Understanding Research Validity External And Internal Factors

The validity in simple terms means the extent to which measurement of an instrument is relative to the intended measurement outcome (Denzin, 2017). The research validity is of two types that are external validity that referred to the extent to which findings of the research is able to replicate other surroundings and internal validity that referred to the extent to which findings of the research matches with the reality (Denzin, 2017). For a robust analysis, data analysis dissertation help can be crucial in ensuring that both external and internal validity are thoroughly assessed and addressed.

Identifying and explaining two types of sampling techniques used in sociology research

The sampling is referred to the process implemented in research in which a previously determined number of individuals based on the topic are selected from a larger population (Kujur and Kujur, 2018). The two types of sampling used in sociology research include snowball sampling and random sampling. The snowball sampling is the process in which the participants help to recruit other respondents in the study (Woodley and Lockard, 2016). The random sampling is the process of selection of participants of the study from a population in random manner to reach inferences regarding the population (Kujur and Kujur, 2018).

Identifying and explaining two advantages of structured interviews

The structured interview is referred to the quantitative research technique used for presenting the interview with the exact same question in similar order for receiving response from the participants (Levi, 2017). As mentioned in the provided source, it is identified that the two key advantages of structured interview is that it is cost-effective and offers easy examination of reliability of the study (Levi, 2017). This is because structured interviews questions are already fixed which are easy to quantify as well as fairly require less time to be executed due which it is cost-effective in nature. As mentioned by Shank (2016), benefit of structured interview is that it allows implication of fewer biases from the interviewer. This is because the questions to be asked are already decided which removes the element of judgement of the interviewer. It leads to maintain consistency in the process as well as allow effective information to be collected from all the participants. As argued by Magrath (2018), the benefit of structured interview is that it allows faster execution of the process to receive comparable responses. This is because limited questions are identified in the structured interviews where they are used to receive responses from the participants allowing larger participants to be covered. Thus, the lack of new questions to be raised for answering by each other participants helps the interview to be completed in faster manner and ensure effective comparison are able to be analysed based on the responses received for each same questions being asked to the participants.

Identifying and explaining two benefits of choosing covert compared to overt participant observation

The covert participation observation is referred to the process in which nature if the research project, identify of the researcher and the consideration that the sample participants are being watched is concealed from them. In this nature of observation, the researchers are seen to take a false identity to avoid the sample participants from identifying them (Roulet et al. 2017). As asserted by Esquinas et al. (2019), the benefit of covert participant observation is that it avoids risk of people behaviours to be altered in turn leading valid data to be gathered which is not able to be collected in overt observation. This is because in covert observation the participants being felt free of not being observed makes themselves remain engaged in their activity in true manner rather than keeping it a secret whereas in overt observation the participants feel being watched may create alteration in behaviour hindering the validity. As argued by Rowe (2018), the advantage of covert observation compared to overt observation is that it allows the study participants in sensitive areas to be easily studied. This is because of lack of feeling of being watched. Thus, it can be used for studying the behaviour of the participants in criminal field.

Assessing the positivist approach for the study of society

Introduction

The study approach used is to determine the way the data regarding a phenomenon is to be collected, examined and implemented in the research to meet its objectives (Whitty, 2017). The study approaches in sociology research are mainly of two types which are positivism and interpretivism. In the essay, the positivism in research is to be explained along with its limitations. In addition, its history of origin and use in sociology is to be described. Moreover, the interpretivism is also to be explained along with its limitations to inform the way it differs from positivist approach and avoided to be used compared to positivism. The history of origin and its implication in sociology is also to be mentioned.

Main Body

The positivism and interpretivism are two fundamental approaches used in research in the sociology. The positivists are seen to follow scientific methods and use quantitative information whereas the interpretivist is seen to follow humanistic methods and collected qualitative information (Hasan, 2016). Positivism is referred to the study approach in which the researcher uses an analytical along with logical thinking to examine a research issue by recognising data that are scientifically verified to develop effective decision in the study (Fuchs, 2017). The positivism term was first originated in 19th century when Comte first described his ideas in his book. It was seen that Comte showed interest to establish theories which could examine ultimate goal of improvement of the world. The theorist considered natural sciences like physics and biology as fundamental steps for developing social science. The theorist believed that like gravity is universally experienced by all in the world, the sociologists are able to uncover similar laws by examining social lives of the people (Recker and Moore, 2016). The idea of positivism is mainly applied and adapted to ideas regarding behaviour of the humans. Durkheim mainly studied suicide for explaining the theory of positivism where the theorist explained that suicide in not individual act by is caused by power that is over the individual (Recker and Moore, 2016).

