Theory + Methods - Revision - Year 13 Mock

Data that the researcher has collected themselves

Information that has been collected or created by someone other than the researcher.

Information in a numerical form

Information that is in more of a worded form and in sentences.

• Practicality

• Ethics

• Theoretics

1. Time and Money

2. Research opportunity

3. Requirements of funding bodies

4. Personal Skills and characteristics

1. Confidentiality and Privacy

2. Harm to Participants

3. Informed Consent

4. Covert Research

5. Subject Matter

6. vulnerable Groups

7. Consent.

1. Methodological Perspective

2. Validity

3. Reliability

4. Representativeness

1. Can only be used to study closed systems

2. Individuals are unique and so they cannot be sorted into control and experimental groups

3. Cannot be used to study the past

4. They are only useful in small sample sizes

5. The Hawthorne effect can confound the results.

1. Informed consent is required

2. Harm to Subjects should be minimised

3. Treating Subjects Fairly According to their Rights should be kept throughout the procedure.

1. Reliability

2. Representativeness

3. Interpretivism and free will

1. Quick and cheap, provides a large soruce of data

2. No training or hirring required

3. Data is easy to quantify

4. May require financial incentive to gain responses from respondants

5. Low response rate

1. Overall fairly ethical

2. Confidentiality is guaranteed

3. Parental consent may be required

1. Reliable

2. Representative

3. Low validity

4. Keeps the researcher detached and objective - Positvists would suit this

5. However, imposes the researchers meaning through deciding what questions to ask

6. Possible that the respondents lied when answering questions

1. Quick, cheap

2. Gathers factual informatiomn

3. Closed ended questions with pre-coded answers - easy to quantify

4. Higher response rates than questionnaires

1. Not appropriate to be used when asking questions on sensitive topics

2. Interviewers may feel pressure to answer

3. Informed consent is necessary - cannot continue without it

1. Reliable

2. Representative

3. Littel freedom to expand on answers - does not suit interpretivists

4. Ann Oakley states that it is a possiblly masculine approach to research and ignores the interests of the individual being interviewed

1. Training is required - possibly expensive

2. Interpersonal skills are required

3. Likely to be time consuming as they take a long time

4. Produces a large amount of data - difficult to quantify

5. Interviewee gets to decide what is important - suits interpretivists

1. Interviewee is likely to feel more comfort as it is informal which allows a rapport to be built between the interviewer and interviewee.

2. More likely to cover sensitive topics

1. Open ended questions so there is a wide range for elaboration of answers - interpretvists approve

2. Lacks reliability - does not suit positivists

3. Lacks representativeness

4. The interviewee also gets to decide what it is important during the discussion, which will suit interpretivists.

1. Free to access

2. Collected at regular intervals

3. May not be researching the exact same topic the researcher is researching

1. Rperesentative

2. Reliable

3. Interpretivists may argue that they are social constructs

4. Feminists may argue that they are created bby the state to maintain patriarchal oprression

1. With Participant observations, they provide an insight into the participants life - Verstehen

2. Very time consuming

3. Training is needed, likely to be expensive

4. Powerful groups may limit access

1. With Covert observations (participant or non-participant), deception is an issue that may have to be disclosed at the end of the research

2. Informed consent is not gained

3. It is possible that the researcher may witness or participate in illegal activity whilst in a covert observation.

4. The researcher may over identify with the participants and so lose objectvity, the results of the research may then be biased.

1. High in validity through involvement with the participant

2. Lacks representativeness as it is likely that participant observations may only be in small groups

3. Lacks reliability as the exact same events and conclusions may not happen or be reached again

4. Valuable to interactionists who want to examine interactions of individual people (actors).

5. Ignores structural forces

1. May be only source of data when studying historical events

2. Quick, cheap soruce of data, especially if online

3. Accessing the sources may be an issue

4. Created for individual or organisational intentions, not sociological intentions.

1. Informed Consent is not possible to achieve, the individual who produced the document is not able to give consent for their document to be used in research.

2. There may be a number of people or organisations, in which consent will need to be gained from.

1. The validity of some documents can be questioned e.g Hitler diaries were found to be fake.

2. Likely to be authentic, the individual produced the source likely not with the thought in mind of a sociological researcher examining it.

3. Lacks representativeness

4. Lacks reliability

They define science through ‘Inductive Reasoning’, which is accumulating data about the world through observation and measurement.

