Sample summary

Social Research Methods

9780199588053_A01.indd i 10/20/11 4:25 PM

This page intentionally left blank

Social
Research
Methods

Alan Bryman

Fourth edition

1

9780199588053_A01.indd iii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© Alan Bryman 2012

The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)

First edition 2001
Second edition 2004
Third edition 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011938966

Typeset by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong
Printed and bound in China
by C&C Offset Printing Co. Ltd

ISBN 978–0–19–958805–3

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9780199588053_A01.indd iv 10/20/11 4:25 PM

For Sophie and Daniel

9780199588053_A01.indd v 10/20/11 4:25 PM

This page intentionally left blank

edition were developed in conjunction with her. I also
wish to thank Alan Radley, Darrin Hodgetts, and Andrea
Cullen for their permission to include two photographs
from their study of images of homelessness and to
Sarah Pink for her permission to use an image from her
research on women and bullfi ghting. I also wish to thank
the Nottingham Evening Post for their kind permission to
reproduce two newspaper articles in Chapter 13. The
photograph in Plate 19.5 is Copyright DaimlerChrysler
Corporation and is used with permission. I wish to thank
the students who completed the questionnaires that were
used for preparing the ‘Student experience’ features of
this new edition. I also wish to thank the reviewers who
prepared helpful comments on the previous editions for
Oxford University Press. Finally, I would like to thank Sue
for all the hard work she has put into proof-reading this
and earlier editions of the book. I rely very much on her
attention to detail.

As usual, Sue, Sarah, and Darren have supported me
in many ways and put up with my anxieties and with my
sudden disappearances to my study. When Sarah became
a university student herself, she gave me many insights
into a consumer’s perspective on a book like this, for
which I am grateful. Everyone except me is, of course,
absolved of any responsibility for any of the book’s sub-
stantive defi ciencies.

Acknowledgements

Many people have helped me with this book, many
of them unwittingly. Generations of research methods
students at Loughborough University and the University
of Leicester have plied me with ideas through their ques-
tioning of what I have said to them. I wish to thank
several people at or connected with OUP: Tim Barton for
suggesting to me in the fi rst place that I might like to
think about writing a book like this; Angela Griffi n for
her editorial help during the passage of the fi rst edition
of this book; Patrick Brindle and Katie Allan for their help
and suggestions during the preparation of this revised
edition; Angela Adams for her constant support and
encouragement with the revised and third edition; Kirsty
Reade for copious support and suggestions in the course
of preparing the fourth edition; Hilary Walford for her
attention to detail when copy-editing the typescript;
Philippa Hendry for steering the production of the book;
and Sarah Brett and Lucy Hyde for help with earlier
editions. I also wish to thank Alan Beardsworth for his
helpful and always constructive comments on drafts of
the fi rst edition of the book and Michael Billig for valu-
able comments on part of the fi rst edition. I would like to
say a big thank you to Emma Bell who worked with me on
the fi rst, revised, and third editions of the business school
adaptation of this book, Business Research Methods. Many
of the changes that have been incorporated in the present

9780199588053_A01.indd vii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

This page intentionally left blank

Brief contents

Detailed contents xi

About the author xxiv

Introducing the students xxv

Guide to the book xxxi

Guided tour of textbook features xxxvi

Guided tour of the ORC: lecturer resources xxxviii

Guided tour of the ORC: student resources xxxix

Abbreviations xl

Part One 1

1 The nature and process of social research 3

2 Social research strategies 18

3 Research designs 44

4 Planning a research project and formulating research questions 79

5 Getting started: reviewing the literature 97

6 Ethics and politics in social research 129

Part Two 157

7 The nature of quantitative research 159

8 Sampling 183

9 Structured interviewing 208

10 Self-completion questionnaires 231

11 Asking questions 245

12 Structured observation 269

13 Content analysis 288

14 Secondary analysis and offi cial statistics 310

15 Quantitative data analysis 329

16 Using IBM SPSS for Windows 353

Part Three 377

17 The nature of qualitative research 379

18 Sampling in qualitative research 415

19 Ethnography and participant observation 430

20 Interviewing in qualitative research 468

21 Focus groups 500

22 Language in qualitative research 521

23 Documents as sources of data 542

24 Qualitative data analysis 564

25 Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis: using NVivo 590

9780199588053_A01.indd ix 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Brief contentsx

Part Four 611

26 Breaking down the quantitative/qualitative divide 613

27 Mixed methods research: combining quantitative and qualitative research 627

28 E-research: Internet research methods 653

29 Writing up social research 683

Glossary 709

References 718

Name index 744

Index 750

9780199588053_A01.indd x 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents

About the author xxiv

Introducing the students xxv

Guide to the book xxxi

Guided tour of textbook features xxxvi

Guided tour of the ORC: lecturer resources xxxviii

Guided tour of the ORC: student resources xxxix

Abbreviations xl

Part One 1

Chapter 1 The nature and process of social research 3

Introduction 4
What is meant by ‘social research’? 4
Why do social research? 5
The context of social research methods 5
Elements of the process of social research 8
Literature review 8
Concepts and theories 8
Research questions 9
Sampling cases 11
Data collection 12
Data analysis 13
Writing up 14
The messiness of social research 15
Key points 16
Questions for review 16

Chapter 2 Social research strategies 18

Introduction 19
Theory and research 20
What type of theory? 21
Deductive and inductive theory 24
Epistemological considerations 27
A natural science epistemology: positivism 27
Interpretivism 28
Ontological considerations 32
Objectivism 32
Constructionism 33
Relationship to social research 34
Research strategy: quantitative and qualitative research 35

9780199588053_A01.indd xi 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxii

Infl uences on the conduct of social research 39
Values 39
Practical considerations 41
Key points 42
Questions for review 42

Chapter 3 Research designs 44

Introduction 45
Criteria in social research 46
Reliability 46
Replication 47
Validity 47
Relationship with research strategy 48
Research designs 50
Experimental design 50
Cross-sectional design 59
Longitudinal design(s) 63
Case study design 66
Comparative design 72
Bringing research strategy and research design together 76
Key points 77
Questions for review 77

Chapter 4 Planning a research project and formulating

research questions 79

Introduction 80
Getting to know what is expected of you by your
institution 80
Thinking about your research area 81
Using your supervisor 81
Managing time and resources 82
Formulating suitable research questions 85
Criteria for evaluating research questions 90
Writing your research proposal 92
Preparing for your research 92
Doing your research and analysing your results 93
Checklist 94
Key points 95
Questions for review 95

Chapter 5 Getting started: reviewing the literature 97

Reviewing the existing literature 98
Getting the most from your reading 98
Systematic review 102
Narrative review 110
Searching the existing literature 113
Electronic databases 113
Keywords and defi ning search parameters 118
Referencing your work 120
The role of the bibliography 123
Avoiding plagiarism 124

9780199588053_A01.indd xii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents xiii

Checklist 127
Key points 127
Questions for review 128

Chapter 6 Ethics and politics in social research 129

Introduction 130
Ethical principles 135
Harm to participants 135
Lack of informed consent 138
Invasion of privacy 142
Deception 143
Ethics and the issue of quality 143
The diffi culties of ethical decision-making 148
New media and diffi cult decisions 149
Politics in social research 149
Checklist 153
Key points 154
Questions for review 154

Part Two 157

Chapter 7 The nature of quantitative research 159

Introduction 160
The main steps in quantitative research 160
Concepts and their measurement 163
What is a concept? 163
Why measure? 164
Indicators 164
Using multiple-indicator measures 166
Dimensions of concepts 167
Reliability and validity 168
Reliability 168
Validity 170
Refl ections on reliability and validity 173
The main preoccupations of quantitative researchers 175
Measurement 175
Causality 175
Generalization 176
Replication 177
The critique of quantitative research 178
Criticisms of quantitative research 178
Is it always like this? 179
Reverse operationism 180
Reliability and validity testing 180
Sampling 181
Key points 181
Questions for review 182

Chapter 8 Sampling 183

Introduction to survey research 184
Introduction to sampling 186

9780199588053_A01.indd xiii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxiv

Sampling error 188
Types of probability sample 190
Simple random sample 190
Systematic sample 191
Stratifi ed random sampling 192
Multi-stage cluster sampling 193
The qualities of a probability sample 195
Sample size 197
Absolute and relative sample size 197
Time and cost 198
Non-response 199
Heterogeneity of the population 200
Kind of analysis 201
Types of non-probability sampling 201
Convenience sampling 201
Snowball sampling 202
Quota sampling 203
Limits to generalization 205
Error in survey research 205
Key points 206
Questions for review 206

Chapter 9 Structured interviewing 208

Introduction 209
The structured interview 209
Reducing error due to interviewer variability 210
Accuracy and ease of data processing 211
Other types of interview 212
Interview contexts 213
More than one interviewee 213
More than one interviewer 214
In person or by telephone? 214
Computer-assisted interviewing 216
Conducting interviews 217
Know the schedule 217
Introducing the research 217
Rapport 218
Asking questions 219
Recording answers 219
Clear instructions 219
Question order 220
Probing 223
Prompting 224
Leaving the interview 225
Training and supervision 225
Problems with structured interviewing 227
Characteristics of interviewers 227
Response sets 227
The problem of meaning 228
The feminist critique 228
Key points 229
Questions for review 230

9780199588053_A01.indd xiv 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents xv

Chapter 10 Self-completion questionnaires 231

Introduction 232
Self-completion questionnaire or postal questionnaire? 232
Evaluating the self-completion questionnaire in relation to the
structured interview 233
Advantages of the self-completion questionnaire over the

structured interview 233
Disadvantages of the self-completion questionnaire in

comparison with the structured interview 234
Steps to improve response rates to postal questionnaires 236
Designing the self-completion questionnaire 237
Do not cramp the presentation 237
Clear presentation 237
Vertical or horizontal closed answers? 237
Clear instructions about how to respond 239
Keep question and answers together 239
Diaries as a form of self-completion questionnaire 239
Advantages and disadvantages of the diary as a method of

data collection 243
Key points 243
Questions for review 243

Chapter 11 Asking questions 245

Introduction 246
Open or closed questions? 246
Open questions 246
Closed questions 249
Types of questions 253
Rules for designing questions 254
General rules of thumb 254
Specifi c rules when designing questions 255
Vignette questions 261
Piloting and pre-testing questions 263
Using existing questions 264
Checklist 265
Key points 266
Questions for review 267

Chapter 12 Structured observation 269

Introduction 270
Problems with survey research on social behaviour 270
So why not observe behaviour? 272
The observation schedule 275
Strategies for observing behaviour 276
Sampling 277
Sampling people 277
Sampling in terms of time 278
Further sampling considerations 278
Issues of reliability and validity 279
Reliability 279
Validity 280
Field stimulations as a form of structured observation 282

9780199588053_A01.indd xv 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxvi

Criticisms of structured observation 283
On the other hand . . . 284
Checklist 285
Key points 285
Questions for review 286

Chapter 13 Content analysis 288

Introduction 289
What are the research questions? 291
Selecting a sample 293
Sampling media 293
Sampling dates 293
What is to be counted? 295
Signifi cant actors 295
Words 295
Subjects and themes 297
Dispositions 298
Coding 298
Coding schedule 298
Coding manual 299
Potential pitfalls in devising coding schemes 303
Advantages of content analysis 304
Disadvantages of content analysis 306
Checklist 307
Key points 308
Questions for review 308

Chapter 14 Secondary analysis and offi cial statistics 310

Introduction 311
Other researchers’ data 312
Advantages of secondary analysis 312
Limitations of secondary analysis 315
Accessing the Data Archive 316
Offi cial statistics 320
Reliability and validity 322
Condemning and resurrecting offi cial statistics 324
Offi cial statistics as a form of unobtrusive method 325
Key points 327
Questions for review 327

Chapter 15 Quantitative data analysis 329

Introduction 330
A small research project 331
Missing data 333
Types of variable 335
Univariate analysis 337
Frequency tables 337
Diagrams 337
Measures of central tendency 338
Measures of dispersion 339
Bivariate analysis 339
Relationships not causality 341

9780199588053_A01.indd xvi 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents xvii

Contingency tables 341
Pearson’s r 341
Spearman’s rho 344
Phi and Cramér’s V 344
Comparing means and eta 344
Multivariate analysis 345
Could the relationship be spurious? 345
Could there be an intervening variable? 345
Could a third variable moderate the relationship? 346
Statistical signifi cance 347
The chi-square test 348
Correlation and statistical signifi cance 349
Comparing means and statistical signifi cance 350
Checklist 350
Key points 351
Questions for review 351

Chapter 16 Using IBM SPSS for Windows 353

Introduction 354
Getting started in SPSS 355
Beginning SPSS 355
Entering data in the Data Viewer 356
Defi ning variables: variable names, missing values, variable

labels, and value labels 357
Recoding variables 359
Computing a new variable 359
Data analysis with SPSS 361
Generating a frequency table 361
Generating a bar chart 363
Generating a pie chart 363
Generating a histogram 363
Generating the arithmetic mean, median, standard deviation,

the range, and boxplots 363
Generating a contingency table, chi-square, and Cramér’s V 366
Generating Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho 368
Generating scatter diagrams 368
Comparing means and eta 372
Generating a contingency table with three variables 372
Further operations in SPSS 373
Saving your data 373
Retrieving your data 374
Printing output 374
Key points 374
Questions for review 374

Part Three 377

Chapter 17 The nature of qualitative research 379

Introduction 380
The main steps in qualitative research 384
Theory and research 387

9780199588053_A01.indd xvii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxviii

Concepts in qualitative research 388
Reliability and validity in qualitative research 389
Adapting reliability and validity for qualitative research 389
Alternative criteria for evaluating qualitative research 390
Recent discussions about quality criteria for qualitative

research 393
Between quantitative and qualitative research criteria 394
Overview of the issue of criteria 397
The main preoccupations of qualitative researchers 399
Seeing through the eyes of the people being studied 399
Description and the emphasis on context 401
Emphasis on process 402
Flexibility and limited structure 403
Concepts and theory grounded in data 404
The critique of qualitative research 405
Qualitative research is too subjective 405
Diffi cult to replicate 405
Problems of generalization 406
Lack of transparency 406
Is it always like this? 407
Some contrasts between quantitative and qualitative research 407
Some similarities between quantitative and qualitative research 409
Feminism and qualitative research 410
Key points 412
Questions for review 413

Chapter 18 Sampling in qualitative research 415

Introduction 416
Levels of sampling 417
Purposive sampling 418
Theoretical sampling 418
Generic purposive sampling 422
Snowball sampling 424
Sample size 425
Not just people 427
Using more than one sampling approach 427
Key points 428
Questions for review 429

Chapter 19 Ethnography and participant observation 430

Introduction 431
Access 433
Overt versus covert ethnography 433
Access to closed settings 435
Access to open/public settings 436
Ongoing access 439
Key informants 439
Roles for ethnographers 440
Active or passive? 446
Field notes 447
Types of fi eld notes 450

9780199588053_A01.indd xviii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents xix

Bringing ethnographic research to an end 452
Can there be a feminist ethnography? 453
The rise of visual ethnography 455
Writing ethnography 462
The changing nature of ethnography 464
Key points 466
Questions for review 466

Chapter 20 Interviewing in qualitative research 468

Introduction 469
Differences between the structured interview and the
qualitative interview 470
Asking questions in the qualitative interview 471
Preparing an interview guide 472
Kinds of questions 476
Recording and transcription 482
Telephone interviewing 488
Life history and oral history interviewing 488
Feminist research and interviewing in qualitative research 491
Qualitative interviewing versus participant observation 493
Advantages of participant observation in comparison to

qualitative interviewing 493
Advantages of qualitative interviewing in comparison to

participant observation 494
Overview 496
Checklist 497
Key points 498
Questions for review 498

Chapter 21 Focus groups 500

Introduction 501
Uses of focus groups 503
Conducting focus groups 504
Recording and transcription 504
How many groups? 505
Size of groups 507
Level of moderator involvement 508
Selecting participants 509
Asking questions 511
Beginning and fi nishing 513
Group interaction in focus group sessions 513
Limitations of focus groups 516
Checklist 519
Key points 519
Questions for review 520

Chapter 22 Language in qualitative research 521

Introduction 522
Conversation analysis 522
Assumptions of conversation analysis 523
Transcription and attention to detail 525

9780199588053_A01.indd xix 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxx

Some basic tools of conversation analysis 525
Overview 527
Discourse analysis 528
Uncovering interpretative repertoires 531
Producing facts 533
Critical discourse analysis 536
Overview 538
Key points 540
Questions for review 540

Chapter 23 Documents as sources of data 542

Introduction 543
Personal documents 544
Diaries, letters, and autobiographies 544
Visual objects 546
Offi cial documents deriving from the state 549
Offi cial documents deriving from private sources 550
Mass-media outputs 552
Virtual documents 554
The reality of documents 554
Interpreting documents 556
Qualitative content analysis 557
Semiotics 559
Hermeneutics 560
Checklist 561
Key points 562
Questions for review 562

Chapter 24 Qualitative data analysis 564

Introduction 565
General strategies of qualitative data analysis 566
Analytic induction 566
Grounded theory 567
Basic operations in qualitative data analysis 575
Steps and considerations in coding 576
Turning data into fragments 577
Problems with coding 578
Thematic analysis 578
Narrative analysis 582
Secondary analysis of qualitative data 586
Key points 587
Questions for review 588

Chapter 25 Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis:

using NVivo 590

Introduction 591
Is CAQDAS like quantitative data analysis software? 591
No industry leader 592
Lack of universal agreement about the utility of CAQDAS 592
Learning NVivo 593
Coding 595

9780199588053_A01.indd xx 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contents xxi

Searching text 603
Memos 607
Saving an NVivo project 607
Opening an existing NVivo project 607
Final thoughts 608
Key points 608
Questions for review 609

Part Four 611

Chapter 26 Breaking down the quantitative/qualitative divide 613

Introduction 614
The natural science model and qualitative research 615
Quantitative research and interpretivism 617
Quantitative research and constructionism 618
Research methods and epistemological and ontological
considerations 618
Problems with the quantitative/qualitative contrast 619
Behaviour versus meaning 620
Theory and concepts tested in research versus theory and

concepts emergent from data 621
Numbers versus words 621
Artifi cial versus natural 621
The mutual analysis of quantitative and qualitative research 622
A qualitative research approach to quantitative research 622
A quantitative research approach to qualitative research 623
Quantifi cation in qualitative research 624
Thematic analysis 624
Quasi-quantifi cation in qualitative research 624
Combating anecdotalism through limited quantifi cation 624
Key points 625
Questions for review 625

Chapter 27 Mixed methods research: combining quantitative and

qualitative research 627

Introduction 628
The argument against mixed methods research 629
The embedded methods argument 629
The paradigm argument 629
Two versions of the debate about quantitative and qualitative
research 631
Approaches to mixed methods research 631
A content analysis of articles based on mixed methods

research 633
Approaches to combining quantitative and qualitative

research in mixed methods research 635
Refl ections on mixed methods research 649
Checklist 650
Key points 651
Questions for review 651

9780199588053_A01.indd xxi 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Detailed contentsxxii

Chapter 28 E-research: Internet research methods 653

Introduction 654
The Internet as object of analysis 654
Using the Internet to collect data from individuals 658
Online ethnography 659
Qualitative research using online focus groups 663
Qualitative research using online personal interviews 668
Online social surveys 670
Email surveys 670
Web surveys 671
Mixing modes of survey administration 672
Sampling issues 673
Overview 679
Ethical considerations in Internet research 679
The state of e-research 681
Key points 681
Questions for review 681

Chapter 29 Writing up social research 683

Introduction 684
Writing up your research 685
Start early 685
Be persuasive 685
Get feedback 686
Avoid sexist, racist, and disablist language 686
Structure your writing 686
Writing up quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research 692
Writing up quantitative research 692
Writing up qualitative research 695
Writing up mixed methods research 699
Academic writing 704
Checklist 706
Key points 707
Questions for review 707

Glossary 709

References 718

Name index 744

Index 750

9780199588053_A01.indd xxii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

This page intentionally left blank

About the author

Alan Bryman was appointed Professor of Organizational
and Social Research in the School of Management at the
University of Leicester in August 2005. He was head of the
School during 2008 and 2009. Prior to his move to Leicester,
he was Professor of Social Research at Loughborough Univer-
sity, where he had worked for thirty-one years.

His main research interests are in leadership, especially
in higher education, research methods (particularly mixed
methods research), and the ‘Disneyization’ and ‘McDonaldiza-
tion’ of modern society. In 2003–4 he completed a project
on mixed methods research, as part of the Economic and
Social Research Council’s Research Methods Programme.

This research has been used to inform Chapter 27. He also has an interest in the fi eld of
leadership and in leadership in higher education in particular.

He has published widely in the fi eld of Social Research, including: Quantitative Data
Analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 and 19: A Guide for Social Scientists (Routledge, 2011) with
Duncan Cramer; Business Research Methods (Oxford University Press, 3rd edition 2011)
with Emma Bell; The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Sage, 2004)
with Michael Lewis-Beck and Tim Futing Liao; The Disneyization of Society (Sage, 2004);
Handbook of Data Analysis (Sage, 2004) with Melissa Hardy; The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Research Methods (Sage, 2009) with David Buchanan; and The SAGE
Handbook of Leadership (Sage, 2011) with David Collinson, Keith Grint, Brad Jackson, and
Mary Uhl-Bien.

He has contributed articles to a range of academic journals including Journal of Manage-
ment Studies; Human Relations; International Journal of Social Research Methodology;
Leadership Quarterly; Leadership; Studies in Higher Education; and American Behavioral
Scientist. He is also on the editorial board of Leadership; Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International Journal; and the Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxiv 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the students

For many readers of this book one of the main reasons for using it will be to enable you
to undertake a research project of your own, perhaps for the fi rst time. With this in mind,
I have included boxed features entitled ‘Student experience’, which are based on the
experiences of undergraduate and postgraduate social science students who have done
a research project, usually as part of their fi nal year dissertation. The aim of these boxes is
to provide insight and advice based on the experiences of real students in their own words,
or in other words, to ‘tell it like it is’, as Nichols and Beynon (1977) have put it. This feature
is based on a set of questionnaires completed by undergraduate and postgraduate students
from a variety of different UK university social science departments. The main point of this
feature is to provide you with insights into the experiences of student researchers. Profi les
of each of the students are given below, and the original questionnaires can be downloaded
in the form of podcasts from the Online Resource Centre at:

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

I will now introduce the students who have provided input that has informed the writing
of the ‘Student experience’ feature of this book. I am extremely grateful to them for being
willing to share their experiences of doing a research project and hope that sharing what
they have learned from this process with the readers of this book will enable others to bene-
fi t from their experience. A number of these students assisted on the previous edition of
this book and their biographies below refl ect their research interests at that time.

Rebecca Barnes
Rebecca Barnes was in the fi nal stages of writing up her Ph.D. in the School of Sociology
and Social Policy, University of Nottingham. Rebecca’s thesis examined the issue of vio-
lence and abuse in women’s same-sex intimate relationships. Her research is one of only a
few studies on this topic in the UK. Rebecca adopted a qualitative methodology, conduct-
ing semi-structured, in-depth interviews with forty women who self-defi ned as having
been abused in a previous same-sex relationship. She carried out her interviews across
England and parts of Wales, using online avenues and various forms of advertising to
recruit her sample. Rebecca’s research experiences have fuelled her interest in methodo-
logical issues, and, in particular, the ethical issues that are raised by ‘sensitive’ research.
She has since been appointed Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Derby, where much
of her teaching relates to research methods.

Jez Clark
Jez Clark graduated in 2007 with First Class Honours from the University of East Anglia,
Norwich. Jez studied Politics with Media with a fi nal year internship at an advertising
agency at which he wrote on the evolution of political advertising. During his second year
Jez undertook a ‘Methods of Social Research’ project exploring student perceptions of aca-
demic provision and support during university. His report focused on the academic issues
and problems that individuals may face, and examined whether the UEA advisory system
was providing adequate support. The information was collected by questionnaire, using

9780199588053_A01.indd xxv 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the studentsxxvi

a combination of systematic probability and stratifi ed random sampling. The data taken
from these were collated and analysed (if answers could be coded) using the SPSS data
programme; un-coded, ‘open’ responses were independently assessed.

Hannah Creane
Hannah Creane completed her undergraduate degree in Sociology with Law at Durham
University. She fi nished her studies in 2007. The aim of Hannah’s research project was to
explore the generational changes within childhood. Hannah had always been interested in
the development of the person from child to adult, and in particular the social construction
of childhood. This interest was furthered after carrying out a pilot project in 2005 explor-
ing the importance of sibling relationships in the development of the child. Hannah’s
project was based on the question of what makes a child a child as opposed to an adult, and
to what extent this has changed across the generations. Her research was based on nine
semi-structured interviews; she chose this research method in order to avoid limiting the
response of the people she was interviewing. She created three distinct age brackets: 0–29,
30–59, and 60+, and then interviewed three people from each age bracket in order to
ensure an equal representation for each generation.

Mark Girvan
Mark is a 2011 graduate of the University of Strathclyde, where he studied BA Politics. In
his third year he was part of a team that carried out quantitative research with regard to
voting behaviour prior to the 2010 UK general elections. Using an experimental research
design, the group compiled two separate questionnaires that differed in terms of question
structure and wording. Respondents were asked how they would vote in a referendum on
Scottish independence. The aim was to determine the effect upon the respondents’ vote by
varying the number of options available to them. The effect of emotive language upon voter
response was also examined by varying question wording between the questionnaires.

Cornelius Grebe
Cornelius did a Ph.D. in Social Policy and Administration at the University of Nottingham.
His thesis used qualitative research to analyse German reconciliation of paid employment
and care work policy. Cornelius combined a contextual social constructionist paradigm of
enquiry with a feminist point of view analysing parental leave, childcare, anti-discrimination,
and working-time policies. He was interested in how policy ‘solutions’ shape our under-
standing of the social ‘problem’ of the incompatibility of paid employment and care work.
Cornelius employed documentary analysis concentrating on enacted and proposed
legislation.

Amy Knight
Amy Knight graduated from the University of Portsmouth in 2010 with an Upper
Second Class in Politics and Sociology. In her third year Amy completed primary research
concerning the recycling patterns of males and females. The main objective of Amy’s
research project was to identify gender differences regarding individuals’ recycling habits
and understand the reasons why differences occur. Amy designed and completed inter-
views and questionnaires, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. The data
was inputted and predominantly analysed using SPSS. ‘Open-ended’ questions from the
interview were assessed independently.

Sarah Hanson
In 2006 Sarah completed a three-year BA Honours degree in English and Sociology at the
University of Derby. In her fi nal year Sarah focused her dissertation on the sociological

9780199588053_A01.indd xxvi 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the students xxvii

impact of women’s magazines, through a combination of contextual and coded analysis. By
using a system of content analysis that was fair and unbiased, Sarah was able to discover
other meanings behind the structure of the magazines’ front covers. Well-documented
theories of feminism and the construction of gender and stereotypes allowed Sarah to
decode the results, and she was thus able to break down the magazine covers to disclose
their true meaning.

Sophie Mason
Sophie Mason studied at the University of East Anglia undertaking a three-year course for
a BA in Society, Culture and Media. In 2005–6 she carried out a research project, which
formed an integral part of her course. Her project was based on the views and experiences
of students at the University of East Anglia. The project involved both qualitative and quan-
titative research on an individual and group scale, which required excellent organizational
skills. Sophie felt it was important to consider the views of students from all demographics
in order to gain a reliable understanding of individuals’ university experiences. The project
spanned three months from initial proposal to completion.

William J. Mason
William J. Mason began his undergraduate studies in sociology at the University of
Sheffi eld in 2005. During his fi nal year he secured funding to continue onto postgraduate
study via the 1+3 ESRC quota studentship award. He then completed a Master’s degree in
Sociological Research Methods and graduated with a 2:1. He is currently in the second
year of his Ph.D. William’s doctoral research focuses on young people’s risk behaviours and
resilience thereof. These topics are considered with reference to concepts of ethnicity,
interaction, and identity. Here an ethnographic approach is employed in order to generate
data that refl ect the mundane experiences of youth workers and young people within two
areas of an industrial city in the north of England. This is a voice that has been largely
neglected within previous research concerning the areas in question. Information of this
nature will highlight the role/impact of community-led organizations in terms of providing
a protective environment for young people, alongside considering the conceptualization
of, and motivations underlying, risk taking, thus contributing to sociological understand-
ings of risk, ethnicity, identity, and health.

Gareth Matthews
Gareth completed a BA in Sociology at the University of Nottingham in 2002, and then
went on to complete an MA in Research Methods. Over this time he developed an interest
in industrial sociology and, more specifi cally, Marxist approaches to labour process ana-
lysis, both of which stemmed from his personal experience in a variety of work settings. At
present he is writing a thesis on the employment of migrant workers in the UK’s hospitality
industry, drawing on data from in-depth interviews held with employers and managers
of hotels, bars, and restaurants in the Brighton and Hove area. The research seeks to chal-
lenge many of the connections that have recently been forged between the theoretical, ana-
lytical, and methodological approach to the study of the labour process, with a particular
emphasis on the potential role of economic-geographical perspectives in reasserting the
notion of ‘place’ into a revitalized empirical agenda.

Alice Palmer
Alice graduated with First Class Honours from the University of Sheffi eld in 2009. Alice
studied Sociology and continued to complete a Masters in International Childhood Studies
with Distinction. Alice’s research topics include the changing role of stay-at-home mothers,
young people’s understanding of their rights under the United Nations Convention on the

9780199588053_A01.indd xxvii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the studentsxxviii

Rights of the Child, and children’s embodied experiences. Alice has worked as a researcher
for the Policy Evaluation Group and is currently studying for a Ph.D. funded by the Uni-
versity of Sheffi eld. Alice’s research methods refl ect her feminist political stance and belief
in creating reciprocal relationships between researcher and subject. Research methods
used in studies so far include in-depth unstructured and semi-structured interviews, and
focus groups.

Isabella Robbins
Isabella embarked on her fi rst degree following the birth of her third child, and a twenty-
fi ve-year career as a professional nurse. She studied Sociology in order to help her make
sense of her world. Having obtained a BA Hons in Sociology at the University of Nottingham,
she took up an ESRC 1+3 studentship at the University of Nottingham. Her research inter-
est concerns contemporary motherhood and the particular issue of how mothers account
for their vaccination decisions. Her interest in this stems from her own experience of
motherhood and the inherent contradictions and challenges of mothering. In order to
explore this issue, she undertook a qualitative research study. She has just submitted her
Ph.D. thesis.

Erin Sanders
Erin recently completed her M.Sc. in gender and politics at Birkbeck College, University of
London. She became interested in how women were affected by development politics, and
began investigating how sex workers were impacted by policies implemented in various
developing countries. Her thesis research project focused on Thai NGOs that were working
with female sex workers, investigating to what extent the organizations were representing
women’s interests. Her study was qualitative and incorporated feminist methodologies;
semi-structured interviews were carried out with NGO representatives and sex workers in
Bangkok and Chiang Mai. Erin is now working on her Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham,
exploring female tourism in Thailand.

Jack Sayers
Jack Sayers is a student at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, where he is studying
Philosophy and Politics BA. In his second year of the programme he studied the unit Methods
of Social Research, in which he created his report. The group focused on student satisfac-
tion with university accommodation—interviewing those staying in halls of residences to
attain their results. Jack’s report focused on the services provided by the university, both
within the halls of residences and within the university itself. He compared the satisfac-
tion levels of male and female participants to fi nd out whether there was any deviation in
their views.

Alexandra Scherer
Alexandra is in the second year of her Ph.D. at the University of Surrey, currently collecting
data through interviews with children in a London primary school. Alexandra’s research is
concerned with minority children reading picture books. Prior to starting her ESRC-funded
1+3 studentship, Alexandra was a primary school teacher. She became fascinated by the
deeper readings children made of picture books. Alexandra’s fi rst degree was in English
Literature at Manchester University, where she also took a Masters in Children’s Literature
and Illustration.

Jonathan Smetherham
Jonathan was awarded the John Westergaard Prize from the University of Sheffi eld in 2009
for his fi nal year dissertation in Sociological Studies (BA). The research was a seven-week

9780199588053_A01.indd xxviii 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the students xxix

ethnographic study in rural Guatemala, investigating the implications of Western develop-
ment agendas for local populations and focusing on the role of non-governmental organ-
izations. After graduation, Jonathan worked for the Offi ce for National Statistics, where his
fi rst post involved coordinating government input into key longitudinal studies, providing
support to the Virtual Microdata Laboratory, and facilitating the transition of the Secure
Data Service. During this time he also completed an M.Sc. (part-time) in Social Research
Methods with the Open University.

Emma Taylor
Emma Taylor is a student at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, where she is studying
for a BA Honours degree in Politics. In her third year Emma participated in a ‘Research Methods
for Political Scientists’ class, which involved research methods and group project work
based around a contemporary social issue of the group’s choice. Being aware of the recent
changes to licensing laws in Scotland, the group decided to develop a means of assessing
both student and public attitudes towards these changes. The report focused on investigat-
ing whether the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 [2009] would have a profound effect on
individuals’ drinking behaviour, attitudes, and support for licensing laws in general. In
order to assess these assumptions, Emma and her group developed a structured survey,
which was distributed through face-to-face interviews and involved accidental sampling,
after which the data were analysed using PASW. Moreover, in her Honours year Emma was
required to submit a dissertation. As her interests involve British political behaviour and
the salience of contemporary social and political issues, Emma decided to produce a quan-
titative thesis. The aim of her study was to identify whether issue salience had affected
electoral turnout in both the 2005 and 2010 British general elections. More specifi cally,
Emma focused on the perceived importance of the Iraq war for 2005, and the fi nancial
crisis for 2010, using data from the British Election Study.

Lily Taylor
Lily Taylor completed her undergraduate degree in 2007 from the University of East Anglia,
achieving a 2:1 in Society, Culture and Media. During her time studying Lily primarily
directed her units towards those focused on social research. Lily’s quantitative research
project explored areas surrounding academic life at the UEA and focused in depth on student
debt. The research methodology consisted of a questionnaire with a mixture of open- and
closed-ended questions, conducted in university accommodation and around campus,
using a random sampling technique. Exploring factors such as gender differences, living
arrangements, degree courses, and part-time jobs enabled Lily to distinguish groups of
people who were more likely to come out of university in debt than others, and the degree
to which they were worried about this.

Joe Thomson
Joe Thomson studied at the University of East Anglia fo r a BA degree in Politics with
Media. In his second year, Joe was encouraged to embark on a unit that would revolve
around social research and individual project work based on the surrounding university
environment. Like Jack Sayers, Joe’s project held the objective of trying to gauge and
understand the perspectives of UEA students with regards to accommodation and campus
facilities. His report focused upon a comparison of experiences between international and
UK/EU students, which highlighted issues such as security, inter-fl at relationships, and
services provided by the accommodation offi ce. In order to carry out his research, Joe used
a questionnaire design, as well as a combination of sampling methods: stratifi ed random
sampling and systematic probability sampling. Data gathered from interviews that could
be coded was taken, analysed, and inputted, using the SPSS data program.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxix 10/20/11 4:25 PM

Introducing the studentsxxx

Samantha Vandermark
Samantha graduated in 2010 with a First Class Honours in Sociology, Culture and Media
from the University of Surrey. Her dissertation was an exploratory project focused on the
government’s attempt to use advertising in order to raise awareness and prompt action on
the prevention of childhood obesity. Samantha used focus groups of mothers belonging to
various social groups in order to gauge an understanding of how social class, childhood
experiences, and deep-rooted values infl uenced parental techniques with regards to food.
Semiotic and discourse analyses of the advertising texts added an extra dimension to the
research, enabling comparisons between government messaging and parental beliefs.

Introducing the Supervisors

Nine supervisors also provided helpful feedback to inform the Supervisor experience
feature of the book. They kindly agreed to share their experiences of supervising students
doing research projects, and I hope this will add an interesting new perspective for readers
of the book. While they provided their feedback anonymously, I would like to acknowledge
their affi liations, which were Aberystwyth University, Bangor University, Brunel University,
University of Copenhagen, University of Leicester, University of Manchester, University of
Portsmouth, University of Roehampton, and University of Sheffi eld.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxx 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guide to the book

About the book

Focus of the book

This book has been written with two groups of readers
in mind. First, undergraduates in subjects such as socio-
logy, social policy, human geography, and education who
at some point in their degree take a course, and often
more than one course, in the area of research methods.
The book covers a wide range of research methods,
approaches to research, and ways of carrying out data
analysis, so it is likely to meet the needs of the vast
majority of students in this position.

The second group, which in most cases overlaps with
the fi rst, comprises undergraduates and postgraduates
who do a research project as part of the requirement for
their degree programmes. This can take many forms, but
one of the most common is that a small-scale research
project is carried out and a dissertation based on the
investigation is presented. In addition, students are often
expected to carry out mini-projects in relation to certain
modules. Chapter 4 has been written specifi cally for stu-
dents doing research projects. This chapter thus builds on
earlier discussion of research questions in Chapter 1, re-
inforcing a topic that is central to the whole process of
doing research. The accent in the chapters in Parts Two
and Three is on the practice of social research and as
such these chapters will be extremely useful in helping
students make informed decisions about doing their
research. In addition, when each research method is
examined, its uses and limitations are explored in order
to help students to make these decisions. In Part Four,
Chapter 29 provides advice on writing up research.

In addition to providing students with practical advice
on doing research, the book also explores the nature of
social research. This means that it attends to issues relat-
ing to fundamental concerns about what doing social
research entails. For example:

• Is a natural science model of the research process
applicable to the study of society?

• If not, why not?

• Why do some people feel it is inappropriate to employ
such a model?

• If we do use a natural science model, does that mean
that we are making certain assumptions about the
nature of social reality?

• Equally, do those writers and researchers who reject
such a model have an alternative set of assumptions
about the nature of social reality?

• What kind or kinds of research fi ndings are regarded
as legitimate and acceptable?

• To what extent do values have an impact on the
research process?

• Should we worry about the feelings of people outside
the research community concerning what we do to
people during our investigations?

These and many other issues impinge on research in
a variety of ways and will be confronted at different
stages throughout the book. While knowing how to do
research—how best to design a questionnaire, how to
observe, how to analyse documents, and so on—is crucial
to an education in research methods, so too is a broad
appreciation of the wider issues that impinge on the
practice of social research. Thus, so far as I am concerned,
the role of an education in research methods is not just
to provide the skills that will allow you to do your own
research, but also to provide you with the tools for a critical
appreciation of how research is done and with what
assumptions. One of the most important abilities that an
understanding of research methods and methodology
provides is an awareness of the need not to take evidence
that you come across (in books, journals, and so on) for
granted.

Why use this book?

There are likely to be two main circumstances in which
this book is in your hands at the moment. One is that you
have to study one or more modules in research methods
for a degree in one of the social sciences or there are
methodological components to one of your substantive
modules (for example, a module in organizational beha-
viour). The other is that you have to conduct an investi-
gation in a social scientifi c fi eld, perhaps for a dissertation

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxi 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guide to the bookxxxii

or project report, and you need some guidelines about
how to approach your study. It may be that you are
wondering why you need to study research methods as a
fi eld and why people like the author of this book do social
research at all.

Why is it important to study

methods?

To some students, there does not seem a great deal of
point to studying research methods. They might take the
view that, if they have to conduct an investigation, why
not adopt a ‘need to know’ approach? In other words,
why not just look into how to do your research when
you are on the verge of carrying out your investigation?
Quite aside from the fact that this is an extremely risky
strategy, it neglects the opportunities that a training
in research methods offers. In particular, you need to
bear in mind the following:

• A training in research methods sensitizes you to the
choices that are available to social researchers. In other
words, it makes you aware of the range of research
methods that can be employed to collect data and the
variety of approaches to the analysis of data. Such an
awareness will help you to make the most appropriate
choices for your project, since you need to be aware
of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to employ
particular techniques of data collection and analysis.

