Author: Andre Coleman

Qualitative Research MethodologyIntroduction

In this essay I am going to express my understanding of the key principles of qualitative research. In order to understand the nature of qualitative research, we must primarily look at the constructivist ontology and the interpretivist epistemology, which will allow us to develop an understanding of the context in which the qualitative methodology is conceptualised.

Furthermore, I will look at the research design process and the inductive nature of this subjective, value laden procedure. I will then go on to look at the principles of qualitative research, with focus on the concepts of trustworthiness and authenticity from a qualitative perspective, which can help sociologists gain Verstehen with individuals. To conclude my essay, I will look at the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research, making reference to specific methods.

Ontology and Epistemology

Researchers using qualitative methods of inquiry believe that social phenomena are constructed through human interactions and not determined by governing laws. This is known as the constructivist ontology and aims to understand how a social phenomenon is created through interaction and intersubjective meaning. From their perspective, they believe that social actors create the social world through interactions as opposed to objectivists who believe that social structures determine individual actions and behaviour (Bryman, 2004, p. 3-25).

This constructivist ontology needs to be investigated using an interpretivist epistemology, and by understanding this epistemology we can therefore appreciate the key principles of qualitative research. By using interpretivism and an inductive form of inquiry, sociologists aim to understand how individuals construct meaning. For interpretivists, subjectivity is incredibly important due to the subjective nature of individuals, and they try to gain Verstehen. They would see value neutrality as unnecessary because it is impossible to gain Verstehen without using qualitative methodologies (Berg, 2007, p. 19-52).

The Inductive Research Process

To conduct qualitative research, you would primarily need to select an area of research and research questions, and in this sense the type of question you select will guide your research process. Qualitative research is inductive, so it does not require an initial hypothesis, unlike quantitative research. This is because behavioural and socio-cultural patterns emerge over time and in some cases are not noticed until after the research has been conducted. After selecting an area of interest, the researchers would need to decide on the research setting and establish what method/s they will use to conduct their research (Bryman, 2004, p. 265-290).

There are many methods that can be used in qualitative research, which, according to Strauss and Corbin is used to describe “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (1990, p.17). The researchers themselves play an important part in the research process as they bring their values to the research, which complements the interpretivist epistemology.

Researchers have to be aware of the ethical guidelines set out by the British Sociological Association (BSA). Researchers have to take into consideration professional integrity, anonymity, privacy, confidentiality and informed consent (unless research is conducted covertly). Covert research has ethical implications if the research is not important and in the public’s interest. The researchers are in a sense a tool used to collect primary data, and the flexible nature of qualitative research means they are not bound by a rigid process and can adapt their research when needed. The final stage of qualitative research is writing up findings. Research results can be compiled to form a book, journal, article or report (Bryman, 2004, p. 61-82).

The Principles of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research looks at the micro sociological context. That is, qualitative researchers like to study people in their natural environments. This means that qualitative research is context specific. Qualitative research is concerned with the quality of the social research and aims to be explanatory by looking at the interaction between variables.

Qualitative researchers want to understand and explore social situations through generating descriptions from on-site observations and interviews. Qualitative researchers focus on understanding patterns and themes as stated by the author of Jones International University web site:

The real world is complex; qualitative research focuses on the elements of that complexity: emotions, meanings, symbols, motivation, thought processes, feelings, patterns and themes. Qualitative research seeks to make sense of this world by finding meaning through the eyes of participants. (http://www.jonesinternational.edu/schools/courses/edu793.php)

Using qualitative methodology, researchers are able to give detailed accounts and descriptions of socio-cultural phenomena which do not need to be conveyed quantitatively. In contrast, quantitative, positivist, deterministic research generalizes findings to the whole population and aims to be conclusive by discovering governing laws (Bryman, 2004. p. 3-25).

There are also many other methods qualitative researchers can employ, for example, focus groups, interviews and case studies. After the researcher has decided on the methods, they need to conduct their research. Qualitative researchers are not bound to one particular research method. They can use a variety of different methods if their research requires them to. This use of multi methodology is called triangulation (Berg, 2007, p. 19-52).

Qualitative research design is circular. Qualitative researchers needto repeat and adapt their design to suit the flow of their research. After selecting their methods and collecting their data, researchers need to analyse their findings, which can be done in various ways. For example, the research findings would need interpreting; this can be done by linking data to a larger sociological context and generating concepts. Findings can also be analysed by detecting patterns and trends in the data. This can be done by using textual analysis, such as coding using computer software such as MaxQDA (Bryman, 2004, p. 398-416).

There are different theoretical approaches involved in qualitative methodology, for example naturalism, ethnomethodology, emotionalism and postmodernist research. Each approach is used as a means of interpreting social phenomena by using a value laden perspective where a researcher applies his/her own values to a social context through an unscientific, flexible process and finally an in-depth, subjective methodology. These principles shape the methods used for qualitative research as they compliment both the constructivist ontology and the interpretivist epistemology. I am now going to discuss some of the different methods used by qualitative researchers that apply these principles.

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative data collection can be conducted through observations. Participant observation is one of the most common methods for qualitative data collection. Participant observation has strong authenticity but it does lack in repeatability as the research is difficult to reproduce in the same way. There are many different ways of conducting participant observation, and it typically requires the researcher to become a participant in the culture or context being observed.

Participant observation is often longitudinal; the researcher needs to spend long periods of time with the focus group to be able to gain a “native’s point of view”. Participant observation can be conducted either overtly or covertly, depending on the nature of the research. Covert participant observation involves the researcher hiding their true identity and motives of their research from their subjects. This is effective in socially sensitive areas, such as deviant or criminal subcultures, where a researcher can gain Verstehen by using qualitative research methodologies (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995, chap 8).

An example of observational methods is ethnography. Ethnography focuses on the sociology of meaning through observation of socio-cultural phenomena; typically, the ethnographer focuses on a small group or community and uses largely participant observation. This research method was employed by the University of Chicago during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Robert Park, an important figure at the University of Chicago in the 1920s, encouraged students to go outside and collect primary information by using observational methods to study social phenomena:

Go and sit in the lounges of the luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of the flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and on the slum shakedown; sit in the Orchestra Hall and the Star and Garter Burlesque. In short, gentlemen, go get the seat of your pants dirty in real research (Park, cited in Prus, 1996, p. 103-140).

Overt participant observation contrasts with covert, as the identity of the researcher and intentions of the research are known to the group being studied. Researchers using this method will often record their findings by making detailed field notes; this, however, can become difficult if the research requires them to take a covert stance, as their ‘cover’ may be jeopardized if they were recording their findings in front of the group. Qualitative research analysis is dependent on building interpretations of the research to gain authenticity and trustworthiness. This may be difficult because of the subjective nature of this method, but due to the ideographic nature of individuals and the interpretivist epistemology, this would not be an issue for qualitative researchers, who ultimately aim to gain Verstehen.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while this approach can be criticized by positivists for its subjective nature and lack of empirical methods, it does, however, offer a more in-depth perspective into individuals and their lives. Qualitative research is rigorous and highly subjective because the researcher’s investigation is overly influenced by the views of the researcher involved. Also, qualitative research does provide a way of extracting more complex, in-depth and comprehensive information from social contexts that would be difficult to retrieve using quantitative methods.

However, this methodology has been criticised by positivists and the objectivist ontology because of the value laden perspective it takes. If the researcher does have any preconceived ideas of the findings, it may cause bias in the results and therefore affect the authenticity of their work. Also the researcher may misinterpret the social phenomena they are studying and therefore have difficulties establishing the real meaning of that particular social situation.

Qualitative research can also be criticised because of its lack of representativeness of the larger population, as qualitative research typically deals with micro social issues that cannot be generalised to the wider population because they are context specific. However qualitative researchers would see this as an advantage because they require a deeper understanding in order to gain Verstehen. Another criticism would be that qualitative methods are also very expensive to conduct, mainly because of the amount of time it takes to interpret data and conduct observational studies.

Despite these criticisms, qualitative research is a flexible, in-depth form of enquiry that is not dominated by statistics or rigid research methods. It is largely dominated by the constructivist ontology and the interpretivist epistemology which believe that the social world is built upon actions and interactions. Researchers adopt this qualitative approach to enable them to form Verstehen with their research topic or group.

Bibliography

Berg, B. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston:

Pearson.

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods (Second Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.) (2003) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1997) Interpretative Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.) (2003) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In . K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London: Routledge.

Miles, Matthew B. and Huberman, A. Michael (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Morris S. Schwartz and Charlotte Green Schwartz (1955) ‘Problems in Participant Observation’, American Journal of Sociology, 60, pages 343-53.

Prus, R (1996) “The ethnographic research tradition”, in Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research, New York: State University of New York Press.

Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, London: Sage.

