Locality of Sparkbrook in the UK - Essay Example

Critically Review and Evaluate the Three Extracts Provided The three extracts for evaluation are very different from one another in not only the subject matter analyzed by each research but also in the way the researchers went about collecting the information and the data. The first reading Rex and Moore (1967, 82) is an appendix of a research paper which shows that a demographic ethnic study was conducted in a particularly locality of Sparkbrook in UK. And the target population for this particular research was from the native White people and the other half from the immigrant population. However, the researchers faced a lot of difficulty in finding the interviewees. In addition the interviews did not know about the number of residents in a house, while the interviewers also faced language problems in case of immigrants and some were reluctant to answer the questions as they felt threatened. The population of Sparkbrook was very mobile that too added to the problem. The researchers admit that not all of the tables are based on completed interviews. They had to hire Indian and Pakistani students as volunteers. The researchers admit they did not interview everyone and the sample size was quite small, but they are confident that it is representative of the trend. The research used a three pronged approach depending on observations, informal meetings and questionnaires. The second reading is Humphreys (1970, 91) detailed study of the homosexual practices and deviant behavior homosexual men. He intended to watch the participants in homosexual acts in public park restrooms. The research was divided into two parts the first was when he was a participant-observer. The second stage was the interviews. For the first step he made himself familiar with the routines of the homosexuals who used the restrooms. Secondly as an observer he became a “deviant” becoming a part of the whole activity as a lookout. He chose to be a voyeur, who observed the participants but did not do anything physical. In a covert way by observing the automobiles of the men he started to form a systematic sample using a systematic observation sheet. He came into contact with twelve individuals who were willing to talk to him, while for the rest of the sample he got help from another meta- analysis using the questionnaire to find about ethnicity, social status and marital status of the men. He used high degree of secrecy, although in the end he had to hire assistants to help him in the research. The third reading by Malson et al. (2002, 140) analyzes the interviews conducted with young white and Asian women in the urban multi-ethnic areas of UK. Through observation during interviews, the authors tried to find out their racialized and gendered identities and how they perceived other races also. From the interviews it emerged that clothes and appearances are very important for young women whether from a minority or from the White majority. What they wear symbolizes what they want to be and what they are to a large degree. For the Asians there is a vast separation between what they are and what they thought are expected to be like by the whites. Of the three extracts the first reading by Rex and Moore (1967, 82) is a detailed account of the methodology used by the researchers in trying to conduct their research. What they were aiming at and what they finally achieved are totally different things. The bias visible in the piece when dealing with immigrants is quite obvious. In addition the researchers were particularly looking for an idealist situation when conducting the research as empiricists this led them to encounter a lot of problems, most of which were unforeseen. For example they used rating and valuation list instead of the electoral registration list because the Sparkbrook population was very mobile. The researchers relied on the 1961 census to decide that most of the immigrants lived in a multi-occupied houses where there were on average 10 people living while under rateable value houses had 2.5 person living in it. This survey in all aspects was incomplete there are many reason for it. For example the failure to find interviewees, the researchers were no certain how many people lived in a house at one time, because of the variability of the occupants. The research is a classic case where the researchers were not prepared or armed to deal with the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic backgrounds of the immigrants, therefore, there were many immigrants who could not speak English. The immigrants were also suspicious of the interviewers. There were other more serious methodology problems with the research as the researchers did not have ample time and therefore resorted to getting as much information as they could about the occupants from neighbors, or through brief visits. From the failure of the pilot study to, the questionable reliability of the observations and the deductions made by the researchers are some of the main weaknesses visible in the extract. The methodology started out as random sample of that area, however as the authors point out that instead of relying on the randomized sample they switched to the relying on a particular quota in case of Pakistani population(1967, 85). In the end in spite of the efforts the sample that the researchers finally relied on was not representative of the population. Humphreys’ (1970, 91) research is on a subject which was sociologically considered to be taboo during the 1960’s when the research was carried out over a period of three years. The research Sexual inclination was started at a time when the rules of behavior and regulating sexual behavior were very different from what they are like at present. This study brings up a range of moral questions about how the proof was gathered and what the researcher should report as an academic publication. Applicant observation does not engage a clearly arranged set of procedures. This is a consequence of its objective of giving a complete and strong re-enactment of the lives of the group being studied. The researcher acted as a participant observer conducting his research in a covert manner because an overt research was not possible. In addition he also relied on a sort of focus group of 12 gay men who were willing to talk openly, while the rest of the sample was of men who were administered questionnaires in a way where they were approached as heterosexual males. A majority of the men were married and concentrations were found in two ethnic backgrounds: Italian and German. As a covert observer the researcher made a concerted effort to blend in