They believe that sociology can be a science by applying the same methods that natural scientific disciplines use.

This is using ‘Inductive Reasoning’ to prove that a theory is true.

Because they believe that it will bring us true, objective knowledge, similar to that of the natural sciences. Positivists believe that the world is not random, but patterned, and we can use inductive reasoning to explain those patterns.

They aim to use the results gained from studying sociology using scientific methods to influence laws and policies that are put in place and also guide future policies.

Durkheim had conducted a study on suicide by using official statistics, which are a form of quantitative data, and had observed tha there were patterns in these statistics. He found that rates of suicide for protestants were much higher than the rate for Catholics. Durkheim argued that what was responsible for determining the suicide rates were the levels of intergration into society that people had in their lives, and the regulation that people had over their lives.

1. The likely reason why there was a higher rate of suicide for protestants than there were for catholics was because Catholics believed that it was a sin to commit suicide, and so coroners knowing this, labelled the causes of their death as other things apart from suicide to appease grieveing families.

2. Another weakness is that Durkheim used official statistics, but official statistics not be accurate as they only show the number of suicides that were reported, meaning that they do not show the true number of suicides within a period of time. Coroners may also incorrectly identify a cause of death as suicide.

They argue this because unlike the natural sciences that study natural matter such as magnesium, we are human beings that have free will and choice in our decisions on how to react to things, where as natural matter that is studied by natural scientific disciplines do not have free will or free choice in how they react, meaning that the approaches taken in studying these two subjects should be different. This was argued by Mead.

This is a sociological term which means to put yourself in another individual’s perspective, and interpretivists believe that in order to understand the meaning’s of others, this is what should be done.

It can be criticised by the argument that there are parts of sociology that are more scientific than others. For example, education and achievement, where topics such as these can be broken down into differences between males and females.

He defines science as ‘seeking ti falsify hypotheses’, which is actively trying to prove a hypothesis as wrong, and it is only when a hypothesis cannot be proven as wrong, it is then a scientific statement.

He believes that science should not be studied scientifically because he believs that there is a ‘Fallacy of Induction’ and that verificationism should also be rejected. This is because he states that there is a problem with inductive reasoning as you would only observe certain instances and then make general laws based on those few instances, instead going out of your way to prove that the hypothesis is incorrect. He also states that there can never be absolute proof that any knowledge is true which is why science is constantly changing as it is open to criticism, where as for sociology, most of it is non-scientific because theories such as a Marxism cannot be falsified as such theories manage a way to prove themselves to be correct, regardless of the counter-argument, which therefore explains why most sociological theories have remained relatively similar to when they had first started.

A criticism is that compared to the natural sciences, sociology is a young discipline and because of this, there may come a point in time in the future where more sociological theories do become falsifiable. Also, parts of sociology such as education are more falsifiable than other parts of sociology.

He defines science as ‘shared paradigms that are agreed upon by the members of a scientific community, and a shared set of theories as to how science is done’.

He believes that sociology cannot be studied scientifically because there is more than one paradigm within sociology. This is due to the fact that there are many different sociological perspectives such as positivists, interpretivists,, Marxists, Feminists etc. To add to this, within a specific sociological perspective such as feminsim, there is still not one agreed paradigm as there are different perspectoves within feminism such as difference feminsim and radical feminsim. This therefore means taht because there is more than one paradigm with sociology, by Kuhn’s definition, it cannot be scientific now, and can only be scientific in the future if one sociological paradigm is agreed upon.

A criticism of his point is that it may be undesirable for there to just be one paradigm within sociology as, because there are different perspectives, issues within sociology are then viewed from different viewpoint and which then shows how one issue potentially affects a greater multitude of people within society. And so, if there was just one agreed paradigm within sociology, then this would mean that ossues within society would only be viewed throigh one perspectuve, and this could have detrimental affects as not all affects of a potential issue are being acknowledged.

They believe that science consists of open and closed systems. They believe that closed systems are where you are able to control all of the variables, whereas an open system are when you cannot control all variables.

They state that sociology can be broken down into open and closed systems, and so thus believe that sociology is a science and can be studied scientifically.

Positivists already believe that sociology is a science, this means that if they believe that sociology is a science then they also believe that sociology can and should be objective and value free, since science is also those things. Comte argues that it is both desirable and possible for sociology to be objective and value free and that this is the only way to solve social problems. Positvists would say that a researchers own values are irrelevant to research, and that science (and so sociology) is only concered with matter of fact. Sociologists are hired to do a job, and so they should not let their own values interfere.

