Methods in Context

• The experimental group


  the group in an experiment that receives the variable being tested
• The control group


  the group that does not receive the experimental treatment.
• Reliability of Laboratory Experiments

  high levels of reliability because controls and standardized procedures allow for full replication and is a very detached method
• Pratical problems with lab experiments


  Society is a very complex phenomenon so it is impossible to identify and control all possible influential variables. Also can't be used to study the past and only study small samples
• Lack of informed consent - ethical problems of experiments


  Difficult to obtain from certain groups e.g children with learning difficulties who may not understand the nature and purpose of the experiment
• Deception - ethical problems of experiments


  E.g Milgram, in his studies of obedience to authority lied to research participants about the research purpose, telling them they were assisting in an experiment on learning - real purpose was to test people's willingness to obey orders to inflict pain
• Harm - ethical problems of experiments


  E.g In Milgram's experiments many research participants were observed to "sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips..." - though supporters of the study argue it can be justified ethically as it revealed dangers of blind obedience
• The Hawthorne Effect


  A change in a subject's behavior caused simply by the awareness of being studied - thus behaviour likely to be unnatural, artificial, not true-to-life leading to invalid data
• Free will


  Interpretivists argue humans, unlike objects, are free to make their own choices thus behaviour can only be understood in terms of these choices
• Field experiments (differ to lab experiments)


  Takes place in subject's natural surroundings rather than artificial laboratory environment, participants generally unaware they are subjects of an experiment, preventing Hawthorne effect
• Rosenhan's 'psuedopatient' experiment


  Study in which healthy individuals were admitted into mental hospitals after saying they were hearing voices. Once in, they acted normally but hospital staff still treated the as mentally ill. This suggests it was not patients' behaviour but 'schizophrenic' label that led to them being treated as sick
• AO3 Rosenhan's study


  The more realistic we make the situation, the less control we have over the variables that might be operating, so we cannot be certain that the causes we have identified are correct
• The comparative method


  Identify two groups of people that are alike in all major respects except for the one variable we are interested in then compare the groups to see if one difference between them has any effect
• Example of comparative method: Durkheim's study of suicide


  Hypthesised that low levels of integration of individuals into social groups caused high rates of suicide, argued Catholicism produced higher levels of integration than Protestantism, compared suicide rates predicting higher for Protestants, supported by OS of lower suiced rates among Catholics
• Advantages of comparative method


  Avoid artificiality, can be used to study the past and poses no ethical problems
• Disadvantages of comparative method


  Gives the researcher even less control over variables than field experiments do, so it can be even less certain whether a thought experiment really has discovered the cause of something
• Which type of lab experiments raise greater ethical problems?

  Those that involve real pupils - vulnerability and limited ability of understanding what is happening mean greater problems of deception, lack of informed consent and psychological damage
• Narrow focus of lab experiments


  Focusing one variable (e.g body language aspect of techer expectations) can allow researcher to isolate & examine one area thoroughly but means teacher expectations not seen in wider process of labelling and self fulfilling prophecy
• Charkin et al (1975) - lab experiment


  Used sample of 48 uni students to teach lesson to 10 y/o. 1/3 were told the boy was highly motivated and intelligent (high expectancy group). 1/3 told boy poorly motivated with low IQ (low expectancy group) and 1/3 no info. Conc: high expectancy group more eye contact and more encouraging body language than low expectancy
• Issues with Charkin et al study

  Although they identified the existence of positive and negative body language, they didn't examine how it might affect pupils' performance
• Practical problems of conducting experiments on teacher expectations in school


  Impossible to identify and control variables influencing this, small-scale lab settings cannot study role of large scale social factors and processes e.g impact on gov policies on educational achievement
• What does Rosenthal & Jacobson's (1968) study of Oak Community school illustrate?


  The difficulties of using field experiments to study teacher expectations
• Ethical problems of Rosenthal & Jacobson's study


  While 'Spurters' benefitted, remaining 80% of pupils did not, may have been held back educationally, receive less attention and encouragement from teachers
• Reliabilty of Rosenthal & Jacobson's study


  Their research design was relatively simple and so easy to repeat e.g within 5 years of og study, repeated 242 times
• Validity of Rosenthal & Jacobson's study


  Claimed that teachers' expectations were passed on through differences in the way they interacted with pupils, but they didnt carry out any observation of classroom interactions so had no data to support this claim
• Broader focus of Rosenthal & Jacobson's study


  Looked at the whole labelling process from teacher expectations through to their effect on pupils rather than examining single elements in isolation. Their study was also longitudinal allowing them to identify trends over time
• 5 main groups and settings in education - may make them difficult or easy to study


  Pupils, teachers, parents, classrooms and schools
• Hill (2005) - 3 major differences between studying young people and studying adults


  power and status, vulnerability, ability and understanding
• Power and status: researching pupils


  Young people - less, particularly in school (hierarchial institution), formal research methods tend to reinforce power differences

  Sociologists need to consider ways to overcome this (e.g group interviews) - though power and status differences arguably inevitable
• Ability and understanding: researching pupils


  Vocab, thinking skills, confidence and powers of self-expression likely to be more limited than adults particularly when trying to express abstract ideas - difficult to gain informed consent, less developed memory, pupils not a homogenous group
• Vulnerability and ethical issues: researching pupils


  Pupils more vulnerable to physical and psychological harm than adults due to limited power and ability, sociologist must consider if pupils' participation is necessary and whether they stand to benefit from it
• Laws and guidelines: researching pupils


  Child protection laws (e.g Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006) operate a vetting and barring scheme on adults working in schools which requires researchers to have DBS checks - may delay or prevent research
• Power and status: researching teachers


  Adults - more power and status due to their age, experience, and responsibility within the school, classroom reinforces power, 'my classroom', researcher may be viewed as a trespasser and may have to develop a 'cover
• Impression management: researching teachers


  Teachers accustomed to being observed and scrutinised (e.g Ofsted inspections) thus may be more willing to participate, 'put on an act' for pupils and others - Goffman refers to this as impression management (manipulate the impression others have of us
• Impression management --> Goffman 'social actors'


  Behave differently as we are acting out a role 'front stage' as opposed to when we are back stage, difficulty in getting backstage with teachers (staffroom small social place, newcomers may be treated with suspicion), head teachers may hand pick teachers etc.
• Gatekeepers: researching classrooms


  Access to classroom controlled by a wide range of gatekeepers (e.g laws, headteachers)
• Peer groups: researching classrooms

  Young people may be insecure about their identity and status, may be more sensitive to peer pressure and need to conform, e.g supervision of pupils answering questionnaires may be necessary
• Schools own data: researching schools


  Education is closely scrutinised and highly marketised, secondary data is publicly available about schools, 'data rich' but school records are confidential, data could be falsified by schools e.g to present an image and hide a truancy problem
• The law: researching schools


  Requires young people to attend school in order to be educated, 'captive population' researcher can know where everyone is but schools may view research as interfering on its functions
• Gatekeepers: researching schools


  (E.g Headteachers and governors) Have power to refuse researchers' access, may believe research will undermine teachers authority and interefere with work of school