How to design a research project
How to design a research project
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is commonly made.
Quantitative research is sometimes referred to as statistical or sometimes (somewhat sloppily) as empirical research.
Qualitative research is sometimes referred to as the sociological approach to research.
Elsewhere the distinction is often made between certain research methods as either being Qualitative or Quantitative.
For example Interviewing, Participant Observation and Documentary Analysis are often referred to as Qualitative research methods.
The use of Surveys and Statistical data is referred to as Quantitative.
These distinctions do have a fair degree of truth to them. However as we will see later they do not hold true in all cases. What are commonly thought of as used in purely Qualitative research can be part of Quantitative research programmes and vice versa.
In this lecture we are going to look at this distinction between qualitative and quantitative research. After looking at brief definitions of each we are going to look at what the goals of social research are. This will allow us to reflect on how both qualitative and quantitative research strategies can be employed to achieve those goals.
Definitions
"Qualitative Research is a basic strategy of social research that usually involves in-depth examination of a relatively small number of cases. Cases are examined intensively with techniques designed to facilitate the clarification of theoretical concepts and empirical categories." (CC Ragin, 1994, p190)
"Quantitative Research is a basic strategy of social research that usually involves analysis of patterns of covariation across a number of cases. This approach focuses on variables and relationships among variables in an effort to identify general patterns of covariation." (CC Ragin, 1994, p190)
Each can make a contribution to the study of society.
The best way of approaching their relative strengths and weaknesses is through looking at what are the goals of social research.
7 Goals of Social Research (from CC Ragin)
- Identifying General Patterns and Relationships
Thinking back to last week we discussed how one of the key features science is the identification of General Patterns and Relationships. Those that see social research as a true science often see this as the Primary Goal of research.
Knowledge of general patterns and causes of social phenomena are often valued because they can help us address social problems or act to guide policy.
For example, if research were to suggest that poor attendance at school were a cause of crime then that would give us a possible approach to tackling crime.
Social researchers may believe that discovering general relationships is best done through the examination of many cases. THe reasoning being that certain cases may be atypical but that by looking at many cases we can identify generalities.
2 - Testing and Refining Theories
General patterns are especially relevant to social theory. The implications of theories are tested and refined or discarded. Typically this is done according to a general plan of scientific method.
Hypotheses are derived from theories and their implications and then tested with data that bear directly on the hypotheses.
In theory we abandon a theory if it is falsified by an observation.
In practice a single piece of counter evidence or a single unsupported hypothesis usually does not result in abandoning a theory. Rather unsupported theories gradually fade from current thinking or are refined.
3 - Making Predictions
Social researchers use accumulated social scientific knowledge to make predictions about the future and other novel situations.
Predictions can be made from two types of knowledge.
Firstly the use of Historical Knowledge.
e.g. The Stock Market Crash of 1920 and ensuing Great Depression has motivated our economic and political elites to moderate the violent swings of market oriented economic life.
Secondly the use of General Patterns.
For example we know that certain types of criminal activity - drug dealing - increase when legitimate economic opportunities decrease. We can use this knowledge to predict future crime rates based on economic predictions.
Predicting rates - crime, unemployment etc - is much easier than predicitng specific events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and suchlike. At best social scientists are making broad predictions about trends.
4- Interpreting Culturally or Historically Significant Phenomena.
Certain atypical events are interesting because of the role they played in establishing the current situation. For example the US Civil War has an impact on current power relations. There may be competition between different interpretations of events to become the accepted interpretation.
In fact often there is no single accepted "correct" interpretation of an event and different analyses are seen to bring different understandings.
Research which seeks to explain particular events often addresses issues related to the consciousness of the actors involved - whereas research which sseks to establish generalisations often does not.
In other words the intentions of particular people involved in events are often addressed in event specific research.
5 - Exploring Diversity
The goal of exploring and comprehending social diversity surrounding us.
