Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research

Introduction

Traditionally, research in the field of health promotion has followed in the footsteps of its "older brother," medicine. However, the reductionistic model of disease causation cannot adequately describe the complex mechanisms that influence health behavior. Social marketers working to promote health have learned that rigorous quantitative research surveys do not necessarily provide all of the data needed to develop effective communications. Consequently, qualitative methods such as focus groups and in-depth interviews, as well as less precise but useful semi-quantitative approaches, such as intercept surveys, have emerged as part of their research repertoire. In an ideal social marketing program, researchers use both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a more complete picture of the issue being addressed, the target audience and the effectiveness of the program itself. The purpose of this paper is to look at how these two different research approaches can be integrated to inform the development of an effective social marketing program.

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Comparison

An examination of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms will help to identify their strengths and weaknesses and how their divergent approaches can complement each other. In most cases, researchers fall into one of the two camps--either relying exclusively upon "objective" survey questionnaires and statistical analyses and eschewing warm and fuzzy qualitative methods, or using only qualitative methodologies, rejecting the quantitative approach as decontextualizing human behavior. However, social marketing researchers recognize that each approach has positive attributes, and that combining different methods can result in gaining the best of both research worlds.

Quantitative research uses methods adopted from the physical sciences that are designed to ensure objectivity, generalizability and reliability. These techniques cover the ways research participants are selected randomly from the study population in an unbiased manner, the standardized questionnaire or intervention they receive and the statistical methods used to test predetermined hypotheses regarding the relationships between specific variables. The researcher is considered external to the actual research, and results are expected to be replicable no matter who conducts the research.

The strengths of the quantitative paradigm are that its methods produce quantifiable, reliable data that are usually generalizable to some larger population. Quantitative measures are often most appropriate for conducting needs assessments or for evaluations comparing outcomes with baseline data. This paradigm breaks down when the phenomenon under study is difficult to measure or quantify. The greatest weakness of the quantitative approach is that it decontextualizes human behavior in a way that removes the event from its real world setting and ignores the effects of variables that have not been included in the model.

Qualitative research methodologies are designed to provide the researcher with the perspective of target audience members through immersion in a culture or situation and direct interaction with the people under study. Qualitative methods used in social marketing include observations, in-depth interviews and focus groups. These methods are designed to help researchers understand the meanings people assign to social phenomena and to elucidate the mental processes underlying behaviors. Hypotheses are generated during data collection and analysis, and measurement tends to be subjective. In the qualitative paradigm, the researcher becomes the instrument of data collection, and results may vary greatly depending upon who conducts the research.

The advantage of using qualitative methods is that they generate rich, detailed data that leave the participants' perspectives intact and provide a context for health behavior. The focus upon processes and "reasons why" differs from that of quantitative research, which addresses correlations between variables. A disadvantage is that data collection and analysis may be labor intensive and time-consuming. In addition, these methods are not yet totally accepted by the mainstream public health community and qualitative researchers may find their results challenged as invalid by those outside the field of social marketing.

Social Marketing Research

The traditional health promotion professional conducts research at the beginning of a project to develop an intervention, and again at the end to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. In contrast, social marketers utilize research throughout the planning, development, implementation and evaluation phases of the program; social marketing is a process of continuous development and testing. Many of the tools used to develop social marketing programs--focus groups, consumer marketing databases, intercept surveys--have their origins in the field of commercial market research, and are based on "what works" for gathering various types of needed data. Social marketing relies upon consumer-focused research to learn as much about the target audience as possible by looking at their lives from many different angles--both quantitatively as part of a larger group and qualitatively to investigate individual attitudes, reactions, behaviors and preferences.

Social marketing programs use research throughout the life of a project. Research in social marketing is conducted specifically to help make better decisions at key points in the process (Andreasen, 1995). These decisions may include which target audience, messages and media to choose; whether to make changes in program strategy during implementation; and whether to continue the program. Pinpointing the facts needed to make these decisions will help to identify the best methods for subsequently collecting this data. Some types of information may require quantitative data collection methods, such as detecting any measurable differences in knowledge or behaviors once the program has been implemented. Soliciting audience reactions to a selection of program messages, on the other hand, may be best done through qualitative methods. An effective and responsive program requires a combination of research approaches in order to have the data needed for decision making.

