Research methods and the study of crime | AQA A-Level Sociology
Updated: Aug 25
For Specification 7192
AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 75 minutes
Research methods are central to understanding how sociologists produce evidence about crime and deviance. This Research methods and the study of crime A-Level Sociology revision page explores quantitative and qualitative research, primary and secondary data, the main research methods specified by AQA, and the practical, ethical and theoretical issues that affect research. These ideas build on quantitative and qualitative research [Quantitative and qualitative research] and help you apply methodological knowledge to crime while preparing for the wider Theory and Methods section of Paper 3.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary data.
Apply questionnaires, interviews, observations, experiments, documents and official statistics to sociological issues surrounding crime.
Explain how research design influences the evidence sociologists produce.
Analyse practical, ethical and theoretical considerations involved in researching crime.
Evaluate the strengths and limitations of different approaches to investigating crime and deviance.
Revision Notes 📚
Research methods and the study of crime A-Level Sociology revision overview
AQA requires students to examine quantitative and qualitative methods of research, research design, a specified range of sources of data, distinctions between different types of data, and the theoretical, practical and ethical considerations affecting research. The same Theory and Methods requirements appear within Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods.
This means that understanding crime involves more than learning explanations of offending. You also need to think critically about how the evidence was produced.
For example, a pattern found in official statistics and an account produced through an interview are different forms of sociological evidence. Their strengths and limitations need to be considered before conclusions about crime can be accepted.
AQA also expects the design of research, including its strengths and limitations, to be considered throughout the course. This makes research design [Research design] an important part of evaluating evidence about crime.
Quantitative and qualitative research
Quantitative data
Quantitative data take a numerical form. They allow sociologists to identify patterns, comparisons and trends.
In the study of crime, quantitative evidence may be useful when investigating:
changes in recorded levels of crime over time
differences between social groups
differences between areas
patterns in offending or victimisation.
Official statistics are an important example of quantitative secondary data.
Quantitative methods may be attractive because they can produce standardised data that are easier to compare. Large data sets may also make it possible to identify relationships between variables.
However, numerical evidence should not automatically be treated as a complete picture of crime. What appears in recorded statistics may depend on whether behaviour is detected, reported and officially recorded.
This becomes particularly important when studying recent patterns and trends in crime [Recent patterns and trends in crime].
Qualitative data
Qualitative data provide detailed information about people's meanings, experiences and interpretations rather than primarily numerical measurements.
Qualitative approaches can therefore help a sociologist investigate questions such as:
why an individual behaves in a particular way
how people understand their own actions
how victims experience crime
how members of a deviant group interpret their behaviour.
Unstructured interviews and participant observation are particularly associated with detailed qualitative evidence.
AQA mark schemes recognise that qualitative methods can allow sociologists to gain deeper insight into meanings and produce greater validity. They may also be useful when investigating unfamiliar or sensitive topics.
The distinction between the two approaches is developed further in positivism, interpretivism and crime [Positivism, interpretivism and crime].
Quantitative and qualitative approaches compared
Feature | Quantitative approach | Qualitative approach |
Main form of data | Numerical | Detailed accounts, meanings and descriptions |
Common focus | Patterns, trends and comparisons | Experiences, interpretations and meanings |
Possible strength | Standardised evidence may be easier to compare and replicate | May provide greater depth and validity |
Possible limitation | May reveal less about the meanings behind behaviour | Often harder to standardise and compare |
Possible application to crime | Measuring patterns of recorded offending | Understanding experiences or motivations connected with crime |
Neither type of evidence is automatically "better". Its usefulness depends on the research question and the way the research is designed.
Primary and secondary data
A separate distinction concerns where the data come from.
Primary data
Primary data are collected directly by the sociologist for their own research.
Primary methods specified by AQA include methods such as:
questionnaires
interviews
participant observation
non-participant observation
experiments.
Collecting primary data gives the researcher greater control over what information is collected. However, the process can require substantial time, access and resources.
When crime is being investigated, access may be particularly difficult if the people the researcher wants to study are reluctant to participate. AQA's 2025 mark scheme specifically recognised difficulties in gaining access to groups such as criminals as a potential problem of primary research.
Secondary data
Secondary data already exist and were originally produced for another purpose.
