Sample essay 6: How far and in what ways is human behaviour influenced by socialisation?

Socialisation is the ways in which people learn how to act in accordance with current social norms and values. Human behaviour is influenced by socialisation in as much as we are taught from a very early age that certain actions are acceptable in society and certain actions are not. For example young children are taught to use the potty instead of excreting faecal matter onto the floor. Socialisation is all around us, from our peers to our parents, but just how far is human behaviour actually influenced by these agents of socialisation?

The best way to find out whether humans are affected by socialisation at all and to what extent, is to find a control for this test. However, no human being can be totally void of any socialisation. The closest case to this control is feral children. This uncommon phenomenon is when a child, for whatever reason, has been abandoned by their parents and has been left in the care of animals. Such cases include “The Portuguese Chicken Girl”, “The German Dog-Boy” and two Indian sisters that were raised by wolves. In the latter, two sisters were abandoned by their mother at birth and left to fend for themselves in the jungle. They were picked up and cared for by wolves. These girls had no idea of how to smile, cry, communicate in speech or even recognise humans. This shows quite clearly that even the basics of what we humans perceived to be present at birth is actually learnt through socialisation. However, new evidence shows that babies do smile and even cry in the womb, meaning that these feral children may be born with these innate behavioural patterns pre-programmed into them, but after living alongside the animals for a period of time they are socialised to ignore these emotions.

The case study above is part of a wider debate known as the ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate. This discussion has two opposing views, with sociologists on one hand and socio-biologists and biologists on the other. Genetics plays a large part in this argument. Sociologists believe that both boys and girls start off with the exact same set of emotions and feelings, but boys are taught through agents of socialisation to be more aggressive, where as girls are taught to be more submissive. Socio-biologists on the other hand argue that humans are pre-programmed and have instincts that they cannot ignore.

Recent studies suggest that if you leave young boys and girls in a room the girls will sit quietly and play whilst the boys totally lose control and start running, and jumping, screaming and scratching. However this does not mean that boys have a more aggressive tendency it means that boys are socialised from a young age to act in an aggressive manner.

Norms and values are what make up an ideology, and an ideology is a set of rules and values that govern a society. Without these basic norms and values society as a whole would crumble and be reduced to anarchy, for example Colin Turnbull’s study of a people without any form of socialisation. Therefore governments and people in power establish social institutions and agents of socialisation that have the aim of enforcing and informing us of society’s ideologies. Social agents are people groups or institutions that teach individuals norms and values of a society. Agents of socialisation range from schools, mass media, governments, law courts, the workplace, peer groups, parents etc. These agents of socialisation can hand out formal or informal punishments. Agents such as the law courts can hand out formal punishments such as jail sentences or in some countries even death. However, informal punishments such as exclusion from peer groups, and ridicule can be handed out by agents of socialisation like peer groups and the mass media.

Socialisation can be divided into two groups, primary and secondary. Primary socialisation starts with an individual’s parents. The individual’s parents will teach them the basic norms and values of a society, such as blue for boys and pink for girls, boys don’t cry and girls don’t fight. Secondary socialisation is everything afterwards, from nursery school to nursing home. A person’s behaviour is also based on their identity and how they are perceived in society. Society as a whole is full of stereotypes, these occur when a certain social group is judged by the actions of a few individuals. For example, poor people are stereotyped as being sneaky and light fingered. These stereotypes are based on gender, ethnicity, age, and class.

An individual’s identity can also be shaped by their master status. A master status is when an individual is judged by a major action that has occurred in the past. For example if a person commits a crime and is sentenced to jail time, even after they have served their sentence they will find difficulties getting a job because they have a criminal record.

As humans we crave acceptance in society and will do whatever it takes to be likened by our peers, in most cases conformity is the answer. Identity plays a large role in this as our identity is what makes us individuals. Gender plays arguably the largest role in defining our behaviours. Behaviour is most definitely affected by socialisation.

Sample Essay 5: Examine the reasons why sociologists choose to use secondary sources when conducting research.

Secondary sources of information come in many forms. These can range from official statistics produced by the government on areas such as schools and crime and data published on the internet or in books by other sociologists who did their own research. Many sociologists as well as doing their own research use secondary data to back up what they may have found or also sometimes they use it so they don’t have to have the hassle of doing a long winded study when they can just use other findings instead and publish their facts and figures more quickly. However using secondary data can have its limitations and by using it you may come across errors and anomalies which a sociologist may not come across if they had done collected their own primary data.