Professionals who come to social marketing from a traditional health promotion background may have a difficult time in reconciling their notion of "what research is" with some of the methods that social marketers have appropriated from the commercial marketing tool kit. Even those who are committed to using a mix of research methods may encounter institutional resistance to deviating from the quantitative paradigm, particularly when the proposed research will occur in a governmental or academic setting. However, as the field of health promotion evolves from a focus on individual lifestyles and risk factors to a broader concept of social and environmental factors influencing morbidity and mortality, researchers must employ a variety of methods to reflect this new perspective.

Toward an Integrative Social Marketing Research Model

As a useful starting point, Steckler et al. (1992) have delineated four possible models of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in health education research. In the first approach, qualitative methods contribute to the development of quantitative instruments, such as the use of focus groups in questionnaire construction. The second model consists of a primarily quantitative study that uses qualitative results to help interpret or explain the quantitative findings. In the third approach, quantitative results help interpret predominantly qualitative findings, as when focus group participants are asked to fill out survey questionnaires at the session. In the fourth model, the two methodologies are used equally and in parallel to cross-validate and build upon each other's results. Social marketers may operate under one or more of these models; the approaches are not mutually exclusive.

A social marketing model for integrating methods must include quantitative and qualitative methods at each stage of the process for formative research, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. While each program is unique, the model proposed here can be adapted based on available resources.

Integrating Formative Research

During the formative research stage, in which the goal is to learn as much as possible about how the target audience thinks and behaves in relation to the issue being addressed, a host of research methods provides many different data "viewpoints" for seeing the big picture. Exploratory research conducted at the beginning of the project reviews previous research involving both quantitative and qualitative data and can include interviews with those who have previously attempted to address the issue. This research will help in the initial development of the project strategy to delineate the parameters of the project, steer the selection of the target audience, specify the potential behaviors to be promoted and identify lessons learned and potential pitfalls. Focus groups conducted for exploration also yield valuable qualitative data regarding the target audience, providing insights into their language, issues and obstacles they identify, and meanings attributed to beliefs and behaviors.

Information learned from the initial focus groups can then be used to inform questionnaire construction for a population survey to collect hard numbers for baseline data. The survey will also help to segment the target audience based upon its distribution across the stages of behavior change, as described by the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1983), or other characteristics. In addition, commercial marketing databases, while quantitative in nature, provide highly detailed profiles of target audience segments for message development and channel selection.

The messages and materials developed based upon the exploratory research should be pretested using both qualitative and quantitative methods so that the results provide depth of understanding as well as generalizability. Focus groups provide a valuable means to pretest messages and materials, for audience members can provide spontaneous reactions and explain their responses. This method, however, can only indicate trends and cannot yield hard quantitative data needed for definitive decision making. If enough focus groups are conducted and participants are considered representative of the target audience, a survey questionnaire may be administered either before or after the focus group to collect numerical data as well.

A central-site intercept survey, in which potential audience members are approached in a public area and asked to respond to a quick questionnaire, provides another method of pretesting materials. The fast turnaround nature of this method and high volume of responses makes it ideal for testing draft executions of materials such as print or television ads prior to production and implementation. This method is considered semi-quantitative because respondents are not selected from a random sample, but questions are usually closed-ended and tabulated statistically. Final decisions, such as choosing from among several possible ads, can be made based on the numbers this method yields.

Integrating Process Evaluation

Upon implementation of the program, process evaluation helps to keep the project on track and signals when changes are needed in the program strategy. The most common data collection activity in this phase involves counting--materials distributed, number of people attending activities, broadcasts of the television or radio ads, media coverage of events, phone calls to the organization--to ensure that the project proceeds as intended. Other quantitative tracking mechanisms, such as consumer surveys, identify whether the program's message is reaching the target audience and is getting its attention and motivating action. In an ongoing multi-year project, this may be a repetition of the population survey conducted at the beginning; for a shorter-term project, a survey may target a very specific audience segment.

