The Crime Survey for England and Wales the Crime Survey for England and Wales has measured
crime since 1981. Used alongside police recorded crime data it is a valuable source of information for
the government about the extent and nature of crime in England and Wales. The survey asks
members of the public about their experiences of crime over the last 12 months. In this way the
survey records all types of crimes, including those crimes that may not have been reported to the
police. It is useful to collect data from people who have experienced crime and also those who have
not experienced any crime, to obtain a more valid picture of crime. In 2019/20 around 50000
households across England and Wales will have been invited to participate in the survey. In previous
years three quarters of households invited to take part agreed to participate. This cooperation from
the public means that the survey provides information needed by the government to make
important decisions about policies related to crime and justice
Using material from the item and elsewhere explain the strengths and weaknesses of using
quantitative methods in sociological research. [20]
Quantitative data can be defined as numerical data yielded from means such as closed questions
present within a structured interview, secondary numerical data or the use of a questionnaire/selfreport method. Quantitative data can be used to produce statistical data of which allows for analysis
and comparisons to be made, making such data highly reliable due to the objective means by which
the data is collected.
A strength of the use of quantitative means of collecting data is the fact that such a method will yield
highly reliable data. Reliability refers to the extent to which a result from a measurement, in this case
a quantitative measurement can be deemed as accurate, yielding consistent results from a sample.
This is a strength of quantitative methods of collecting data as quantitative data collection can be
achieved for questionnaires for example. By using a questionnaire which asks closed questions, the
same questions can be asked to the entire sample which is a form of standardisation, illustrating the
reliability of utilising quantitative methods. This is unlike other qualitative methods which may be
susceptible to bias in data collection as for example the use of an unstructured interview will not be
consistent across multiple uses. However, the use of quantitative data is not susceptible to such bias
as there is consistency in the data collection. This can be seen in the context of the material
referenced, as demonstrated through how in 2019/20 over 50,000 houses will be invited to answer a
questionnaire/survey in relation to the experience of crime. This will allow for reliable data to be
collected as all the respondents will be answering the same survey which allows for the data yielded
to be numerically analysed, compared and contrasted to surmise reliable and consistent trends in the
experience of crime. Thus, a strength of quantitative methods is the fact it involves standardisation
which contributes to increased reliability of methodology.
Another strength of the use of quantitative means of collecting data is the fact the data can generate
statistical analysis. This is given that qualitative data can be represented in numerical form when collected
via a questionnaire for example, as participants answers can be processed nominally or ordinally to
represent the data. This is a strength given that it allows for the establishment of ‘social facts’ as per
positivist theory, as according to positivist when data is represented in numerical form, it takes on a form
of objectivity given the means within which it was collected (quantitatively). This can be illustrated by
Talcott Parson’s study into the Social Structure of the Family in 1959. In which, Parsons analysed broad
statistical trends into the structure of American families, concluding that males take on a position as an
instrumental role leader’ (responsible for administering discipline and providing money for the family),
whilst women take on a position as ‘expressive role leaders’ (responsible for nurturing an exercising
compassion within a family). As Parson’s data was based upon objective statistical data, it allows for the
establishment of social facts in the context of family roles. Applying this, the use of quantitative data IA
strength in the context of the material as it allows for statistical data to be made into the experience of both
reported and unreported crime. This can allow for trends and patterns to be identified by the government in
relation to the experience of crime, perhaps identifying patterns such as an increase in unreported crime.
Thus, this is a strength of quantitative methods as it allows for statistical analysis and by extension the
identification of ‘social facts’
Another strength of the use of quantitative methods of collecting data is the fact they are easy to generate
and can save time and resources which is a strength in the context of practical considerations. This is given
the fact that quantitative methods of collecting data such as the use of a standardised survey asking
questions in relation to the experience of reported and unreported crime can be proliferated and given out
via the male/email which allows for data to be potentially collected from a large representative sample.