1. It can be criticised by Interpretvists who would argue that because e believe that sociology is not a science, that it is therefore not possible, and not desirable to be value free and objective.

2. It can also be argued that since sociological researchers should leave their own values out of sociological research, this then may just mean that they are taking on the values of the employer.

He believes this because it is humans studying other humans which means that it is impossible to keep personal values out of research.

He states that sociological researchers use values as a guide for research, as there are many things that could be researched and so they use their values to make a decision about what we think is important.

He believes, however, that during data collection, it should be value free and objective.

When data is being interpreted, the facts need to be placed into a theoretical framework so that conclusions can be drawn. The theoretical preference of the researcher will then effect what conclusions are drawn from the data.

It can be criticised by the fact that he states that the only time that sociological research can be value free and objective is when the data is being collected, but it is still difficult to remain value free and objective at that point, as you would have made a decision based on yout values on what method used to gain the data.

They believe this because they state that it is important for sociologists to use their values to improve society through their work.

They believe this because it will either be the sociologists own values or the values of the paymaster that will be reflected in the work

They believe this because they state that without values to guide research, sociologists are just merely selling their services to the highest bidder. This may mean that the research published will be that which supports people money.

He believes that we should openly take sides, and that we should take the side of the underdog and give groups who have been hidden in statistics a voice.

They can be criticised by Gouldner who states that taking the side of the underdog is just romanticising the underdog, and instead should take the side of groups who are actively fighting back.

This affects sociological research as the body who pays for the research can control the direction that it takes and the questions that get asked. The body may also block publication of the research if they dont like the findings of the research.

Also, sociologists will likely want a successful career and so will think about what they publish. Sociologists may censor themselves out of fear of losing their jobs, and may be under pressure from university to publish something no matter the quality or usefulness.

The perspective of a sociological researcher comes with assumptions and values about sodiety. For example Feminists have assumptions on gender inequality, and would use methods such as unstructured interviews, or overt unstructured interviews as they believe quantitative data is sexist (Ann Oakley).

The sociologists perspective influences the topics that sociologists choose and the conclusions that they reach. Also affects the method they use.

Relativism is when different groups, cultures and individuals have different views over what is true. Relativism states that theire is no independent way of judging whether any view is true than any other. There are multiple truths and so their is no way of saying which one is right.

It can be criticised by the fact that Relativisim is therefore a self defeating view. How can this view be true if the view itself states that there is no truth?

Parsons

1. The first similarity is that they are both ‘self regulating systems of inter-related dependent parts’. This means that, according to Functionalists, if one part of society fails then the whole of society will fail.

2. The second similarity is that they both have ‘System Needs’ in order to survive

1. Adaption

2. Goal Attainment

3. Integration

4. Latency

This is the social system meeting its members’ material needs through the economic subsystem. This need is met by the workplace or the government.

people work jobs to earn a wage to pay for the things they need.

This is when society needs to set goals and allocate resources to achieve them. This is met through the political subsystem such as parliament.

Society teaches people to have the goal of having a well paying job, and so people allocate resources to this by passing exams to get qualified for the job.

This is when the different parts of the system need to be integrsted together to pursue shared goals. This system need is met by sub-systems such as religion, education, and the media.

The Bible states ;thou shalt not kill’, the CJS punishes people that kill, school and family tells people not to fight and harm people.

This refers to the processes that maintain society over time. The kinship sub-system provides pattern maintenance(socialising individuals to go on and perform the roles that society requires) and tension management.

Generations of parents will pass down the same values to their children.

They believe it is created by ‘Value Consensus’.

‘Where most people in society share the same core beliefs.’

1. Everyone should be able to go to school

2. Killing is wrong

3. Everyone should be equal

Value Consesus is achieved through this by socialising people into shared norms and values through institutions such as the family, education, media and religion.

Value Consensus is achieved through this by giving negative sanctions and punishments for going against the law, and positive sanctions for when the law is abided by.

1. People had ascribed statuses from birth

2. People were more focused on immediate gratification due to people not living as long and so wanting to experiece things quickly

3. The best interest of a group would come first, instead of the best interest of a specific individual

1. In traditional societies, a single institution would perform many funtions e.g. a mother may have been a teacher and a nurse to her children

2. As society develops, institutions begin to lose some of their functions

3. This is known as Structutal Differentiation, where institutions begin to specialise in meeting different needs in society.