• A training in research methods provides you with an
awareness of the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ when employing
a particular approach to collecting or analysing data.
Thus, once you have made your choice of research
method (for example, a questionnaire), you need to
be aware of the practices you should follow in order to
implement that method properly. You also need to be
aware of the many pitfalls to be avoided.

• A training in research methods provides you with
insights into the overall research process. It provides a
general vantage point for understanding how research
is done. As such, it illuminates the various stages of
research, so that you can plan your research and think
about such issues as how your research methods will
connect with your research questions.

• A training in research methods provides you with
an awareness of what constitutes good and poor re-
search. It therefore provides a platform for developing
a critical awareness of the limits and limitations of
research that you read. This can be helpful in provid-
ing a critical reading of research that you encounter

for substantive modules in fi elds such as the sociology
of work or the sociology of consumption.

• The skills that a training in research methods imparts
are transferable ones. Knowing about how to sample,
how to design a questionnaire, how to conduct semi-
structured interviewing or focus groups and so on are
skills that are relevant to research in other spheres
(such as fi rms, public sector organizations, and so on).

• Studying research methods by using this book exposes
you to a multitude of examples from real-life research.
I have always learned a lot by reading research and
fi nding out how others have carried out research and
what lessons they seem to have learned. In view of
this, the book is full of examples. I have tried to illus-
trate most of the major points with an example and
often more than one. Most of my examples derive
from published research, and it is clearly the case that
you will fi nd it diffi cult to generate research of an
equivalent level because of your limited resources,
time, and experience. On the other hand, you can get
close, and it is important to learn about the bench-
marks that good practice in published work provide.
In your own research, it may be that, to use a well-
known term devised by Herbert Simon (1960), you
will need to satisfi ce. (Simon devised this term to forge
a contrast with the model of rational decision-making
that was pervasive in economics. He argued that,
when working in organizations, people satisfi ce when
they make decisions rather than fi nd the most appro-
priate means to achieve given ends. Satisfi cing means
that the search for an appropriate course of action
is governed by the principle of looking for what is
satisfactory, rather than for what is optimal.) The im-
portant issue is to know in what ways you are needing
to satisfi ce and what the implications are of doing so.

Thus, I feel that a training in research methods has much
to offer and that readers of this book will recognize the
opportunities and advantages that it provides.

Erin Sanders, one of the students who have contrib-
uted to this book, herself expresses the usefulness of a
knowledge of research methods for a student embarking
on a research project:

I think students often read a good deal around their
subject and have a working knowledge of the literature
about their topic—but rarely read about methods and
methodologies. Knowing about research methods is
incredibly helpful when conducting research, and too
often it is left out of the research process.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxii 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guide to the book xxxiii

Structure of the book

Social research has many different traditions, one of the
most fundamental of which is the distinction between
quantitative and qualitative research. This distinction
lies behind the structure of the book and the way in
which issues and methods are approached.

The book is divided into four parts.

Part One comprises six scene-setting chapters. It deals
with basic ideas about the nature of social research.

• Chapter 1 is concerned to outline some of the main
stages that arise in the course of doing most kinds of
social research. It also aims to explore some of the ways
in which social research is located in a wider context
in which a variety of factors infl uence why social re-
search is done in particular ways. Most of the topics
and areas covered in this chapter are addressed in
much greater detail in later chapters. The goal of the
chapter is to provide insights into some of the ground-
work associated with thinking about social research
methods and their practice.

• Chapter 2 examines such issues as the nature of the
relationship between theory and research and the
degree to which a natural science approach is an
appropriate framework for the study of society. It is
here that the distinction between quantitative and
qualitative research is fi rst encountered. They are
presented as different research strategies with differ-
ent ways of conceptualizing how people and society
should be studied. It is also shown that there is more
to the distinction between them than whether an
investigation includes the collection of quantitative
data.

• In Chapter 3, the idea of a research design is intro-
duced. This chapter allows an introduction to the
basic frameworks within which social research is
carried out, such as social survey research, case study
research, and experimental research. These three
chapters provide the basic building blocks for the rest
of the book.

• Chapter 4 takes you through the mains steps that are
involved in planning and designing a research project
and offers advice on how to manage this process.
It also includes a discussion of research questions—
what they are, why they are important, and how they
come to be formulated.

• Chapter 5 is designed to help you to get started on
your research project by introducing the main steps in
conducting a critical review of the literature.

• Chapter 6 considers the ways in which ethical issues
impinge on researchers and the kinds of principles
that are involved.

Part Two contains ten chapters concerned with quantita-
tive research.

• Chapter 7 explores the nature of quantitative research
and as such provides a context for the later chapters.
The next four chapters are largely concerned with
aspects of social survey research.

• Chapter 8 deals with sampling issues—how to select
a sample and the considerations that are involved in
assessing what can be inferred from different kinds of
sample. It also contains at the beginning an introduc-
tion to survey research that acts as a backdrop to the
discussion of sampling and to the subject matter of the
following three chapters.

• Chapter 9 is concerned with the kind of interviewing
that takes place in survey research—that is, structured
interviewing.

• Chapter 10 covers the design of questionnaires. This
involves a discussion of how to devise self-completion
questionnaires, such as postal questionnaires.

• Chapter 11 examines the issue of how to ask questions
for questionnaires and structured interviews.

• Chapter 12 covers structured observation, which is a
method that has been developed for the systematic
observation of behaviour.

• Chapter 13 presents content analysis, a method that
provides a rigorous framework for the analysis of a
wide range of documents.

• Chapter 14 deals with the analysis of data collected by
other researchers and by offi cial bodies. The emphasis
then switches to the ways in which we can analyse
quantitative data.

• Chapter 15 presents a range of basic tools for the
analysis of quantitative data. The approach taken is
non-technical. The emphasis is upon how to choose a
method of analysis and how to interpret the fi ndings.
No formulae are presented.

• Chapter 16 shows you how to use computer software
—in the form of SPSS, the most widely used software
for analysing quantitative data—in order to imple-
ment the techniques you learned in Chapter 15.

Part Three contains nine chapters on aspects of qualita-
tive research.

• Chapter 17 has the same role in relation to Part Three
as Chapter 7 has in relation to Part Two. It provides

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxiii 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guide to the bookxxxiv

an overview of the nature of qualitative research and
as such provides the context for the other chapters in
this part.

• Chapter 18 examines the main sampling strategies
employed in qualitative research. Just like quantita-
tive researchers, qualitative researchers typically have
to sample research participants, documents, or what-
ever the unit of analysis is. As will be seen, the sam-
pling principles involved are clearly different from
those usually employed by quantitative researchers.

• Chapter 19 is concerned with ethnography and par-
ticipant observation, which is the source of some of
the most well-known studies in social research. The
two terms are often used interchangeably and refer to
the immersion of the researcher in a social setting.

• Chapter 20 deals with the kinds of interview that quali-
tative researchers conduct, which is typically semi-
structured interviewing or unstructured interviewing.

• Chapter 21 explores the focus group method, whereby
groups of individuals are interviewed on a specifi c topic.

• Chapter 22 examines two ways in which qualitative
researchers analyse language: conversation analysis
and discourse analysis.

• Chapter 23 deals with the examination of documents
in qualitative research. The emphasis then shifts to
the analysis of qualitative data.

• Chapter 24 explores some approaches to the analysis
of qualitative data.

• Chapter 25 shows you how to use computer soft-
ware—a relatively new development in qualitative
research—to assist with your analysis.

It is striking that certain issues recur across Parts Two
and Three: interviewing, observation, documents, and
data analysis. However, as you will see, quantitative and
qualitative research constitute contrasting approaches to
such activities.

Part Four contains chapters that go beyond the quantita-
tive/qualitative research contrast.

• Chapter 26 deals with some of the ways in which
the distinction between quantitative and qualitative
research is less fi xed than is sometimes supposed.

• Chapter 27 presents some ways in which quantitative
and qualitative research can be combined to produce
what is referred to as mixed methods research.

• Chapter 28 is concerned with the use of the Internet
as a context or platform for conducting research.

• Chapter 29 has been included to help with writing
up research, an often neglected area of the research
process.

The fourth edition

This fourth edition contains both major and minor dif-
ferences from the third edition. The major revisions
are:

• A new chapter (Chapter 1) that sets the scene for the
rest of the book by outlining some basic issues imping-
ing on a consideration of social research methods and
the factors that impinge on it. It is meant to provide
some building blocks for the rest of the book and to
ease the reader into the area.

• A new chapter on sampling in qualitative research
(Chapter 18). In previous editions of the book, this topic
was spread across several chapters. In this edition, the
consideration of sampling issues faced by qualitative
researchers has been consolidated.

• Some new Student experience boxes have been added
to illuminate students’ own encounters with the social
research process.

• To supplement the Student experience boxes, there
are now Supervisor experience boxes that provide
some insight into the refl ections of those who act as
supervisors of dissertations and projects. All of the
supervisors were highly experienced practitioners so
their thoughts are highly instructive.

Minor revisions include:

• New sections on such topics as life history interviewing
and the changing nature of ethnography.

• Many sections have been substantially expanded and
updated to include important developments such as
the Economic and Social Research Council’s Frame-
work for Research Ethics.

• All sections have been updated where appropriate.
Chapter 28, which is concerned with the use of the
Internet in social research, has undergone a particu-
larly large number of revisions, as this is an area of
research methodology where many developments
have taken place.

• New examples have been introduced and some from
the previous editions have been replaced.

How to use the book

The book can be used in a number of different ways.
However, I would encourage all readers at least to look at

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxiv 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guide to the book xxxv

the chapter guide at the beginning of each chapter so
that they can be sure that they do not in fact need the
material covered there and also to gain a sense of the
range of issues the book does in fact address.

• Wider philosophical and methodological issues. If
you do not need to gain an appreciation of the wider
philosophical context of enquiry in social research,
Chapter 2 can largely be ignored. If an emphasis on such
issues is something you are interested in, Chapter 2
along with Chapter 26 should be a particular focus of
attention.

• Survey research. Chapters 8 through 11 deal with
the kinds of topics that need to be addressed in survey
research. In addition, Chapter 15 examines ways of
analysing the kinds of data that are generated by sur-
vey researchers. Also, sections in Chapter 28 explore
issues to do with the conduct of surveys via email or
the World Wide Web.

• Practical issues concerned with doing quantita-
tive research. This is the province of the whole of
Part Two. In addition, you would be advised to read
Chapter 3, which maps out the main research designs
employed, such as experimental and cross-sectional
designs, which are frequently used by quantitative
researchers.

• Practical issues concerned with doing qualitative
research. This is the province of the whole of Part
Three. In addition, you would be advised to read
Chapter 3, which maps out the main research designs
employed, such as the case study, which is frequently
employed in qualitative research.

• Analysing data. Chapters 15 and 24 explore the ana-
lysis of quantitative and qualitative research data re-
spectively, while Chapters 16 and 25 introduce readers
to the use of computer software in this connection. It
may be that your module on research methods does
not get into issues to do with analysis, in which case
these chapters would be omitted.

• Formulating research questions. As I have already
said in this Guide, I see the asking of research ques-
tions as fundamental to the research process. Advice
on what research questions are, how they are formu-
lated, where they come from, and so on is provided in
Chapters 1 and 4.

• Doing your own research project. I hope that the
whole of this book will be relevant to students doing
their own research projects or mini-projects, but

Chapter 4 is the one where specifi c advice relating to
this issue is located. In addition, I would alert you to
the practical tips that have been devised and the
checklists of points to remember.

• Writing. This issue is very much connected with the
previous point. It is easy to forget that your research
has to be written up. This is as much a part of the
research process as the collection of data. Chapter 29
discusses a variety of issues to do with writing up
research.

• Wider responsibilities of researchers. It is import-
ant to bear in mind that as researchers we bear re-
sponsibilities to the people and organizations that are
the recipients of our research activities. Ethical issues
are raised at a number of points in this book and
Chapter 6 is devoted to a discussion of them. The fact
that an entire chapter has been given over to a discus-
sion of ethics is a measure of their importance in terms
of the need to ensure that all researchers should be
ethically sensitive.

• The quantitative/qualitative research contrast.
The distinction between quantitative and qualitative
research is used in two ways: as a means of organizing
the research methods and methods of analysis avail-
able to you; and as a way of introducing some wider
philosophical issues about social research. Chapter 2
outlines the chief areas of difference between quan-
titative and qualitative research. These are followed
up in Chapter 17. I also draw attention to some of
the limitations of adhering to an excessively strict
demarcation between the two research strategies in
Chapter 26, while Chapter 27 explores ways of inte-
grating them. If you do not fi nd it a helpful distinction,
these chapters can be avoided or skimmed.

• The Internet. The Internet plays an increasingly
important role in the research process. At various
junctures I provide important websites where key
information can be gleaned. I also discuss in Chapter 5
the use of the Internet as a route for fi nding references
for your literature review, itself another important
phase of the research process. You will fi nd that many
of the references that you fi nd when you do an online
search will then themselves be accessible to you in
electronic form. Finally, Chapter 28 discusses the use
of the Internet as a source of material that can be ana-
lysed and as a platform for doing research in the form
of such research methods as web surveys, electronic
focus groups, and email surveys.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxv 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guided tour of textbook features

Chapter guide

The goal of this chapter is to provide guidance for students on how to get started on their research
project. Once you have identifi ed your research questions (see Chapter 4), the next step in any research
project is to search the existing literature and write a literature review. The principal task at this early
stage involves reviewing the main ideas and research relating to your chosen area of interest. This
provides the basis for the writing of a literature review, which forms an important part of the dissertation.
This chapter will advise students on how to go about searching the literature and engaging critically with
the ideas of other writers. It will also help you to understand some of the expectations of the literature

Key concept 5.1
What is a systematic review?

Systematic review has been defi ned as ‘a replicable, scientifi c and transparent process . . . that aims to minimize

bias through exhaustive literature searches of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail

of the reviewer’s decisions, procedures and conclusions’ (Tranfi eld et al. 2003: 209). Such a review is often

contrasted with the traditional narrative review, which is the focus of the next section. The proponents of

systematic review are more likely to generate unbiased and comprehensive accounts of the literature, especially

in fi elds in which the aim is to understand whether a particular intervention has particular benefi ts, than those

using the traditional review, which is often depicted by them as haphazard. A systematic review that includes

only quantitative studies is a meta-analysis (see Key concept 5.2). In recent times, the development of

systematic review procedures for qualitative studies has attracted a great deal of attention, especially in the social

sciences. Meta-ethnography (see Key concept 5.3) is one such approach to the synthesis of qualitative fi ndings,

but currently there are several different methods, none of which is in widespread use (Mays et al. 2005).

Thinking deeply 5.2
What do examiners look for in

a literature review?

Holbrook et al. (2007) conducted an analysis of examiners’ reports on Ph.D. theses. They analysed 1,310 reports

relating to 501 theses in Australia (a Ph.D. thesis is examined by at least two examiners). These reports are

naturally occurring documents, in that examiners have to provide these reports as part of the process of

examining a Ph.D. candidate. In the course of writing a report, examiners frequently if not invariably comment on

the literature review. While these fi ndings are obviously specifi c to a Ph.D., the features that examiners look for

are also applicable in general terms to other kinds of writing, such as an undergraduate or a postgraduate

dissertation.

The reports were analysed using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, which will be covered in

Chapter 25. The analysis of these reports suggests that comments concerning the literature review were of three

basic kinds:

Tips and skills
Using systematic review in a student

research project

The systematic review approach does contain some elements that cannot easily be applied in a student research

project because of limitations of time and resources. For example, you are unlikely to be able to assemble a panel

of experts in methodology and theory to meet you regularly and discuss the boundaries of the review. However,

there are some aspects of the approach that can be applied to students’ research. For example, meeting your

supervisor regularly during the planning stage of your literature review to defi ne the boundaries of the subject

and to come up with likely search terms is extremely useful. Your supervisor’s knowledge of the subject can be

invaluable at this stage. Also, a systematic review approach to the literature requires a transparent way of

searching for and examining the literature as well as keeping records of what you have done. These practices

are feasible for a student research project.

Research in focus 5.1
Healthy eating among young people

Shepherd et al. (2006) have published an account of the procedures they used to examine the barriers to healthy

eating among young people aged 11–16 years and the factors that facilitate healthy eating. In Table 5.1 I have

outlined the chief steps in doing a systematic review, as outlined in the main text, and the corresponding

procedures and practices in the review by Shepherd et al. These authors used methods for systematic review that

have been developed by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI) at the

Institute of Education, University of London. The EPPI has a very comprehensive website that details its approach

and its main methods and provides full reports of many of the systematic reviews its members have conducted

(http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=53&language=en-US (accessed 2 August 2010)).

Chapter guide

Each chapter begins with a chapter guide that alerts readers to

what they can expect to have learned by the end of each chapter.

This provides a route map of what is to follow.

Research in focus boxes

It is often said that the three most important features to look for

when buying a house are location, location, location. A parallel for

the teaching of research methods is examples, examples, examples!

Research in focus boxes are designed to provide a sense of place

for the theories and concepts being discussed in the chapter text,

by providing real examples of published research.

Key concept boxes

This feature explains key terms, for instance by asking ‘What is . . . ?’, or

by listing a series of important points about a particular issue or topic.

These boxes will help you build up a terminology about research

methods, which you can then apply in your own work and to provide

further explanation of ideas that may be diffi cult to understand. Key

concepts are indicated in purple type for quick reference and are

defi ned in the Glossary.

Thinking deeply boxes

Social research methods can sometimes be complex: Thinking deeply

boxes contain further discussion of a topic or issue as a way of

encouraging you to think about it in greater depth or helping to

explain current debates or important discussions that have gone on

between researchers. This feature is intended to take you beyond the

introductory level and to raise your awareness of some of the

complexities involved in using social research methods.

Tips and skills boxes

These boxes provide guidance and advice on key aspects of the

research process and are intended to help you to avoid making certain

mistakes that I have found students commonly make, based on my

experiences of talking to and supervising them. Tips and skills boxes

also give information that is intended to help you to acquire the skills

that are needed to become a competent social researcher.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxvi 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guided tour of textbook features xxxvii

Student experience boxes

Student experience boxes draw on interviews with real research

students from a variety of universities around the UK, and provide

valuable windows into the research practices and problems of students

who have gone before you. These boxes will help you to anticipate and

resolve research problems as you move through your dissertation or

project.

Supervisor experience boxes

Supervisor experience boxes draw on interviews with dissertation

and thesis supervisors from a variety of universities around the UK,

and, like the Student experience boxes, provide valuable insights into

the research practices and problems of students who have gone before

you. These boxes will help you to anticipate and resolve research

problems as you move through your dissertation or project.

Checklists

Most chapters include checklists of issues that should be borne in mind

when engaging in certain activities (such as doing a literature review,

devising a structured interview schedule, or conducting a focus group).

They are meant to alert you to key points you will have encountered in

the text so that you can be reminded of what to look out for or

consider when doing your own research.

Key points

At the end of each chapter there is a set of signifi cant points that are

particularly crucial for you to take note of. They are meant to alert you

to issues that are especially important and to jog your memory about

the areas that have been covered.

Questions for review

At the end of each chapter there is also a series of questions to help

you to test your understanding of key concepts and ideas.

Glossary

At the end of the book is a glossary of defi nitions of central terms.

Many repeat defi nitions in the Key concept boxes, but they also

provide a convenient way of knowing what is meant by key terms.

Glossary terms are also highlighted in purple text in the chapters.

Supervisor experience
How to annoy your dissertation supervisor and

cause yourself problems: fi ve easy steps
Supervisors were asked about some of the chief frustrations associated with supervising dissertation students.

There were some recurring themes in their responses. Here are some easy ways to annoy your supervisor and

create problems for yourself:

1. Don’t turn up to pre-arranged supervision meetings. Quite aside from the rudeness of doing this, a failure to

turn up begins to ring alarm bells about whether the student is veering off course.

2. Leave the bulk of the work until the last minute. Supervisors know full well that research must be paced

because it requires a great deal of forethought and because things can go wrong. The longer students leave

their dissertation work, the more diffi cult it becomes to do thorough research and to rectify problems.

3. Ignore what your supervisor advises you to do. Supervisors are extremely experienced researchers, so that

ignoring their advice is irritating and certainly not in a student’s interest.

4 Hand in shoddy drafts as late as possible It is not your supervisor’s role to write the dissertation for you so

Checklist

Planning a research project

� Do you know what the requirements for your dissertation are, as set out by your university or

department?

� Have you made contact with your supervisor?

� Have you allowed enough time for planning, doing, and writing up your research project?

� Do you have a clear timetable for your research project with clearly identifi able milestones for the

achievement of specifi c tasks?

� Have you got suffi cient fi nancial and practical resources (for example, money to enable travel to

research site, recording device) to enable you to carry out your research project?

� Have you formulated some research questions and discussed these with your supervisor?

�

�

�

�

�

�

Key points

● Follow the dissertation guidelines provided by your institution.

● Thinking about your research subject can be time consuming, so allow plenty of time for this aspect
of the dissertation process.

● Use your supervisor to the fullest extent allowed and follow the advice offered by him or her.

● Plan your time carefully and be realistic about what you can achieve in the time available.

● Formulate some research questions to express what it is about your area of interest that you want to
know.

● Writing a research proposal is a good way of getting started on your research project and encouraging

�

�

�

�

�

�

Questions for review

Managing time and resources

● Why is it important to devise a timetable for your research project?

Formulating suitable research questions

● Why are research questions necessary?

● What are the main sources of research questions?

● What are the main steps involved in developing research questions?

● What criteria can be used to evaluate research questions?

Category In grounded theory, a category occupies a space

between a researcher’s initial theoretical refl ections on and

understanding of his or her data and a concept, which is

viewed as a higher level of abstraction. Thus, a category has

an intermediate position in terms of abstraction between

coding and a theory.

Student experience
Strategies for fi nding references

The students who supplied information concerning their strategies for doing their literature reviews used a

variety of approaches. As well as searching the journals, Erin Saunders got help from her supervisor and others.

I was recommended a number of relevant texts by my supervisor—and from there I located other sources by

using the bibliographies of these texts. As well, I did an extensive journal search for articles that were related

to my topic. I also contacted a number of academics in the fi eld to ask for specifi c suggestions. Then I read as

much of the literature as I could, identifying key themes and ideas.

Hannah Creane’s approach was to focus on key names in the sociological literature on childhood.

Initially I read a few core textbooks that cover the general aspects of sociology, and picked out from them the

main names of sociologists who have written about childhood and, in particular, childhood as a social

construction. From there I read the books of some of the key names within the fi eld of childhood study, and

just simply kept looking up the names of sociologists whom they had referenced. I kept going like this until

I felt I had enough literature to back up my fi ndings and theories that I made in the light of my own research.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxvii 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guided tour of the ORC:
lecturer resources

PowerPoint slides

A suite of customizable PowerPoint slides has been included for use in lecture

presentations. Arranged by chapter theme and tied specifi cally to the lecturer’s

guide, the slides may also be used as handouts in class.

Lecturer’s guide

A comprehensive lecturer’s guide has been included to assist both new and

experienced instructors in their teaching. The guide includes reading guides,

lecture outlines, further coverage of diffi cult concepts, and teaching activities,

and is accompanied by instructions on how the guide may be most effectively

implemented in the teaching programme.

Case studies

Each chapter is accompanied by a case study, complete with 3–5 discussion

questions. These can be used in seminars or as assignments, to stimulate group

work, and for independent critical thinking.

Figures and tables from the text

All fi gures and tables from the text are provided in high resolution format for

downloading into presentation software or for use in assignments and exam

material.

Test bank

This customizable resource contains 10 questions per chapter with answers and

feedback, allowing you to create your own personalized testing sessions. These can

be used to monitor students’ understanding and progress during the term, or in

formal assessment at the end of the course.

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

This textbook is accompanied by a full suite of online resources,

which are freely available to adopting lecturers. Our comprehensive

supplements will save you time in preparing lectures, planning seminars,

and creating assessments for your students. To register for a password,

simply follow the steps on the Social Research Methods homepage.

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxviii 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Guided tour of the ORC:
student resources

Multiple choice questions

The best way to reinforce your understanding of research methods is through

frequent and cumulative revision. To aid you in this, a bank of self-marking multiple

choice questions has been provided for each chapter of the text, and includes

instant feedback on your answers to help strengthen your knowledge of key

research concepts.

Annotated web links

A series of annotated web links to the best social research websites, organized by

chapter, enables you to extend your understanding by reading the latest

perspectives on social research issues.

Flashcard glossary

Online fl ashcards have been designed to help you understand and memorize the

key terms used in the book. The fl ashcards can also be downloaded to your iPod

or other portable devices for revision on the move.

Student researcher’s toolkit

This toolkit is divided into two main parts:

1. An interactive research project guide, which takes you step-by-step through

each of the key research phases, ensuring that you do not overlook any research

step, and providing guidance and advice on every aspect of social research from

dealing with your supervisor to ways of organizing and writing your dissertation

for maximum effect.

2. Dos and don’ts of social research: a quick practical checklist drawn from

experience of common pitfalls.

Student experience podcasts

Learn from the real research experiences of students who have completed their own

research projects! Download podcasts explaining in detail about the research projects

of undergraduate and postgraduate (MA and Ph.D.) students from a range of degree

courses throughout the UK. Learn about the research processes they went through

and the problems they resolved as they moved through each research phase. The

questionnaires they answered are also available on the ORC as Word documents.

Guide to using Excel in data analysis

Using Excel to an advanced level can be one of the trickiest aspects of a research

project. This interactive guide takes you step-by-step from the very fi rst stages of

using Excel to more advanced topics such as descriptive statistics, contingency

tables, charting and regression, and statistical signifi cance.

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

9780199588053_A01.indd xxxix 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Abbreviations

ASA American Sociological Association
BCS British Crime Survey
BFI British Film Institute
BHPS British Household Panel Survey
BPS British Psychological Society
BSA British Social Attitudes [survey]
BSA British Sociological Association
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
CA conversation analysis
CAPI computer-assisted personal interviewing
CAQDAS computer-assisted/aided qualitative data analysis software
CATI computer-assisted telephone interviewing
CCSE Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion
CCTV closed-circuit television
CDA critical discourse analysis
CF cystic fi brosis
CJD Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
CV curriculum vitae
DA discourse analysis
ECA ethnographic content analysis
EFS Expenditure and Food Survey
ENT ear, nose, throat
EPPI Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre
ESDS Economic and Social Data Service
ESRC Economic and Social Research Council
FES Family Expenditure Survey
FIAC Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
FMD foot and mouth disease
FRE Framework for Research Ethics
GHS General Household Survey
GLF General Lifestyle Survey
HALS Health and Lifestyle Survey
HETUS Harmonized European Time Use Studies
HISS hospital information support system
HRT hormone replacement therapy
IBSS International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
ICI Imperial Chemical Industries
HIS Integrated Household Survey
IRB Institutional Review Board
ISSP International Social Survey Programme
ISP Internet service provider
IT information technology

9780199588053_A01.indd xl 10/20/11 4:26 PM

Abbreviations xli

LFS Labour Force Survey
MUD multi-user domain
NCDS National Child Development Study
NFS National Food Survey
NGO non-governmental organizations
NHS National Health Service
NSPCC National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
NS-SEC National Statistics Socio-Economic Classifi cation
NUD*IST Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing
NVIVO QSR NUD*IST Vivo
ONS Offi ce for National Statistics
ONS Omnibus Survey
ORACLE Observational Research and Classroom Learning Evaluation
QLL qualitative longitudinal research
RAE Research Assessment Exercise
RCT randomized controlled trial
RDD random digit dialing
REC Research Ethics Committee
REF Research Ethics Framework
RGF Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care
SCELI Social Change and Economic Life Initiative
SCPR Social and Community Planning Research
SE standard error [of the mean]
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SRA Social Research Association
SSCI Social Sciences Citation Index
TB tuberculosis
TDM Tailored Design Method
UKDA UK Data Archive
WERS Workplace Employment Relations Survey
WI Women’s Institute
WoK Web of Knowledge

9780199588053_A01.indd xli 10/20/11 4:26 PM

This page intentionally left blank

Part One

Part One of this book aims to provide the groundwork for the more specialized

chapters in Parts Two, Three, and Four. In Chapter 1, some of the basic ideas in

thinking about social research methods are outlined. Chapters 2 and 3 are concerned

with two ideas that will recur again and again during the course of this book—the

idea of research strategy and the idea of research design. Chapter 2 outlines a

variety of considerations that impinge on the practice of social research and relates

these to the issue of research strategy. Two research strategies are identifi ed:

quantitative and qualitative research. Chapter 3 identifi es the different kinds of

research design that are employed in social research. Chapters 4 and 5 are

concerned with providing advice to students on some of the issues that they need to

consider if they have to prepare a dissertation based upon a relatively small-scale

research project. Chapter 4 deals with planning and formulating research

questions, including the principles and considerations that need to be taken into

account in designing a small-scale research project, while Chapter 5 is about how to

get started in reviewing the literature. Chapter 6 deals with ethics in social research.

9780199588053_C01.indd 1 10/20/11 9:58 AM

This page intentionally left blank

The nature and
process of social
research

Chapter outline

Introduction 4

What is meant by ‘social research’? 4

Why do social research? 5

The context of social research methods 5

Elements of the process of social research 8

Literature review 8

Concepts and theories 8

Research questions 9

Sampling cases 11

Data collection 12

Data analysis 13

Writing up 14

The messiness of social research 15

Key points 16

Questions for review 16

1

9780199588053_C01.indd 3 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research4

Introduction
This book is concerned with the ways that social re-
searchers go about their craft. I take this to mean that
it is concerned with the approaches that are employed
by social researchers to go about the research process in
all its phases—formulating research objectives, choosing
research methods, securing research participants, col-
lecting, analysing, and interpreting data, and dissemi-
nating fi ndings to others. An understanding of social
research methods is important for several reasons, but
two stand out. First, it is hoped that it will help readers to
avoid the many pitfalls that are all too common when
relatively inexperienced people try to do social research,
such as failing to match research questions to research
methods, asking ambiguous questions in questionnaires,

and engaging in practices that are ethically dubious.
If you are expected to conduct a research project, an
education in research methods is important, not just
for ensuring that the correct procedures are followed
but also for gaining an appreciation of the choices that
are available to you. Second, an understanding of social
research methods is also important from the point of
view of being a consumer of published research. When
people take degrees in the social sciences, they will read
a lot of published research in the substantive areas they
study. A good grounding in the research process and a
knowledge of the potential pitfalls can provide a critical
edge when reading the research of others that can be
invaluable.

Chapter guide

This chapter aims to introduce readers to some fundamental considerations in conducting social
research. It begins by outlining what we mean by social research and the reasons why we conduct it.
However, the bulk of the chapter then moves on to consider three areas:

• The context of social research methods. This entails considering issues such as the role of theory in
relation to social research, the role of values and in particular of ethical considerations in the research
process, the signifi cance of assumptions about the nature of the social world and about how
knowledge about it should be produced, and the ways in which political considerations may
materialize in social research.

• The elements of the research process. The whole book is dedicated to the elements of social research,
but here the essential stages are given a preliminary treatment. The elements identifi ed are:
a literature review; formulating concepts and theories; devising research questions; sampling; data
collection; data analysis; and writing up fi ndings.

• The messiness of social research. This section acknowledges that social research often does not
conform to a neat, linear process and that researchers may fi nd themselves facing unexpected
contingencies and diffi culties. At the same time, it is suggested that a familiarity with the nature
of the research process and its principles is crucial to navigating through the unexpected.

All of the issues presented in these three sections will be treated in much greater detail in later chapters,
but they are introduced at this stage to provide readers with an early encounter with them.

What is meant by ‘social research’?

The term ‘social research’ as used in this book denotes
academic research on topics relating to questions relevant

to the social scientifi c fi elds, such as sociology, human
geography, social policy, politics, and criminology. Thus,

9780199588053_C01.indd 4 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 5

research topics and issues and how to interpret and draw
implications from research fi ndings. In other words,
what dis tinguishes social research of the kind discussed
in this book is that it is deeply rooted in the ideas and
intellectual traditions of the social sciences. This book
is about the methods that are used to create that kind
of research.

Why do social research?

The rationale for doing social research has been outlined
in the previous section to a certain extent. Academics
conduct such research because, in the course of reading
the literature on a topic or when refl ecting on what is
going on in modern social life, questions occur to them.
They may notice a gap in the literature or an inconsis-
tency between a number of studies or an unresolved issue
in the literature. These provide common circumstances
that act as springboards for social research in academic
circles. Another is when there is a development in society
that provides an interesting point of departure for the
investigation of a research question. For example, noting

social research involves research that draws on the
social sciences for conceptual and theoretical inspiration.
Such research may be motivated by developments and
changes in society, such as the rise in worries about
security or binge-drinking, but it employs social scien-
tifi c ideas to illuminate those changes. It draws upon
the social sciences for ideas about how to formulate

the widespread use of text messaging on mobile tele-
phones, a researcher might become interested in study-
ing how far it has affected the nature and quality of
interaction in social life. In exploring this kind of issue,
the researcher is likely to draw upon the literature on
technology and on social interaction to provide insights
into how to approach the issue. As I say in Chapter 2,
there is no single reason why people do social research
of the kind emphasized in this book, but, at its core, it
is done because there is an aspect of our understand-
ing of what goes on in society that is to some extent
unresolved.

The context of social research methods

Social research and its associated methods do not take
place in a vacuum. In this book, a number of factors that
form the context of social research will be mentioned.
The following factors form part of the context within
which social research and its methods operate:

• The theories that social scientists employ to help to
understand the social world have an infl uence on what
is researched and how the fi ndings of research are inter-
preted. In other words, the topics that are investigated
are profoundly infl uenced by the available theoretical
positions. Thus, if a researcher was interested in the
impact of mobile phone text messaging on sociability,
it is quite likely that he or she would want to take into
account prevailing theories about how technology is
used and its impacts. In this way, social research is
informed and infl uenced by theory. It also contributes
to theory because the fi ndings of a study will feed into
the stock of knowledge to which the theory relates.

• As the previous point implies, the existing knowledge
about the area in which the researcher is interested
forms an important part of the background within
which social research takes place. In practice, this
means that someone planning to conduct research
must be familiar with the literature on the topic or
area of interest. You have to be acquainted with what
is already known about the research area in which
you are interested so that you can build on it and
not risk covering the same ground as others. Review-
ing the literature is the main focus of Chapter 5 and
is also an ingredient of other chapters, such as
Chapter 29.

• The researcher’s views about the nature of the rela-
tionship between theory and research also have impli-
cations for research. For some practitioners, theory
is something that is addressed at the beginning of a
research project. The researcher might be viewed as

9780199588053_C01.indd 5 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research6

engaging in some theoretical refl ections out of which
a hypothesis is formulated and then subsequently
tested. An alternative position is to view theory as an
outcome of the research process—that is, as some-
thing that is arrived at after the research has been
carried out. This difference has implications for re-
search, because the fi rst approach implies that a set of
theoretical ideas drive the collection and analysis of
data whereas the second suggests a more open-ended
strategy in which theoretical ideas emerge out of the
data. Of course, as is so often the case in discussions of
this kind, the choice is rarely as stark as this account of
the relationship between theory and research implies,
but it does imply that there are some contrasting
views about the role of theory in relation to research.
This issue will be a major focus of Chapter 2.

• The assumptions and views about how research
should be conducted infl uence the research process.
It is often assumed that a ‘scientifi c’ approach will
and should be followed, in which a hypothesis is for-
mulated and then tested using precise measurement
techniques. Such research defi nitely exists, but the
view that this is how research should be done is by
no means universally shared. Considerations of this
kind are referred to as epistemological ones. They
raise questions about, and invite us to refl ect upon,
the issue of how the social world should be studied
and whether a scientifi c approach is the right stance
to adopt. Some researchers favour an approach that
eschews a scientifi c model, arguing that people and
their social institutions are very different from the
subject matter of the scientist and that an approach
is needed that is more sensitive to the special qualities
of people and their social institutions. This issue will
be a major focus in Chapter 2.

• The assumptions about the nature of social phenom-
ena infl uence the research process too. It is sometimes
suggested that the social world should be viewed as
something that is external to social actors and over
which they have no control. It is simply there, acting
upon and infl uencing their behaviour, beliefs, and
values. We might view the culture of an organization
as a set of values and behavioural expectations that
exert a powerful infl uence over those who work in the
organization and into which new recruits have to be
socialized. But we could also view it as an entity that
is in a constant process of reformulation and reassess-
ment, as members of the organization continually
modify it through their practices and through small

innovations in how things are done. Considerations
of this kind are referred to as ontological ones. They
invite us to consider the nature of social phenomena—
are they relatively inert and beyond our infl uence or
are they very much a product of social interaction? As
for epistemological issues discussed in the previous
point, the stance that the researcher takes on them
has implications for the way in which social research
is conducted. This issue will be a major focus of
Chapter 2.

• The values of the research community have signifi cant
implications for researchers. This can take a number
of forms. Ethical issues have been a point of discussion,
and indeed often of considerable dissension, over the
years, but in recent times they have soared in promin-
ence. It is now almost impossible to do certain kinds
of research without risking the opprobrium of the
research community and possible censure from the
organizations in which researchers are employed.
Nowadays, there is an elaborate framework of bodies
that scrutinize research proposals for their ethical
integrity, so that transgression of ethical principles
becomes ever less likely. Certain kinds of research
require special provision with regard to ethics, such
as research involving children or vulnerable adults.
Thus, ethical values and the institutional arrange-
ments that have arisen in response to the clamour for
ethical caution have implications for what and who
can be researched and for how research can be con-
ducted to the point where certain research methods
and practices are no longer employed. Another way
in which the values of the research community can
impinge on the researcher is that in certain fi elds,
such as in social policy, there is a strong view that
those being researched should be involved in the re-
search process. For example, when social researchers
conduct research on service users, it is often suggested
that the users of those services should be involved in
the formulation of research questions and instruments,
such as questionnaires. While such views are not uni-
versally held (Becker et al. 2010), they form a con-
sideration that researchers in certain fi elds may feel
compelled to refl ect upon when contemplating certain
kinds of investigation. Ethical issues are addressed
further in Chapter 6 and touched on in several other
chapters.

• Related to the previous issue is the question of what
research is for. Thus far, I have tended to stress the
academic nature and role of social research—namely,

9780199588053_C01.indd 6 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 7

that it is to add to the stock of knowledge about the
social world. However, many social scientists feel that
research should have a practical purpose and that it
should make a difference to the world around us.
Such an emphasis means that, for some practitioners,
the social sciences should focus on topics and issues
that will have implications for practice. For researchers
in social science disciplines like social policy, an em-
phasis on investigations having demonstrable implica-
tions for practice is more widely held than in it might
be in other disciplines. Also, there are research ap-
proaches that are more or less exclusively designed to
explore issues that will have implications for people’s
everyday lives, such as evaluation research and action

research, which will be touched upon in Chapters 3
and 17 respectively. However, even in fi elds like social
policy, a commitment to an emphasis on practice is
not universally held. In a survey of UK social policy
researchers in 2005, Becker, Bryman, and Sempik
(2006) found that 53 per cent of all those questioned
felt that it was equally important for research to have
potential value for policy and practice and to lead
to the accumulation of knowledge, a further 34 per
cent felt it was more important for research to have
potential value for policy and practice, and 13 per cent
felt it was more important for social policy research to
lead to the accumulation of knowledge.

• Social research operates within a wider political con-
text. This feature has many aspects and some of these
are mentioned in Chapter 6. For example, much social
research is funded by government bodies, and these
tend to refl ect the orientation of the government of
the day. This will mean that certain research issues
are somewhat more likely to receive fi nancial support
than others. Further, for research supported by the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the
major funding body for UK social science research,
prospective applicants are supposed to demonstrate
how potential users of the research will be involved
or engaged if the research receives fi nancial support.
The notion of a ‘user’ is capable of being interpreted in
a number of different ways, but it is likely to be more
straightforward for an applicant to demonstrate the
involvement of users when research has a more
applied focus. In other words, the stipulation that
users must be involved could be taken to give a slight
advantage to research with a focus on practice.

