Experiments - Testing Ideas in Controlled Ways

Ever wondered how psychologists prove their theories? Experiments are brilliant for testing specific ideas (hypotheses) by isolating individual factors to see what really causes what.

There are two main types: laboratory experiments happen in artificial, controlled environments, whilst field experiments take place in natural settings like schools or workplaces. Lab experiments give you precise control - think Bandura's famous bobo doll study where 72 children were shown either aggressive or non-aggressive behaviour, then observed to see if they copied what they'd seen.

Field experiments happen in real-world settings but still involve manipulation. The National Centre for Social Research sent 3000 job applications using both 'white' and 'foreign' names - white names got positive responses after 9 applications, whilst foreign names needed 16. This revealed discrimination in a way that felt completely natural to employers.

Remember: Lab experiments are reliable and easy to repeat, but field experiments give you more realistic results - though they're much harder to control perfectly.

Social Surveys - Gathering Data from the Masses

When you need to know what thousands of people think, social surveys are your best friend. These use questionnaires and structured interviews to collect information from huge groups quickly and cheaply.

Connor and Dawson sent questionnaires to 4000 students across 14 universities to understand why working-class students choose higher education. The UK Census is the ultimate survey - it records our entire population and tells us that 11.5 million schoolchildren are full-time students.

The biggest advantage? You can get representative results without spending ages training interviewers. Positivists love surveys because they produce solid, quantifiable data that's easy to analyse and test hypotheses with.

But there's a catch - people might give socially desirable answers (telling you what they think you want to hear), misinterpret questions, or simply ignore your survey completely. You're also stuck with brief questions that might miss the deeper story.

Key insight: Surveys are brilliant for the 'what' and 'how many', but rubbish for understanding the 'why' behind people's behaviour.

Longitudinal Studies and Participant Observation - Getting the Full Picture

Longitudinal studies follow the same people over years or even decades, giving you a proper understanding of how things change over time. The Millennium Cohort Study tracked 19,000 children from 2000-2011, discovering that kids whose parents read to them daily were more likely to succeed in early education.

The National Child Development Study has followed 17,000 people born in the same week in 1958 - they're still collecting data today! This research revealed how some children are essentially 'born to fail' due to low literacy levels in their families.

Participant observation takes a completely different approach - researchers actually join in with people's daily lives to see the world through their eyes. This can be covert (secret) or overt (open about being a researcher).

Khan got a job at the elite St Paul's School and interviewed alumni to understand how posh schools really work. He preferred overt observation because you can keep collecting data from people afterwards. However, these methods are time-consuming, expensive, and people might drop out or change their behaviour because they know they're being watched (Hawthorne effect).

Think about it: Would you act differently if you knew a researcher was watching everything you do?

Secondary Data and Interviews - Using What's Already There

Secondary data means using information that someone else has already collected - think diaries, paintings, government statistics, or census data. It's mostly free, readily available, and lets you make historical comparisons without causing any harm to participants.

Aries used old paintings of children to show how childhood has changed - historically, kids were treated like mini-adults, but now we live in a child-centred society. The UK Census becomes secondary data when researchers use it years later to spot social trends.

Interviews come in three flavours: structured (like reading from a script), unstructured (more like guided conversations), and semi-structured (a mix of both). Willis used group interviews with working-class lads to understand why they rejected school, whilst Becker interviewed 60 Chicago teachers and 'acted dumb' to get them to reveal sensitive information.

The beauty of interviews is that you can clarify confusing questions, probe deeper into interesting answers, and build trust with participants. However, they're expensive, time-consuming, and vulnerable to interviewer bias - your presence might influence what people say.

Pro tip: The key is matching your method to your research question - you wouldn't use a structured interview to understand someone's deepest emotions!

Key Thinkers and Putting It All Together

Different sociologists have shaped how we think about research methods. Durkheim argued that sociology should be scientific and emphasise quantitative methods, whilst Weber introduced verstehen - the idea that we need to understand the meaning behind people's actions, not just count their behaviour.

Popper gave us falsification - the principle that good theories should be testable and potentially provable wrong. Kuhn explained how science works through paradigms (shared ways of thinking) that occasionally shift completely when new evidence emerges.

Bourdieu took a balanced approach, arguing that we need both quantitative and qualitative methods to properly examine how individuals interact with each other and society.

The reality is that each method has trade-offs. Positivists prefer quantitative methods because they're reliable and objective, whilst interpretivists favour qualitative approaches that capture emotions and meanings. The trick is choosing the right tool for the job - and sometimes that means using several different methods together.

Bottom line: There's no perfect research method - they all have strengths and limitations, so smart researchers often combine multiple approaches to get the most complete picture possible.