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
0
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )