OCR Sociology G671 Pre Release May 2012
Scroll to see replies
I've written one- pm your email to me and I'll send it to you. I've got some ideas on what questions may come up too.
Actually I think I've already emailed you!
Using the pre-release material and your wider sociological knowledge, explain and evaluate the use of ethnography as a method of researching identity.
In his study Nayak Anoop attempts to use ethnography as a means of researching the identity of young men in a post-industrial setting with a view to discovering whether these young men perceive their masculine and class identities differently to traditional working-class males. Ethnographic studies often use participant observation and some form of interview in order to unearth rich qualitative data which is high in ecological validity. This means that the researcher engaging in ethnographic research aims to gain a holistic and very accurate picture of the situation that their subjects exist in. Also, as researchers using ethnography often stress the strength of ecological validity of the results they discover, many ethnographers seek to immerse themselves completely in the culture of those that they are studying. Ethnography as a method is therefore most commonly used by anthropologists, or sociologists who are interested in researching other cultures that might be very different to their own. Margaret Mead, for example, in researching used this method when researching Samoan attitudes to “coming of age”- ethnographies therefore are also usually longitudinal in nature- this means that they are very time-consuming as it might take an outsider a long period of time to establish the trust or verstehen which encourages those being studied to “open up” and provide the researcher with qualitative data high in validity. The length of the study does raise the practical issue of cost, but to a researcher engaged in ethnographic research, the validity (or accuracy) of the results being collected is of paramount importance.
Nayak begins his ethnographic study by first establishing that he wishes to study the “whole way of life” of working-class young men in an area where the traditional sources of working class identity (which is working in an industrial setting) has largely disappeared. Nayak would therefore have needed to first operationalize what he meant by “whole way of life”. Nayak needs to establish some measure of sociological objectivity to his research by making sure that those wishing to access his research understand his research parameters exactly. What Nayak means by “whole way of life” becomes clearer as we are told, in the pre-release material (PRM), the extent to which Nayak spends time with the subjects of his research- even going so far as to go out with the young men on their weekend drinking sessions. Although Nayak fails to operationalize what he means by “young men” from the activities that they engage in, it seems as though these young men are in their late teens. Although it does seem at this point that Nayak has made a huge effort to establish the potential ecological validity of his research, primarily he might have been taken time to establish exactly what he hopes to discover and therefore increase the reliability of the study so that future researchers might be able to repeat his work. However, reliability as an element often suffers when a researcher undertakes an ethnography as the emphasis will always be on the validity of the results rather than the reliability of the methods.
Nayak collects his sample from two schools, after requesting permission from the Heads who act as gatekeepers. His sample consists of a “high proportion of working class youngsters” from the two schools and from a local estate where he has set up house. The strength of the ethnographic study is again demonstrated here- Nayak was able to persuade two groups of young men, some of whom seldom attended school, to let him observe and interview them as they seem to have trusted him because of his willingness to live on a tough estate. The two groups are referred to as the “Real Geordies” and “the Charver kids”. Although we are not told anything about the size of these two groups and therefore about the size of the sample, it seems that as far as the purpose of the ethnography is concerned Nayak did manage to establish a high level of verstehen with the two groups even going as far as being implicated in a “chip fight” with one of the groups! Although it seems from the PRM that Nayak might have paid more attention to establishing the representativeness of his sample with a view to making the results he gains generalizable, the lack of generalizability of ethnographic studies is commonplace. Nayak’s study, as it lacks generalizability can therefore only be said to present a true picture for working class males in Newcastle. Claire Alexander’s ethnographic study of black British males attempting to establish a hybrid identity in London encounters the same issues of generalizability and can therefore only be applied to London
As far as the methods selected by Nayak in conducting his ethnography are concerned, the need to establish a high level of ecological validity through first establishing a high level of verstehen with the sample obviously means that the reliability of the methods chosen is going to be very low. However, Nayak has chosen to use semi-structured interviews as the first of his methods. Although we are not given a list of the questions that Nayak used when asking his sample subjects about “their values and attitudes” and “their leisure time activities” it does seem that Nayak did acknowledge the need to establish at least some reliability by choosing this method as future researchers could at least have seen the questions Nayak used and might be able to copy them. However, the PRM goes on to state that Nayak was “keen to follow the interests of the… respondents” meaning that he gave his interviewees free reign to discuss what they wanted. Again, Nayak has attempted the validity of his results over more objective concerns that might be held by positivist sociologists who may be more interested in adopting a scientific approach to this study. The second primary method which Nayak uses is overt participant observation. As the observation is “overt”, meaning the subjects know what Nayak is doing, it seems as though he still managed to gain a valid picture of their attitudes and behaviour as they are comfortable enough around him to include him in a playful chip fight! It certainly seems therefore that Nayak’s results are not tainted by the observer or Hawthorn effect which is a common disadvantage of conducting overt observation.
Nayak’s results are therefore very valid, presenting a true and accurate picture of how the young men he studied perceive working class and masculine identity. Both the “Real Geordies” and the “Charvers” are willing to engage Nayak in frank conversation about “sexual anecdotes and random acts of violence”. This leads us to believe that Nayak might have broken down any barriers that he might have faced (perhaps by being from a different social background himself) and eventually produced a study rich in ecological validity.
Nayak concludes that traditional ideas of what it means to be a man or working class die hard and still exist for the young men in his study. Nayak’s ethnographic approach, although not at all reliable, has been very successful in achieving its aims of establishing that traditional sources of identity remain strong and are difficult to displace.
In his study Nayak Anoop attempts to use ethnography as a means of researching the identity of young men in a post-industrial setting with a view to discovering whether these young men perceive their masculine and class identities differently to traditional working-class males. Ethnographic studies often use participant observation and some form of interview in order to unearth rich qualitative data which is high in ecological validity. This means that the researcher engaging in ethnographic research aims to gain a holistic and very accurate picture of the situation that their subjects exist in. Also, as researchers using ethnography often stress the strength of ecological validity of the results they discover, many ethnographers seek to immerse themselves completely in the culture of those that they are studying. Ethnography as a method is therefore most commonly used by anthropologists, or sociologists who are interested in researching other cultures that might be very different to their own. Margaret Mead, for example, in researching used this method when researching Samoan attitudes to “coming of age”- ethnographies therefore are also usually longitudinal in nature- this means that they are very time-consuming as it might take an outsider a long period of time to establish the trust or verstehen which encourages those being studied to “open up” and provide the researcher with qualitative data high in validity. The length of the study does raise the practical issue of cost, but to a researcher engaged in ethnographic research, the validity (or accuracy) of the results being collected is of paramount importance.
