A-Level Sociology (AQA) – Applying research methods to education

2.7 - Applying Research Methods to Education

4 min

Using unstructured interviews to study anti-school subcultures

A subculture refers to a group within society that holds distinct ideas and behaviours differing from the mainstream. An anti-school subculture specifically involves individuals who view education negatively and act in ways that reflect this attitude.

Advantages of unstructured interviews for studying anti-school subcultures

Building rapport with participants - Students in anti-school subcultures might be reluctant to discuss their school experiences. Unstructured interviews allow researchers to establish trust, encouraging more open and honest responses about their feelings towards education.
Handling sensitive topics - Education can be a delicate subject for these students. The informal nature of unstructured interviews means researchers can adapt their approach, tailoring questions to make participants feel at ease and more willing to share.
Enhancing data validity - Unlike rigid questionnaires, unstructured interviews let researchers adjust questions based on the student's responses or understanding, ensuring clearer communication and more accurate insights.
Reducing peer influence - Anti-school subcultures often foster disruptive classroom behaviour through peer encouragement. Conducting interviews away from group settings allows students to reflect individually, potentially providing more genuine answers.

Disadvantages of unstructured interviews in this context

Time-intensive process - These interviews take considerable time to conduct, often limiting the number of participants. With only a small sample, the findings may not fully represent the wider subculture.
Risk of interviewer effects - The presence of the interviewer might influence responses, as students could provide answers they believe are expected or that portray them more favourably, reducing the validity of the data.
Challenges with qualitative data - The qualitative nature of the data makes it difficult to compare responses across different students or to replicate the study, impacting its reliability.
Potential hostility from participants - Students with negative views on education might perceive the interviewer as another authority figure linked to school, leading to withheld truths or deliberate misinformation, which undermines data validity.

Using covert participant observation to investigate labelling

Labelling in education refers to the process where teachers assign certain characteristics or expectations to students, often unconsciously, which can influence student behaviour and performance. Covert participant observation, where the researcher joins the group without revealing their true purpose, is a method used to study such subtle interactions in a natural setting.

Advantages of covert participant observation for studying labelling

Capturing natural behaviour - Teachers may not be aware of their own labelling practices and might not discuss them in interviews. Observing them directly in the classroom allows researchers to witness these actions as they occur naturally.
Avoiding altered behaviour - If teachers knew they were being studied for labelling, they might consciously avoid such actions. Covert observation ensures the data reflects typical behaviour, increasing its validity.

Disadvantages of covert participant observation in this context

Ethical dilemmas - Deceiving teachers by not disclosing the true purpose of the researcher's presence raises ethical concerns. Crafting a believable cover story to gain access to a school setting can also be problematic from a moral standpoint.
Risk of researcher bias - Over time, the researcher might become too close to the teachers, losing objectivity. They could even begin to label students themselves, missing the original focus of the study.
Issues with reliability and representativeness - The unique nature of covert observation means the study cannot be easily replicated, reducing reliability. Additionally, it often involves a small sample, making findings less representative of broader educational settings.

Using closed questionnaires to explore parental attitudes to education

Parental attitudes towards education, whether supportive or critical, play a significant role in shaping student outcomes. Closed questionnaires, which feature predefined response options, are a common tool for gathering data on such attitudes from a wide audience quickly.

Advantages of closed questionnaires for assessing parental attitudes

Large-scale data collection - These questionnaires can be distributed to many parents at once, enabling a broad sample that enhances the representativeness of the findings.
Encouraging honesty through privacy - Completing a questionnaire privately may prompt parents to be more truthful about their views, especially if they hold negative opinions about education, compared to face-to-face interviews.
Ease of replication for reliability - The structured format allows the study to be repeated over time, providing reliable data to track shifts in parental attitudes.

Disadvantages of closed questionnaires in this context

Potential for dishonesty - Parents might not reveal their true feelings, opting for socially desirable answers, which decreases the validity of the data.
Limited depth in responses - Closed questions restrict parents from elaborating on their views, which can be a drawback when exploring complex attitudes towards education.
Sample bias risk - If parents link the questionnaire to the school, those with positive attitudes might be more likely to respond, skewing the sample and reducing the validity and representativeness of the results.

Using official statistics to analyse mixed-ability teaching

Mixed-ability teaching involves grouping students of varying academic abilities in the same class, one of several organisational strategies in schools alongside setting and streaming. Official statistics, which include both hard (objective) and soft (potentially subjective) data, are often used to evaluate the effectiveness of such teaching methods.

Advantages of using official statistics for studying mixed-ability teaching

Reliability of hard statistics - Hard statistics, such as raw exam results, are objective and cannot be easily manipulated by schools to present mixed-ability teaching in a biased light, ensuring reliable secondary data.
Ease of comparison with quantitative data - These statistics allow for straightforward comparisons across different groups, such as by gender, age, or school type, and over different time periods to assess trends in outcomes.

Disadvantages of using official statistics in this context

Validity concerns with soft statistics - Soft statistics, like teacher-reported outcomes, may be adjusted by schools to highlight successes in mixed-ability teaching, calling into question their accuracy.
Lack of explanatory depth - Official statistics provide numerical data but do not explain the reasons behind student achievement in mixed-ability settings, unlike more qualitative methods such as interviews.
Variability across school types - In selective schools, the range of abilities in mixed classes is narrower than in non-selective schools, which can distort the data and affect the overall analysis of mixed-ability teaching effectiveness.