Spradley, J. (1980) Participant Observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

http://www.jonesinternational.edu/schools/courses/edu793.php

In todays world, we are surrounded by media. Our lives are saturated by newspapers, radio, books, television, movies, the Internet, and many other aspects of media. These can be broadly classified into two types: news media and popular media. In India, both these types provide an insight into Indian life, which is filled with romance, tradition, and all the other day-to-day experiences and situations one might come across. But, even though they might seem the same, they both play very different roles in society.

Popular media represents and recounts a vast number of real life stories, and portrays them in a manner enjoyable for the audience. News media on the other hand, provides more facts and raw information for the audience to understand, with or without a firm opinion of its own on the matter. Popular media reaches out to a much larger audience, as both literate and illiterate people are able to access it, while news media only reaches out to the literate and wealthy people. This difference can become a problem in certain situations. Both these parts of media reflect society constantly, as they are shaped from and around experiences and stories of the people in the society. Usually, both these types concur with each other in the content and representation of society, but there are specific cases in which this ceases to be true. An example of this is the portrayal of the prominence and effects of the dowry system in India today. For a long time, both popular and news media reflected the aspects of the dowry system in the Indian society very vividly and comprehensively, and shared the same view on the topic. But over time, it was noticed that popular media deviated from this pattern and no longer reflected the prominence of the dowry system in society, while the news media continued to do so, thus creating an ideological difference between the two. The problem of the dowry system is still prominent, and the news media continues to reflect this. But since popular media does not reflect society anymore, a majority of the society comes under the impression that there is nothing wrong in what they are doing. This can cause the dowry system to be persistent in the everyday lives of Indian families.

The dowry system is a cultural system in India in which the parents of the bride pay a large sum of money, and give expensive jewelry and other gifts such as car or other household items, to the parents of the groom during marriage (Borah 2). Traditionally, there were many reasons for the establishment of this system. It was a form of inheritance for the bride, since all the family property was inherited by men. It was supposed to be the security for the bride in case any misfortune befell her husband’s house. It was also a system of honoring the groom for his willingness to accept the bride as his wife in marriage, and the gifts given could range from anything significant to even a small token of good wishes (Borah 2). However, the greed for dowry has affected almost all ordinary families in India. Nowadays, in marriages between or amongst all hierarchal levels of society, dowry is generally an unspoken requirement. And due to the exposure to mass media, the gifts given in dowry have transformed into a large transfer of wealth, making it an important factor in marriage.

The social and cultural effects of the dowry system are devastating to the society as a whole. The system reduced women to a commodity and a source of wealth. Even if the dowry is paid, in most cases, the bride is tortured by her in-laws, mentally and physically as their demand for more dowry becomes endless (Chirmade 1992). This torture generally leads to suicide or murder of the bride.

The reason why dowry is still persistent in India is not only because it is difficult to enforce the law against it or because the groom’s family is very demanding, but also because the bride’s family continues to bear with it. Despite the widespread awareness of the negative consequences of dowry and the problems cause by it, it is still seen as a way of buying happiness for the bride (Stone and James, 1995). Many families believe that giving a large dowry would result in better treatment of the daughter by the groom’s family. This has only aggravated the problem as the standard for dowry became high and marriage was made dependent on whether the bride’s family could meet that standard of dowry or not.

A study was done in 1980 which examined students’ expectations of dowry for people with various education backgrounds. Even though majority of the students viewed the dowry system as an ‘evil’ in society and considered it unimportant for marriage, most of the brothers of the respondents gave or received dowry for their sisters’ marriages (Rao and Rao, 1980). Also, depending on the social status and affluence of the family, and the education qualifications of the bride and the groom, the amount of dowry needed to be given varies significantly. There is a positive correlation between a man’s education and status to the dowry his family demands. As a groom’s educational experience increases, the dowry demanded for the marriage also increases.

In 1961, the payment of dowry was prohibited under the Indian Civil Law, and also under sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite this, this system of dowry has been a continuous and never ending menace in Indian society. These laws were made in order to make it easier for women to seek redress from the harassment she is under by the man’s family. But these laws have been of little help to brides, who are harassed even today by their in-laws. Instances of such situations have constantly been shown to the public by the media.

The power of media in today’s world is surprising. The media has the freedom to form opinions, and through this they can change the opinions of people. But, people forget that in the end, all media is doing is reflecting society. The stories the media covers, and the plots of the movies that are made (except fantasy fiction of course), all are based on situations which may occur in day to day life, or real life situations. Same was the case with the dowry system. The media clearly depicted the agonies and pain of Indian women as they were suffering from the cruelties of the dowry system. This can be seen from very far back in popular as well as news media.

Dowry-inspired murder cases received immense coverage by news media in the late 1970s and 1980s due to the active role played by women’s organizations. The women’s organizations played a very important role in increasing awareness and coverage of dowry related cases. A study done on the coverage of dowry related cases from 1979-1984 concludes that there was a noticeable improvement in the coverage of dowry in the national papers due to the women’s organizations, although the coverage in regional papers remained the same. By 1979, one dowry related death received serious press coverage. A 24 year old bride from New Delhi, Tarvinder Kaur, was set on fire by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law due to an insufficient dowry paid by her parents. Another significant dowry-related murder case was that of Tripti Sharma, who worked at the Ministry of Defense. She was burned to death by her husband and his family in 1986. A more optimistic and recent case is that of Nisha Sharma. In May 2003, she handed over her future husband to the police on the day of the wedding itself as he was demanding more dowry from her. This example shows what women need to do in cases of dowry abuse. Nisha refused to come under the pressures of the groom’s family, and decided that she was not going to sustain it. These examples from news media are clearly reflective of the state of affairs in India at that time, and the case with popular media was similar.

In 1992, the movie ‘City of Joy’ depicted a family which had really high dowry demands. In the movie, the groom’s father clearly states, “I am firm in requiring for my exceptional son the bicycle, 1000 rupees, and one ounce of gold.” The bride’s father responds by saying, “The child of a king might be worth that, and I’m not even sure of that!” (City of Joy) Another 2001 movie, ‘Lajja’, clearly displayed the consequences of the dowry system, it’s working, and how it may be a big burden on the bride’s family. In the movie, Maithili (Mahima Chaudhary) is about to be married to a wealthy man of a family with a high social status. Maithili’s parents give away everything they have in the dowry, including their land and saved money. Upon still falling short, they take loans from their friends, but they are still not able to gather the full amount. Maithili requests her future husband to convince his dad to let the rest of the money be, but he is too scared to do so. Seeing this, and seeing her dad beg in front of the groom’s father to accept the money he has, she rebels, and calls off the wedding. She was not able to bear to see her father being humiliated in such a manner by the groom’s father. Both these movies showed that the bride’s family has to struggle a lot in order to gather the dowry for the groom’s family, and thus is a big burden on them.

This depiction of the dowry system by popular media was in concurrence with its reflection in the news media, but as we move ahead on the timeline, this concurrence slowly fades away. The movie ‘Lajja’ was the last movie to clearly depict the pain inflicted due to the dowry system. The 2006 movie ‘Lage Raho Munna Bhai’ also had the concept of dowry, but it did not demonstrate the consequences of the dowry system, and only showed that the concept of dowry existed. Since then, popular media has not depicted any case of dowry related abuse or murder. This would have been perfectly fine if the society had transformed to this effect and there were no more dowry related crimes taking place, but this was not true, as news media still continued to report about such crimes taking place.

‘Number of dowry cases goes up’ (The Hindu, January 2008); ‘Dowry death after love marriage’ (The Times of India, April 2008); ‘Harassed for dowry, teacher ends life’ (The Indian Express, November 2007). These are just three headlines from three of India’s popular newspapers that show the persistence of the dowry system and its consequences in modern India. Dowry is still prevalent in modern India, in not only the illiterate section of the population, but also the educated elites in India’s major metropolitan cities. Surprisingly in the past decade, the number of dowry related crime cases has actually gone up, despite dowry being banned since 1961 by Indian law. According to the statistics released by the National Crime Records Bureau, a total of 8391 dowry deaths were reported in 2010 itself, which means that a bride was killed every 90 minutes due to dowry related reasons. In 1988, this number was 2209; in 1990 it rose to 4835; in 2000 (a decade earlier), this number was 6995, and in 2007 it climbed up to an astounding 8093 (Bedi 2012).

According to other government records, Delhi itself records a few hundred dowry deaths every year, while women’s rights groups estimate this number to be at 900 per year. This is a phenomenal increase compared to the numbers for the 1990s, which were about 300 per year (Bedi 2012). It is important to note that these are just official records, and are thus immensely under-reported. 90% of the cases in which women are burnt are recorded as accidents, 5% as suicides, and only the remaining 5% of the cases are shown as murder. These shockingly high numbers clearly reflect the continuous increase in dowry related crimes and deaths in India.

This is due to the continued commercialization of marriages in the modern Indian society. India’s economic liberalization has seen a proportionate rise in the levels of greed as compared to 1990, and a bride is now perceived by her future in-laws as a source of potential cash flow. A famous quote from former Justice Markandey Katju reads, “On one hand, people regard women as goddesses, and on the other hand they burn them alive. This is against the norms of civilized society. It’s barbaric” (Bedi 2012). This is in response to an appeal filed by a husband who had just been sentenced to imprisonment for life by a Sessions court for burning his wife due to dowry related reasons.

The effects of the dowry system are so far and wide ranging, that they can even be traced back to the womb. This system is the primary cause for female feticide and infanticide as poorer parents get to avoid the lifelong burden of saving up for the dowry for their daughter’s marriage (Krishnamurthy, 1981). The commercialization of marriage and female infanticide is clearly reflected in the movie ‘Matrubhoomi’, in which a reverse dowry system is depicted. The movie shows a society in which there are no women left due to excessive female infanticide, and the men have grown to be so sexually frustrated, that they are ready to pay large amounts of money to get a wife for themselves or their sons. So as soon as the head of the family finds Kalki, they literally buy her from her father, by giving him five lakh rupees and five cows, and marry her to all five of his sons. Kalki simply becomes a source of money for her father, and a sex object for her husbands (Matrubhoomi).

Nowadays, there are famous advertisements which have been put up in many of the rural villages, which read, “Spend 500 rupees today, save 5000 rupees later.” This is a reference to the cost of abortion compared to the cost of the dowry which they might have to give. It basically encourages the families to get an abortion if their child is a girl, so that they don’t have the burden of paying the dowry while getting her married in the future. This is the primary reason why India has a distorted sex ratio of 933 girls for every 1,000 boys.

As is evident, the problems due to the dowry system have only been rising over the past decade. Despite this, popular media has failed to reflect these problems. News media has continued to keep up with these updates, and report about them, but popular media has deviated into its own path. Since popular media has a much larger audience compared to news media, this results in the society getting a skewed viewpoint of what is happening in their world: an incorrect portrayal of society in which what they are doing is not wrong. Also, since popular media has a much larger international audience as compared to news media, people from other countries get a totally different view of India: a world in which the dowry system does not exist and is not causing any problems at all. Thus, an untrue version of the society is shown to the world outside, which is not good, as when these people actually come to India and read about the truth, it is a shocking revelation for them.

A shift in India’s attitude towards the dowry systems is urgently due. In simple words, dowry is equal to a family paying a man to accept their daughter as his wife, while the man along with his family, tries to get the maximum price out of the woman’s family. This association of economic gain with women in marriage is something which has long been persistent in India, and needs to stop. Simply making anti-dowry laws has proved to be inefficient. We need to make the society see their mistakes and realize what they are doing wrong, and this can only be done if popular media continues to reflect society as it did before.

India must come together to end this practice. This could see couples channel their funds to provide education to their daughters, instead of saving money for years and years for dowry. The days of the persistence of the dowry system in India must be numbered, or Indian society’s claim to be progressive is disingenuous.

According to Colin Hay’s Political Analysis (2002) hopes to do social research more flexible and easy about the underlying assumptions upon which its range of scientific strategies is premised. This alternative requires necessary trade-offs that ought to be rendered without given the way in which, he claims, social research cannot achieve complete objectivity. Indeed, although they often remain unacknowledged, implicit meta-theoretical positions and assumptions profoundly influence our approach to theory and practice (Marsh and Furlong, 2002). This article considers whether Hay’s argument that such assumptions ought to be rendered graphic based on a via media, or middle way, between positivist and interpretive social science-maintains strength and coherence in the wider description and understanding argument. As such, while many vital contributions have focused on his epistemology, this article takes a broader perspective on Political Analysis’s contribution to the principles of social science. The principle of social science literature generally holds that ‘positivism’ places an emphasis on experience in public, and monitoring and testing in particular. A prime example is the work of Emile Durkheim (1982) who aims to ‘extend the scope of scientific rationalism’ to human behaviour based on the belief that, in light of the past, it is capable of being reduced to relationships of cause and effect. By contrast, ‘interpretivism’ appeals to ‘subjective meaning’, Verstehen and concepts such as empathy and understanding. In the strong version, based on an anthropological or sceptical relativism, it holds that social differentiation gives rise to different ‘ways of knowing’ between which there is no way of according common standards (Williams, 2001). In all, this article will attempt to verify that Hay’s via media strategy successfully navigates a path between these positivist and interpretivist approaches. To this end, we must evaluate his claims about the subject-matter of the social sciences, the limits of positivism and interpretivism and, finally, the via media approach it. The subject-matter of the social sciences: –

A main theme of Political Analysis is the qualitative difference in subject-matter between the natural and the social sciences. Following Bhaskar and Hay (2002) maintains that social structures, not like regular structure: (1) do not exist apart of the performance they do; (2) do not exist independently of a company’s appreciation of their interest and (3) may only be relatively constant. Taking each in turn, distinction (1) holds that effective, conscious and reflexive subjects occupy the social world whereas the units of study in the natural sciences can be assumed to be dead and un-reflexive. This brings into question the notion of a predictive science of the social world and therefore explanations based on the probabilistic correlation between explanation and prediction. If social systems are ‘intrinsically open’, crucial test situations for our theories cannot be created, which means there can be no reasonable approval or rejection of predictions (Bhaskar, 1989). This argument can be criticized for overemphasizing the differences between natural and social structures based on human organization because it rests on top of the plan to facilitate nothing happens in the general public save in or in virtue of somewhat individual do with it or have already done (Bhaskar and Collier, 1994). Arguably, this statement could be reformulated by substituting the relevant kinds of animation for ‘society’ and ‘human beings’ in each case, which would provide similar principles to apply in the natural sciences (Collier, 1994). Nevertheless, for many there is a natural accuracy to the belief that social systems are intrinsically available enough to the reflexive variety of social action. Steven Bernstein et al (2000) argue that human intervention in society is striking because the more individuals believe they know the context in which they operate, the more they try to exploit it to their advantage. In this sense, the ‘laws’ of social science are open to the environment to which they refer (Giddens, 1979). Moreover, even when social scientists attempt to emulate experimental conditions, the research is hindered because a subject’s behaviour is potentially influenced by learning about its hypotheses and methods (Rosenberg, 1988).

Finally, distinction (3) maintains that social processes tend to be culturally, spatially and historically specific in contrast to worldwide natural laws. Hay (2002) compares the study of the global political economy and physics to emphasize this difference. In the former, the purpose of simplifying assumptions to generate testable propositions is made particularly hard by relentless change. In the latter, by contrast, the generalized laws of physics can be assumed to involve in all situations across time. However, in one academic understanding, social structures can be a help to be space-time invariant as when certain conditions are met, for example economies with certain features, certain tendencies will operate (Collier, 1994).

In this way, we can develop social laws in terms which are ‘universal’ by virtue of being conditional. Yet, in a more convincing since, when considered in historical perspective social structures do seem to be only relatively stable. Indeed, a devastating problem for covering-law explanations of social phenomena, which seek to identify generalized laws based on observable regularities, is that they happen either impossible or silly because we are forced to make so many branch details to the ‘initial conditions’ that in some cases only the name of the event or activity is missing from the given ‘explanation’ (Outhwaite, 1996). Thus, again, distinction (3) is relevant. Overall, by highlighting the key divisions among the subject-matter of the natural and the social, Hay is rich in laying the foundation for the necessity to identify the key differences in their methods while still allowing both to maintain some demand to knowledge production. We must now consider how social scientists meet with their distinctive subject-matter.

Positivism, interpretivism and the via media:-

According to Hay (2002), and building on these three distinctions above, social scientists think it extremely difficult to make impartial and empirical knowledge claims for two main reasons. Firstly based on one and two, is the inevitable location of the social scientist within that which forms their subject-matter. From this embedded position, the social scientist cannot only escape their complex and densely structured environment in order to carry out scientific examination of the social world. Secondly based on two and three, there are ethical dilemmas associated with the social scientist’s privileged position owing to their potential to influence the social environment. Again, from an embedded position, the social scientist may appear to redefine and modify that which socially viable. In reply, we can consider three different approaches, each having their own response to these ethical considerations associated with the problem of objectivity: positivism, interpretivism and the via media.

Although most positivist approaches would not expect all theoretical terms and assumptions to refer directly to observables, there is a commitment to the view that substantive hypotheses must be able to be falsified using a call for empirical evidence. For Hay, positivism is therefore simply unable to handle the social responsibility, he identifies as essential to social science. This is because to achieve epistemic security and conceptual clarity it tightly demarcates what can count as knowledge – a statement is not valid unless it is possible to explain what would count as falsifying it (Williams, 2001). Rather than a damaging criticism, at this point Hay’s study constitutes a description of the aims of positivism: to specify exactly what influence we can given to our knowledge claims is a key strength of the approach, even if it means we have to exclude certain types of information.