Nayak begins his ethnographic study by first establishing that he wishes to study the “whole way of life” of working-class young men in an area where the traditional sources of working class identity (which is working in an industrial setting) has largely disappeared. Nayak would therefore have needed to first operationalize what he meant by “whole way of life”. Nayak needs to establish some measure of sociological objectivity to his research by making sure that those wishing to access his research understand his research parameters exactly. What Nayak means by “whole way of life” becomes clearer as we are told, in the pre-release material (PRM), the extent to which Nayak spends time with the subjects of his research- even going so far as to go out with the young men on their weekend drinking sessions. Although Nayak fails to operationalize what he means by “young men” from the activities that they engage in, it seems as though these young men are in their late teens. Although it does seem at this point that Nayak has made a huge effort to establish the potential ecological validity of his research, primarily he might have been taken time to establish exactly what he hopes to discover and therefore increase the reliability of the study so that future researchers might be able to repeat his work. However, reliability as an element often suffers when a researcher undertakes an ethnography as the emphasis will always be on the validity of the results rather than the reliability of the methods.
Nayak collects his sample from two schools, after requesting permission from the Heads who act as gatekeepers. His sample consists of a “high proportion of working class youngsters” from the two schools and from a local estate where he has set up house. The strength of the ethnographic study is again demonstrated here- Nayak was able to persuade two groups of young men, some of whom seldom attended school, to let him observe and interview them as they seem to have trusted him because of his willingness to live on a tough estate. The two groups are referred to as the “Real Geordies” and “the Charver kids”. Although we are not told anything about the size of these two groups and therefore about the size of the sample, it seems that as far as the purpose of the ethnography is concerned Nayak did manage to establish a high level of verstehen with the two groups even going as far as being implicated in a “chip fight” with one of the groups! Although it seems from the PRM that Nayak might have paid more attention to establishing the representativeness of his sample with a view to making the results he gains generalizable, the lack of generalizability of ethnographic studies is commonplace. Nayak’s study, as it lacks generalizability can therefore only be said to present a true picture for working class males in Newcastle. Claire Alexander’s ethnographic study of black British males attempting to establish a hybrid identity in London encounters the same issues of generalizability and can therefore only be applied to London
As far as the methods selected by Nayak in conducting his ethnography are concerned, the need to establish a high level of ecological validity through first establishing a high level of verstehen with the sample obviously means that the reliability of the methods chosen is going to be very low. However, Nayak has chosen to use semi-structured interviews as the first of his methods. Although we are not given a list of the questions that Nayak used when asking his sample subjects about “their values and attitudes” and “their leisure time activities” it does seem that Nayak did acknowledge the need to establish at least some reliability by choosing this method as future researchers could at least have seen the questions Nayak used and might be able to copy them. However, the PRM goes on to state that Nayak was “keen to follow the interests of the… respondents” meaning that he gave his interviewees free reign to discuss what they wanted. Again, Nayak has attempted the validity of his results over more objective concerns that might be held by positivist sociologists who may be more interested in adopting a scientific approach to this study. The second primary method which Nayak uses is overt participant observation. As the observation is “overt”, meaning the subjects know what Nayak is doing, it seems as though he still managed to gain a valid picture of their attitudes and behaviour as they are comfortable enough around him to include him in a playful chip fight! It certainly seems therefore that Nayak’s results are not tainted by the observer or Hawthorn effect which is a common disadvantage of conducting overt observation.
Nayak’s results are therefore very valid, presenting a true and accurate picture of how the young men he studied perceive working class and masculine identity. Both the “Real Geordies” and the “Charvers” are willing to engage Nayak in frank conversation about “sexual anecdotes and random acts of violence”. This leads us to believe that Nayak might have broken down any barriers that he might have faced (perhaps by being from a different social background himself) and eventually produced a study rich in ecological validity.
Nayak concludes that traditional ideas of what it means to be a man or working class die hard and still exist for the young men in his study. Nayak’s ethnographic approach, although not at all reliable, has been very successful in achieving its aims of establishing that traditional sources of identity remain strong and are difficult to displace.
Thats brilliant mate cheers. I'm in the middle of one too il send it you once I've done see if we've missed anything, yours looks spot on though. What you thinking for Q3 if you've thought about it yet?
would this essay defo be 52/52?
Original post by narli
hey guys
can someone tell me the way i should structure the 16 and 24 mark question
im confused about the 24th one, looking back at past papers some questions came up like '' explain and briefly evaluate the role of the family in socialissing females into a femine identy''
what would we incude? can we include other agencies?
please help! and also.. has anyone got a definition for socialisation
can someone tell me the way i should structure the 16 and 24 mark question
im confused about the 24th one, looking back at past papers some questions came up like '' explain and briefly evaluate the role of the family in socialissing females into a femine identy''
what would we incude? can we include other agencies?
please help! and also.. has anyone got a definition for socialisation
Hello
For the 24 mark question you should aim for around 4 points with at least 2 evaluative points, considering it is only looking for a brief evaluation (Agents of socialisation are generally difficult to evaluate so they're not expecting lots but ensure they are relevant)
You should also aim to include schools of thought and other named sociologists, and yes your evaluation could be done by using other agents of socialisation
Also any relevant statistics will help you in this question so you might want to do some extra reading, it gives a good impression to the examiner. The term socialisation is used quite broadly, you could say it's the learning of norms and values within a culture but arguably it's a lot more than that. You're probably best off knowing a firm definition for both primary and secondary socialisation for this exam:
Primary socialisation - The learning of values and forms of behaviour within the family. It is usually associated with the acquisition of basic attitudes and social skills - those social characteristics that make us civilised.
Secondary socialisation - The learning of skills and attitudes outside the main agency of the family. In modern societies, schools are the main agency of secondary socialisation. However religion and the mass media also play an important role.
I hope this helps a little bit ^.^
Hey, I have just joined TSR and my teacher has given some ideas of what might come up. The 24 mark question he has given in 3 of his examples are all related to class identity and looking at the past papers Jan2011 its age identities, June2010 is about gender identities and June2009 is about ethnic identities so I think there is a possibility that it might be class identities. The 52 mark questions he gave was about ethnography and looking at recent posts makes me think it is likely to come up. Please give me some ideas!! )
)Hey guys , i was just wondering if any of you have decent model answers? I have a good one providing the question is about ethnographic research , i was wondering if anybody has one about participant observation? thankyou
This is the question my teacher thinks is going to come up:
Using the pre-released material and you wider sociological knowledge, explain and evaluate the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews in order to research masculine identity.
Participant observation involves the researcher joining the world of those they are studying. Semi-structured interviews enable the researcher to get qualitative information on the opinions of the participants and so both techniques would be excellent for carrying out research on masculine identity. These methods were both selected by Nayak whose aim was to “examine how they (young working class men) reshaped a whole ‘way of life’ with the decline of traditional work and leisure lifestyles” (lines 3-4) in post-industrial areas. Furthermore, he also wanted to contrast the cultural habits of young men from traditional skilled working class backgrounds with those from families experiencing long-term unemployment. In order to achieve his aims he focused on their ‘going-out’ experiences as well as looking at aspects of their culture by using the methods of participant observation and semi-structured interviews.
Using a combination of semi-structured interviews and participant observations (as well as analysis of the local history) in order to explore masculinity among working class youths, Nayak conducted a mixed-method, ethnographic study on two groups: the ‘Real Geordies’ and the ‘Charvers’. Such methods are interpretivist in their nature. This is because these methods come under the qualitative approach to sociological research. Qualitative methods are more valid than quantitative ones as they allow more detailed information to be obtained as they seek a true picture of the research being undertaken, so that the views and opinions of those being researched are taken into account. In this case Nayak was attempting to explore the values, attitudes and practices of the young men in his research and so the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews are a highly suitable choice.
