Interpretivist Methods

• Semi-structured interviews

  • Like a conversation w/ pre-scripted questions (so reliable to an extent)
  • Lets interviewer pursue topics the interviewee raises
  • Qualitative data
  • Valid; interviewer can clarify + ask follow-up Qs
  • Positivists say they lack objectivity + reliability bc every interview is diff.
• Hecht et al.'s use of semi-structured interviews

  • Studied social mobility
  • Interviewed 30 elite earners
  • Encouraged interviewees to discuss attitudes/jobs etc.
  • Asked pre-scripted Qs ab whether inequality is fair, if they see themselves as high earners etc.
• Unstructured interviews

  • Guided conversations
  • NO pre-scripted Qs
  • Good to establish trust + rapport
  • Useful to study sensitive topics
  • Interviewer has to be well-trained
  • Unreliable; every interview is diff.
• PROs of unstructured interviews:

  • Good for building trust + rapport ➡️ high validity + verstehen
  • Flexible
  • Authentic
• CONs of unstructured interviews:

  • Lack objectivity + reliability ➡️ V. unscientific
  • Unreproducible = unreliable
  • Quantitative data ➡️ hard to discern patterns + trends
  • Not objective if researchers get too emotionally involved
  • Not representative since sample will most likely be small
  • Exp. £ bc interviewers need to be trained
• Amelia Gentlemen's use of unstructured interviews

  • Researched care homes
  • Unstructuredly interviewed staff + residents so they'd offer own views/experiences
  • Violet - had to sell flat to afford care home bills
  • Iraqi student nurse - doesn't understand why British ppl leave parents in care homes w/o visiting them
  • Pre-scripted Qs wouldn't reveal these instantaneous results
• 4 types of observation:

  1. Controlled - naturalistic
  2. Participant - direct
  3. Overt - covert
  4. Structured - unstructured
• Naturalistic observations

  Studying participants in real-life situations
• Participant observations

  • Researcher immerses themselves in the lifestyle of the group they're studying for wks/months/yrs
  • To understand the meaning that subjects ascribe to their situations
  • Can be overt or covert
• Direct observations

  Researcher only observes
• Overt observations

  Researcher is clearly visible + it's known that they're observing behaviour (issues w/ validity bc ppl often act diff. when they know they're being observed)
• Covert observations

  Researcher is hidden from view

  • Issues w/ deception + consent as well as practical problems e.g. you can't take notes
• Structured observations

  Only behaviour on the 'observational checklist'/schedule is recorded.
• Unstructured observations

  Recording qualitative data via notepad.
• PROs of direct observations

  • Observing from afar = objective
  • Good reliability when observational schedule used
  • No ethical issues when it's overt
  • Avoids 'going native' which could happen during participant observations
• CONs of direct observations

  • Needs trained interviewers
  • Small sample
  • Time-consuming
• OVERT participant observation

  • Researcher gets access to group via gatekeeper who can get their consent
  • You hang around them, but lack of planning/structure can lead to misinterpretation
• COVERT participant observations

  • Hard to find gatekeeper
  • Group may not want to be studied
  • Can be used if overt observation would lead to too artificial behaviour from observees
  • Researcher has to be skilled (to record info inconspicuously) + good in stressful situations (they have to be constantly alert, could even face physical danger)
• PROs of participant observation

  • Get verstehen
  • Good validity if covert
  • First-hand view could get more info than what would be revealed in an interview
• CONs of participant observation

  • Can break ethical guidelines for deception + integrity (if researcher had to do something illegal to gain group's trust) + protection (Sociologist Ken Pryce was murdered trying to observe organised drug crime in the Caribbean)
  • Irreproducible ➡️ highly unreliable
  • Not generalisable bc you can't practically study a larger no. of ppl
• Ethnography

  • Deeply embedding themselves into 'field site' to systematically document daily lives/interactions of a community. Helps develop in-depth understanding of why ppl interact the way they do.
  • Field site can be anything! From a school to a strip club
  • Ethnographer should avoid impacting field site + community & should be unbiased
  • Developing trust is imperative - community should be comfortable w/ researcher's presence
  • Qualitative
• PROs of ethnography

  • Develop rich understanding of the meaning of ppl's interactions
  • Disprove -ve stereotypes ab. population being studied
• CONs of ethnography

  • Hard to access field site/community
  • Rigorous ethnography needs sufficient time + funding
  • Researchers at risk of 'going native' ➡️ lose objectivity + introduce bias to data/insights gained
• 2 famous ethnographic studies (not including Willis!)

  1. Sudhir Venkatesh - 'Gang leader for a day'
  2. Phillipe Bourgois - 'Selling crack in El Barrio'
• Moore & Conn - covert unstructured participant observations

  • Moore disguised herself as an 85-year-old woman called 'Old Pat'
  • Wore make-up to look wrinkly + uneven shoes so she'd use a stick
  • Played 'Old Pat' in 114 US cities + 2 Canadian provinces
  • Was robbed, assaulted, faced abuse - her self-esteem suffered + started viewing herself as less important
  • Ethical issue of safety
  • Proved intense commitment