• The training and personal values of the researcher
cannot be ignored. They form a component of the
context of social research methods in that they may
infl uence the research area, the research questions,
and the methods employed to investigate these. Our
experiences and our interests frequently have some
infl uence on the issues we research. As academic
social researchers, the issues that interest us have to
connect to the wider disciplines of the social sciences.
An example referred to in Chapter 2 is O’Reilly’s
(2000) study of British expatriates living on Spain’s
Costa Del Sol. The issue was of interest to her because
she and her partner were planning to live there them-
selves. This clearly constitutes a personal interest, but
it is not exclusively so, because she used the topic as
a lens for raising issues about transnational migra-
tion, an issue that has been of great interest to social
scientists in recent years. I also mention in Chapter 2
my own interest in the ways in which social science
research is reported in the mass media. This grew out
of a wounding experience reported in Haslam and
Bryman (1994), which led me to develop an interest
in the issue more generally, to read a great deal of
the literature on the reporting of both science and
social science in the media, and to develop it into a
research project. Also, social researchers, as a result of
their training and sometimes from personal prefer-
ences that build up, frequently develop attachments
to, or at least preferences for, certain research
methods and approaches. One of the reasons why
I try to cover a wide range of research methods in
this book is because I am convinced that it is import-
ant for practising and prospective researchers to
be familiar with a diversity of methods and how to
implement them. The development of methodological
preferences carries the risk of researchers becoming
blinkered and restricted in what they know, but it
is undoubtedly the case that such preferences often
do emerge and have implications for the conduct of
research.

It is impossible to arrive at an exhaustive list of factors
that are relevant to this section, but it is hoped that the
discussion above will provide a fl avour of the ways in
which the conduct of social research and the choice of
research methods are not hermetically sealed off from
wider infl uences.

9780199588053_C01.indd 7 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research8

In this section and the rest of this chapter, I will introduce
what I think are the main elements of most research
projects. It is common for writers of textbooks on social
research methods to compile fl ow charts of the research
process, and I am not immune to this temptation, as you
will see from, for example, Figures 2.1, 8.1, and 17.1! At
this point, I am not going to try to sequence the vari-
ous stages or elements of the research process, as the
sequencing varies somewhat according to different re-
search strategies and approaches. All I want to do at this
juncture is to introduce some of the main elements—in
other words, elements that are common to all or most
varieties of social research. Some of them have already
been touched on in the previous section and all of them
will be addressed further and in more detail in later
chapters.

Literature review

The existing literature represents an important element
in all research. When we have alighted upon a topic or
issue that interests us, we must read further to determine
a number of things. We need to know:

• what is already known about the topic;

• what concepts and theories have been applied to the
topic;

• what research methods have been applied to the topic;

• what controversies about the topic and how it is
studied exist;

• what clashes of evidence (if any) exist;

• who the key contributors to research on the topic are.

Many topics have a rich tradition of research, so it is un-
likely that many people, such as students doing an under-
graduate or postgraduate Master’s dissertation, will be
able to conduct an exhaustive review of the literature in
such areas. What is crucial is that you establish and read
the key books and articles and some of the main fi gures
who have written in the fi eld. As I suggest in Chapter 5,
it is crucial that you know what is known, so that you
cannot be accused of not doing your homework and
therefore of naively going over old ground. Also, being
able to link your own research questions, fi ndings, and
discussion to the existing literature is an important and

useful way of demonstrating the credibility and contribu-
tion of your research. However, as will become clear from
reading Chapter 5, a literature review is not simply a
summary of the literature that has been read. The writ-
ten literature review is expected to be critical. This does
not necessarily mean that you are expected to be highly
critical of the authors you read, but it does mean that you
are supposed to assess the signifi cance of their work and
how each item fi ts into the narrative about the literature
that you construct when writing a literature review.

Concepts and theories

Concepts are the way that we make sense of the social
world. They are essentially labels that we give to aspects
of the social world that seem to have common features
that strike us as signifi cant. As outlined in Chapter 7, the
social sciences have a strong tradition of concepts, many
of which have become part of the language of everyday
life. Concepts such as bureaucracy, power, social control,
status, charisma, labour process, cultural capital (see
Research in focus 1.1 for an example using this concept),
McDonaldization, alienation, and so on are very much
part of the theoretical edifi ce that generations of social
scientists have constructed. Concepts are a key ingredi-
ent of theories. Indeed, it is almost impossible to imagine
a theory that did not have at least one concept embedded
in it.

Concepts serve several purposes in the conduct of
social research. They are important to how we organize
and signal to intended audiences our research interests.
They help us to think about and be more disciplined
about what it is we want to fi nd out about and at the
same time help with the organization of our research
fi ndings. In the section on ‘The context of social research
methods’ it was noted briefl y that the relationship be-
tween theory and research is often depicted as involving
a choice between theories driving the research process in
all its phases and theories as a product of the research
process. This is invariably depicted as the contrast be-
tween respectively deductive and inductive approaches
to the relationship between theory and research and
is something that will be expanded upon in Chapter 2.
Unsurprisingly, this contrast has implications for concepts.
Concepts may be viewed as something we start out

Elements of the process of

social research

9780199588053_C01.indd 8 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 9

with and that represent key areas around which data are
collected in an investigation. In other words, we might
collect data in order to shed light on a concept or more
likely several concepts and how they are connected. This
is the approach taken in the investigation reported in
Research in focus 1.1. The alternative view is that con-
cepts are outcomes of research. According to this second
view, concepts help us to refl ect upon and organize the
data that we collect. Of course, these are not mutually
exclusive positions. In research, we often start out with
some key concepts that help us to orient to our subject
matter but, as a result of collecting data and interpreting
them, we possibly revise those concepts, or new ones
emerge through our refl ections.

One of the reasons why familiarity with the existing
literature in a research area (the issue covered in the
previous section) is so important is that it alerts us to

some of the main concepts that past researchers have
employed and how useful or limited those concepts have
been in helping to unravel the main issues. Research in
focus 1.1 provides an example of this tendency in that
the concept of cultural capital is employed for its possible
insights into the process of students being accepted or
rejected when applying for entry to Oxford University.
Even when we are reading the literature solely as con-
sumers of research—for example, when writing an
essay—knowing what the key concepts are, who is
responsible for them, and what controversies there are
(if any) surrounding them can be crucial.

Research questions

Research questions have been mentioned in passing on
a couple of occasions, and they are implicit in some of

Key concept 1.1
What are research questions?

A research question is a question that provides an explicit statement of what it is the researcher wants to know

about. A research purpose can be presented as a statement (for example, ‘I want to fi nd out whether (or

why) . . .’), but a question forces the researcher to be more explicit about what is to be investigated. A research

question must have a question mark at the end of it or else it is not a question. It must be interrogatory. Research

in focus 1.1 provides an example of a study with several research questions. A hypothesis is in a sense a form of

research question, but it is not stated as a question and provides an anticipation of what will be found out.

Denscombe (2010) has provided a helpful list of types of research question. This list fi rst appeared in an earlier

edition, which has been embellished by White (2009). The following types of research question are proposed by

Denscombe:

1. Predicting an outcome (does y happen under circumstances a and b?).

2. Explaining causes and consequences of a phenomenon (is y affected by x or is y a consequence of x?).

3. Evaluating a phenomenon (does y exhibit the benefi ts that it is claimed to have?).

4. Describing a phenomenon (what is y like or what forms does y assume?).

5. Developing good practice (how can we improve y?).

6. Empowerment (how can we enhance the lives of those we research?).

White (2009) is uneasy about Denscombe’s last category, arguing that an emphasis on political motives of this

kind can impede the conduct of high-quality research. To some extent, this difference of opinion can be

attributed to differences in viewpoint about the purposes of research highlighted in the section on ‘The context

of social research methods’. Rather than the sixth type of research question above, White proposes an

alternative:

7. Comparison (do a and b differ in respect of x?).

There are many ways that research questions can be categorized, and it is also diffi cult to arrive at an exhaustive

list, but these seven types provide a rough indication of the possibilities as well as drawing attention to a

controversy about the wider goals of research.

9780199588053_C01.indd 9 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research10

the discussion thus far. Research questions are extremely
important in the research process, because they force
you to consider that most basic of issues—what is it about
your area of interest that you want to know? Most people
beginning research start with a general idea of what it
is they are interested in. Research questions force you
to consider the issue of what it is you want to fi nd out
about much more precisely and rigorously. Developing
research questions is a matter of narrowing down and
focusing more precisely on what it is that you want to
know about.

Research questions are, therefore, important. Having
no research questions or poorly formulated research
questions will lead to poor research. If you do not specify
clear research questions, there is a great risk that your
research will be unfocused and that you will be unsure
about what your research is about and what you are
collecting data for. It does not matter how well you
design a questionnaire or how skilled an interviewer you
are; you must be clear about your research questions.
Equally, it does not matter whether your research is for
a project with a research grant of £300,000, a doctoral

Research in focus 1.1
Research questions in a study of cultural capital

The focus of the article by Zimdars, Sullivan, and Heath (2009) is the recruitment of students to Oxford

University. Recruitment to UK universities and to the elite universities of Oxford and Cambridge has been the

focus of political controversy in recent years, because the failure to recruit suffi cient numbers of state-school

students is seen as elitist and as restricting social mobility. Admissions offi cers in Oxford and Cambridge

universities in particular are often portrayed as displaying class prejudices that constrain the life chances of young

people from less privileged backgrounds. The researchers’ aim was ‘to assess whether cultural capital is linked to

success in gaining admission for those who apply’ (Zimdars et al. 2009: 653). They then go on to outline their

research questions:

Specifi cally, we address the following questions:

1. How do Oxford applicants vary in their cultural participation and cultural knowledge, according to parents’

education, social class, gender and ethnicity?

2. Does cultural capital predict acceptance to Oxford?

3. If so, does its effect remain once we control for examination performance?

4. Is cultural capital more important for admission to the arts and humanities faculties than to the sciences?

5. To what extent does cultural capital mediate the effect of social class, parents’ education, private schooling,

ethnicity and gender? (Zimdars et al. 2009: 653)

At one level, this research seeks to address issues of relevance to social and educational policy. As noted in the

section on ‘The context of social research methods’, social research sometimes explores issues that are mainly

to do with policy and practice. But the researchers are also keen to draw on theory and one key concept in

particular—Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital—to help understand the processes underlying the low level of

acceptance of state-school applicants at Oxford. Cultural capital refers to an individual’s ability to distinguish

him- or herself through cultural experiences and competencies. It is argued that such cultural expertise allows

the middle class to reproduce itself both culturally and socially and serves to reduce the social and economic

opportunities of working-class children.

Zimdars et al. draw primarily on a questionnaire survey of Oxford applicants who applied for entry in 2002.

Of particular interest is that the researchers found cultural knowledge to be a more important factor in success

at gaining entry than mere cultural participation through visiting museums, galleries, etc. As the authors put it:

‘What matters is a relationship of familiarity with culture, rather than just participation in culture’ (Zimdars et al.

2009: 661). As such, these fi ndings are only partially supportive of Bourdieu’s ideas at least so far as they relate to

the issue of gaining admission to Oxford.

9780199588053_C01.indd 10 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 11

thesis, or a small mini-project. Research questions are
crucial because they will:

• guide your literature search;

• guide your decisions about the kind of research design
to employ;

• guide your decisions about what data to collect and
from whom;

• guide your analysis of your data;

• guide your writing-up of your data;

• stop you from going off in unnecessary directions;
and

• provide your readers with a clearer sense of what
your research is about.

It has been suggested above that research questions will
help to guide your literature search for your literature
review. However, it is also possible, if not likely, that
reading the literature may prompt you to revise your
research questions and may even suggest some new ones.
Therefore, at an early stage of a research study, research
questions and the literature relating to them are likely to
be rather intertwined. A plausible sequence at the begin-
ning of a research project is that initial contact with the
literature relating to an area of interest suggests one or
two research questions and that further reading guided
by the initial research questions gives rise to a revision of
them or possibly some new ones. In Chapter 4, there will
be more discussion of research questions and how they
can be developed.

Student experience
Generating and changing research questions

Hannah Creane elaborated on her answers regarding her research questions in an email. She writes:

the three initial research questions I had formulated when I began the study were: what makes a child a child?;

what makes an adult an adult?; and to what extent can the child be seen as a ‘mini’ adult? However, while

writing this up I realized that those questions were no longer really the guiding questions for my research.

The study has evolved and become more of an empirical refl ection of the generational changes within

childhood rather than looking specifi cally at what childhood actually is. It seems to me that the two

appropriate questions in relation to the study as a whole now are: What makes a child a child as opposed

to an adult?; and to what extent has this changed across the generations?

To read more about Hannah’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this
book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Sampling cases

Social research is not always carried out on people. For
example, we may want to examine mass-media content
and employ a technique like content analysis, which is
covered in Chapter 13. In such a situation, we are collect-
ing our data from newspapers or television programmes
rather than from people. Because of this, it is common for
writers on social research methods to use the term ‘case’
to cover the wide variety of objects on whom or from
whom data will be collected. Much if not most of the
time, ‘cases’ will be people. In social research we are
rarely in a position in which we can interview, observe,
or send questionnaires to all possible individuals who are
appropriate to our research and equally we are unlikely
to be able to read and analyse the content of all articles in

all newspapers relating to an area of media content that
interests us. Time and cost issues will always constrain
the number of cases we can include in our research, so
we almost always have to sample.

As we will see in later chapters, there are a number of
different principles behind sampling. Many people asso-
ciate sampling with surveys and the quest for represen-

tative samples. This approach to sampling invariably
lies behind sampling for opinion polls of the kind that we
often encounter in newspapers. Such sampling is usually
based on principles to do with searching for a sample
that can represent (and therefore act as a microcosm of)
a wider population. If newspapers could not make
claims about the representativeness of the samples used
for the opinion polls they commission, the fi ndings they
report about the prospects for political parties would

9780199588053_C01.indd 11 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research12

be less signifi cant. In Chapter 8, the principles that lie
behind the quest for the representative sample will be
explained. These principles do not apply solely to ques-
tionnaire survey research of the kind described in
Research in focus 1.1 but may also apply to other kinds of
investigation—for example, when sampling newspaper
articles for a content analysis of media content. By
no means all forms of social science research prioritize
representative samples. In several of the chapters in Part
Three we will encounter sampling principles that are
based not on the idea of representativeness but on the
notion that samples should be selected on the basis of
their appropriateness to the purposes of the investiga-
tion. Also, in case study research, there may be just one
or two units of analysis. With such research, the goal is to
understand the selected case or cases in depth. Sampling
issues are relevant to such research as well. Quite aside
from the fact that the case or cases have to be selected
according to criteria relevant to the research, those indi-
viduals who are members of the case study context have
to be sampled according to criteria too. However, the
chief point to register at this juncture is that sampling
is an inevitable feature of most if not all kinds of social
research and therefore constitutes an important stage of
any investigation.

Data collection

To many people, data collection represents the key point
of any research project, and it is probably not surprising
therefore that this book probably gives more words and
pages to this stage in the research process than any other.
Some of the methods of data collection covered in this
book, such as interviewing and questionnaires, are prob-
ably more familiar to many readers than some of the
others. Some methods entail a rather structured approach
to data collection—that is, the researcher establishes in
advance the broad contours of what he or she needs
to fi nd out about and designs research instruments to
implement what needs to be known. The questionnaire
is an example of such an instrument; the researcher
establishes what he or she needs to know to answer the
research questions that drive the project and designs
questions in the questionnaire that will allow data to be
collected to answer those research questions. Similarly,
something like a structured interview—the kind of
interview used in survey investigations—includes a host
of questions designed for exactly the same purpose. It is
unfortunate that we use the same word—question—for
both research questions and the kinds of questions that
are posed in questionnaires and interviews. They are

very different: a research question is a question designed
to indicate what the purpose of an investigation is; a
questionnaire question is one of many questions that are
posed in a questionnaire that will help to shed light on
and answer one or more research questions.

It is also possible to discern in this book methods
of data collection that are less structured or, to put it
another way, that are more unstructured. In Part Three
in particular, research methods will be encountered that
emphasize a more open-ended view of the research pro-
cess, so that there is less restriction on the kinds of things
that can be found out about. Research methods such
as participant observation and semi-structured inter-

viewing are used so that the researcher can keep more of
an open mind about the contours of what he or she needs
to know about, so that concepts and theories can emerge
out of the data. This is the inductive approach to theoriz-
ing and conceptualization that was referred to above.
Such research is usually still geared to answering re-
search questions, but these are often expressed in a less
explicit form than the research questions encountered
in more structured research of the kind encountered in
Research in focus 1.1. This can be seen by comparing the
specifi city of these research questions with those of a
study of retired senior managers by Jones, Leontowitsch,
and Higgs (2010):

Our aim was to explore the experiences of retirement,
changes in lifestyle and social roles and the meanings
associated with retirement amongst early retirees from
higher management. Research questions included: to
what extent do our respondents construct a new
balance of activities? Do respondents construct new
discourses of everyday life? Does the move by
respondents into leisure retirement create new
tensions in other parts of their lives? (Jones et al.
2010: 105)

These research questions derived in part from, and were
illuminated by, the concept of the ‘quasi-subject’ in
modern societies, whereby people ‘become authors of
their own biographies—authors who have to continually
construct identities and biographical narratives in order
to give meaning to lives that are lived out in the face of
uncertainty’ (Jones et al. 2010: 104). In order to explore
the research questions, semi-structured interviews with
twenty relevant retirees were undertaken. The inter-
views were designed ‘to encourage a conversation and to
allow participants to give their own account of retire-
ment’ (Jones et al. 2010: 108). This is a noticeably less

9780199588053_C01.indd 12 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 13

structured approach to the collection of data, which re-
fl ects the open-ended nature of the research questions.

The collection of data, then, can entail different sorts
of approach in terms of how structured or open-ended
the implementation of the methods are. An issue that
arises in all research is that of quality. How do you do
good research and how do you know it when you read it?
The assessment of research quality is an issue that relates
to all phases of the research process, but the quality of
the data-collection procedures is bound to be a key con-
cern. As we will see in several chapters, the assessment of
quality has become a prominent issue among social re-
search practitioners and also for policy-makers with an
interest in academic research. It has become a much
more signifi cant topic since the fi rst edition of this book
was published in 2001. There are several reasons for the
greater prominence of research quality assessment, some
of which will be mentioned in later chapters. However,
the key point to register for the time being is that, with
the increased importance of research quality assessment,
debates have arisen about issues such as whether there
can be quality criteria that apply to all forms of research.
As we will see, especially in Chapter 17, there has been a
clear position among some methodologists that a ‘horses
for courses’ approach is required whereby the applica-
tion of quality criteria needs to take into account the kind
of investigation to which they are being applied.

Data analysis

Data analysis is a stage that incorporates several ele-
ments. At the most obvious level, it might be taken to
mean the application of statistical techniques to the data
that have been collected. However, quite aside from the
fact that by no means all data are amenable to quantita-
tive data analysis and that, even when some data might
be appropriate to such analysis, alternative approaches
are sometimes taken, there are other things going on
when data are being analysed. For a start, the raw data
have to be managed. This means that the researcher has
to check the data to establish whether there are any obvi-
ous fl aws. For example, if we take the kind of research
like that conducted by Jones et al. (2010) on senior
management early retirees, the interviews are usually
audio-recorded and then subsequently transcribed. The
researcher needs to be alert to possible hearing mistakes
that might affect the meaning of people’s replies. The
preparation of the data for transcription enables the
researcher to introduce the transcripts into a computer
software program of the kind discussed in Chapter 25. In
the case of the research by Jones et al., once the transcripts

had been incorporated within the software, the authors
say they conducted a thematic analysis. This means
that they examined the data to extract core themes that
could be distinguished both between and within tran-
scripts. One of the main elements of the identifi cation
of themes was through coding each transcript. With the
analysis of qualitative data of these kinds, coding is a
process whereby the data are broken down into their
component parts and those parts are then given labels.
The analyst then searches for recurrences of these
sequences of coded text within and across cases and also
for links between different codes. Thus, there is a lot
going on in this process: the data are being managed, in
that the transcripts are being made more manageable
than they would be if the researcher just kept listening
and relistening to the recordings; the researcher is mak-
ing sense of the data through coding the transcripts; and
the data are being interpreted—that is, the researcher is
seeking to link the process of making sense of the data
with the research questions that provided the starting
point, as well as with the literature relating to retirement
and also with the theoretical ideas the authors use to
illuminate the issue.

The data analysis stage is fundamentally about data
reduction—that is, it is concerned with reducing the
large corpus of information that the researcher has
gathered so that he or she can make sense of it. Unless
the researcher reduces the amount of data collected—for
example, in the case of quantitative data by producing
tables or averages and in the case of qualitative data by
grouping textual material into categories like themes—it
is more or less impossible to interpret the material.

A further issue to bear in mind with data analysis is
that it can refer to the analysis of either primary or sec-
ondary data. With primary data analysis, the researcher
or researchers who were responsible for collecting the
data conduct the analysis, as was the case with both the
Zimdars et al. (2009) and Jones et al. (2010) studies re-
ferred to in this chapter. Secondary data analysis occurs
when someone else analyses such data. Nowadays, re-
searchers who work in universities are encouraged to
deposit their data in archives, which then allow others to
analyse the data they collected. Given the time and cost
of most social research, this is a sensible thing to do, as it
increases the likely payoff of an investigation, and it may
be that a researcher conducting secondary analysis can
explore the research questions in which he or she is inter-
ested without having to go through the time-consuming
and lengthy process of having to collect primary data.
Secondary analysis is discussed in Chapters 14 and 24.
However, the distinction between primary and secondary

9780199588053_C01.indd 13 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research14

analysis is not a perfect one. In Key concept 14.1, I pres-
ent an example of a secondary analysis of data in which
I was involved. For me, it was a primary analysis of the
data, as I had not been involved in the data collection,
whereas for my co-authors, all of whom had been involved
in the data collection, it was a secondary analysis.

Writing up

It could be argued that the fi nest piece of research would
be useless if it was not disseminated to others. We do
research so that it can be written up, thereby allow-
ing others to read what we have done and concluded.

Table 1.1
Stages in the research process in relation to two studies

Stage Description of stage Example (Zimdars et al. 2009)* Example (Jones et al. 2010)

Literature
review

A critical examination of
existing research relating to the
phenomena of interest and of
relevant theoretical ideas.

Literature concerning social stratifi cation as it
relates to educational access and concerning
the notion of cultural capital.

Literature concerning
retirement and the notion of
the ‘quasi-subject’ in second
modernity.

Concepts
and theories

The ideas that drive the
research process and that shed
light on the interpretation of
the resulting fi ndings. These
fi ndings contribute to the ideas.

Academic attainment; cultural capital; social
background.

Early retirement;
quasi-subject; discourse;
lifestyle.

Research
questions

A question that provides an
explicit statement of what it is
the researcher wants to know
about.

‘1. How do Oxford applicants vary in their
cultural participation and cultural
knowledge, according to parents’ education,
social class, gender and ethnicity?

2. Does cultural capital predict acceptance to
Oxford?

3. If so, does its effect remain once we control
for examination performance?

4. Is cultural capital more important for
admission to the arts and humanities
faculties than to the sciences?

5. To what extent does cultural capital
mediate the effect of social class, parents’
education, private schooling, ethnicity and
gender?’ (Zimdars et al. 2009: 653)

‘to what extent do our
respondents construct a
new balance of activities?
Do respondents construct
new discourses of everyday
life? Does the move by
respondents into leisure
retirement create new
tensions in other parts of
their lives?’ (Jones et al.
2010: 105)

Sampling
cases

The selection of cases (in this
case people) who are relevant
to the research questions.

‘A representative sample of 1,700 applicants
with British qualifi cations who applied to
Oxford during the 2002 admissions cycle’
(Zimdars et al. 2009: 653).

Sample of twenty early
retirees obtained initially
through databases of
organizations working with
retired people.

Data
collection

Gathering data from the sample
so that the research questions
can be answered.

Questionnaire survey. Data obtained on degree
attainment of each applicant. Also, interviews
with admissions tutors and observation of
admissions meetings.

Semi-structured interviews.

Data
analysis

The management, analysis, and
interpretation of the data.

Statistical analysis of the questionnaire data.
Thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Thematic analysis of
interview transcripts.

Writing up Dissemination of the research
and its fi ndings.

The research was written up as a doctoral
thesis and as articles, including Zimdars et al.
(2009). Main sections in Zimdars et al. (2009):

• Introduction

• Operationalization

• Research questions

• Data and methods

• Discussion

• Appendix

Research written up as an
article in Jones et al. (2010).
Main sections:

• Introduction

• Background

• Methods

• Findings

• Discussion

• Conclusion

* Zimdars (2007) consulted for further information.

9780199588053_C01.indd 14 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 15

It might also be argued that writing up should not be
part of the subject matter for a book on social research
methods. However, since dissemination is so important
to the researcher, it is right for it to be included, and the
fi nal chapter of this book (Chapter 29) is devoted to this
issue.

There are slightly different ways in which social re-
search tends to get written up, and these vary somewhat
according to the different styles of doing research. For
example, more structured kinds of research like that
presented in Research in focus 1.1 are sometimes written
up differently from more open-ended research of the sort
represented by the Jones et al. (2010) article. However,
there are some core ingredients that most dissertations,
theses, and research articles will include. These are:

• Introduction. Here the research area and its signifi –
cance are outlined. The research questions are also
likely to be introduced here.

• Literature review. What is already known about the
research area is sketched out and examined critically.

• Research methods. Here the research methods employed
(sampling, methods of data collection, methods of
data analysis) are presented and justifi ed.

• Results. The fi ndings are presented.

• Discussion. The fi ndings are discussed in relation to
their implications for the literature and for the research
questions previously introduced.

• Conclusion. The signifi cance of the research is rein-
forced for the reader.

These elements are discussed in much greater detail
in Chapter 29. They are not an exhaustive list, because
writing conventions differ in various ways, but these are
recurring elements of the fi nal written outputs. Table 1.1
summarizes the seven elements of the research process
examined in this section.

The messiness of social research

There is one fi nal point I want to register before you read
further. It is to alert you to the fact that social research is
often a lot less smooth than the accounts of the research
process you read in books like this. The purpose of this
book is to provide an overview of the research process
that also provides advice on how it should be done. In
fact, research is full of false starts, blind alleys, mistakes,
and enforced changes to research plans. However, in a
book like this it is impossible to cover all such contin-
gencies, in large part because many of them are one-off
events and almost impossible to anticipate. We know that
research can get messy from the confessional accounts of
the research process that have been written over the
years (e.g. the contributors to P. Hammond 1964; Bell
and Newby 1977; Bryman 1988b; Townsend and Burgess
2009a; Streiner and Sidani 2010). If social research is
messy, why do we invariably not get a sense of that when
we read reports of research in books and academic jour-
nal articles? Of course, research often does go relatively
smoothly and, in spite of minor hiccoughs, proceeds
roughly according to plan. However, it is also the case
that what we read in reports of research are often
relatively sanitized accounts of how the research was
produced, without a sense of the sometimes diffi cult
problems the researcher(s) had to overcome. This is not
to say that when social researchers write accounts of

their studies they deceive us, but rather that the accounts
of the fi ndings and how they were arrived at tend to
follow an implicit template that emphasizes some aspects
of the research process but not others. They tend to em-
phasize how the specifi c fi ndings presented in the report
were arrived at and to use standard methodological ter-
minology of the kind presented in this book to express
the underlying process. Research reports typically display
the various elements discussed in the previous section—
the relevant literature is reviewed, the key concepts and
theories are discussed, the research questions are pre-
sented, the sampling procedures and methods of data
collection are explained and justifi ed, the fi ndings are
presented and discussed, and some conclusions are
drawn. The vicissitudes of research tend not to feature
within this template. This tendency is not unique to social
research: in Chapter 22 a study of how scientists present
and discuss their work will be presented, and this shows
that here too certain core aspects of the production of
‘fi ndings’ tend to be omitted from the written account
(Gilbert and Mulkay 1984).

It is also the case that, regardless of the various ways
in which research can be knocked off its path, this book
can deal only with generalities. It cannot cover every
eventuality, so that it is quite possible that when conduct-
ing an investigation you will fi nd that these generalities

9780199588053_C01.indd 15 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research16

do not fi t perfectly with the circumstances in which you
fi nd yourself. It is important to be aware of that possibil-
ity and not to interpret any slight departures you have to
make from the advice provided in this book as a problem
with your skills and understanding. It could even be
argued that, in the light of the different ways in which
social researchers can be stymied in their research plans,
a book on research methods, outlining how research is
and should be conducted, is of little value. Needless to
say, I would not subscribe to such a view. Many years ago,
I was involved in several studies of construction projects.
One of the recurring themes in the fi ndings was the dif-
ferent ways that construction projects could be knocked
off their course: unpredictable weather, sudden shortages
of key supplies, illness, accidents, previously reliable sub-
contractors letting the project manager down, clients
changing their minds or being unavailable at key points,
sudden changes in health and safety regulation, poor
quality supplies, poor quality work, early excavation

revealing unanticipated problems—any of these could
produce signifi cant interruptions to even the best-planned
construction project. But never was it suggested that the
principles of construction and of construction manage-
ment should be abandoned. Without such principles,
project managers would be at an even greater loss to
know how to proceed. Much the same is true of research
projects. There are plenty of things that can go wrong.
As Townsend and Burgess (2009b) write in the introduc-
tion to their collection of ‘research stories you won’t read
in textbooks’, two of the recurring themes from the
accounts they collected are the need for fl exibility and
the need for perseverance. However, at the same time it
is crucial to have an appreciation of the methodolo-
gical principles and the many debates and controversies
that surround them, and these are outlined in the next
twenty-eight chapters. These principles provide a road
map for the journey ahead.

Key points

● Social research and social research methods are embedded in wider contextual factors. They are not
practised in a vacuum.

● Social research practice comprises elements that are common to all or at least most forms of social
research. These include: conducting a literature review; concepts and theories; research questions;
sampling of cases; data collection; data analysis; and a writing-up of the research fi nding.

● Attention to these steps is what distinguishes academic social research from other kinds of social
research.

● Although we can attempt to formulate general principles for conducting social research, we have to
recognize that things do not always go entirely to plan.

Questions for review

What is meant by ‘social research’?

● What is distinctive about academic social research?

Why do social research?

● If you were about to embark on a research project now or in the near future, what would be the focus
of it and why?

The context of social research methods

● What are the main factors that impinge on social research and the implementation of social research
methods identifi ed in the chapter? Can you think of any that have not been touched on?

9780199588053_C01.indd 16 10/20/11 9:58 AM

The nature and process of social research 17

Elements of the process of social research

● Why is a literature review important when conducting research?

● What role do concepts and theories play in the process of doing social research?

● Why are researchers encouraged to specify their research questions? What kinds of research
questions are there?

● Why do researchers need to sample? Why is it important for them to outline the principles that
underpin their sampling choices?

● Outline one or two factors that might affect a researcher’s choice of data-collection instrument.

● What are the main differences between the kinds of data analysed by Zimdars et al. (2009) and
Jones et al. (2010)?

● How might you structure the report of the fi ndings of a project that you conducted?

The messiness of social research

● If research does not always go according to plan, why should we bother with methodological
principles at all?

Online Resource Centre

http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book to en rich your understanding of social
research strategies. Consult web links, test yourself using multiple choice questions, and gain further
guidance and inspiration from the Student Researcher’s Toolkit.

9780199588053_C01.indd 17 10/20/11 9:58 AM

Social research
strategies

Chapter outline

Introduction 19

Theory and research 20

What type of theory? 21

Deductive and inductive theory 24

Epistemological considerations 27

A natural science epistemology: positivism 27

Interpretivism 28

Ontological considerations 32

Objectivism 32

Constructionism 33

Relationship to social research 34

Research strategy: quantitative and qualitative research 35

Infl uences on the conduct of social research 39

Values 39

Practical considerations 41

Key points 42

Questions for review 42

2

9780199588053_C02.indd 18 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 19

Introduction

This book is about social research. It attempts to equip
people who have some knowledge of the social sciences
with an appreciation of how social research should be
conducted and what it entails. The latter project involves
situating social research in the context of sociology,
which in turn means attending to the question of its role
in the overall enterprise of the discipline. It would be
much easier to ‘cut to the chase’ and explore the nature of
methods of social research and provide advice on how
best to choose between and implement them. After all,
many people might expect a book with the title of the
present one to be concerned mainly with the ways in
which the different methods in the social researcher’s
arsenal can be employed.

But the practice of social research does not exist in a
bubble, hermetically sealed off from the social sciences
and the various intellectual allegiances that their practi-
tioners hold. Two points are of particular relevance here.

First, methods of social research are closely tied to dif-
ferent visions of how social reality should be studied.
Methods are not simply neutral tools: they are linked

with the ways in which social scientists envision the con-
nection between different viewpoints about the nature of
social reality and how it should be examined. However, it
is possible to overstate this point. While methods are not
neutral, they are not entirely suffused with intellectual
inclinations either. Secondly, there is the question of
how research methods and practice connect with the
wider social scientifi c enterprise. Research data are
invariably collected in relation to something. The ‘some-
thing’ may be a burning social problem or, more usually,
a theory.

This is not to suggest that research is entirely dictated
by theoretical concerns. One sometimes fi nds simple
‘fact-fi nding’ exercises published. Fenton et al. (1998)
conducted a quantitative content analysis of social re-
search reported in the British mass media. They exam-
ined national and regional newspapers, television and
radio, and also magazines. They admit that one of
the main reasons for conducting the research was to
establish the amount and types of research that are
represented. Sometimes, such exercises are motivated by

Chapter guide

The chief aim of this chapter is to show that a variety of considerations enter into the process of doing
social research. The distinction that is commonly drawn among writers on and practitioners of social
research between quantitative research and qualitative research is explored in relation to these
considerations. This chapter explores:

• the nature of the relationship between theory and research, in particular whether theory guides
research (known as a deductive approach) or whether theory is an outcome of research (known as
an inductive approach);

• epistemological issues—that is, ones to do with what is regarded as appropriate knowledge about the
social world; one of the most crucial aspects is the question of whether or not a natural science model
of the research process is suitable for the study of the social world;

• ontological issues—that is, ones to do with whether the social world is regarded as something external
to social actors or as something that people are in the process of fashioning;

• the ways in which these issues relate to the widely used distinction in the social sciences between two
types of research strategy: quantitative and qualitative research; there is also a preliminary discussion,
which will be followed up in Chapter 27, that suggests that, while quantitative and qualitative research
represent different approaches to social research, we should be wary of driving a wedge between
them;

• the ways in which values and practical issues also impinge on the social research process.

9780199588053_C02.indd 19 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies20

a concern about a pressing social problem. McKeganey
and Barnard (1996) conducted qualitative research
involving observation and interviews with prostitutes and
their clients in Glasgow. One factor that seems to have
prompted this research was the concern about the role
of prostitutes in spreading HIV infection (McKeganey
and Barnard 1996: 3). Another scenario occurs when
research is done on a topic when a specifi c opportunity
arises. The interest of Westergaard et al. (1989) in the
effects of redundancy seems to have been profoundly
motivated by the opportunity that arose when a Sheffi eld
steel company, which was close to their institutional base
at the University of Sheffi eld, made a large number of
people redundant. The fi rm’s management approached
the authors a year after the redundancies to conduct
research on what had happened to the individuals
who had been made redundant. The authors conducted
social survey research using a structured interview
approach on most of those made redundant. Of course, the
authors were infl uenced by theories about and previous
research on unemployment, but the specifi c impetus for

the research on the effects of redundancy was not
planned. Yet another stimulus for research can arise out
of personal experiences. Lofl and and Lofl and (1995)
note that many research publications emerge out of the
researcher’s personal biography, such as Zukin’s (1982)
interest in loft living arising out of her living in a loft in
New York City. Another example is O’Reilly’s (2000) in-
vestigation of British expatriates living on the Costa del
Sol in Spain, which stemmed from her and her partner’s
dream of moving to the area themselves, which in fact
they eventually did. Certainly, my own interest in Disney
theme parks can be traced back to a visit to Disney World
in Florida in 1991 (Bryman 1995, 1999), while my inter-
est in the representation of social science research in the
mass media (Fenton et al. 1998) can almost certainly be
attributed to a diffi cult encounter with the press reported
in Haslam and Bryman (1994).

By and large, however, research data achieve signifi –
cance in sociology when viewed in relation to theoretical
concerns. This raises the issue of the nature of the rela-
tionship between theory and research.

Student experience
Personal experience as a basis for

research interests

For her research, Isabella Robbins was interested in the ways in which mothers frame decisions regarding

vaccinations for their children. This topic had a particular signifi cance for her. She writes:

As the mother of three children I have encountered some tough decisions regarding responsibility towards

my children. Reading sociology, as a mature student, gave me the tools to help understand my world and to

contextualize some of the dilemmas I had faced. In particular, I had experienced a diffi cult decision regarding

the vaccination status of my children.

To read more about Isabella’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this
book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Theory and research

Characterizing the nature of the link between theory and
research is by no means a straightforward matter. There
are several issues at stake here, but two stand out in par-
ticular. First, there is the question of what form of theory
one is talking about. Secondly, there is the matter of
whether data are collected to test or to build theories.

Theory is important to the social researcher because it
provides a backcloth and rationale for the research that is
being conducted. It also provides a framework within
which social phenomena can be understood and the
research fi ndings can be interpreted.

9780199588053_C02.indd 20 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 21

What type of theory?

The term ‘theory’ is used in a variety of different ways,
but its most common meaning is as an explanation of
observed regularities—for example, why sufferers of
schizophrenia are more likely to come from working-
class than middle-class backgrounds, or why work alien-
ation varies by technology. But such theories tend not
to be the stuff of courses in sociological theory, which
typically focus much more on theories with a higher
level of abstraction. Examples of such theories include
structural-functionalism, symbolic interactionism, crit-
ical theory, poststructuralism, structuration theory, and
so on. What we see here is a distinction between theories
of the former type, which are often called theories of the
middle range (Merton 1967), and grand theories, which
operate at a more abstract and general level. According
to Merton, grand theories offer few indications to re-
searchers as to how they might guide or infl uence the
collection of empirical evidence. So, if someone wanted
to test a theory or to draw an inference from it that could
be tested, the level of abstractness is likely to be so great

that the researcher would fi nd it diffi cult to make the
necessary links with the real world. There is a paradox
here, of course. Even highly abstract ideas, such as
Parsons’s notions of ‘pattern variables’ and ‘functional
requisites’, must have some connection with an external
reality, in that they are likely to have been generated out
of Parsons’s reading of research or his refl ections upon
that reality or others’ writings on it. However, the level of
abstractness of the theorizing is so great as to make it dif-
fi cult for them to be deployed in research. For research
purposes, then, Merton argues that grand theories are of
limited use in connection with social research, although,
as the example in Research in focus 2.1 suggests, an
abstract concept like social capital (Bourdieu 1984) can
have some pay-off in research terms. Instead, middle-
range theories are ‘intermediate to general theories of
social systems which are too remote from particular
classes of social behavior, organization and change to
account for what is observed and to those detailed orderly
descriptions of particulars that are not generalized at all’
(Merton 1967: 39).

Research in focus 2.1
Grand theory and social research
Butler and Robson (2001) used Bourdieu’s concept of social capital as a means of understanding gentrifi cation of

areas of London. While the term ‘social capital’ has acquired an everyday usage, Butler and Robson follow Bourdieu’s

theoretical use of it, which draws attention to the social connectedness and the interpersonal resources that

those with social capital can draw on to pursue their goals. While the term has attracted the interest of social

policy researchers and others concerned with social exclusion, its use in relation to the middle class has been less

prominent, according to Butler and Robson. Bourdieu’s treatment implies that those with social capital cultivate

signifi cant social connections and then draw upon those connections as resources for their goals. Butler and

Robson conducted semi-structured interviews with ‘gentrifi ers’ in each of three inner London areas. Responding to

a tendency to view gentrifi cation in rather unitary terms, the authors selected the three areas to examine what

they refer to as the ‘variability’ of the process. To that end, the areas were selected to refl ect variation in two

factors: the length of time over which gentrifi cation had been occurring and the middle-class groupings to which

each of the areas appealed. The selection of areas in terms of these criteria was aided by census data. Of the

three areas, Telegraph Hill was the strongest in terms of social capital. According to the authors, this is revealed

in ‘its higher levels of voluntary co-operation and sense of geographically focused unity’ (Butler and Robson 2001:

2159). It is the recourse to these networks of sociality that accounts for the successful gentrifi cation of Telegraph

Hill. Battersea, one of the other two areas, entails a contrasting impetus for gentrifi cation in Bourdieu’s terms.