Firstly sociologists are often more likely to use secondary data instead of collecting their own data for a number of reasons. One of these is that it is much more quick and easier to collect secondary data. A lot of secondary data is stored on the internet in big chunks and an upcoming sociologist who may not know much on collecting their own data could easily find and collect this secondary data in just a matter of seconds. If a sociologist was studying children and how well they are doing in certain schools he/she could find league tables published by the government on the internet or elsewhere very easily.

Another reason why sociologists are much more likely to use secondary data could be due to the fact that it is much cheaper and less time consuming to do so. For example say a sociologist wanted to collect data on primary schools it would cost the sociologist a lot of money to do a longitudinal study into finding out what they really wanted. It would also be more time consuming especially if the study was dragged out over a long period of time. Secondary data can be much easier to access and no cost would be bared in the sociologist’s hands as someone else has done a lot of the work for them.

Furthermore secondary data can be high in representativeness especially official statistics on education. For example all state schools have to complete a school census three times a year. This collects information on pupil’s attendance, gender and so on. These statistics cover virtually nearly every pupil in the country, they are highly representative. It is less likely a sociologist could collect this amount of data in any research they may do unless they had some kind of help. This means that primary data in which they collect in their own time won’t be as generalisable as the secondary data which is already there and waiting for them with no hassle on their part.

Moreover a sociologist could choose secondary for the fact it can be high in some terms in reliability. Positivist sociologists would favour official statistics as they can test and re test hypotheses and thus discover cause and effect. For example statistics on exam results showing class differences in educational achievement may correlate with statistics on parental income. Positivists may conclude that poverty causes underachievement. Reliability means that any of this secondary data could be easily replicated especially as the government imposes standard definitions which all schools must use. Sociologists are to be likely swayed by the fact that the research is quantitative as cause and effect can be easily found.

Validity of secondary data can be seen as a positive especially in terms of historical documents. These documents can provide important insights into meanings held by teachers and pupils at a certain time and therefore this can be high in validity. Also many official statistics are also true reflections. A school can’t lie about their pupils exam results so every result has to be truthful. A sociologist would like that you are getting truly valid results as this means you are getting the truthful insights into certain topics of interest.

Although secondary sources can be good in many aspects for the sociologist it can have its limitations and not be truly as insightful as one may have hoped.

In terms of official statistics although they may be of some interest the sociologist may not be able to find specific statistics they may want. For example Durkheim studied crime and religion but he could not find any specific statistics for that particular subject. The government it can be said collects data sometimes for its own benefit and not at benefit of a sociologist.

Another limitation could be that if the sociologist were to use some kind of secondary data they could face validity issues. Interpretivists for example question the validity of educational statistics. They argue that such statistics are socially constructed. Schools may manipulate their attendance figures by redefining the poor attenders as being on study leave for example. This means that any of the data the government may have collected could be lies covered up to be the truth by some schools as they don’t want to look bad. Primary data would be much more valid, as the sociologist is collecting the data themselves and they will know if their data is more to the truth as they will know if it has been manipulated unlike official statistics were they don’t know the real aims.

Also when using secondary data a sociologist must be aware of errors which may occur in the different types of data they may use. For example when using official statistics the government could have lied in different documents or even just made unexpected errors without even knowing. If a sociologist was to use this data without thinking then their research could be seen as invalid as they have used data with errors meaning it is not truthful.

Furthermore a sociologist must have to consider if a particular topic they may study is actually a true representation of what they really want. This means that a sociologist may define poverty for example differently to what the government may. A concept may have not been operationalised and the sociologists won’t be sure if another sociologist means the same as what they do. Also definitions can change over time between different people and classes making comparisons between different data difficult. Primary data can help the sociologist know the real concept of their study instead of being mixed up in other peoples less reliable data.

Representativeness can also be a problem when using secondary data. In terms of the British crime survey, only a selected sample of the relevant population is used meaning that this data can be less generalisable. If a sociologist was to collect data themselves they could not just use British crime but find out about crime in Europe. This data can be then more generalised to the whole world instead of Britain.