with the population of men who were regular visitors to the public park restrooms. He was both adaptable and resourceful, through which he was able to gather information. He was also very conscious about keeping the identity of the subjects secret, because at the time of the research this carried with it a social stigma which was not something the men would have wanted the world to know. The covert means used by the researcher may be questioned for its ethicality and acceptability because later on more guidelines were introduced which would not have made possible the type of research carried out by the writer. Another important issue with this particular research is that it did not have a pilot study and only relied on the places he thought were significant in drawing homosexual population, however, there may be questions whether the sample he chose was truly representative of the homosexual population. The third research by Malson et al. (2002, 140) is a recent research which tries to find how young women perceive themselves and categorize their identities in a multi-ethnic, multicultural environment through their appearances and tastes. The authors here are more interested in in-depth unstructured interviews where the participants are allowed to talk freely with little or no prompts—it is a discourse analysis conducted within the frame work of feminist critical psychological framework. This research extract is a part of a larger research being carried out on a group of 15 people, each participant was interviewed separately and it was not just the interview transcripts that were important rather it was the behavior and identity of the observers that was most important – what they reflected and how they perceived themselves. What the study shows is that most of the input is that of the interviewees and the researchers they try to analyze what the individuals are trying to say and what they mean. Here there is a lot of subjectivity in judgment and how the researchers analyze each interviewee, there may be biases present. The research in this case show how these young women especially the Asian women feel racially excluded and how there are perceived racial and gender-based ideas which are reflected in their conversations as is the case when Nina one of the interviewees discusses her dress and how Hindu girls dress up(1970, 145). Similarly, what comes out is that neither are the interviewees comfortable in wearing their ethnically identified attires nor are they comfortable with whites trying to copy the symbols of their ethnicity, therefore there is a sort of discontent as there is a feeling that whatever they do they will not be accepted. In case of this study the researchers’ method of inquiry is too subjective and what they want to find out is not an easy task as even in conversations it is not necessary that the participants would have discussed what they truly believed or felt. This may make one question about the factual value of the account and how much factual information was coming through, which could be analyzed. When the three researches are compared it appears that in the historical context sociological research has progressed from a very “rough and ready” (Rex and Morrison, 1967; 89) to a very complex and hybridized research by Malson et al. (2002, 140-151) where they have taken great pains to identify each and every concept and research done on it previously to ensure that other researcher can cross check. If one looks at the type of researches carried out by the three extracts the first reading shows a very structured approach of an empirical study however since the researchers were idealists and not prepared for deviances in their subjects and problems that might have occurred, their research was more or less incomplete and therefore by today’s standard not very reliable as they had depended on a lot of conjecture and hypothetical situations then on facts. Although the researchers stated that they relied on questionnaires and observations however there was no effort to transcribe the information. Conversely Humphreys (1970, 92) states from the onset that his research was based on observations which formed an important part of the research but even his sampling was different there were overt discussions and then there were covert interviews where the respondents did not know what they were subjects for. In addition as a participant observer in the tearooms he was deceiving the people he was observing therefore ethical issues may arise about the reliability of the research. Malson et al.’s (2002; 142) methodology was very different solely depending on the individual intensive interviews which were then analyzed by the researchers keeping in mind the attitude and the outlook of the people. This is a modern research keeping in mind the accepted paradigms of research however the interpretations of the researchers may be subjected to personal biases and preconceived notions which may influence the researchers’ judgment. All three readings show that carrying out sociological research is complex task and there are some strengths and weaknesses in all of the researches studied. In addition there is a question about the Representativeness of all the three samples. In case of the first extract the researchers’ actual sample size was visibly smaller then the target. In case of the second extract, the 100 people who were approached with questionnaires were approached as heterosexual males, while they were being studied as homosexuals. While in the third extract, the small group of 15 people did not include other minorities and the interviews discussed in this article relied interviews of only one white and four Asian women. The task of finding an ideal sample of people is not possible, and the initial targets may have to be revised in case of Rex and Morrison (1967; 82-90), or the method employed may not be acceptable or reliable in case of the Humphreys (1970; 91-106) or the research may be too subjective as may be the case with Malson et al. (2002; 140-151). These extracts show that conducting research is not straightforward and many external factors impact the outcome. References Humphreys, L. (1997). ‘The sociologist as voyeur [1970]’ in Gelder, K. and Thornton, S. (Eds) The Subcultures Reader. Routledge, London. Malson, H, Marshall, H, and Woollett, A. (2002). ‘Talking of taste: a discourse analytic exploration of young women’s gendered and racialized subjectivities in British urban, multicultural contexts’, Feminism and Psychology, Vol.12, no. 4, pp.469–90. Rex, J, and Moore, R. (1967). Race, Community and Conflict. Oxford University Press Oxford. Read More