Further Research Methods

Having already looked in depth at focus groups as a form of research, I have conducted a study of other forms of research.

Questionnaires have both advantages and disadvantages. They can be done in a short amount of time but people may misinterpret the questions if it is a written questionnaire, so the questionnaire must be formed carefully and not be too long. You can gain a large range of data from different interest groups but results may be incomplete. I think a questionnaire would be a good source of data for my project.

Interviewing people allows one to one questioning and therefore has more depth. However, a person may be subjective. On the other hand, an expert can provide good objective information. I think interviewing people would be a viable form of research for my project. I think it is important to use a wide variety of research types in order to gain a wide, varied range of data to enhance my project. I could try to organise interviews with experts on the subject in order to hear their views first-hand.  

Interviewing by email allows for more time to think about and answer questions but phrasing of an answer may be hard to interpret. You are not likely to get an immediate response which is also a disadvantage. Interviewing by email would perhaps allow me to extend my research to experts in the field in other countries.

Ethnography is when you spend time in a country and take in a different culture. This may be impractical because of cost or danger and it may take a long time. However, it provides you with first-hand experience and allows you to come to your own judgement so your results are unique. I will most definitely be researching through ethnography on my trip to The Gambia. Hopefully this will provide a different perspective for my project and help to give it more depth.

Participant observation of group interaction allows you to see how a group reacts and gives you an idea of the workings of society. This can be done either covertly, when people don’t know they are being observed or overtly, when people do know they are being observed. I will most likely conduct some research in this way but I will have to look for any overly subjective views. I think a debate may be an interesting form of research that might stem from this.

Research can also take the form of non-participant observation which involves interpreting images, for example watching film. This may take a lot of time and a group may not act naturally if you are watching. However, you would not know them personally so the results would be more objective.

Content analysis is good for issues based research. It involves looking at webpages, newspapers, films and documentaries to see how views are portrayed. An advantage of content analysis is that it is easy to do however, views may be subjective.

Newspapers are good sources for recent event information. However, they are often based upon their reader's views which may display strong political bias. What is printed may also depend upon the editor's agenda.

Websites can be useful if you find the right ones for specific information. However, websites can display bias and on websites such as Wikipedia, people can alter the information so it may not be valid.

Government reports may be a good source of information for bigger issues. Although a disadvantage is that they are inherently biased and you may have to pay for them.

Books can be the best form of research. However, it is imperative that you look at the author and see if they are actually reflecting their research base.

Journal articles are bound to be up to date and are valid as they are peer reviewed and seen by a number of people when published. Their findings will also have been checked for accuracy. However, some of the language used may be inaccessible.

Quotas: Short term solution?

I plan to use my blog to record any pieces of information and research which may prove helpful to my project.
In listening out for potentially useful pieces of information which will help add depth to my project, I came across one particularly unsettling headline earlier this week:

"Universities in England could be stripped of the power to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 a year if they fail to admit sufficient numbers of students from poorer backgrounds.”

This may sound as if I am opposing a measure which will help students from less affluent backgrounds into further education and am therefore being discriminatory. This is not the case. I am merely wishing to comment upon the government's handling of the education system. For me, introducing quotas is like cutting off the top of a dandelion. In other words, does not solve the problem at its roots. Obviously, I need to conduct further research into the system to back up these thought as at the moment they are only really normative statements. I would say, with the information I currently possess, that introducing quotas could damage the university system even further. It will deny good students from independent schools places at the top institutions. Where did this view that many people hold that everyone who attends public schools is 'rich' and everyone who attends state schools are 'poor' come from? The line is definitely not that clear cut or black and white. The government should focus on improving the state school system to provide a more equal footing for all prospective university candidates in the first place.

An article by Simon Heffer in The Daily Telegraph on Sunday I believe gives some really well thought out if slightly controversial statements which I found myself agreeing with. He believes that the quota system is just a way for the government to mask the problem.

'If this government did not maintain its doctrinaire, bigoted and ignorant prejudice against selective schools, the state system would produce many more students capable of thriving in the best institutions.' 

As I said before, this distinction between private and state schools seems to have become so set in stone and I don't think it is as simple as that. Fighting the war on the university battlefield will only result in unnecessary casualties. As Heffer says, 'it is not a great university's job to facilitate social mobility.' I feel that the quota system enforces a kind of positive discrimination in our society. Why should the government be 'sabotaging the life chance of gifted young people whose only crime was to have parents who made sacrifices to educate them privately'?

From an economic point of view, diluting the university system will surely see the country suffer in the long run? As Heffer puts it, 'we depend on these institutions for our future both as an economy and as a civilisation.' I would like to explore the theory that education is the framework upon which a country is built.

Simon Heffer. (2011). How to destroy our Universities. The Telegraph

Initial Thoughts

As I am just starting out on this project, I thought it would be a good idea to state my initial thoughts and ideas as to what the outcome of my research will be. Hopefully this will ensure that I avoid making my research too subjective.
From the knowledge I currently possess, I would say that literacy plays a big part in a country's infrastructure; education is the building block from which people proceed into jobs and family life. Therefore I would think that a lack of education in a nation would severly halt it's economic and social development. However, I am unsure at this point the extent to which illiteracy can hinder a country's development and will need to conduct research into several case studies to formulate an answer. My initial hypothesis would be that the higher the rates of illiteracy, the less developed a country will be.