Research into Methods for Social Research

There are four main types of methods that can be used in gathering information they are questionnaires, surveys, observations and documents. Each of these methods provides tools to the collection of empirical data that can be later analysed and conclusions made. these methods allow research is the tools to gain a clearer picture of things, an accurate measurements of things and facts and evaluations about the subject matter. Before choosing a method it is important to consider these five key points:

• It has become synonymous with some research strategies that a certain research method must be used this is not the case and the researchers should not rule out the possibility of choice when deciding on a research method or strategie.
• Each method approaches the collection of data with a certain set of assumptions and produces a type of data whose usefulness depends on what the researcher is trying to achieve.
• When choosing a research methods researchers should they based a decision on the criteria of usefulness.
• Research methods do not need to be seen as mutually exclusive.
• The use of more than one method allows the researcher to use triangulation.

Questionnaires

What is a questionnaire?

There are many types of questionnaires they can vary enormously in their purpose, their size and their appearance. Research questionnaires do the following:

• Be designed to collect information which can be used subsequently as data for analysis.
• Consist of a written list of questions. The important point here is that each person who answers the particular questionnaire reads an identical set of questions. 
• Gather information by asking people directly about the points concerned with the research.

Questionnaires are at their most productive:

• when used with large numbers of respondents in many locations;
• when what is required tends to be fairly straightforward information - relatively brief and uncontroversial;
• when there is a need for standardized data from identical questions-  without requiring personal, face-to-face interaction;
• when the respondents can be expected to be able to read and understand the questions - the implications of age, intellect, language, and eyesight need to be considered;
• when the social climate is open enough to allow full and honest answers.

Advantages

1. Questionnaires are economical, in the sense that they can supply a consider- able amount of research data for a relatively low cost in terms of materials, money and time.
2. Relatively easy to arrange. Questionnaires are easier to arrange than, for example, personal interviews.
3. Questionnaires supply standardized answers, to the extent that all respondents are posed with exactly the same questions.
4. Pre-coded answers. A further, and important, advantage of the questionnaire is that it encourages pre-coded answers.
5. Data accuracy. Surveys using the Internet can be designed so that the data contained in the completed questionnaires can be fed straight into a data file, thus automating the process of data entry. This effectively eliminates the human error factor.

Disadvantages

1. Pre-coded questions can be frustrating for respondents and, thus, deter them from answering.
  While the respondents might find it less demanding merely to tick appropriate boxes they might, equally, find this restricting and frustrating.
2. Pre-coded questions can bias the findings towards the researcher's, rather than the respondent's, way of seeing things. Questionnaires, by their very nature, can start to impose a structure on the answers and shape the nature of the responses in a way that reflects the researcher's thinking rather than the respondent's.
3. Questionnaires offer little opportunity for the researcher to check the truthfulness of the answers given by the respondents. Because the researcher does not meet the respondent and because the answers are given 'at a distance', the researcher cannot rely on a number of clues that an interviewer might have about whether the answers are genuine or not.

Interviews

What is an interviews?

The interview message is more than having a conversation with a person, and interview involved a set of assumptions and understanding about a situation. When someone takes part in a research interview:

• There is consent to take part.
• Interviewees' words can be treated as 'on the record' and 'for the record'.
• The agenda for the discussion is set by the researcher.

The interviews potential as a data collection method is better exploited when they are applied to the exploration of more complex and subtle occurrences. When a researchers decides to use an interview method they need to gain insight into things such as peoples opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences. Interviews lend themselves to the collection of data based on:

• Opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences.
• Sensitive issues.
• Privileged information.

Before embarking on a programme of interviews the researcher needs to feel assured that:

• It is possible to gain direct access to the prospective interviewees.
• The interviews are viable in terms of the costs in time and travel involved. 

