(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.