Furthermore, sociologists must struggle with the issues posed by life documents when planning and executing their investigation. For example, diaries which are not intended for public consumption may be more valid as they are not written with an audience in mind, and, as a consequence, are less driven by political/ideological motives than documents which are intended for sale/circulation. However, they tend to offer insight into the subjective state of individuals and 'ordinary, ambiguous personal meanings' (Plummer,1982). Plummer notes that, as a result of their honesty and subjectivity, life documents usually avoid the pitfall of 'abstract theory' which can underestimate the importance of 'active human beings'.
Another source of secondary data available to sociologists is that provided by the mass media. The media are a convenient source of information, particularly when events which would otherwise be vague or unclear are well documented by newspapers and news channels. However, the media has been criticised by some sociologists for promoting distorted images of society, driven more by ideology than irrefutable and clear cut statistics. For this reason, the mass media is often the subject of content analysis. The four main approaches outlined by Ray Pawson (1995) focus on analysing formal content (objectivity/reliability), bias/ideology, textual (effects and influence of linguistics) and audience (response of public).
Sociologists often use secondary sources for practical reasons. This approach is less time consuming and expensive than conducting primary research. As well as saving time and money, secondary sources offer invaluable data in areas which would otherwise be inaccessible. Historical documents, in the form of either diaries or censuses, offer insight into past events. However, the sociologist must draw together numerous sources to form the basis of their hypothesis, and they face difficulty in collating relevant sources which will accurately represent the period in question – particularly when one considers the vast amount of available information. Such problems are less pronounced when working with primary data because the study has been undertaken with a specific purpose in mind, and the method and results often reflect this.
On the other hand, secondary data is less distorted by bias. Although research is inevitably influenced by the researcher's opinions/ideological leaning, quantitative data collected from official sources, such as censuses or OFSTED reports, is largely accurate and objective. In addition, official statistics offer information which would otherwise be unavailable: for example. in the absence of legal obligation, households would not provide the accurate information recorded in the census which is invaluable as a quantitative source and which would be incredibly difficult for sociologists to obtain independently. However, not all sociologists accept the reliability and validity of all statistics. Some official statistics might offer untrue snippets of reality because they are poorly conducted/underfunded, lack a high response rate (as is often the case with crimes such as rape) or remain widely unknown or classified.
In my opinion, secondary sources are a valuable source of information for sociologists. Despite problems posed by perspective and neutrality, sociologists are capable of drawing together various secondary sources which can form the basis of a convincing, cohesive and purposeful argument. Indeed, sociologists with an aptitude for sorting, evaluating and analysing numerous sources can benefit greatly from the wide range of secondary data which is readily available.