An advantage of using a combination of participant observation and semi-structured interviews (mixed methods) in Nayak’s research on masculinity was that it allowed him to build a rapport with his participants as he was studying them in both a formal and an informal context (inside and outside of school) e.g. “on one occasion he bumped into a group of ‘Real Geordie’ lads on a night out whom he had interviewed the week before” (lines 33-34). This would have produced more valid findings as they would have been more willing to open up and give him a true picture of what they thought about male culture and masculinity. A clear strength of the research is that “…categories emerged during the research” (lines 18-19) and this is often the case with such qualitative methods as the researcher is not constraining the respondents by putting a tight structure upon them. Therefore, this illustrates that choosing ethnographic methods will give a sociologist qualitative information on their chosen topic, regardless of whether it is on masculinity or something else.
When using participant observation and unstructured interviews in order to explore masculine identity, a range of different environments should be looked at. In Nayak’s research he attempted to carry out his research in a range of different locations; “…school, neighbourhood and city-centre sites – in Newcastle;” (line 10). This could be seen as a positive aspect as he was trying to explore masculinity in a range of situations that the participants were familiar with which would have allowed them to open up and relax. However, his research would have been more representative and generalisable had he widened his choice and possibly looked at other cities beyond Newcastle – perhaps even in different parts of the UK. Nevertheless, using methods such as participant observation allowed Nayak to gather more in depth data than he would have gained through interviews alone or the use of an alternative method. This illustrates that mixed methods were ideal in researching masculinity, when compared with a singular method of study. A further advantage of a mixed methods approach is that findings from all methods can be used in order to triangulate the findings.
There are however weaknesses with the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Generally speaking one disadvantage of participant observation is that it is demanding in terms of both time and safety. For example, in Nayak’s research his observations during nights out involved unpredictable social interaction (line 33), leading to him being banned from a take-away. This shows that such a research method can mean that the researcher is put in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the use of participant observation coupled with semi-structured interviews meant that the research can be costly in terms of both time and money. In the pre-released material, Nayak could have made it less time consuming by focusing on just observations in the school or nights out and not both. However, the method he did use gave him a wider range of data in order to meet his aims. A weakness of semi-structured interviews is that the researcher has less control over the direction the interview can take when compared with a structured one. However, the advantage of it being semi-structured is that there is some flexibility.
Using semi-structured interviews in a group setting could be problematic for various reasons. In Nayak’s research the participants may have skewed the findings through the ‘screw-you’ effect. This could be because the semi-structured interviews were carried out in group settings and the members may have been doing this on purpose in order to conform to the group dynamics. Alternatively, in group situations the respondents may give answers that they think the researcher wants, social desirability bias. Furthermore, when observing participants they may change their behaviour when they knew that they are being watched and so in the extract the ‘going-out’ (line 7) behaviour may have been subject to a Hawthorn Effect. However, this will clearly depend on whether the research is overt or covert.
Another problem with the use of ethnographic methods is the ampunt of data that is produced and the amount of subsequent analysis needed. Nayak’s research could have possibly produced too much data which would have made it difficult to analyse. He “…recorded, transcribed and then thematically coded.” (Line 22) He needed to be skilled in the collection and analysis of this data collection so that the analysis and interpretation was as accurate as possible in order that the findings were not compromised. The use of mixed methods could be seen as an over complication and perhaps the use of a more simple method is more beneficial. When sociologists have to rely on memory, as Nayak did, this can lead to misrepresentations and the omission of key points. Positivists would criticise Nayak’s research as they would see it as unreliable. The use of semi-structured interviews and participant observation leads to biased and subjective findings as the researcher builds up a rapport with the respondents. Such a research method lacks generalisability and is not representative.
All research methods are subject to the guidelines set out by the British Sociological Association and this includes participant observation and semi-structured interviews. In the pre-released material Nayak’s research is clearly confidential as the identity of the participants has not been made known. It appears that Nayak has used pseudonyms e.g. Duane (line 46) and Cambo (line 47), which is something that sociologists often use to hide the identity of their respondents. Sociologists will often also sometimes need to go through a gatekeeper (as Nayak did in line 16) in order to access respondents for their participation in research such as semi-structured interviews. Participant observation is a method whereby ethical consideration may rear their head. It all depends on whether or not those being observed are aware (overt) or not (covert).
On the whole it seems that Nayak’s use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews were successful in researching masculine identity as he was able to access relevant groups and was able to uncover meaningful information that will help in the sociological understanding of such topic areas. Ethnographic research is a hugely valuable method as it allows the researcher to study a group in depth. This mixed method approach allowed him to cover many aspects of the participants’ lives from their social lives to the impact of local history- meaning he could create a rich, detailed analysis.
Hope this helps
Using the pre-released material and you wider sociological knowledge, explain and evaluate the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews in order to research masculine identity.
Participant observation involves the researcher joining the world of those they are studying. Semi-structured interviews enable the researcher to get qualitative information on the opinions of the participants and so both techniques would be excellent for carrying out research on masculine identity. These methods were both selected by Nayak whose aim was to “examine how they (young working class men) reshaped a whole ‘way of life’ with the decline of traditional work and leisure lifestyles” (lines 3-4) in post-industrial areas. Furthermore, he also wanted to contrast the cultural habits of young men from traditional skilled working class backgrounds with those from families experiencing long-term unemployment. In order to achieve his aims he focused on their ‘going-out’ experiences as well as looking at aspects of their culture by using the methods of participant observation and semi-structured interviews.
Using a combination of semi-structured interviews and participant observations (as well as analysis of the local history) in order to explore masculinity among working class youths, Nayak conducted a mixed-method, ethnographic study on two groups: the ‘Real Geordies’ and the ‘Charvers’. Such methods are interpretivist in their nature. This is because these methods come under the qualitative approach to sociological research. Qualitative methods are more valid than quantitative ones as they allow more detailed information to be obtained as they seek a true picture of the research being undertaken, so that the views and opinions of those being researched are taken into account. In this case Nayak was attempting to explore the values, attitudes and practices of the young men in his research and so the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews are a highly suitable choice.
An advantage of using a combination of participant observation and semi-structured interviews (mixed methods) in Nayak’s research on masculinity was that it allowed him to build a rapport with his participants as he was studying them in both a formal and an informal context (inside and outside of school) e.g. “on one occasion he bumped into a group of ‘Real Geordie’ lads on a night out whom he had interviewed the week before” (lines 33-34). This would have produced more valid findings as they would have been more willing to open up and give him a true picture of what they thought about male culture and masculinity. A clear strength of the research is that “…categories emerged during the research” (lines 18-19) and this is often the case with such qualitative methods as the researcher is not constraining the respondents by putting a tight structure upon them. Therefore, this illustrates that choosing ethnographic methods will give a sociologist qualitative information on their chosen topic, regardless of whether it is on masculinity or something else.