Although it is difficult to determine, ‘interpretivism’ can be regarded as a variety of social research which represents profound scepticism towards claims to objectivity and a prosperous access to information. Thus, in these terms, it would appear that interpretivism suitably accounts for Hay’s problem of objectivity. To take seriously the challenge presented by post-modernist critics to social science is to recognize the value-laden and normative content of many or its assumptions and much of its language (Rosenberg, 1988). However for Hay (2002), interpretivism cannot accurately be thought of as making a substantive contribution to social analysis. Its ontological view that the world can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, along with its normative commitment to according them equal respect, means that interpretivism is drawn inevitably towards a suspicion of all epistemological foundations. This degree of relativism is just as dangerous as positivism to the social scientist’s ethical responsibilities. The interpretivist approach does not fix the function of normative question because it rejects the assertion that there are fundamental metaphysical truths beyond appearances. In short, positivism deliberately confuses reality with knowledge and interpretivism reacts by removing the possibility of knowledge (Trigg, 2001). Thus, we are in search of an alternative to positivism’s blindness to ethical considerations and interpretivism pessimism and fatalism (Hay, 2002). In response, the via media take seriously the ethical responsibilities that come with an acknowledgement that epistemology cannot determine social learning claims while still accepting the possibility of making them. For Hay, this means social scientists must acknowledge the automatically normative content of their duties and clarify their normative assumptions as straightforward as possible. We should not deny empirical study altogether because it provides the grounding for our descriptive analysis, but as soon as we move from this statement we go from the realm of science to that of interpretation. In this latter realm there is a conflict between competing narratives premised on different meta-theoretical assumptions, which necessitates that we do our normative assumptions explicit (Hay, 2002). In this way, a via media are developed that appeals to a variety of certified empirical research that acknowledges the interpretivist critique. The questions remain as to whether or this via media constitutes a reasonable approach.

Explanation and understanding:-

Alexander Rosenberg (1988) claims that with many philosophies of social science questions there is rarely a favourable medium that splits the difference because accounts are often logically contradictory and attempts made to combine parts of each usually result in incoherence rather than actual compromise. At the very least, theories that purport to resolve the tension positivism and interpretivism or explanation and understanding tend to be weak because they are always telling two stories (Hollis and Smith, 1990). So, does Hay’s via media maintain a successful combination?

According to Martin Smith, Hay (2006) is plotting a careful path between explanation and understanding equivalent to Odysseus navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. He makes two attractive claims about Hay’s research: first, that Hay totally rejects attempts by positivists to develop predictive models due to the inherent uncertainty of social life and says nothing more about his way to positivism. Second, although Hay also questions the basic negativity of postmodernism, he still appreciates the way it sensitizes us to the need to question assumptions. Here, arguably, Smith’s interpretation of Hay presents flawed has more value for social science. Perhaps Hay is sailing too close to Chablis, understanding, rather than navigating a successful intermediate way. Yet equally, one could argue, Hay (2002) priorities description. He claims that whereas social scientists are expected to remain divided over the meaning of certain events or processes, there is a greater chance of reaching agreement on their description through the accumulation of empirical evidence. This echoes post-positivist positions which take analysis and use as necessary, but tend to treat them as intervening variables without fully acknowledging the subjectivity of the observer (Marsh and Furlong, 2002). The emphasis still lies with explanation rather than understanding; experience rather than substance. This is problematic because an appeal to moral experience is uncertain: experience can refer to both what is presented to us and the actual performance of experiencing, which is something Hay would certainly recognize given his appeal to the interpretivist critique (Hollis, 2002). Thus, Hay is open to criticism from both sides of the argument for being too close to the other. It is not easy to recover an alternative of this tension. Interestingly – even though they are co-authoring the same book – Martin Hollis opts for understanding as an approach to social scientific inquiry whereas Steven Smith chooses explanation (Hollis and Smith, 1990). Smith sees actors’ understandings as conditioned by factors external to them; Hollis sees them as the pure essential parts of the world which they seek to understand. For them, this uncertainty is irresolvable, leading them to call for a range of acceptable positions. In the final analysis, they are forced to admit that the field that represents a middle ground between explanation and consideration should be thought of as a portable piece that can be repositioned to whatever place on the table the reader finds most reasonable (Hollis and Smith, 1990).

Likewise, David Marsh and Paul Furlong (2002) adopt the contested nature of epistemological positions and appreciate a multiplicity of voices. After a call for plurality, it would appear that the foundational assumptions on which this option between explanation and understanding is made ought to be rendered explicit, as Hay argues, if readers are left to give up their own minds. Thus, at least the via media is powerful. In this spirit, perhaps it is telling to look in Hay’s substantive work for indications as to whether the via media is reasonable. The analysis found in Demystifying Globalization provides a convenient example of how a combination of interpretation and expertise can inform our understanding of social phenomena (Hay and Marsh, 2000). Here, proper processes are identified, such as the extent of financial markets and increased levels of trading, which constitute recognizable patterned forms of interaction. Nevertheless, simultaneously, care is taken to recognize that the way in which these processes affect outcomes is mediated by the pure long construction of these processes. In other words, the ideas commonly held about these processes actually create the fancy forms of interaction greater causal efficacy. Indeed, British Governments have in the past argued that the aim of neoliberal policies is inevitable in light of Globalization, even though there is only limited empirical evidence that a globalised political economy must necessarily direct monetary policy. As such, causal mechanisms can be revealed empirically but only fully accounted for through recognition of their social structure. At once there is a call to the real world, but the emphasis is on the discursive construction of that world (Marsh and Furlong, 2002). Thus the via media strategy effectively illustrates how main ideas about globalization are causally efficacious, in the point of making a real difference to social outcomes through the shaping of economic policy, but it also acknowledges that the real processes of globalization limit the resonance of different discourses. Other areas of social learning that might benefit from the via media approach include, for example, the study of global poverty in the international political economy literature. Indeed, Branwen Gruffydd Jones (2003) demonstrates that although orthodox approaches to global poverty provide accurate explanations at the descriptive amount of surface appearances for example, that the global poor are unable to meet their basic needs because they lack access to income-earning opportunities they remain blind to the real, non-empirical relations that cause these empirical appearances, such as the social relations that govern the activities of producing the objects of basic human needs. As such, a via media approach to the study of global poverty might recognize the importance of observable characteristics, in as much as they are revealed as true fancy forms of interaction, but might also acknowledge that ideas about these characteristics themselves have causal outcomes, including the printing of the social relations that help bring them about.

Conclusion:-

Hay’s via media system remains a strong and consistent approach to act with respect to the principles of social science for a number of reasons. First, the central principle on which his argument is built the difference among the area under study of the pattern and the public sciences is useful and accurate. Second, given that this subject-matter brings certain moral responsibilities to take on the social scientist, we can apply the limitations of both the positivist and the interpretivist approach, and call for a via media that make normative and meta-theoretical assumptions explicit. Finally, we have some grounds on which to argue that Hay’s strategy remains competitive in the wider variety and understanding reasons. Rather than assuming mutual incompatibility, by recognizing that the debate requires a trade-off that is essentially the reasoned choice of the social scientist and crucially, also of the conference which has to accept it, we can use the via media time to get seriously both positivist details and interpretivist understanding.

Methods of Research

The correct choice of research methods to use in answering researcher set questions investigating a topic is one of the most crucial and vital elements to the successful conduct of a research exercise, (McNeill, 2005). While much attention can be paid to theory within the methodology employed by the researcher it is also critical to consider the actual research tools which back up the theoretical decisions made and provide the raw data against which the hypotheses of the research can betested. For much research the research tools will be a decisive factor in thesuccess or failure of the project. In many instances the choice of research tool is not assessed correctly with the result being data is generated which is of little or no use to the researcher, (Ruane, 2005). This occurs both due to the research method not suiting the particular needs of the researcher and the improper administering of the research method itself.

For many, choice of research tool is influenced however not by the objective needs of the research but by the ability and capabilities of the researcher in terms of time, cost or other related factors such as familiarity with the processes and techniques involved within specific sets of research tools. In this essay, we examine three research methods, show how they can be constructed in a holistic manner toachieve triangulation in relation to a research question and illustrate ethical concerns and the manner in which they can be resolved in the successful deployment of these research methods, (Somekh and Lewin, 2005).

We discuss these methods as a process and thus relate our discussion to the manner in which theycan be integrated and successfully deployed. In this sense then we examine howfocus groups can provide insights into theoretical observations, how theseobservations can be explored within semi-structured interviews with a selectedsample and how these observations from interviews can be developed intogeneralised into hypotheses tested against larger samples through the use of questionnaires.However it should be noted that a critical element in deciding on whichmethodologies should be used in a research project and the relative strengthsand weaknesses of using those methodologies will depend to a large extent onthe specific circumstances involved in conducting the research, (Bryman, 2004).

By this it ismeant that weaknesses for example within the conduct of questionnaire may infact be a positive element for certain projects and negative for othersdepending on the contextual basis for the research. We explore this and otherfeatures of research methods subsequently.