The limitation of positivism is that it does not provide effective in-depth study to be developed. This is because using this approach the researcher mainly tries to develop numerical data as the person wishes a short answer to be presented in the study. Thus, it limits the opportunity of the participants to provide detailed information which is to be added by the researcher in the study (de Souza Minayo, 2017). The second disadvantage of positivism is that it fails to develop effective focus on the participants of the study. This is because after collecting the data is summarised, analysed and examined in collective manner avoiding looking at the responses provided by each individual. Thus, it often results the feelings and meanings expressed by the participants to remain hidden behind numerical data, in turn, preventing the successful participation of individuals (Lachmann et al. 2017). The third limitation of the positivist approach is that it fails to ensure proper validity in the study. This is because the data is collectively and statistically summarised which may lead to distort the reality making the true picture in the research to be lost (Lachmann et al. 2017).

The idea of interpretivism was coined by Weber and the theorist believed that people are main creator of their destiny as they are conscious beings those act with purpose and intention. The interpretivist believe that society is constructed socially and the two crucial processes are individuals come together for interacting in social groups and a social event is created when all the individuals take same part in giving the event the same meaning (Ellerby-Jones et al. 2015). The study on interpretivism is done by sociologist Dobash and Dobash who used the idea to explain abuse among refugee women (Walby and Towers, 2018).

The interpretivism is referred to as the approach in social sciences which opposes the theory of positivism. Since the values and the theoretical beliefs of the researcher cannot be removed entirely during injury, thus the interpretivist believed that researches made on human beings that are performed by other human beings is unable to yield inappropriate objective results. Thus, interpretivist tries to identify the meaning regarding subjective experiences of people by engaging in social communication. Many of the interpretivist are seen to get involved into social context regarding which they study to understand and develop theories regarding any community or group through internal observation. Thus, interpretivism is referred to an inductive practice that is influenced by philosophical framework to interpret elements in the study by integrating human interests (Balon and Holmwood, 2019).

The limitation of interpretivism is that it leads the data collection process to be time-consuming. This is because the researchers have to individually communicate with individuals to understand their feelings and expressions as well as collect information to be analysed and interpreted in the study making it a lengthy process (Bartmanski, 2018). The other limitation of interpretivism is that data analysis is challenging and complex to be executed. This is because the interpretation of the verbal transcripts received from the participants are at times not clear making the researchers face hardships to develop the results (Alderson, 2019). The limitation of interpretivism is that the researcher would have the uncertainty that clear patterns of information in the study may not be able to be developed (Bartmanski, 2018). In addition, the interpretivism has the limitation that it does not develop results that are representative or can be generalised for the study. Moreover, the results developed in the interprevist study are found to be less reliable as they are interpreted according to the perspective of the researcher which varies from one person to another. Thus, the error may arise due to influence if the results being developed based on the personal and discriminated beliefs of the researcher (Alderson, 2019).

Conclusion

The discussion mentions that the positivist relies mainly on scientific evidence whereas interpretivist focuses on human behaviour. The positivism has limitation such as lack of in-depth information delivery and the interpretivism has limitation of creating biases in study.

References

• Alderson, P., 2019. Education, conflict, peace-building and critical realism. Education and Conflict Review, 2, pp.54-58.
• Balon, J. and Holmwood, J., 2019. The impossibility of sociology as a science; arguments from within the discipline. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49(3), pp.334-347.
• Bartmanski, D., 2018. Social construction and cultural meaning: Reconstructing qualitative sociology. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 6(3), pp.563-587.
• Bulmer, M., 2017. Sociological research methods. London: Routledge.
• de Souza Minayo, M.C., 2017. Limits and possibilities to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. Qualitative versus Quantitative Research, p.85.
• Denzin, N.K., 2017. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Routledge.
• Ellerby-Jones, L., Latham, S., Wooldridge, N., Brisbane, S., Roberts, K., Taylor, P., Taylor, P., Ellerby-Jones, L., Latham, S., and Wooldridge, N. 2015. Ocr sociology for a level. Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
• Esquinas, A.S., Verdugo, R.C., Suárez, J.R.P. and Briggs, D., 2019. Observing Participants: Digital Ethnography in Online Dating Environments and the Cultivation of Online Research Identities. Journal of Extreme Anthropology, 3(1), pp.135-151.
• Etikan, I., Alkassim, R. and Abubakar, S., 2016. Comparision of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1), p.55.