This is related to the search for general patterns but instead seeks to understand the deviations from those patterns.
Ragin argues this goal of social science is about the study of unusual social practices and phenomena.
6 - Giving Voice
Research which seeks to tell the story of, raise understanding of or give a voice to a group in society.
The researcher often has to unlearn or disregard established theories to present the subjects' interpretation of the world.
There is a debate as to whether such research is simply a type of advocacy for a given group or way of life. Even if it is it may be valid in offering an alternative conception to the mainstream.
7- Advancing New Theories
Theory testing (goal 2) is usually primarily deductive.
By contrast Theory advancing research is usually described as inductive.
The classic conception of such research is of in depth case studies leading to an understanding of a social phenomenon from which new theories, ideas or concepts are generated.
So whereas for deductive research the theory comes first and observation is collected to test the theory.
For inductive theory advancing research - first we collect data or investigate a subject and formulate theory from that.
It is often not possible or desirable to address all or most of these goals tegether in one piece of research.
For example the different stage of data collection creates difficulties if we attempt to both test and develop theory in the same piece of research.
Relation of 7 Goals to Qualitative / Quantitative distinction.
TABLE
Qual
Quant
Identifying Broad Patterns
Primary
Testing Refining Theory
Secondary
Primary
Making Predictions
Secondary
Primary
Interpreting Significance
Primary
Exploring Diversity
Secondary
Secondary
Giving Voice
Primary
Advancing New Theory
Primary
Secondary
So the goals of qualitative research are primarily to advance new theory, interpret the significance of individual events and giving voice to particular groups.
In contrast Quantitative research is primarily about Testing theory, identifying broad ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Relation of 7 Goals to Qualitative / Quantitative distinction.
TABLE
Qual
Quant
Identifying Broad Patterns
Primary
Testing Refining Theory
Secondary
Primary
Making Predictions
Secondary
Primary
Interpreting Significance
Primary
Exploring Diversity
Secondary
Secondary
Giving Voice
Primary
Advancing New Theory
Primary
Secondary
So the goals of qualitative research are primarily to advance new theory, interpret the significance of individual events and giving voice to particular groups.
In contrast Quantitative research is primarily about Testing theory, identifying broad patterns and making predictions.
So the choice of research strategy will depend at least in part on what we want to achieve.
For example take two studies which concerned delinquency amongst the young.
Hirschi wanted to test established theories of delinquency. In his 1969 study he adopted a Quantitative research strategy whereby he surveyed 5,000 teenagers.
In contrast Patrick in his study of delinquency used covert particpant observation to research a 1960s Glasgow gang in A Glasgow Gang Observed. Such a study has the capacity to develop theory of delinquency and to provide a deeper understanding of the gang phenomenon in Glasgow. However it is less able to test general theories of delinquency than a study such as Hirschi's.
Quantitative researchers are interested in how variables covary across cases. Therefore they seek a limited amount of information about many cases.
Qualitative research by contrast seeks a lot of information about a limited number of cases.
Again this is demonstrated in the examples of Hirschi's and Patrick's studies.
What Are Qualitative/Quantitative Methods?
Certain methods are generally said to be Qualitative or Quantitative.
TABLE
Qual
Quant
In depth interviews
Surveys
Participant Observation
Use of statistics
Most documentary analysis
Content analysis of documents
However those methods commonly classed as qualitative can be used in quantitative research and vice versa. For example content analysis of documents -
e.g. Ian Budge measuring what % of manifestos devoted to certain issues.
E.g Systematic observation - counting of instances of relevant behaviour which are then analysed statistically.
THerefore research methjods can't be classified as simply qualitative or quantitative - it depends how we use them to collect the data and how we analyse the data we have collected.
How Else Do We Choose Methods?
So far we have discussed how our goals influence our choice of research strategy. There are a number of other factors which influence the choice.
Cost - Quite simply certain research strategies are more expensive than others. Quantitative research can be quite cost effective if we use available statistics.