1. People now have achieved statuses, instead of ascribed statuses, were people can work to actively improve their status in society

2. People are now focused on deferred gratification, and postponing a short-term benefit for a greater long-term gain

3. People are more individualistic, as people will likely make decisions within their best interest instead of the best interest of a group.

It has lost some of its functions, as before, it may have also acted as a source of education, but now it is mainly for primary socialisation and stablisation of adult personalities.

It has lost some of its functions as before, it may have been used as a form of government and law making, where as today it has become less influential over peoples lives, such as the separation of the church and state.

Parson assumes that everything in society, such as the family, is indispensable. Merton argues that this is just an untested assumption and he mentions the possibility of ‘functional alternatives’.

Parsons argued that primary socialisation is best performed by the nuclear family, but it could be that one parent families can do it just as well.

Parsons assumes that all parts of society are tightly integrated into one single unity where each part is funtional and dependent on the rest. However, this may not be true in modern societies as modern societies are more complex and parts of modern society are distantly related at best. This means that in modern society, if one part were to fail, the rest of society may be more or less okay.

Parsons argues that everything in society performs a positive function for all of society. However, some parts may not be functional for all, and may even be problematic for others.

They argue that Functionalism assumes that society is stable and orderly. This means that Functionalism, as a theory, cannot account for or explain any instability within todays society. In this view, Functionalism is an example of a ‘meta-narrative’.

This perspective criticises the Functionalist view for portraying people as mere ‘puppets’ who’s strings are pulled by a social system. Functionalism sees humans as shaped by society, whilst this perspective sees society as being shaped by humans. Functionalism lacks free will.

These type of perspectives, such as Marxism, argue that Functionalis, cannot explain conflict or change. Marxism argues that society is not harmonious, but rather is based on exploitation and divided into classes with conflicting interests and an inequal power balance. Feminism would also be an action theory.

Marx

1. People are legally free but have to sell their labour in return for wages. However, the proletariat do not receive a fair wage that is level to the that of their production

2. There is high competition in Capitalist societies, which means that the means of production is concentrated in a small number of large businesses, which then drives out any smaller businesses attempting to join the market.

3. The forces of production are constantly expanding which de-skills workers.

They explain it through this as the ruling class system has control over the production of ideas such as ‘meritocracy’ within schools. Because they own the production of ideas, they can push ideas that make their behaviour look normal and so prevent a rebellion.

They are not truly aware of their exploitation because the workers are alienated from their work, as they are under skilled and under-paid, and are also being replaced by machines, meaning that they cannot take pride in their work.

It prevents the overthrow of Capitalism as if people try to rebel against how the ruling class has set up the Capitalist society and perform marches or public acts of rebellion, then the ruling class will send out groups such as the army or armed police to disband any public acts of rebllion and to stop the people from rebelling by using force and violence.

He states that Marx undermines the influence of ‘Hegemony’ (ideas) and believes that ideas can cause a revelution, not changes in the economy.

He states that they maintain their position because they have control over the production of ideas, and so push their ideas to the proletariat.

1. The first reason is because the ruling class is a minority and so would need to form an alliance with the middle class to complete their hegemony. But, this is unlikely to happen because in order for the alliance to be formed, a means of the alliance needs to be established, such as taxing the middle class less, and this then clashes with the ruling classes pursuit of profit.

2. The second reason is that the proletariat have a dual consciousness, where their own experiences are different to the ideas that the ruling class push to them.

He states that in order for this to happen, the proletariat would need to form their own ‘counter-hegemony’ that is based on their own experiences.

He over-estimates the role of ideas and under-estimates the role of both state coercion and economic factors. E.g. in North Korea where if people talk bad about the state, they ‘disappear’.

He does not believe in the ‘base-superstructure’ like Marx does, and states that not everything is based on the economy or is reliant on the economy.

He proposes a model that states there are 3 levels to society:

1. Economic Level - Production of goods

2. Political Level - Government / schools

3. Ideological level - Way people see themselves and the world

He states that the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) maintains the rule of the ruling class by controlling peoples ideas, values and beliefs. The ISA includes institutions such as religion, the media, and the education system.

He also states that the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) maintains the rule of the ruling class by force or threats of force. The RSA includes institutions such as the police, CJS, and the army. When deemed necessary, they will use physical coercion to repress the working class.