DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

Research Questions to Research

Design (SY7034)

Edmund Chattoe-Brown

ecb18@le.ac.uk

Thursdays 1500-1700 (Brookfield 0.24)

WEEK 4

1. Plan• Administration.

• More on quantitative rationales: Sullivan example.

• Gossip/rumour article example: Register.

• Another iteration of the one sentence RQ.

• Break.

• Two case studies of “interestingly problematic” OSRQ from last week.

• Scoping feasibility issues exercise.

• Responses to issues raised.

• Revisiting generalisation and comparison.

2. Administration

• Sound bites lectures advert.

• Returning question sheets: Problems with English/clarity.

• Register.

• Welcome.

See the everyday

in a new way

Looking at everyday objects, University of Leicester academics share their fresh perspectives in 10-minute lectures each lunchtime for a week.

Bring your lunch, and start to see the everyday in a new way.

www.le.ac.uk/socialworlds

3. The logic of quantitative research

All the technical issues are in the questions “what is the line?” and “how good a line is there?” The purpose of the line itself is obvious: Example of multivariate analysis.

4. Example: Sullivan• What “distinctive” thing does she do with the

theoretical concept of cultural capital?

• What is the research design for her paper?

• What is she attempting to show? (Abstract!)

• What does she find?

• What is the significance of what she finds?

• What are the limitations of her study?

5. Research design thoughts• Another example of an argument for a literature “gap”.

• It doesn’t matter if she measures cultural capital “correctly” or even if the idea of “correct” measures makes sense.

• This research has a significant “result” whatever the outcome (Bourdieu is partly/completely right/completely wrong) because it operationalises a theoretical concept using data.

• The paper has a lot to discuss based on a relatively small set of variables. It is not a shopping list of disconnected correlations many of which may turn out not to exist.

• Developing a “sensible” measure of cultural capital is useful science regardless.

6. Real GR article example• Register, Woody (2014) ‘Some Truths about the Rumors, Gossip,

Hearsay, and Innuendo Surrounding the Freeport Murder Mystery of 1914’, Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice, 18(1), pp. 50-67.

• A horrible example is useful too!

• Hypothesis that papers attributed to rumour things that they weren’t “allowed” to say (about abortion for example.)

• Not even the most basic research design: What would we have to do to test/warrant hypothesis? Apparent (unjustified) focus on print.

• Leads to “fun rambling” (discussion of novel related to case.)

• Poorly written: Not clear what is actually known or might be known (autopsy).

• Confirms the weakness of GR “theory”.

7. Exercise 1 (20 minutes)• Rewrite your one sentence question in the light of Bb

feedback and the discussion so far: 5 minutes? If you need to come up with a new RQ, try extra hard to avoid previous weaknesses.

• Pair up (perhaps with someone you haven’t already discussed your question with?)

• Take turns to comment on/critique these RQs. Be ready to write down the revised questions on a circulating sheet. These will be used in the second half of the class.

8. Break

• 10 minute “comfort break”.

9. Case study 1• Question: How media representation on prostitution affects its legalization

in the United Kingdom.

• Two states: Legal and illegal?

• Hypothesis: Once media representation becomes “sufficiently” positive (either in terms of “quantity” or duration) then legalisation occurs?

• Trying to find relationship from one example? (Prostitution doesn’t become legal/illegal repeatedly. Compare unemployment/crime relationship.)

• Why would it have an effect? Through politicians? Through voters? Too big a gap in the argument/process? Wrong “object of study” perhaps?

• Tricky point: After legalisation, media representation would almost have to change. Not actually a simple “variable” like unemployment.

• The importance of clarity and accuracy: What if I have misinterpreted this question completely?

10. Case study 2• Question: What are the kinds of reasons why international students make

foreign friends with difficulty?

• Qualitative: Why do international students think they make foreign friends with difficulty? (Still valuable: Why?)

• Quantitative: What “factors” are associated with small numbers of foreign friends? (Language skills?)

• Comparative: What are the differences between international students with few and many foreign friends? (Avoids potential question begging.)

• Alternate approach: How do international students meet foreign friends?

• Self awareness (and associated “misdirected” behaviour) may be part of the problem. Social behaviour is usually two sided. Observation?

• Do international students know how “foreigners” view them? (In the case of factors like prejudice, can they expect to know?)

11. Exercise 2 (35 minutes)• Latest OSRQs are projected.

• I am going to allocate you one belonging to somebody else. Think about the following questions:

– Does the question need clarifying?

– Qualitative or quantitative: Why?

– Easy/difficult as a Masters dissertation: Why or why not?

– Ethically challenging/dangerous: Why or why not?

– Who/what are the objects of study?

• No right answers just useful thoughts.

12. Revisiting generalisation• Qualitative research does not generalise like quantitative research does but

it should be able to generalise (Becker).

• Quantitative research with a random sample says the sample mean is the same as the population mean. But is it?

• Qualitative research says that “students” choose universities like this. Obviously if you studied Asian students you might not want to generalise to non Asian students.

• It also depends how much diversity you find and how big your sample is.

• There will always be some “noise”. That is why we have procedures like Grounded Theory.

• What would have to be true about the social world (or about his research) for Becker’s findings not to generalise?

13. Revisiting context• Almost the other side of the generalisation problem.

• Example: What aspects of the English education system do Kurdish immigrant children struggle with?

• Think about the wider question: What aspects of the English education system do immigrant children struggle with?

• How different do we think the answers will be? Why?

• Don’t just look for research on Kurds or you will miss what is almost certainly a large literature of case studies for other immigrant groups, much of which will probably overlap.

• A good way to expand an overspecialised research question and really to build on existing knowledge.

• So when we generalise we ask “Do we have good reason to think that this group will be significantly different from that group?”

14. Recap• So far, you should have read: One “reviewish” article, skimmed

articles all from the same journal and read one “typical” article in your chosen area. (You also have background from White and examples of “good research questions/designs”.)

• For next week read a “contrasting” second typical article.

• You have also devised and refined a OSRQ.

• If that has changed, you may need to “back date” your reading. (You can’t just come up with a “guess” question.)

• We are now moving towards the practicalities of your research though it is likely that the RQ will be further tuned as you read more and think about how to answer it.