Primary Sources of Data: Qualitative Methods (WJEC Eduqas GCSE Sociology): Revision Note

In-depth interviews are much more flexible than standardised methods, as the interviewer can clarify any questions and ask probing follow-up questions.

In-depth interviews are time-consuming and expensive, as interviewers need to be trained and paid a salary.

They offer the opportunity for the respondent to express their views in their own words and bring up significant points that the researcher had not considered.

It can be challenging to get interviewees to open up and continue the conversation, even with training. The validity of the data is impacted if interviewees are not very talkative.

Researchers can collect rich, detailed data that helps them understand the interviewees' experiences.

Without a standardised interview schedule, it is difficult to replicate an in-depth interview, so reliability is low.

In-depth interviews allow more complex issues to be explored in comparison to standardised methods, so the data collected has high validity.

Compared to survey research, fewer in-depth interviews can be conducted, so the sample size is relatively small. As a result, generalisability is difficult.

Sociologists can develop a strong rapport with interviewees, which allows them to delve deeper into sensitive topics.

The findings will not be valid if the interviewer unintentionally influences the interviewee or poses leading questions. This is known as the interviewer effect.

Feminist sociologists, e.g., Ann Oakley, prefer in-depth interviews because they believe that the interviewee and interviewer have an equal relationship. This means that the interviewees can express their experiences and feelings.

As with structured interviews, interview bias is a problem, as the interview situation may influence interviewees to give answers that they think are 'right' or those that present them in a positive light (social desirability bias). This means that the data collected lacks validity.

Group interviews give researchers access to a variety of perspectives and experiences, making them a valuable source of information on topics.

The interviewees can influence one another. Some may dominate the conversation, meaning that not everyone's voice will be heard.

Interviewing individuals collectively allows the researcher to save time and money.

Practical issues, as the researcher may find it difficult to manage the group, especially when the topics are sensitive.

Because of the support of others, people might feel more at ease talking about their experiences in a group setting.

Transcription of the group interview becomes challenging if interviewees talk over one another.

Group interviews could provide the researcher with fresh concepts to investigate.

Potential ethical issues, as the research cannot guarantee confidentiality in group interviews.

Overt PO: the group is aware of the researcher's identity.

There are no ethical issues, as informed consent can be obtained from participants.

The researcher's presence may change the behaviour of the group that is being studied (the observer effect or Hawthorne effect).

Covert PO: the group is unaware of the researcher's identity.

It may be the only way to study topics related to illegal activity, and the observer or Hawthorne effect is avoided. Therefore, the data collected is valid.

Ethical issues arise as the people being observed have not given informed consent, and their privacy is invaded. Taking notes is challenging as the researcher's identity is hidden.

Unlike standardised approaches like surveys, researchers can observe a group in its natural, everyday environment.

PO is often more expensive and time-consuming than other research techniques.

They are typically conducted over a long period of time to allow the researcher to establish a rapport with the participants. This means that valid data can be collected.

The researcher may become so involved with the group that the findings are biased. Since it is hard to maintain objectivity in a PO, the data gathered lacks validity.

The researcher can gain a deeper understanding by considering things from the group's point of view. This helps them to collect rich, in-depth data.

A PO is unique, so it would be impossible to replicate to check the reliability of the findings. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise about similar groups.

A PO might be the only option available for groups that refuse to be interviewed, such as drug users and religious cults.

It may be difficult for the researcher to enter the group being studied. It may be challenging to build trust once they are allowed in.

Non-participant observations may use an observation schedule, so it is possible to replicate in order to check reliability. Therefore, generalising is possible.

As the observer is on the outside of the group, it is difficult to establish a rapport with the participants. This affects the validity of the data collected.

Non-participant observers are less likely than participant observers to get too involved in the group's activities. They can remain more objective, so the data gathered has high validity.

It is more difficult for the observer to gain a deeper understanding of the participant's social world or group dynamics, as they do not participate in it. This affects the validity of the data collected.