Qualitative process evaluation methods can include periodic interviews or focus groups with target audience members to assess their progress toward behavior change. Through these activities, participants may inform program administrators of unforeseen barriers or opportunities to adopting the behavior that need to be addressed to increase chances of success. Observations of audience members may also provide clues to needed changes in program strategy or messages in case they are using the product in an unsafe manner or performing the target behavior incorrectly. The quantitative and qualitative process research can be conducted simultaneously to collect and react to data.

Integrating Outcome Evaluation

Both types of research are instructive in identifying the program outcomes. A repeat of the quantitative population survey will provide an indication of whether the program realized its objectives in raising awareness, changing attitudes and initiating behavior change. Related decreases in morbidity and mortality or other major indices will be more difficult to claim without also conducting a matched community intervention study, with the only difference between the communities being the presence of the social marketing program.

In the end, the quantitative data emerging from the survey are generally used as the final arbiters of success. However, qualitative research can point out successes that may have occurred on a more human scale through anecdotes about how the social marketing program made a difference in someone's life. Focus groups, interviews and other methods of collecting individual people's stories and responses to the campaign are valuable in learning which components of the program were successful and how the next project can be improved. Both types of research are necessary to assess the full extent of the program's impact upon the target audience.

Conclusion

Integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods lends depth and clarity to social marketing programs. This combination of approaches is necessary because of the wide range of data needed to develop effective communications. However, the potential for problems exists when attempting to combine such divergent research paradigms; one may end up not doing either type of research well. This integrative approach therefore requires a research team with expertise in both types of methods. Using multiple approaches can also be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. Another obstacle, which will likely change as social marketing gains in usage, is that combining multiple methods is still not widely accepted as a viable research strategy--at least in mainstream public health circles. As social marketers demonstrate that such research is necessary to fully understand and address many health-related issues, the research norms and scientific dogma regarding appropriate methods may shift to a new, more integrative paradigm.

Participant Observation

Participant Observation

Introduction

All methods involve observation, but P.O. is characterized by the extent to which its advocates insist on observation and interpretation of a situation, informed by an understanding of the situation from the point of view of the participants rather than the observer. An attempt is made to avoid imposing categories from outside.

P.O. is the method of anthropology, although it is used in a wide range of sociological studies when the researcher has 'become part of a daily round, learning languages and meanings, rules of impersonal, relations… and in short, living the life of the people under study.' (Hughes, 1976).

The priorities of P.O.

The emphasis is on qualitative research, where the social meanings of the actors is the basis for explaining their actions. In the past a frequently overlooked method, devalued possibly by concern over its ability to meet strict criteria of scientific adequacy. This resistance to P.O. comes particularly from sociologists who have tended to see the social sciences in a positivist framework.

Kluckholm (1940) defines P.O. as:

'...a conscious and systematic sharing, in so far as circumstances permit, in the life activities, and on occasion, in the interests and effects of a group of persons. Its purpose is to obtain data about behaviour through direct contact and in terms of specific situations, in which, the distortion that results from the investigator being an outside agent is reduced to a minimum.'

What this implies is that a researcher should try to avoid altering the groups direction, although s/he may influence the immediate content. For example, in Parker’s study, View from the Boys (1974), which was a study of Liverpool adolescents, the researcher persuaded the boys to postpone a theft, but did not try to alter the overall direction of the gang by trying to persuade them not to commit crime. Ideally, P.O. requires sharing without disturbing the sentiments and experiences of people in social situations.

There is, however, a certain vagueness concerning the exact nature of P.O. in terms of the method itself. Fletcher notes that the observer 'does his training in the field.'


Moser claims that 'participant observation is a highly individual technique.'

Patrick, in his study of the Glasgow Gang, expected to have to play it by ear. It is very much a 'suck it and see approach'.

From a positivist point of view, this vagueness in the matter of the method of investigation is seen as a disadvantage. Certainly, reliability would be difficult to claim, but vagueness may also be viewed as an example of the flexibility of P.O. Also, there is the possibility that a research opportunity might just suddenly occur and there is little time to prepare or structure a study.


