Sociology 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 available free from your board. This set covers only the Research Methods content of Paper 1 — on the live paper, Research Methods is Question 1, which is always compulsory. Neither Paper 1 nor Paper 2 of this syllabus is divided into lettered sections; the numbered questions below follow that.

Related: Research Methods revision notes

---

Questions

1. Explain the difference between a research method and a research design. [2]

2. State four factors a sociologist must consider when choosing a method. [4]

3. Explain two strengths and two limitations of participant observation. [8]

4. Explain two strengths and two limitations of using official statistics as a source of data. [8]

5. Explain the difference between reliability and validity, and explain why a method that is high in one is often low in the other. [6]

6. Explain three ethical principles a sociologist must observe, and explain the ethical difficulty of covert participant observation. [8]

7. A researcher wishes to study a group of homeless people.

(a) Explain why random sampling would be impractical. [2] (b) Suggest a suitable sampling method and justify it. [4]

8. A sociologist wants to test whether classroom seating arrangement affects student participation, using a laboratory experiment.

(a) Explain one strength of using an experiment for this research. [2] (b) Explain one limitation of using an experiment for this research. [2]

9. Explain what is meant by a pilot study, and explain why a sociologist would carry one out before the main study. [4]

---

Answers

1. A method is the specific technique used to collect data, such as a questionnaire or an interview [1]. A design is the overall structure of the study — who will be studied, in what conditions, and in what sequence [1].

2. Any four: practical factors — time, cost, access and the researcher’s skills [1]; ethical factors — consent, harm and confidentiality [1]; theoretical position — positivist or interpretivist [1]; the nature of the topic and the group being studied, particularly whether it is sensitive or hard to reach [1].

3. Strengths: it produces highly valid, in-depth qualitative data, because the researcher sees what people actually do rather than what they say they do [1] [1]. It allows the researcher to achieve verstehen — an understanding of the meanings the group attaches to its own behaviour — which no questionnaire could capture [1] [1]. Limitations: it is very time-consuming and expensive, and the sample is necessarily small and unrepresentative, so findings cannot be generalised [1] [1]. It is unreliable — the study depends on the personal relationships and interpretations of one researcher, so it cannot be replicated [1] [1].

4. Strengths: they are readily available, free and cover very large populations, often nationally and over many years, so trends and comparisons are possible at no cost to the researcher [1] [1]. They are usually collected in a standardised way, making them reliable and quantitative, which suits positivist research [1] [1]. Limitations: they are collected by the state for its own administrative purposes, not for the sociologist’s research question, so the definitions and categories may not fit [1] [1]. They may lack validity: crime statistics record only offences reported to and recorded by the police, so the “dark figure” of unreported crime is missing entirely [1] [1].

5. Reliability means a method is consistent — repeating it would produce the same results [1]. Validity means the data gives a true and authentic picture of what is being studied [1]. They often pull in opposite directions because standardisation creates reliability but restricts what respondents can say [1] — a structured questionnaire can be repeated exactly, but forces answers into pre-set boxes that may not reflect people’s real views [1]. Conversely, unstructured methods let people express themselves freely, giving validity, but are shaped by the individual researcher and cannot be repeated identically [1] [1].

6. Any three, 2 marks each: Informed consent — participants must know what the research involves and agree to take part, with the right to withdraw [1] [1]. Confidentiality and anonymity — identities and data must be protected, using pseudonyms and secure storage [1] [1]. Protection from harm — participants should not be exposed to physical or psychological harm, or to legal risk, greater than in everyday life [1] [1]. Covert participant observation is ethically difficult because participants cannot give informed consent, since the whole method depends on deceiving them, and the researcher may also witness or be drawn into illegal or harmful acts without being able to intervene or report them [1] [1].

7. (a) Random sampling requires a complete sampling frame — a list of everyone in the population [1]; no such list of homeless people exists, since by definition they have no fixed address to be registered at [1]. (b) Snowball sampling [1] — the researcher contacts one or two individuals, perhaps through a shelter or outreach worker, and asks them to introduce others [1]. This works because it uses existing trust networks to reach a hard-to-access group [1], though the sample will not be representative and members of the network may be similar to one another [1].

8. (a) An experiment is controlled, so variables other than the one being tested can be held constant, allowing the researcher to identify cause and effect with more confidence than other methods allow [2]. (b) The controlled, artificial setting means behaviour may not reflect how people act in real life, giving the study low ecological validity [2].

9. A pilot study tests the research method on a small scale before the main study is carried out [2]. It allows the sociologist to identify and fix problems with wording, timing or procedure — such as a confusing question or a questionnaire that takes too long — before committing the time and cost of the full study [2].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Confusing reliability with validity.
• Giving strengths of observation generally rather than of participant observation.
• Treating official statistics as objective fact.
• Suggesting random sampling for a group with no sampling frame.