Research Methods & Educational Research

Ever wondered how sociologists actually study society? Research methods are essentially the detective tools that help us understand social behaviour, and they fall into two main camps.

Quantitative methods give you the numbers - think surveys with hundreds of responses that you can easily turn into charts and graphs. They're brilliant for spotting patterns across large groups, but they won't tell you why someone feels a certain way. Qualitative methods are the opposite - they dig deep into individual experiences through interviews and observations, giving you rich detail but making it harder to generalise to everyone.

When studying education, researchers face unique challenges. There's teacher bias to consider, plus the tricky ethics of studying young people in schools. Imagine trying to observe a classroom naturally when everyone knows you're watching - suddenly students might behave completely differently!

Quick Tip: Remember that Durkheim saw education as teaching social norms (functionalist view), while Bowles & Gintis argued schools just prepare workers for capitalism (Marxist view).

Questionnaires

Questionnaires are like the Swiss Army knife of sociology research - versatile, practical, and surprisingly effective when used properly. You've probably filled out loads of them without realising their sociological importance!

Closed-ended questions give you tick-box options, making analysis dead easy but potentially missing the nuances of what people really think. Open-ended questions let respondents express themselves freely, creating richer data that's much trickier to analyse. It's basically a trade-off between convenience and depth.

The biggest headaches with questionnaires? Response bias (people lying or giving answers they think you want) and low response rates (people just can't be bothered). Self-completion questionnaires give people privacy but interviewer-administered ones ensure better understanding of questions.

Remember: Positivists love questionnaires because they believe they provide objective, scientific data - just like Durkheim used them in his famous suicide study.

Experiments

Think experiments are just for science labs? Think again! Sociologists use them to test theories about human behaviour, though they work a bit differently than chemistry experiments.

Laboratory experiments give researchers maximum control but feel pretty artificial - imagine studying "natural" classroom behaviour in a fake classroom setting. Field experiments happen in real environments (like actual schools) but researchers lose some control. Natural experiments observe real-world situations where researchers can't manipulate anything.

The Rosenthal and Jacobson study perfectly demonstrates experimental research in education. They told teachers that certain students were "academic bloomers" (they weren't really), and those students actually performed better - proving the self-fulfilling prophecy theory.

Watch out for the Hawthorne effect - people change their behaviour when they know they're being studied. It's like how you might tidy your room when you know your parents are coming up to check on you!

Classic Study Alert: Durkheim's suicide research used natural experimental methods to show how social integration affects suicide rates.

Participant Observation

Participant observation is basically becoming a sociological spy - researchers immerse themselves in groups to understand behaviour from the inside. It's fascinating but ethically complex.

Overt observation means being honest about your research role. People know you're studying them, which is ethically sound but might make them act differently. Covert observation involves going undercover, getting more natural behaviour but raising serious ethical concerns about consent.

Willis's "Learning to Labour" is a classic example - he studied working-class boys and discovered how they actively rejected school culture, essentially preparing themselves for manual jobs. His participant observation revealed insights that surveys never could have captured.

The big challenge? Researcher bias - your own background and opinions inevitably influence what you notice and how you interpret it. Becker highlighted how researchers' personal perspectives can skew their observations.

Key Insight: Non-participant observation keeps researchers more objective but they might miss subtle interactions that only "insiders" would notice.

Interviews

Interviews are like conversations with a purpose - they're brilliant for getting people's real thoughts and experiences, but the structure you choose massively affects your results.

Structured interviews follow a strict script with predetermined questions asked in the same order. They're reliable and easy to compare, but they can feel robotic and might miss important spontaneous responses. Unstructured interviews flow like natural conversations, giving incredible depth but making analysis much harder.

Goffman's dramaturgical approach reminds us that people perform differently depending on the situation - so interview settings really matter. Are you interviewing in a formal office or a relaxed café? Each creates different "performances."

Oakley's feminist perspective emphasised building genuine rapport, especially when interviewing women. She argued that traditional "objective" interviewing can actually create barriers to honest communication.

Pro Tip: The interview setting and researcher's approach can dramatically affect what people are willing to share.

Secondary Sources

Why reinvent the wheel? Secondary sources let researchers use data that already exists, saving time and money while often providing access to information they could never collect themselves.

Official statistics from government departments give you massive datasets covering entire populations - perfect for spotting broad social patterns. However, they might not answer your specific research question, and there could be political motivations behind what gets measured and how.

Documents and archives provide historical context and access to past events that can't be recreated. Think old newspaper articles, government reports, or personal diaries. The downside? You can't control the quality or completeness of the data.

Durkheim famously used official suicide statistics to develop his theory about social integration, showing how secondary data can support groundbreaking research. However, Giddens warned that secondary data gets interpreted through different theoretical lenses, potentially affecting objectivity.

Reality Check: Secondary sources are cost-effective and provide historical insight, but you're stuck with whatever data exists - gaps and biases included.