered by the systematic collection, presentation and analysis of data. A crucial idea here is that any conclusions drawn from scientific research have not been disproven or shown to be false in the course of testing them against the available evidence. This procedure gives scientific knowledge greater plausibility because it is based on tested facts rather than untested opinions. It also gives this knowledge a crucial quality: the ability to make predictive statements. Scientific knowledge means that we can say with a level of certainty that something will happen in the future.  ETHICAL RULES To ensure that scientists follow the procedures outlined above, rather than making up their results, Merton (1942) argued that a scientific ethos is required. There must be rules governing the general conditions that research must satisfy in order to both attain and maintain scientific status. Science has to be: 1. Universal: knowledge is evaluated using objective, universally agreed, criteria. Personal values play no part in this process and criticism of a scientist’s work should focus on trying to prove that their conclusions are wrong or identifying weaknesses in the research process. 2. Communal: scientific knowledge is ‘public knowledge’ that must be freely shared within the scientific community. Scientists must, for example, be able to build on the work done by other scientists. This inspires scientists to develop new ideas based on those of other scientists, causing scientific understanding to advance on a growing (cumulative) basis. By making their work available for peer review, scientists also accept that scientific knowledge cannot be taken ‘on trust’. Other scientists must be free to replicate their work, which requires detailed knowledge of the original research. 3. Disinterested: the main responsibility of the scientist is to seek knowledge. While scientists should be recognized for their achievements and rewarded for their efforts, they should not have a personal interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of their research. If the researcher was not disinterested, there would be a risk of researcher bias, calling the validity of the research into question. 4. Skeptical: nothing is beyond criticism. The scientific community must continually evaluate knowledge because this questioning process contributes to the development of human understanding. For Merton, this ‘skeptical attitude’ represented the main way in which scientific knowledge differed from other forms of knowledge, such as religious faith (considered as knowledge by the faithful). Science is ‘true’ only because it has not yet been disproved. Faith, however, is considered by believers to be self-evidently true; it cannot be disproved.  ENLIGHTENMENT ERA The earliest sociology was positivist; that is, it was based on the assumptions that the social world could be explored in the same way as the natural world, and that there were laws of human behavior to be discovered in the same way as scientists discovere d laws such as those of gravity and thermodynamics. These assumptions meant that sociology should be based on the same principles as the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, physics and so on) and should use the same methods. Sociologists, lik e scientists, should be objective and should not let their values influence their research. These views took hold during the Enlightenment period, when many were convinced that science would lead to complete understanding of the world and the universe and that this would enable people to build better societies. Later sociologists following the positivist approach moved away to some extent from this position. It was recognized that bec ause people think, reflect and make decisions about how to act, it was not always appropriate to use the same methods. Positivists tried to be as objective as possible and to follow scientific methods as far as possible, while recognizing, for example, tha t complete objectivity was not achievable (for example, the choice of what to study would be based on the researcher’s ideas about what was worthwhile studying). Interpretivism is a different tradition within sociology, based on different assumptions. Interpretivists argue that scientific methods are not appropriate for sociology. The purpose of sociology is to try to understand why people behave as they do. Thi s is not a question of discovering laws of human behavior but rather of trying to see the world through their eyes, uncovering the meanings they give to their actions. This requires totally different methods, which need to be assessed differently. The meth ods preferred by interpretivists are seen by positivists as lacking reliability because they cannot be replicated, and the interp retivist researcher can be criticized for lacking objectivity and for being influenced by their values. For interpretivists, reliabili ty is less important than validity, and qualitative methods are likely to produce valid data, capturing what social actions mean to thos e carrying them out. Because complete objectivity is unachievable, the sociologist should be open about their values, so that t hose reading their research reports can evaluate how far values have influenced the research.  THEORETICAL RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS When faced with a problem such as hanging a picture, we reach for a hammer – the most appropriate tool for the job. When carrying out sociological research, therefore, it makes sense to adopt a similar approach: choose a research topic and then select the most appropriate method of collecting data. Unfortunately, although some methods are better suited than others to certain types of research, Ackroyd and Hughes (1992) argued that we should not see these methods as ‘tools’ that are somehow appropriate or inappropriate for particular tasks. Research methods do not have a clear, single and straightforward purpose. In addition to this – as we have seen – sociological research is surrounded by theoretical beliefs about both the nature of the social world and how it can be studied. When collecting data, therefore, a researcher has to make initial decisions about factors such as what counts as data. Should the data be statistical or descriptive? Should the research test a hypothesis or simply report what respondents say? When deciding how to carry out research, sociologists need to confront and resolve a range of theoretical questions relating to choice of topic and research method.  