To conclude there are many positives and negatives when using secondary data. A sociologists needs to consider these when selecting whether to use their own data or use data which has already been collected. Official statistics can be useful when collecting large amount of data and other sociologist’s data can help if another sociologist doesn’t have the money to do their own research. Even though there are limitations in using secondary data, sociologists can use it to help them establish cause and effect against own research and even use it to express their own opinions on a particular topic of interest. Primary data and secondary data can be used together for the best results. Sociologists can then check their data with others and see any correlation. One thing is secondary data can help us find out anything which we may want to know, so it can be a good source in helping anyone with a particular interest in finding out what they wanted.

Sample Essay 4: Assess the usefulness of participant observation in sociological research

One of the most popular and widely used research methods is Participant Observation. Participant observation involves the observer in the activities of the people in that society, so that instead of just observing the people, the observer is able to get a more hands-on experience of how these people live their lives. There are all sorts of problems with simple observation. There are places where observers are prohibited - in government, in much of business, and often in the bedroom, but even where a person is allowed in the existence of a passive observer sat in a corner perhaps taking notes disturbs the participants and makes them change their behaviour. One solution is to observe a situation where the presence of observers is considered more normal, but these are few and far between. Another strategy is to be in a place so often and for so long that it becomes normal to be there. The best solution is for the observer to get involved with the activities of the group being studied. The observer thus becomes a participant observer. This method is associated with social anthropology and symbolic interactions. It can be used with people who still want to study the large-scale issues that are seen to determine social reality and by that phenomenology’s that are simply interested in meaning. An example of participant observation is a study by James Patrick on a particular gang group. And one by Barker on the Moonies and another by Lord Humphrey on homosexuality.

The main advantages of participant observation are that it allows the observer to obtain a deeper and more experienced insight on the activities that the individuals of a society perform hopefully with a minimum of disturbance. You find out what they do, not what they say they do and the ways in which they think and that it also allows the observers (anthropologists) to gain a good overview of how and why a society functions. You also find yourself taking up the sympathy and empathy of the participants and you become more able to tell the story of the subculture that was previously foreign to you. You also get over the problem of people innocently losing their memory or filling in the gaps as they do during interviews. You know what they did because you were there and you recorded it. They will tell you that certain things never happened but you were there and you know that they did happen. The other thing about participant observation is that it is good fun and you can make friends.

Participant observation is very often inductive in actual method so you find certain things happening that put a whole new impetus into research, and you then follow up what is in effect a new hypothesis perhaps using other research methods.

But there are disadvantages. One is the time required; another is the demand of participation, which may be illegal or dangerous. There is the potential of psychological change to who you are. The researcher can be accused of being subjective, especially if seen to be sympathetic, but even if only because of the necessary interpretation and retelling of the data. Furthermore you can never get away from the researcher effect, unless it is successfully covert.

The disadvantages of participant observation are that it is sometimes unwelcome by the society being studied; as they often feel disturbed and that the anthropologist is invading their privacy. It is also often difficult for the observer to go native, and, even when he does; problems arise as he may begin to lose objectivity after becoming too much a part of that society.

The problems that can arise due to Participant Observation include:
· Gender - certain genders are welcomed than others into different societies. Women can be seen as inferior/ be threatening to men/ can’t integrate with men.
· Ethnicity- ethnographers could be kept at a distance because of their ethnicity, or may find it hard to always be culturally relative.
· Culture shock- on the part of the ethnographer
· Expense- on the part of the ethnographer
· Interpretation- some things can be interpreted very differently from culture to culture.

Ethical problems can also arise due to participant observation. They can arise on both the part of the ethnographer and the people, which the ethnographer is studying.

There are also some problems of ethnographer (the person observing) associated with the activities performed by the society being studied. For example, whereas female genital mutilation is commonly practised in some areas of the world, an ethnographer studying people in area where this is practised who comes from a culture and background where this is considered unacceptable and inhumane may face serious moral problems. Should the ethnographer try and intervene and stop this practice, should he try and educate the people of this society about the wrongs of this activity or should he ignore his own morals and values in the name of cultural relativism?