Mixes of Participation and Observation

The participation and observation elements of P.O. can vary to adapt to the research focus. Gold, Rules in Sociological Field Observation (1958), proposed a four fold classification:

1. The complete observer.

2. The participant as observer.

3. The observer as participant.

4. The complete participant.



The Complete Observer

In this role there is no joining in by the observer. This method is seldom used other than for systematic eavesdropping or gaining an initial grasp of a situation. There is the strong possibility that an adequate basis for understanding is not provided.



The Participant as Observer

With this role, researcher and informant are aware that theirs is a research relationship and ole pretence is minimised. The observer's activities are not wholly concealed, but they are played down while s/he gets on with participating. This situation is facilitated if the researcher has a participant who befriends him/her, and who can therefore support the research.

A danger with this role is that informants may become so identified with the researcher that they become observers themselves. This may induce changes in the behaviour of the group. Similarly, there is the danger that the researcher may go native - that is to identify with the group so strongly that s/he may cease to function as an observer.

The Observer as Participant

This role is associated mainly with studies involving one-visit interviews when some formal observation may be possible. While this role avoids any problems that may arise from longer involvement, it carries the obvious risk of generating only a superficial understanding.

The Complete Participant

The true identity and motives of the researcher are not made known to the people with whom they are participating, and who are being observed for research purposes.

There are two main problems with this approach; that the researcher may be so concerned not to break cover that s/he does not perform convincingly in the assumed role, and that the researcher may become so involved that they go native. Furthermore, in this role the researcher is not achieving the aim of total neutrality as their membership of the group lends support to that group.

Getting in, staying in, getting out

Getting in

Participant observers aim to become an unobtrusive part of the scene, non-threatening to the participants, and become ‘taken for granted’ by the participants. Some researchers emphasise the need to move slowly into the group setting. For example, Liebow spent four weeks hanging about on an irregular basis in the cafes of ‘Tally’s Corner’ in order to penetrate the world of a group of black men who hung about on a street corner.

Entry is made easier when the researcher has a contact in the group (a sponsor), who invites the researcher into the group. Other researchers have used disguise in order to penetrate a group. For example, Festinger equipped four observers with fake stories about psychic experiences in order to join an exclusive cult. Much depends on the researchers personality and the way in which his/her front is acceptable to the group under observation. Parker (View from the Boys) found entry easy and rapid, possibly because he was 'young, hairy, boozy, etc, willing to keep long hours.'


Staying in

The observer has to come to terms with a complete set of norms, relationships and activities, and try to understand the meanings these hold for the people involved. The researcher, therefore, requires skill in questioning, watching, listening. In the early days of the research s/he may not be able to ask too many direct questions. Whyte, in his study of Cornerville, was advised to lay off asking questions and to simply hang around so that, in the long run, he would get answers without even having to ask the questions.

In some cases, researchers take on a particular role among their subjects, as a vantage point for observation, but this can be limiting, or very uncomfortable if it ties you into the conventions and obligations of the group. When a group's behaviour borders on deviance, it may pose moral problems for the observer. It might be possible to avoid becoming involved in criminal activity of a direct kind yet still retain a contact with criminal groups. For example, Parker would keep dixy (watch) and receive knock off but would not become involved in the act of stealing.

Failure to accept the group norms can lead to rejection by the group as Patrick discovered when he refused to join in a pub brawl with the rest of the gang he was researching. He was roundly abused by the gang for his lack of support for them.

A long-term problem with P.O. is observer fatigue. Such research may be physically tiring and mentally exhausting, particularly if you have to keep up a pretence about who you really are.

Getting out

This is always a problem whether the study is overt or covert. Exiting is a neglected area of research reports, although the method, timing, and manner of exiting varies considerably. Patrick left the gang suddenly, no longer being able to accept their violence, whereas Whyte’s subjects arrange a farewell party for him.

A more serious consideration is when does research reach a conclusion? The whole essence of P.O. is social life as an ongoing accomplishment, how do you decide that the ‘story’ has reached an end? P.O. is like ‘modern, slice of life’ novels; no conclusion, just an exit.