Much social research is done using the Census, General attitude Survey, publications like Eurobarometer and other official sources. Furthermore the ESRC data archive at Essex University holds a mass of data from previous research projects which can be reused in an original way. The reuse of qualitative data such as interviews is possible but is unusual - partly because much less is available in the public domain.
Qualitative research is expensive because it is time consuming. For example a one hour interview which is taped can take 3 hours to transcribe before analysis even begins.
Reactivity - Certain research strategies suffer from the problem of reactivity. That the knowledge that they are being researched alters the behaviour of the subject. This is really a problem for qualitative research strategies such as interviewing and overt particpant observation. Again going back to the Patrick study only one member of the gang he joined knew he was in fact a sociologist doing research. He kept this quiet because it is unlikely the gang members would have acted naturally in his presence had they known the truth.
Suitability - Certain subjects may simply be unsuitable for study through certain methods. FOr example sensitive subjects like bereavement are probably no tsuitable for impersonal approaches like surveys. You wouldn't send a questionnaire to people recently bereaved - insensitive.
Similarly some important or self importatn people might expect a personal interview and be insulted to receive a questionnaire in teh post. Others may prefer to fill in a questionnaire as it may be quick and impersonal.
Availability - Some subjects are difficulkt to get data on using certain research methods. FOr example a swe discussed - criminal behaviour may be difficult to research by interviews as people may be unwilling to speak and incriminate themselves. Researchers may have difficulty gaining access to figures like top politicians and so may have to supplement research with available documentary evidence.
Problems of interview access are greatest when the subject is dead! A serious point - read biographies, personal papers etc.
Strengths/Problems of QUalitative Research
Qualitative Research
Contextual - It sets explanation in context.
However the down side of this is that explanation is IDEOGRAPHIC rather than NOMOTHETIC.
In other words any explanation is linked to a specific place and time and this prevents generalisation in the same way as Quantitative research which is generally NOMOTHETIC - law like.
Flexible - Because of the way theory can emerg during the process it provides a flexibility to the research. It allows that we may have missed something very relevant to the subject that we are researching and for that to emerge during the research.
QUantitative research requires much more specification of what is relevant at the beginning of the process. We need to know what theories to test, what data to collect, what questions to ask on a survey and so on.
Interpretaion of meaning. Because qualitative research is concerned with the meaning people attach to action it creates a difficulty of how do we know our interpretation of the meaning of their behaviour is correct. Weber argues that on way is through the concept of VERSTEHEN - understanding. That because we are human we can empathise with other people. This is an interesting approach but seems rather haphazard. However often we do rely on these kind of judgements.
The differences in the Qualitative and Quantitative are summarised in the table below.
Quant
Qual
Role of Qualitative research
Preparatory
Means to explore actor's intentions
Relationship Between Researcher and Subject
Distant
Close
Researchers Stance in Relation To Subject
Outsider
Insider
Relationship between Theory and Research
Confirmation
Emergent
Research Strategy
Structured
Unstructured
Image of Social reality
Static and External to Actor
Processual and Socially constructed by actor
Nature of Data
Hard, Reliable
Rich. Deep
Research Design
LECTURE TWO -
WHAT IS SOCIAL RESEARCH?
Social Research is any process of enquiry designed to extend knowledge about society.
Good Practice demands a Research Design.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Problem or Topic
|
|
Theory
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
Testing
|
|
Results
|
|
Analysis and Conclusion
Also need to plan :
Target Population
Sampling Methods
Size of Sample
Method Of Data Collection
Method Of Analysing Data
This idealised model represents a scientific approach to social research.
Two views of how Science advances.
) INDUCTIVE - The common sense view. Research is intended to gather evidence to support theories or particular hypotheses derived from a theory.
2) DEDUCTIVE - Criticises the inductive on the grounds that accumulating supporting instances does nothing to rule out possible counter examples.
