Original post by jhuk510The essay could ask about both at the same time, and ask you to compare them! Investigation 1 had no conclusion, it's secondary data was mostly irrelevant, and the questionnaire had ethical problems such as asking for a name, and then asking questions that were inappropriate for the researchers age, like asking if people do drugs or smoke (underage). By virtue of asking that question with those as answers, you have knowledge of crime that you aren't reporting, meaning you are breaking the law yourself. People are also unlikely to declare this since they have put their name to it (questioning the validity). Also, the responses were really narrow with no potential for 'other'. The questionnaire was poorly written with irrelevant questions, and it didn't specify units, so the amount could be per week or per month, and in pounds or pence (obviously we know it was pounds it still needs to be said).
The piece of data in Investigation 1 which was about asking parents how much pocket money they got (from mumsnet I think) had problems. Since mumsnet is most likely to have an audience of middle class women, it isn't representative of all people, and also the Mums on there will likely be trying to show off, by saying they got lots of pocket money, this questions the validity. Only one comment had a year attached to it, meaning that the data means nothing in relative scale because of inflation, £1 in 1960 was worth much more by 1980! This means that the buying power of the people was all different for the same amount of money!
You also will probably get a question about secondary data. This means you will HAVE to talk about how much of Investigation 1's data was "selected", meaning that the researcher is putting his own opinion on the research in his research, possibly trying to influence the result and prove his hypothesis right. Much of his secondary data was irrelevant, the aims weren't really met by it.
Investigation 2, obviously, was unethical as hell! You will have to know the ways something can be unethical! Also, like the source from Channel 5 was a poor choice because they sensationalise so much! This means that the source is probably invalid. The childline survey was mostly irrelevant, and his research was not only subjective, but also unreliable, and unethical. It was, however, likely to be valid.
Hope that helps, good luck tomorrow!