When using participant observation and unstructured interviews in order to explore masculine identity, a range of different environments should be looked at. In Nayak’s research he attempted to carry out his research in a range of different locations; “…school, neighbourhood and city-centre sites – in Newcastle;” (line 10). This could be seen as a positive aspect as he was trying to explore masculinity in a range of situations that the participants were familiar with which would have allowed them to open up and relax. However, his research would have been more representative and generalisable had he widened his choice and possibly looked at other cities beyond Newcastle – perhaps even in different parts of the UK. Nevertheless, using methods such as participant observation allowed Nayak to gather more in depth data than he would have gained through interviews alone or the use of an alternative method. This illustrates that mixed methods were ideal in researching masculinity, when compared with a singular method of study. A further advantage of a mixed methods approach is that findings from all methods can be used in order to triangulate the findings.
There are however weaknesses with the use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Generally speaking one disadvantage of participant observation is that it is demanding in terms of both time and safety. For example, in Nayak’s research his observations during nights out involved unpredictable social interaction (line 33), leading to him being banned from a take-away. This shows that such a research method can mean that the researcher is put in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the use of participant observation coupled with semi-structured interviews meant that the research can be costly in terms of both time and money. In the pre-released material, Nayak could have made it less time consuming by focusing on just observations in the school or nights out and not both. However, the method he did use gave him a wider range of data in order to meet his aims. A weakness of semi-structured interviews is that the researcher has less control over the direction the interview can take when compared with a structured one. However, the advantage of it being semi-structured is that there is some flexibility.
Using semi-structured interviews in a group setting could be problematic for various reasons. In Nayak’s research the participants may have skewed the findings through the ‘screw-you’ effect. This could be because the semi-structured interviews were carried out in group settings and the members may have been doing this on purpose in order to conform to the group dynamics. Alternatively, in group situations the respondents may give answers that they think the researcher wants, social desirability bias. Furthermore, when observing participants they may change their behaviour when they knew that they are being watched and so in the extract the ‘going-out’ (line 7) behaviour may have been subject to a Hawthorn Effect. However, this will clearly depend on whether the research is overt or covert.
Another problem with the use of ethnographic methods is the ampunt of data that is produced and the amount of subsequent analysis needed. Nayak’s research could have possibly produced too much data which would have made it difficult to analyse. He “…recorded, transcribed and then thematically coded.” (Line 22) He needed to be skilled in the collection and analysis of this data collection so that the analysis and interpretation was as accurate as possible in order that the findings were not compromised. The use of mixed methods could be seen as an over complication and perhaps the use of a more simple method is more beneficial. When sociologists have to rely on memory, as Nayak did, this can lead to misrepresentations and the omission of key points. Positivists would criticise Nayak’s research as they would see it as unreliable. The use of semi-structured interviews and participant observation leads to biased and subjective findings as the researcher builds up a rapport with the respondents. Such a research method lacks generalisability and is not representative.
All research methods are subject to the guidelines set out by the British Sociological Association and this includes participant observation and semi-structured interviews. In the pre-released material Nayak’s research is clearly confidential as the identity of the participants has not been made known. It appears that Nayak has used pseudonyms e.g. Duane (line 46) and Cambo (line 47), which is something that sociologists often use to hide the identity of their respondents. Sociologists will often also sometimes need to go through a gatekeeper (as Nayak did in line 16) in order to access respondents for their participation in research such as semi-structured interviews. Participant observation is a method whereby ethical consideration may rear their head. It all depends on whether or not those being observed are aware (overt) or not (covert).
On the whole it seems that Nayak’s use of participant observation and semi-structured interviews were successful in researching masculine identity as he was able to access relevant groups and was able to uncover meaningful information that will help in the sociological understanding of such topic areas. Ethnographic research is a hugely valuable method as it allows the researcher to study a group in depth. This mixed method approach allowed him to cover many aspects of the participants’ lives from their social lives to the impact of local history- meaning he could create a rich, detailed analysis.
Hope this helps
Does anyone know the grade boundaries for this exam?
i believe last year it was 76 for an A 66 for a B? but i think that was a bit high. usually its around 64-65 for a B and 74-75 for an A. But you need to aim for 80 for an A for it to carry over next year as an A still.
I have just timed myself 40 mins to do a question regarding the PRM. Also, please someone tell me.. how will the question affect the answer? as whatever the question.. you still have to obide by the structure. i.e- aim,sampling,qualitative vs quantitative,representiveness etc, ? am i wrong.
please take a look at my work and tell me what you would grade it, and what i could habe included. thanks
Nayak – PRM material.
Firstly, I shall begin by stating the aim of Nayaks study. Nayak is a researcher in which studied the values and attitudes of the two social groups of working class men, referred to as “The Charvers” and “The Real Geordies” This could be associated with ethnography (Study on a specific group) Likewise to another researcher called Claire Alexandra who also used an ethnographic approach to retrieve finding regarding her study(“The Art Of Being Black”)
Nayak had used qualitative data to thematically code his findings. Qualitative data consists of textual format used to retrieve true, rich and in depth data. Qualitative data is favoured by interpretivists as it is said to give a true picture of social life. The main founder of interpretivim is Max Weber in which came up with “Verstehen”, this relates to empathy, being in someone’s shoes and having a vivid insight regarding how somebody else feels. The reason for why quanitative approaches(consists of numerical format, favoured by positivists and main finder is Derkheim and gives reliability)couldn’t have been used is because it wouldn’t have given him validity due to quantitative data having a structure, therefore it wouldn’t have allowed participants to lead the conversation.(Lacking flexibility).
Positivists compare quantitative data to science, related to the “cause and effect”, an example of this would be structured interviews, which give you reliable findings which could be generalised into making laws. Interpretists argue against this suggesting that you cannot possibly compare individualsto science.
Nayak had used semi-structured interviews and participant observations to conduct his qualitative findings. Semi-structured interviews were used to retrieve information regarding the values and attitudes of the “Real Geordies”, this was done by asking them questions within a group, within their school premises. This raises questions in regard to whether participants may have told the truth as they may have lied just to fit in(Social desirability). However, a positive aspect of semi-structured interviews is that it does involve some sort of structure, therefore raises the reliability in the slightest way. Furthermore, participant observations were used to observe the Charvers during their “chip fight”, this is a good way to get a clear insight of what is going on. However, participants may behave differently due to being aware that Nayak was observing them. (Over technique) Questions in regard to whether Nayak should have been covert.(Participants unaware that a researcher is observing) However, this would have been deceitful for the participants.
Now I shall be talking about the sampling. To measure Nayaks representiveness, one has to question whether Nayaks approaches are representative enough in order to be generalised. It is more easier to generalise quantitative data rather than qualitative data as quantitative data is made up of numerical format which will also give you reliability. Whereas qualitative data does not give you reliability meaning that it cannot possibly generalised as the same findings are not likely to occur when the approach is repeated, plus it is time consuming so it is also done on less people. Nayak had only used qualitative methods so therefore decreases its representiveness.(Likewise to the researcher Charlesworth who also only used qualitative approaches)
Plus, Nayak only conducted his research on working class males, so cannot be applied to females. (Charlesworth involved both males and females within his study). Also, instead of Nayak just conducting his research within one area(Newcastle) he could have went to other post-industrial areas and then contrast his findings, seeing if the environment had an impact on results.