Advantages

• Depth of information. Interviews are particularly good at producing data which deal with topics in depth and in detail.
• Insights. The researcher is likely to gain valuable insights based on the depth of the information gathered and the wisdom of 'key informants'.
• Equipment. Interviews require only simple equipment and build on conversation skills which researchers already have.
• Informants' priorities. Interviews are a good method for producing data based on informants' priorities, opinions and ideas.
• Flexibility. As a method for data collection, interviews are probably the most flexible.
• High response rate. Interviews are generally prearranged and scheduled for a convenient time and location.
• Validity. Direct contact at the point of the interview means that data can be checked for accuracy and relevance as they are collected.
• Therapeutic. Interviews can be a rewarding experience for the informant.

Disadvantages

• Time-consuming. Analysis of data can be difficult and time-consuming.
• Data analysis. The interview method tends to produce non-standard responses.
• Reliability. The impact of the interviewer and of the context means that consistency and objectivity are hard to achieve.
• Interviewer effect. The data from interviews are based on what people say rather than what they do. 
• Inhibitions. In the case of face-to-face interviews, the audio recorder (or video recorder) can inhibit the informant.
• Invasion of privacy. Tactless interviewing can be an invasion of privacy and/ or upsetting for the informant.
• Resources. With face-to-face interviews the costs of interviewer's time and travel can be relatively high, particularly if the informants are geographically dispersed.

Observations

What is observational research?

Observations do not rely on what people say they do or what they say they think,  observations rely on what these reset chair sees first hands or what actually happens. There are two types of observation research systematic observations, that produces quantitate data and statistical analysis and participant observations that provides qualitative data. However both methods share some common characteristics, they are:

• Direct observation. The obvious connection is that they both rely on direct observation.
• Fieldwork. The second common factor is their dedication to collecting data in real-life situations.
• Natural settings. Fieldwork observation - distinct from laboratory observations - occurs in situations which would have occurred whether or not the research had taken place.
• The issue of perception. Systematic observation and participant observation both recognize that the process of observing is far from straightforward.

Systematic Observations
The problem with observations are twofold the first being how do you measure the observation and secondly memory of the resector. It is systematic observations that try and resolve this problem, through the use of an observation schedule. The schedule is to minimize, possibly eliminate, the variations that will arise from data based on individual perceptions of events and situations. The schedule should enable the research to do the following:

• be alert to the same activities and be looking out for the same things;
• record data systematically and thoroughly;
• produce data which are consistent between observers, with two or more researchers who witness the same event recording the same data.

The researcher should use the observation schedule like a checklist to record specific events that take place. The process of systematic observation then becomes a matter of measuring and recording how many times an event occurs, or how long some event continues.

Advantages

1. Direct data collection.
It directly records what people do, as distinct from what they say they do.
2. Systematic and rigorous. The use of an observation schedule provides an answer to the problems associated with the selective perception of observers, and it appears to produce objective observations. 
3. Efficient. It provides a means for collecting substantial amounts of data in a relatively short timespan.
4. Pre-coded data. It produces quantitative data which are pre-coded and ready for analysis.
5. Reliability. When properly established, it should achieve high levels of inter-observer reliability in the sense that two or more observers using a schedule should record very similar data.

Disadvantages

1. Behaviour, not intentions.
Its focus on overt behaviour describes what happens, but not why it happens.
2. Oversimplifies. It assumes that overt behaviours can be measured in terms of categories that are fairly straightforward and unproblematic. 
3. Contextual information. Observation schedules, by themselves, tend to miss contextual information which has a bearing on the behaviours recorded. It is not a holistic approach.
4. Naturalness of the setting. Despite the confidence arising from experience, there remains a question mark about the observer's ability to fade into the background. 

Participant Observations

A participant observations is when the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, They observing things that happen, listening to what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time. If no one knows about the research except the researcher, the logic is that no one will act in anything but a normal way. The principal concern is to minimize disruption so as to be able to see things as they normally occur. A participant observation emphasis is placed on gaining a holistic understanding on a specific area. There are three main types of participant observations they are:

• Total participation, where the researcher's role is kept secret. The researcher assumes the role of someone who normally participates in the setting. 
• Participation in the normal setting, where the researcher's role may be known to certain 'gatekeepers', but may be hidden from most of those in the setting.
• Participation as observer, where the researcher's identity as a researcher is openly recognized .