Focus Groups

Focus groups are atype of qualitative based research method based loosely on the generalprinciples which apply to interviews. However while interviews are generallyone-to-one situations involving a interviewer and interviewee relationshipfocus groups employ a one to many dichotomy, (Holloway and Jefferson, 2000). Indeedfocus groups resemble semi or unstructured interviews more particularly thanstructured interviews as one of the primary objectives of the researcher withinfocus group interviews is as a facilitator or moderator of group discussionbased on sets of general themes identified as being related to the research objectivesfor which the focus groups are being used to generate data, (Bloor et al, 2001).In particular focus groups are a very useful method to consider in theexploratory stages of research to help form ideas related to theoreticalobservations upon which later research can be based.

While notoriginally a tool familiar to the social sciences focus group methodologieshave been long deployed and successful elements within business andspecifically marketing research. From these origins however their utility for socialscientific research has come to be recognised within many sections for specificinstances for which they are useful, (Fern, 2001).

Focus groups havea number of advantages and disadvantages when applied towards collecting datain answering sets of research questions. Let us discuss the advantages of usingthis methodology to begin with. Perhaps a fundamental strength of focus groups istheir interactive nature when designed and implemented properly. In this mannerthe researcher can set general themes and topics and also ask specificquestions of the group related to the research topic by facilitatingintra-group discussion arising out of the topics mentioned by the moderator.

Subsequentlyrecording and monitoring the discussions and interactions which occur withinthe group as the issues raised by the researcher are thrashed out can provide immenselyvaluable qualitative data and also critically have the possibility of offeringtheoretical insights or considerations missed by the researcher. In terms of aspecifically action research or ethnographic research outlook focus groups areeven more element as the interactive nature of focus groups allows the groupand its participants to actively engage with the research and even when plannedfor adequately by the researcher allow them to shape the outcomes and processesof the research itself, .(Czarniawska, 2004)

Some of the keydisadvantages we can associate with the use of focus groups are internal groupdynamics, participant and interviewer bias and transcription related problemsin codifying and making the data generated amenable to analysis. However the primarydrawback to this method is related to the interactive nature discussed above inthat the researcher has much less control over the type and nature of datagenerated during the course of the research. Again as mentioned planning andgood moderating skills are essential in the use of this method, (Litosseliti, 2003).

Internal groupdynamics can play a vital role in determining the success or failure of using focusgroups as a means of answering research questions. The specific disadvantagesbeing spoke of here include a common feature of socials groups wherebyindividual members of that group through personality and group dynamics come tolead and dominate discussions, (Vaughn, Shay, & Sinagub, 1996).An interviewer needs to be aware of such situations and develop tactics andstrategies which are inclusive in terms of encouraging all of the individualswithin a group to participate as equally as possible in the discussion as it isbeing held.

With larger groupsand to some extent even smaller groups as well due to possibilities of manypeople answering at the same time, especially in more animated discussions thenecessity of effective recording allowing for accurate transcription isessential. Bias can occur both in terms of the moderator and participants inthat moderator may lead the discussion too much in their desire to gatherrelevant data or otherwise colour the responses of participants who in turn maydesire to satisfy what they perceive to be the wishes of the moderator duringthe course of the discussion. Such considerations are not isolated to focusgroups and should be a common concern for any research exercise, (Morgan, 1997).

Ethically similarsafeguards that are used in other types of research methods need to be employedwithin focus groups with some specific concerns. As with other types ofresearch informed consent needs to be adequately collected from theparticipants and in particular with focus groups if the topic is sensitive orcovers material of a private nature it must be remember that other people willbe present and thus the moderator must take further care in considering theethical implications of this feature, (Gregory, 2003).

Semi-structured interviews

If a researcherhas used a focus group in order to identity common themes and concerns associatedwith his or her choice of questions a useful follow on from focus groups can bethe use of more in depth and detailed semi structured interviews. Theinterviewees could perhaps be drawn from a representative sample from which thefocus group was composed. Semi structured interviews are a popular form of qualitativeresearch much relied upon within social scientific as well as otherdisciplinary investigations. The general purpose of such interviews is toexplore in details specific topics relevant to the interviewee’s knowledge andalso relevant to the research questions and objectives forming the focus of theresearch project, (Silveman, 2004).

The normalstructure for such an interview is a one to one situation with an interviewereither having a list of some predetermined questions which are then used to branchfurther questions outwards during the conduct of the interview or alternativelythe interviewer is equipped with a set of general topics from which questionsare generated during the course of the interview. While not as interactive asfocus groups good semi-structured interviews are however in some way reliant onparticipant determination for the tenor and tone of the conduct of theinterview. This can be a principal strength of using this method in that it canbe a highly fruitful manner of exploring topics with which participants arefamiliar

The advantages ofsemi structured interviews can be surmised under a number of headings. Thefirst of these is the opportunity it gives to both interviewer and intervieweeto explore in depth and detail the substantive issues for research within agiven project mentioned above. Not only though do semi-structured interviewsafford the opportunity to discuss themes in detail but the semi-structurednature also gives the interviewer freedom to dynamically adapt and respond tothe flow of the discussion as it occurs. In this sense the interviewer canexplore themes not suggested by the structure of the interview which wasoriginally planned; this is an important difference from structured interviewswhich lack this interviewer flexibility and freedom. A semi-structuredinterview can thus be said to allow for frank discussion, is a flexible and adaptivemeans as the interviewer and interviewee can respond and explore topics as theyoccur during the interview and as such can be a useful source of data for anyresearch project.

Disadvantages withsemi-structured interviews again like those common to focus groups are thosewhich need to be taken account of with the use of any research method. Some ofthe main disadvantages we can associate with the use of semi structuredinterviews include participant bias, interviewer bias and the reliability ofany data generated during the course of the interview. Like focus groups theinterviewer needs to be aware of their responses and comments to theinterviewee so as not to colour or bias the responses given. Similarly aninterviewer needs to display a manner which does not indicate to theinterviewee preference supposed or otherwise for a particular set of responses.Reliability is a concern with qualitative research in general and aninterviewer needs to be cognisant of the type and form of data generated duringthe conduct of the interview. Ethically again similar principles which appliedto focus groups apply to semi-structured interviews in that the participants insuch interviews give full informed consent to the interview taking place andthat confidentiality is ensured on the part of the interviewer in terms of anydata generated from the participant.

Questionnaires

Perhaps the mostfamiliar of research methods both to researchers and the general publicquestionnaires as part of a survey strategy have long held a dominant role inthe conduct of research projects, (Frazer & Meredith, 2000). Questionnaires come in a variety of forms from postal, totelephone administered, to interviewer administered and so on but they are all characterisedon a reliance on a predetermined set of questions with predefined answers whichmake the data amenable to later statistical analysis either by hand or throughthe use of the many statistical computer programs which now exist. Questionnairesexcel at the testing of hypothesis concretely formed and outlined as well atgathering opinion based data from large samples, (McQueen, 2002).

Questionnaires area form of quantitative research and thus they involve many statistical elementsin terms of carrying out research using them. Some of the fundamental concernswith using questionnaires include the need for sampling, ensuring effectiveresponses and a high response rate. In turn these three elements are related tothe principal advantages and disadvantages of using this method, (Oppenhiem,1992). Or in other words the success or failure and the degree to these for aparticular questionnaire is determined to a large extent by the successfulsampling of a target group and having a well-designed questionnaire with clearinstructions for participants in order to ensure correct responses and a highnumber of responses from the sample.

The primary advantageof using a questionnaire lies in the amount of data which can be collectingallowing for varying degrees and sophistication in statistical analyses whichcan be performed on the data, (Gillham, 2000). The primary disadvantage ofusing questionnaires is the inverse of this strength in statistical termsrelated to the rigid and inflexible way in which data must be collected in thatthe researcher is unable to benefit from any interactivity in the research andeven when the questionnaire is interviewer administered there is a rigidity tothe questionnaire format which must be adhered to, (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 2000). Questionnaires in terms of the triangulation discussed above couldusefully be deployed in order to test hypothesis generated from theexplorations and conclusions reached during the use of focus groups.

Conclusion

As can be gatheredfrom our discussion then all of the research methods we have discussed are possessedof both positive and negative aspects in the case of their deployment in orderto answer research questions set by the researcher. It is argued that perhapsthe best means in which to consider the use of any of these research methods isto see them as part of a cyclical process related to the triangulation ofcertain research objectives, (yen, 1990).

It can be arguedthat by using a combinational method then in the approach of constructing aresearch methodology has the benefit of playing various research methodsagainst each other, by this it is meant that certain methods will be strongothers weak and that a combinational approach will allow for the strongestpossible methodology to emerge and thus have the best chance of generatinguseful data for the research questions at hand, (Gorard and Taylor, 2004).