Realistically, the end of research is more likely to be; the finance is about to stop, my PHD has got to be completed, I can’t stand any more of this. The ending is fabricated. The researcher imposes an end. These people have got lives, families, careers. The ending has to be fraudulent but understandable.

Problems with Participant Observation

General

Shipman suggests that there are three key questions that should be asked about any piece of social research:

If the investigation had been carried out by someone other than the author, but using the author's methods, would the same results have been obtained (reliability)?

The answer for P.O. is very unlikely. The characteristics of the author are essential to the account produced. We don’t need to get complicated here, crucial variables will be age, sex, ethnicity, personality.

Could Willis replicate Pryce’s Endless Pressure, could an old, fat, lazy woman replicate Parker’s View from the Boys? Do the results really reflect the influence of the factors under examination, or did extraneous influences interfere? (validity). Unknowable, but at least you might hope that a researcher has a better chance with this method than with most others.

What relevance do the results have beyond the actual research, for instance, to what extent can the results be applicable to situations similar to that studied? (generalisation).

A number of problems here: first, it might not be the intention to generalise, it might be a unique case, second, have other similar studies been done?

Most often the conclusion must be that generalisation is fraught with difficulty because of the limited size of the group studied.

How many boys did Willis hang out with? The West Midlands, typical of what?

P.O. produces interesting and thought provoking work, it is messy, inconclusive and of dubious parentage. It could be good but is most likely to be used by the least experienced, and knowledgeable researchers and the groups that are ‘open’ to such study are limited-it tends to be the poor, the weak, the disadvantaged. P.O. is frequently associated, in my mind, with studies of the weird and the powerless.

Interpretation

The perception of any observer is not passive. An impression is first selected and then interpreted within the mind of the observer. The observers attitudes, values and beliefs intervene, as do any theoretical models held. This has been called the pollution of interpretation and is clearly a part of the problem of imposition.



Control

Control is used in research in order to detect and reduce errors in observation. In a ‘natural’ setting replication is impossible. Consequently, comparison with other similar settings is often used as an alternative method. Additionally, checklists, film and tape recordings could be used.

This is nonsense as far as P.O. is concerned because control introduces factors not present in the actual research if the research is any good. Control introduces interference, to control a situation is to change it. To identify significant controls is to specify, in advance, what are significant variables. In brief, control imposes pre-selected boundaries of significance. OK for cabbages but will it do for people? This is not really a problem for the method but a problem of evaluation. For ‘scientific’ sociology there is the deep question of how they think they can control human interaction.


Detachment

Reliability requires detachment. But detachment requires disengagement with the subjects of research; we stand back and ask ‘what do I think?' And we assume that what we think is detached. There is no way to objectively consider evidence. P.O. provides stories just like statistics provide stories, you decide what resonates with you.

It is also likely to be the case that in the process of P.O. research that the initial period and the final period are those where detachment is most sought. During the actual joining in period subjective understanding is what is sought.



Ethics

All researchers have some conception of what they consider ethical, so do we all. The problem is that we don’t always do what we would ideally like to do. Ethics is simply a question of how much guilt we can handle, and how many valid excuses we can construct. Sociologists, in the UK at least, are part of an academic community in which prestige and advancement are based (at least in part) upon prowess in research.

Prowess is associated with finding out new and interesting things. Think on, think particularly about the source of our ethical standards-they are not philosophical absolutes but class based relative accords of reasonable behaviour. And do they stick to them? Simply, ethics is a minefield, so don’t let the opposing camp tell you what they are!

Clearly there is a need for some standard, but, at present one does not exist. The problem in research , at present, is the pretence of neutrality while pursuing political agendas.

There is no reason to suspect P.O., rather than other research techniques, of ethical bias. Certainly we should consider the ethical implications of the use made of social research by people who are seeking personal advancement, and they are always there.



Imposition

In any research into people there is the problem of imposition. At heart, this means getting the answers you get or the conclusion you reach, because of the way that you, as a researcher, handle the data.

Interactionist research has often believed that it bypassed the problem of imposition because it refrained from asking direct (tick in the box questions).

Certainly P.O. generally refrains from asking tick in the box questions. Thus it gets round the imposition problem of: asking specific questions. And seeking specific answers, but:

Imposition is still there:

- The researcher has to choose what to observe.