Advantages

1. Basic equipment. Participant observation uses the researcher's 'self' as the main instrument of research, and therefore requires little by way of technical/statistical support.
2. Non-interference. It stands a better chance of retaining the naturalness of the setting than other social research methods.
3. Insights. It provides a good platform for gaining rich insights into social processes and is suited to dealing with complex realities.
4. Ecological validity. The data produced by participant observation have the potential to be particularly context sensitive and ecologically valid.
5. Holistic. Participant observation studies offer holistic explanations incorporating the relationships between various factors.
6. Subjects' points of view. As a method of social research, participant observation is good for getting at actors' meanings as they see them.

Disadvantages

1. Access. There are limited options open to the researcher about which roles to adopt or settings to participate in.
2. Commitment. Participant observation can be a very demanding method in terms of personal commitment and personal resources.
3. Danger. Participant observation can be potentially hazardous for the researcher; physically, legally, socially and psychologically risky.
4. Reliability. Dependence on the 'self' of the researcher and on the use of field notes as data leads to a lack of verifiable data.
5. Representativeness of the data. There are problems of generalizing from the research. 
6. Deception. When researchers opt to conduct full participation, keeping their true identity and purpose secret from others in the setting, there are ethical problems arising from the absence of consent on the part of those being observed, and of deception by the researcher.

Documents

Sources of documentary data 
Documents can be treated as a source of data in there own right. There are traditional documents such as prints documents but they are also visual documents such as photographs and artefacts, as well as sound documents such as music and visual documents such as video, film etc. Here are a few types of traditional documentation:

Government publications and official statistics:

They appear to provide a documentary source of information that is:

• Authoritative. Since the data have been produced by the state, employing large resources and expert professionals, they tend to have credibility.
• Objective. Since the data have been produced by officials, they might be regarded as impartial.
• Factual. In the case of the statistics, they take the form of numbers that are amenable to computer storage/analysis, and constitute 'hard facts' over which there can be no ambiguity.

Newspapers and magazines:

Magazines and newspapers are suitably good fuck up to date information however it should be noted that some newspapers and magazines are more work to go and worth more value for research than others. The value of a magazine on newspaper can stem from one of the following:

• the expertise of the journalists;
• the specialism of the publication;
• the insider information which the correspondents can uncover.

Records of meetings:
The purpose of records of meetings documentation is to enhance accountability. This means that the records need to have two qualities, both of which happen to be of particular value for research.

1. They need to contain a fairly systematic picture of things that have happened.
2. They should be publicly available.

Letters and memos:

Letters and memos can come in many different types of formats. Because they are written to specific people, rather than for a broader public, their contents are likely to rely far more on assumptions about what the other person already knows or what that person feels. They can be expected to be from a personal point of view rather than be impartial.

Diaries:

We are not talking about the kind of diaries which act as a planner, noting commitments in the future that need to be scheduled. For research purposes, the diary is normally a retrospective account of things that have happened.There are three crucial elements to this kind of diary:

• factual data: a log of things that happened, decisions made and people involved;
• significant incidents: the identification of things seen as particularly important and a description of the diary-writer's priorities;
• personal interpretation: a personal reflection and interpretation of happenings, plus an account of the personal feelings and emotions surrounding the events described.

Advantages

1. Access to data. Vast amounts of information are held in documents. Depend- ing on the nature of the documents, most researchers will find access to the sources relatively easy and inexpensive.
2. Cost-effective. Documentary research provides a cost-effective method of getting data, particularly large-scale data such as those provided by official statistics.
3. Permanence of data. Documents generally provide a source of data which is permanent and available in a form that can be checked by others. The data are open to public scrutiny.

Disadvantages

Credibility of the source. The researcher needs to be discerning about the information they use. Researchers need to evaluate the authority of the source and the procedures used to produce the original data in order to gauge the credibility of the documents.
Secondary data. When researchers use documents as a source of data, they generally rely on something which has been produced for other purposes and not for the specific aims of the investigation.
Social constructions. Documents can owe more to the interpretations of those who produce them than to an objective picture of reality.