However asmentioned in some of the limitations we discussed previously with regards tothe methods each of these particular methods require certain skills of the researcherfor them to be truly effective methods. Thus projects which would seek to useall of these methods as well as possible others would need to draw upon skilledresearchers in terms of their ability to conduct quantitative and qualitativeresearch in equal measure. Similarly using a combinational method increases therange of ethical considerations for the researcher with the possibility ofthere being a complex network of ethical issues that need to be resolvedcontinuously across the range of research methods used in the project (deMarrais & Lapan 2004).

Similarly for acombinational method to be effective as well as the use of any of these methodssolely also a strong methodology in terms of a plan for the research and itsconduct will need to be in place in order to generate truly relevant data forthe research questions which the researcher wishes to investigate, (Andrews,2003). In conclusion the organisation of research methods in terms of their deploymentis the most critical determinant of the success of the researcher in gathering datawhich will be of use in their subsequent and later analysis based on theresearch questions they have tasked themselves with answering. Organisation it canthus be argued is one of the principal determinants of whether the selection ofany research methods will be successful in collecting relevant and valuabledata for that project, (Ragin, 1994).

References

Andrews, R.J.(2003) Research Questions, Continuum, London

Bloor, M. et al (2001) Focus Group inSocial Research, SAGE Publications, London.

Bryman, A. (2004) SocialResearch Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Czarniawska, B.(2004) Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage, London

deMarrais,K. & Lapan, S.D. (2004) Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry inEducation and the Social Science, Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.

Fern,E.E. (2001) Advanced Focus Group Research, SAGE, US.

Frazer,L. & Meredith, L. (2000) Questionnaire Design & Administration : aPractical Guide, John Wiley, London.

Gillham,B. (2000) Developing a Questionnaire, Continuum, London.

Gorard, S. andTaylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research,Open University Press, Maidenhead

Hollway,W. & Jefferson, T.(2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: FreeAssociation, Narrative and Interview, SAGE, London.

Houtkoop-Steenstra,H. (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: the LivingQuestionnaire, Cambridge University Press, UK.

Litosseliti,L. (2003) Using Focus Groups in Research, Continuum, London.

Gregory, I. (2003)Ethics in Research, Continuum, London

McNeill, P. (2005)Research Methods 3^rd Edition, Routledge, London

McQueen, R. (2002)Research Methods for Social Science, Prentice Hall, Harlow

Morgan,D. L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 2^nd edition,Sage Publications, US.

Oppenheim,A. N. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement,Pinter Publishers, New York.

yen,E. (1990) Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in InternationalSocial Research, Newbury Park, London.

Ragin,C.C. (1994) Constructing Social Research: the Unity and Diversity of Method,Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press, US.

Ruane, J.M. (2005)Essentials of Research Methods, Blackwell Publications, Malden MASS

Silveman,D. (2004) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, SAGE,London.

Somekh, B. andLewin, C. (2005) Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Sage,London

Vaughn,S., Shay, J. & Sinagub, S.J. (1996) Focus Group Interview in Educationand Psychology, SAGE, US.

How do power relations challenge us to re-think the issue of dialogue in research, ethicsand critical urban ethnography?

Sociological research is not theclearly defined process that the textbooks would have us believe. It can be amessy business and is fraught with pitfalls so the researcher needs to beflexible in his/her approach to the project. Power relationships emerge as anissue right from the beginning. There are the power relations contained within social institutions and in personal relationships. The relationship between theresearcher and the researched is generally thought of as one of unequal powerrelations where the researcher is the custodian of expertise concerning themeaning of a research subject’s experiences.

The balance of power may not,however, be in the researcher’s hands at the beginning of a project, if theresearcher needs to gain access to a setting then he/she may be subject to thewhims of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers have the power to say no the researcher’srequest and if you do manage to gain entry it is often at the end of a longslow process. Lofland and Lofland (1984) say that feelings of anxiety when aresearcher first encounters gate keepers, is not unusual because they hold thereins of power. Bogdan and Taylor (1984) write about problems with gatekeepers.They argue that there are those professionals in charge of establishments suchas retirement homes or women’s refuges, who exercise their power by monitoringwho should and should not visit. In this way they retain control of the spaceoccupied by the people they care for and in controlling their space alsocontrol the influences of and within that space.

Giddens 2001 has argued that thechanges in modern society have, in their turn, brought vast changes to the waywe live our lives:

The development ofmodern cities has had an enormous impact, not only on habits and modes ofbehaviour, but on patterns of thought and feeling. >From the time whenlarge urban agglomerations first formed, in the eighteenth century, views aboutthe effects of cities on social life have been polarized (Giddens,2001:573).

Hammersley (2000) has argued that social research cannot be understood outside of the social world that itstudies. It does not exist in some autonomous realm, but affects, and isaffected by other factors in society. Beginning with a brief explanation of keyterms this paper will give a brief description of the long and hotly contesteddebate that frames the quantitative/qualitative divide within researchdiscourse. This should demonstrate that even before a researcher frames aresearch question they have to contend with the powerful discourse that says social research should be undertaken in a scientific manner if it is to producemeaningful data. The paper will examine the question of how power relationschallenge us to re-think the issue of dialogue in research, ethics and criticalurban ethnography. The main focus with regard to how knowledge is acquired, andhow, like research, it is intimately connected with relations of power, will beon feminist work. The final part of the paper will deal with power relations,dialogue and ethics in the context of critical urban ethnography.

Epistemology

An epistemological concern is onethat raises the question of what might be regarded as acceptable knowledge in adiscipline. Central to this point is whether it is feasible to study the socialworld in the same way and using the same principles as science (Bryman, 2004).Research undertaken in this way is generally associated with a positivistparadigm of research.

Positivism

Positivism is most closelyassociated with the work of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. Positivism is anepistemological standpoint that argues for the application of the scientificmethod to the social world. It is usually (though not always) associated withquantitative research and the collection of statistics. Positivism is,therefore, very closely associated with the scientific method which, looselyput, is based around the laws of cause and effect. Bryman (2004) identifies theaspects of positivism in the following ways, only those things that we canobserve through our senses can really be known. Theory (speculations about whatmight be the case) is used to generate hypotheses (general statements) that canbe tested and from which laws can be derived. The hypothesis is subjected toquestions e.g. who, what, when, where and data gathered either throughinterviews, observation, or using existing data such as crime statistics. Ifthe findings confirm the hypothesis then laws are derived, if not then the hypothesishas to be modified. This process continues until a suitable conclusion isreached that confirms the modified hypothesis. Positivists state that sciencemust be objective and value free (Bryman, A. 2004).Durkheim argued that in order to be scientific and to obtain objectiveknowledge, social facts should be counted as things, and that allpreconceptions must be eradicated (Durkheim, E, 1938:31).Scientific statements should be the interest of the scientist because they arethe only statements that can be confirmed by the senses i.e. science proceedsthrough observable, repeatable experiments.. It is this form of research in particularthat feminists have dubbed ‘malestream research’ (Abbott and Wallace,1997) they argue that:

Many malestream sociologistsare resistant to the view that there is a need for a reconceptualisation.Nevertheless, this is the position that w accept and while we recognise thatthis is an uphill struggle we think that it is a necessary one if we are toachieve an adequate sociology (Abbott and Wallace, 1997:13).

Interpretivism

This is the opposite view topositivism where a research strategy is needed that respects the fact thatthere is a difference between the physical world and people. The scientificmethods that are used to study the physical world may not be appropriate tostudying the social world where the sociologist is trying to understand the meaningsthat people give to their actions. Interpretivists most often use qualitativeresearch methods consisting of unstructured interviews and participantobservation. Positivists criticise research data gained in this way asunscientific and subjective. They argue that the findings from such research donot have the same validity or reliability as data collected in a scientificmanner (Bryman, 2004). Researchers who use qualitative methods tend to maketheir research process as transparent as possible and will often ask theirresearch subjects to check the findings to see whether they are an accuraterepresentation of the person’s life.

Both types of researchers want toknow what is happening in society but interpretivists also attempt tounderstand. Weber (1947) maintained that sociology is a

Science which attempts theinterpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at a causalexplanation of its cause and effects (Weber, 1947:88).

Qualitative researchers tend tomake use of unstructured interviews, case study research and participantobservation. Ethnographic methods such as in-depth interviews and prolongedparticipant observation are also favoured methods. These last tend to be usedmore often by those who are engaged in critical research. Hammersley (1992)criticises the use of ethnographic methods because he believes that this typeof research is less able to produce data that will result in useful theoreticalinsights. Participant observation is regarded by positivists as unscientificand not rigorous enough they regard it as subjective. Hammersley (1992) hasargued that because ethnographers can produce different accounts of the samesetting then the results of such research might be said to reflect a purelypersonal perspective rather than a scientific and reliable account.Yet anothercriticism of this type of method is that the ensuing account is the result ofhighly selective methods of data collection (Hammersley, 1992). This isarguably a nonsensical criticism as all research is the result of a set ofselection processes. The researcher constantly has to decide what is the bestway of collecting the information that will answer the research question. Thishappens in what is regarded as scientific and value free social research justas much as it does in social research that does not claim to be objective andvalue free. All researchers, as Gouldner (1971) points out have to make choicesabout their ‘domain of enquiry’ i.e. when, where, how, and from whom they aregoing to obtain their data.

