2.2 Research Methods

Introduction

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis, or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

To choose an appropriate research method, sociologists refer to the differences between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods to see which approach would best fit their research inquiry. Often tines, quantitative and qualitative research are perceived as opposite poles within the same study, but this view is overly simplistic. A well-designed research approach can incorporate both types, as long as they suit the specific research questions being asked. To grasp how this dual approach can function effectively, it’s essential to analyze the assumptions and components of each method. This examination helps to ensure that mixed methods research maintains philosophical and methodological coherence.

Types of Research Methods

Quantitative Methods

Quantitative methods in research involve the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data to address research questions or test hypotheses. These methods are widely used across disciplines such as psychology, sociology, economics, and natural sciences, where precise measurement and statistical analysis are crucial for understanding phenomena and making informed decisions (Stockemer et al., 2019). The hallmark of quantitative research is its emphasis on quantifiable data. Researchers gather data through structured methods such as surveys, questionnaires, experiments, or secondary data sources like databases (Schulenberg, 2015). This data is typically numeric and can be examined using statistical techniques to uncover patterns, relationships, or trends within a population or sample. Statistical methods such as correlation analysis, regression analysis, and hypothesis testing are common tools used to explore these relationships and draw conclusions based on the data collected (Hancock et al., 2010).

Quantitative methods offer several advantages. They provide objective and replicable results, allowing researchers to generalize findings to larger populations with confidence. These methods also facilitate comparisons across different groups or conditions, enabling researchers to identify factors that may influence outcomes or behaviors (Savela, 2018). Moreover, quantitative research often employs rigorous study designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or large-scale surveys, which enhance the accuracy of the findings (Schulenberg, 2015).

Despite these strengths, quantitative methods have limitations. They may oversimplify complex social or behavioral phenomena, as they often prioritize numerical data over contextual understanding (Trafimow, 2014). In addition, quantitative research can be resource-intensive, requiring careful planning, data collection, and statistical expertise to ensure robust analysis and interpretation (Bagdoniene & Zemblyte, 2005). Nonetheless, quantitative methods play a fundamental role in generating empirical evidence and advancing knowledge across various fields. By focusing on numerical data and employing systematic statistical analysis, these methods provide valuable insights into relationships and patterns within populations, contributing to both theoretical advancements and practical applications in research and policymaking (Lerche, 2012).

Surveys

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in Canada respond to some type of survey. The Statistics Canada is an excellent source of large-scale surveys intended to gather sociological data. However, not all surveys are considered sociological research as many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population, people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample, a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample, every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions. The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data—data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information. The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face.

Qualitative Methods

Unlike quantitative methods that focus on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research involves non-numerical data and textual analysis. In qualitative studies, a set of research techniques are used to explore and understand phenomena by examining their meanings, contexts, and complexities. The primary objective in qualitative research is to gather the richness and depth of experiences, perspectives, and social processes (Aurini, Health, & Howells, 2022). Qualitative research consists of data that is typically collected through methods such as interviews, focus groups, or participant observation. These methods allow researchers to gather detailed, descriptive data that capture participants’ thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and interactions (Clark & Vealé, 2018; Sofaer, 1999).

One of the key principles of qualitative research is its emphasis on analyzing the data from the participants’ viewpoints. To achieve this goal, researchers engage in a process of immersion in the data, often using techniques like thematic analysis, narrative analysis, or grounded theory to identify patterns, themes, and categories that emerge from the data (Payne, 2007). Thus, rather than testing hypotheses or generalizing findings to a population which quantitative sociologists do, qualitative research seeks to generate nuanced insights and explore the complexities of human behavior and social phenomena (Sutton & Austin, 2015). For this reason, qualitative methods are particularly valuable in fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, education, and humanities, where understanding human experiences, social interactions, cultural practices, and meanings is essential. They allow researchers to uncover hidden dynamics, explore diverse perspectives, and provide contextually rich explanations that quantitative methods alone may not capture (Aurini, Health, & Howells, 2022).