Here, economic capital was more signifi cant for gentrifi cation than the social capital that was important in

Telegraph Hill. The role of economic capital in Battersea can be seen in the ‘competitive access to an increasingly

desirable and expensive stock of housing and an exclusive circuit of schooling centred on private provision’

(Butler and Robson 2001: 2159). In the former, it is sociality that provides the motor for gentrifi cation, whereas

in Battersea gentrifi cation is driven by market forces and is only partially infl uenced by patterns of social

connectedness. This study is an interesting example of the way in which a relatively high-level theoretical

notion—social capital and its kindred concept of economic capital—associated with a social theorist can be

employed to illuminate research questions concerning the dynamics of modern urban living.

9780199588053_C02.indd 21 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies22

By and large, then, it is not grand theory that typically
guides social research. Middle-range theories are much
more likely to be the focus of empirical enquiry. In fact,
Merton formulated the idea as a means of bridging what
he saw as a growing gulf between theory (in the sense of
grand theory) and empirical fi ndings. This is not to say
that there were no middle-range theories before he
wrote: there defi nitely were, but what Merton did was
to seek to clarify what is meant by ‘theory’ when social
scientists write about the relationship between theory
and research.

Middle-range theories, unlike grand ones, operate in a
limited domain, whether it is juvenile delinquency, racial
prejudice, educational attainment, or the labour process

Even the grand/middle-range distinction does not en-
tirely clarify the issues involved in asking the deceptively
simple question of ‘what is theory?’ This is because the
term ‘theory’ is frequently used in a manner that means
little more than the background literature in an area of
social enquiry. To a certain extent, this point can be taken
to apply to fact-fi nding exercises such as those referred to
above. The analysis of the representation of social
research in the media by Fenton et al. (1998) was under-
taken against a background of similar analyses in the
USA and of studies of the representation of natural sci-
ence research in the media in several different countries.
In many cases, the relevant background literature relat-
ing to a topic fuels the focus of an article or book and
thereby acts as the equivalent of a theory, as with the
research referred to in Research in focus 2.3. The litera-
ture in a certain domain acts as the spur to an enquiry.
The literature acts as an impetus in a number of ways: the
researcher may seek to resolve an inconsistency between
different fi ndings or between different interpretations of
fi ndings; the researcher may have spotted a neglected

(see Research in focus 2.2). They vary somewhat in their
range of application. For example, labelling theory repre-
sents a middle-range theory in the sociology of deviance.
Its exponents sought to understand deviance in terms of
the causes and effects of the societal reaction to devi-
ation. It was held to be applicable to a variety of different
forms of deviance, including crime and mental illness. By
contrast, Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) differential associ-
ation theory was formulated specifi cally in connection
with juvenile delinquency, and in subsequent years this
tended to be its focus. Middle-range theories, then, fall
somewhere between grand theories and empirical fi nd-
ings. They represent attempts to understand and explain
a limited aspect of social life.

aspect of a topic; certain ideas may not previously have
been tested a great deal; the researcher may feel that
existing approaches being used for research on a topic
are defi cient, and so provides an alternative approach;
and so on.

Social scientists are sometimes prone to being somewhat
dismissive of research that has no obvious con nections
with theory—in either the grand or the middle-range
senses of the term. Such research is often dismissed as
naive empiricism (see Key concept 2.1). It would be harsh,
not to say inaccurate, to brand as naive empiricism the
numerous studies in which the publications-as-theory
strategy is employed, simply because their authors have
not been preoccupied with theory. Such research is con-
ditioned by and directed towards research questions that
arise out of an interrogation of the literature. The data
collection and analysis are subsequently geared to the
illumination or resolution of the research issue or problem
that has been identifi ed at the outset. The literature acts
as a proxy for theory. In many instances, theory is latent
or implicit in the literature.

Research in focus 2.2
Labour process theory: a middle-range theory
In the sociology of work, labour process theory can be regarded as a middle-range theory. The publication of

Labor and Monopoly Capital (Braverman 1974) inaugurated a stream of thinking and research around the idea

of the labour process and in particular on the degree to which there has been an inexorable trend towards

increasing control over the manual worker and the deskilling of manual labour. A conference volume of much of

this work was published as Labour Process Theory (Knights and Willmott 1990). P. Thompson (1989) describes the

theory as having four elements: the principle that the labour process entails the extraction of surplus value; the

need for capitalist enterprises constantly to transform production processes; the quest for control over labour;

and the essential confl ict between capital and labour. Labour process theory has been the focus of considerable

empirical research (e.g. Knights et al. 1985).

9780199588053_C02.indd 22 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 23

Indeed, research that appears to have the character-
istics of the fact-fi nding exercise should not be prematurely
dismissed as naive empiricism either. McKeganey and
Barnard’s (1996) research on prostitutes and their clients
is a case in point. On the face of it, even if one strips away
the concern with HIV infection, the research could be
construed as naive empiricism and perhaps of a rather
prurient kind. However, this again would be a harsh
and probably inaccurate judgement. For example, the
authors relate their research fi ndings to the literature

reporting other investigations of prostitutes in a number
of different countries. They also illuminate their fi ndings
by drawing on ideas that are very much part of the soci-
ologist’s conceptual tool kit. One example is Goffman’s
(1963) notion of ‘stigma’ and the way in which the stig-
matized individual seeks to manage a spoiled identity;
another is Hochschild’s (1983) concept of ‘emotional
labour’, a term she coined to denote the way in which air-
line fl ight attendants need to express positive emotions
as part of the requirements for their jobs. In doing so,

Research in focus 2.3
Background literature as theory:

emotional labour and hairstylists

One component of R. S. Cohen’s (2010) mixed methods study of hairstylists’ relationships with their clients

was a postal questionnaire survey of all salons and barbers’ shops in a northern city in England. Of the

328 enterprises contacted, 40 per cent replied to the questionnaire. The goal of the research was to examine

how far the giving of emotional favours was affected by the nature of the relationship with the client in terms of

whether the worker was an owner or a paid employee. Her survey data show that owners are more likely to

stay late for clients and to try to fi nd a space for them between clients who have been booked in. Hochschild’s

(1983) book, in which she fi rst coined the term ‘emotional labour’, and the many studies that have taken up

this concept form the starting point of Cohen’s research. The signifi cance of this work is evident from Cohen’s

two opening sentences:

Since Hochschild (1983) fi rst suggested that interactive service workers carry out emotional labour in the

course of their work, this proposition has become widely accepted. However the relationship of emotional

labour, and client–worker social interactions more generally, to the structural relations of employment has

received surprisingly little attention . . . (R. S. Cohen 2010: 197)

Thus, the literature on emotional labour forms the background to the study and the main impetus for the

interpretation of the fi ndings, some of which are gleaned from qualitative data deriving from semi-structured

interviews with some owners and employees. For the latter, interactions with clients are much more likely to take

the form of what Hochschild (1983) called ‘surface acting’, a superfi cial form of emotional labour and emotional

engagement with the client.

Key concept 2.1
What is empiricism?

The term ‘empiricism’ is used in a number of different ways, but two stand out. First, it is used to denote a

general approach to the study of reality that suggests that only knowledge gained through experience and the

senses is acceptable. In other words, this position means that ideas must be subjected to the rigours of testing

before they can be considered knowledge. The second meaning of the term is related to this and refers to a belief

that the accumulation of ‘facts’ is a legitimate goal in its own right. It is this second meaning that is sometimes

referred to as ‘naive empiricism’.

9780199588053_C02.indd 23 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies24

they contrive a demeanour of friendliness when deal-
ing with passengers, some of whom may be extremely
diffi cult (see also Research in focus 2.3).

It is not possible to tell from McKeganey and Barnard’s
(1996) report whether the concepts of stigma and emo-
tional labour infl uenced their data collection. However,
raising this question invites consideration of another
question: in so far as any piece of research is linked to
theory, what was the role of that theory? Up to this point,
I have tended to write as though theory is something
that guides and infl uences the collection and analysis
of data. In other words, research is done in order to
answer questions posed by theoretical considerations.
But an alternative position is to view theory as something
that occurs after the collection and analysis of some or
all of the data associated with a project. We begin to
see here the signifi cance of a second factor in consider-
ing the relationship between theory and research—
whether we are referring to deductive or inductive
theory.

Deductive and inductive theory

Deductive theory represents the commonest view of the
nature of the relationship between theory and social
research. The researcher, on the basis of what is known
about in a particular domain and of theoretical consider-
ations in relation to that domain, deduces a hypothesis
(or hypotheses) that must then be subjected to empirical
scrutiny. Embedded within the hypothesis will be con-
cepts that will need to be translated into researchable
entities. The social scientist must both skillfully deduce a
hypothesis and then translate it into operational terms.
This means that the social scientist needs to specify how
data can be collected in relation to the concepts that
make up the hypothesis.

This view of the role of theory in relation to research is
very much the kind of role that Merton had in mind in
connection with middle-range theory, which, he argued,
‘is principally used in sociology to guide empirical
inquiry’ (Merton 1967: 39). Theory and the hypothesis
deduced from it come fi rst and drive the process of gath-
ering data (see Research in focus 2.4 for an example of a
deductive approach to the relationship between theory
and data). The sequence can be depicted as one in which
the steps outlined in Figure 2.1 take place.

The last step involves a movement that is in the oppo-
site direction from deduction—it involves induction, as
the researcher infers the implications of his or her fi nd-
ings for the theory that prompted the whole exercise.
The fi ndings are fed back into the stock of theory and the

research fi ndings associated with a certain domain of
enquiry. This can be seen in the case of the fi nal refl ec-
tions of Butler and Robson’s (2001—see Research in
focus 2.1) study of gentrifi cation in three areas of London
when they write:

Figure 2.1Figure 2.1
The process of deduction

1. Theory

3. Data collection

4. Findings

5. Hypotheses confirmed or rejected

6. Revision of theory

2. Hypothesis

Each of the three groups has played on its strengths,
where it has them. Gentrifi cation, given this, cannot in
any sense be considered to be a unitary phenomenon,
but needs to be examined in each case according to its
own logic and outcomes. The concept of social capital,
when used as an integrated part of an extended
conceptual framework for the apprehension of all forms
of middle-class capital relations, can thus play an
important part in discriminating between differing
types of social phenomena. (Butler and Robson
2001: 2160)

9780199588053_C02.indd 24 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 25

In these fi nal refl ections they show how their fi ndings
and the interpretations of those fi ndings can be fed back
into both the stock of knowledge concerning gentrifi ca-
tion in cities and, in the third of the three sentences, the
concept of social capital and its uses.

However, while this element of inductiveness un-
doubtedly exists in the approach outlined, it is typically
deemed to be predominantly deductive in orientation.
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that, when this
deductive approach, which is usually associated with
quantitative research, is put into operation, it often does
not follow the sequence outlined in its pure form. As pre-
viously noted, ‘theory’ may be little more than the litera-
ture on a certain topic in the form of the accumulated
knowledge gleaned from books and articles. Also, even
when theory or theories can be discerned, explicit hypo-
theses are not always deduced from them in the way that
Kelley and De Graaf (1997) did in Research in focus 2.4.
A further point to bear in mind is that the deductive

process appears very linear—one step follows the other
in a clear, logical sequence. However, there are many
instances where this is not the case: a researcher’s view
of the theory or literature may have changed as a result
of the analysis of the collected data; new theoretical
ideas or fi ndings may be published by others before the
researcher has generated his or her fi ndings; or, the relev-
ance of a set of data for a theory may become apparent
after the data have been collected.

This may all seem rather surprising and confusing.
There is a certain logic to the idea of developing theories
and then testing them. In everyday contexts, we com-
monly think of theories as things that are quite illumin-
ating but that need to be tested before they can be
considered valid or useful. In point of fact, however,
while the process of deduction outlined in Figure 2.1
does undoubtedly occur, it is better considered as a
general orientation to the link between theory and
research. As a general orientation, its broad contours may

Research in focus 2.4
A deductive study

Kelley and De Graaf (1997) show that a number of studies have examined the factors that have an impact upon

individuals’ religious beliefs, such as parents, schools, and friends, but they also argue that there are good

grounds for thinking that the nation into which one is born will be an important cross-cultural factor. These

refl ections constitute what they refer to as the ‘theory’ that guided their research and from which the following

hypothesis was derived: ‘People born into religious nations will, in proportion to the orthodoxy of their

fellow-citizens, acquire more orthodox beliefs than otherwise similar people born into secular nations’ (Kelley

and De Graaf 1997: 641). There are two central concepts in this hypothesis that would need to be measured:

national religiosity (whether it is religious or secular) and individual religious orthodoxy. The authors

hypothesized further that the religious orientation of the individual’s family (whether devout or secular)

would affect the nature of the relationship between national religiosity and religious orthodoxy.

To test the hypotheses, a secondary analysis of data deriving from survey research based on large samples from

fi fteen nations was conducted. UK readers will be interested to know that the British and Northern Irish (and

Irish Republic) data were derived from the British Social Attitudes survey for 1991 (Jowell et al. 1992). Religious

orthodoxy was measured by four survey questions concerned with religious belief. The questions asked about

(1) whether the person believed in God, (2) his or her past beliefs about God, (3) how close the individual felt to

God, and (4) whether he or she felt that God cares about everyone. To measure national religiosity, the fi fteen

nations were classifi ed into one of fi ve categories ascending from secular to religious. The classifi cation was

undertaken according to ‘an unweighted average of parental church attendance . . . and religious belief in the

nation as a whole’ (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 647). Family religious orientation was measured on a scale of fi ve

levels of parental church attendance. The hypotheses were broadly confi rmed and the authors conclude that the

‘religious environment of a nation has a major impact on the beliefs of its citizens’ (Kelley and De Graaf 1997:

654). Some of the implications of the fi ndings for theories about international differences in religiosity are then

outlined.

This study demonstrates the process whereby hypotheses are deduced from existing theory and these then

guide the process of data collection so that they can be tested.

9780199588053_C02.indd 25 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies26

frequently be discernible in social research, but it is also
the case that we often fi nd departures from it. However, in
some research no attempt is made to follow the sequence
outlined in Figure 2.1. Some researchers prefer an ap-
proach to the relationship between theory and research
that is primarily inductive. With an inductive stance,
theory is the outcome of research. In other words, the
process of induction involves drawing generalizable
inferences out of observations. Figure 2.2 attempts to cap-
ture the essence of the difference between inductivism
and deductivism.

However, just as deduction entails an element of
induction, the inductive process is likely to entail a modi-
cum of deduction. Once the phase of theoretical refl ection
on a set of data has been carried out, the researcher may
want to collect further data in order to establish the con-
ditions in which a theory will and will not hold. Such a
general strategy is often called iterative: it involves a
weaving back and forth between data and theory. It is
particularly evident in grounded theory, which will be
examined in Chapter 24, but in the meantime the basic
point is to note that induction represents an alternative
strategy for linking theory and research, although it
contains a deductive element too.

Figure 2.2Figure 2.2
Deductive and inductive approaches to

the relationship between theory and

research

Inductive approach

Deductive approach

Observations/Findings

Observations/Findings

Theory

Theory

Research in focus 2.5
An inductive study

Charmaz (1991, 1997) has been concerned to examine a number of aspects of the experiences of people with

chronic illness. One phase of her research entailed the examination specifi cally of men with such a condition.

In one of her reports (Charmaz 1997), she discusses the results of her research into twenty men suffering from

chronic illness. The bulk of her data derives from semi-structured interviews. In order to bring out the

distinctiveness of men’s responses, she compared the fi ndings relating to men with a parallel study of women

with chronic illness. She argues that a key component of men’s responses is that of a strategy of preserving self.

Although the experience of chronic illness invariably necessitates a change of lifestyle that itself occasions a

change in personal identity, the men sought to preserve their sense of self by drawing on ‘essential qualities,

attributes, and identities of [the] past self’ (Charmaz 1997: 49). By contrast, women were less reliant in their

strategies of preserving self on the recapturing of past identities. She relates her theoretical refl ections of her data

to her male respondents’ notions of masculine identity. Her emphasis on the idea of preserving self allows her to

assess the factors that lie behind whether a man with chronic illness will ‘reconstruct a positive identity or sink

into depression’ (Charmaz 1997: 57). If they were unable to have access to actions that would allow their sense

of past self to be extended into the future (for example, through work), the probability of their sinking into

depression was enhanced.

In this study, the inductive nature of the relationship between theory and research can be seen in the way that

Charmaz’s theoretical ideas (such as the notion of ‘preserving self’) derive from her data rather than being

formed before she had collected her data.

9780199588053_C02.indd 26 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 27

However, as with ‘theory’ in connection with the
deductive approach to the relationship between theory
and research, we have to be cautious about the use of the
term in the context of the inductive strategy too. While
some researchers undoubtedly develop theories, equally
it is necessary to be aware that very often what one
ends up with can be little more than empirical gen-
eralizations of the kind Merton (1967) wrote about.
Research in focus 2.5 is an example of research that can
be classifi ed as inductive in the sense that it develops a
theory out of interview data deriving from men suffering
from chronic illness concerning what determines suc-
cessful coping mechanisms for males affl icted with such
a condition. In fact, the analytic strategy adopted by the
author (Charmaz 1997) was grounded theory, and it
is certainly the case that many of the most prominent
examples of inductive research derive from this tradition
(see the other chapters in Strauss and Corbin 1997b,
from which Charmaz’s example was taken).

Charmaz’s (1997) research is an interesting illustra-
tion of an inductive approach. Two points are particu-
larly worth noting about it. First, as previously noted,
it uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of
data and to the generation of theory. This approach,
which was fi rst outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967), is
often regarded as especially strong in terms of generating
theories out of data. This contrasts with the nature of

many supposedly inductive studies, which generate inter-
esting and illuminating fi ndings but whose theoretical
signifi cance is not entirely clear. They provide insightful
empirical generalizations, but little theory. Secondly, in
much the same way that the deductive strategy is associ-
ated with a quantitative research approach, an inductive
strategy of linking data and theory is typically associated
with a qualitative research approach. It is not a coinci-
dence that Charmaz’s (1997) research referred to in
Research in focus 2.5 is based on in-depth, semi-structured
interviews that produced qualitative data in the form of
respondents’ detailed answers to her questions. However,
as will be shown below, this characterization of the in-
ductive strategy as associated with qualitative research is
not entirely straightforward: not only does much qualita-
tive research not generate theory, but also theory is often
used at the very least as a background to qualitative
investigations.

It is useful to think of the relationship between theory
and research in terms of deductive and inductive strat-
egies. However, as the previous discussion has implied,
the issues are not as clear-cut as they are sometimes
presented. To a large extent, deductive and inductive
strategies are possibly better thought of as tendencies
rather than as a hard-and-fast distinction. But these are
not the only issues that impinge on the conduct of social
research.

Epistemological considerations

An epistemological issue concerns the question of what is
(or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a
discipline. A particularly central issue in this context is
the question of whether the social world can and should
be studied according to the same principles, procedures,
and ethos as the natural sciences. The position that
affi rms the importance of imitating the natural sciences
is invariably associated with an epistemological position
known as positivism (see Key concept 2.2).

A natural science epistemology:

positivism

The doctrine of positivism is extremely diffi cult to pin
down and therefore to outline in a precise manner, be-
cause it is used in a number of different ways by authors.
For some writers, it is a descriptive category—one that

describes a philosophical position that can be discerned
in research—though there are still disagreements about
what it comprises; for others, it is a pejorative term used
to describe crude and often superfi cial data collection.

It is possible to see in the fi ve principles in Key con-
cept 2.2 a link with some of the points that have already
been raised about the relationship between theory and
research. For example, positivism entails elements of
both a deductive approach (principle 2) and an inductive
strategy (principle 3). Also, a fairly sharp distinction is
drawn between theory and research. The role of research
is to test theories and to provide material for the develop-
ment of laws. But either of these connections between
theory and research carries with it the implication that it
is possible to collect observations in a manner that is not
infl uenced by pre-existing theories. Moreover, theoret-
ical terms that are not directly amenable to observation

9780199588053_C02.indd 27 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies28

Key concept 2.2
What is positivism?

Positivism is an epistemological position that advocates the application of the methods of the natural sciences to

the study of social reality and beyond. But the term stretches beyond this principle, though the constituent

elements vary between authors. However, positivism is also taken to entail the following principles:

1. Only phenomena and hence knowledge confi rmed by the senses can genuinely be warranted as knowledge

(the principle of phenomenalism).

2. The purpose of theory is to generate hypotheses that can be tested and that will thereby allow explanations

of laws to be assessed (the principle of deductivism).

3. Knowledge is arrived at through the gathering of facts that provide the basis for laws (the principle of

inductivism).

4. Science must (and presumably can) be conducted in a way that is value free (that is, objective).

5. There is a clear distinction between scientifi c statements and normative statements and a belief that the

former are the true domain of the scientist. This last principle is implied by the fi rst because the truth or

otherwise of normative statements cannot be confi rmed by the senses.

are not considered genuinely scientifi c; they must be sus-
ceptible to the rigours of observation. All this carries
with it the implication of greater epistemological status
being given to observation than to theory.

It should be noted that it is a mistake to treat positivism
as synonymous with science and the scientifi c. In fact,
philosophers of science and of the social sciences differ
quite sharply over how best to characterize scientifi c
practice, and since the early 1960s there has been a drift
away from viewing it in positivist terms. Thus, when
writers complain about the limitations of positivism, it is
not entirely clear whether they mean the philosophical
term or a scientifi c approach more generally. Realism (in
particular, critical realism), for example, is another philo-
sophical position that purports to provide an account of
the nature of scientifi c practice (see Key concept 2.3).

The crux of the epistemological considerations that
form the central thrust of this section is the rejection by
some writers and traditions of the application of the
canons of the natural sciences to the study of social reality.
A diffi culty here is that it is not easy to disentangle the
natural science model from positivism as the butt of their
criticisms. In other words, it is not always clear whether
they are inveighing against the application of a general
natural scientifi c approach or of positivism in particular.
There is a long-standing debate about the appropriate-
ness of the natural science model for the study of society,
but, since the account that is offered of that model tends
to have largely positivist overtones, it would seem that
it is positivism that is the focus of attention rather than

other accounts of scientifi c practice (such as critical
realism—see Key concept 2.3).

Interpretivism

Interpretivism is a term given to a contrasting epistem-
ology to positivism (see Key concept 2.4). The term
subsumes the views of writers who have been critical of
the application of the scientifi c model to the study of the
social world and who have been infl uenced by different
intellectual traditions, which are outlined below. They
share a view that the subject matter of the social sciences
—people and their institutions—is fundamentally differ-
ent from that of the natural sciences. The study of the
social world therefore requires a different logic of re-
search procedure, one that refl ects the distinctiveness of
humans as against the natural order. Von Wright (1971)
has depicted the epistemological clash as being between
positivism and hermeneutics (a term that is drawn from
theology and that, when imported into the social sci-
ences, is concerned with the theory and method of the
interpretation of human action). This clash refl ects a divi-
sion between an emphasis on the explanation of human
behaviour that is the chief ingredient of the positivist
approach to the social sciences and the understanding
of human behaviour. The latter is concerned with the
empathic understanding of human action rather than with
the forces that are deemed to act on it. This contrast
refl ects long-standing debates that precede the emergence
of the modern social sciences but fi nd their expression in

9780199588053_C02.indd 28 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 29

such notions as the advocacy by Max Weber (1864–1920)
of an approach referred to in his native German as
Verstehen (which means understanding). Weber (1947:
88) described sociology as a ‘science which attempts the

interpretive understanding of social action in order to
arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects’.
Weber’s defi nition seems to embrace both explanation
and understanding here, but the crucial point is that the

Key concept 2.3
What is realism?

Realism shares two features with positivism: a belief that the natural and the social sciences can and should apply

the same kinds of approach to the collection of data and to explanation, and a commitment to the view that

there is an external reality to which scientists direct their attention (in other words, there is a reality that is

separate from our descriptions of it). There are two major forms of realism:

• Empirical realism simply asserts that, through the use of appropriate methods, reality can be understood.

This version of realism is sometimes referred to as naive realism to refl ect the fact that it is often assumed by

realists that there is a perfect (or at least very close) correspondence between reality and the term used to

describe it. As such, it ‘fails to recognise that there are enduring structures and generative mechanisms

underlying and producing observable phenomena and events’ and is therefore ‘superfi cial’ (Bhaskar 1989: 2).

This is perhaps the most common meaning of the term. When writers employ the term ‘realism’ in a general

way, it is invariably this meaning to which they are referring.

• Critical realism is a specifi c form of realism whose manifesto is to recognize the reality of the natural order and

the events and discourses of the social world and holds that ‘we will only be able to understand—and

so change—the social world if we identify the structures at work that generate those events and discourses.

. . . These structures are not spontaneously apparent in the observable pattern of events; they can only be

identifi ed through the practical and theoretical work of the social sciences’ (Bhaskar 1989: 2).

Critical realism implies two things. First, it implies that, whereas positivists take the view that the scientist’s

conceptualization of reality actually directly refl ects that reality, realists argue that the scientist’s

conceptualization is simply a way of knowing that reality. As Bhaskar (1975: 250) has put it: ‘Science, then,

is the systematic attempt to express in thought the structures and ways of acting of things that exist and act

independently of thought.’ Critical realists acknowledge and accept that the categories they employ to

understand reality are likely to be provisional. Thus, unlike naive realists, critical realists recognize that there is

a distinction between the objects that are the focus of their enquiries and the terms they use to describe,

account for, and understand them. Secondly, by implication, critical realists unlike positivists are perfectly content

to admit into their explanations theoretical terms that are not directly amenable to observation. As a result,

hypothetical entities that account for regularities in the natural or social orders (the ‘generative mechanisms’ to

which Bhaskar refers) are perfectly admissible for realists, but not for positivists. Generative mechanisms entail

the entities and processes that are constitutive of the phenomenon of interest. For critical realists, it is acceptable

that generative mechanisms are not directly observable, since they can be admitted into theoretical accounts on

the grounds that their effects are observable. Also crucial to a critical realist understanding is the identifi cation of

the context that interacts with the generative mechanism to produce an observed regularity in the social world.

An appreciation of context is crucial to critical realist explanations because it serves to shed light on the

conditions that promote or impede the operation of the causal mechanism. What makes critical realism critical is

that the identifi cation of generative mechanisms offers the prospect of introducing changes that can transform

the status quo. A further point to note about critical realism is that the form of reasoning involved in the

identifi cation of generative causal mechanisms is neither inductive nor deductive. It is referred to by Blaikie

(2004) as retroductive reasoning, which entails making an inference about the causal mechanism that lies

behind and is responsible for regularities that are observed in the social world. Research in focus 26.1 provides

an example of research using a critical realist approach. This example can be read profi tably at this stage even

though it is in a much later chapter.

9780199588053_C02.indd 29 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies30

task of ‘causal explanation’ is undertaken with reference
to the ‘interpretive understanding of social action’ rather
than to external forces that have no meaning for those
involved in that social action.

One of the main intellectual traditions that has been
responsible for the anti-positivist position has been

phenomenology, a philosophy that is concerned with
the question of how individuals make sense of the world
around them and how in particular the philosopher
should bracket out preconceptions in his or her grasp of
that world. The initial application of phenomenological
ideas to the social sciences is attributed to the work of
Alfred Schutz (1899–1959), whose work did not come to
the notice of most English-speaking social scientists until
the translation from German of his major writings in the
1960s, some twenty or more years after they had been
written. His work was profoundly infl uenced by Weber’s
concept of Verstehen, as well as by phenomenological
philosophers, like Husserl. Schutz’s position is well cap-
tured in the following passage, which has been quoted on
numerous occasions:

Two points are particularly noteworthy in this quotation.
First, it asserts that there is a fundamental difference
between the subject matter of the natural sciences and
the social sciences and that an epistemology is required
that will refl ect and capitalize upon that difference. The
fundamental difference resides in the fact that social
reality has a meaning for human beings and therefore
human action is meaningful—that is, it has a meaning for
them and they act on the basis of the meanings that they
attribute to their acts and to the acts of others. This leads
to the second point—namely, that it is the job of the
social scientist to gain access to people’s ‘common-sense
thinking’ and hence to interpret their actions and their
social world from their point of view. It is this particular
feature that social scientists claiming allegiance to phe-
nomenology have typically emphasized. In the words of
the authors of a research methods text whose approach is
described as phenomenological: ‘The phenomenologist
views human behavior . . . as a product of how people
interpret the world. . . . In order to grasp the meanings of
a person’s behavior, the phenomenologist attempts to see
things from that person’s point of view’ (Bogdan and Taylor
1975: 13–14; emphasis in original).

In this exposition of Verstehen and phenomenology, it
has been necessary to skate over some complex issues. In
particular, Weber’s examination of Verstehen is far more
complex than the above commentary suggests, because
the empathetic understanding that seems to be implied
above was not the way in which he applied it (Bauman
1978), while the question of what is and is not a genu-
inely phenomenological approach to the social sciences
is a matter of some dispute (Heap and Roth 1973). How-
ever, the similarity in the writings of the hermeneutic–
phenomenological tradition and of the Verstehen approach,
with their emphasis upon social action as being meaning-
ful to actors and therefore needing to be interpreted from
their point of view, coupled with the rejection of positiv-
ism, contributed to a stream of thought often referred to
as interpretivism (e.g. J. A. Hughes 1990).

Key concept 2.4
What is interpretivism?

Interpretivism is a term that usually denotes an alternative to the positivist orthodoxy that has held sway for

decades. It is predicated upon the view that a strategy is required that respects the differences between people

and the objects of the natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning

of social action. Its intellectual heritage includes: Weber’s notion of Verstehen; the hermeneutic–

phenomenological tradition; and symbolic interactionism.

The world of nature as explored by the natural scientist
does not ‘mean’ anything to molecules, atoms and
electrons. But the observational fi eld of the social
scientist—social reality—has a specifi c meaning and
relevance structure for the beings living, acting, and
thinking within it. By a series of common-sense
constructs they have pre-selected and pre-interpreted
this world which they experience as the reality of their
daily lives. It is these thought objects of theirs which
determine their behaviour by motivating it. The thought
objects constructed by the social scientist, in order to
grasp this social reality, have to be founded upon the
thought objects constructed by the common-sense
thinking of men [and women!], living their daily life
within the social world. (Schutz 1962: 59)

9780199588053_C02.indd 30 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 31

Verstehen and the hermeneutic–phenomenological
tradition do not exhaust the intellectual infl uences on
interpretivism. The theoretical tradition in sociology
known as symbolic interactionism has also been regarded
by many writers as a further infl uence. Again, the case
is not clear-cut. The implications for empirical research
of the ideas of the founders of symbolic interactionism,
in particular George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), whose
discussion of the way in which our notion of self emerges
through an appreciation of how others see us, have been
hotly debated. There was a school of research, known
as the Iowa school, that drew heavily on Mead’s con-
cepts and ideas, but proceeded in a direction that most
people would prefer to depict as largely positivist in tone
(Meltzer et al. 1975). Moreover, some writers have
argued that Mead’s approach is far more consistent
with a natural science approach than has typically been
recognized (McPhail and Rexroat 1979). However, the
general tendency has been to view symbolic inter-
actionism as occupying similar intellectual space to
the hermeneutic–phenomenological tradition and so as
broadly interpretative in approach. This tendency is
largely the product of the writings of Herbert Blumer, a
student of Mead’s who acted as his mentor’s spokesman
and interpreter, and his followers (Hammersley 1989;
R. Collins 1994). Not only did Blumer coin the term
symbolic interaction; he also provided a gloss on Mead’s
writings that has decidedly interpretative overtones.
Symbolic interactionists argue that interaction takes
place in such a way that the individual is continually
interpreting the symbolic meaning of his or her environ-
ment (which includes the actions of others) and acts on
the basis of this imputed meaning. In research terms,
according to Blumer (1962: 188), ‘the position of symbolic
interaction requires the student to catch the process of
interpretation through which [actors] construct their
actions’, a statement that brings out clearly his views of
the research implications of symbolic interactionism and
of Mead’s thought.

It should be appreciated that the parallelism
between symbolic interactionism and the hermeneutic–
phenomenological tradition should not be exaggerated.
The two are united in their antipathy for positivism
and have in common an interpretative stance. However,
symbolic interactionism is, at least in the hands of
Blumer and the many writers and researchers who have
followed in his wake, a type of social theory that has dis-
tinctive epistemological implications; the hermeneutic–
phenomenological tradition, by contrast, is best thought
of as a general epistemological approach in its own right.
Blumer may have been infl uenced by the hermeneutic–

phenomenological tradition, but there is no concrete
evidence of this. There are other intellectual currents
that have affi nities with the interpretative stance, such
as the working-through of the ramifi cations of the works
of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (Winch 1958),
but the hermeneutic–phenomenological, Verstehen, and
symbolic interactionist traditions can be considered
major infl uences.

Taking an interpretative stance can mean that the
researcher may come up with surprising fi ndings, or at
least fi ndings that appear surprising if a largely external
stance is taken—that is, a position from outside the par-
ticular social context being studied. Research in focus 2.6
provides an interesting example of this possibility.

Of course, as the example in Research in focus 2.6
suggests, when the social scientist adopts an interpreta-
tive stance, he or she is not simply laying bare how
members of a social group interpret the world around
them. The social scientist will almost certainly be aiming
to place the interpretations that have been elicited into a
social scientifi c frame. There is a double interpretation
going on: the researcher is providing an interpretation
of others’ interpretations. Indeed, there is a third level of
interpretation going on, because the researcher’s inter-
pretations have to be further interpreted in terms of the
concepts, theories, and literature of a discipline. Thus,
taking the example in Research in focus 2.6, Foster’s
(1995) suggestion that Riverside is not perceived as a
high crime area by residents is her interpretation of her
subjects’ interpretations. She then had the additional
job of placing her interesting fi ndings into a social scien-
tifi c frame, which she accomplished by relating them to
existing concepts and discussions in criminology of such
things as informal social control, neighbourhood watch
schemes, and the role of housing as a possible cause of
criminal activity.

The aim of this section has been to outline how epi-
stemological considerations—especially those relating
to the question of whether a natural science approach,
and in particular a positivist one, can supply legitimate
knowledge of the social world—are related to research
practice. There is a link with the earlier section in that a
deductive approach to the relationship between theory
and research is typically associated with a positivist posi-
tion. Key concept 2.2 does try to suggest that inductivism
is also a feature of positivism (third principle), but, in the
working-through of its implementation in the practice of
social research, it is the deductive element (second prin-
ciple) that tends to be emphasized. Similarly, the third
level of interpretation that a researcher engaged in inter-
pretative research must bring into operation is very much

9780199588053_C02.indd 31 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies32

part of the kind of inductive strategy described in the
previous section. However, while such interconnections
between epistemological issues and research practice
exist, it is important not to overstate them, since they
represent tendencies rather than defi nitive points of

correspondence. Thus, particular epistemological prin-
ciples and research practices do not necessarily go hand
in hand in a neat unambiguous manner. This point will
be made again on several occasions and will be a special
focus of Chapter 26.

Research in focus 2.6
Interpretivism in practice

Foster (1995) conducted ethnographic research using participant observation and semi-structured interviews

in a housing estate in East London, referred to as Riverside. The estate had a high level of crime, as indicated by

offi cial statistics on crime. However, she found that residents did not perceive the estate to be a high crime

area. This perception could be attributed to a number of factors, but a particularly important reason was the

existence of ‘informal social control’. People expected a certain level of crime, but felt fairly secure because

informal social control allowed levels of crime to be contained. Informal social control comprised a number of

different aspects. One aspect was that neighbours often looked out for each other. In the words of one of Foster’s

interviewees: ‘If I hear a bang or shouting I go out. If there’s aggravation I come in and ring the police. I don’t

stand for it.’ Another aspect of informal social control was that people often felt secure because they knew each

other. Another respondent said: ‘I don’t feel nervous . . . because people do generally know each other. We keep

an eye on each other’s properties . . . I feel quite safe because you know your neighbours and you know they’re

there . . . they look out for you’ (Foster 1995: 575).

Ontological considerations

Questions of social ontology are concerned with the
nature of social entities. The central point of orientation
here is the question of whether social entities can and
should be considered objective entities that have a reality
external to social actors, or whether they can and should
be considered social constructions built up from the per-
ceptions and actions of social actors. These positions are
frequently referred to respectively as objectivism and
constructionism. Their differences can be illustrated by
reference to two of the most common and central terms
in social science—organization and culture.

Objectivism

Objectivism is an ontological position that implies that
social phenomena confront us as external facts that are
beyond our reach or infl uence (see Key concept 2.5).

We can discuss organization or an organization as a
tangible object. It has rules and regulations. It adopts
standardized procedures for getting things done. People
are appointed to different jobs within a division of

labour. There is a hierarchy. It has a mission statement.
And so on. The degree to which these features exist from
organization to organization is variable, but in thinking
in these terms we are tending to the view that an organ-
ization has a reality that is external to the individuals who
inhabit it. Moreover, the organization represents a social
order in that it exerts pressure on individuals to conform
to the requirements of the organization. People learn
and apply the rules and regulations. They follow the
standardized procedures. They do the jobs to which they
are appointed. People tell them what to do and they tell
others what to do. They learn and apply the values in the
mission statement. If they do not do these things, they
may be reprimanded or even fi red. The organization is
therefore a constraining force that acts on and inhibits
its members.

The same can be said of culture. Cultures and subcul-
tures can be viewed as repositories of widely shared
values and customs into which people are socialized so
that they can function as good citizens or as full partici-
pants. Cultures and subcultures constrain us because we

9780199588053_C02.indd 32 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 33

internalize their beliefs and values. In the case of both
organization and culture, the social entity in question
comes across as something external to the actor and as
having an almost tangible reality of its own. It has the
characteristics of an object and hence of having an objec-
tive reality. To a very large extent, these are the ‘classic’
ways of conceptualizing organization and culture.

Constructionism

However, we can consider an alternative ontological
position—constructionism (Key concept 2.6). This posi-
tion challenges the suggestion that categories such as
organization and culture are pre-given and therefore
confront social actors as external realities that they have
no role in fashioning.

Let us take organization fi rst. Strauss et al. (1973),
drawing on insights from symbolic interactionism, car-

ried out research in a psychiatric hospital and proposed
that it was best conceptualized as a ‘negotiated order’.
Instead of taking the view that order in organizations is a
pre-existing characteristic, they argue that it is worked
at. Rules were far less extensive and less rigorously im-
posed than might be supposed from the classic account
of organization. Indeed, Strauss et al. (1973: 308) prefer
to refer to them as ‘much less like commands, and much
more like general understandings’. Precisely because
relatively little of the spheres of action of doctors, nurses,
and other personnel was prescribed, the social order of
the hospital was an outcome of agreed-upon patterns of
action that were themselves the products of negotiations
between the different parties involved. The social order
is in a constant state of change because the hospital is ‘a
place where numerous agreements are continually being
terminated or forgotten, but also as continually being
established, renewed, reviewed, revoked, revised. . . . In

Key concept 2.5
What is objectivism?

Objectivism is an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence

that is independent of social actors. It implies that social phenomena and the categories that we use in everyday

discourse have an existence that is independent or separate from actors.

Key concept 2.6
What is constructionism?

Constructionism is an ontological position (often also referred to as constructivism) that asserts that social

phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors. It implies that social

phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are in a constant state

of revision. In recent years, the term has also come to include the notion that researchers’ own accounts of the

social world are constructions. In other words, the researcher always presents a specifi c version of social reality,

rather than one that can be regarded as defi nitive. Knowledge is viewed as indeterminate, a position redolent of

postmodernism (see Key concept 17.1, which further examines this viewpoint). This sense of constructionism is

usually allied to the ontological version of the term. In other words, these are linked meanings. Both meanings

are antithetical to objectivism (see Key concept 2.5), but the second meaning is also antithetical to realism (see

Key concept 2.3). The fi rst meaning might be thought of usefully as constructionism in relation to the social

world; the second as constructionism in relation to the nature of knowledge of the social world (and indeed the

natural world).