- The researcher chooses what to record.

- The researcher chooses what to use.

- The researcher decides significance.

It all amounts to the pollution of interpretation.



A perfect design for research would be:

- Fully controlled to ensure reliability.

- Fully participant to ensure maximum validity.

- Carried out with scientific rigour.

- Done with the full knowledge of the observed.

Conclusion

P.O. is a valuable research tool, it is not able to deliver, objective, testable, replicable research, but it might provide insight, the starting point for understanding.

New Right

Theoretical Perspectives: New Right

Key ideas:

• Economic freedom (Market Liberalism)
  
• Rationality (of individuals) / Consumer choice
  
• Cost / Benefit analysis
  
• Free Capitalist Markets (Market Economies)
  
• Individual superior to the Collective (Anti-Collectivism - e.g. Anti- Union)
  
• Underclass theory (Murray)
  
• Welfare dependency / Dependency culture
  
• Limited role of State / Government (Defence, Public Order)
  
• State as "oppressive of individual freedom"
  
• Traditional family roles / gender relationships
  
• Anti-socialist / Pro-Capitalist
  
• Capitalism is highest form of economic organisation / society possible
  
• Nature (biology / genes) more important than Nurture (environment)
  
• Libertarianism

Key Names: Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher, Reagan, Wilson, Van Den Haag. P.Morgan, Phillips.

Key Criticisms: 

• Over-emphasis on Individuals at expense of social structures
  
• Ignores inequalities of class, gender, status, power
  
• Double Moral Standards (economic freedom but strict control of family life)
  
• Political propaganda rather than analysis
  
• New Right Realism (Deviance) - ignores white-collar crime / crimes of powerful
  
• Are human beings "naturally selfish / self-seeking"?
  
• Ignores role of culture in the shaping of social identities
  
• Total "freedom of action for individual" impossible in modern, complex, societies
  
• Dependency Culture = unproven assertion
  
• Underclass theory not proven
  
• Little or no empirical research / evidence to support New Right theories
  
  

Key Critics: All variants of Feminism, Marxism (Traditional and Neo).

Post-Modernism

Theoretical Perspectives: Post-Modernism

Key Ideas: 

• Culture and Identity (especially identities relating to gender, age, ethnicity)
  
• Centred and Decentred individuals
  
• Critical of Meta-Narratives (Grand Theories of Society like Marxism)
  
• Rejection of positivism (science as ideology)
  
• Post-Fordist production techniques
  
• Deindustrialisation
  
• Consumerism / Consumer Culture
  
• Class analysis "irrelevant" / "outdated"
  
• In-groups and out-groups ("One of Us or One of Them")
  
• Social Construction of reality (Subjective realities not objective realities)
  
• Reject ideology of "progress"
  
• New Social Movements
  
• Post-Industrial society / Post-Structuralism
  
• Globalisation
  
• Hyper-realities (media)
  
  

Key Names: Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Bauman, Lyotard, McRobbie, Bell.

Key Criticisms: 

• In Sociology, modern twist on (old) Interactionist ideas
  
• If all knowledge is relative (has same status) why should anyone believe views of post-modern writers?
  
• Post-Modern society is ideology invention (does not exist)
  
• Over-emphasis on individuals, consumers, choice, etc.
  
• Under-emphasis on how "choice" is socially-created / produced
  
• No empirical evidence to support post-modernist "theories"
  
• Ignores power structures in society
  
• Capitalism does not produce empowered, knowledgeable, consumers
  
• Social class clearly related to life chances
  
• "Science" is not simply an ideology (describes empirical reality)
  
  

Key Critics: Gellner, Giddens, Habermas, Hall. (In addition, criticism has come from various sociological / non-sociological perspectives - Marxism, Feminism, New Right).

Weberian

Theoretical Perspectives: Weberian

Key ideas: 

• Structuration (Social Action and Social Structure)
  
• Pluralism
  
• Market position (economic dimension of stratification)
  
• Conflict (across class, gender, age, ethnicity, region, etc.).
  