Now I shall be focusing on methodological pluralism which refers to more than one method to obtain answers. Nayak had used both semi-structured and participant observations so therefore this applys to him. Methodological pluralism allows a true picture of social life to be obtained regarding the “how and why” – more comprehensive.
Triangulation also plays a role within methodological pluralism. This refers to verifying the validity and validity of findings(cross-check and combines) however, Nayak had only used qualitative data so therefore cannot possibly be triangulated. Nayak could have used structured interviews instead of semi-structured, so atleast that way his results could be triangulated. Triangulation breaks the qualitative and quantitative divide via the combination of both methods coming together to verify findings.
Lastly, I shall be talking about ethics. Line 49 within the PRM states the name “Spencer”, this is breaking confidentiality as Spencer may not have given Nayak permission to do so. Futhermore, the fact that Nayak had gotten permission from the gatekeepers to enter the school premises is obeying by rules, so for that Nayak is respecting the school premises. Also, findings of Nayak may also be subjective due to how he chooses to interpret them, as the unstructure of the approaches may have lead Nayak into getting too close to the participants via social interaction therefore may affect results.
Nayak had thematically coded his findings and recorded all within diaries, this is good as Charlesworth relied on memory call to do so therefore he may have forgotten information by the time he had written it all down.
Nayak had suggested that the economy of New Caste(Being an urban area) had changed as it is now a party bases economy, this could possibly be related to a crisis in masculinity(Mac and Ghail) as within the PRM it suggests that it is a “feminised economy”, this could also be associated with postmodernism as it is all about choice, so therefore people are free to do whatever they wish to do.. (Party, not party, work, not work) choices, choices.
please take a look at my work and tell me what you would grade it, and what i could habe included. thanks
Nayak – PRM material.
Firstly, I shall begin by stating the aim of Nayaks study. Nayak is a researcher in which studied the values and attitudes of the two social groups of working class men, referred to as “The Charvers” and “The Real Geordies” This could be associated with ethnography (Study on a specific group) Likewise to another researcher called Claire Alexandra who also used an ethnographic approach to retrieve finding regarding her study(“The Art Of Being Black”)
Nayak had used qualitative data to thematically code his findings. Qualitative data consists of textual format used to retrieve true, rich and in depth data. Qualitative data is favoured by interpretivists as it is said to give a true picture of social life. The main founder of interpretivim is Max Weber in which came up with “Verstehen”, this relates to empathy, being in someone’s shoes and having a vivid insight regarding how somebody else feels. The reason for why quanitative approaches(consists of numerical format, favoured by positivists and main finder is Derkheim and gives reliability)couldn’t have been used is because it wouldn’t have given him validity due to quantitative data having a structure, therefore it wouldn’t have allowed participants to lead the conversation.(Lacking flexibility).
Positivists compare quantitative data to science, related to the “cause and effect”, an example of this would be structured interviews, which give you reliable findings which could be generalised into making laws. Interpretists argue against this suggesting that you cannot possibly compare individualsto science.
Nayak had used semi-structured interviews and participant observations to conduct his qualitative findings. Semi-structured interviews were used to retrieve information regarding the values and attitudes of the “Real Geordies”, this was done by asking them questions within a group, within their school premises. This raises questions in regard to whether participants may have told the truth as they may have lied just to fit in(Social desirability). However, a positive aspect of semi-structured interviews is that it does involve some sort of structure, therefore raises the reliability in the slightest way. Furthermore, participant observations were used to observe the Charvers during their “chip fight”, this is a good way to get a clear insight of what is going on. However, participants may behave differently due to being aware that Nayak was observing them. (Over technique) Questions in regard to whether Nayak should have been covert.(Participants unaware that a researcher is observing) However, this would have been deceitful for the participants.
Now I shall be talking about the sampling. To measure Nayaks representiveness, one has to question whether Nayaks approaches are representative enough in order to be generalised. It is more easier to generalise quantitative data rather than qualitative data as quantitative data is made up of numerical format which will also give you reliability. Whereas qualitative data does not give you reliability meaning that it cannot possibly generalised as the same findings are not likely to occur when the approach is repeated, plus it is time consuming so it is also done on less people. Nayak had only used qualitative methods so therefore decreases its representiveness.(Likewise to the researcher Charlesworth who also only used qualitative approaches)
Plus, Nayak only conducted his research on working class males, so cannot be applied to females. (Charlesworth involved both males and females within his study). Also, instead of Nayak just conducting his research within one area(Newcastle) he could have went to other post-industrial areas and then contrast his findings, seeing if the environment had an impact on results.
Now I shall be focusing on methodological pluralism which refers to more than one method to obtain answers. Nayak had used both semi-structured and participant observations so therefore this applys to him. Methodological pluralism allows a true picture of social life to be obtained regarding the “how and why” – more comprehensive.
Triangulation also plays a role within methodological pluralism. This refers to verifying the validity and validity of findings(cross-check and combines) however, Nayak had only used qualitative data so therefore cannot possibly be triangulated. Nayak could have used structured interviews instead of semi-structured, so atleast that way his results could be triangulated. Triangulation breaks the qualitative and quantitative divide via the combination of both methods coming together to verify findings.
Lastly, I shall be talking about ethics. Line 49 within the PRM states the name “Spencer”, this is breaking confidentiality as Spencer may not have given Nayak permission to do so. Futhermore, the fact that Nayak had gotten permission from the gatekeepers to enter the school premises is obeying by rules, so for that Nayak is respecting the school premises. Also, findings of Nayak may also be subjective due to how he chooses to interpret them, as the unstructure of the approaches may have lead Nayak into getting too close to the participants via social interaction therefore may affect results.
Nayak had thematically coded his findings and recorded all within diaries, this is good as Charlesworth relied on memory call to do so therefore he may have forgotten information by the time he had written it all down.
Nayak had suggested that the economy of New Caste(Being an urban area) had changed as it is now a party bases economy, this could possibly be related to a crisis in masculinity(Mac and Ghail) as within the PRM it suggests that it is a “feminised economy”, this could also be associated with postmodernism as it is all about choice, so therefore people are free to do whatever they wish to do.. (Party, not party, work, not work) choices, choices.
Original post by hiya292
I have just timed myself 40 mins to do a question regarding the PRM. Also, please someone tell me.. how will the question affect the answer? as whatever the question.. you still have to obide by the structure. i.e- aim,sampling,qualitative vs quantitative,representiveness etc, ? am i wrong.
please take a look at my work and tell me what you would grade it, and what i could habe included. thanks
Nayak – PRM material.