This is a strength, as it saves practical time and the resources of the government unlike qualitative methods
which require resources such as the presence of a skilled interviewer. Therefore, quantitative methods of
collecting data circumnavigate the need for an abundance of resources as the same survey (in this case
crime survey) can be sent out to the 50,000 people.
Alternatively, one weakness of the use of quantitative methods of collecting data is the fact that it is often
low in validity. This is apparent through the fact that quantitative means of collecting data such as the use
of a structured interview asking closed questions does not provide the participant the opportunity to
express themselves and to develop their answers in order to surmise more insight into the researched topic.
In the context of the material, this is apparent through the fact that the use of a survey asking closed
question in relation to the experience of reported and unreported crime does not allow the potential 50,000
respondents the opportunity to detail their experience of a reported/unreported crime. Thus, lowering the
validity of the responses as further enquiry into the specifics of experiencing a crime as well as other
possible insights such as why a respondent did not report a crime cannot be achieved. Thus, one weakness
of quantitative methods of collecting data is the fact they are often low in validity and cannot establish
‘verstehen’, an interpretivist term coined by Weber in reference to the ability to understand the world view
of a participant or a respondent.
Another weakness of the use of quantitative methods of collecting data is the fact that it can be low in
representativeness/general ability. This is due to the fact that quantitative means of collecting data such as
via a questionnaire cannot be deemed as representative of other populations or groups as perhaps the
answers of which a participant would give within the same survey within a different population may
answer drastically different. Thus, what quantitative data that is collected from one sample cannot be
deemed as representative and general to other populations. An illustration of this weakness can
demonstrate in Bourdieu’s study Distinction (1984) in which attempted to develop the theory of cultural
capital by drawing data from two surveys of popular taste in France. However, such data cannot be deemed
as representative of the tastes of other countries or populations as well as to contemporary France which
may have changed in regards to tastes. Thus, the use of a survey collecting quantitative data is flawed in
this context. Applying this, the collection of qualitative data in relation to the experience of crime may not
be representative of other populations outside of the UK as the experience of crime is such a varied
experience.
Moreover, another weakness of the use of quantitative methods of collecting data is the fact it can be low
in general ability. This refers to the extent to which research is able to applied to wider society. This can be
illustrated by Mary McLouth’s study into homosexuality. In which she took an interpretivist stance in
believing that generalisations of homosexuality cannot be made due to the fact the fact homosexuality
cannot be reduced to simple ‘deviant behaviour’. Therefore, in the context of the material, the answers of
the potential 50,000 respondents cannot be deemed as generalisable to wider society given the fact that a
different cohort of respondents may answer the quantitative survey differently as the experience of crime
and the factors which affect if someone reports a crime or not is highly variable and cannot be generalised.
Thus, illustrating a weakness of the use of quantitative methods such as the use of survey as the results are
not always generalizable in the context of a certain area (in this case the experience of crime).
In conclusion, it can be said that strengths can be identified in the use of quotative methods of collecting
data, such as the fact it can be easily administered (for example via sending surveys through mail or email
to the potential 50,000 respondents in the material referenced above) as well as being generating reliable
numerical statistical data which can be interpreted into social facts as per positivist theory. This is highly
advantageous as patterns can be identified in the context of the experience of crime and trends in reporting
of crime vs unreported crime. This could help inform the government and their policy in relation to crime.
And justice. However, weaknesses also exist in the context of the use of quantitative methods of collecting
data such as a lack of validity given that participants within a structured interview for example cannot
further detail their answers. Or in the context of the material, respondents cannot further detail their
experience of crime or the reasons for not reporting crime. Moreover, the extent of generalisability sand
representativeness is also limited, as perhaps participants from different population or a different 50,000
cohort say answer questionnaires differently.
-
Can make statistical analysis (illustrate by Parsons)
Representative if use din a large sample (illustrate by
Easy to administer
Weaknesses:
-
Representativeness (Talcott Parsons)
Not valid (not favoured by interpretivists)
Generalisability