Increasingly, the notion of constructionism in relation to the nature of knowledge of the social world is being

incorporated into notions of constructionism, but in this book I will be using the term in relation to the fi rst

meaning, whereby constructionism is presented as an ontological position in relating to social objects and

categories—that is, one that views them as socially constructed.

9780199588053_C02.indd 33 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies34

any pragmatic sense, this is the hospital at the moment:
this is its social order’ (Strauss et al. 1973: 316–17). The
authors argue that a preoccupation with the formal prop-
erties of organizations (rules, organizational charts, regu-
lations, roles) tends to neglect the degree to which order
in organizations has to be accomplished in everyday
interaction, though this is not to say that the formal
properties have no element of constraint on individual
action.

Much the same kind of point can be made about the
idea of culture. Instead of seeing culture as an external
reality that acts on and constrains people, it can be
taken to be an emergent reality in a continuous state of
construction and reconstruction. Becker (1982: 521),
for example, has suggested that ‘people create culture
continuously. . . . No set of cultural understandings . . .
provides a perfectly applicable solution to any problem
people have to solve in the course of their day, and they
therefore must remake those solutions, adapt their under-
standings to the new situation in the light of what is
different about it.’ Like Strauss et al., Becker recognizes
that the constructionist position cannot be pushed to the
extreme: it is necessary to appreciate that culture has a
reality that ‘persists and antedates the participation of
particular people’ and shapes their perspectives, but it is
not an inert objective reality that possesses only a sense
of constraint: it acts as a point of reference but is always
in the process of being formed.

Neither the work of Strauss et al. nor that of Becker
pushes the constructionist argument to the extreme.
Each admits to the pre-existence of their objects of inter-
est (organization and culture respectively). However, in
each case we see an intellectual predilection for stressing
the active role of individuals in the social construction of
social reality. Not all writers adopting a constructionist
position are similarly prepared to acknowledge the exis-
tence or at least importance of an objective reality. Walsh
(1972: 19), for example, has written that ‘we cannot take
for granted, as the natural scientist does, the availability
of a preconstituted world of phenomena for investiga-
tion’ and must instead ‘examine the processes by which
the social world is constructed’. Constructionism essen-
tially invites the researcher to consider the ways in which
social reality is an ongoing accomplishment of social
actors rather than something external to them and that
totally constrains them.

Constructionism also suggests that the categories that
people employ in helping them to understand the natural
and social world are in fact social products. The categories
do not have built-in essences; instead, their meaning is
constructed in and through interaction. Thus, a category

like ‘masculinity’ might be treated as a social construc-
tion. This notion implies that, rather than being treated
as a distinct inert entity, masculinity is construed as
something whose meaning is built up during interaction.
That meaning is likely to be a highly ephemeral one, in
that it will vary by both time and place. This kind of
stance frequently displays a concern with the language
that is employed to present categories in particular ways.
It suggests that the social world and its categories are not
external to us, but are built up and constituted in and
through interaction. This tendency can be seen particu-
larly in discourse analysis, which is examined in Chap-
ter 22. As Potter (1996: 98) observes: ‘The world . . . is
constituted in one way or another as people talk it,
write it and argue it.’ This sense of constructionism is
highly antithetical to realism (see Key concept 2.3).
Constructionism frequently results in an interest in the
representation of social phenomena. Research in focus
2.7 provides an illustration of this idea in relation to
the representation of the breast cancer epidemic in
the USA.

Constructionism is also frequently used as a term that
refl ects the indeterminacy of our knowledge of the social
world (see Key concept 2.6 and the idea of construction-
ism in relation to the nature of knowledge of the social
world). However, in this book, I will be using the term in
connection with the notion that social phenomena and
categories are social constructions.

Relationship to social research

Questions of social ontology cannot be divorced from
issues concerning the conduct of social research. Onto-
logical assumptions and commitments will feed into the
ways in which research questions are formulated and
research is carried out. If a research question is for-
mulated in such a way as to suggest that organizations
and cultures are objective social entities that act on indi-
viduals, the researcher is likely to emphasize the formal
properties of organizations or the beliefs and values of
members of the culture. Alternatively, if the researcher
formulates a research question so that the tenuousness
of organization and culture as objective categories is
stressed, it is likely that an emphasis will be placed on
the active involvement of people in reality construction.
In either case, it might be supposed that different
approaches to the design of research and the collection
of data will be required. Later in the book, Research in
focus 20.8 provides an illustration of a study with a
strong commitment to a constructionist ontology and its
implications for the research process.

9780199588053_C02.indd 34 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 35

Research in focus 2.7
Constructionism in action

Lantz and Booth (1998) have shown that breast cancer can be treated as a social construction. They note that

US data show a rise in the incidence of the disease since the early 1980s, which has led to the depiction of the

trend as an epidemic. The authors examined a variety of popular magazines using qualitative content analysis

(see Key concept 13.1 for a brief description of this m ethod). They note that many of the articles draw attention

to the lifestyles of modern women, such as delaying fi rst births, diet and alcohol consumption, and having

careers. The authors argue that the articles

ascribe blame to individual behaviors by listing a wide array of individual risk factors (many of which are not

behaviors of ‘traditional’ women), and then offering prudent prescriptions for prevention. Women are

portrayed as victims of an insidious disease, but also as victims of their own behaviors, many of which are

related to the control of their own fertility. . . . These articles suggest that nontraditional women experience

pathological repercussions within their bodies and, in turn, may be responsible for our current epidemic of

breast cancer. (Lantz and Booth 1998: 915–16)

This article suggests that, as a social category, the breast cancer epidemic is being represented in popular

magazines in a particular way—one that blames the victims and the lifestyles of modern women in particular.

This is in spite of the fact that fewer than 20 per cent of cases of breast cancer are in women under the age of 50.

Lantz and Booth’s study is fairly representative of a constructionist ontology in suggesting that the epidemic is

not simply being construed as a social fact but is being ascribed a particular meaning (one that blames the

victims of the disease). In this way, the representation of the disease in popular magazines forms an important

element in its social construction.

Research strategy: quantitative and

qualitative research

Many writers on methodological issues fi nd it helpful
to distinguish between quantitative research and quali-

tative research. The status of the distinction is ambigu-
ous, because it is almost simultaneously regarded by
some writers as a fundamental contrast and by others as
no longer useful or even simply as ‘false’ (Layder 1993:
110). However, there is little evidence to suggest that
the use of the distinction is abating and even consider-
able evidence of its continued, even growing, cur-
rency. The quantitative/qualitative distinction will be
employed a great deal in this book, because it repres-
ents a useful means of classifying different methods
of social research and because it is a helpful umbrella
for a range of issues concerned with the practice of
social research.

On the face of it, there would seem to be little to the
quantitative/qualitative distinction other than the fact
that quantitative researchers employ measurement and
qualitative researchers do not. It is certainly the case

that there is a predisposition among researchers along
these lines, but many writers have suggested that the
differences are deeper than the superfi cial issue of the
presence or absence of quantifi cation. For many writers,
quantitative and qualitative research differ with respect
to their epistemological foundations and in other re-
spects too. Indeed, if we take the areas that have been
the focus of the previous three sections—the connection
between theory and research, epistemological consider-
ations, and ontological considerations—quantitative and
qualitative research can be taken to form two distinctive
clusters of research strategy. By a research strategy,
I simply mean a general orientation to the conduct of
social research. Table 2.1 outlines the differences between
quantitative and qualitative research in terms of the
three areas.

Thus, quantitative research can be construed as a
research strategy that emphasizes quantifi cation in the
collection and analysis of data and that

9780199588053_C02.indd 35 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies36

• entails a deductive approach to the relationship
between theory and research, in which the accent is
placed on the testing of theories;

• has incorporated the practices and norms of the natural
scientifi c model and of positivism in particular; and

• embodies a view of social reality as an external, objec-
tive reality.

By contrast, qualitative research can be construed as a
research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather
than quantifi cation in the collection and analysis of data
and that

• predominantly emphasizes an inductive approach
to the relationship between theory and research, in
which the emphasis is placed on the generation of
theories;

• has rejected the practices and norms of the natural sci-
entifi c model and of positivism in particular in prefer-
ence for an emphasis on the ways in which individuals
interpret their social world; and

• embodies a view of social reality as a constantly shift-
ing emergent property of individuals’ creation.

There is, in fact, considerably more to the quantitative/
qualitative distinction than this contrast. In Chapters 7
and 17 the nature of quantitative and then qualitative
research respectively will be outlined in much greater
detail, while in Chapters 26 and 27 the contrasting
features will be further explored. In particular, a number
of distinguishing features fl ow from the commitment of
the quantitative research strategy to a positivist epistem-
ology and from the rejection of that epistemology by
practitioners of the qualitative research strategy. In other
words, the three contrasts in Table 2.1 are basic, though
fundamental, ones.

However, the interconnections between the differ-
ent features of quantitative and qualitative research are

not as straightforward as Table 2.1 and the previous
paragraph imply. While it is useful to contrast the two
research strategies, it is necessary to be careful about
hammering a wedge between them. It may seem per-
verse to introduce a basic set of distinctions and then
suggest that they are problematic. A recurring theme of
this book is that discussing the nature of social research
is just as complex as conducting research in the real
world. You may discover general tendencies, but they
are precisely that—tendencies. In reality, the picture
becomes more complicated the more you delve.

For example, it is common to describe qualitative
research as concerned with the generation rather than
the testing of theories. However, there are examples of
studies in which qualitative research has been employed
to test rather than to generate theories. For example,
Adler and Adler (1985) were concerned to explore the
issue of whether participation in athletics in higher edu-
cation in the USA is associated with higher or lower levels
of academic achievement, an issue on which the existing
literature was inconsistent. This is an illustration of the
use of the existing literature on a topic being employed as
a kind of proxy for theory. The fi rst author was a partici-
pant observer for four years of a basketball programme
in a university, and both authors carried out ‘intensive,
taped interviews’ with players. The authors’ fi ndings do
lead them to conclude that athletic participation is likely
to result in lower academic achievement. This occurs
because the programme participants gradually drift
from idealistic goals about their academic careers, and
a variety of factors lead them to become increasingly
detached from academic work. For example, one student
is quoted as saying: ‘If I was a student like most other
students I could do well, but when you play the calibre
of ball we do, you just can’t be an above-average student.
What I strive for now is just to be an average student. . . .
You just can’t fi nd the time to do all the reading’ (Adler
and Adler 1985: 247). This study shows how, although

Table 2.1
Fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative research strategies

Quantitative Qualitative

Principal orientation to the role
of theory in relation to research

Deductive; testing of theory Inductive; generation of theory

Epistemological orientation Natural science model, in particular positivism Interpretivism

Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructionism

9780199588053_C02.indd 36 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 37

qualitative research is typically associated with generat-
ing theories, it can also be employed for testing them.

Moreover, it is striking that, although the Adler and
Adler study is broadly interpretivist in epistemological
orientation, with its emphasis on how college athletes
view their social situation, the fi ndings have objectivist,
rather than constructionist, overtones. For example, when
the authors describe the students’ academic performance
as ‘determined less by demographic characteristics and
high school experiences than by the structure of their
college experiences’ (Adler and Adler 1985: 249), they
are positing a social world that is ‘out there’ and that has
a formal, objective quality. It is an example of qualitative
research in the sense that there is no quantifi cation or
very little of it, but it does not have all the other features
outlined in Table 2.1. Similarly, the previously mentioned
study by Westergaard et al. (1989) of the effects of
redundancy was a quantitative study in the sense of
being concerned to measure a wide variety of concepts,
but exhibited little evidence of a concern to test theor-
ies of unemployment or of a stressful life event like
redundancy. Instead, its conclusions revolve around seek-

ing to understand how those made redundant responded
to the experience in terms of such things as their job-
search methods, their inclination to fi nd jobs, and their
political attitudes. As such, it has interpretivist overtones
in spite of being an exercise in quantitative research.

The point that is being made in this section is that
quantitative and qualitative research represent different
research strategies and that each carries with it striking
differences in terms of the role of theory, epistemological
issues, and ontological concerns. However, the distinc-
tion is not a hard-and-fast one: studies that have the
broad characteristics of one research strategy may have
a characteristic of the other. I will say more about the
common features in quantitative and qualitative research
in Chap ter 26. Not only this, but many writers argue
that the two can be combined within an overall research
project, and Chapter 27 examines precisely this possibil-
ity. In Chapter 27, I will examine what is increasingly
referred to as mixed methods research. This term is
widely used nowadays to refer to research that combines
methods associated with both quantitative and qualita-
tive research.

Research in focus 2.8
Mixed methods research—an example
In 2001, Britain was profoundly affected by the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), which had a big impact on

people’s movements. Poortinga et al. (2004) were interested in how far the public trusted the information the

government was supplying and how it perceived the risks associated with the disease. Such issues were of

interest in part because the researchers felt that the ways in which the public responds to a crisis was an

important topic, but also because the issues connect with the infl uence in recent years of the notion of the

‘risk society’ (Beck 1992), which has attracted a good deal of sociological attention. At the height of the disease

during 2–5 April 2001, the researchers conducted a survey by administering a self-completion questionnaire

(see Chapter 10) to samples in two contrasting areas: Bude in Cornwall and Norwich in Norfolk. These two areas

were chosen because they were very differently affected by FMD. The questionnaire covered the following areas:

level of agreement with statements about the outbreak of the disease (for example, ‘My main concerns about

FMD are to do with the possible impacts on human health’); perceptions of who was to blame; level of

agreement with statements about the government’s handling of FMD; degrees of trust in various sources of

information about the disease; and personal information, such as any connection with the farming or tourist

industries. In addition, a qualitative research method—focus groups (see Chapter 21)—was employed. In May

and June 2001, these groups were convened and members of the groups were asked about the same kinds of

issues covered in the questionnaire. Focus group participants were chosen from among those who had indicated

in their questionnaire replies that they were willing to be involved in a focus group discussion. Three focus group

discussions took place. While the questionnaire data were able to demonstrate the variation in such things as

trust in various information sources, the focus groups revealed ‘valuable additional information, especially on the

reasons, rationalizations and arguments behind people’s understanding of the FMD issue’ (Poortinga et al. 2004:

86). As a result, the researchers were able to arrive at a more complete account of the FMD crisis than could

have been obtained by either a quantitative or a qualitative research approach alone. This and other possible

advantages of mixed methods research will be explored further in Chapter 27.

9780199588053_C02.indd 37 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies38

In Research in focus 2.8 and 2.9, I present examples of
mixed methods studies. I am presenting them here partly
to provide some early insights into the possibility of
doing mixed methods research, but also to show how
a wedge need not and should not be driven between

quantitative and qualitative research. By contrasting the
two approaches, it is easy to see them as incompatible.
As the examples in Research in focus 2.8 and 2.9 show,
they can be fruitfully combined within a single project.
This point will be amplifi ed throughout Chapter 27.

Research in focus 2.9
Mixed methods research—an example

This second example of mixed methods research is probably one of the biggest studies in the UK using the

approach—the Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion (CCSE) project. Like the research referred to in Research

in Focus 2.1, the CCSE project was profoundly infl uenced by Bourdieu and in particular by his infl uential

research on cultural capital and its role in the reproduction of social divisions (Bourdieu 1984). While the

CCSE project was inspired by Bourdieu’s research, at the same time the researchers had some reservations

about the methodological approach taken, the theoretical approach, and its relevance beyond the period in

which the research was conducted and its milieu (France). The research was designed around three research

questions:

• ‘What is the nature of cultural capital in Britain? What kinds of social exclusion are generated by the

differential distribution of cultural capital across class positions?’

• ‘What are the relationships between economic capital, social capital and cultural capital, in particular how is

cultural capital related to other forms of capital?’

• ‘What role does cultural capital play in relation to existing patterns of social exclusion? How can a

closer knowledge of this assist in developing cultural policies designed to offset the effects of social

exclusion?’

(www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/cultural-capital-and-social-exclusion/research-questions.php,

emphasis removed (accessed 13 August 2010))

Each of these three research questions was broken down into several subquestions. In order to address these

research questions, the authors employed three main research methods:

1. Twenty-fi ve focus groups, with each group being made up of a distinctive group of members, for example,

Pakistani middle class, supervisors, self-employed.

2. A structured interview survey of a large representative sample of 1,781 respondents within the UK.

3. Semi-structured interviews with 44 individuals from 30 households. The interviewees were sampled from the

survey on the basis of socio-demographic and cultural capital characteristics. The interviewers also took notes

about the households. In addition, 11 interviews were conducted with ‘elite’ individuals, because it was felt

that these were not suffi ciently present in the sample.

Thus, the CCSE project comprised two qualitative research methods (focus groups and semi-structured

interviewing) and one quantitative method (a structured interview survey). The mixed methods aspect of this

research fulfi lled several roles for the researchers. For example, although the focus groups yielded fi ndings that

could be linked to the survey ones, they were also used to inform the design of the survey questions. There will

be further reference to the utility of the mixed methods approach in Chapter 27, while the components of the

CCSE project will be referred to in the interim chapters.

Sources: Silva and Wright (2008); Bennett et al. (2009); Silva et al. (2009); www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/cultural-

capital-and-social-exclusion/project-summary.php (accessed 13 August 2010).

9780199588053_C02.indd 38 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 39

We are beginning to get a picture now that social re-
search is infl uenced by a variety of factors. Figure 2.3
summarizes the infl uences that have been examined so
far, but has added two more—the impact of values and of
practical considerations.

Values

Values refl ect either the personal beliefs or the feelings
of a researcher. On the face of it, we would expect that
social scientists should be value free and objective in
their research. After all, one might want to argue that
research that simply refl ected the personal biases of its
practitioners could not be considered valid and scien-
tifi c because it was bound up with the subjectivities
of its practitioners. Such a view is held with less and
less frequency among social scientists nowadays. Émile
Durkheim (1858–1917) wrote that one of the corollaries
of his injunction to treat social facts as things was that all
‘preconceptions must be eradicated’ (Durkheim 1938:
31). Since values are a form of preconception, his exhor-
tation was at least implicitly to do with suppressing them
when conducting research. His position is unlikely to be
regarded as credible nowadays, because there is a grow-
ing recognition that it is not feasible to keep the values
that a researcher holds totally in check. These can
intrude at any or all of a number of points in the process
of social research:

• choice of research area;

• formulation of research question;

• choice of method;

• formulation of research design and data-collection
techniques;

• implementation of data collection;

• analysis of data;

• interpretation of data;

• conclusions.

There are, therefore, numerous points at which bias and
the intrusion of values can occur. Values can materialize
at any point during the course of research. The researcher
may develop an affection or sympathy, which was not
necessarily present at the outset of an investigation, for
the people being studied. It is quite common, for example,
for researchers working within a qualitative research
strategy, and in particular when they use participant
observation or very intensive interviewing, to develop
a close affi nity with the people whom they study to the
extent that they fi nd it diffi cult to disentangle their stance
as social scientists from their subjects’ perspective. This
possibility may be exacerbated by the tendency that
Becker (1967) identifi ed for sociologists in particular to
be very sympathetic to underdog groups. Equally, social
scientists may be repelled by the people they study. The
social anthropologist Colin Turnbull (1973) reports the
results of his research into an African tribe known as the
Ik. Turnbull was appalled by what he witnessed: a love-
less (and for him unlovable) tribe that left its young and
very old to die. While Turnbull was able to point to the
conditions that had led to this state of affairs, he was very
honest in his disgust for what he witnessed, particularly
during the period of his initial sojourn among the tribe.
However, that very disgust is a product of Western values
about the family, and it is likely, as he acknowledged,
that these will have infl uenced his perception of what
he witnessed.

Another position in relation to the whole question of
values and bias is to recognize and acknowledge that
research cannot be value free but to ensure that there is
no untrammelled incursion of values in the research pro-
cess and to be self-refl ective and so exhibit refl exivity

(see Key concept 17.5) about the part played by such
factors. As Turnbull (1973: 13) put it at the beginning of
his book on the Ik: ‘the reader is entitled to know some-
thing of the aims, expectations, hopes and attitudes that
the writer brought to the fi eld with him, for these will
surely infl uence not only how he sees things but even

Infl uences on the conduct of

social research

gu e .3Figure 2.3
Infl uences on social research

Theory Practical considerations

Social research

Epistemology

Values Ontology

9780199588053_C02.indd 39 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies40

what he sees.’ Researchers are increasingly prepared to
forewarn readers of their biases and assumptions and
how these may have infl uenced the subsequent fi ndings.
There has been a growth since the mid-1970s of collec-
tions of inside reports of what doing a piece of research
was really like, as against the generalities presented in
social research methods textbooks (like this one!). These
collections frequently function as ‘confessions’, an ele-
ment of which is often the writer’s preparedness to be
open about his or her personal biases.

The signifi cance of feminism in relation to values goes
further than this, however. In particular, several feminist
social researchers around the early 1980s proposed that
the principles and practices associated with quantitative
research were incompatible with feminist research on
women. For writers like Oakley (1981), quantitative
research was bound up with male values of control that
can be seen in the general orientation of the research
strategy—control of the research subject/respondent
and control of the research context and situation.
Moreover, the research process was seen as one-way
traffi c, in which researchers extract information from
the people being studied and give little, or more usually
nothing, in return. For many feminists, such a strategy
bordered on exploitation and was incompatible with
feminism’s values of sisterhood and non-hierarchical
relationships between women. The antipathy towards
quantitative research resulted in a preference for qualita-

Still another approach is to argue for consciously
value-laden research. This is a position taken by some
feminist writers who have argued that only research on
women that is intended for women will be consistent
with the wider political needs of women. Mies (1993:
68) has argued that in feminist research the ‘postulate of
value free research, of neutrality and indifference towards
the research objects, has to be replaced by conscious par-
tiality, which is achieved through partial identifi cation
with the research objects’ (emphases in original).

tive research among feminists. Not only was qualitative
research seen as more consistent with the values of fem-
inism; it was seen as more adaptable to those values.
Thus, feminist qualitative research came to be associated
with an approach in which the investigator eschewed
a value-neutral approach and engaged with the people
being studied as people and not simply as respondents to
research instruments. The stance of feminism in relation
to both quantitative and qualitative approaches demon-
strates the ways in which values have implications for the
process of social investigation. In more recent years,
there has been a softening of the attitudes of feminists
towards quantitative research. Several writers have
acknowledged a viable and acceptable role for quanti-
tative research, particularly when it is employed in
conjunction with qualitative research (Jayaratne and
Stewart 1991; Oakley 1998). This issue will be picked up
in Chapters 17, 26, and 27.

Student experience
The infl uence of feminism on research questions
Sarah Hanson is very clear about the infl uence of feminism on her research and on her research questions in particular.

My research project focused on the representation of women through the front covers of fi ve women’s

magazines, combining the application of feminist theory with the decoding practices of content analysis.

Throughout the project I wanted to understand the nature of women’s magazines, the infl uences they have on

women’s sense of self and identity and the role the magazines play. I asked: do women’s magazines support or

destroy women’s identity and do they encourage self-respect or self-scrutiny? I wanted to combine theory with

fact, focusing on the meanings behind the presentation of images and text.

Similarly, for her research on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and sex workers in Thailand, Erin Sanders

wrote that she ‘employed a feminist methodology—and as such attempted to engage with my research

participants, particularly the sex workers, as a “friend” rather than as a “researcher” ’. She also writes:

I chose to use a feminist methodology because I wanted to eliminate the power imbalance in the research

relationship. As there are a number of power issues with a ‘White’, ‘Western’ woman interviewing ‘Non-White’,

‘Non-Western’ sex workers, I had hoped a feminist methodology . . . would help redress some of the power issues.

To read more about Sarah and Erin’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that accompanies
this book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

9780199588053_C02.indd 40 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 41

There are, then, different positions that can be taken
up in relation to values and value freedom. Far fewer
writers overtly subscribe to the position that the prin-
ciple of objectivity can be put into practice than in the
past. Quantitative researchers sometimes seem to be
writing in a way that suggests an aura of objectivity
(Mies 1993), but we simply do not know how far they
subscribe to such a position. There is a greater awareness
today of the limits to objectivity, so that some of the
highly confi dent, not to say naive, pronouncements on
the subject, like Durkheim’s, have fallen into disfavour.
A further way in which values are relevant to the con-
duct of social research is through adherence to ethical
principles or standards. This issue will be followed up
in Chapter 6.

Practical considerations

Nor should we neglect the importance and signifi cance
of practical issues in decisions about how social research
should be carried out. There are a number of different
dimensions to this issue. For one thing, choices of re-
search strategy, design, or method have to be dovetailed
with the specifi c research question being investigated. If
we are interested in teasing out the relative importance
of a number of different causes of a social phenomenon,
it is quite likely that a quantitative strategy will fi t our
needs, because, as will be shown in Chapter 7, the assess-
ment of cause is one of its keynotes. Alternatively, if we
are interested in the world views of members of a certain
social group, a qualitative research strategy that is sensi-
tive to how participants interpret their social world may
be the direction to choose. If a researcher is interested in
a topic on which no or virtually no research has been
done in the past, the quantitative strategy may be diffi –
cult to employ, because there is little prior literature

from which to draw leads. A more exploratory stance
may be preferable, and, in this connection, qualitative
research may serve the researcher’s needs better, since it
is typically associated with the generation rather than
the testing of theory (see Table 2.1) and with a rela-
tively unstructured approach to the research process (see
Chapter 17). Another dimension may have to do with the
nature of the topic and of the people being investigated.
For example, if the researcher needs to engage with indi-
viduals or groups involved in illicit activities, such as
gang violence (Patrick 1973), drug dealing (P. A. Adler
1985), or the murky underworld of organs-trading
(Scheper-Hughes 2004), it is unlikely that a social survey
would gain the confi dence of the subjects involved or
achieve the necessary rapport. In fact, the idea of con-
ducting survey research in such contexts or on such
respondents looks rather ridiculous. It is not surprising,
therefore, that researchers in these areas have tended to
use a qualitative strategy where there is an opportunity
to gain the confi dence of the subjects of the investiga-
tion or even in some cases not reveal their identity as
researchers, albeit with ethical dilemmas of the kind dis-
cussed in Chapter 6. By contrast, it does not seem likely
that the hypothesis in the research described in Research
in focus 2.4 could have been tested with a qualitative
method like participant observation.

While practical considerations may seem rather mun-
dane and uninteresting compared with the lofty realm
inhabited by the philosophical debates surrounding such
discussions about epistemology and ontology, they are
important ones. All social research is a coming-together
of the ideal and the feasible. Because of this, there will be
many circumstances in which the nature of the topic or of
the subjects of an investigation and the constraints on
a researcher loom large in decisions about how best to
proceed.

Student experience
A practical consideration in the choice of

research method
One of the factors that infl uenced Rebecca Barnes’s choice of the semi-structured interview for her study of

violence in women’s same-sex intimate relationships was that she felt that the topic is a highly sensitive area and

that she therefore needed to be able to observe her interviewees’ emotional responses.

I felt that, given the sensitivity of the research topic, semi-structured, in-depth interviews would be most

appropriate. This gave me the opportunity to elicit women’s accounts of abuse in a setting where I was able to

observe their emotional responses to the interview and endeavour to minimize any distress or other negative

feelings that might result from participating in the research.

To read more about Rebecca’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this
book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

9780199588053_C02.indd 41 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies42

Key points

● Quantitative and qualitative research constitute different approaches to social investigation and carry
with them important epistemological and ontological considerations.

● Theory can be depicted as something that precedes research (as in quantitative research) or as
something that emerges out of it (as in qualitative research).

● Epistemological considerations loom large in considerations of research strategy. To a large extent,
these revolve around the desirability of employing a natural science model (and in particular
positivism) versus interpretivism.

● Ontological considerations, concerning objectivism versus constructionism, also constitute important
dimensions of the quantitative/qualitative contrast.

● Values may impinge on the research process at different times.

● Practical considerations in decisions about research methods are also important factors.

● Feminist researchers have tended to prefer a qualitative approach, though there is some evidence of
a change of viewpoint in this regard.

Questions for review

Theory and research

● If you had to conduct some social research now, what would the topic be and what factors would
have infl uenced your choice? How important was addressing theory in your consideration?

● Outline, using examples of your own, the difference between grand and middle-range theory.

● What are the differences between inductive and deductive theory and why is the distinction important?

Epistemological considerations

● What is meant by each of the following terms: positivism; realism; and interpretivism? Why is it
important to understand each of them?

● What are the implications of epistemological considerations for research practice?

Ontological considerations

● What are the main differences between epistemological and ontological considerations?

● What is meant by objectivism and constructionism?

● Which theoretical ideas have been particularly instrumental in the growth of interest in qualitative
research?

Research strategy: quantitative and qualitative research

● Outline the main differences between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of: the
relationship between theory and data; epistemological considerations; and ontological
considerations.

● To what extent is quantitative research solely concerned with testing theories and qualitative
research with generating theories?

Infl uences on the conduct of social research

● What are some of the main infl uences on social research?

9780199588053_C02.indd 42 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Social research strategies 43

Online Resource Centre

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book to enrich your understanding of social
research strategies. Consult web links, test yourself using multiple choice questions, and gain further
guidance and inspiration from the Student Researcher’s Toolkit.

9780199588053_C02.indd 43 10/20/11 9:59 AM

Research designs

Chapter outline

Introduction 45

Criteria in social research 46

Reliability 46

Replication 47

Validity 47

Relationship with research strategy 48

Research designs 50

Experimental design 50

Cross-sectional design 59

Longitudinal design(s) 63

Case study design 66

Comparative design 72

Bringing research strategy and research design together 76

Key points 77

Questions for review 77

3

9780199588053_C03.indd 44 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs 45

Introduction

In the previous chapter, the idea of research strategy was
introduced as a broad orientation to social research. The
specifi c context for its introduction was the distinction
between quantitative and qualitative research as differ-
ent research strategies. However, the decision to adopt
one or the other strategy will not get you far along the
road of doing a piece of research. Two other key decisions
will have to be made (along with a host of tactical deci-
sions about the way in which the research will be carried
out and the data analysed). These decisions concern
choices about research design and research method. On
the face of it, these two terms would seem to mean the
same thing, but it is crucial to draw a distinction between
them (see Key concepts 3.1 and 3.2).

Research methods can be and are associated with dif-
ferent kinds of research design. The latter represents a

structure that guides the execution of a research method
and the analysis of the subsequent data. The two terms
are often confused. For example, one of the research
designs to be covered in this chapter—the case study—is
very often referred to as a method. As we will see, a case
study entails the detailed exploration of a specifi c case,
which could be a community, organization, or person.
But, once a case has been selected, a research method
or research methods are needed to collect data. Simply
selecting an organization and deciding to study it inten-
sively are not going to provide data. Do you observe? Do
you conduct interviews? Do you examine documents?
Do you administer questionnaires? You may in fact use
any or all of these research methods, but the crucial point
is that choosing a case study approach will not in its own
right provide you with data.

Chapter guide

In focusing on the different kinds of research design, we are paying attention to the different frameworks
for the collection and analysis of data. A research design relates to the criteria that are employed when
evaluating social research. It is, therefore, a framework for the generation of evidence that is suited both
to a certain set of criteria and to the research question in which the investigator is interested. This
chapter is structured as follows.

• Reliability, replication, and validity are presented as criteria for assessing the quality of social research.
The latter entails an assessment in terms of several criteria covered in the chapter: measurement
validity; internal validity; external validity; and ecological validity.

• The suggestion that such criteria are mainly relevant to quantitative research is examined, along
with the proposition that an alternative set of criteria should be employed in relation to qualitative
research. This alternative set of criteria, which is concerned with the issue of trustworthiness,
is outlined briefl y.

• Five prominent research designs are then outlined:

– experimental and related designs (such as the quasi-experiment);

– cross-sectional design, the most common form of which is survey research;

– longitudinal design and its various forms, such as the panel study and the cohort study;

– case study design;

– comparative design.

• Each research design is considered in terms of the criteria for evaluating research fi ndings.

9780199588053_C03.indd 45 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs46

Three of the most prominent criteria for the evaluation of
social research are reliability, replication, and validity.
Each of these terms will be treated in much greater detail
in later chapters, but in the meantime a fairly basic treat-
ment of them can be helpful.

Reliability

Reliability is concerned with the question of whether the
results of a study are repeatable. The term is commonly
used in relation to the question of whether the measures
that are devised for concepts in the social sciences (such
as poverty, racial prejudice, deskilling, religious orthodoxy)

are consistent. In Chapter 7 we will be looking at the
idea of reliability in greater detail, in particular the dif-
ferent ways in which it can be conceptualized. Reliability
is particularly at issue in connection with quantitative
research. The quantitative researcher is likely to be con-
cerned with the question of whether a measure is stable
or not. After all, if we found that IQ tests, which were
designed as measures of intelligence, were found to
fl uctuate, so that people’s IQ scores were often wildly
different when administered on two or more occasions,
we would be concerned about it as a measure. We would
consider it an unreliable measure—we could not have
faith in its consistency.

Key concept 3.1
What is a research design?

A research design provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data. A choice of research design

refl ects decisions about the priority being given to a range of dimensions of the research process. These include

the importance attached to:

• expressing causal connections between variables;

• generalizing to larger groups of individuals than those actually forming part of the investigation;

• understanding behaviour and the meaning of that behaviour in its specifi c social context;

• having a temporal (that is, over time) appreciation of social phenomena and their interconnections.

Key concept 3.2
What is a research method?

A research method is simply a technique for collecting data. It can involve a specifi c instrument, such as a

self-completion questionnaire or a structured interview schedule, or participant observation whereby the

researcher listens to and watches others.

Criteria in social research

In this chapter, fi ve different research designs will
be examined: experimental design and its variants,
including quasi-experiments; cross-sectional or survey
design; longitudinal design; case study design; and

comparative design. However, before embarking on the
nature of and differences between these designs, it is use-
ful to consider some recurring issues in social research
that cut across some or all of these designs.

9780199588053_C03.indd 46 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs 47

Replication

The idea of reliability is very close to another criterion of
research—replication and more especially replicability.
It sometimes happens that researchers choose to repli-
cate the fi ndings of others. There may be a host of differ-
ent reasons for doing so, such as a feeling that the original
results do not match other evidence that is relevant to the
domain in question. In order for replication to take place,
a study must be capable of replication—it must be repli-
cable. This is a very obvious point: if a researcher does
not spell out his or her procedures in great detail, replica-
tion is impossible. Similarly, in order for us to assess the
reliability of a measure of a concept, the procedures that
constitute that measure must be replicable by someone
else. Ironically, replication in social research is not com-
mon. In fact, it is probably truer to say that it is quite rare.
When Burawoy (1979) found that by accident he was
conducting case study research in a US factory that had
been studied three decades earlier by another researcher
(Donald Roy), he thought about treating his own investi-
gation as a replication. However, the low status of repli-
cation in academic life persuaded him to resist this
option. He writes: ‘I knew that to replicate Roy’s study
would not earn me a dissertation let alone a job. . . . [In]
academia the real reward comes not from replication but
from originality!’ (Burawoy 2003: 650). Nonetheless, an
investigation’s capacity to be replicated—replicability—
is highly valued by many social researchers working
within a quantitative research tradition. See Research in
focus 7.7 for an example of a replication study.

Validity

A further and in many ways the most important criterion
of research is validity. Validity is concerned with the
integrity of the conclusions that are generated from a
piece of research. As we shall do for reliability, we will be
examining the idea of validity in greater detail in later
chapters, but in the meantime it is important to be aware of
the main types of validity that are typically distinguished:

• Measurement validity. Measurement validity applies
primarily to quantitative research and to the search for
measures of social scientifi c concepts. Measurement
validity is also often referred to as construct validity.
Essentially, it is to do with the question of whether a
measure that is devised of a concept really does refl ect
the concept that it is supposed to be denoting. Does
the IQ test really measure variations in intelligence? If
we take the study reported in Research in focus 2.4,

there are three concepts that needed to be measured
in order to test the hypotheses: national religiosity,
religious orthodoxy, and family religious orientation.
The question then is: do the measures really represent
the concepts they are supposed to be tapping? If they
do not, the study’s fi ndings will be questionable. It
should be appreciated that measurement validity is
related to reliability: if a measure of a concept is
unstable in that it fl uctuates and hence is unreliable,
it simply cannot be providing a valid measure of the
concept in question. In other words, the assessment
of measurement validity presupposes that a measure
is reliable. If a measure is unreliable because it does
not give a stable reading of the underlying concept, it
cannot be valid, because a valid measure refl ects the
concept it is supposed to be measuring.

• Internal validity. Internal validity relates mainly to
the issue of causality, which will be dealt with in
greater detail in Chapter 7. Internal validity is con-
cerned with the question of whether a conclusion that
incorporates a causal relationship between two or
more variables holds water. If we suggest that x causes
y, can we be sure that it is x that is responsible for vari-
ation in y and not something else that is producing an
apparent causal relationship? In the study examined
in Research in focus 2.4, the authors were quoted as
concluding that ‘the religious environment of a nation
has a major impact on the beliefs of its citizens’ (Kelley
and De Graaf 1997: 654). Internal validity raises the
question: can we be sure that national religiosity really
does cause variation in religious orientation and that
this apparent causal relationship is genuine and not
produced by something else? In discussing issues of
causality, it is common to refer to the factor that has a
causal impact as the independent variable and the
effect as the dependent variable (see Key concept 3.3).
In the case of Kelley and De Graaf ’s research, the ‘reli-
gious environment of a nation’ was an independ ent
variable and ‘religious belief ’ was the dependent vari-
able. Thus, internal validity raises the question: how
confi dent can we be that the independent variable
really is at least in part responsible for the variation
that has been identifi ed in the depend ent variable?

• External validity. External validity is concerned with
the question of whether the results of a study can be
generalized beyond the specifi c research context. In the
research by Poortinga et al. (2004) on foot and mouth
disease that was referred to in Research in focus 2.8,
data were collected from 229 respondents in Bude
and 244 respondents in Norwich. Can their fi ndings

9780199588053_C03.indd 47 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs48

about the attitudes to the handling of the outbreak
be generalized beyond these respondents? In other
words, if the research was not externally valid, it
would apply to the 473 respondents alone. If it was
externally valid, we would expect it to apply more
generally to the populations of these two towns at the
time of the outbreak of the disease. It is in this context
that the issue of how people are selected to participate
in research becomes crucial. This is one of the main
reasons why quantitative researchers are so keen to
generate representative samples (see Chapter 8).

• Ecological validity. Ecological validity is concerned
with the question of whether social scientifi c fi nd-
ings are applicable to people’s everyday, natural social
settings. As Cicourel (1982: 15) has put it: ‘Do our
instruments capture the daily life conditions, opinions,
values, attitudes, and knowledge base of those we
study as expressed in their natural habitat?’ This cri-
terion is concerned with the question of whether social
research sometimes produces fi ndings that may be
technically valid but have little to do with what hap-
pens in people’s everyday lives. If research fi ndings
are ecologically invalid, they are in a sense artefacts
of the social scientist’s arsenal of data collection and
analytic tools. The more the social scientist intervenes
in natural settings or creates unnatural ones, such as
a laboratory or even a special room to carry out
interviews, the more likely it is that fi ndings will be
ecologically invalid. The fi ndings deriving from a study
using questionnaires may have measurement validity
and a reasonable level of internal validity, and they
may be externally valid, in the sense that they can be
generalized to other samples confronted by the same
questionnaire, but the unnaturalness of the fact of

having to answer a questionnaire may mean that the
fi ndings have limited ecological validity.