Research is intended to weed out theories by attempting to falsify them.
Scientific Research is generally seen as HYPOTHESIS TESTING.
Alternative is DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH.
Reality Of Social Research rarely coincides with the idealised model depicted.
Quantitative Research
Reading Week is week 6
Not a new development - Stuart Rice's Quantitative Methods In Politics (1928).
Quantitative Research is generally linked to a deductive or theory testing research strategy.
What makes research Quantitative is the analysis rather than the method of data collection - although methods such as surveys are more suited to generating data suitable for quantitative analysis.
The week 2 lecture covered 7 goals of social research.
Goal
Quantitative
Qualitative
Identifying Broad Patterns
Primary
Testing Refining Theory
Primary
Secondary
Making Predictions
Primary
Secondary
Interpreting Significance
Primary
Exploring Diversity
secondary
secondary
Giving Voice
Primary
Advancing New Theory
Secondary
Primary
i) Theory
ii) Hypothesis - Deduced from theory.
iii) Operationalisation of Concepts
iv) Selection of respondents/subjects. Need a representative sample if going to use inferential statistics.
v) Research Design -One - Experimental - Control group to allow comparison with group being manipulated on. Isolate causes to provide causality.
Two - Survey/Correlation Design - Because can't usually manipulate people. Look for correlations to explain causality.
vi) Collect Data
vii) Analyse Data
viii) Report Findings (From Bryman and Cramer - Quantitative Data Analysis, 1997)
Causality - Quantitative Analysis about establishing causes. The level of INTERNAL VALIDITY of a research design relates to how unequivocally it establishes causality.
- Relationship between 2 variables (correlation). 2 - Relationship non-spurious.
3 - Time order - cause precedes effect.
Q1 - Do we need a perfect relationship between two variables for causation?
Q2 - Give a couple of examples of a spurious relationship relevant to the study of politics.
Looking for a link in kids between AGGRESSION and HOURS WATCHING TV.
) Experimental Design - Take 2 random groups of kids. Measure aggression amongst them. Subject one group to TV watching over a period of time(depends on theory). Measure level of aggression.
This isolates the cause and discovers time order - high internal validity.
2) Survey Design - No time order as in an experiment.
Imagine looking for whether job satisfaction increases productivity. Need to check not both caused by length of service. Can we do this and satisfy 3 criteria of causality.
Which is most common in politics and sociology. (survey design - experiment is more social psychology).
Q3: Assess the reasoning behind the following. Is it experimental or survey design. A researcher collects data by interview on a sample of households to find out if people who read quality newspapers are more knowledgeable about politics than tabloid readers. The hunch was confirmed. People who read qualities were twice as likely to respond accurately to questions designed to test political knowledge. The researcher concludes that the qualities induce higher levels of political knowledge than the tabloids.
Answer : It is survey design. The reasoning is faulty. Firstly people cannot be treated as if they have been randomly assigned to two experimental treatments - they will have differ in other ways. Secondly higher levels of political knowledge may cause paper choice and not vice versa.
What would it look like with experimental design?
Survey/Correlation Design. Need not rely on surveys. Existing statistics, content analysis of documents, structured observation.
What we need is information about a large number of cases.
Q4 - Primitive Empiricism - to gather data and look for correlations. Why is this insufficient?
Answer - Because there are infinite numbers of correlations - we need a guide. We are testing a theory we need a theory to test. This can be a) specific theory or b) a broader explanatory framework. A specific theory is something like people vote according to what benefits them financially. An explanatory framework is really a broader theory such as:
Rational Actor model.
Marxism.
Feminism.
Provide a broad approach to study society from which more specific theory can be generated.
Q5 - How does a hypothesis differ form a theory?
Answer - A prediction that follows from a theory and can be tested. For example it is sometimes argued that the lack of a proletarian revolution has disproved Marx.
Q6 - Is the quantitative research design wholly objective?
Answer - No. Choice of problem, operationalisation of concepts. For example how is class defined?