• Class (Market position), Status and Party (organised power) = basis for stratification
  
• Life Chances
  
• Status groups and Interest groups
  
• Bureaucracy
  
• Modernisation and Rationalisation
  
• Power (coercive and authority types)
  
• Objectivity (personal) and Subjectivity (Verstehen or "empathy")
  
• Multi-causal analysis (e.g. Religion and Capitalism)
  
• Meanings and Interpretations
  
• Ideal Type
  
• Value freedom
  
  

Key Names: Weber, Dahrendorf, Giddens, Haralambos, Goldthorpe / Lockwood

Key Criticisms: 

• Over-emphasis on motives, interpretations of individuals
  
• Emphasis on subjective interpretations of individuals downgrades importance of social structures
  
• Theoretical separation between Structure and Action not empirically justifiable
  
• Impossible to clearly identify social classes
  
• Fatalistic view of materialism, bureaucracy and Capitalism (successful Communist revolution impossible)
  
• Can social structures be reduced to individual actions and motivations?
  
• Over-emphasis on cultural conditions and changes at expense of economic conditions and changes.
  
  

Key Critics: Newby and Lee, Crompton, Marshall, Abercrombie and Urry.

Interactionism

Theoretical Perspectives: Interactionism

Key ideas:

• The Self ("I" and the "Me" - Self concept).
  
• Meanings and Interpretations
  
• Negotiated reality
  
• Symbolic universe of meaning
  
• Social context (relativity, Definition of a situation)
  
• Social construction of reality (Subjective sociology)
  
• Social Action approach (Micro, small-scale)
  
• Society actively constructed through Social Interaction
  
• Labelling theory (master labels, categorisation, stereotyping)
  
• Role Play (ascription and achievement)
  
• "Society" has no objective existence (society = "elaborate fiction")
• Interpretivist methodology
  

Key Names: Mead, Cooley, Becker, Berger and Luckmann, Goffman, Garfinkel.

Key Criticisms:

• Focus on small-scale, relatively trivial, aspects of social life
  
• Over-emphasis on "the individual" (little sense of social structure)
  
• Too much focus on individuals (and their "common sense", subjective, interpretations)
  
• Doesn't explain how or why societies change
  
• Questions of social order and social change not adequately explained
  
• Social Structures (doesn't explain why these may be important)
  
• How do structures affect individual perceptions, meanings and interpretations?
  
• Power relationships (where does power come from?).
• Are there objective features of society?
  
• Is all knowledge relative?
  
  

Key Critics: Gouldner, Structuralist sociologists (Marxists, Functionalists).

Radical Feminism

Theoretical Perspectives: Radical Feminism

Key ideas: 

• Patriarchy / Patriarchal Ideology: All societies; Pre-dates Capitalism
• Patriarchal relationships paved the way for Capitalist forms of economic and gender exploitation
  
• Gender inequality and (male) exploitation.Examples:
  
• Female biology - Men exploit incapacity through pregnancy
  
• Marriage (Institutionalised oppression - Bouchier).
  
• Heterosexual relationships.
  
• Institutionalised sexual inequality (equality by legal means = impossible
  
• Sex class (common interest = freedom from male oppression)
  
• Men are enemy of women (advocate lesbian relationships / female support groups)
  
• Public sphere (work) and Private sphere (the home) = dual form of female exploitation not experienced by men
• Technology (e.g. freedom from childbirth) = way emancipation can be achieved

Key Names: Firestone, Millet, Bouchier, Delphy

Key Criticisms: 

• Are women a "sex class"? (experiences and life chances of upper class / females significantly different to those of working class females)
• Downplays importance of concepts like class, age and ethnicity
  
• Unproven assumptions about male and female psychological differences
  
• Over-state the significance of psychological / biological differences
  
• Not all gender relationships characterised by oppression / exploitation
  
• General position of women in society has improved / changed over time
  
• Is matriarchal society superior and preferable to a patriarchal society?

Key Critics: New Right (politicians, journalists), Marxist / Socialist Feminists (Barratt, Oakley, etc.), Liberal Feminists.