There is a clear difference betweenscience and the scientific method and the methods that are needed toinvestigate the social world. For human beings, human action is meaningful andthey act on the basis of that meaning. The sociologist’s job is to interpretthe social world from the research subject’s point of view. What this means isthat far from research being objective and knowledge being objective and valuefree, they are in fact marked by the stamp of their producers. Marx recognisedthis in his analysis of capitalism and feminists have recognised this in theiranalysis of patriarchy and of an epistemological stance that bears the stampand is endowed with the power of the white western male. Thus power relationsare evident even before we begin on the actual research process.

Knowledge and Power

The rationalistattitudes towards knowledge that developed during the Enlightenment remaineddominant until well into the nineteenth century. They were, as many feministshave argued (Abbott and Wallace, 1997), a powerful force in determining whatconstituted knowledge and have had considerable effect on the structures ofmodern society. A similar critique of knowledge has also been mounted by theFrench philosopher Michel Foucault (1966).

The work ofthinkers such as Nietzsche (1886) and Foucault (1966) has emphasised the factthat knowledge is intimately tied to structures of power and domination.Foucault argues that it is power which produces and sustains knowledge.Anything that contradicts the authorised view of what counts as knowledge isseen as deviant and transgressional. Thus, he argues,

Power isthat which says no. Any confrontation with power thus conceived appears only astransgression (1966: 53).

Feministcriticisms of knowledge and the way that knowledge is produced are aconfrontation with power and authority. The tendency of many thinkers toneglect class, race, gender, and economic factors contributes to the exclusionof oppressed and marginal viewpoints thus further reinforcing bothuniversalistic and objective models of knowledge and the power structures associatedwith this view. Foucault has argued that the enlightenment model of scientificreason only existed through the will to objectify and dominate. For Foucault,this kind of knowledge is inseparable from the desire for power. He argues thatresearch into criminality or mental illness is often undertaken for the expresspurposes of legislation, and not for a desire for improvement in these areas(1966). These critiques of the structures of power have meant thatepistemological questions are now a central issue within contemporary culture(Lennon and Whitford, 1994). The writings of Marx (1970), Foucault (1966), andmembers of the Frankfurt school (and in a different context liberationtheologians) emphasise the fact knowledge claims are a reflection of theinterests of those with economic power. More recently, black scholars andscholars from the third world have also indicated the Eurocentric and racistnature of most knowledge production (Lennon and Whitford, 1994). The separationof fact from value in knowledge production is not appropriate, that is to sayknowledge is not objective and neutral. Rather, knowledge bears the stamp ofits producers and is affected by their value systems. It is through thisunderstanding that feminist and other forms of critical research developed.

Critical Research

Carspecken(1996) maintains that critical research is aimed at exposing the powerrelationships at work in society particularly as they relate to social inequalities. The researcher studies this from the viewpoint of the oppressedin the hope of achieving social change. Critical research is informed by thecritical theory of the Frankfurt School. Critical social research does not fitwell into either the positivist camp or the interpretive one but embraces allthose approaches which tend to criticise society (in terms of its powerrelationships for example) in order to transform it. Hammersley (1995) hasargued that the growing influence of qualitative research and most particularlyof the type of research that is critical of power structures and of theinequalities that exist within society has meant that increasingly the basisfor seeing social research as scientific has been undermined. Harvey (1990) hassaid of critical research that:

critiqueis an integral part of the processA critical research process involves morethan appending critique to an accumulation of fact or theory gathered throughsome mechanical process, rather it denies the objective status of knowledge (Harvey,1990 quoted in Haralambos et al, 2000:982).

Knowledge inthese terms is a process that is never finished because the social world isconstantly changing. Knowledge is inseparable from the values of the socialcontext in which it emerged, the research participants, and most importantly,the researcher. The knowers always affect what is known as Ely et al (1996)argue:

Researchlike all other knowing, is a transactional process – the knower and the knownboth act upon each other (Ely, et al, 1996:196 ibid.).

Criticalresearch is primarily concerned with uncovering oppression and oppressivestructures and by that action transforming them. By uncovering these structureswithin social accounts the critical researcher can then link these with widersocial processes and structures. Thus Oakley’s analysis of housework and howwomen bear the brunt of it links back to industrialisation and the rise ofcapitalism and women’s removal from the public world of work to the privatesphere of the home, this also links with the growth of patriarchal oppressionof women (Harvey, 1990). Thus a critical analysis such as this can uncover thebasis of some of the power relationships that exist within society andeventually to change them. Harvey (1990) says of this process that it:

..involvesa constant questioning of the perspective and analysis the researcher isbuilding up. It is a process of gradually, and critically, coming to knowthrough constant reconceptualisation. This means that the selection of a coreconcept for analysis is not a once and for all affair (Harvey, 1990:30).

Harvey (1990)maintains that critical research does not depend on any one method becauseresearchers may often use a variety of methods in ensuring that they have madethe connections with wider social processes such as the structures of power,and also to increase the reliability of their findings. Feminist research alsooperates by the use of a number of different research methods, feminists are moreconcerned with improving women’s lives and with the non-exploitation of thosewho are researched, than they are with the commitment to any one set of methods.Some (primarily male) researchers argue against feminist research because theysay that it is subjective and partisan. They argue that research should neverbe partisan and that it is impossible for everyone to be equally free, theremust always be some hierarchy. Thus Geuss (1981) contends that:

It seems unrealistic underpresent conditions of human life to assume that any and every preference humanagents might have can be satisfied, or to assume that all conflict between thepreferences of different agents will be peacefully and rationally resolved.Some frustration-even some imposed frustration-of some human preferences mustbe legitimate and unexceptionable (Guess, 1981:16).

Presumably thelegitimate and unexceptionable preferences are the prerogative of the male, whofor centuries has had some much power over women’s lives. It is this kind ofpower that feminists are keen to expose, they are also concerned about thepower relationships which exist between the researcher and the researched, andwhich have sometimes been exploited by (male) researchers. In view of this somefeminists argue that participatory research, where the researcher and theresearched work together on a project, should be a defining feature of feministresearch. Abbott and Wallace (1997) argue however, that this is not often donebecause,

it is notpossible for the researcher to share her knowledge and expertise, and to implythat she is sharing them conceals a power relationship rather than overcomingit (Abbott and Wallace, 1997:288).

Feminists who douse these methods argue that participatory research not only gives women a moreactive role in knowledge production but further increases the validity of theresearch findings. McGuire (1987), has this to say

Participatoryresearch proposes returning to ordinary people the power to participate inknowledge creation, the power that results from such creation, and the power toutilize knowledge (Maguire, 1987:39).

Even this statement isproblematic because the researcher has at least some training in how researchmight be said to proceed and this is not easily passed on to those who are nottrained (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Mies, 1983 has this to say:

the study of an oppressivereality is not carried out by experts but by the objects of the oppression.People who were before objects of research become subjects of their ownresearch and action. This implies that scientists who participate in this studyof the conditions of oppression must give their research tools to the people (Mies,1983:16).

Shared experiences, it might beargued, help to balance out the power relationships that feminists such asAbbott and Wallace (1997) contend, inevitably exist between a researcher andthose who are researched. One way in which the researcher may try to lessen thepower differential is through self-disclosure. Thus recovering alcoholics whoare researching alcohol misuse or women who have survived domestic violenceinterviewing women who are being abused would make the interviewee aware of thefact. While it maybe impossible to do away with the power differentialaltogether, it does make it less problematic. Ann Oakley (1982) has writtenthat,

the goal of finding outabout people through interviewing is best achieved when the relationship ofinterviewer and interviewee is non- hierarchical and when the interviewer isprepared to invest his or her own personal identity in the relationship (Oakley,1982:41).

This power differential thatexists in the research relationship may also colour what is found because datais never free of the influence of the person who gathered it. Carspecken (1996)believes that although critical researchers may have a value commitment that isnot to say that the research needs to be biased providing it is systematic andcareful. Stanley and Wise have this to say,

.the recognition that whoa researcher is, in terms of their sex, race, class, and sexuality, affectswhat they ‘find’ in research and is as true of feminists as of any other researchers(Stanley and Wise, 1993:228).

This power differential willalso affect, and may distort the dialogue between the researcher and theresearched. Abbott and Wallace (1997) argue that because the researcher willnecessarily involve herself with the women she is studying then she needs to beaware of this. Constant reflexivity is required if the research is to beconsidered valid. The researcher must be aware that because she is a part ofwhat is going on this inevitably affects what is going on and there needs to bea continual taking stock of how personal values, attitudes and perceptions areinfluencing the research process.

A feministinterviewing women is by definition both “inside” the culture andparticipating in that which she is observing…personal involvement is morethan dangerous bias – it is the condition under which people come to know eachother and to admit others into their lives (Oakley,1982:58).

