Study Notes
Overview
Experiments are a cornerstone of scientific research, but how do they fit into the world of sociology? This guide explores the two primary forms of experimental research used by sociologists: laboratory experiments and field experiments. For your AQA GCSE Sociology exam, you must be able to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each method, applying them to specific sociological contexts, particularly within the Education module. Examiners expect candidates to demonstrate a firm grasp of the trade-offs between reliability, validity, and ethics. This guide will equip you with the specific knowledge, terminology, and evaluative skills needed to analyse these methods like a top-band sociologist.
Key Concepts: Laboratory vs. Field Experiments
Laboratory Experiments
What they are: A laboratory experiment is conducted in a highly controlled, artificial environment. The researcher manipulates an independent variable (IV) to measure its effect on a dependent variable (DV), while attempting to control all other extraneous variables. This high level of control is the defining feature.
Why they matter: The primary strength of a lab experiment is its high reliability. Because the procedure is so tightly controlled, it is easily replicable, meaning other researchers can repeat the experiment to check the consistency of the results. They also have high internal validity, as the researcher can be more confident that the change in the DV was caused by the manipulation of the IV, and not some other factor.
Key Weaknesses: The main drawback is low ecological validity. The artificial setting can feel unnatural, leading participants to behave differently than they would in their everyday lives. This is known as the Hawthorne Effect, a critical concept you must use in your evaluations. Participants, knowing they are being observed, may alter their behaviour, thus rendering the results less authentic or truthful.
Field Experiments
What they are: A field experiment is conducted in a real-world setting, such as a school, workplace, or public space. The researcher still manipulates an independent variable to observe its effect on a dependent variable, but does so within a natural environment. Often, participants are unaware they are part of a study.
Why they matter: The key strength of a field experiment is its high ecological validity. Because the research takes place in a natural setting, the behaviour observed is more likely to be authentic and reflect real life. This means the findings are more generalisable to the wider population.
Key Weaknesses: The trade-off for this authenticity is low reliability. Due to the lack of control over extraneous variables in a real-world setting, it is very difficult to replicate a field experiment exactly. Furthermore, they raise significant ethical issues, particularly concerning informed consent, as participants are often observed without their knowledge or permission.
Key Individuals & Studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) - Pygmalion in the Classroom
Role: Conducted a landmark field experiment in a school setting.
Key Actions: Teachers were told that certain students were "spurters" who were expected to make significant academic progress. In reality, these students were selected at random. The independent variable was the teachers' expectations, and the dependent variable was the students' academic performance.
Impact: The study found that the randomly selected "spurters" did indeed show greater improvement than their peers, demonstrating the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy in education. This is a crucial example to use when discussing field experiments and their application to the study of education.
Stanley Milgram (1963) - Obedience to Authority
Role: Conducted a famous and ethically controversial laboratory experiment.
Key Actions: Participants were instructed by an authority figure (the experimenter) to deliver what they believed were increasingly powerful electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) in another room. The experiment aimed to test obedience to authority.
Impact: Milgram's study showed that ordinary people are surprisingly likely to obey authority figures, even when it involves inflicting harm on others. It is a powerful example of a laboratory experiment but is most often used in exams to discuss the severe ethical breaches in sociological research, such as deception and psychological harm.
Second-Order Concepts
Causation
Experiments are powerful tools for identifying causal relationships. By manipulating an independent variable and controlling other factors, researchers can isolate the cause of a change in the dependent variable. However, the complexity of social life means that it is difficult to be certain that all extraneous variables have been controlled, especially in field experiments.
Change & Continuity
The use of experiments in sociology has changed over time. While early positivists favoured the scientific rigour of laboratory experiments, modern sociologists are often more critical of their limitations. There is a greater appreciation for the high ecological validity of field experiments, despite their practical and ethical challenges. The debate about the trade-off between reliability and validity is a point of continuity.
Significance
Experiments are significant because they offer a systematic way to test hypotheses about social behaviour. They are particularly valued by Positivist sociologists who believe that society can be studied scientifically, in a similar way to the natural sciences. In contrast, Interpretivists are highly critical of experiments, arguing that human behaviour cannot be understood by reducing it to simple cause-and-effect relationships in artificial settings.
Source Skills
When presented with a source describing an experiment, you must be prepared to evaluate it methodologically. Use the PERVERT mnemonic to structure your analysis. Consider:
- Provenance: Who conducted the research? When? Was it a lab or field experiment?
- Content: What were the key findings? What was the independent and dependent variable?
- Limitations: What are the practical, ethical, and theoretical weaknesses of the method used? Does it suffer from the Hawthorne Effect? Is it reliable? Is it valid?
- Usefulness: What does the source reveal about the topic being studied? How trustworthy are its conclusions, given the methodological limitations?