While qualitative research offers depth and context, it also presents a few challenges. The subjective nature of interpretation and the potential for bias require researchers to maintain rigor and transparency in their methods and analysis (Bagdoniene & Zemblyte, 2005). Additionally, qualitative studies are often time-consuming due to the detailed nature of data collection and exploration. Despite these drawbacks, qualitative methods offer a comprehensive approach to exploring social phenomena through in-depth analysis. By focusing on investigating the meanings, contexts, and social processes, qualitative research contributes valuable insights that complement quantitative approaches, enriching our understanding of human behavior and societal dynamics (Trafimow, 2014).

Interviews

Interviewing is one of the most leading qualitative data collection techniques used by researchers, students, and organizations (Aurini, Health, & Howells, 2022). An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the participant. Unlike a quantitative survey that includes predetermined choices to a question, interviews provide participants the freedom to respond as per their desirability (Warren, 2002). In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional follow-up questions. In an interview, a participant will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers in an interview (Adhabi & Anozie, 2017).

Interviews are highly appreciated for its ability to delve deeply into the thoughts, experiences, and perspectives of participants. As a data collection tool, interviews provide researchers rich qualitative data that goes beyond numbers and figures (Bingham & Moore, 1931). Whether conducted in person, over the phone, or via video conferencing, interviews provide a dynamic platform for participants to express their beliefs and share their emotions. Moreover, interviews foster a relational aspect between the researcher and participants, which can lead to rapport building and trust. This interpersonal connection often results in participants organically and consciously sharing personal information, enriching the qualitative data gathered.

Interviews can be used as a primary or complementary source of data, depending on the objectives of a research study. A key strength of interviewing lies in its flexibility and adaptability. Researchers can engage in various types of interviews—such as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured—to suit their research objectives (Aurini, Health, & Howells, 2022). Structured interviews follow a preset of questions, ensuring consistency across respondents and facilitating quantitative analysis of responses. In contrast, semi-structured and unstructured interviews allow for greater exploration of topics, enabling participants to elaborate on their answers and offering researchers a deeper understanding of the nuances within their stories. Researchers can also employ active listening skills, probing techniques, and reflexivity to navigate the interview process effectively, ensuring that participants feel valued and heard (Alshenqeeti, 2014).

In analyzing interview data, researchers frequently conduct thematic analysis, narrative analysis, or content analysis. These analyses allow researchers to identify recurring themes, patterns, or meanings within the responses shared (Bleich & Pekkanen, 2013). This process not only helps in interpreting the data but also in generating insights that contribute to theory development or practical applications in various fields including sociology. Thus, interviewing as a qualitative data technique offers researchers a powerful means to explore multilayered phenomena, capture different point of views, and uncover the depth of human experiences. Its extensive approach to data collection makes it a useful method in generating contextualized insights that can inform policy, practice, and further research endeavors (Aurini, Health, & Howells, 2022).

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting, the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation, in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

While some sociologists are upfront about their mission, others prefer not to alert people about their research objectives. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed. One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. “How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by?” she wondered. Someone should do a study. To her surprise, her editor responded, “why don’t you do it?”

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working-class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Types of Field Research

Mixed Methods

Mixed methods research is an approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative techniques within a single study or across multiple phases of research (McKim, 2017). This methodological framework acknowledges the strengths and complementary nature of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, aiming to provide a more comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena than either approach could achieve alone (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities and training facilities during their sentencing period.

One of the key strengths of mixed methods research is its ability to triangulate findings, meaning that researchers can compare results from different methods to confirm their conclusions. This triangulation enhances the credibility and robustness of the research findings, offering a more holistic perspective that can lead to richer interpretations and more informed analysis (Doyle et al., 2009; Ivankova & Creswell, 2009). Moreover, mixed methods approaches are flexible and can be catered to the specific research questions, allowing researchers to capitalize on the respective strengths of qualitative and quantitative methods in a way that best addresses the complexities of their study objectives (Alexander et al., 2008).

Considering the cumulative advantages of qualitative and quantitative data, mixed methods research represents a powerful approach, particularly well-suited for generating findings that are both statistically grounded and contextually nuanced (Migiro & Magangi, 2011). Mixed methods data collection can begin with a qualitative or quantitative phase, or it can occur simultaneously.  While surveys are predominantly quantitative and interviews are qualitative, there are different approaches which can be used for either qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research such as a case study which is explained in the following section (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007).

Case Study

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice, 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment, meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect—which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld, 1985).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis. Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources; they are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis, applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.