Aronson (1992) has pointedout that the ethnographic interview is a common method of gathering data inqualitative research. Interviewing is also a method which is favoured byfeminist researchers (Oakley, 1982; Stanley and Wise, 1993). The interviewprocess should be such that women feel at ease and can relate their experiencesas they see them. The interviewer should encourage the participation of theinterviewee, the aim of which is to conduct research with women rather than onwomen. In this way it is thought that a fuller picture of women’s experiencesemerges (Oakley, 1981 et al). Carspecken (1996) argues that one way ofminimising any distortions that may arise due to the power differential betweenresearcher and researched is to check out your findings with the researchparticipants. Differences may also arise here if the dialogue between theresearcher and the research participants has been awkward or untruthful in anyway there may be objections when the participant sees what has been written.Seeing this distorted dialogue in print may increase any feelings ofpowerlessness that the participant might have and thus renegotiating thedialogue may prove difficult.

Ethics

At the very least ethics areconcerned with protecting the anonymity of those who are participating in theresearch. This is vital if for example the participants are women who haveexperienced rape or domestic abuse as any such exposure of their true identitycould put them at further risk. Many researchers, not just feministresearchers, also regard the use of non-sexist language as an ethicalprinciple. Sexist language is exclusionary and denotes the power relationshipsthat have for centuries existed in patriarchal society. Relationships that arein some way based on power are prone distortions in communication and it is upto the critical researcher to be aware of these sources of distortion as amatter of ethical principle. Carpecken (1996) thus believes that researchersshould:

Establish supportive,non-authoritarian relationships with the participants in your study. Activelyencourage them to question your own perceptions. Be sure that participants areprotected from any harm that your study could produce, and be sure that theyknow they are protected (Carpecken, 1996:90).

There isconsiderable contemporary debate about what constitutes ethical research. Thisis particularly the case with sensitive areas and with feminist methodologies(Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Feminist researchers are concerned with the ideathat the people who are the major part of many research undertakings should notbe exploited. As I have stated previously, feminist researchers are concernedwith the researched. Relationships between researchers and their human subjectsare often continued long after work in the field has finished (Ely et al,1996). The majority of feminists are conscious that the research relationshipis a two-way process.

Researchlike all other knowing, is a transactional process – the knower and the knownboth act upon each other (Ely, et al, 1996:196 ibid.).

Many feministsregard it as crucially important that women who are more oppressed andmarginalised than they themselves are given a voice for their experiences. Theyargue that some, (predominantly male) researchers have used respondents asobjects to be worked on (Reinharz, 1983; Abbott and Wallace, 1997). In manycases there is no further contact with the people they have worked with oncethe research process is finished. Feminists have said that this kind of researchis conducted on a rape model.

The researcherstake, hit, and run, with a total disregard for the needs of the researched.They intrude into their subject’s privacy, disrupt their perceptions, utilisefalse pretences, manipulate the relationships, and give little or nothing inreturn. When the needs of the researchers are satisfied, they break off contactwith the subjects (Reinharz, 1983:80).

The issue of giving oppressed andmarginalised women a voice has been identified by black feminists, as anethical matter. This is because black women’s voices are the most marginal ofall women’s voices in the academy, and the current educational systemreinforces the values and culture of the dominant classes, thereby ensuringtheir continued domination and the covert exercise of power (Hill-Collins, P,1990). In view of these ethical questions, many feminists are conscious of theneed to put something back in, whether by the payment of a fee, or ofcontributing to work in the community. More recently however ethical questionshave also concerned researcher safety. Is it ethical to allow a lone (possiblyfemale) researcher to venture into settings where the power relationships thatpertain in such a setting may put that researcher at risk. Power and ethics areclosely entertwined. Covert participant observation (whereby the researcherdoes not disclose their true role and reasons for being in the setting) isoften regarded as unethical and a misuse of researcher power becauseparticipants are not given the chance to give their informed consent to the research.It is also regarded as privacy violation (Bryman, 2004). Thus the powerrelationships that are, or might be at work in the research relationship needto be acknowledged at all stages of the research process and before decisionsabout how the research is undertaken are formalised.

Research, particularly qualitative research is not just composed of a setof ‘facts’ drawn from a number of suitably phrased questions. It is madeup of all the seemingly unrelated bits and pieces that are part of humanrelationships (Ely et al, 1996).

Critical Urban Research

The most famous urban research is that of the Chicago school in the 1920sand 30s. Robert Park was the central figure here and his main concerns werewith the effects of social and cultural forces on human nature. Park and hiscolleagues recognised two levels of behaviour the biotic and the cultural. Thebiotic level concerned mechanisms of survival and competition and the culturalwas concerned with how the human subject was constituted (Dickens, 1990). Urbanresearch is concerned with how the city influences those who inhabit it and howit shapes their lives. Giddens has argued that the space people occupy has tobe taken into account when studying social life because social interaction isnot aspatial, it has to take place somewhere. This somewhere Giddens designatesa locale.

Localesrange from a room in a house, or street corner, the shopfloor of a factory,towns and cities to the territorially demarcated areas occupied by regionstates. But they are typically internally regionalised (Giddens, 1984).

The Chicago school was highly influential on the way in which streetsociety was studied. Jacobs (1961) undertook what became a classical study ofGreenwich Village when she studied the everyday behaviour and relationships ofpeople on the sidewalk. In the nineteen-ninetees Duneier (1999) wanted todiscover how sidewalk life had changed in the intervening years. He studied thelife of pan handlers and street vendors to see whether and in what ways itscharacter might have changed. Duneier started out as a voyeur and customer at abookstall in Greenwich Village and it was there that he noticed the tenor ofsidewalk life. His primary informant was the bookseller who at first wasreluctant to take part in the research. When he eventually wrote up hisfindings and submitted the manuscript for publication he was not comfortableeven though he had invited his informant to read the manuscript and comment onit. He eventually co-opted the informant to co-teach with him about life on thestreet for a Black American. Duneier believed that not only would this adjustthe imbalance in power relationships in research more adequately but thatstudent feedback and comments on the course might allow him to remedy anyshortcomings of the original research.

Duneier had faced a number of challenges during the course of researchsuch as gaining access to the culture and the confidence of those who lived andworked on the streets. He had trouble fitting in because of the obvious powerdifferentials of class and race as well as the inequality of the researchrelationship (adapted from Giddens, 2001 pps 652-655). Duneier’s researchparticipants were among the least powerful of society. The way in which modernsocieties operate what Giddens (2001) has called a geography of centrality andmarginality where affluence and abject poverty co-exist made the lives ofDuneier’s research participants unliveable. He was worried whether he wasimposing an agenda on his research participants that would make their liveseven more problematic. What Duneier’s research revealed was that the socialresearcher has to take account of the wider social context and processes ofwhich he/she is a themselves a part. Mac an Ghaill’s critical ethnography ofheterosexual and homosexual young men also tries to reduce the powerdifferential between researcher and research participants and to be as open andethically aware as possible though collaboration, reciprocity and reflexivity(Haralambos et al, 2000).

Conclusion

This paper has examined how power relationships in research impact at alllevels of the research process and affect the dialogue between the researcherand the research participants and the ethical considerations that are part ofsocial research. It has also attempted to show how these processes can severelyaffect the undertaking of critical urban ethnography. Duneier’s work inparticular demonstrates how power relationships operate at all levels inresearch and how decisions that have been made (for example the changinggeography of the urban environment) which neither the researcher nor researchparticipants have any control over can affect the outcomes of the research anda researcher’s own sense of his personal ethical commitment to the people whomay have participated in the research. There are a number of reasons why thisis important. Those scholars who are critical of this type of research oftenfail to acknowledge that the scientific paradigm is also beset with these kindsof issues and problems but fails to take them into account. This is what Popper(1992) called the theory of demarcation whereby any variables that do not fitwith the theory are ruled out of the equation. Duneier and other’s explicitrecounting of the problematic nature of undertaking social research thatcontributes to knowledge, is committed to social transformation, and at thesame time is aware the pitfalls that can occur when researching the lives ofthose who are already disenfranchised by society. There may never be a completeanswer to addressing the issue of power relationships in social research but Iwould wish to argue that the researcher who neglects the fact that such thingsexist and influence all research is failing to give an accurate account of thesocial reality that he/she is investigating.

5000 words

Bibliography

Abbott, P andWallace, C (1997) An Introduction to Sociology, Feminist Perspectives Routledge,London.

Aronson, J. (1992). Theinterface of family therapy and a juvenile arbitration and mediation program,.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, FortLauderdale, FL .

Bilton, T. etal, 1996. Introductory Sociology, London, Macmillan (Ch. 13).

Bogdan, R andBilklen, S (1982) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction toTheory and Methods, Allyn and Bacon, Boston

Bogdan, R andTaylor, S (1984) Introduction to Qualita