Relationship with research strategy

One feature that is striking about most of the discussion
so far is that it seems to be geared mainly to quantitative
rather than to qualitative research. Both reliability and
measurement validity are essentially concerned with the
adequacy of measures, which are most obviously a con-
cern in quantitative research. Internal validity is con-
cerned with the soundness of fi ndings that specify a
causal connection, an issue that is most commonly of
concern to quantitative researchers. External validity
may be relevant to qualitative research, but the whole
question of representativeness of research subjects with
which the issue is concerned has a more obvious applica-
tion to the realm of quantitative research, with its pre-
occupation with sampling procedures that maximize the
opportunity for generating a representative sample. The
issue of ecological validity relates to the naturalness of
the research approach and seems to have considerable
relevance to both qualitative and quantitative research.

Some writers have sought to apply the concepts of reli-
ability and validity to the practice of qualitative research
(e.g. LeCompte and Goetz 1982; Kirk and Miller 1986;
Peräkylä 1997), but others argue that the grounding of
these ideas in quantitative research renders them inap-
plicable to or inappropriate for qualitative research.
Writers like Kirk and Miller (1986) have applied concepts
of validity and reliability to qualitative research but have
changed the sense in which the terms are used very
slightly. Some qualitative researchers sometimes pro-
pose that the studies they produce should be judged or

Key concept 3.3
What is a variable?
A variable is simply an attribute on which cases vary. ‘Cases’ can obviously be people, but they can also

include things such as households, cities, organizations, schools, and nations. If an attribute does not vary, it is

a constant. If all manufacturing organizations had the same ratio of male to female managers, this attribute of

such organizations would be a constant and not a variable. Constants are rarely of interest to social researchers.

It is common to distinguish between different types of variable. The most basic distinction is between

independent variables and dependent variables. The former are deemed to have a causal infl uence on the latter.

In addition, it is important to distinguish between variables—whether independent or dependent—in terms

of their measurement properties. This is an important issue in the context of quantitative data analysis. In

Chapter 15, a distinction is drawn between the following types of variable: interval/ratio variables; ordinal

variables; nominal variables; and dichotomous variables. See page 335 for an explanation of these main

types and Table 15.1 for brief descriptions of them.

9780199588053_C03.indd 48 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs 49

evaluated according to different criteria from those used
in relation to quantitative research. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) propose that alternative terms and ways of
assessing qualitative research are required. For example,
they propose trustworthiness as a criterion of how good
a qualitative study is. Each aspect of trustworthiness has
a parallel with the quantitative research criteria.

• Credibility, which parallels internal validity—that is,
how believable are the fi ndings?

• Transferability, which parallels external validity—that
is, do the fi ndings apply to other contexts?

• Dependability, which parallels reliability—that is, are
the fi ndings likely to apply at other times?

• Confi rmability, which parallels objectivity—that is,
has the investigator allowed his or her values to
intrude to a high degree?

These criteria will be returned to in Chapter 17.
Hammersley (1992a) occupies a kind of middle posi-

tion here, in that, while he proposes validity as an import-
ant criterion (in the sense that an empirical account must
be plausible and credible and should take into account
the amount and kind of evidence used in relation to
an account), he also proposes relevance as a criterion.
Relevance is taken to be assessed from the vantage point
of the importance of a topic within its substantive fi eld or
the contribution it makes to the literature on that fi eld.
The issues in these different views have to do with the

Key concept 3.4
What is naturalism?

Naturalism is an interesting example of a mercifully rare instance of a term that not only has different meanings,

but also has meanings that can actually be contradictory! It is possible to identify three different meanings.

• Naturalism means viewing all objects of study—whether natural or social ones—as belonging to the same

realm and a consequent commitment to the principles of natural scientifi c method. This meaning, which has

clear affi nities with positivism, implies that all entities belong to the same order of things, so that there

is no essential difference between the objects of the natural sciences and those of the social sciences

(M. Williams 2000). For many naturalists, this principle implies that there should be no difference between

the natural and the social sciences in the ways in which they study phenomena. This version of naturalism

essentially proposes that there is a unity between the objects of the natural and the social sciences and that,

because of this, there is no reason for social scientists not to employ the approaches of the natural scientist.

• Naturalism means being true to the nature of the phenomenon being investigated. According to Matza,

naturalism is ‘the philosophical view that strives to remain true to the nature of the phenomenon under study’

(1969: 5) and ‘claims fi delity to the natural world’ (1969: 8). This meaning of the term represents a fusion of

elements of an interpretivist epistemology and a constructionist ontology, which were examined in Chapter 2.

Naturalism is taken to recognize that people attribute meaning to behaviour and are authors of their social

world rather than passive objects.

• Naturalism is a style of research that seeks to minimize the intrusion of artifi cial methods of data collection.

This meaning implies that the social world should be as undisturbed as possible when it is being studied

(Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 6).

The second and third meanings overlap considerably, in that it could easily be imagined that, in order to conduct

a naturalistic enquiry in the second sense, a research approach that adopted naturalistic principles in the third

sense would be required. Both the second and third meanings are incompatible with, and indeed opposed to,

the fi rst meaning. Naturalism in the fi rst sense is invariably viewed by writers drawing on an interpretivist

epistemology as not ‘true’ to the social world, precisely because: it posits that there are no differences between

humans and the objects of the natural sciences; it therefore ignores the capacity of humans to interpret the social

world and to be active agents; and, in its preference for the application of natural science methods, it employs

artifi cial methods of data collection. When writers are described as anti-naturalists, it is invariably the fi rst of the

three meanings that they are deemed to be railing against.

9780199588053_C03.indd 49 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs50

different objectives that many qualitative researchers
argue are distinctive about their craft. The distinctive
features of qualitative research will be examined in later
chapters.

However, it should also be borne in mind that one of
the criteria previously cited—ecological validity—may
have been formulated largely in the context of quantita-
tive research, but is in fact a feature in relation to which
qualitative research fares rather well. Qualitative research
often involves a naturalistic stance (see Key concept 3.4).
This means that the researcher seeks to collect data
in naturally occurring situations and environments, as
opposed to fabricated, artifi cial ones. This characteristic
probably applies particularly well to ethnographic research,

in which participant observation is a prominent element
of data collection, but it is sometimes suggested that it
applies also to the sort of interview approach typically
used by qualitative researchers, which is less directive
than the kind used in quantitative research (see e.g.
Research in focus 2.4). We might expect that much quali-
tative research is stronger than quantitative investiga-
tions in terms of ecological validity.

By and large, these issues in social research have been
presented because some of them will emerge in the
context of the discussion of research designs in the next
section, but in a number of ways they also represent
background considerations for some of the issues to be
examined. They will be returned to later in the book.

Research designs

In this discussion of research designs, fi ve different types
will be examined: experimental design; cross-sectional
or survey design; longitudinal design; case study design;
and comparative design. Variations on these designs will
be examined in their relevant subsections.

Experimental design

True experiments are quite unusual in sociology, but
are employed in related areas of enquiry, such as social
psychology and organization studies, while researchers
in social policy sometimes use them in order to assess the
impact of new reforms or policies. Why, then, bother to
introduce experimental designs at all in the context of a
book about social research? The chief reason, quite aside
from the fact that they are sometimes employed, is that a
true experiment is often used as a yardstick against which
non-experimental research is assessed. Experimental
research is frequently held up as a touchstone because it
engenders considerable confi dence in the robustness and
trustworthiness of causal fi ndings. In other words, true
experiments tend to be very strong in terms of internal
validity.

Manipulation

If experiments are so strong in this respect, why then do
social researchers not make far greater use of them? The
reason is simple: in order to conduct a true experiment, it
is necessary to manipulate the independent variable in
order to determine whether it does in fact have an infl u-
ence on the dependent variable. Experimental subjects

are likely to be allocated to one of two or more experi-

mental groups, each of which represents different types
or levels of the independent variable. It is then possible
to establish how far differences between the groups are
responsible for variations in the level of the dependent
variable. Manipulation, then, entails intervening in a
situation to determine the impact of the manipulation
on subjects. However, the vast majority of independent
variables with which social researchers are concerned
cannot be manipulated. If we are interested in the effects
of gender on work experiences, we cannot manipulate
gender so that some people are made male and others
female. If we are interested in the effects of variations in
social class on social and political attitudes or on health,
we cannot allocate people to different social class group-
ings. As with the huge majority of such variables, the
levels of social engineering that would be required are
beyond serious contemplation.

Before moving on to a more complete discussion of
experimental design, it is important to introduce a basic
distinction between the laboratory experiment and the
fi eld experiment. As its name implies, the laboratory
experiment takes place in a laboratory or in a contrived
setting, whereas fi eld experiments occur in real-life
settings, such as in classrooms and organizations, or as a
result of the implementation of reforms or new policies.
It is experiments of the latter type that are most likely to
touch on areas of interest to social researchers. In order
to illustrate the nature of manipulation and the idea of a
fi eld experiment, Research in focus 3.1 describes a well-
known piece of experimental research.

9780199588053_C03.indd 50 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs 51

Classical experimental design

The research in Research in focus 3.1 includes most of
the essential features of what is known as the classical
experimental design, which is also often referred to as
the randomized experiment or randomized controlled

trial (RCT). Two groups are established, and it is this that
forms the experimental manipulation and therefore the
independent variable—in this case, teacher expectations.
The spurters form what is known as the experimental
group or treatment group and the other students form
a control group. The experimental group receives the
experimental treatment—teacher expectancies—but the
control group does not receive an experimental treat-
ment. The dependent variable—student performance
—is measured before and after the experimental
manipulation, so that a before-and-after analysis can be
conducted (see Figure 3.1). Moreover, the spurters and
the non-spurters were assigned randomly to their respec-
tive groups. Because of this use of random assignment

to the experimental and control groups, the researchers
were able to feel confi dent that the only difference be-
tween the two groups was the fact that teachers expected
the spurters to fare better at school than the others. They
would have been confi dent that, if they did establish a

difference in performance between the two groups, it
was due to the experimental manipulation alone.

In order to capture the essence of this design, the
following simple notation will be employed:

Obs An observation made in relation to the dependent
variable; there may well be two or more observa-
tions, such as IQ test scores and reading grades
before (the pre-test) and after (the post-test) the
experimental manipulation.

Exp The experimental treatment (the independent vari-
able), such as the creation of teacher expectancies.
No Exp refers to the absence of an experimental
treatment and represents the experience of the
control group.

T The timing of the observations made in relation to
the dependent variable, such as the timing of the
administration of an IQ test.

Classical experimental design and validity

What is the purpose of the control group? Surely it is
what happens to the spurters (the experimental group)
that really concerns us? In order for a study to be a true
experiment, it must control (in other words, eliminate)

Research in focus 3.1
A fi eld experiment

As part of a programme of research into the impact of self-fulfi lling prophecies (for example, where someone’s

beliefs or expectations about someone else infl uence how the latter behaves), Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)

conducted research into the question of whether teachers’ expectations of their students’ abilities in fact

infl uence the school performance of the latter. The research was conducted in a lower-class locality in the

USA with a high level of children from minority group backgrounds. In the spring of 1964, all the students

completed a test that was portrayed as a means of identifying ‘spurters’—that is, students who were likely to

excel academically. At the beginning of the following academic year, all the teachers were notifi ed of the names

of the students who had been identifi ed as spurters. In fact, 20 per cent of the schoolchildren had been identifi ed

as spurters. However, the students had actually been administered a conventional IQ test and the so-called

spurters had been selected randomly. The test was readministered eight months after the original one. The

authors were then able to compare the differences between the spurters and the other students in terms of

changes in various measures of academic performance, such as IQ scores, reading ability, and intellectual

curiosity. Since there was no evidence for there being any difference in ability between the spurters and the rest,

any indications that the spurters did in fact differ from their peers could be attributed to the fact that the

teachers had been led to expect the former would perform better. The fi ndings show that such differences did

in fact exist, but that the differences between the spurters and their peers tended to be concentrated in the

fi rst two or three years of schooling. In other words, the evidence for a teacher expectancy effect was patchy.

Nonetheless, this is an infl uential experiment that is widely believed to provide fi rm evidence of a teacher

expectancy effect. For a useful brief review of some of the subsequent studies and refl ections on Rosenthal and

Jacobson’s study, see Hammersley (2011: 106–9).

9780199588053_C03.indd 51 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs52

Figure 3.1Figure 3.1
Classical experimental design (with illustration of the effect of teacher expectancies on IQ)

T1

Obs1

IQ

Obs3

IQ

Random
assignment

T2

Obs2

IQ

Obs4

IQ

Exp
Teacher
expx ectancies

No Exp
No teacher
expx ectancies

Experimental

group

spurtersrr

Control

group

non-spurtersrr

8 months

Research in focus 3.2
Threats to internal validity (and their application

to the Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 study)

The following is a list of possible threats to the internal validity of an investigation and how each is mitigated in

the Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study by virtue of its being a true experiment.

• History. This refers to events other than the manipulation of teacher expectancies that may occur in the

environment and that could have caused the spurters’ scores to rise. The actions of the school head to raise

standards in the school may be one such type of event. If there were no control group, we could not be sure

whether it was the teachers’ expectancies or the head’s actions that were producing the increase in spurters’

grades. If there is a control group, we are able to say that history would have an effect on the control-group

subjects too, and therefore differences between the experimental and control groups could be attributed to

the effect of teacher expectancies alone.

• Testing. This threat refers to the possibility that subjects may become more experienced at taking a test or

may become sensitized to the aims of the experiment as a result of the pre-test. The presence of a control

group, which presumably would also experience the same effect, allows us to discount this possibility if there

is a difference in levels of the dependent variable between the experimental and control groups.

the possible effects of rival explanations of a causal fi nd-
ing, such as that teacher expectancies have an impact
on student performance. We might then be in a position
to take the view that such a study is internally valid.
The presence of a control group and the random assign-
ment of subjects to the experimental and control groups
enable us to eliminate such rival explanations. To see this,
consider some of the rival explanations that might occur
if there was no control group. There would then have
been a number of potential threats to internal validity

(see Research in focus 3.2). These threats are taken from
Campbell (1957) and Cook and Campbell (1979), but not
all the threats to internal validity they refer to are included.

In the case of each of these threats to internal validity,
each of which raises the prospect of a rival interpreta-
tion of a causal fi nding, the presence of a control group
coupled with random assignment allows us to eliminate
these threats. As a result, our confi dence in the causal
fi nding, that teacher expectancies infl uence student per-
formance, is greatly enhanced.

9780199588053_C03.indd 52 10/20/11 10:00 AM

Research designs 53

However, simply because research is deemed to be
internally valid does not mean that it is beyond reproach
or that at least questions cannot be raised about it. When
a quantitative research strategy has been employed, fur-
ther criteria can be applied to evaluate a study. First,
there is the question of measurement validity. In the case
of the Rosenthal and Jacobson study, there are poten-
tially two aspects to this. One is the question of whether
academic performance has been adequately measured.
Measures like reading scores seem to possess face validity,
in the sense that they appear to exhibit a correspondence
with what they are measuring. However, given the con-
troversy surrounding IQ tests and what they measure
(Kamin 1974), we might feel somewhat uneasy about
how far gains in IQ test scores can be regarded as indica-
tive of academic performance. Similarly, to take another
of the authors’ measures—intellectual curiosity—how
confi dent can we be that this too is a valid measure of
academic performance? Does it really measure what it
is supposed to measure? The second question relating
to measurement validity is whether the experimental
manipulation really worked. In other words, did the ran-
dom identifi cation of some schoolchildren as spurters
adequately create the conditions for the self-fulfi lling

prophecy to be examined? The procedure very much
relies on the teachers being taken in by the procedure,
but it is possible that they were not all equally duped.
If so, this would contaminate the manipulation.

Secondly, is the research externally valid? This issue is
considered in Research in focus 3.3.

Thirdly, are the fi ndings ecologically valid? The fact
that the research is a fi eld experiment rather than a labor-
atory experiment seems to enhance this aspect of the
Rosenthal and Jacobson research. Also, the fact that the
students and the teachers seem to have had little if any
appreciation of the fact that they were in fact participat-
ing in an experiment may also have enhanced ecological
validity, though this aspect of the research raises enor-
mous ethical concerns, since deception seems to have
been a signifi cant and probably necessary feature of the
investigation. The question of ethical issues is in many
ways another dimension of the validity of a study and
will be the focus of Chapter 6. The fact that Rosenthal
and Jacobson made intensive use of various instruments
to measure academic performance might be considered a
source of concerns about ecological validity, though this
is an area in which most if not all quantitative research is
likely to be implicated.

• Instrumentation. This threat refers to the possibility that changes in the way a test is administered could

account for an increase (or decrease) in scores between the pre-test and post-test—for example, if slight

changes to the test had been introduced. Again, if there is a control group, we can assume that testing would

have affected the control group as well.

• Mortality. This relates to the problem of attrition in many studies that span a long period of time, in that

subjects may leave. School students may leave the area or move to a different school. Since this problem is

likely to affl ict the control group too, it is possible to establish its signifi cance as a threat relative to the impact

and importance of teacher expectancies.

• Maturation. Quite simply, people change, and the ways in which they change may have implications for the

dependent variable. The students identifi ed as spurters may have improved anyway, regardless of the effect of

teacher expectancies. Maturation should affect the control group subjects as well. If we did not have a control

group, it could be argued that any change in the students’ school performance was attributable to the

possibility that they would have improved anyway. The control group allows us to discount this possibility.

• Selection. If there are differences between the two groups, which would arise if they had been selected by

a non-random process, variations between the experimental and control groups could be attributed to

pre-existing differences in their membership. However, since a random process of assignment to the

experimental and control groups was employed, this possibility can be discounted.

• Ambiguity about the direction of causal infl uence. The very notion of an independent variable and dependent

variable presupposes a direction of causality. However, there may be occasions when the temporal sequence

in a study is unclear, so that it is not possible to establish which variable affects the other. Since the creation of

teacher expectancies preceded the improvements in academic achievement in the earlier years of school, in

the Rosenthal and Jacobson study the direction of causal infl uence is clear.

9780199588053_C03.indd 53 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs54

A fourth issue that we might want to raise relates to the
question of replicability. The authors lay out very clearly
the procedures and measures that they employed. If any-
one were to carry out a replication, he or she would be
able to obtain further information from them should
they need it. Consequently, the research is replicable,

although there has not been an exact replication. Clairborn
(1969) conducted one of the earliest replications and fol-
lowed a procedure that was very similar to Rosenthal and
Jacobson’s. The study was carried out in three middle-
class, suburban schools, and the timing of the creation
of teacher expectancies was different from that in the

Research in focus 3.3
Threats to external validity (and their application

to the Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 study)

Campbell (1957) and Cook and Campbell (1979) identify fi ve major threats to the external validity and hence

generalizability of an investigation.

• Interaction of selection and treatment. This threat raises the question: to what social and psychological

groups can a fi nding be generalized? Can it be generalized to a wide variety of individuals who might be

differentiated by ethnicity, social class, region, gender, and type of personality? In the case of the Rosenthal

and Jacobson study, the students were largely from lower social class groups and a large proportion were from

ethnic minorities. This might be considered a limitation to the generalizability of the fi ndings.

• Interaction of setting and treatment. This threat relates to the issue of how confi dent we can be that the

results of a study can be applied to other settings. In particular, how confi dent can we be that Rosenthal

and Jacobson’s fi ndings are generalizable to other schools? There is also the wider issue of how confi dent

we can be that the operation of self-fulfi lling prophecies can be discerned in non-educational settings. In fact,

Rosenthal and others have been able to demonstrate the role and signifi cance of the self-fulfi lling prophecy

in a wide variety of different contexts (Rosnow and Rosenthal 1997), though this still does not answer the

question of whether the specifi c fi ndings that were produced can be generalized. One set of grounds for

being uneasy about Rosenthal and Jacobson’s fi ndings is that they were allowed an inordinate amount of

freedom for conducting their investigation. The high level of cooperation from the school authorities was very

unusual and may be indicative of the school being somewhat atypical, though whether there is any such thing

as a ‘typical school’ is highly questionable.

• Interaction of history and treatment. This threat raises the question of whether the fi ndings can be generalized

to the past and to the future. The Rosenthal and Jacobson research was conducted forty years ago. How

confi dent can we be that the fi ndings would apply today? Also, their investigation was conducted at a

particular juncture in the school academic year. Would the same results have obtained if the research had

been conducted at different points in the year?

• Interaction effects of pre-testing. As a result of being pre-tested, subjects in an experiment may become

sensitized to the experimental treatment. Consequently, the fi ndings may not be generalizable to groups

that have not been pre-tested, and, of course, in the real world people are rarely pre-tested in this way.

The fi ndings may therefore be partly determined by the experimental treatment as such and partly by how

pre-test sensitization has infl uenced the way in which subjects respond to the treatment. This may have

occurred in the Rosenthal and Jacobson research, since all students were pre-tested at the end of the previous

academic year.

• Reactive effects of experimental arrangements. People are frequently, if not invariably, aware of the fact that

they are participating in an experiment. Their awareness may infl uence how they respond to the experimental

treatment and therefore affect the generalizability of the fi ndings. Since Rosenthal and Jacobson’s subjects do

not appear to have been aware of the fact that they were participating in an experiment, this problem is

unlikely to have been signifi cant. The issue of reactivity and its potentially damaging effects is a recurring

theme in relation to many methods of social research.

9780199588053_C03.indd 54 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 55

original Rosenthal and Jacobson study. Clairborn failed
to replicate Rosenthal and Jacobson’s fi ndings. This fail-
ure to replicate casts doubt on the external validity of the
original research and suggests that the fi rst three threats
referred to in Research in focus 3.3 may have played an
important part in the differences between the two sets
of results.

The classical experimental design is the foundation of
the randomized controlled trial, which has increasingly
become the gold standard research design in health-
related fi elds. With an RCT, the aim is to test ‘alternative
ways of handling a situation’ (Oakley 2000: 18). This
may entail comparing the impact of an intervention with
what would have happened if there had been no inter-
vention or comparing the impacts of different kinds of
intervention (such as different forms of treatment of
an illness). It is randomization of experimental partici-
pants that is crucial, as it means that the members of the
different groups in the experiment are to all intents and
purposes alike. The RCT is particularly popular in fi elds
like medicine where research questions often take the
form ‘what is the impact of X?’

The laboratory experiment

Many experiments in fi elds like social psychology are
laboratory experiments rather than fi eld experiments.
One of the main advantages of the former over the latter
is that the researcher has far greater infl uence over
the experimental arrangements. For example, it is easier
to assign subjects randomly to different experimental
conditions in the laboratory than to do the same in an

ongoing, real-life organization. The researcher therefore
has a higher level of control, and this is likely to enhance
the internal validity of the study. It is also likely that
laboratory experiments will be more straightforward to
replicate, because they are less bound up with a certain
milieu that is diffi cult to reproduce.

However, laboratory experiments like the one de-
scribed in Research in focus 3.4 suffer from a number
of limitations. First, the external validity is likely to be
diffi cult to establish. There is the interaction of setting
and treatment, since the setting of the laboratory is likely
to be unrelated to real-world experiences and contexts.
Also, there is likely to be an interaction of selection and
treatment. In the case of Howell and Frost’s (1989) study
described in Research in focus 3.4, there are a number of
diffi culties: the subjects were students, who are unlikely
to be representative of the general population, so that
their responses to the experimental treatment may be
distinctive; they were volunteers, and it is known that
volunteers differ from non-volunteers (Rosnow and
Rosenthal 1997: ch. 5); and they were given incentives
to participate, which may further demarcate them from
others, since not everyone is equally amenable to the
blandishments of inducements. There will have been no
problem of interaction effects of pre-testing, because, like
many experiments, there was no pre-testing. However, it
is quite feasible that reactive effects may have been set in
motion by the experimental arrangements. Secondly, the
ecological validity of the study may be poor, because
we do not know how well the fi ndings are applicable to
the real world and everyday life. However, while the

Research in focus 3.4
A laboratory experiment

Howell and Frost (1989) were interested in the possibility that charismatic leadership, a term associated with

Max Weber’s (1947) types of legitimate authority, is a more effective approach to leadership in organizations

than other types of leadership. They conducted a laboratory experiment that compared the effectiveness of

charismatic leadership as against two other approaches—consideration and structuring. A number of hypotheses

were generated, including: ‘Individuals working under a charismatic leader will have higher task performance

than will individuals working under a considerate leader’ (Howell and Frost 1989: 245).

One hundred and forty-four students volunteered for the experiment. Their course grades were enhanced by

3 per cent for agreeing to participate. They were randomly assigned to work under one of the three types of

leadership. The work was a simulated business task. All three leadership approaches were performed by two

female actresses. In broad conformity with the hypotheses, subjects working under charismatic leaders scored

generally higher in terms of measures of task performance than those working under the other leaders,

particularly the considerate leader.

9780199588053_C03.indd 55 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs56

study may lack what is often called mundane realism,
it may nonetheless enjoy experimental realism (Aronson
and Carlsmith 1968). The latter means that the subjects
are very involved in the experiment and take it very
seriously.

Quasi-experiments

A number of writers have drawn attention to the possi-
bilities offered by quasi-experiments—that is, studies
that have certain characteristics of experimental designs
but that do not fulfi l all the internal validity requirements.
A large number of different types of quasi-experiments
have been identifi ed (Cook and Campbell 1979), and it is
not proposed to cover them here. A particularly interest-
ing form of quasi-experiment occurs in the case of ‘nat-
ural experiments’. These are ‘experiments’ in the sense of
entailing manipulation of a social setting, but as part of a
naturally occurring attempt to alter social arrangements.
In such circumstances, it is invariably not possible to
assign subjects randomly to experimental and control
groups. An example is provided in Research in focus 3.5.
The absence of random assignment in the research casts
a certain amount of doubt on the study’s internal validity,
since the groups may not have been equivalent. However,
the results of such studies are still compelling, because
they are not artifi cial interventions in social life and
because their ecological validity is therefore very strong.

Most writers on quasi-experimentation discount natural
experiments in which there is no control group or
basis for comparison (Cook and Campbell 1979), but
occasionally one comes across a single group natural
experiment that is particularly striking (see Research in
focus 3.6). Experimental designs and more especially
quasi-experimental designs have been particularly prom-
inent in evaluation research studies (see Key concept 3.5
and Research in focus 3.7).

Possibly because of the various diffi culties with quasi-
experiments that have been noted in this section, Grant
and Wall (2008) have noted that they are used relatively
infrequently in organizational research. However, they
also note that there may be ways of addressing some of
the concerns regarding internal validity that beset quasi-
experiments. For example, they suggest that it may be
possible to strengthen causal inferences when it is not
possible to assign experimental and control group par-
ticipants randomly and the researcher has limited or no
control over the experimental manipulation. This might
be done by seeking out further information that will help
to discount some of the rival interpretations of a causal
link that arise from the lack of a true experimental
design. However, it is unlikely that such a view will fi nd
favour among writers who adopt a purist view about
the need for experimental designs in order to generate
robust causal inferences.

Research in focus 3.5
A quasi-experiment

Since the mid-1980s, a group of researchers has been collecting medical and psychiatric data on a cohort of

over 10,000 British civil servants. The fi rst wave of data collection took place between late 1985 and early 1988

and comprised clinical measurement (for example, blood pressure, ECG, cholesterol) and a self-completion

questionnaire that generated data on health, stress, and minor psychiatric symptoms. Further measurements of

the same group took place in 1989/90 and 1992/3. The decision in the mid-1980s by the then UK government to

transfer many of the executive functions of government to executive agencies operating on a more commercial

basis than previously afforded the opportunity to examine the health effects of a major organizational change.

Ferrie et al. (1998) report the results of their Phase 1 and Phase 3 data. They distinguished between three groups:

those experiencing a change; those anticipating they would be affected by the change; and a ‘control group’ of

those unaffected by the change. The authors found signifi cant adverse health effects among those experiencing

and anticipating change compared to the control group, although the extent of the effects of the major

organizational change (or its anticipation) varied markedly between men and women. This study uses a

quasi-experimental design, in which a control group is compared to two treatment groups. It bears the hallmarks

of a classical experimental design, but there is no random assignment. Subjects were not randomly assigned to

the three groups. Whether they were affected (or anticipated being affected by the changes) depended on

decisions deriving from government and civil service policy.

9780199588053_C03.indd 56 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 57

Research in focus 3.6
A natural experiment

The effects of television violence on children is one of the most contested areas of social research and one that

frequently causes the media to become especially shrill. St Helena in the South Atlantic provided a fascinating

laboratory for the examination of the various claims when television was introduced to the island for the fi rst

time in the mid-1990s. The television viewing habits of a large sample of schoolchildren and their behaviour are

being monitored and will continue to be monitored for many years to come. The project leader, Tony Charlton,

was quoted in The Times as saying: ‘The argument that watching violent television turns youngsters to violence is

not borne out . . . The children have been watching the same amounts of violence, and in many cases the same

programmes, as British children. But they have not gone out and copied what they have seen on TV’ (Midgley

1998: 5). A report of the fi ndings in The Times in April 1998 found that ‘the shared experience of watching

television made them less likely to tease each other and to fi ght, and more likely to enjoy books’ (Frean 1998: 7).

The fi ndings derive from 900 minutes of video footage of children at play during school breaks, diaries kept by

around 300 of the children, and ratings by teachers. The reports of the research in academic journals confi rm that

there was no evidence to suggest that the introduction of television had led to an increase in anti-social

behaviour (e.g. Charlton et al. 1998, 1999).

Key concept 3.5
What is evaluation research?

Evaluation research, as its name implies, is concerned with the evaluation of such occurrences as social and

organizational programmes or interventions. The essential question that is typically asked by such studies is:

has the intervention (for example, a new policy initiative or an organizational change) achieved its anticipated

goals? A typical design may have one group that is exposed to the treatment (that is, the new initiative), and

a control group that is not. Since it is often neither feasible nor ethical to assign research participants randomly

to the two groups, such studies are usually quasi-experimental. The use of the principles of experimental design

is fairly entrenched in evaluation research, but other approaches have emerged in recent years. Approaches

to evaluation based on qualitative research have emerged. While there are differences of opinion about how

qualitative evaluation should be carried out, the different views typically coalesce around a recognition of the

importance of an in-depth understanding of the context in which an intervention occurs and the diverse

viewpoints of the stakeholders (Greene 1994, 2000).

Pawson and Tilley (1997) advocate an approach that draws on the principles of critical realism (see Key

concept 2.3) and that sees the outcome of an intervention as the result of generative mechanisms and the

contexts of those mechanisms. A focus of the former element entails examining the causal factors that inhibit or

promote change when an intervention occurs. Pawson and Tilley’s approach is supportive of the use of both

quantitative and qualitative research methods. Tilley (2000) outlines an early example of the approach in the

context of an evaluation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) in car parks. He observes that there are several

mechanisms by which CCTV might deter car crime, such as deterrence of offenders, greater usage of car parks,

which in itself produces surveillance, more effective use of security staff, and greater sensitivity among drivers to

car security. Examples of contexts are: patterns of usage (such as if the car park is one that fi lls up and empties

during rush-hour periods or one that is in more constant use); blind spots in car parks; and the availability of

other sources of car crime for potential offenders. In other words, whether the mechanisms have certain

effects is affected by the contexts within which CCTV is installed. The kind of evaluation research advocated by

Pawson and Tilley maps these different combinations of mechanism and context in relation to different

outcomes.

9780199588053_C03.indd 57 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs58

Signifi cance of experimental design

As was stated at the outset, the chief reason for intro-
ducing the experiment as a research design is because
it is frequently considered to be a yardstick against
which quantitative research is judged. This occurs largely
because of the fact that a true experiment will allow
doubts about internal validity to be allayed and refl ects
the considerable emphasis placed on the determination
of causality in quantitative research. As we will see in
the next section, cross-sectional designs of the kind
associated with survey research are frequently regarded
as limited, because of the problems of unambiguously
imputing causality when using such designs.

Logic of comparison

However, before exploring such issues, it is important
to draw attention to an important general lesson that an
examination of experiments teaches us. A central feature
of any experiment is the fact that it entails a comparison: at
the very least it entails a comparison of results obtained
by an experimental group with those engendered by a

control group. In the case of the Howell and Frost (1989)
experiment in Research in focus 3.4, there is no control
group: the research entails a comparison of the effects
of three different forms of leadership. The advantage of
carrying out any kind of comparison like this is that we
understand the phenomenon that we are interested in
better when we compare it with something else that is
similar to it. The case for arguing that charismatic leader-
ship is an effective, performance-enhancing form of
leadership is much more persuasive when we view it in
relation to other forms of leadership. Thus, while the
specifi c considerations concerning experimental design
are typically associated with quantitative research, the
potential of comparison in social research represents
a more general lesson that transcends matters of both
research strategy and research design. In other words,
while the experimental design is typically associated
with a quantitative research strategy, the specifi c logic of
comparison provides lessons of broad applicability and
relevance. This issue is given more specifi c attention
below in relation to the comparative design.

Research in focus 3.7
A quasi-experimental evaluation

Koeber (2005) reports the fi ndings of a quasi-experiment in which he evaluated the use of multimedia

presentations (PowerPoint) and a course website (Blackboard) for teaching introductory sociology at a US

university. One group of students acted as the experimental group, in that it was taught using these two forms of

presenting learning materials simultaneously; the other group acted as a control group and did not experience

the multimedia and website methods. There was no random assignment, but in several respects the two groups

were comparable. Therefore, this is not a true experiment, but it has the features of a typical quasi-experiment, in

that the researcher tried to make the two treatments as comparable as possible. It is an evaluation study, because

the researcher is seeking to evaluate the utility of the two teaching methods. The fi ndings are interesting, in that

it was found that there was no signifi cant evidence of a difference in the performance of students (measured

by their fi nal grades for the course) between those who experienced the newer methods and those who

experienced the more traditional ones. However, those students who were taught with the newer methods

tended to perceive the course in more favourable terms, in that they were more likely to perceive various aspects

of the course (for example, course design, rapport with students, and the value of the course) in a positive way.

Also, the experimental groups were less likely to perceive the course demands as diffi cult and to view the course

workload as high.

Key concept 3.6
What is a cross-sectional research design?

A cross-sectional design entails the collection of data on more than one case (usually quite a lot more than one)

and at a single point in time in order to collect a body of quantitative or quantifi able data in connection with two

or more variables (usually many more than two), which are then examined to detect patterns of association.

9780199588053_C03.indd 58 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 59

Cross-sectional design

The cross-sectional design is often called a survey design,
but the idea of the survey is so closely connected in
most people’s minds with questionnaires and structured
interviewing that the more generic-sounding term cross-
sectional design is preferable. While the research methods
associated with surveys are certainly frequently employed
within the context of cross-sectional research, so too
are many other research methods, including structured

observation, content analysis, offi cial statistics, and diar-
ies. All these research methods will be covered in later
chapters, but in the meantime the basic structure of the
cross-sectional design will be outlined.

The cross-sectional design is defi ned in Key concept
3.6. A number of elements of this defi nition have been
emphasized.

• More than one case. Researchers employing a cross-
sectional design are interested in variation. That
variation can be in respect of people, families, organ-
izations, nation states, or whatever. Variation can be
established only when more than one case is being
examined. Usually, researchers employing this design
will select a lot more than two cases for a variety of
reasons: they are more likely to encounter variation
in all the variables in which they are interested; they
can make fi ner distinctions between cases; and the
requirements of sampling procedure are likely to
necessitate larger numbers (see Chapter 8).

• At a single point in time. In cross-sectional design re-
search, data on the variables of interest are collected
more or less simultaneously. When an individual com-
pletes a questionnaire, which may contain fi fty or
more variables, the answers are supplied at essentially
the same time. This contrasts with an experimental
design. Thus, in the classical experimental design,
someone in the experimental group is pre-tested, then
exposed to the experimental treatment, and then
post-tested. Days, weeks, months, or even years may
separate the different phases. In the case of the
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study, eight months
separated the pre- and post-testing of the school-
children in the study.

• Quantitative or quantifi able data. In order to establish
variation between cases (and then to examine associ-
ations between variables—see the next point), it is
necessary to have a systematic and standardized
method for gauging variation. One of the most import-
ant advantages of quantifi cation is that it provides
the researcher with a consistent benchmark. The

advantages of quantifi cation and of measurement will
be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 7.

• Patterns of association. With a cross-sectional design
it is possible to examine relationships only between
variables. There is no time ordering to the variables,
because the data on them are collected more or less
simultaneously, and the researcher does not (invari-
ably because he or she cannot) manipulate any of
the variables. This creates the problem referred to in
Research in focus 3.2 as ‘ambiguity about the direc-
tion of causal infl uence’. If the researcher discovers a
relationship between two variables, he or she cannot
be certain whether this denotes a causal relationship,
because the features of an experimental design are
not present. All that can be said is the variables
are related. This is not to say that it is not possible to
draw causal inferences from research based on a
cross-sectional design. As will be shown in Chapter 15,
there are a number of ways in which the researcher is
able to draw certain inferences about causality, but
these inferences rarely have the credibility of causal
fi ndings deriving from an experimental design. As a
result, cross-sectional research invariably lacks the
internal validity that is found in most experimental
research (see the examples in Research in focus 3.8
and Thinking deeply 3.1).

In this book, the term ‘survey’ will be reserved for
research that employs a cross-sectional research design
and in which data are collected by questionnaire or by
structured interview (see Key concept 3.7). This will
allow me to retain the conventional understanding of
what a survey is while recognizing that the cross-sectional
research design has a wider relevance—that is, one that
is not necessarily associated with the collection of data
by questionnaire or by structured interview.

Reliability, replicability, and validity

How does cross-sectional research measure up in terms
of the previously outlined criteria for evaluating quanti-
tative research: reliability, replicability, and validity?

• The issues of reliability and measurement validity are
primarily matters relating to the quality of the meas-
ures that are employed to tap the concepts in which
the researcher is interested, rather than matters to do
with a research design. In order to address questions
of the quality of measures, some of the issues outlined
in Chapter 7 would have to be considered.

• Replicability is likely to be present in most cross-
sectional research to the degree that the researcher

9780199588053_C03.indd 59 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs60

spells out procedures for: selecting respondents; de-
signing measures of concepts; administering research
instruments (such as structured interview or self-
completion questionnaire); and analysing data. Most
quantitative research based on cross-sectional research
designs specifi es such procedures to a large degree.

• Internal validity is typically weak. As has just been
suggested above, it is diffi cult to establish causal direc-
tion from the resulting data. Cross-sectional research
designs produce associations rather than fi ndings from
which causal inferences can be unambiguously made.
However, procedures for making causal inferences

Research in focus 3.8
Cross-sectional design and internal validity:

an example based on the Health and

Lifestyles Survey

Blaxter (1990) reports some of the fi ndings of a large-scale cross-sectional study in which data were collected by

three methods: a structured interview; physiological data on each respondent carried out by a nurse; and a

self-completion questionnaire. Data were collected from a random sample of around 9,000 individuals. At one

point Blaxter shows that there is a relationship between whether a person smokes and his or her diet. But how

are we to interpret this relationship? Blaxter is quite properly cautious and does not infer any kind of causal

relationship between the two. On the basis of the data, we cannot conclude whether smoking causes diet or

whether diet causes smoking or whether the association between the two is actually an artefact of a third

variable, such as a commitment or indifference to a ‘healthy’ lifestyle. There is, therefore, an ambiguity about

the direction of causal infl uence.

Thinking deeply 3.1
Direction of causality: is sex good for you?

An article in the Guardian’s Health section reviewed evidence about whether sex is good for you. At one point,

the author refers to a study of men that seems to suggest that sex does bring health benefi ts, but she also has to

acknowledge the problem of the direction of cause and effect.

A study of 1,000 men in Caerphilly found that those who had two or more orgasms a week halved their

mortality risk compared with those who had orgasms less than once a month. But while the authors concluded

that sex seems to have a protective effect on men’s health, it is always possible that the association is the other

way around—people who are ill are less likely to have sex in the fi rst place. (Houghton 1998: 14)

Key concept 3.7
What is survey research?

Survey research comprises a cross-sectional design in relation to which data are collected predominantly by

questionnaire or by structured interview on more than one case (usually quite a lot more than one) and at

a single point in time in order to collect a body of quantitative or quantifi able data in connection with two or

more variables (usually many more than two), which are then examined to detect patterns of association.

9780199588053_C03.indd 60 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 61

from cross-sectional data will be referred to in Chap-
ter 15, though most researchers feel that the result-
ing causal fi ndings rarely have the internal validity of
those deriving from experimental designs.

