AQA GCSE Sociology (8192): Sociological research methods – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover section 3.7, Sociological research methods, of the AQA GCSE Sociology (8192) specification, Version 1.2 (June 2026), for GCSE exams 2019 onwards. Methods are not a separate paper: Paper 1 (The sociology of families and education) and Paper 2 (The sociology of crime and deviance and social stratification) both assess “relevant areas of social theory and methodology”. Each paper is 1 hour 45 minutes and 100 marks, and the specification says each section opens with two multiple choice questions followed by short and extended responses. The questions here practise the skills, not that exact layout.

Revise first with the study guide and the revision notes. Track the course on the AQA GCSE Sociology hub and the 8192 checklist. All places, people and data below are fictional.

Questions

1. Define the term “sampling frame”. [2]

2. Explain what is meant by a pilot study and give one reason a researcher might carry one out. [3]

3. Explain the difference between a quota sample and a snowball sample. [4]

4. Study the table. The data are fictional.

Year	Children registered as home educated with Calderwick council
2019	240
2021	410
2023	520
2025	600

(a) Describe the trend shown in the table. [2] (b) Calculate the percentage increase in registered home-educated children from 2019 to 2025. Show your working. [2] (c) Explain one reason why these figures may not show the true number of home-educated children in Calderwick. [2]

5. A researcher stopped adults in Harwick town centre between 10am and noon on a Tuesday. She asked 250 people how far they agreed that “housework should be shared equally between partners”. The data are fictional.

Response	Number of people
Strongly agree	95
Agree	80
Neither agree nor disagree	35
Disagree	25
Strongly disagree	15
Total	250

(a) Calculate the percentage of people who agreed or strongly agreed. Show your working. [2] (b) Explain one reason why this sample may be unrepresentative of adults in Harwick. [2] (c) Explain one weakness of using this attitude survey to find out how couples in Harwick actually divide housework. [2]

6. A sociologist wants to study how parents in Ashby Vale choose a secondary school. Explain one advantage and one disadvantage of using focus groups for this research. [4]

7. Explain one strength and one limitation of using official statistics on school exclusions as a secondary source. [4]

8. A 45-year-old researcher plans covert participant observation of the Thornbridge Riders, a group of 16 to 19-year-olds who meet at a skate park in the evenings. Identify and explain two practical issues she may face. [4]

9. A researcher plans unstructured interviews with 14 and 15-year-old pupils in Kelsey who have been excluded from school. Explain how she could address each of the three ethical issues named in the specification. [6]

10. Discuss how far a mixed methods approach overcomes the weaknesses of using a single research method. [8]

11. Evaluate the usefulness of questionnaires for studying poverty. [12]

12. A sociologist wants to find out whether couples in which both partners work full time share housework more equally than other couples. Describe and explain how you would design this research, justifying your choices. [12]

Answers

1. A list of all the members of the population being studied [1], from which the sample is selected [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “a list of people” alone is too vague; link it to the population and to choosing the sample.

2. A small-scale trial run of the research [1], carried out before the main study [1]. Reason: to find confusing or leading questions so they can be reworded before money and time are spent on the full study [1]. [3] Examiner insight: the reason mark needs a specific problem a pilot finds, not “to check it works”.

3. In a quota sample, the population is divided into groups such as age or gender [1] and the researcher selects set numbers from each group to match the population’s proportions [1]. In a snowball sample, the researcher starts with one or a few participants [1] who then introduce others from their own networks, which suits hidden groups with no sampling frame [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “explain the difference” needs both methods described; two marks are lost if one is only implied.

4. (a) The number rose in every period, from 240 in 2019 to 600 in 2025 [1]. Each rise was smaller than the one before: up 170, then 110, then 80 [1]. [2] (b) (600 - 240) / 240 x 100 [1] = 150% [1]. [2] (c) The figures count only children the council knows about [1]; families who never registered would be missing, so the true number could be higher [1]. (Also credit: a change in how the council records cases could change the figures without any real change.) [2] Examiner insight: trend marks need quoted figures with units; “it went up” without numbers rarely gains both marks.

5. (a) 95 + 80 = 175 [1]; 175 / 250 x 100 = 70% [1]. [2] (b) Adults in full-time work are unlikely to be in the town centre on a weekday morning [1], so their views are under-represented and the results cannot be generalised to all adults in Harwick [1]. [2] (c) It measures what people think should happen, not what they actually do at home [1]; people may also give the socially acceptable answer, so the data may lack validity as a picture of real behaviour [1]. [2] Examiner insight: in (b) use the scenario’s details (time, day, place); a general point about “small samples” gains little.

6. Advantage: parents discussing together may reveal shared concerns, such as league tables or catchment areas, in their own words [1], and show how parents influence each other’s choices in Ashby Vale [1]. Disadvantage: confident parents who know the admissions system may dominate the discussion [1], so the views of quieter parents are missed and the findings may not represent all parents [1]. [4] Examiner insight: each half needs a point plus its effect on the research; listing “cheap” and “biased” without explanation scores one mark at most.

7. Strength: they are collected regularly by government across the country [1], so trends over time and differences between groups such as boys and girls can be shown quickly and cheaply [1]. Limitation: they show how many pupils were excluded but not why [1], and they depend on schools’ decisions, so they may reflect teachers’ labelling as much as pupils’ behaviour [1]. [4] Examiner insight: say why the limitation matters for a sociologist’s research, not only that the figures “may be wrong”.

8. Access [1]: at 45 she cannot pass as a member of a group of teenagers, and the group may refuse her or stop meeting if suspicious [1]. Time [1]: gaining trust may take months of evening visits, which are hard to fit around other work, and she cannot write notes openly while covert [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “identify and explain” means name the issue and then tie it to the case: her age, the evening meetings, the covert role.

9. Consent: explain the aims and get informed consent from each pupil [1], plus consent from a parent or guardian because they are under 16, making clear they can withdraw at any time [1]. Confidentiality: use pseudonyms and do not name the school [1]; store recordings securely and delete them when the study ends [1]. Harm: questions about exclusion could cause distress or stigma [1], so let pupils stop at any point, avoid pressing on painful topics and give details of support, such as a school counsellor [1]. [6] Examiner insight: each issue needs a “how” for this group of pupils; naming consent, confidentiality and harm without a solution gains little.

10. Model points (indicative; the real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point):

• Mixed methods combines quantitative and qualitative methods in one study [1].
• Example: a questionnaire to find how many couples in a town divorced for given reasons, then interviews to explore why [1].
• Quantitative data give reliability and comparison; qualitative data add validity and meaning, so each covers the other’s weakness [1].
• Results from two methods can be compared to check they agree, which is triangulation [1].
• However, it takes more time and money than one method [1].
• Results may clash, and the researcher must decide which to trust [1].
• Some weaknesses remain: if the sample is unrepresentative, both methods share that problem [1].
• Judgement: it reduces but does not remove weaknesses; it is most useful when the research question asks both “how many” and “why” [1]. [8] Examiner insight: “discuss how far” needs points on both sides and a judgement that answers “how far”, not a list of strengths.

11. Model points (indicative; levels of response apply in the real exam):

• Questionnaires are written lists of questions, often closed, answered by respondents [1].
• Townsend issued questionnaires to over 2,000 households and more than 6,000 individuals across the UK [1].
• A large sample allows findings on the extent of poverty to be generalised [1].
• Closed questions produce comparable data; Townsend scored every household on a deprivation index [1].
• Anonymity may help people answer honestly about money, which can feel embarrassing [1].
• The definition used shapes the result: Townsend found more than 22% in poverty on his measure, against just over 6% on the state standard [1].
• However, validity can be weak: critics said some index items, such as not eating fresh meat, may show choice, not poverty [1].
• Closed questions cannot capture what poverty feels like, such as shame or stress [1].
• The poorest groups, such as people without a fixed address, may be missing from the sampling frame [1].
• Low literacy or low response rates may under-represent those in poverty [1].
• Unstructured interviews would give depth; official statistics on benefit claims are cheaper but use the state’s definition [1].
• Judgement: questionnaires are very useful for measuring the extent of poverty but less useful for its experience, so a mixed methods design is stronger [1]. [12] Examiner insight: evaluation marks come from judging the method against the topic (poverty), so link every strength or weakness to who the poor are and what you want to know.

12. Model points (indicative; levels of response apply in the real exam):

• Aim: to investigate whether paid work affects the division of housework [1].
• Hypothesis: couples where both partners work full time share housework more equally than couples with one earner [1].
• Pilot study with a few couples to check that task lists and wording are clear [1].
• Quota sample of, say, equal numbers of dual-earner and one-earner couples [1], so the two groups can be compared fairly [1].
• Questionnaire with closed questions on who does each task [1], giving quantitative data that can be compared between the groups [1].
• Follow-up interviews or time-use diaries with some couples, because people may exaggerate their share; a mixed methods design improves validity [1].
• Analysis: percentages of tasks done by each partner in each group, shown in tables [1].
• Practical issues: access to homes and the cost of interviews; questionnaires keep costs down [1].
• Ethics: informed consent from both partners; keep each partner’s answers confidential from the other to avoid conflict at home [1].
• Limitation: self-report data and a sample from one area still limit how far findings can be generalised [1]. [12] Examiner insight: design questions reward a justified sequence of choices; each decision needs a “because” linked to housework and couples.

Where marks are usually lost

• Giving general strengths of a method without applying them to the scenario in the question.
• Describing a trend without quoting figures, years and units.
• Leaving out working in percentage calculations, so no method mark can be given.
• Confusing a percentage increase with a change in percentage points.
• Naming ethical issues without explaining how to address them for the group studied.
• Mixing practical issues (time, cost, access) with ethical issues (consent, confidentiality, harm).
• Using “reliable” and “valid” as if they mean the same thing.
• In extended answers, listing points on one side only, with no judgement.

Next steps

Check weak areas against the study guide and rehearse terms with the revision notes. Practise methods in topic contexts with the Families and Education practice set and the Crime and Stratification practice set. Find your gaps with our diagnostics, or book a free trial class with a Marlbridge tutor.

Official syllabus

AQA GCSE Sociology (8192) specification, Version 1.2 (June 2026), for GCSE exams 2019 onwards: section 3.7 Sociological research methods.