Shannon Casey
March 8, 2012
Exercise Paper 3.4

Exercise 3.4: In this chapter, we’ve described a variety of methodologies (means of collecting data), including classic experiments, fieldwork, interviews, and surveys. Each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. In a one to two page paper, briefly describe the following: a. What you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology discussed in the chapter (classic experiments, fieldwork, interviews, and surveys)
The four methodologies described in chapter three are very important to sociologists. Sociologists strive to understand why things are they way they are and most times the answers they are looking for lie in other people. A classic experiment is one technique used and it is done in a lab by manipulating one variable and keeping the second variable constant. An advantage to this is lab technicians have power over what to manipulate. They can examine something relatively easy by changing the manipulated variable. You could also test different variables with a group of people in a short period of time. A disadvantage to this methodology is that individuals know they are being tested and might subconsciously act differently than they would in a normal setting. Although Korgen and White [2011:37] say “As much as possible I would create a controlled environment in which almost nothing can affect the outcome”, there are always internal factors that are impossible to completely control and those can end us biasing the experiment. Fieldwork is different from classic experiments in that you go out into the real world and examine without manipulating. A big advantage of this is you are witnessing true actions because people are not aware you are observing them. A disadvantage is that it might take a lot of time before you gather enough useful information. If you are trying to examine certain relationships, you have to sit and wait until people of interest walk by. Surveys are a frequent methodology used which has many pros and cons. Korgen and White [2011:35] point out the most obvious advantage to this methodology, “Surveys allow researchers to collect a few basic measures of something from a very large number of people, in a short amount of time, and in exactly the same way.” Surveys are a quick way to get general information but useless if trying to examine something specific. Another disadvantage of a survey is you do not have inside information as to why the results showed what they did. On the other hand, an interview would be a great way to talk to real people and find out in their own words how they feel on a certain topic. This methodology allows you to dig underneath the surface and get very real information. Unfortunately, interviews are very timely and conducting a large number of them would not be feasible. Korgen and White [2011:36] express “Also, because time and money constraints usually mean that we can interview far fewer people than we could survey it is difficult to make good generalizations from interview data.” Since an interview would be a small number of people, you have to be careful when taking the data from an interview and making general assumptions. You cannot interview 10 people and say that everyone feels the way they do since those people only represent a small fraction of the overall.
Each methodology examined above has its advantages and disadvantages. This allows sociologists to look at what they need to discover and use the above to determine which would fit their needs best. Different projects will require different information and each methodology will be of use at some point. b. How you might use each methodology to examine unemployment in your state. What would be the advantage and disadvantage of each of these means of studying the issue?

Classic experiment would be a difficult methodology to study unemployment in my state. You would be able to use this to study the behavior of unemployed people by having one group employed and the other group unemployed and introducing both groups to certain factors and measuring their response. I think this would be a difficult method if you want to examine how many people are unemployed, why, and for how long. Field experiments would be good if you had a field site that had high levels of unemployment. Occupy Wall Street would have been a good field site for something studying this. You could have examined how many people were unemployed and their attitude toward it. The only difficulty I see with this methodology is how, based on strictly observing, you would know for sure that someone is unemployed. For example, you might see someone walking down the street in a suit and tie and assume he is employed, when he might be returning from an interview since he has been out of a job for a year. I think a survey would be a quick way to gauge unemployment and the reasons for it. A lot of recent unemployment came from companies shutting down or downsizing because of the economy. In a survey you could ask a question such as “What was the reason for your unemployment?” and have the answers be a) company shut down b) company downsize c) behavior d) lack of education. A disadvantage of a survey is that you would not get any more in depth information. For example, if someone checked off on the survey that unemployment was due to company downsizing, you would not be able to ask them how much the company downsized and the reasoning. Lastly, an interview would be difficult due to the large unemployment rates. Interviews are timely and costly. In order to get information that you could use as a generalization, you would have to interview a large number of people. You might be able to conduct a state-wide survey on unemployment and from there pick a certain percentage of people to interview. Unemployment is a still at a high and I think the best way to examine this would be through surveys and interviews. I do not see the advantage of a scientific experiment for examining unemployment. Fieldwork would also be difficult to examine unemployment based on strictly observing.