Note AcademyNote Academy
Start

Sociology · May / June 2016 · Paper 13 · Question 1

2251

As printed in the paper

The question as text

Source A In 1937 Bill Whyte began a three and a half year study into an Italian-American gang in Boston, USA. This classic study, called ‘Street Corner Society’, was based on participant observation. One of the difficulties Bill Whyte faced was gaining entry into the group. He was helped by the gang leader Doc. Doc later told Bill Whyte: ‘Now when I do something I have to think what Bill Whyte would want to know about it and how I can explain it. Before, I used to do things by instinct.’ Bill Whyte later admitted that he had become so involved with the gang that he had become a non- observant participant rather than a non-participant observer.

Read automatically from the paper; the printed page above is exact.

Show the answer and mark scheme

  • 1(a)[2]

    Identify two reasons why researchers might have difficulties gaining entry to groups like gangs. [2]

    Access to the group may be limited because the group do not trust the researcher
    Ethical issues like whether to report or ignore criminal activity
    They are involved in illegal activities and are therefore secretive
    Groups are closed in nature and naturally suspicious of outsiders
    Facing danger
    Having to go through initiation ceremonies, e.g. committing a crime
    Any other reasonable response. One mark for each correct reason identified (up to a maximum of two).

  • 1(b)[2]

    Identify two methods that might be used to research gangs, apart from observation. [2]

    Any two from:

    Non-participant observation
    Interview any type
    Secondary data like crime statistics
    Questionnaires/social surveys
    Longitudinal studies
    Any other reasonable response. Note: Other reasonable response if appropriate to the research topic. One mark for each correct reason identified (up to a maximum of two).

  • 1(c)[4]

    Using information from Source A, describe two ways in which the observer might influence the behaviour of those being observed. [4]

    Candidates need to recognise that there is a clear indication of the subjects and the researcher’s behaviour changing as a result of the participant observation described. Possible answers:

    Might change their way of thinking, e.g. ‘Now when I do something I have to think what Bill Whyte would want to know’
    Researcher going ‘native’, e.g. ‘become a non-observant participant rather than a non-participant observer’
    ‘Hawthorne effect’, e.g. ‘Now when I do something I have to think what Bill Whyte would want to know’
    Might change or adapt their behaviour, e.g. ‘Before, I used to do things by instinct.’
    Any other reasonable response. Band 0 No creditworthy response. Band 1 (1–2) Answers at the bottom of the band will offer one reason without reference to Source A. Alternatively;

    answers may be vague or general with little sociological knowledge. Answers at the top end of the mark band may offer two reasons but without reference to Source A. Band 2 (3–4) To reach this band candidates must make reference to Source A, e.g. in Source A it says ‘Before, I used to do things by instinct.’ This can be implicit at the lower end of the band. This clearly shows that the observer had influenced the behaviour of the person being observed who admits to adapting their behaviour. To reach the top of the band candidates will give two reasons with development and reference to the Source A.

  • 1(d)[4]

    Describe two strengths of using non-participant observation in sociological research. [4]

    Candidates will be expected to describe any of the following: Note: Allow answers which refer to overt and covert observation

    Opportunity to record thoughts
    Non-participant is thought to be more objective
    Allows researcher to study groups who would be unwilling to allow them to participate in their activities
    Safer if researching dangerous groups
    Allows the researcher to keep records more accurately
    Helps the researcher avoid going ‘native’
    Less impact on the behaviour of the group
    Any other reasonable response. One mark for each strength correctly identified (up to a maximum of two). One mark for each point that is developed (up to a maximum of two).

  • 1(e)[8]

    Describe two strengths and two limitations of unstructured interviews. [8]

    Strengths:

    Higher validity because people have more opportunity to explain themselves
    Interviewer does not have to keep to the interview schedule so new ideas may emerge which allow the researcher to discover things they wouldn’t have thought of
    It is more like a conversation so may allow the respondent to be more at ease and more open with the interviewer
    Takes less time than some other methods, e.g. structured interview
    Any other reasonable response. Limitations:
    Can be time consuming and expensive as they may take long periods of time to interview people
    Interviewer effect is more likely to occur
    Reliability is low
    Can be too expensive to cover large groups of people because trained interviewers are required
    Difficult to generalise from findings
    Interviewer may lead the interviewee
    Interviewer may lose objectivity
    Any other reasonable response. One mark for each strength correctly identified (up to a maximum of two) and one mark for description of each strength (up to a maximum of two). One mark for each limitation correctly identified (up to a maximum of two) and one mark for description of each limitation (up to a maximum of two).