Firstly, I shall begin by stating the aim of Nayaks study. Nayak is a researcher in which studied the values and attitudes of the two social groups of working class men, referred to as “The Charvers” and “The Real Geordies” This could be associated with ethnography (Study on a specific group) Likewise to another researcher called Claire Alexandra who also used an ethnographic approach to retrieve finding regarding her study(“The Art Of Being Black”)
Nayak had used qualitative data to thematically code his findings. Qualitative data consists of textual format used to retrieve true, rich and in depth data. Qualitative data is favoured by interpretivists as it is said to give a true picture of social life. The main founder of interpretivim is Max Weber in which came up with “Verstehen”, this relates to empathy, being in someone’s shoes and having a vivid insight regarding how somebody else feels. The reason for why quanitative approaches(consists of numerical format, favoured by positivists and main finder is Derkheim and gives reliability)couldn’t have been used is because it wouldn’t have given him validity due to quantitative data having a structure, therefore it wouldn’t have allowed participants to lead the conversation.(Lacking flexibility).
Positivists compare quantitative data to science, related to the “cause and effect”, an example of this would be structured interviews, which give you reliable findings which could be generalised into making laws. Interpretists argue against this suggesting that you cannot possibly compare individualsto science.
Nayak had used semi-structured interviews and participant observations to conduct his qualitative findings. Semi-structured interviews were used to retrieve information regarding the values and attitudes of the “Real Geordies”, this was done by asking them questions within a group, within their school premises. This raises questions in regard to whether participants may have told the truth as they may have lied just to fit in(Social desirability). However, a positive aspect of semi-structured interviews is that it does involve some sort of structure, therefore raises the reliability in the slightest way. Furthermore, participant observations were used to observe the Charvers during their “chip fight”, this is a good way to get a clear insight of what is going on. However, participants may behave differently due to being aware that Nayak was observing them. (Over technique) Questions in regard to whether Nayak should have been covert.(Participants unaware that a researcher is observing) However, this would have been deceitful for the participants.
Now I shall be talking about the sampling. To measure Nayaks representiveness, one has to question whether Nayaks approaches are representative enough in order to be generalised. It is more easier to generalise quantitative data rather than qualitative data as quantitative data is made up of numerical format which will also give you reliability. Whereas qualitative data does not give you reliability meaning that it cannot possibly generalised as the same findings are not likely to occur when the approach is repeated, plus it is time consuming so it is also done on less people. Nayak had only used qualitative methods so therefore decreases its representiveness.(Likewise to the researcher Charlesworth who also only used qualitative approaches)
Plus, Nayak only conducted his research on working class males, so cannot be applied to females. (Charlesworth involved both males and females within his study). Also, instead of Nayak just conducting his research within one area(Newcastle) he could have went to other post-industrial areas and then contrast his findings, seeing if the environment had an impact on results.
Now I shall be focusing on methodological pluralism which refers to more than one method to obtain answers. Nayak had used both semi-structured and participant observations so therefore this applys to him. Methodological pluralism allows a true picture of social life to be obtained regarding the “how and why” – more comprehensive.
Triangulation also plays a role within methodological pluralism. This refers to verifying the validity and validity of findings(cross-check and combines) however, Nayak had only used qualitative data so therefore cannot possibly be triangulated. Nayak could have used structured interviews instead of semi-structured, so atleast that way his results could be triangulated. Triangulation breaks the qualitative and quantitative divide via the combination of both methods coming together to verify findings.
Lastly, I shall be talking about ethics. Line 49 within the PRM states the name “Spencer”, this is breaking confidentiality as Spencer may not have given Nayak permission to do so. Futhermore, the fact that Nayak had gotten permission from the gatekeepers to enter the school premises is obeying by rules, so for that Nayak is respecting the school premises. Also, findings of Nayak may also be subjective due to how he chooses to interpret them, as the unstructure of the approaches may have lead Nayak into getting too close to the participants via social interaction therefore may affect results.
Nayak had thematically coded his findings and recorded all within diaries, this is good as Charlesworth relied on memory call to do so therefore he may have forgotten information by the time he had written it all down.
Nayak had suggested that the economy of New Caste(Being an urban area) had changed as it is now a party bases economy, this could possibly be related to a crisis in masculinity(Mac and Ghail) as within the PRM it suggests that it is a “feminised economy”, this could also be associated with postmodernism as it is all about choice, so therefore people are free to do whatever they wish to do.. (Party, not party, work, not work) choices, choices.
please take a look at my work and tell me what you would grade it, and what i could habe included. thanks
Nayak – PRM material.
Firstly, I shall begin by stating the aim of Nayaks study. Nayak is a researcher in which studied the values and attitudes of the two social groups of working class men, referred to as “The Charvers” and “The Real Geordies” This could be associated with ethnography (Study on a specific group) Likewise to another researcher called Claire Alexandra who also used an ethnographic approach to retrieve finding regarding her study(“The Art Of Being Black”)
Nayak had used qualitative data to thematically code his findings. Qualitative data consists of textual format used to retrieve true, rich and in depth data. Qualitative data is favoured by interpretivists as it is said to give a true picture of social life. The main founder of interpretivim is Max Weber in which came up with “Verstehen”, this relates to empathy, being in someone’s shoes and having a vivid insight regarding how somebody else feels. The reason for why quanitative approaches(consists of numerical format, favoured by positivists and main finder is Derkheim and gives reliability)couldn’t have been used is because it wouldn’t have given him validity due to quantitative data having a structure, therefore it wouldn’t have allowed participants to lead the conversation.(Lacking flexibility).
Positivists compare quantitative data to science, related to the “cause and effect”, an example of this would be structured interviews, which give you reliable findings which could be generalised into making laws. Interpretists argue against this suggesting that you cannot possibly compare individualsto science.
Nayak had used semi-structured interviews and participant observations to conduct his qualitative findings. Semi-structured interviews were used to retrieve information regarding the values and attitudes of the “Real Geordies”, this was done by asking them questions within a group, within their school premises. This raises questions in regard to whether participants may have told the truth as they may have lied just to fit in(Social desirability). However, a positive aspect of semi-structured interviews is that it does involve some sort of structure, therefore raises the reliability in the slightest way. Furthermore, participant observations were used to observe the Charvers during their “chip fight”, this is a good way to get a clear insight of what is going on. However, participants may behave differently due to being aware that Nayak was observing them. (Over technique) Questions in regard to whether Nayak should have been covert.(Participants unaware that a researcher is observing) However, this would have been deceitful for the participants.
Now I shall be talking about the sampling. To measure Nayaks representiveness, one has to question whether Nayaks approaches are representative enough in order to be generalised. It is more easier to generalise quantitative data rather than qualitative data as quantitative data is made up of numerical format which will also give you reliability. Whereas qualitative data does not give you reliability meaning that it cannot possibly generalised as the same findings are not likely to occur when the approach is repeated, plus it is time consuming so it is also done on less people. Nayak had only used qualitative methods so therefore decreases its representiveness.(Likewise to the researcher Charlesworth who also only used qualitative approaches)
Plus, Nayak only conducted his research on working class males, so cannot be applied to females. (Charlesworth involved both males and females within his study). Also, instead of Nayak just conducting his research within one area(Newcastle) he could have went to other post-industrial areas and then contrast his findings, seeing if the environment had an impact on results.