The data does not speak for itself - what social class are nurses?
Q7 -
electing A Method
) Nature Of Phenomena To Be Studied.
A non-politics example is looking at pre-operative stress.
- QUANTITATIVE measures could tell us about their level of stress using standard measurement techniques.
- QUALITATIVE measures could help understand people's views - why they were under stress - fear of death, the unknown, pain etc.
Basically do you want in depth knowledge about a subject - an understanding OR do you want generalities and correlations.
2) Costs - Qualitative research is expensive.
3) Prestige - People may want "statistical facts".
4) Maturity of Concept - Relatively little researched may not have an existing body of theory to test.
5) Constraints of Subject or Setting - Can the subject read a questionnaire, is it a sensitive topic, it there access to interview a person or would they view a questionnaire as beneath them?
Validity of Measures
When we operationalise a concept we make a judgement of how to measure that concept. What support do we have that it is a valid measure.
a) Face Validity - It conforms to expected behaviour. eg - we measure class by job type and becasue we find a link between class and vote which we expected we conclude it is OK. Danger of designing measure to find answer wanted. However includes common sense approach.
b) Convergent Validity - Estimate the relation between two measures that are supposed to measure the same thing. So if power can be measured by reputation and by involvement in decisions - if both come up with the same results it offers support.
c) Divergent Validity - If two things should measure different things should not be too highly correlated. eg - Party identification - used to explain voting behaviour in USA - but some say all you get is current voting intention.
Triangulation - If we get the same results from different types of study, different evidence.
Assume you have a theory that increasing trade leads to a decrease in war - because it offers an opportunity further the interests of the state without increasing its territory. How would you go about testing this quantitatively. You need a hypothesis, to operationalise concepts and to decide what kind of data you would use.
Feminist research is often portrayed as Qualitative - relying on in depth understanding. However Liberal Feminists have relied to a large extent on Quantitative research. What role could it play in Liberal feminism?
Qualitative and Quantitative
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is commonly made.
Quantitative research is sometimes referred to as statistical or sometimes (somewhat sloppily) as empirical research.
Qualitative research is sometimes referred to as the sociological approach to research.
Elsewhere the distinction is often made between certain research methods as either being Qualitative or Quantitative.
For example Interviewing, Participant Observation and Documentary Analysis are often referred to as Qualitative research methods.
The use of Surveys and Statistical data is referred to as Quantitative.
These distinctions do have a fair degree of truth to them. However as we will see later they do not hold true in all cases. What are commonly thought of as used in purely Qualitative research can be part of Quantitative research programmes and vice versa.
In this lecture we are going to look at this distinction between qualitative and quantitative research. After looking at brief definitions of each we are going to look at what the goals of social research are. This will allow us to reflect on how both qualitative and quantitative research strategies can be employed to achieve those goals.
Definitions
"Qualitative Research is a basic strategy of social research that usually involves in-depth examination of a relatively small number of cases. Cases are examined intensively with techniques designed to facilitate the clarification of theoretical concepts and empirical categories." (CC Ragin, 1994, p190)
"Quantitative Research is a basic strategy of social research that usually involves analysis of patterns of covariation across a number of cases. This approach focuses on variables and relationships among variables in an effort to identify general patterns of covariation." (CC Ragin, 1994, p190)
Each can make a contribution to the study of society.
The best way of approaching their relative strengths and weaknesses is through looking at what are the goals of social research.
Goals of Social Research
- Identifying General Patterns and Relationships
Thinking back to last week we discussed how one of the key features science is the identification of General Patterns and Relationships. Those that see social research as a true science often see this as the Primary Goal of research.
Knowledge of general patterns and causes of social phenomena are often valued because they can help us address social problems or act to guide policy.
For example, if research were to suggest that poor attendance at school were a cause of crime then that would give us a possible approach to tackling crime.