• External validity is strong when, as in the case of
research like Blaxter’s (1990) study of Health and
Lifestyles (see Research in focus 3.8), the sample from
which data are collected has been randomly selected.
When non-random methods of sampling are employed,
external validity becomes questionable. Sampling
issues will be specifi cally addressed in Chapter 8.

• Since much cross-sectional research makes a great deal
of use of research instruments, such as self-completion
questionnaires and structured observation schedules,
ecological validity may be jeopardized because the
very instruments disrupt the ‘natural habitat’, as
Cicourel (1982) puts it (see quotation on page 48).

Non-manipulable variables

As was noted at the beginning of the section on experi-
mental design, in much if not most social research it is
not possible to manipulate the variables in which we are
interested. This is why most quantitative social research
employs a cross-sectional research design rather than an
experimental one. If we wanted internally valid fi ndings
in connection with the smoking–diet relationship investi-
gated by Blaxter (1990) (see Research in focus 3.8), we
would need to manipulate one of the variables. For
example, if we believed that smoking infl uences diet
(perhaps because smoking is an expensive habit, which
may affect people’s ability to afford certain kinds of
food), we might envisage an experiment in which we
took the following steps:

• select a random sample of members of the public who
do not smoke;

• establish their current dietary habits;

• randomly assign them to one of three experimental
treatments: heavy smokers, moderate smokers, and
non-smokers (who act as a control group); and

• after a certain amount of time establish their dietary
habits.

Such a research design is almost laughable, because
practical and ethical considerations are bound to render
it unworkable. We would have to turn some people into
smokers, and, in view of the evidence of the harmful
effects of smoking, this would be profoundly unethical.
Also, in view of the evidence about the effects of smok-
ing, it is extremely unlikely that we would fi nd people
who would be prepared to allow themselves to be turned
into smokers. We might offer incentives for them to
become smokers, but that might invalidate any fi ndings
about the effects on diet if we believe that economic
considerations play an important role in relation to the
effects of smoking on diet. This research is essentially
unworkable.

Moreover, some of the variables in which social scien-
tists are interested, and which are often viewed as poten-
tially signifi cant independent variables, simply cannot be
manipulated, other than by extreme measures. To more
or less all intents and purposes, our ethnicity, age, gen-
der, and social backgrounds are ‘givens’ that are not
really amenable to the kind of manipulation that is neces-
sary for a true experimental design. A man might be
able to present himself through dress and make-up as a
woman to investigate the impact of gender on job oppor-
tunities, as Dustin Hoffman’s character did in the fi lm
Tootsie, but it is unlikely that we would fi nd a suffi cient
number of men to participate in a meaningful experi-
ment to allow such an issue to be investigated (although
Thinking deeply 3.2 provides an interesting case of the
manipulation of a seemingly non-manipulable variable).
Moreover, it could be reasonably argued that, even if
we could bring this research design to fruition, the
researcher would be examining the effects of only the
external signs of gender and would be neglecting its
more subjective and experiential aspects. Similarly, while
the case of a white man presenting himself as a black
man in Thinking deeply 3.2 is interesting, it is doubtful

Thinking deeply 3.2
Manipulating a non-manipulable variable: ethnicity

In the 1950s John Howard Griffi n (1961) blackened his face and visible parts of his body and travelled around

the American South as a person of colour. He behaved appropriately by keeping his eyes averted to show

due deference to whites. He was treated as a black man in a number of ways, such as by having to use water

fountains designated for ‘coloreds’. Griffi n’s aim was to experience what it was like being a black person in

a period and region of racial segregation.

9780199588053_C03.indd 61 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs62

whether a brief sojourn as a person of colour could
adequately capture the experience of being black in the
American South. Such an experience is formed by many
years of personal experience and the knowledge that it
will be an ongoing experience. Thus, although the case
described in Thinking deeply 3.2 provides an interesting
case of manipulating an apparently non-manipulable
variable—ethnicity—it is doubtful whether it could
meaningfully be applied to an experimental context, not
least because it is doubtful whether suffi cient numbers
of people could be found to endure the discomforts and
inconvenience.

On the other hand, the very fact that we can regard
certain variables as givens provides us with a clue as to
how we can make causal inferences in cross-sectional re-
search. Many of the variables in which we are interested
can be assumed to be temporally prior to other variables.
For example, we can assume that, if we fi nd a relation-
ship between ethnic status and alcohol consumption,
that the former is more likely to be the independent
variable because it is temporally prior to alcohol con-
sumption. In other words, while we cannot manipulate
ethnic status, we can draw causal inferences from cross-
sectional data.

Structure of the cross-sectional design

The cross-sectional research design is not easy to depict
in terms of the notation previously introduced, but Fig-
ure 3.2 captures its main features, except that in this case
Obs simply represents an observation made in relation to
a variable.

Figure 3.2 implies that a cross-sectional design com-
prises the collection of data on a series of variables (Obs1
Obs2 Obs3 Obs4 Obs5 . . . Obsn) at a single point in time,

T1. The effect is to create what Marsh (1982) referred to
as a ‘rectangle’ of data that comprises variables Obs1 to
Obsn and cases Case1 to Casen, as in Figure 3.3. For each
case (which may be a person, household, city, nation,
etc.) data are available for each of the variables, Obs1 to
Obsn, all of which will have been collected at T1. Each cell
in the matrix will have data in it.

Cross-sectional design and research strategy

This discussion of the cross-sectional design has placed
it fi rmly in the context of quantitative research. Also,
the evaluation of the design has drawn on criteria asso-
ciated with the quantitative research strategy. It should
also be noted, however, that qualitative research often
entails a form of cross-sectional design. A fairly typical
form of such research is when the researcher employs
unstructured interviewing or semi-structured interview-
ing with a number of people. Research in focus 3.9 pro-
vides an illustration of such a study.

While emphatically within the qualitative research tra-
dition, the study described in Research in focus 3.9 bears
many research design similarities with cross-sectional
studies within a quantitative research tradition, like
Blaxter (1990). Moreover, it is a very popular mode of
qualitative research. The research was not preoccupied
with such criteria of quantitative research as internal and
external validity, replicability, measurement validity, and
so on. In fact, it could be argued that the conversational
interview style made the study more ecologically valid
than research using more formal instruments of data

gu e 3.Figure 3.2
A cross-sectional design

T1

Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Obs4

Obs5

. . .
Obsn

Figure 3.3Figure 3.3
The data rectangle in cross-sectional research

Case1

Case2

Case3

Case4

Case5

. . .

Casen

Obs1 Obs2 Obs3 Obs4 . . . Obsn

9780199588053_C03.indd 62 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 63

collection. It is also striking that the study was con-
cerned with the factors that infl uence food selection, like
vegetarianism. The very notion of an ‘infl uence’ carries a
strong connotation of causality, suggesting that qualita-
tive researchers are interested in the investigation of
causes and effects, albeit not in the context of the lan-
guage of variables that so pervades quantitative research.
Also, the emphasis was much more on elucidating the
experience of something like vegetarianism than is often

the case with quantitative research. However, the chief
point in providing the illustration is that it bears many
similarities to the cross-sectional design in quantitative
research. It entailed the interviewing of quite a large
number of people and at a single point in time. Just as
with many quantitative studies using a cross-sectional
design, the examination of early infl uences on people’s
past and current behaviour is based on their retrospec-
tive accounts of factors that infl uenced them in the past.

Research in focus 3.9
Qualitative research within

a cross-sectional design

Beardsworth and Keil (1992) carried out a study of the dietary beliefs and practices of vegetarians. They write

that their intention was to contribute ‘to the analysis of the cultural and sociological factors which infl uence

patterns of food selection and avoidance. The specifi c focus is on contemporary vegetarianism, a complex of

interrelated beliefs, attitudes and practices . . .’ (1992: 253). The authors carried out ‘relatively unstructured

interviews’, which were ‘guided by an inventory of issues’ with seventy-six vegetarians and vegans in the

East Midlands (1992: 261). Respondents were identifi ed through a snowball sampling approach. The interviews

were taped and transcribed, yielding a large corpus of qualitative data.

Longitudinal design(s)

The longitudinal design represents a distinct form of
research design. Because of the time and cost involved, it
is a relatively little-used design in social research, so it is
not proposed to allocate a great deal of space to it. In the
form in which it is typically found in social science sub-
jects such as sociology, social policy, and human geogra-
phy, it is usually an extension of survey research based on
a self-completion questionnaire or structured interview
research within a cross-sectional design. Consequently,
in terms of reliability, replication, and validity, the longi-
tudinal design is little different from cross-sectional re-
search. However, a longitudinal design can allow some
insight into the time order of variables and therefore may
be more able to allow causal inferences to be made.

With a longitudinal design a sample is surveyed and is
surveyed again on at least one further occasion. It is com-
mon to distinguish two types of longitudinal design: the
panel study and the cohort study. With the former type,
a sample, often a randomly selected national one, is the
focus of data collection on at least two (and often more)
occasions. Data may be collected from different types of
case within a panel study framework: people, households,

organizations, schools, and so on. An illustration of this
kind of study is the British Household Panel Survey
(BHPS) (see Research in focus 3.10).

In a cohort study, either an entire cohort of people or a
random sample of them is selected as the focus of data
collection. The cohort is made up of people who share a
certain characteristic, such as all being born in the same
week or all having a certain experience, such as being
unemployed or getting married on a certain day or in
the same week. The National Child Development Study
(NCDS) is an example of a cohort study (see Research
in focus 3.11). A new cohort study—the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) Millennium Cohort
Study—began at the turn of the present millennium.

Panel and cohort studies share similar features. They
have a similar design structure: Figure 3.4 portrays this
structure and implies that data are collected in at least
two waves on the same variables on the same people.
Both panel and cohort studies are concerned with illumin-
ating social change and with improving the understand-
ing of causal infl uences over time. The latter means that
longitudinal designs are somewhat better able to deal
with the problem of ‘ambiguity about the direction of
causal infl uence’ that plagues cross-sectional designs.

9780199588053_C03.indd 63 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs64

Research in focus 3.10
The British Household Panel Survey

The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) began in 1991, when a national representative sample of 10,264

individuals in 5,538 households were interviewed for the fi rst time in connection with six main areas of interest:

• household organization;

• labour market behaviour;

• income and wealth;

• housing;

• health; and

• socio-economic values.

Panel members are interviewed annually. As a result of the continuous interviewing, it is possible to highlight

areas of social change. For example, Laurie and Gershuny (2000) show that there have been changes in the ways

in which couples manage their money. Over a relatively short fi ve-year period (1991–5), there was a small decline

in the proportion of men having a fi nal say in fi nancial decisions and a corresponding small increase in those

reporting equal say, although interestingly these trends refer to aggregated replies of partners—around a quarter

of partners give different answers about who has the fi nal say!

For further information, see:

www.iser.essex.ac.uk/ulsc/bhps (accessed 17 January 2011).

The BHPS is being gradually replaced by the Understanding Society Survey, which is based on a panel in the

region of 40,000 households. See:

www.understandingsociety.org.uk (accessed 17 January 2011).

Research in focus 3.11
The National Child Development Study

The National Child Development Study (NCDS) is based on all 17,000 children born in Great Britain in the week

of 3–9 March 1958. The study was initially motivated by a concern over levels of perinatal mortality, but the data

collected refl ect a much wider range of issues than this focus implies. Data were collected on the children and

their families at age 7. In fact, the study was not originally planned as a longitudinal study. The children and their

families have been followed up at ages 11, 16, 23, 33, 41–2, 46, and 50–1. Data are collected in relation to a

number of areas, including: physical and mental health; family; parenting; occupation and income; and housing

and environment.

For further information, see Fox and Fogelman (1990); Hodges (1998); and

www.esds.ac.uk/longitudinal/access/ncds/l33004.asp (accessed 17 January 2011).

A new cohort study—the Millennium Cohort Study—began in 2000–1 based on a sample of all children born in

England and Wales over a twelve-month period from 1 September 2000 and all children born in Scotland and

Northern Ireland from 1 December 2000.

For further information, see:

http://securedata.ukda.ac.uk/sdata/mcs.asp (accessed 17 January 2011).

9780199588053_C03.indd 64 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 65

Because certain potentially independent variables can be
identifi ed at T1, the researcher is in a better position to
infer that purported effects that are identifi ed at T2 or
later have occurred after the independent variables. This
does not deal with the entire problem about the ambigu-
ity of causal infl uence, but it at least addresses the prob-
lem of knowing which variable came fi rst. In all other
respects, the points made above about cross-sectional
designs are the same as those for longitudinal designs.

Panel and cohort designs differ in important respects
too. A panel study, like the BHPS, that takes place over
many years can distinguish between age effects (the
impact of the ageing process on individuals) and cohort
effects (effects due to being born at a similar time), because
its members will have been born at different times. A co-
hort study, however, can distinguish only ageing effects,
since all members of the sample will have been born at
more or less the same time. Also, a panel study, especially
one that operates at the household level, needs rules to
inform how to handle new entrants to households (for
example, as a result of marriage or elderly relatives
moving in) and exits from households (for example, as
a result of marriage break-up or children leaving home).

Panel and cohort studies share similar problems. First,
there is the problem of sample attrition through death,
moving, and so on, and through subjects choosing to
withdraw at later stages of the research. Menard (1991)
cites the case of a study of adolescent drug use in the USA
in which 55 per cent of subjects were lost over an eight-
year period. However, attrition rates are by no means
always as high as this. In 1981 the National Child
Development Study managed to secure data from 12,537
members of the original 17,414 cohort, which is quite an
achievement bearing in mind that twenty-three years

would have elapsed since the birth of the children. In
1991 data were elicited from 11,407. The problem with
attrition is largely that those who leave the study may
differ in some important respects from those who
remain, so that the latter do not form a representative
group. There is some evidence from panel studies that
the problem of attrition declines with time (Berthoud
2000a); in other words, those who do not drop out after
the fi rst wave or two of data collection tend to stay on the
panel. Secondly, there are few guidelines as to when is
the best juncture to conduct further waves of data collec-
tion. Thirdly, it is often suggested that many longitudinal
studies are poorly thought out and that they result in the
collection of large amounts of data with little apparent
planning. Fourthly, there is evidence that a panel condi-
tioning effect can occur whereby continued participation
in a longitudinal study affects how respondents behave.
Menard (1991) refers to a study of family caregiving in
which 52 per cent of respondents indicated that they
responded differently to providing care for relatives as a
result of their participation in the research.

Surveys, like the General Household Survey, the
British Social Attitudes survey, and the British Crime
Survey (see Table 14.1), that are carried out on a regular
basis on samples of the population are not truly longitu-
dinal designs because they do not involve the same people
being interviewed on each occasion. They are perhaps
better thought of as involving a repeated cross-sectional
design or trend design in which samples are selected on
each of several occasions. They are able to chart change
but they cannot address the issue of the direction of cause
and effect because the samples are always different.

It is easy to associate longitudinal designs more or
less exclusively with quantitative research. However,
qualitative research sometimes incorporates elements of
a longitudinal design. This is especially noticeable in
ethnographic research, when the ethnographer is in a
location for a lengthy period of time or when interviews
are carried out on more than one occasion to address
change. See Research in focus 3.12 for an example of
the latter.

Most longitudinal studies will be planned from the
outset in such a way that sample members can be fol-
lowed up at a later date. However, it can happen that the
idea of conducting a longitudinal study occurs to the
researchers only after some time has elapsed. Provided
there are good records, it may be possible to follow up
sample members for a second wave of data collection
or even for further waves. Research in focus 3.13 pro-
vides an extremely unusual but fascinating example of a
longitudinal design from the USA with both planned and

gu e 3.Figure 3.4
The longitudinal design

T1

Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Obs4

Obs5

. . .
Obsn

Tn

Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Obs4

Obs5

. . .
Obsn

. . .

9780199588053_C03.indd 65 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs66

unplanned elements. This is also an interesting illustration
of a mixed methods study, in that it combines quantita-
tive and qualitative research.

Case study design

The basic case study entails the detailed and intensive
analysis of a single case. As Stake (1995) observes, case
study research is concerned with the complexity and
particular nature of the case in question. Some of the
best-known studies in sociology are based on this kind of
design. They include research on:

• a single community, such as Whyte’s (1955) study
of Cornerville in Boston, Gans’s (1962) study of the

East End of Boston, M. Stacey’s (1960) research on
Banbury, and O’Reilly’s (2000) research on a commun-
ity of Britons living on the Costa del Sol in Spain.
Increasingly, social researchers are becoming inter-
ested in the study of online communities (see Chap-
ter 28 and Research in focus 28.4 in particular);

• a single school, such as studies by Ball (1981) and
by Burgess (1983) on Beachside Comprehensive and
Bishop McGregor respectively;

• a single family, like O. Lewis’s (1961) study of the
Sánchez family or Brannen and Nilsen’s (2006)
investigation of a family of low-skilled British men,
which contained four generations in order to uncover
changes in ‘fathering’ over time;

Research in focus 3.12
Qualitative longitudinal research:

the Timescapes project

Qualitative longitudinal research (often abbreviated to QLL) that involves repeat qualitative interviews with

research participants has become more common since the turn of the century. This is particularly apparent with

the ‘Timescapes’ project, which is a major project that began life in February 2007. The aim is to interview and

re-interview people on several occasions to capture social changes and shifts in people’s life course and thoughts

and feelings. It comprises seven relatively independent projects. Through these projects the researchers aim to

track the lives of around 400 people. One of the projects is entitled ‘Maculinities, identities and risk: transition in

the lives of men as fathers’ and aims to get a sense of how masculine identities change in the wake of fi rst-time

fatherhood. This particular study builds on research that originally began in Norfolk in 1999, well before the

Timescapes project began. Thirty fathers were interviewed in 2000–1 both before and after the birth of their

fi rst child. Each man was interviewed three times (two interviews were scheduled after the child’s birth).

This group of men was then followed up in 2008. A further set of interviews was conducted with eighteen

men from south Wales in 2008–9 with the same pattern of one interview before and two interviews after birth.

In the course of the interviews use was made of photographs of families and men with their children to stimulate

refl ection on fatherhood. The use of photographs in interviews is explored in Chapters 19 and 20. The materials

will eventually be made available for secondary analysis (see the section on ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data’

in Chapter 24).

Sources:

Guardian, 20 Oct. 2009:

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/20/timescapes-leeds-research-memories?INTCMP=SRCH

Project website:

www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk

For information on the masculinities project, see:

www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/research-projects/projects/masculinities-fatherhood-risk.php

For some methodological refl ections on the Timescapes project, see:

www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/methods-ethics

All the above websites were accessed 18 May 2011.

9780199588053_C03.indd 66 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 67

• a single organization, such as studies of a factory
by writers such as Burawoy (1979), and Cavendish
(1982), or of pilferage in a single location like a bakery
(Ditton 1977), of a single police service (Holdaway
1982, 1983; see Research in focus 3.14), or of a single
call centre (Callaghan and Thompson 2002; Nyberg
2009);

• a person, like the famous study of Stanley, the ‘jack-
roller’ (Shaw 1930); such studies are often character-
ized as using the life history or biographical approach
(see the section on ‘Life history and oral history inter-
viewing’ in Chapter 20); and

• a single event, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (Allison
1971), the events surrounding the media reporting
of a specifi c issue area (Deacon, Fenton, and Bryman
1999), the Balinese cockfi ght (Geertz 1973b), and the
study of a disaster incident (Vaughan 1996, 2004).

What is a case?

The most common use of the term ‘case’ associates the
case study with a location, such as a community or organ-
ization. The emphasis tends to be upon an intensive
examination of the setting. There is a tendency to associ-
ate case studies with qualitative research, but such an

Research in focus 3.13
A planned and unplanned longitudinal design

In the 1940s Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of the Harvard Law School conducted a study concerned with

how criminal careers begin and are maintained. The study entailed a comparison of 500 delinquents and

500 non-delinquents in Massachusetts. The two samples were matched in terms of several characteristics, such

as age, ethnicity, and the socio-economic status of the neighbourhoods from which they were drawn. The sample

was aged around 14 at the time and was followed up at ages 25 and 33. The data were collected by various

means: interviews with the 1,000 participants, their families, and various key fi gures in their lives (for example,

social workers and school teachers); observations of the home; and records of various agencies that had any

connection with the participants and their families. Obviously, data concerning criminal activity were collected

for each individual by examining records relating to court appearances and parole. While all these sources of

data produced quantitative information, qualitative data were also collected through answers to open questions

in the interviews. Around the mid-1990s Laub and Sampson (2003, 2004) began to follow up the 500 men who

had been in the delinquent sample. By this time, they would have been aged 70. Records of death and criminal

activity were searched for all 500 men, so that patterns of ongoing criminal activity could be gleaned. Further,

they managed to fi nd and then interview fi fty-two of the original delinquent sample. These cases were selected

on the basis of their patterns of offending over the years, as indicated by the criminal records. The interviews

were life history interviews to uncover key turning points in their lives and to fi nd out about their experiences.

This is an extremely unusual example of a longitudinal study that contains planned elements (the original wave

of data collection, followed by the ones eleven and eighteen years later) and an unplanned element conducted

by Laub and Sampson many years later.

Research in focus 3.14
A case study

Holdaway (1982, 1983) was a police offi cer who was also conducting doctoral research on his own police service,

which was located in a city. His main research method was ethnography, whereby he was a participant observer

who observed interaction, listened to conversations, examined documents, and wrote up his impressions and

experiences in fi eld notes. Holdaway’s superiors did not know that he was conducting research on his own force,

so that he was a covert researcher. This is a controversial method on ethical grounds (see Chapters 6 and 19).

Holdaway’s research provides insights into the nature of police work and the occupational culture with which

offi cers surround themselves.

9780199588053_C03.indd 67 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs68

identifi cation is not appropriate. It is certainly true
that exponents of the case study design often favour
qualitative methods, such as participant observation and
unstructured interviewing, because these methods are
viewed as particularly helpful in the generation of an
intensive, detailed examination of a case. However, case
studies are frequently sites for the employment of both
quantitative and qualitative research, an approach that
will receive attention in Chapter 27. Indeed, in some in-
stances, when an investigation is based exclusively upon
quantitative research, it can be diffi cult to determine
whether it is better described as a case study or as a cross-
sectional research design. The same point can often be
made about case studies based upon qualitative research.

As an illustration of the diffi culties of writing about
case studies, consider the study described in Thinking
deeply 3.3. Ostensibly, it is similar to Beardsworth and
Keil’s (1992) study of vegetarians, in that it is a piece

Similarly, Powell and Butterfi eld (1997) present a
quantitative analysis of promotion decisions in a US gov-
ernment department. They were concerned to investigate
how far race had an impact on promotions within the
department. The researchers found that race did not
have a direct effect on promotion, but it did have an indir-
ect effect. This occurred because race had an impact on
two variables—whether the applicant was employed in
the hiring department and the number of years of work

of qualitative research within a cross-sectional design
framework (see Research in focus 3.9). However, it has
been described as providing ‘case-study evidence’ by
Davies et al. (1994: 157), presumably on the grounds
that the fi eldwork was undertaken in a single location.
I would prefer to reserve the term ‘case study’ for those
instances where the ‘case’ is the focus of interest in its
own right. The study in Thinking deeply 3.3 is no more a
case study of Kidderminster than Beardsworth and Keil’s
(1992) research is based on a case study of the East
Midlands. McKee and Bell’s (1985) research is concerned
with the experience of unemployment among the forty-
fi ve couples whom they interviewed. It is not concerned
with Kidderminster as such. The town provides a kind of
backdrop to the fi ndings rather than a focus of interest in
its own right. The crucial point is that Kidderminster is
not the unit of analysis; rather it is the sample that is the
unit of analysis.

experience—which in turn affected promotion. The im-
pact of race on these two variables was such that people
of colour were disadvantaged with respect to promotion.
Once again, we see here a study that has the hallmarks of
both a cross-sectional design and a case study, but this
time the research strategy was a quantitative one. As
with the McKee and Bell (1985) research, it seems better
to describe it as employing a cross-sectional design rather
than a case study, because the case itself is not the

Thinking deeply 3.3
What is the unit of analysis?

McKee and Bell (1985: 387) examined forty-fi ve couples in a single location (Kidderminster in the West Midlands)

in order to examine ‘the impact of male unemployment on family and marital relations’. They describe their

research instrument as an ‘unstructured, conversational interview style’. In most cases, husbands and wives were

interviewed jointly. The interviews were very non-directive, allowing the couples considerable freedom to answer

in their own terms and time. Their research focused on the range of problems faced by unemployed families, the

processes by which they cope, and the variations in their experiences. Thus the focus was very much on the

experience of unemployment from the perspective of the couples. The authors show, for example, that the

impact of husbands’ unemployment on their wives is often far greater than is usually appreciated, since research

frequently takes the unemployed person as the main hub of the enquiry. Couples often reported changes to the

domestic division of labour, which in turn raised questions for them about images of masculinity and identity.

Is this study a case study of unemployment in Kidderminster or is it better thought of as a cross-sectional design

study of unemployed men and their wives? As I suggest in the text, it is not terribly helpful to think of it as a case

study, because Kidderminster is not the unit of analysis. It is about the responses to unemployment among

a sample of individuals; the fact that the interviewees were located in Kidderminster is not signifi cant to the

research fi ndings. However, it is not always easy to distinguish whether an investigation is of one kind rather than

another. As these refl ections imply, it is important to be clear in your own mind what your unit of analysis is.

9780199588053_C03.indd 68 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 69

apparent object of interest: it is little more than a location
that forms a backdrop to the fi ndings.

Similarly, I would tend to argue that the study of
redundant steelworkers by Westergaard et al. (1989)
is a case study of the effects of redundancy in which a
quantitative research strategy was employed with clear
indications of a cross-sectional design. With a case study,
the case is an object of interest in its own right, and the
researcher aims to provide an in-depth elucidation of it.
Unless a distinction of this or some other kind is drawn,
it becomes impossible to distinguish the case study as
a special research design, because almost any kind of
research can be construed as a case study: research based

With experimental and cross-sectional designs, the
typical orientation to the relationship between theory
and research is a deductive one. The research design and
the collection of data are guided by specifi c research
questions that derive from theoretical concerns. However,
when a qualitative research strategy is employed within
a cross-sectional design, as in Beardsworth and Keil’s
(1992) research, the approach tends to be inductive. In
other words, whether a cross-sectional design is induc-
tive or deductive tends to be affected by whether a quan-
titative or a qualitative research strategy is employed.
The same point can be made of case study research. When
the predominant research strategy is qualitative, a case
study tends to take an inductive approach to the relation-
ship between theory and research; if a predomin antly
quantitative strategy is taken, it tends to be deductive.

Reliability, replicability, and validity

The question of how well the case study fares in the
context of the research design criteria cited early on

on a national, random sample of the population of Great
Britain would have to be considered a case study of Great
Britain! However, it also needs to be appreciated that,
when specifi c research illustrations are examined, they
can exhibit features of more than one research design.
What distinguishes a case study is that the researcher is
usually concerned to elucidate the unique features of the
case. This is known as an idiographic approach. Research
designs like the cross-sectional design are known as
nomothetic, in that they are concerned with generating
statements that apply regardless of time and place.
However, an investigation may have elements of both
(see Research in focus 3.15).

in this chapter—measurement validity, internal validity,
external validity, ecological validity, reliability, and repli-
cability—depends in large part on how far the researcher
feels that these are appropriate for the evaluation of case
study research. Some writers on case study research, like
Yin (2009), consider that they are appropriate criteria
and suggest ways in which case study research can be
developed to enhance its ability to meet the criteria; for
others, like Stake (1995), they are barely mentioned, if at
all. Writers on case study research whose point of orien-
tation lies primarily with a qualitative research strategy
tend to play down or ignore the salience of these factors,
whereas those writers who have been strongly infl uenced
by the quantitative research strategy tend to depict them
as more signifi cant.

However, one question on which a great deal of discus-
sion has centred concerns the external validity or general-
izability of case study research. How can a single case
possibly be representative so that it might yield fi ndings
that can be applied more generally to other cases? For

Research in focus 3.15
A cross-sectional design with case study elements

Sometimes, an investigation may have both cross-sectional and case study elements. For example, Leonard

(2004) was interested in the utility of the notion of social capital for research into neighbourhood formation.

As such, she was interested in similar issues to the study in Research in focus 2.2. She conducted her study in

a Catholic housing estate in West Belfast, where she carried out semi-structured interviews with 246 individuals

living in 150 households. Her fi ndings relate to the relevance of the concept of social capital, so that the research

design looks like a cross-sectional one. However, on certain occasions she draws attention to the uniqueness of

Belfast with its history in recent times of confl ict and the search for political solutions to the problems there.

At one point she writes: ‘In West Belfast, as the peace process develops, political leaders are charged with

connecting informal community networks to more formal institutional networks’ (Leonard 2004: 939). As this

comment implies, it is more or less impossible in a study like this to generate fi ndings concerning community

formation without reference to the special characteristics of Belfast and its troubled history.

9780199588053_C03.indd 69 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs70

example, how could the fi ndings from Holdaway’s (1982,
1983) research, referred to in Research in focus 3.14, be
generalizable to all police services in Great Britain? The
answer, of course, is that they cannot. It is important to
appreciate that case study researchers do not delude
themselves that it is possible to identify typical cases that
can be used to represent a certain class of objects,
whether it is factories, mass-media reporting, police
services, or communities. In other words, they do not
think that a case study is a sample of one.

Types of case

Following on from the issue of external validity, it is
useful to consider a distinction between different types
of case that is sometimes made by writers. Yin (2009)
distinguishes fi ve types.

• The critical case. Here the researcher has a well-
developed theory, and a case is chosen on the grounds
that it will allow a better understanding of the cir-
cumstances in which the hypothesis will and will
not hold. The study by Festinger et al. (1956) of
a religious cult whose members believed that the end
of the world was about to happen is an example. The
fact that the event did not happen by the appointed
day allowed the researchers to test the authors’ pro-
positions about how people respond to thwarted
expectations.

• The extreme or unique case. The unique or extreme
case is, as Yin observes, a common focus in clinical
studies. Margaret Mead’s (1928) well-known study of
growing up in Samoa seems to have been motivated
by her belief that the country represented a unique
case. She argued that, unlike most other societies,
Samoan youth do not suffer a period of anxiety and
stress in adolescence. The factors associated with this
relatively trouble-free period in their lives were of
interest to her, since they might contain lessons for
Western youth. Fielding (1982) conducted research
on the extreme right-wing organization the National
Front. While the National Front was not unique on the
British political scene, it was extremely prominent at
the time of his research and was beginning to become
an electoral force. As such, it held an intrinsic interest
that made it essentially unique.

• The representative or typical case. I prefer to call this an
exemplifying case, because notions of representative-
ness and typicality can sometimes lead to confusion.
With this kind of case, ‘the objective is to capture
the circumstances and conditions of an everyday or

commonplace situation’ (Yin 2009: 48). Thus a case
may be chosen because it exemplifi es a broader cat-
egory of which it is a member. The notion of exemplifi –
cation implies that cases are often chosen not because
they are extreme or unusual in some way but because
either they epitomize a broader category of cases
or they will provide a suitable context for certain
research questions to be answered. An illustration of
the fi rst kind of situation is Lynd and Lynd’s (1929,
1937) classic community study of Muncie, Indiana, in
the USA, which they dubbed ‘Middletown’ precisely
because it seemed to typify American life at the time.
The second rationale for selecting exemplifying cases
is that they allow the researcher to examine key social
processes. For example, a researcher may seek access
to an organization because it is known to have imple-
mented a new technology and he or she wants to
know what the impact of that new technology has
been. The researcher may have been infl uenced by
various theories about the relationship between tech-
nology and work and by the considerable research
literature on the topic, and as a result seeks to exam-
ine the implications of some of these theoretical and
empirical deliberations in a particular research site.
The case merely provides an apt context for the
working-through of these research questions. To take
a concrete example, Russell and Tyler’s (2002) study
of one store in the ‘Girl Heaven’ UK chain of retail
stores for 3–13-year-old girls does not appear to have
been motivated by the store being critical, unique, or
by it providing a context that had never before been
studied, but was to do with the capacity of the re-
search site to illuminate the links between gender and
consumption and the commodifi cation of childhood
in modern society.

• The revelatory case. The basis for the revelatory
case exists ‘when an investigator has an opportunity
to observe and analyse a phenomenon previously
inaccessible to scientifi c investigation’ (Yin 2009:
48). As examples, Yin cites Whyte’s (1955) study of
Cornerville, and Liebow’s (1967) research on unem-
ployed blacks.

• The longitudinal case. Yin suggests that a case may be
chosen because it affords the opportunity to be inves-
tigated at two or more junctures. However, many case
studies comprise a longitudinal element, so that it is
more likely that a case will be chosen both because it
is appropriate to the research questions on one of the
other four grounds and also because it can be studied
over time.

9780199588053_C03.indd 70 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 71

Any case study can involve a combination of these
elements, which can best be viewed as rationales for
choosing particular cases. For example, Margaret Mead’s
(1928) classic study of growing up in Samoa has been
depicted above as an extreme case, but it also has ele-
ments of a critical case because she felt that it had
the potential to demonstrate that young people’s re-
sponses to entering their teenage years are not deter-
mined by nature alone. Instead, she used growing up in
Samoa as a critical case to demonstrate that culture
has an important role in the development of humans,
thus enabling her to cast doubt on notions of biological
determinism.

It may be that it is only at a very late stage that the
singularity and signifi cance of the case becomes appar-
ent (Radley and Chamberlain 2001). Flyvbjerg (2003)
provides an example of this. He shows how he undertook
a study of urban politics and planning in Aalborg in
Denmark, thinking it was a critical case. After conducting
his fi eldwork for a while, he found that it was in fact an
extreme case. He writes as follows:

that the evidence they present is limited because it has
restricted external validity by arguing that it is not the
purpose of this research design to generalize to other
cases or to populations beyond the case. This position is
very different from that taken by practitioners of survey
research. Survey researchers are invariably concerned to
be able to generalize their fi ndings to larger populations
and frequently use random sampling to enhance the
representativeness of the samples on which they conduct
their investigations and therefore the external validity of
their fi ndings. Case study researchers argue strenuously
that this is not the purpose of their craft.

Case study as intensive analysis

Instead, case study researchers tend to argue that they
aim to generate an intensive examination of a single case,
in relation to which they then engage in a theoretical
analysis. The central issue of concern is the quality of the
theoretical reasoning in which the case study researcher
engages. How well do the data support the theoretical
arguments that are generated? Is the theoretical analysis
incisive? For example, does it demonstrate connections
between different conceptual ideas that are developed
out of the data? The crucial question is not whether the
fi ndings can be generalized to a wider universe but how
well the researcher generates theory out of the fi ndings.
This view of generalization is called ‘analytic generaliza-
tion’ by Yin (2009) and ‘theoretical generalization’ by
J. C. Mitchell (1983). Such a view places case study re-
search fi rmly in the inductive tradition of the relation-
ship between theory and research. However, a case study
design is not necessarily associated with an inductive
approach, as can be seen in the research by Adler and
Adler (1985), which was referred to in Chapter 2. Thus,
case studies can be associated with both theory genera-
tion and theory testing. Further, as M. Williams (2000)
has argued, case study researchers are often in a position
to generalize by drawing on fi ndings from comparable
cases investigated by others. This issue will be returned
to in Chapter 18.

Longitudinal research and the case study

Case study research frequently includes a longitudinal
element. The researcher is often a participant of an organ-
ization or member of a community for many months or
years. Alternatively, he or she may conduct interviews
with individuals over a lengthy period. Moreover, the re-
searcher may be able to inject an additional longitudinal
element by analysing archival information and by retro-
spective interviewing. Research in focus 3.16 provides an
illustration of such research.

Initially, I conceived of Aalborg as a ‘most likely’ critical
case in the following manner: if rationality and urban
planning were weak in the face of power in Aalborg,
then, most likely, they would be weak anywhere, at
least in Denmark, because in Aalborg the rational
paradigm of planning stood stronger than anywhere
else. Eventually, I realized that this logic was fl awed,
because my research [on] local relations of power
showed that one of the most infl uential ‘faces of power’
in Aalborg, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce,
was substantially stronger than their equivalents
elsewhere. Therefore, instead of a critical case,
unwittingly I ended up with an extreme case in the
sense that both rationality and power were unusually
strong in Aalborg, and my case study became a study
of what happens when strong rationality meets strong
power in the area of urban politics and planning. But
this selection of Aalborg as an extreme case happened
to me, I did not deliberately choose it. (Flyvbjerg
2003: 426)

Thus, we may not always appreciate the nature and sig-
nifi cance of a ‘case’ until we have subjected it to detailed
scrutiny.

One of the standard criticisms of the case study is
that fi ndings deriving from it cannot be generalized.
Exponents of case study research counter suggestions

9780199588053_C03.indd 71 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs72

Another way in which a longitudinal element occurs is
when a case that has been studied is returned to at a later
stage. A particularly interesting instance of this is the
Middletown study that was mentioned previously. The
town was originally studied by Lynd and Lynd in 1924–5
(Lynd and Lynd 1929) and was restudied to discern
trends and changes in 1935 (Lynd and Lynd 1937). In 1977
the community was restudied yet again (Bahr et al. 1983),
using the same research instruments but with minor
changes. Burgess (1987) was similarly concerned with
continuity and change at the comprehensive school he had
studied in the early 1970s (Burgess 1983) when he re-
turned to study it ten years later. However, as he observes,
it is diffi cult for the researcher to establish how far change
is the result of real differences over the two time periods
or of other factors, such as different people at the school,
different educational issues between the two time peri-
ods, and the possible infl uence of the initial study itself.

Comparative design

It is worth distinguishing one further kind of design:
comparative design. Put simply, this design entails study-
ing two contrasting cases using more or less identical
methods. It embodies the logic of comparison, in that it
implies that we can understand social phenomena better
when they are compared in relation to two or more
meaningfully contrasting cases or situations. The com-
parative design may be realized in the context of either
quantitative or qualitative research. Within the former,
the data-collection strategy will take the form outlined in
Figure 3.5. This fi gure implies that there are at least two
cases (which may be organizations, nations, communities,
police forces, etc.) and that data are collected from each,
usually within a cross-sectional design format.

One of the more obvious forms of such research is in
cross-cultural or cross-national research. In a useful defi –
nition, Hantrais (1996) has suggested that such research
occurs

Research in focus 3.16
A case study of ICI

Pettigrew (1985) conducted research into the use of organizational development expertise at Imperial Chemical

Industries (ICI). The fi eldwork was conducted between 1975 and 1983. He carried out ‘long semistructured

interviews’ in 1975–7 and again in 1980–3. During the period of the fi eldwork he also had fairly regular contact

with members of the organization. He writes: ‘The continuous real-time data collection was enriched by

retrospective interviewing and archival analysis . . .’ (Pettigrew 1985: 40).

Figure 3.5Figure 3.5
A comparative design

Case 1

T1

Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Obs4

Obs5

. . .
Obsn

Case n

Obs1

Obs2

Obs3

Obs4

Obs5

. . .
Obsn

when individuals or teams set out to examine particular
issues or phenomena in two or more countries with the
express intention of comparing their manifestations in
different socio-cultural settings (institutions, customs,
traditions, value systems, life styles, language, thought
patterns), using the same research instruments either
to carry out secondary analysis of national data or to
conduct new empirical work. The aim may be to seek
explanations for similarities and differences or to gain a
greater awareness and a deeper understanding of social
reality in different national contexts.

9780199588053_C03.indd 72 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 73

The research by Kelley and De Graaf (1997), referred
to in Research in focus 2.4, is an illustration of cross-
cultural research that entails a secondary analysis of
survey evidence collected in fi fteen nations. A further
example is Gallie’s (1978) survey research on the impact
of advanced automation on comparable samples of indus-
trial workers in both England and France. Gallie was
able to show that national traditions of industrial rela-
tions were more important than technology in explaining
worker attitudes and management–worker relations, a
fi nding that was important in terms of the technological
determinism thesis that was still current at the time.