Now I shall be focusing on methodological pluralism which refers to more than one method to obtain answers. Nayak had used both semi-structured and participant observations so therefore this applys to him. Methodological pluralism allows a true picture of social life to be obtained regarding the “how and why” – more comprehensive.
Triangulation also plays a role within methodological pluralism. This refers to verifying the validity and validity of findings(cross-check and combines) however, Nayak had only used qualitative data so therefore cannot possibly be triangulated. Nayak could have used structured interviews instead of semi-structured, so atleast that way his results could be triangulated. Triangulation breaks the qualitative and quantitative divide via the combination of both methods coming together to verify findings.
Lastly, I shall be talking about ethics. Line 49 within the PRM states the name “Spencer”, this is breaking confidentiality as Spencer may not have given Nayak permission to do so. Futhermore, the fact that Nayak had gotten permission from the gatekeepers to enter the school premises is obeying by rules, so for that Nayak is respecting the school premises. Also, findings of Nayak may also be subjective due to how he chooses to interpret them, as the unstructure of the approaches may have lead Nayak into getting too close to the participants via social interaction therefore may affect results.
Nayak had thematically coded his findings and recorded all within diaries, this is good as Charlesworth relied on memory call to do so therefore he may have forgotten information by the time he had written it all down.
Nayak had suggested that the economy of New Caste(Being an urban area) had changed as it is now a party bases economy, this could possibly be related to a crisis in masculinity(Mac and Ghail) as within the PRM it suggests that it is a “feminised economy”, this could also be associated with postmodernism as it is all about choice, so therefore people are free to do whatever they wish to do.. (Party, not party, work, not work) choices, choices.
you can use the model answer in the exam and get atleast 38/40 marks....
my prm answer has everything like participant observation / semi strcutured interviews / interprativisits approach / acess / validity / ethics / positivits crisitism and then the conculsion
Original post by the_sociology_scholar
Using the pre-release material and your wider sociological knowledge, explain and evaluate the use of ethnography as a method of researching identity.
In his study Nayak Anoop attempts to use ethnography as a means of researching the identity of young men in a post-industrial setting with a view to discovering whether these young men perceive their masculine and class identities differently to traditional working-class males. Ethnographic studies often use participant observation and some form of interview in order to unearth rich qualitative data which is high in ecological validity. This means that the researcher engaging in ethnographic research aims to gain a holistic and very accurate picture of the situation that their subjects exist in. Also, as researchers using ethnography often stress the strength of ecological validity of the results they discover, many ethnographers seek to immerse themselves completely in the culture of those that they are studying. Ethnography as a method is therefore most commonly used by anthropologists, or sociologists who are interested in researching other cultures that might be very different to their own. Margaret Mead, for example, in researching used this method when researching Samoan attitudes to “coming of age”- ethnographies therefore are also usually longitudinal in nature- this means that they are very time-consuming as it might take an outsider a long period of time to establish the trust or verstehen which encourages those being studied to “open up” and provide the researcher with qualitative data high in validity. The length of the study does raise the practical issue of cost, but to a researcher engaged in ethnographic research, the validity (or accuracy) of the results being collected is of paramount importance.
Nayak begins his ethnographic study by first establishing that he wishes to study the “whole way of life” of working-class young men in an area where the traditional sources of working class identity (which is working in an industrial setting) has largely disappeared. Nayak would therefore have needed to first operationalize what he meant by “whole way of life”. Nayak needs to establish some measure of sociological objectivity to his research by making sure that those wishing to access his research understand his research parameters exactly. What Nayak means by “whole way of life” becomes clearer as we are told, in the pre-release material (PRM), the extent to which Nayak spends time with the subjects of his research- even going so far as to go out with the young men on their weekend drinking sessions. Although Nayak fails to operationalize what he means by “young men” from the activities that they engage in, it seems as though these young men are in their late teens. Although it does seem at this point that Nayak has made a huge effort to establish the potential ecological validity of his research, primarily he might have been taken time to establish exactly what he hopes to discover and therefore increase the reliability of the study so that future researchers might be able to repeat his work. However, reliability as an element often suffers when a researcher undertakes an ethnography as the emphasis will always be on the validity of the results rather than the reliability of the methods.
Nayak collects his sample from two schools, after requesting permission from the Heads who act as gatekeepers. His sample consists of a “high proportion of working class youngsters” from the two schools and from a local estate where he has set up house. The strength of the ethnographic study is again demonstrated here- Nayak was able to persuade two groups of young men, some of whom seldom attended school, to let him observe and interview them as they seem to have trusted him because of his willingness to live on a tough estate. The two groups are referred to as the “Real Geordies” and “the Charver kids”. Although we are not told anything about the size of these two groups and therefore about the size of the sample, it seems that as far as the purpose of the ethnography is concerned Nayak did manage to establish a high level of verstehen with the two groups even going as far as being implicated in a “chip fight” with one of the groups! Although it seems from the PRM that Nayak might have paid more attention to establishing the representativeness of his sample with a view to making the results he gains generalizable, the lack of generalizability of ethnographic studies is commonplace. Nayak’s study, as it lacks generalizability can therefore only be said to present a true picture for working class males in Newcastle. Claire Alexander’s ethnographic study of black British males attempting to establish a hybrid identity in London encounters the same issues of generalizability and can therefore only be applied to London
As far as the methods selected by Nayak in conducting his ethnography are concerned, the need to establish a high level of ecological validity through first establishing a high level of verstehen with the sample obviously means that the reliability of the methods chosen is going to be very low. However, Nayak has chosen to use semi-structured interviews as the first of his methods. Although we are not given a list of the questions that Nayak used when asking his sample subjects about “their values and attitudes” and “their leisure time activities” it does seem that Nayak did acknowledge the need to establish at least some reliability by choosing this method as future researchers could at least have seen the questions Nayak used and might be able to copy them. However, the PRM goes on to state that Nayak was “keen to follow the interests of the… respondents” meaning that he gave his interviewees free reign to discuss what they wanted. Again, Nayak has attempted the validity of his results over more objective concerns that might be held by positivist sociologists who may be more interested in adopting a scientific approach to this study. The second primary method which Nayak uses is overt participant observation. As the observation is “overt”, meaning the subjects know what Nayak is doing, it seems as though he still managed to gain a valid picture of their attitudes and behaviour as they are comfortable enough around him to include him in a playful chip fight! It certainly seems therefore that Nayak’s results are not tainted by the observer or Hawthorn effect which is a common disadvantage of conducting overt observation.
Nayak’s results are therefore very valid, presenting a true and accurate picture of how the young men he studied perceive working class and masculine identity. Both the “Real Geordies” and the “Charvers” are willing to engage Nayak in frank conversation about “sexual anecdotes and random acts of violence”. This leads us to believe that Nayak might have broken down any barriers that he might have faced (perhaps by being from a different social background himself) and eventually produced a study rich in ecological validity.
Nayak concludes that traditional ideas of what it means to be a man or working class die hard and still exist for the young men in his study. Nayak’s ethnographic approach, although not at all reliable, has been very successful in achieving its aims of establishing that traditional sources of identity remain strong and are difficult to displace.
