Assessment 6: Research Methods (2)
Outline and explain two disadvantages of using personal documents in sociological research:
1. One problem of using a personal document is that they may be unrepresentative. As the document may not
be typical, it is unknown whether the document would be safe to generalise from. Moreover, they are
personal documents, which mean they are written accounts from one perspective, so some groups will lack
representativeness.
Another problem of using personal documents in sociological research is that they may be invalid. Due to not
all documents surviving over time, it is unclear of which personal documents can be valid to use because
they may not be able to be supported by factual documents. They may also be biased accounts of their own
experiences, limiting their validity.
Outline and explain the strengths of using interviews:
2. Interviews are spoken questions that may be a guided, free conversation or conducted in a standardised
method. There are two main types of interviews: structured interviews (standardised, set questions,
conducted same way every time) and unstructured interviews (guided conversations, can ask follow up
questions, no set/strict method). Interpretivists favour unstructured interviews, whilst positivists prefer
structured interviews.
A practical strength of structured interviews is the time it takes to conduct. They do not often take much
time because the interview is relatively straightforward, and the questions are pre-written/structured.
Moreover, the results are easily quantified as they are closed ended questions which therefore can be
coded. For example, the British Crime Survey uses structured interviews to measure the extent of crime in
England and Wales. Instead of interviewing every household, they randomly select a representative sample,
which takes far less time. Thus, the process is fairly quick and simple as the households are informed, if they
agree to the interview, then the interviewer asks the pre-set questions.
Both interviews (structured and unstructured) have the ethical strength of consent. They both offer the
ability to decline an interview if the person asked does not wish to be involved. There is also the choice to
pass on questions if they do not want to. An example of a structured interview where consent was positive is
the British Crime Survey. The randomly chosen addresses were sent letters informing them of the survey and
a leaflet that provides extra information. An interviewer was then sent to the addresses to ask if they wish to
participate. If the household agrees then a person over 16 living in the household is randomly selected and
again, the chosen person gets the choice of agreeing to participate or refuse. Another ethical strength is
confidentiality. In the Violence Against Wives unstructured interview study, 109 women who had
experienced violence and reported it to the police were interviewed. They did not confirm or say any names
of the women, most likely due to the sensitive topic being interviewed and the threat of the women
receiving more violence.
Furthermore, a theoretical strength of unstructured interviews is that they are valid; this can be supported
with the same Dobash and Dobash study. These unstructured interviews had high validity because they were
true cases (women who had reported violence to police). Thus, the study remained valid because it uncovers
further information on beliefs and reasonings behind violence against women. The interviews conducted
also revealed the official crime statistics concealed a significant ‘dark figure’ of crime.
Structured interviews also have theoretical strengths, including objectivity. Objectivity is when answers are
given to the questions of interest and generalisations can be made. The British Crime Survey has positive
objectivity as the answers given are generalised to give a true picture of crime for the overall country.
Moreover, as the interviewer does not know the interviewee before going to the address, no personal
feelings influence how a participant will answer, reducing false replies. This structured interview is also
reliable because it is easy to standardise and compare the answers (especially if visiting a similar/nearby area
to one prior).
Outline and explain two disadvantages of using personal documents in sociological research:
1. One problem of using a personal document is that they may be unrepresentative. As the document may not
be typical, it is unknown whether the document would be safe to generalise from. Moreover, they are
personal documents, which mean they are written accounts from one perspective, so some groups will lack
representativeness.
Another problem of using personal documents in sociological research is that they may be invalid. Due to not
all documents surviving over time, it is unclear of which personal documents can be valid to use because
they may not be able to be supported by factual documents. They may also be biased accounts of their own
experiences, limiting their validity.
Outline and explain the strengths of using interviews:
2. Interviews are spoken questions that may be a guided, free conversation or conducted in a standardised
method. There are two main types of interviews: structured interviews (standardised, set questions,
conducted same way every time) and unstructured interviews (guided conversations, can ask follow up
questions, no set/strict method). Interpretivists favour unstructured interviews, whilst positivists prefer
structured interviews.
A practical strength of structured interviews is the time it takes to conduct. They do not often take much
time because the interview is relatively straightforward, and the questions are pre-written/structured.
Moreover, the results are easily quantified as they are closed ended questions which therefore can be
coded. For example, the British Crime Survey uses structured interviews to measure the extent of crime in
England and Wales. Instead of interviewing every household, they randomly select a representative sample,
which takes far less time. Thus, the process is fairly quick and simple as the households are informed, if they
agree to the interview, then the interviewer asks the pre-set questions.
Both interviews (structured and unstructured) have the ethical strength of consent. They both offer the
ability to decline an interview if the person asked does not wish to be involved. There is also the choice to
pass on questions if they do not want to. An example of a structured interview where consent was positive is
the British Crime Survey. The randomly chosen addresses were sent letters informing them of the survey and
a leaflet that provides extra information. An interviewer was then sent to the addresses to ask if they wish to
participate. If the household agrees then a person over 16 living in the household is randomly selected and
again, the chosen person gets the choice of agreeing to participate or refuse. Another ethical strength is
confidentiality. In the Violence Against Wives unstructured interview study, 109 women who had
experienced violence and reported it to the police were interviewed. They did not confirm or say any names
of the women, most likely due to the sensitive topic being interviewed and the threat of the women
receiving more violence.
Furthermore, a theoretical strength of unstructured interviews is that they are valid; this can be supported
with the same Dobash and Dobash study. These unstructured interviews had high validity because they were
true cases (women who had reported violence to police). Thus, the study remained valid because it uncovers
further information on beliefs and reasonings behind violence against women. The interviews conducted
also revealed the official crime statistics concealed a significant ‘dark figure’ of crime.
Structured interviews also have theoretical strengths, including objectivity. Objectivity is when answers are
given to the questions of interest and generalisations can be made. The British Crime Survey has positive
objectivity as the answers given are generalised to give a true picture of crime for the overall country.
Moreover, as the interviewer does not know the interviewee before going to the address, no personal
feelings influence how a participant will answer, reducing false replies. This structured interview is also
reliable because it is easy to standardise and compare the answers (especially if visiting a similar/nearby area
to one prior).