Social researchers may believe that discovering general relationships is best done through the examination of many cases. THe reasoning being that certain cases may be atypical but that by looking at many cases we can identify generalities.
2 - Testing and Refining Theories
General patterns are especially relevant to social theory. The implications of theories are tested and refined or discarded. Typically this is done according to a general plan of scientific method.
Hypotheses are derived from theories and their implications and then tested with data that bear directly on the hypotheses.
In theory we abandon a theory if it is falsified by an observation.
In practice a single piece of counter evidence or a single unsupported hypothesis usually does not result in abandoning a theory. Rather unsupported theories gradually fade from current thinking or are refined.
3 - Making Predictions
Social researchers use accumulated social scientific knowledge to make predictions about the future and other novel situations.
Predictions can be made from two types of knowledge.
Firstly the use of Historical Knowledge.
e.g. The Stock Market Crash of 1920 and ensuing Great Depression has motivated our economic and political elites to moderate the violent swings of market oriented economic life.
Secondly the use of General Patterns.
For example we know that certain types of criminal activity - drug dealing - increase when legitimate economic opportunities decrease. We can use this knowledge to predict future crime rates based on economic predictions.
Predicting rates - crime, unemployment etc - is much easier than predicitng specific events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and suchlike. At best social scientists are making broad predictions about trends.
4- Interpreting Culturally or Historically Significant Phenomena.
Certain atypical events are interesting because of the role they played in establishing the current situation. For example the US Civil War has an impact on current power relations. There may be competition between different interpretations of events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall to become the accepted interpretation.
Social Science commonly divided into Qualitative and Quantitative research.
A number of related distinctions often used as ways of making the same divide.
Terms for quantitative are Empirical, statistical, political science.
Qualitative often called sociological approach.
The terms
Research Design
Problem-THeory-Hypothesis-Testing-Results-Analysis
Also need target population, sampling methods, sample size, method of collection and analysis
A DEDUCTIVE MODEL
All research methods collect data about what society is like
Qualitative
unstructured interviews
documents
PO -CompleteP, Pas observer, Observer as P, Complete O
Strengths
Subjects perspective
Describes what is going on
contextual
Flexible
Problems
ideographic not nomothetic
How do you know interpretation of meaning is correct
can't observe everything
reactivivty
Do yo utake people's replies at face value?
Construcyt hypotheses to explain observed regularities
Progressive focussing
Quantitative
survey interviews
some archives
Content analysis - Budge study - Ethnograph, NUDIST
structured observation
"The survey's capacity for generating quantifiable data on large numbers of people who are known to be representative of a wider population in order to test theories or hypotheses has been viewed by many practitioners as a means of capturing many of the ingredients of science." (A Bryman 1988)
POSITIVISM
Methodological naturalism
observable phenomena
scientific knowledge made up of laws which can be verified by testing against observable facts
Divide between factual and normative.
BUT
Observation is theory dependent (Thomas Kuhn)
Science uses hypothetical entities which can't be observed
Concepts
Require operationalising - problem of validity of indicators
Quant
Qual
Role of Qualitative research
Preparatory
Means to explore actor's intentions
Relationship Between Researcher and Subject
Distant
Close
Researchers Stance in Relation To Subject
Outsider
Insider
Relationship between Theory and Research
Confirmation
Emergent
Research Strategy
Structured
Unstructured
Image of Social reality
Static and External to Actor
Processual and Socially constructed by actor
Nature of Data
Hard, Reliable
Rich. Deep
NB - Empiricist streak in much qualitative work
Hypothesis testing with qualitative work
Quantitative work often seeks interpretations
Choice of method
Cost
Validity - looking at trends needs many?