In his study Nayak Anoop attempts to use ethnography as a means of researching the identity of young men in a post-industrial setting with a view to discovering whether these young men perceive their masculine and class identities differently to traditional working-class males. Ethnographic studies often use participant observation and some form of interview in order to unearth rich qualitative data which is high in ecological validity. This means that the researcher engaging in ethnographic research aims to gain a holistic and very accurate picture of the situation that their subjects exist in. Also, as researchers using ethnography often stress the strength of ecological validity of the results they discover, many ethnographers seek to immerse themselves completely in the culture of those that they are studying. Ethnography as a method is therefore most commonly used by anthropologists, or sociologists who are interested in researching other cultures that might be very different to their own. Margaret Mead, for example, in researching used this method when researching Samoan attitudes to “coming of age”- ethnographies therefore are also usually longitudinal in nature- this means that they are very time-consuming as it might take an outsider a long period of time to establish the trust or verstehen which encourages those being studied to “open up” and provide the researcher with qualitative data high in validity. The length of the study does raise the practical issue of cost, but to a researcher engaged in ethnographic research, the validity (or accuracy) of the results being collected is of paramount importance.
Nayak begins his ethnographic study by first establishing that he wishes to study the “whole way of life” of working-class young men in an area where the traditional sources of working class identity (which is working in an industrial setting) has largely disappeared. Nayak would therefore have needed to first operationalize what he meant by “whole way of life”. Nayak needs to establish some measure of sociological objectivity to his research by making sure that those wishing to access his research understand his research parameters exactly. What Nayak means by “whole way of life” becomes clearer as we are told, in the pre-release material (PRM), the extent to which Nayak spends time with the subjects of his research- even going so far as to go out with the young men on their weekend drinking sessions. Although Nayak fails to operationalize what he means by “young men” from the activities that they engage in, it seems as though these young men are in their late teens. Although it does seem at this point that Nayak has made a huge effort to establish the potential ecological validity of his research, primarily he might have been taken time to establish exactly what he hopes to discover and therefore increase the reliability of the study so that future researchers might be able to repeat his work. However, reliability as an element often suffers when a researcher undertakes an ethnography as the emphasis will always be on the validity of the results rather than the reliability of the methods.
Nayak collects his sample from two schools, after requesting permission from the Heads who act as gatekeepers. His sample consists of a “high proportion of working class youngsters” from the two schools and from a local estate where he has set up house. The strength of the ethnographic study is again demonstrated here- Nayak was able to persuade two groups of young men, some of whom seldom attended school, to let him observe and interview them as they seem to have trusted him because of his willingness to live on a tough estate. The two groups are referred to as the “Real Geordies” and “the Charver kids”. Although we are not told anything about the size of these two groups and therefore about the size of the sample, it seems that as far as the purpose of the ethnography is concerned Nayak did manage to establish a high level of verstehen with the two groups even going as far as being implicated in a “chip fight” with one of the groups! Although it seems from the PRM that Nayak might have paid more attention to establishing the representativeness of his sample with a view to making the results he gains generalizable, the lack of generalizability of ethnographic studies is commonplace. Nayak’s study, as it lacks generalizability can therefore only be said to present a true picture for working class males in Newcastle. Claire Alexander’s ethnographic study of black British males attempting to establish a hybrid identity in London encounters the same issues of generalizability and can therefore only be applied to London
As far as the methods selected by Nayak in conducting his ethnography are concerned, the need to establish a high level of ecological validity through first establishing a high level of verstehen with the sample obviously means that the reliability of the methods chosen is going to be very low. However, Nayak has chosen to use semi-structured interviews as the first of his methods. Although we are not given a list of the questions that Nayak used when asking his sample subjects about “their values and attitudes” and “their leisure time activities” it does seem that Nayak did acknowledge the need to establish at least some reliability by choosing this method as future researchers could at least have seen the questions Nayak used and might be able to copy them. However, the PRM goes on to state that Nayak was “keen to follow the interests of the… respondents” meaning that he gave his interviewees free reign to discuss what they wanted. Again, Nayak has attempted the validity of his results over more objective concerns that might be held by positivist sociologists who may be more interested in adopting a scientific approach to this study. The second primary method which Nayak uses is overt participant observation. As the observation is “overt”, meaning the subjects know what Nayak is doing, it seems as though he still managed to gain a valid picture of their attitudes and behaviour as they are comfortable enough around him to include him in a playful chip fight! It certainly seems therefore that Nayak’s results are not tainted by the observer or Hawthorn effect which is a common disadvantage of conducting overt observation.
Nayak’s results are therefore very valid, presenting a true and accurate picture of how the young men he studied perceive working class and masculine identity. Both the “Real Geordies” and the “Charvers” are willing to engage Nayak in frank conversation about “sexual anecdotes and random acts of violence”. This leads us to believe that Nayak might have broken down any barriers that he might have faced (perhaps by being from a different social background himself) and eventually produced a study rich in ecological validity.
Nayak concludes that traditional ideas of what it means to be a man or working class die hard and still exist for the young men in his study. Nayak’s ethnographic approach, although not at all reliable, has been very successful in achieving its aims of establishing that traditional sources of identity remain strong and are difficult to displace.
Are you sure the type of observation used is overt? My teachers seem to think it is covert as he uses memory recall and meets up with them outside of school aswell as the fact he too got thrown out of the chip shop. im struggling to grasp this
Original post by Steve Axford
Are you sure the type of observation used is overt? My teachers seem to think it is covert as he uses memory recall and meets up with them outside of school aswell as the fact he too got thrown out of the chip shop. im struggling to grasp this
my teacher said it was neither..
Original post by narli
my teacher said it was neither..
do you have a model answer for the prm thats different to the ones above? if so could i see it as im really struggling with structure and the ones iv seen dont seem to have a clear structure and they dont mention validity/reliability/representativeness/generalisabilty much
Anyone else think G671 is the worst sociology exam? i mean i focused so much on the pre release that ive neglected the other questions :/
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- What are the est art gcse themes
- chemistry
- GCSE Geography Study Group 2022-2023
- A Level OCR Salters Chemistry B
- Only answer if you’ve done these a level and exambaord
- BTEC Business Level 3 Unit 6 Principles of Management Pre-release
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 1 (H580/01) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Scared to apply for uni because of my GCSEs.
- Law or Politics-A level
- OCR A-Level Chemistry B Paper 1 (H433/01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR History A Level
- BTEC- Business Level 3 Revision help
- I am looking at my GCSE grades from 2017
- Edexcel A Level Business Paper 3 (9BS0 03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Computing science for GCSE
- adara's lil gyg journey 🤭
- A Level results day 2023
- Edexcel A level business 2023
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1150
Last reply 3 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
British Council English Language Assistants 2024/2025Last reply 7 minutes ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
University of Nottingham, For EconomicsLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Help with preparing for criminal pupillage advocacy exercise?Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 17 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 18 minutes ago
Edexcel A-level Spanish Paper 2 (9SP0 02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
159
Last reply 3 months ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
209
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
159
Last reply 3 months ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
209