  • 1(f)[10]

    Explain why the results of participant observation studies may be unreliable. [10]

    Note: Reliability-whether another researcher, if repeating the research using the same method on the same or a similar group, would achieve the same results. Candidates need to show an awareness of the fact that these types of research are virtually impossible to replicate and check. Candidates may talk about the following limitations but this must be in the context of reliability not validity:

    Unique nature of each social group would be impossible to replicate
    Too many social variables to reproduce
    Too many environmental variables to reproduce
    Membership of the group may change and couldn’t be reassembled
    Each social interaction is unique
    Researchers replicating the original research may have different values, outlooks and personalities which impact on their observations, e.g. Oscar Lewis’ (1951) repeat of Robert Redfields’ (1930) observation study of the village of Tepoztlan in Mexico
    Any other reasonable response. Band 0 No creditworthy response. Band 1 (1–3) Answers at this level are likely to show limited understanding and be based on common sense or demonstrate little in the way of clear sociological knowledge or terminology, e.g. participant observation can be unreliable because you can’t check the results. At the top of the band candidates may begin to use some appropriate knowledge or terminology. Candidates may only give one reason. Band 2 (4–7) At the bottom of the band, candidates demonstrate basic understanding of the issue and begin to use some appropriate knowledge and terminology. Supporting explanation may be weak or over simplistic. At the top of the band, candidates use appropriate knowledge and terminology but may not fully focus on the question. Candidates are likely to offer more than one reason, e.g. if sociologist attempt to replicate the research it would be virtually impossible for them to reproduce all the different variables. Band 3 (8–10) The candidates’ answer is fully focused on the question, e.g. if sociologist attempt to check the reliability of this research they will face a number of problems, many of the variables like the membership of the group may have changed making it virtually impossible to check the research. There is evidence of good use of sociological terms and candidates may make clear reference to whether it is even desirable to attempt to check the reliability that it is validity that is the key here. At the top of the band, candidates should offer a range of reasons as well as demonstrate accurate use of sociological concepts.

  • 1(g)[15]

    To what extent does the presence of the researcher affect the validity of the research? [15]

    Candidates do not need to talk about observation to answer this question although they may take their cue from the source and focus on observation. Arguments for:

    People’s behaviour changes or adapts
    Body language and intonation may impact on the behaviour of the subject.
    Researchers lead the respondent
    ‘Hawthorne Effect’
    Research changes the dynamics of the group so they are no longer in their natural setting
    Researcher is not objective and becomes involved with the group i.e. goes native
    Researchers social characteristics affect the behaviour/attitude of research participants, e.g. the participant may lie to appear more important
    Individuals feel pressure to give socially desirable responses
    Interviewer effect
    Any other reasonable response. Arguments against:
    All research is subject to the values of the researcher
    Covert non-participant observation would largely avoid this.
    Structured interviews using standardised questions can minimise the researcher effect
    Personal contact is the only way to establish ‘Verstehen’
    Minimise affect by ensuring the researcher has appropriate social characteristic to make rapport more likely
    Use of trained researchers who have experience in maintaining objectivity
    Any other reasonable response. Band 0 No creditworthy response. Band 1 (1–4) Answers in this band may be largely based on common sense showing limited or no knowledge of sociological terms or concepts. Candidates are unlikely to understand the issue of researcher effect and may not clearly understand the difference between the effects in observation and other methods, e.g. the researcher may change the way people behave because he interacts with some of them. Band 2 (5–8) In this band candidates will tend to offer some basic discussion of researcher effect. They may describe the effect, e.g. researcher effect is where the subject of the research responds to the researcher by changing their behaviour. Alternatively, they may offer an answer which is list-like in nature but there will be no real attempt to address the issue of validity. At the top of the band, candidates may offer a description of more than one method or issue. A one-sided answer cannot score higher than 8 marks. Band 3 (9–12) Answers in this band will show good use of sociological language and will make some attempt at addressing the issue of the researcher effect and its impact on validity but this may be weak or focus only on either agreement or disagreement with the question. At the bottom of the band, candidates may provide a good range of points but there might be a lack of focus on the issue. At the top of the band, candidates are likely to show either strong agreement or disagreement with clear focus on the question but are unlikely to discuss both sides. Band 4 (13–15) Answers in this band will be clearly focused on the question and address the ‘extent’ of the impact of researcher bias on validity. Candidates will offer a range of arguments both for and against the question but this need not be balanced. They show excellent grasp of sociological terms and knowledge. At the top of the band there will also be an evaluative conclusion, e.g. to some extent it could be argued that all research is social construction and a reflection of the researcher’s own values and therefore all research lacks validity to some extent. Section B: Culture, identity and socialisation
Practise this paper →

Make a free account to save your answers and see your weak topics and ask the AI why a wrong answer is wrong.