Marxist Feminism

Theoretical Perspectives: Marxist Feminism

Key ideas: 

• Social class more important than patriarchy.
• Class inequality = cause of female oppression, exploitation, discrimination.
• Patriarchal Ideology (justifies economic exploitation of women).
• Women are not a "sex class" (only thing they have in common is their sex).
• Family system benefits Capitalism and Men.
• Domestic Labour = form of exploitation (unpaid domestic labour).
• Dual Female Role (family and work).
• Reserve Army of Labour (McIntosh).
• Gender Socialisation (feminine / masculine cultural roles).
• Men socialised into exploitative relationships at work (carry this socialisation over into the home and their relationship to women).
  
• Do not see men as the "enemy" of women (Radical Feminism).
• Emancipation of women only through overthrow of Capitalism.
• Communist society = non-exploitation.

Key Names: McIntosh, Coontz and Henderson, Benston, Dalla Costa, James.

Key Criticisms: 

• Patriarchy predates Capitalism
• Capitalism merely an extension of Patriarchal ideology / exploitation.
• Over emphasis on economic class relationships
• Over emphasis on Capitalist forms of exploitation.
• Under emphasises patriarchal forms of exploitation
  
• Assumes men and women have similar interests (overthrow of Capitalism)
  
• Communism as "solution" to female exploitation = very unlikely
• Denies that women have common interests (sex class)

Key Critics: Radical Feminists (Firestone, Millet, Delphy, etc.), New Right (politicians, journalists).

Liberal Feminism

Theoretical Perspectives: Liberal Feminism

Key Ideas:

• Focus on male / female relationships
  
• Social change = evolutionary.
  
• Laws needed / used to "redress" male / female power imbalance
  
• Equality of Opportunity for women (parity with men)
  
• Women not inferior to men (legal / political / economic and social equality)
  
• Main weapon = legal system (outlaw sex discrimination)
  
• Anti-discrimination legislation, equal pay, child-care facilities for working women (equal legal protection and social rights)
  
• Women's dual role (family and work)
  
• Patriarchal attitudes of society / men
  
• Successful (UK, USA) in terms of anti-discrimination, equal pay and maternity rights
  
  

Key Names: Toynbee (journalist), Shirley Williams (politician)

Key Criticisms: 

• Women - like working class men - are at a fundamental economic disadvantage
  
• Bourgeois / middle-class feminists
  
• Ignores study of social structural factors (e.g. class)
  
• Legal equality not same as status equality
  
• Legal changes mainly benefited middle class women
  
• Institutionalised sex inequality (part of fabric of Capitalist society)
  
  

Key Critics:

New Right (politicians, journalists: Melanie Phillips, Patricia Morgan), Marxist, Socialist and Radical Feminists

Marxism

Theoretical Perspectives: Marxism

Key Ideas:

• Traditional (Instrumental) and Neo-Marxist types
  
• Social class (economic - Ownership of the means of production)
  
• Class conflict
  
• Ruling class / Subject classes (Exploitative social relationships)
  
• Class consciousness and False Consciousness
  
• Social Structure (Macro approach)
  
• Institutions
  
• Alienation
  
• "Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISAs) - Althusser
  
• "Repressive State Apparatuses" (RSAs) - Althusser
  
• Hegemony
  
• Economic base (or infrastructure) and Political / Ideological superstructure
  
• Classes and class fractions
  
• Critical of Capitalism

Key Names: Marx, Althusser, Gramsci, Poulantzas, Milliband, Hall, Taylor, Walton and Young.

Key Criticisms: 

• Unscientific (the "Faith of Marxism" - Popper)
• Conspiracy theory (especially aimed at Instrumental Marxists)
  
• Communism does not appear imminent
  
• Left Functionalism (Jock Young: argues most "Marxism" is little more than form of
• Functionalism that replaces interests of "society" with "ruling class").
  
• Subjective beliefs and interpretations of individuals ignored (Weber)
  
• Economic determinism
  
• Forms of (non-economic) conflict (gender, ethnic group) ignored in favour of economic conflicts.

Key Critics:

Popper, Weber, Dahrendorf, Young ("Left Idealism"), Any New Right Theorist, Sociobiologists, Radical Feminists.