Reactivity - Research may bias behaviour - eg gangs boast
Availability - Terrorists, top politicians, the dead
Suitability - Sensitive Subjects like death
VERSTEHEN
Webers idea by which social science had an advantage - allows us to interpret social data
Triangulation
Different forms of data collection
Validity
Face
Convergent
Counterfactual
We have to imagine what would happen withut an event
Ragin
The 7 goals of social science
This week we are going to look at some of the terms and arguments from the philosophy of science. Note these are a bit more philosophical than you need to go in this sort of course but they may help you understand any reading you do for seminars or essays.
ONE- Induction or Deduction or both?
Induction "A method of reasoning by which a general law or principle is inferred from observed particular instances."
"Problem of Hume". That a first premise that all observed swans are white to the conclusion that all swans without exception have been and always will be white.
So no run of favourable observation is logically sufficient to establish the truth of an unrestricted generalisation. Led to the argument that science has to live with a faith in the uniformity and unchanging nature of nature.
Deduction (Hypothetico- Deductive)
Popper pointed to the fact that using deductive logic generalisations could be falsified if not verified.
This fits with the history of science which guards us against believing we have discovered the final truth about nature.
Relation to Science
In most social science texts the Deductive view of science is portrayed as being THEORY FIRST then OBSERVATION to test theory.
The inductive view is portrayed as OBSERVATION FIRST from which we use inductive logic to create THEORY.
Q1 - What is the problem for this naive view of deductivism.
Q2 - What sort of research (what methods) are commonly linked to Induction and what to Deduction?
Q3 - Imagine you are researching public disorder on peripheral housing estates. You are interested as to what caused riots on a number of estates in a certain year. Design a possible research strategy. You need to say what your methodlogy is, how you are using theory and whether you are adopting an inductivist or deductivist position.
TWO - IS THE STUDY OF BEHAVIOUR LOGICALLY DIFFERENT TO THE STUDY OF THE NATURAL WORLD?
- One View. We can understand behaviour through observation.
From Hume to say A causes B is to say A's always follow B's.
(Methodological) Behaviourism is the view that we should gain understanding by observing behaviour. Behaviour may be complex - so is the weather - but the science of meteorology progresses like this. This view is sometimes seen as science.
- Second view. That human behaviour is logically different to the behaviour of inanimate objects. An explanation of behaviour requires an understanding of why a person is acting as they are. This requires knowledge of the rules or culture of society - because behaviour is rule governed.
e.g. traffic light example.
Weber argues fof concept of Verstehen - understanding based on us being human - can empathise with others.
Q1- Does your view on this link to your choice of research method? If so how?
Q2- Does it link to deduction/induction argument?
Q3- List Qualitative and Quantitative research methods from
Interviews
Postal Surveys
Government Statistics
Participant Observation
Documentary analysis.
Can any all be both qualitative and quantitative?
OBJECTIVITY IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
It is key for scientific research to be Objective.
It is supposed to reflect FACT rather than OPINION.
BUT some poeple argue that accepted research practices have an inbuilt bias toward certain outcomes.
An Example, The Question of Feminist Research.
) Problem of most social scientists having been men.
Methods themselves still seen as value neutral.
2) Focus of Political Science in particular on the Public Sphere.
3) Methods have a theoretical underpinning (Sandra Harding).
- Oral History rather than documented history.
- Conversation analysis rather than interview.
- Unstructured Group Interviews (Oakley).
- Use of personal diaries rather than official accounts..
(Reinharz)
Not all people who class themselves as feminists accept that research methods are linked to values. Feminist Empiricists believe empirical evidence is the most powerful tool for proving disadvantage.
SO IS VALUE FREE RESEARCH POSSIBLE?
- What of "facts" like most Catholics in the USA vote Democrat.
These can be re-worded as physical facts to do with ballot papers.
Is this the case for all social science?
Do simple facts allow us to:
a) Build complicated predictive models.
b) Give a complete understanding of social phenomena.
- BUT if we start using concepts like disadvantage or using
Can A Man Do Feminist Research?
Scientific criticisms of research can be used as an excuse (Reinharz) .
Does the acceptance of different standpoints on any research question doom the idea of social science as science?