There are also some problems of society:
The people being studied often feel disturbed, distracted or that their privacy is being invaded when they are being studied by a stranger, who can often seem to be uninvited studying their every move. The people could argue that it is unfair for ethnographers to freely enter into a society and begin to study the people; his ways of thinking and living may often seem very different and unwelcome to certain societies. It is often very difficult for ethnographers to overcome these problems, as it is not easy to find a compromise between that which he wants to do and that which he must do in order to allow the people being studied feel most at ease.

Overall participant observations are useful in some ways and also can be a drawback. They are very useful to use in observations however can have some disadvantages.

Sample Essay 3: To What Extent is it Possible to Produce Value-Free Research?

With most research methods, the beliefs of the researcher can interfere with the way in which the research is collected. Value-free research is when the beliefs of the researcher do not have any effect on the way in which data is collected or analysed. Research can become value laden due to a variety of factors that include subjectivity and researcher bias. These, in turn, negatively affect the validity of the investigation meaning that the conclusions of the investigation may not be accurate.

Many would argue that Positivist research is value-free as they use scientific evidence, quantitative, empirical and reliable data. Quantitative data is seen as objective suggesting that it is not subjects to much interference from the researcher. This means that quantitative methods can make research value-free. As their philosophy also requires measurable proof, the variables can be measured objectively. This means that the views of the researchers do not affect the validity of the investigation.

Positivists tend to take a researcher on the outside approach; they do not become greatly involved in the lives of their participants. Therefore, the Positivists are less likely to form attachments with their participants that may cause the result of the research to be subject to the researchers’ opinion of their participants. This can prevent the views of the participants from interfering with the research.

Like most research, Positivist research may not be completely value-free. A critical aspect of Positivist research is setting a hypothesis, a statement suggesting that one variable causes another. The desire to prove the hypothesis can cause the researcher to carry out invalid research. This can be in the form of asking leading questions or influencing the responses of the participants.

For Positivists to validly measure the variables in an investigation, the concepts used need to be operationalised. The operationalisation of the concepts is subject to the researcher’s definition of the concepts. As a result of this, the investigation may not measure the concepts but the researcher’s definition of these. This is one way in which the values of the researcher can interfere with the research making it value-laden. Although quantitative and empirical data is seen as more objective than other data, it is still subject to imposition problems. Positivist researchers may interpret the data the way they wish to. This connects with the problem caused by having a hypothesis; the researcher may interpret the data in such a way that it proves their hypothesis when it may not.

Many may suggest that Interpretivist research is not value free as it is more subjective than Positivist research. Unlike Positivists, Interpretivists do not aim to prove a hypothesis. This means that they do not previously predict the direction of their research meaning that they can carry out their research objectively. Interpretivist research often collects data that is qualitative. Qualitative data is harder to analyse objectively than quantitative data. The information deemed as important may be subject to the researcher opinion of what this is. A method used by Interpretivist researchers is that is Verstehen, looking through the eyes of the participants. By doing this, the researchers may not be able to conduct the research objectively causing the research to be value-laden.

Some Interpretivist researchers take a ‘researcher on the inside’ approach. This enables the researchers to form a rapport with their participants. This can cause the researcher to become attached to their participants and cause the researchers to portray the participants in a subjective way.

Triangulation is a method that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to check the reliability and validity of research. There are many forms of triangulation one of which is Investigator triangulation. This is when different researchers take part in a piece of research and check for research on the researcher’s part. Another form of triangulation is Data triangulation; collecting data at different times from different places and people. Data triangulation can be used to assess the interpretations and conclusions of researchers. The third type of triangulation is Methodological triangulation. This can be ‘method within method’; using a variety of method within the same research method. It can also be ‘between method’; the use of various research methods on one piece of research.

Some argue that triangulation can make research value free. This can be true in the case of Investigator triangulation. This can reduce the bias that researchers may impose on their research as other researcher may point out any bias present. However, Investigator triangulation can also cause the research to be less value-free. The researchers checking the research may impose their own values on the research making it value-laden. Data triangulation can make research more value-free as researchers can assess the interpretation of other researchers. This can reduce the subjectivity of an investigation making it less biased and more valid.

It is possible that research does not always need to be value-free. Standpoint theory is based on the belief that due to their positions in society, some group can give a more valid insight into the social world. Feminist Standpoint researchers argue that because women are oppressed and excluded from powerful positions they can stand back and observe the patriarchal society as strangers.