Qualitative and Quantitative methods of gathering data an overview.

Philipson who come from the qualitative(interpretive) veiw claims that structured methods are low in validity he claims that the instruments of the observer creates the very order they are designed to reveal i.e the questions are thought out in advance(which is rational) but they pre-judge the subject matter therefore do not give a valid picture of reality.

Oakleys criticism of willmott and young is that their data is not valid because they use the wrong methology i.e to find out the truth about domestic labour and equality researchers need to use unstructured methods to get indepth structured data willmott and young use structured methods. And they only asked 2 questions (men helping women out with domestic work male/female point of veiw) for oakley this is not indepth or accurate enough.

Contrasting this is another point of veiw that structured methods are high in validity. Positivists disagree with oakley and argue that its possible for structured methods to be high in validity if the questions are valid. Just because a researcher askes a structured question does not mean that the answers are unvalid or untruthful. So willmott and young were not trying to do an indepth study of domestic labour and equality but a relitively superficial attitude survey of young couples. Which could be compaired to the attitude of the older generation which they studied in an earlier survey 12 years previously. Terefore we can argue the data is valid because young husbands were showing a slightly different attitude towards domestic labour than the older generation of men. They “helped out” whereas the older generation did not. Behaviour had not changed as oakley found out but attitudes were beginning to change. This research therefore predicted the future accuratly. As represented in gershuny and pahls research that the more women worked the more powerful they became.

Another veiw is that unstructured methods are low in represenitivness in general the samples are so small the finding cannot be generalised to the iwder population. Oakley only studied 20 working class and 20 middle class women.however some unstructured methods use non representitive samples e.g many participant observation studies “whites famous study of italian street gangs”.

From the positivist veiw unstuctured methods are low in reliablity becuase it would not be possible for another researcher to do an exact follow up study, because as both cicourel and whyte admit there approach was unique to themselves, it would not be possible for such studies to be replicated exactly so the results cannot be checked. But the qualitative interpretive veiw) says this is false as Becker claims its possible to check a theory using unstructured methods and that these research methods can be done systematically e.g “in making with the grade”. Becker did a participant observation study of  classrooms and tabulated his evidence/observations systematically.

Quantitive positivists veiws is that it is not possible for researchers to study people objectively and nutrally so it may be true that data from unstructured methods are low in validity.  Paticipant observations like white and unstructured interveiws like oakley, there observations and shaped by there values.  Participant observers try not to prejudge the subject matter which reduces the validity of the data.

Unstructured methods take much more time than structured methods and this ensures the high level of validity e.g cicourel spent 4 years studying juvenile justice in california.  Unstructured researchers get close to the subjects there studying and because subjects are relaxed and open and communicate to researchers therefore data from unstructured methods are high in validity.