Cross-cultural research is not without problems such
as: managing and gaining the funding for such research
(see Thinking deeply 3.4); ensuring, when existing data,
such as offi cial statistics or survey evidence, are submitted
to a secondary analysis, that the data are comparable in
terms of categories and data-collection methods; ensur-
ing, when new data are being collected, that the need
to translate data-collection instruments (for example,
interview schedules) does not undermine genuine com-
parability; and ensuring that samples of respondents or
organizations are equivalent. This last problem raises the
further diffi culty that, even when translation is carried

Thinking deeply 3.4
Forms of cross-cultural research

As its name implies, cross-cultural research entails the collection and/or analysis of data from two or more

nations. Possible models for the conduct of cross-cultural research are as follows.

1. A researcher, perhaps in conjunction with a research team, collects data in a number of countries. Gallie’s

(1978) research on the impact of advanced automation on industrial workers is an illustration of this model,

in that he took comparable samples of industrial workers from two oil refi neries in both England and France.

2. A central organization coordinates a portion of the work of national organizations. The article by Kelley and

De Graaf (1997) that is cited in this chapter provides an example of this model.

3. A secondary analysis is carried out of data that are comparable, but where the coordination of their collection

is limited or non-existent. This kind of cross-cultural analysis might occur if researchers seek to ask survey

questions in their own country that have been asked in another country. The ensuing data may then be

analysed cross-culturally. A further form of this model is through the secondary analysis of offi cially collected

data, such as unemployment statistics. Wall’s (1989) analysis of the living arrangements of the elderly in

eighteen European countries is an example of such research. The research uncovered considerable diversity in

terms of such factors as whether the elderly lived alone and whether they were in institutional care. However,

this approach is beset with problems associated with the defi ciencies of many forms of offi cial statistics (see

Chapter 14) and problems of cross-national variations in offi cial defi nitions and collection procedures.

4. Teams of researchers in participating nations are recruited by a person or body that coordinates the

programme, or alternatively researchers in different countries with common interests make contact and

coordinate their investigations. Each researcher or group of researchers has the responsibility of conducting

the investigation in his/her/their own country. The work is coordinated in order to ensure comparability

of research questions, of survey questions, and of procedures for administering the research instruments

(e.g. Crompton and Birkelund 2000). This model differs from (2) above in that it usually entails a specifi c focus

on certain research questions. An example can be found in Research in focus 27.7.

5. Although not genuinely cross-cultural research in the sense of a coordinated project across nations, another

form can occur when a researcher compares what is known in one country with new research in another

country. For example, Richard Wright, a US criminologist who has carried out a considerable amount of

research into street robberies in his own country, was interested in how far fi ndings relating to this crime

would be similar in the UK. In particular, US research highlighted the role of street culture in the motivation to

engage in such robbery. He was involved in a project that entailed semi-structured interviews with imprisoned

street robbers in south-west England (Wright et al. 2006). In fact, the researchers found that street culture

played an important role in the UK context in a similar way to that in the USA.

9780199588053_C03.indd 73 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs74

out competently, there is still the potential problem of an
insensitivity to specifi c national and cultural contexts.
On the other hand, cross-cultural research helps to re-
duce the risk of failing to appreciate that social science
fi ndings are often, if not invariably, culturally specifi c.
For example, Crompton and Birkelund (2000) conducted
research using semi-structured interviewing with com-
parable samples of male and female bank managers in
Norway and Britain. They found that, in spite of more
family-friendly policies in Norway, bank managers in
both countries struggle to manage career and domestic
life. It might have been assumed that countries with
greater attachment to such policies would ease these
pressures, but comparative, cross-cultural research of
this kind shows how easy it is to make such an erroneous
inference.

Comparative research should not be treated as solely
concerned with comparisons between nations. The logic
of comparison can be applied to a variety of situations.
The Social Change and Economic Life Initiative, referred
to in Research in focus 7.1, entailed identical studies
(mainly involving survey research) in six contrasting
labour markets, which were chosen to refl ect different
patterns of economic change in the early to mid-1980s
and in the then recent past. By choosing meaningful
contrasts, the signifi cance of the different patterns for a
variety of experiences of both employers and employees
could be portrayed. Such designs are not without prob-
lems: the differences that are observed between the
contrasting cases may not be due exclusively to the dis-
tinguishing features of the cases. Thus, some caution is
necessary when explaining contrasts between cases in
terms of differences between them.

In terms of issues of reliability, validity, replicability,
and generalizability, the comparative study is no different
from the cross-sectional design. The comparative design
is essentially two or more cross-sectional studies carried
out at more or less the same point in time.

The comparative design can also be applied in relation
to a qualitative research strategy. When this occurs, it
takes the form of a multiple-case study (see Research in
focus 3.17). In recent years, a number of writers have
argued for a greater use of case study research that
entails the investigation of more than one case. Indeed,
in certain social science fi elds, like organization studies,
this has become a common research design in its own
right. Essentially, a multiple-case (or multi-case) study
occurs whenever the number of cases examined exceeds
one. The main argument in favour of the multiple-case
study is that it improves theory building. By comparing
two or more cases, the researcher is in a better position
to establish the circumstances in which a theory will or

will not hold (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2009). Moreover, the
comparison may itself suggest concepts that are relevant
to an emerging theory.

Related to this point is the fact that there is a growing
awareness that the case study and the multiple-case
study in particular may play a crucial role in relation to
the understanding of causality. However, this awareness
refl ects a different notion of causality from that outlined
earlier in this chapter. In the discussion of independent
and dependent variables above, the underlying percep-
tion of cause and effect is indicative of what is often re-
ferred to as a ‘successionist’ understanding of causation.
As the term ‘successionist’ implies, the idea of causality
entails an effect following on from (that is, succeeding)
an independent variable that precedes it. Critical realism
(see Key concept 2.3) operates with a different under-
standing of causation, which is to seek out generative
mechanisms that are responsible for observed regularit-
ies in the social world and how they operate in particu-
lar contexts. Case studies are perceived by writers of a
critical realist persuasion to have an important role for
research within this tradition, because the intensive
nature of most case studies enhances the researcher’s
sensitivity to the factors that lie behind the operation
of observed patterns within a specifi c context (Ackroyd
2009). The multiple-case study offers an even greater
opportunity, because the researcher will be in a position
to examine the operation of generative causal mechan-
isms in contrasting or similar contexts. Thus, Delbridge’s
(2004) ethnographic study of two ‘high-performance’
companies in south Wales was able to identify in both
fi rms patterns of resistance and independence that
persisted in spite of management efforts to intensify
work and to minimize slack in the production process.
However, the extent to which informal organization and
subversion were found to operate differed considerably
between the two fi rms, and important to this variation
was the quality of the relationships between the workers
themselves. This represents the causal mechanism pro-
ducing the variation in resistance between the two fac-
tories. The crucial contextual factor was the operation of
a blame culture in one of the fi rms (a Japanese-owned
company), whereby any mistake had to be attributed to
an individual, which had implications for the quality
of relationships among the operatives because of the
disputes and disagreements that ensued. Consequently,
through the use of a multiple-case study, Delbridge was
able to show how variation in informal organization and
resistance (an observed regularity) could be understood
through its generative causal mechanism (the quality of
worker relationships) and through the signifi cance of
context (the presence or otherwise of a blame culture).

9780199588053_C03.indd 74 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 75

However, not all writers are convinced about the
merits of multiple-case study research. Dyer and Wilkins
(1991), for example, argue that a multiple-case study
approach tends to mean that the researcher pays less
attention to the specifi c context and more to the ways
in which the cases can be contrasted. Moreover, the need
to forge comparisons tends to mean that the researcher
needs to develop an explicit focus at the outset, whereas
critics of the multiple-case study argue that it may be
advantageous to adopt a more open-ended approach
in many instances. These concerns about retaining con-
textual insight and a rather more unstructured research

Research in focus 3.17 describes one approach to se-
lecting cases for a multiple-case study. In this illustration,
cases were selected on the basis that they represented
extreme types—namely, successful and unsuccessful
fi rms, and their operation in certain commercial sectors.
Research in focus 3.18 provides another example. In this
second example, cases were selected on the basis of
quantitative indicators of economic deprivation. For ex-
ample, both the economically deprived areas in Edinburgh

approach are very much associated with the goals of the
qualitative research strategy (see Chapter 17).

The key to the comparative design is its ability to allow
the distinguishing characteristics of two or more cases
to act as a springboard for theoretical refl ections about
contrasting fi ndings. It is something of a hybrid, in that
in quantitative research it is frequently an extension of
a cross-sectional design and in qualitative research it is
frequently an extension of a case study design. It even
exhibits certain features that are similar to experiments
and quasi-experiments, which also rely on the capacity to
forge a comparison.

and Glasgow were in the top 5 per cent of deprived areas
in Scotland. With case selection approaches such as
these, the fi ndings that are common to the cases can be
just as interesting and important as th ose that differenti-
ate them. It is also worth pointing out that, although
Research in focus 3.17 and 3.18 both used a comparative
design using a multiple-case study approach, the former
employed a predominantly qualitative research strategy,
whereas the latter used a predominantly quantitative one.

Research in focus 3.17
A multiple-case study of British companies
In their study of the factors that contribute to competitive success among large British companies, Pettigrew and

Whipp (1991) adopted a multiple-case study approach. They examined eight companies, which were made up

of a successful and an unsuccessful company in each of three commercial sectors (automobile manufacturing;

merchant banking; and book publishing). An additional company drawn from life insurance was also included in

the sample. By strategically choosing companies in this way, they could establish the common and differentiating

factors that lay behind the successful management of change.

Research in focus 3.18
A multiple-case study of Scottish neighbourhoods
Atkinson and Kintrea (2001) were interested in the implications of what are known as area effects. Area effects,

as their name implies, are to do with the implications of living or working in an area for life chances and attitudes.

The issue with which these authors were concerned was to do with the implications of area effects for the

experience of poverty among those who are economically deprived. More specifi cally, is the experience of

poverty worse if one lives in a poor area than if one lives in an economically mixed area? Are those who are

economically disadvantaged more likely to experience social exclusion in one type of area rather than another

(that is, economically deprived or mixed)? The researchers selected an economically disadvantaged area and

an economically and socially mixed area in Glasgow for comparison. They selected a similar pair of areas in

Edinburgh, thus allowing a further element of comparison because of the greater buoyancy of this city compared

to Glasgow. Thus, four areas were selected altogether and samples in each were questioned using a survey

instrument. The quantitative comparisons of the data led the researchers to conclude that, by and large, it is

‘worse to be poor in a poor area than one which is socially mixed’ (Atkinson and Kintrea 2001: 2295).

9780199588053_C03.indd 75 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs76

Bringing research strategy and

research design together

Table 3.1
Research strategy and research design

Research design Research strategy

Quantitative Qualitative

Experimental Typical form. Most researchers using an
experimental design employ quantitative
comparisons between experimental and control
groups with regard to the dependent variable.

Examples. Research in focus 3.2, 3.4.

No typical form. However, Bryman (1988a: 151–2)
notes a study in which qualitative data on
schoolchildren were collected within a quasi-
experimental research design.

Cross-sectional Typical form. Survey research or structured
observation on a sample at a single point in time.
Content analysis on a sample of documents.

Typical form. Qualitative interviews or focus groups
at a single point in time. Qualitative content analysis
of a set of documents relating to a single period.

Examples. Research in focus 2.9, 3.8, 8.1, 8.4, 12.4,
13.2, 14.1.

Examples. Research in focus 2.3, 2.9, 3.9, 20.4
(see also Table 1.1); Thinking deeply 3.3.

Longitudinal Typical form. Survey research on a sample on more
than one occasion, as in panel and cohort studies.
Content analysis of documents relating to different
time periods.

Typical form. Ethnographic research over a long
period, qualitative interviewing on more than one
occasion, or qualitative content analysis of
documents relating to different time periods.

Examples. Research in focus 3.10, 3.11, 3.13. Such research warrants being dubbed longitudinal
when there is a concern to map change.

Examples. Research in focus 3.12, 17.4.

Case study Typical form. Survey research on a single case with
a view to revealing important features about its
nature.

Typical form. The intensive study by ethnography or
qualitative interviewing of a single case, which may
be an organization, life, family, or community.

Examples. The choice by Goldthorpe et al. (1968)
of Luton as a site for testing the thesis of
embourgeoisement; the study by Westergaard et al.
(1989) of the effects of redundancy at a Sheffi eld
steel plant (Research in focus 7.2).

Examples. Research in focus 2.6, 3.14, 19.1, 20.4.

Comparative Typical form. Survey research in which there is a
direct comparison between two or more cases,
as in cross-cultural research.

Typical form. Ethnographic or qualitative interview
research on two or more cases.

Examples. Research in focus 3.17, 3.18, 17.3.

Examples. Research in focus 2.4; Gallie (1978).

Finally, we can bring together the two research strategies
covered in Chapter 2 with the research designs outlined
in this chapter. Table 3.1 shows the typical form associated
with each combination of research strategy and research
design and a number of examples that either have been
encountered so far or will be covered in later chapters.
Table 3.1 refers also to research methods that will be
encountered in later chapters but that have not been
referred to so far. The Glossary will give you a quick
reference to terms used that are not yet familiar to you.

Strictly speaking, Table 3.1 should comprise a third col-
umn for mixed methods research, as an approach that
combines both quantitative and qualitative research. This
has not been done, because the resulting table would
be too complicated, since mixed methods research can
entail the combined use of different research designs (for
example, a cross-sectional design and a multiple-case
study) as well as methods. However, the quantitative and
qualitative components of some of the mixed methods
studies referred to in this book are included in the table.

9780199588053_C03.indd 76 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs 77

The distinctions are not always perfect. In particular,
in some qualitative research it is not obvious whether a
study is an example of a longitudinal design or a case
study design. Life history studies, research that concen-
trates on a specifi c issue over time (e.g. Deacon, Fenton,
and Bryman 1999), and ethnography in which the re-
searcher charts change in a single case are examples of
studies that cross the two types. Such studies are perhaps
better conceptualized as longitudinal case studies rather

than as belonging to one category of research design or
another. A further point to note is that there is no typical
form in the qualitative research strategy/experimental
research design cell. Qualitative research in the context
of true experiments is very unusual. However, as noted
in the table, Bryman (1988a) refers to a qualitative
study by Hall and Guthrie (1981), which employed a
quasi-experimental design.

Key points

● There is an important distinction between a research method and a research design.

● It is necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the meaning of the technical terms used as criteria
for evaluating research: reliability; validity; replicability; and the types of validity (measurement,
internal, external, ecological).

● It is also necessary to be familiar with the differences between the fi ve major research designs
covered: experimental; cross-sectional; longitudinal; case study; and comparative. In this context, it is
important to realize that the term ‘experiment’, which is often used somewhat loosely in everyday
speech, has a specifi c technical meaning.

● There are various potential threats to internal validity in non-experimental research.

● Although the case study is often thought to be a single type of research design, it in fact has several
forms. It is also important to be aware of the key issues concerned with the nature of case study
evidence in relation to issues like external validity (generalizability).

Questions for review

● In terms of the defi nitions used in this book, what are the chief differences between each of the
following: a research method; a research strategy; and a research design?

Criteria in social research

● What are the differences between reliability and validity and why are these important criteria for the
evaluation of social research?

● Outline the meaning of each of the following: measurement validity; internal validity; external
validity; and ecological validity.

● Why have some qualitative researchers sought to devise alternative criteria from reliability and
validity when assessing the quality of investigations?

● Why have some qualitative researchers not sought to devise alternative criteria from reliability and
validity when assessing the quality of investigations?

Research designs

● What are the main research designs that have been outlined in this chapter?

● A researcher reasons that people who read broadsheet newspapers are likely to be more
knowledgeable about personal fi nance than readers of tabloid newspapers. He interviews 100 people

9780199588053_C03.indd 77 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Research designs78

about the newspapers they read and their level of fi nancial knowledge. Sixty-fi ve people read tabloids
and thirty-fi ve read broadsheets. He fi nds that the broadsheet readers are on average considerably
more knowledgeable about personal fi nance than tabloid readers. He concludes that reading
broadsheets enhances levels of knowledge of personal fi nance. Assess his reasoning.

Experimental design

● How far do you agree with the view that the main importance of the experimental design for the
social researcher is that it represents a model of how to infer causal connections between variables?

● Following on from the previous question, if experimental design is so useful and important, why is it
not used more?

● What is a quasi-experiment?

Cross-sectional design

● In what ways does the survey exemplify the cross-sectional research design?

● Assess the degree to which the survey researcher can achieve internally valid fi ndings.

● To what extent is the survey design exclusive to quantitative research?

Longitudinal design(s)

● Why might a longitudinal research design be superior to a cross-sectional one?

● What are the main differences between panel and cohort designs in longitudinal research?

Case study design

● What is a case study?

● Is case study research exclusive to qualitative research?

● What are some of the principles by which cases might be selected?

Comparative design

● What are the chief strengths of a comparative research design?

● Why might comparative research yield important insights?

Online Resource Centre

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book to enrich your understanding of research
designs. Consult web links, test yourself using multiple choice questions, and gain further guidance
and inspiration from the Student Researcher’s Toolkit.

9780199588053_C03.indd 78 10/20/11 10:01 AM

Planning a research
project and
formulating research
questions

Chapter outline

Introduction 80

Getting to know what is expected of you by your institution 80

Thinking about your research area 81

Using your supervisor 81

Managing time and resources 82

Formulating suitable research questions 85

Criteria for evaluating research questions 90

Writing your research proposal 92

Preparing for your research 92

Doing your research and analysing your results 93

Checklist 94

Key points 95

Questions for review 95

4

9780199588053_C04.indd 79 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions80

Introduction

This chapter has been written to provide some advice for
readers who might be carrying out a research project of
your own. The chapters that follow in Parts Two, Three,
and Four of this book will then provide more detailed
information about the choices available to you and how
to implement them. But beyond this, how might you go
about conducting a small project of your own? I have in
mind here the kind of situation that is increasingly com-
mon among degree programmes in the social sciences—

the requirement to write a dissertation often of around
8,000 to 15,000 words. In particular, I have in mind the
needs of undergraduate students, but it may be that stu-
dents on postgraduate degree programmes will also fi nd
some of the observations I make helpful. Also, the advice
is really concerned with students conducting projects
with a component of empirical research in which they
collect new data or perhaps conduct a secondary analysis
of existing data.

Chapter guide

The goal of this chapter is to provide advice to students on some of the issues that they need to
consider if they have to prepare a dissertation based upon a relatively small-scale project. Increasingly,
social science students are required to produce such a dissertation as part of the requirements for
their degrees. In addition to providing help with the conduct of research, which will be the aim of the
chapters that come later in this book, more specifi c advice on tactics in carrying out and writing up social
research for a dissertation can be useful. It is against this background that this chapter has been written.
The chapter explores a wide variety of issues, such as:

• advice on timing;

• advice on generating research questions;

• advice on conducting a project;

• advice on writing a research proposal.

Getting to know what is expected of

you by your institution

Your institution or department will have specifi c require-
ments concerning a wide variety of different features
that your dissertation should comprise and a range of
other matters relating to it. These include such things as:
the form of binding; how it is to be presented; whether an
abstract is required; how big the page margins should be;
the format for referencing; number of words; perhaps
the structure of the dissertation; how much advice you
can get from your supervisor; whether or not a proposal

is required; plagiarism; deadlines; how much (if any)
fi nancial assistance you can expect; and so on.

The advice here is simple: follow the requirements,
instructions, and information you are given. If anything
in this book confl icts with your institution’s guidelines
and requirements, ignore this book! I very much hope
this is not something that will occur very much, but
if it does, keep to the guidelines your institution gives
you.

9780199588053_C04.indd 80 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions 81

The chances are that you will be asked to start thinking
about what you want to do research on well before you
are due to start work on your dissertation. It is worth
giving yourself a good deal of time. As you are doing your

various modules, begin to think about whether there are
any topics that might interest you and that might provide
you with a researchable area.

Thinking about your research area

Using your supervisor

Most institutions that require a dissertation or similar
component allocate students to supervisors. Institutions
vary quite a lot in what can be expected of supervisors; in
other words, they vary in terms of what kinds of and how
much assistance supervisors will give to students allo-
cated to them. Equally, students vary a great deal in how
frequently they see their supervisors and in their use of
them. My advice here is simple: use your supervisor to
the fullest extent that you are allowed and follow the
pointers you are given by him or her. Your supervisor will
almost certainly be someone who is well versed in the
research process and who will be able to provide you
with help and feedback at all stages of your research,
subject to your institution’s strictures in this regard. If
your supervisor is critical of your research questions,
your interview schedule, drafts of your dissertation, or
whatever, try to respond positively. Follow the sugges-
tions that he or she provides, since the criticisms will

invariably be accompanied by reasons for the criticisms
and suggestions for revision. It is not a personal attack.
Supervisors regularly have to go through the same pro-
cess themselves when they submit an article to a peer-
refereed journal or apply for a research grant or give a
conference paper. So respond to criticisms and sugges-
tions positively and be glad that you are being given the
opportunity to address defi ciencies in your work before it
is formally examined.

A further point is that students who get stuck at the
start of their dissertations or who get behind with their
work sometimes respond to the situation by avoiding
their supervisors. They then get caught up in a vicious
circle that results in their work being neglected and
perhaps rushed at the end. Try to avoid this situation by
confronting the fact that you are experiencing diffi culties
in getting going or are getting behind and seek out your
supervisor for advice.

Student experience
Using supervisors

Several students wrote about the role that their supervisors played in their research projects. Isabella Robbins

mentions that her supervisor played an important role in relation to her analysis of her qualitative data.

The emerging themes were strong and in that sense the analysis was not problematic, but I guess the problems

came in mapping the analysis onto the theory. My way of dealing with this was to talk about the analysis at

supervisions and to incorporate the ideas that came of these discussions.

Cornelius Grebe provided the following advice about relationships with supervisors:

I have learned to be very clear about my expectations of my supervisors: what kind of professional and

personal relationship I thrive in and what form of support exactly I need from them.

To read more about Isabella’s and Cornelius’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that
accompanies this book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

9780199588053_C04.indd 81 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions82

All research is constrained by time and resources. There
is no point in working on research questions and plans
that cannot be seen through because of time pressure or
because of the costs involved. Two points are relevant here.

1. Work out a timetable—preferably in conjunction with
your supervisor—detailing the different stages of
your research (including the review of the literature
and writing up). The timetable should specify the dif-
ferent stages and the calendar points at which you

should start and fi nish them. Some stages are likely
to be ongoing—for example, searching the literature
for new references (see below)—but that should not
prove an obstacle to developing a timetable. Securing
access to an organization is sometimes required for
student projects, but students typically underestimate
the time it can take to do this. For his research on com-
mercial cleaning, Ryan (2009) spent nearly two years
trying to secure access to a suitable fi rm.

Supervisor experience
How to annoy your dissertation supervisor and

cause yourself problems: fi ve easy steps
Supervisors were asked about some of the chief frustrations associated with supervising dissertation students.

There were some recurring themes in their responses. Here are some easy ways to annoy your supervisor and

create problems for yourself:

1. Don’t turn up to pre-arranged supervision meetings. Quite aside from the rudeness of doing this, a failure to

turn up begins to ring alarm bells about whether the student is veering off course.

2. Leave the bulk of the work until the last minute. Supervisors know full well that research must be paced

because it requires a great deal of forethought and because things can go wrong. The longer students leave

their dissertation work, the more diffi cult it becomes to do thorough research and to rectify problems.

3. Ignore what your supervisor advises you to do. Supervisors are extremely experienced researchers, so that

ignoring their advice is irritating and certainly not in a student’s interest.

4. Hand in shoddy drafts as late as possible. It is not your supervisor’s role to write the dissertation for you, so

you should hand in work that allows him or her to offer advice and suggestions, not a rewrite of your work.

Also, supervisors have several dissertation students as well as other often urgent commitments, so they need

to be given a reasonable amount of time to consider your work.

5. Forget what you were taught in your research methods module or your research training module. Instruction

that you will have received on how to do research was meant to help you with your future research needs;

it was not a hurdle for you to jump over and then move on.

Managing time and resources

Student experience
Managing time
One of the most diffi cult aspects of doing a research project for many students is managing their time.

Sarah Hanson was explicit on this point:

Never underestimate how long it will take you to complete a large project like a dissertation. Choose a topic

you have passion about. The more you enjoy your research the more interesting it will be to read. Be

organized: post-it notes, folders, wall planners, anything that keeps you on track from day to day will help you

not to be distracted from the purpose of your study.

9780199588053_C04.indd 82 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions 83

2. Find out what, if any, resources can be put at your
disposal for carrying out your research. For example,
will you receive help from your institution with such
things as travel costs, photocopying, secretarial assis-
tance, postage, stationery, and so on? Will the institu-
tion be able to loan you hardware such as recording
equipment and transcription machines if you need to
record and transcribe your interviews? Has it got the
software you need, such as SPSS or a qualitative data
analysis package like NVivo? This kind of information
will help you to establish how far your research design
and methods are fi nancially feasible and practical. The

imaginary ‘gym study’ used in Chapter 15 is an example
of an investigation that would be feasible within the
kind of time frame usually allocated to undergraduate
and postgraduate dissertations. However, it would
require such facilities as: typing up the questionnaire,
which nowadays students can usually do for them-
selves with the help of word-processing programs;
photocopying covering letters and questionnaires;
postage for sending the questionnaires out and for
any follow-up letters to non-respondents; return post-
age for the questionnaires; and the availability of a
quantitative data analysis package like SPSS.

Both Hannah Creane and Lily Taylor felt that, unless your time is managed well, the analysis phase tends to be

squeezed—often with undesirable consequences. Indeed, it is my experience too from supervising students’

dissertations that they allow far too little time for data analysis and writing up. Here is what Hannah and Lily

respectively wrote in response to a question asking what one single bit of advice they would give to others.

Get your research done as soon as possible. The process of analysis is pretty much an ongoing one and can

take a very long time, so the sooner you have all your data compiled the better. It also means that you have

more time to make more extensive analysis rather than just noticing the surface emergent trends.

Make sure you give yourself enough time to carry out the project, don’t underestimate the amount of time

data analysis can take!

Amy Knight felt she managed her time quite well when preparing an undergraduate dissertation on gender and

recycling:

Effective time management is needed when completing a large research project such as a dissertation. I spent

a lot of my summer between my second and third year collecting relevant literature and putting together draft

chapters. I would also recommend setting personal targets—for example, aiming to complete the literature

review chapter within a month of starting your third year. Setting targets worked well for me as it spread my

workload; it also meant that I could get effective feedback from my dissertation supervisor with plenty of time

to make adjustments.

Similarly, Rebeccca Barnes wrote that, if she was doing her research again:

I would also allocate more time for data analysis and writing, as largely because of the long period of time

which it took to recruit participants, these phases of my research were subject to considerable time pressures.

To read more about Sarah’s, Hannah’s, Lily’s, Amy’s, and Rebecca’s research experiences, go to the Online
Resource Centre that accompanies this book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Supervisor experience
Allow time to gain access and for ethical scrutiny

One area where students often fail to build in suffi cient time when conducting research projects is to do with the

tendency to underestimate how much time it can take to gain access to organizations and other settings and to

get clearance for their research through an ethics committee. Access issues are mainly covered in Chapter 19 and

ethical issues in Chapter 6. Some institutions adopt a relatively light-touch approach over ethics, provided no

obvious ethical issues are suggested by a student’s proposal. Others submit all proposals to more detailed

scrutiny. Supervisor A wrote:

9780199588053_C04.indd 83 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions84

Criminological subject matter does not lend itself easily to empirical study by dissertation: one often wishes to

study illegal and upsetting subjects that raise a range of ethical concerns (informed consent; researcher

safety; data confi dentiality; disclosure), that, combined with access diffi culties, mean resolution timescales are

often well beyond the time available to students.

It is also clear that many supervisors act as initial ethical advisers and steer students away from ethically

questionable topics or approaches. Supervisor C wrote that he intervened in students’ choice of topic and/or

research methods ‘when there is a clear possibility of ethical problems or the proposed timetable is unrealistic or

if the methods are incongruent with the research aims’.

Supervisor F wrote: ‘Topics are chosen by students—where these raise ethical or practical issues students are

encouraged to refl ect on their choices and the issues raised.’ Supervisor I took a similar view: ‘I help to steer

them away from topics where there might be problems accessing data, ensuring safety in undertaking data

collection (especially qualitative fi eldwork) or dealing with ethical issues.’ The very fact that your initial ideas

about your research may have to be reconsidered because of ethical concerns is likely to slow down your

research slightly, so it is worth giving ethical and access issues consideration very early on.

Student experience
Devising a timetable for writing up

Lily Taylor found it helpful to have a timetable of deadlines for the different sections of the report she had to

write.

I produced a fi rst draft of my report and made sure that I got it done in plenty of time before the deadline.

I was then able to go over my work and make the necessary changes. I made sure that I had a checklist with

mini deadlines for each section. This made sure that I kept on top of my work and progressed at a steady rate.

Isabella Robbins writes that she ‘devised a writing up timetable with a plan of the thesis’. Cornelius Grebe

adopted a similar approach to his writing up. He writes: ‘I agreed submission dates for individual draft chapters

with my supervisors.’

To read more about Lily’s, Isabella’s, and Cornelius’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre
that accompanies this book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

Student and supervisor experience
Leave enough time for analysis and writing

I have long held the view that a recurring error in students’ preparations for their dissertations is that many do

not allow suffi cient time for the analysis and writing-up stages. This tendency results in both of these stages being

rushed, when they actually require a great deal of time for refl ection and redrafting. Several of the supervisors

reported similar experiences with their students.

Supervisor C wrote that one of the most common problems encountered by dissertation students was not

allowing ‘suffi cient time for re-drafting’ and for Supervisor G it was ‘leaving the writing until the last minute’.

Several of them also commented that they encourage their students to consider issues about analysis before the

collection of the data. Supervisor D writes that a common refrain is: ‘I’ve collected all this data and I don’t know

what to do with it!’ This supervisor went on to write that he or she encourages students

9780199588053_C04.indd 84 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions 85

There is a clear message in the material covered in this
section: allow suffi cient time for the various stages of
the research process. Gaining access, analysing data, and
writing up fi ndings have been particularly highlighted
as areas where students often miscalculate the amount
of time required. Another time-related issue is that it
can sometimes take a lot longer than you might think
to secure clearance from research ethics committees to
conduct your investigation. The issue of ethics is given
more detailed consideration in Chapter 6. However, one
fi nal point needs to be registered: even with a really
well-planned project, unexpected problems can throw
out your timetable. For example, McDonald, Townsend,
and Waterhouse (2009) report that for their research

they successfully negotiated access to the Australian
organizations that were involved in a number of research
projects in which they were engaged. However, changes
to personnel meant that those who had agreed to give
them access (often called ‘gatekeepers’ in the research
methods literature) left or moved on, so that the re-
searchers had to forge new relationships and effectively
had to renegotiate the terms of their investigations,
which slowed the progress of their research down con-
siderably. Such disruptions to one’s research are impos-
sible to predict. It is important not only to realize that
they can occur but also to introduce a little fl exibility
into your research timetable so that you can reduce
their impact.

to think about their analysis during or shortly after the construction of their research questions. By the time

they are thinking about research design they should have a rough idea about what their analysis will look like

(i.e. they must do as it will link their research design to their research questions).

Several of the students made similar observations about their own experiences. For example, Alice Palmer notes

of her own experience with writing:

As long as you have something written, you are on your way to improving it. I aimed to write a couple of

hundred words a day, no matter how inspired I was feeling. I wrote more if I felt it was going well, but at least

I could steadily move towards a target, which is less stressful than having no idea where you will be in a

week’s time.

Mark Girvan writes of a group project in which he was involved:

DO NOT leave things late! Our research project suffered through a lack of urgency, meaning that we did not

have as much time as we would have liked to write up our report. Too much was left to the last minute,

which meant that what we produced was not of the high quality of which we believe we were capable.

Formulating suitable research questions

Many students want to conduct research into areas that
are of personal interest to them. This is not a bad thing at
all and, as I noted in Chapter 2, many social researchers
start from this point as well (see also Lofl and and Lofl and
1995: 11–14). However, you must move on to develop
research questions. This recommendation applies to
qualitative research as well as quantitative research. As
is explained in Chapter 17, qualitative research tends to
be more open-ended than quantitative research, and in
Chapter 19 I refer to some notable studies that appear
not to have been driven by specifi c research questions.
However, very open-ended research is risky and can lead

to the collection of too much data and, when it comes to
writing up, to confusion about your focus. So, unless
your supervisor advises you to the contrary, I would defi n-
itely formulate some research questions, even if they
turn out to be somewhat less specifi c than the kinds we
often fi nd in quantitative research. In other words, what
is it about your area of interest that you want to know?

As noted in Chapter 1, research questions have many
uses and you should resist the temptation of not formu-
lating them or delaying their formulation. But do re-
member that your research questions must have a clear
social scientifi c (for example, sociological) angle.

9780199588053_C04.indd 85 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions86

Marx (1997) has suggested a wide range of possible
sources of research questions (see Thinking deeply 4.1).
As this list makes clear, research questions can derive
from a wide variety of contexts. Figure 4.1 brings out the
main steps in developing research questions. Research
questions in quantitative research are sometimes more
specifi c than in qualitative research. Indeed, some quali-
tative researchers advocate a very open approach with
no research questions. This is a very risky approach,

because it can result in collecting lots of data without
a clear sense of what to observe or what to ask your
interviewees. There is a growing tendency for qualitative
researchers to advocate a somewhat more focused
approach to their craft (e.g. Hammersley and Atkinson
1995: 24–9).

As Figure 4.1 implies, we usually start out with a gen-
eral research area that interests us. It may derive from
any of several sources:

Thinking deeply 4.1
Marx’s sources of research questions

Marx (1997) suggests the following as possible sources of research questions.

• Intellectual puzzles and contradictions.

• The existing literature.

• Replication.

• Structures and functions. For example, if you point to a structure such as a type of organization, you can ask

questions about the reasons why there are different types and the implications of the differences.

• Opposition. Marx identifi es the sensation of feeling that a certain theoretical perspective or notable piece of

work is misguided and of exploring the reasons for your opposition.

• A social problem. But remember that this is just the source of a research question; you still have to identify

social scientifi c (for example, sociological) issues in relation to a social problem.

• ‘Gaps between offi cial versions of reality and the facts on the ground’ (Marx 1997: 113). An example here is

something like Delbridge’s (1998) fascinating ethnographic account of company rhetoric about Japanized

work practices and how they operate in practice.

• The counter-intuitive. For example, when common sense seems to fl y in the face of social scientifi c truths.

• ‘Empirical examples that trigger amazement’ (Marx 1997: 114). Marx gives, as examples, deviant cases and

atypical events.

• New methods and theories. How might they be applied in new settings?

• ‘New social and technical developments and social trends’ (Marx 1997: 114).

• Personal experience.

• Sponsors and teachers. But do not expect your teachers to provide you with detailed research questions.

Student experience
Theory as an infl uence on research questions

Rebecca Barnes’s interest in feminist theories relating to patriarchy infl uenced her selection of woman-to-woman

partner abuse as a focus for her enquiries.

I became interested in the topic of woman-to-woman partner abuse as an undergraduate. My fi rst encounter

with this subject area took the form of a theoretical engagement with feminist explanations for domestic

violence—primarily emphasizing patriarchy—and the ways in which emerging knowledge about violence and

abuse in female same-sex relationships challenges this understanding. It was as a result of this fi rst encounter

that I became aware of the scarcity of research in this area, particularly in the UK, where this subject was

9780199588053_C04.indd 86 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions 87

virtually uncharted territory. I was at this point interested in pursuing postgraduate study, and thus decided to

conduct my own UK-based study of woman-to-woman partner abuse for my Ph.D.

Theoretical ideas stimulated Gareth Matthews’s interest in migrant labour. In his case, it was labour process

theory that was the focus of his theoretical enquiry.

Primarily, my interest stems from a more general interest in Marxist labour process theory, which I believe to

be highly relevant to an understanding of the content of modern work-forms as well as the claims that are

made by academics about these. Since Braverman published Labour and Monopoly Capital in 1974, the labour

process debate has taken many twists and turns, and the ‘core’ elements of the theory are now somewhat

different from those expounded by Braverman. I do not seek simply to reiterate the importance of Braverman’s

formulation, but instead have attempted to explore the space between this and more modern theoretical

propositions—in the light of real and perceived changes in the world of work and workers. . . . Essentially, my

approach stems from the belief that the employment relation cannot simply be ‘read off’ from analyses of the

content of jobs, and that it must instead be examined through an analysis of forces that operate at various

levels (i.e. the workplace, the labour market, the state, etc.), and from the interaction between these forces

and employers’ necessarily contradictory aims and pressures.

To read more about Rebecca’s and Gareth’s research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centre that
accompanies this book at: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm4e/

gu e .Figure 4.1
Steps in selecting research questions

Research area

Concerns about risk

Select aspect of research area

Variations in concerns about risk

Research questions

What areas of risk are of greatest concern among people? Does concern about risk varg y by age,
gender, social class, and education? Do parents tend to worry about risk more than non-parents?

What is the main source of people’s knowledge about issues relating to risk g (newspapers,
television, family)? Do concerns about risk have an impact on how people conduct their

daily lives and if so in what ways? Do worries about risk result in fatalism?

Select research questions

What areas of risk are of greatest concern among people? Does concern about risk varg y by age,
gender, social class, and education? Do parents tend to worry about risk more than non-parents?

9780199588053_C04.indd 87 10/20/11 10:03 AM

Planning a research project and formulating research questions88

• Personal interest/experience. As I pointed out in
Chapters 1 and 2, my interest in theme parks can be
traced back to a visit to Disney World in Orlando in
1991 and my interest in the representation of social
science research in the mass media to a diffi cult en-
counter with the press referred to in Chapters 1 and 2.

• Theory. Someone might be interested in testing or ex-
ploring aspects of labour process theory or in the theory
of the risk society or the implications of Actor Network
Theory for the use of technologies in everyday life.

• The research literature. Studies relating to a research
area like modern consumerism might stimulate an
interest in the nature of the shopping experience in
contemporary society. Writing about the fi eld of organ-
ization studies, Sandberg and Alvesson (2011) note
that spotting gaps in the literature is the chief way of
identifying research questions. The chief strategies for
doing this are: spotting overlooked or under-researched
areas and identifying areas of research that have not
been previously examined using a particular theory or
perspective.

• Puzzles. An interesting example of this can be found
in a research article by Hodson (2004) in which he
employs data from the Workplace Ethnography Project
(see Research in focus 13.4). In this article he notes
that writings on modern work imply two rather incon-
sistent views concerning the extent to which work-
places today are a source of social fulfi lment. Some
writers construe modern workplaces as intrinsically
attractive environments to which people are drawn;
others writers view people’s commitment to social life
at the workplace as stemming from job and career

insecurities. Hodson set up these two different points
of view explicitly as essentially rival hypotheses.
Similarly, Wright et al. (2006) collected semi-structured
interview data on street robbers in the UK to shed
light on two different views of the motivation for
engaging in this crime. One view, which draws on
rational choice theory, depicts street robbery as motiv-
ated by a trade-off between the desire for fi nancial
gain against the necessity to reduce the likelihood of
detection. The other view of street robbery portrays it
as a cultural activity from which perpetrators derived
an emotional thrill and which helped to sustain a par-
ticular lifestyle.

• New developments in society. Examples might include
the rise of the Internet and the diffusion of new
models of organization—for example, call centres.

• Social problem. An example might be the impact of
asylum-seekers being viewed as a social problem by
some sectors of society. This seems to have been one of
the main factors behind the work of Lynn and Lea
(2003), who examined the discourses surrounding
the notion of the asylum-seeker in the UK (see Research
in focus 22.7).

These sources of interest are not mutually exclusive.
For example, the investigation reported in Research in
focus 2.1 was motivated by at least two of the above
sources: an interest in exploring the concept of social
capital (theory) and understanding the process of gentri-
fi cation (a new development in society).

As these types of source suggest, in research we often
start out with a general research area that interests us.
This research area has to be narrowed down so that we

Student experience
New developments in society as a spur to