Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Questionnaires
- Advantages of Questionnaires
- Practical Advantages
- Quick and cheap
way of gathering
large quantities
of data from
large numbers of
people.
- No need to recruit
and train
interviewers or
observers to collect
the data, because
respondents
complete and
return the
questionnaires
themselves.
- Data is usually easy to quantify, particularly where pre-coded,
closed-ended questions are used.
- Reliability
- Questionnaires are
seen as a reliable
method of collecting
data. That is, if
repeated by another
researcher, a
questionnaire should
give similar results to
those gained by the first
researcher.
- When the research
is repeated, new
respondents are
asked exactly the
same questions, in
the same order, with
the same choice of
answers, as the
original respondents
- With postal questionnaires,
there is no researcher present
to influence the respondent's
answers unlike interviews,
where interaction with the
interviewer may affect the
answer given.
- Hypothesis testing
- Questionnaires are particularly useful for
testing hypotheses about cause-and-effect
relationships between different variables
- Questionnaires enable us to identify possible causes, they are very
attractive to postivist sociologists.
- Objectivity
- Positivists also favour
questionnaires because they are a
unbiased form of research, where
the sociologist's personal
involvement with their respondents is kept to a minimum
- Representativeness
- Questionnaires can collect
information from a large number
of people, the results stand a
better chanceof being turly
representative of the wider
population than other methods
- Postivist View
- Favour questionnaires
because they achieve the
main postivist goals of
reliability, generalisability and
representativeness
- Standardised
questions and
answers produce
reliable data because
other researchers can
replicate the
questionnaire
- Pre-coded responses allow
us to produce quantitative
data, identity and measure
behaviour patterns, and
establish cause-and-effect
relationships
- Questionnaires are often large scale and thus more representative
- Interpretivist View
- Reject to use of
questionnaires
because they impose
the researcher's
framework of ideas on
respondents.
- Questionnaires fail to
achieve the main
interprevist goal of
validity
- Disadvantages of Questionnaires
- Practical problems
- Data from questionnaires tends
to be limited and depthless. This
means that they need to be brief
because respondents are
unlikely to complete and return
long and time-consuming
questionnaires.
- Although they are cheap,
sometimes to may mean
that the creator needs to
add incentives for people
to complete the
questionnaire for example;
prizes.
- With postal questionnaires, there can be two
problems: Firstly, whether the potential
respondent has actually received the
questionnaire. Secondly, whether a returned
questionnaire was actually completed by the
person to whom it was addressed.
- Response rate
- Although questionnaires have the potential to collect
data from large, representative samples, very low
response rates can be a major problem, especially
with postal questionnaires
- A higher response rate can
be obtained if follow-up
questionnaires are sent and
if questionnaires are
collected by hand. However
this costs a lot of money and
time.
- Inflexibility
- Once the questionnaire has been
finalised, the researcher is stuck
with the questions they have
decided to ask and cannot explore
any new areas of interest should
they come up during the course of
the research.
- Detachment
- Interpretivist sociologists argue that data from
questionnaires lack validity and do not give a true
picture of what has been studied. They argue that
we can only gain a valid picture by using methods
that allow us to get close to the subjects of the
study and share their meanings.
- Lying and 'right answerism'
- Respondents may lie, forget, not
know, not understand, pretend
that they don't understand or try
to please or second-guess the
researcher.
- Some respondents may give
'respectable' answers they feel
they ought to give, rather than tell
the truth.