RESEARCHER’S VALUES At a theoretical level, topic choice involves a number of considerations. The intended audience of the research may influence (and in some cases actually dictate) topic choice. While Jessop’s (2003) ‘Governance and Meta-governance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony ’ is perfectly acceptable for an academic audience, it would make no sense to a non-academic audience. The purpose of research is also important. If the goal is to test a hypothesis, the topic is likely to be narrower in scope than if the goal is a descriptive account. In both the social and natural worlds, there are many potential topics to study, but the general process is the same. What is considered ‘worthy of being studied’ is influenced by a researcher’s values. These are: Personal – the extent to which the researcher is interested in the topic; for example, they may find crime more interesting than education. Institutional – universities and governments are important sources of research funding. In the UK, for example, university-based research is overseen and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which, in turn, is mainly funded by the UK government. The government may want to know more about a social issue, so as to develop better policies, or on the other hand may prevent research on an issue where it knows the findings would lead to criticism of its policies.  CHOICE OF METHOD This is similarly surrounded by theoretical considerations, in particular the researcher’s perspective: Interactionists tend to avoid using statistical methods, mainly because they are not trying to establish causality. Positivists are more likely to take the opposite view, mainly because they not interested in descriptive accounts. A researcher’s beliefs about the reliability and validity of particular methods will also play a part in which approach they choose for their research. Such decisions may reflect a researcher’s value judgements about how something should be studied. If the researcher believes that covert participation is both unethical and methodologically invalid, they are unlikely to choose this method.  TOPIC CHOICE Practical considerations can influence a researcher’s choice of topic in a number of ways. Large -scale research carried out over a long period of time may be expensive. Those who commission and pay for it may have an important say in the choice of topic, method and overall conduct of the research. In addition, in the UK and the USA, where government agencies or departments fund social research, it is usual to commission and fund research designed to help policy-makers make decisions. Research that does not support this process might not win funding. A researcher may know what topic they want to study, but it may not be possible to do so. Two of the most important practical considerations when choosing a research topic are: Access to research subjects (individuals) Their co-operation in the research. Both of these factors may be denied. A researcher might choose to continue anyway by carrying out covert research – Goffman (1961), for example, studied the patients and medical staff in a US mental institution while pretending to be a member of the cleaning staff. However, some argue that such research is ethically questionable. The problem of co-operation may be solved by sponsorship: a member of the group being studied backs and ‘protects’ the researcher. Problems of access and co-operation may also explain why a lot of sociological research focuses on the activities of the powerless, people who cannot say no, rather than the powerful, who can and often do resist being studied.  PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Researchers must deal with a range of practical issues in assessing how and why various methods are ‘fit for the purpose’ of testing a hypothesis or answering a research question. As Dunican (2005) suggests, fitness for purpose ‘reflects how well the chosen research method is suited to the context of study. This is measured in terms of how well it is suited to answering the issues posed in the research question’. We can use Venkatesh’s study to illustrate this idea. He originally began ‘armed only with a questionnaire and a desire to learn more about the lives of poor black people’. However, he asked only one question – ‘How does it feel to be black and poor?’ – before his research subjects made him realize that in order to understand what it was like, he needed to experience It.  TIME Choice of method is also affected by practical considerations such as the topic being studied. Some topics lend themselves more easily to one method than another. Quantitative methods are useful when the researcher wants reliable data to establish statistical relationships. An example of this is Kessler’s (2000) study of the relationship between sponsorship and small business performance, where the main aim was to test whether ‘those who are sponsored are more successful than non-sponsored individuals’. Time is another consideration, because some methods are more time-consuming than others. Participant observation may involve years of research. Venkatesh took around eight years documenting the lives of the black residents – gang members and non-members alike – in a small area of Chicago.  FUNDING The amount of funding available may directly influence a researcher’s choice of method. Questionnaires are generally cheaper than in-depth interviews which, in turn, may be cheaper than participant observation. This depends, of course, on the size and scope of the study. Funding levels also influence the size of any research team. Similarly, the size and structure of the group being studied is a factor: questionnaires are suitable for researching large, widely dispersed groups, while participant observation may be more appropriate for the study of small, geographically localized groups. Practical considerations are clearly important in the conduct of sociological research. If a researcher cannot gain access to research subjects to administer questionnaires, organize interviews and experiments or participate in the behavior of a group, then other considerations are irrelevant. Similarly, if a researcher has neither the time nor the funding to support themselves through a year-long observational study then, once again, this research avenue is closed. Once these initial issues have been overcome, a researcher faces another set of considerations – ethical issues relating to how the research should be carried out. ETHICAL RESEARCH CONSIDERTATIONS Ethics refers to the morality of doing something. Ethical considerations apply to choices about the type of research being done such as whether it is ethical to study people without their knowledge, and to researcher behavior – whether it is, for example, ethical to deceive people about the purpose of a research study. Ethical issues, therefore, guide choices about how people are persuaded to participate in research, and how they are physically and psychologically protected during and after the study. In this respect, both legal and safety considerations influence the choice of topic and method, and the conduct of the research.  LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Legal considerations can be a particularly significant factor when research involves observing or participating in illegal behavior, such as Ditton’s (1977) study of workplace theft. In terms of topic, the researcher must decide whether it is ethical to research something like criminal behavior in the first place. Choice of method may also be influenced by the level of the researcher’s involvement. To avoid an ethical dilemma, for example, a researcher may choose to avoid immersive methods such as participant observation when studying criminal behaviors. In addition, the researcher must consider their ethical responsibilities to both criminals and possible victims of crime. Participants should also be made aware of the possible consequences of their co-operation, such as negative media publicity. A researcher should gain the informed consent of those being researched in order to avoid ethical questions about the conduct of the research. Finally, relationships need to be based on trust and personal honesty. If the researcher promises anonymity, revealing identities to the authorities or the media would be unethical.  SAFETY The physical and psychological safety of everyone involved in a project is an important aspect of the research process. Some types of research involve methods, such as covert participant observation, that require deep involvement with respondents. A researcher must take care not to cause upset or distress to potentially weak (vulnerable) people at the end of the study. For example, if the research involves regularly meeting and interacting with elderly people, it would be unethical to simply break contact with them once it is complete, because they may have seen the relationship as one of friendship. A researcher not prepared for this type of involvement will, therefore, choose an alternative method.  ETHICAL PRACTICE Sociological researchers try to keep to a code of ethical practice. To carry out research ethically, researchers ask themselves these three questions: 1. Is it true? At its most extreme, unethical behavior here involves things like the researcher deliberately making up (fabricating) data or falsifying their results. 2. Is it fair? Unethical behavior here covers how others in the research process are treated and refers to things such as: ownership: for example, who can ethically claim to be the author? plagiarism: passing off the work of others as your own. 3. Is it wise? This refers to wider questions about whether research can be morally justified and whether a different research topic or method would have a greater moral argument.  RESEARCH STUDIES The relationship between those doing the research and those being researched is equally important. As a rule participants in research are asked to consent to taking part, having been fully informed of the purpose and nature of the research. There can, however, be morally ambiguous areas, such as: Studying people who do not want to be studied: Wallis (1977) wanted to research Scientology but the church leaders refused him access to current members. He contacted former members and based his research on their opinions and experiences. Tricking people into co-operating: Rosenhan (1973) suspected that doctors could not accurately diagnose schizophrenia and sent students displaying false symptoms into hospitals to test his hypothesis. Experimenting on people who do not know they are being studied, or causing them distress: in Milgram’s (1974) study of authority, respondents were convinced they were giving electric shocks to ‘learners’ whenever the learners gave an incorrect answer to a question. While no shocks were given and the ‘victims’ were pretending to react, some respondents broke down in the face of the pain they believed they were causing.  SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Sociological knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge – from journalism, through personal experience to everyday conversation and thinking – because it deals in facts. To establish sociological knowledge, data is collected and then analyzed or tested objectively. In other words, the data collected and presented is ‘value-free’ – it has not been influenced by the values, beliefs or prejudices of the researcher. More correctly, it is value-neutral, since it is not possible to truly ‘act without values’. The best we can do is recognize the various points at which values potentially intrude into the research process and adjust our research strategy to limit or cancel their effect. It is possible to outline a range of points at which values potentially intrude into the research process  PRACTICAL CHOICES To carry out research, sociologists have to make certain practical choices. Researchers must choose a topic, and decisions about who or what to study are influenced by their personal values and what they consider to be important. These values will also decide whether a researcher studies the activities of the powerful – as in Pearce’s (1998) study of corporate criminality in the chemical industry – or the relatively powerless. In addition, these choices are influenced by personal views about danger and difficulty. For example, powerful people tend to value their privacy, so gaining access to their world may not be easy. Topic choice is also influenced by funding considerations. Those paying for the research may not only influence what is studied but also how it is studied. This situation raises ethical questions about whether a researcher should be held responsible for the purposes to which their research is put.  RESPONDENTS Decisions about the method of research used are also influenced by values because they inform a researcher’s beliefs about how best to achieve reliability and validity in sociological research. As we have seen, different sociologists have different ideas about the respective value of quantitative and qualitative data. Where questions are asked of a respondent, judgements are made about who to question, what to ask and how that person is permitted to respond. Positivists may prefer to limit respondent choice by giving them a list of answers from which to choose – perhaps closed questions, where the answers are easy to quantify. Interpretivists may encourage a respondent to answer in their own words by asking open-ended questions. Values also influence data analysis: the researcher must make decisions about what data to include and what to exclude from the completed research.  RESEARCH FUNDING Research needs to be funded. This may involve a researcher getting approval for a project from a university or other institution they work for, or it may involve applying for funding from another institution. In the UK, for example, much research in the sociology and other social sciences is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. To be successful in an application, the researcher will have to convince the funding body that the research is worthwhile. This is likely to mean that the proposed research fits in with the priorities of the funding body at that time. Projects with a clear practical outcome are more likely to be funded, other proposals may never be successful. Where governments directly or indirectly control the funding bodies, research that may prove embarrassing or inconvenient to the government or may suggest that its policies are wrong is unlikely to be funded.  VALIDITY Validity is a concept that is used to assess different research methods and data. Validity is the idea that methods and data are only useful if they actually measure or describe what they claim to measure or describe. The term ‘validity’ covers several different areas concerned with how true to life answers and findings are. Ecological validity refers to the extent to which research methods reflect the world being studied – the idea that the closer we get to studying people in their natural environment, the more likely we are to get valid data. Laboratory experiments have very low ecological validity, because laboratories are artificial situations in which people do not behave as they would in other situations. Covert participant observation, on the other hand, has much higher validity, because people are observed acting in ‘real life’.  METHODS AND VALIDITY Methods that produce qualitative data, such as participant observation and unstructured interviews, are usually thought to have higher validity than those that produce quantitative data. This is because qualitative methods get closer to the experience and perceptions of those being studied. In surveys and other quantitative research, respondents may give wrong answers, for a variety of reasons. For example, they may want to make a good impression on the researcher by giving a socially approved answer. The findings will then be invalid (though they may be reliable, as the same answers would be given again to a different researcher).  RELIABILITY Reliability refers to how effective a research approach is at collecting consistent data; it is about whether the accuracy of the data can be checked by repeating or replicating the research. If different answers are obtained, the research approach is unreliable and any conclusions drawn from it will be limited. Reliability can be improved by standardizing the research approach, as this allows less scope for differences to occur in the way that different researchers ask questions and collect data. If a standardized approach is used to collect information from people who have the same or similar characteristics, the same study results should be achieved each time  METHODS AND RELIABILITY It is easier to achieve a standardized approach using quantitative research methods, such as questionnaires and structured interviews. For this reason, quantitative methods are often regarded as reliable. However, research based on a quantitative approach is not automatically high in reliability. There may be weaknesses in the way that the research was designed and/or carried out that make replication difficult. Moreover, when replicating a study, it may be difficult to ensure that the subjects have the same characteristics as the original group. Qualitative methods such as participant observation are difficult or impossible to repeat, so they tend to be low in reliability.  OBJECTIVITY One of the things that distinguishes sociological knowledge from journalism or common sense (the things that everyone knows) is the ability to make objective statements about behavior. Objectivity is a particularly significant factor. The researcher not only has no personal stake in the truth or falsity of the behavior they are testing or describing, they also try to avoid unfairly influencing that behavior. A researcher must try to maintain an objective detachment. Objectivity is something all sociologists, whether positivist or interpretivist, try to achieve. Without it, sociological research has no greater reliability or validity than any other form of knowledge. However, there are different views on the extent to which objectivity is achievable.  POSITIVISM - OBJECTIVITY Positivists argue that we can study objective features of the social world (institutions such as families or educational systems) because they are solid and permanent. Objectivity involves the idea that social structures are real, exist independently of the observer and can be experienced directly or indirectly using particular signs of their existence. Sociological research, therefore, involves discovery – the ability to gradually uncover the principles on which the social world is based. Discovery is achieved by the researcher distancing themselves from the behavior being studied. Objectivity requires the researcher to place themselves ‘outside’ the behavior they are studying – theoretically, if not always practically. Their personal values and beliefs should not influence what they see; they must study the social world as a removed observer.  INTERPRETIVISM - OBJECTIVITY Interpretivists take a different view of objectivity. Where positivists sees a single reality that can be discovered through systematic research, interpretivists argues that there are many realities, expressed through the various ways in which people see and understand the social world. This world is not something ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. It exists only as interpretations people make (how they understand behavior). It follows, therefore, that the aim of social research is subjective understanding. The researcher’s role is that of an objective channel through which individuals ‘tell their story’ to uncover how and why people see the social world in particular ways. Because of the nature of what they study, it is often harder for sociologists to be objective than it is for researchers in the natural sciences. Interpretivists argue that sociologists should be open about their values, rather than claiming to be able to put them aside in their research, others can then judge the extent to which they have succeeded in doing this.  REPRESENTATIVENESS Representativeness refers the extent t