Examples within the specification include:
documents
official statistics.
Secondary evidence may save the sociologist time and money because the material has already been produced. However, the researcher did not control the original collection of the data, so they must consider how useful and valid it is for their own research question.
You can revisit this distinction in primary and secondary data [Primary and secondary data].
⚠️ Important: Primary does not mean qualitative, and secondary does not mean quantitative. These are two different classifications. Primary data can be quantitative or qualitative, and secondary sources can also contain different types of data.
Research design
Research design refers to the way sociological research is planned and carried out.
The researcher must make connected decisions about:
what topic or issue to investigate
what type of evidence is required
which research method or methods to use
how the research will be conducted
what practical, ethical and theoretical issues must be considered.
A strong design matches the research method to the research question.
For example, if a sociologist wants to identify broad patterns in recorded crime, quantitative secondary evidence may be useful. If the sociologist instead wants to understand how people interpret their involvement in deviance, a qualitative primary method may be more suitable.
The key examination skill is therefore not simply memorising lists of advantages and disadvantages. You need to explain why a particular strength or limitation matters for the research being conducted.
Questionnaires and researching crime
A questionnaire collects responses to a set of questions. Questionnaires may produce quantitative information, qualitative information, or a combination depending on their design.
Possible strengths
Questionnaires can:
collect information from a comparatively large number of participants
produce responses that can be compared
provide quantitative evidence about patterns and relationships
be less resource-intensive than some forms of detailed qualitative research.
Possible limitations when studying crime
Crime may involve sensitive information. Participants may be unwilling to disclose illegal or socially disapproved behaviour, which could reduce the validity of the evidence.
A questionnaire may also provide less opportunity than an unstructured interview for a participant to explain the meanings behind their behaviour.
This means a questionnaire might be useful for identifying a broad pattern, while being less useful for understanding why that pattern exists.
For more detailed revision of the method itself, see questionnaires [Questionnaires].
Interviews and researching crime
An interview allows the researcher to obtain information by asking participants questions directly.
Interviews can vary in their degree of structure.
Unstructured interviews
AQA examination material identifies several potential strengths of unstructured interviews:
they are flexible
trust and rapport may develop
participants can express ideas in their own way
they can generate detailed qualitative evidence
they may help investigate sensitive or unfamiliar topics
they may allow a deeper understanding of why people behave as they do.
These features can be especially useful when studying crime because the researcher may be interested in experiences and interpretations that cannot easily be reduced to numerical categories.
Limitations
Detailed interviews can be:
time-consuming
difficult to standardise
affected by the relationship between researcher and participant
difficult to conduct if access or cooperation is limited.
Sensitive research also raises ethical questions about what should be asked and how participants should be treated.
Develop this method further through interviews [Interviews].
Participant and non-participant observation
AQA requires knowledge of both participant observation and non-participant observation.
Participant observation
In participant observation, the sociologist becomes involved in the group or activity being studied while observing it.
This may allow close access to behaviour and meanings that would otherwise be difficult to understand.
When investigating deviant groups, this could potentially produce rich qualitative evidence about behaviour from the point of view of those involved.
However, significant difficulties may arise:
gaining access to the group
maintaining the researcher's role
possible harm or danger
ethical problems
maintaining objectivity
dealing with knowledge of behaviour uncovered during the research.
AQA's examination material has recognised both access to criminals and ethical problems such as "guilty knowledge" as issues that can arise in primary research.
Non-participant observation
With non-participant observation, the sociologist observes without becoming a participating member of the group.
This may reduce some of the problems caused by becoming deeply involved with participants. However, the researcher may gain less insight into the meanings that participants attach to their behaviour.
Revise the distinction in participant and non-participant observation [Participant and non-participant observation].
Experiments
Experiments are another source of sociological data specified by AQA.
An experimental approach attempts to investigate relationships between factors under conditions organised by the researcher.
The potential attraction is the ability to investigate relationships systematically. However, practical and ethical considerations can restrict what sociologists can investigate experimentally, particularly when the topic concerns sensitive or harmful behaviour.
The usefulness of an experiment therefore depends on whether the research situation allows the sociologist to investigate the issue meaningfully and ethically.
You can develop the general strengths and limitations of this method in experiments [Experiments].
Documents
Documents are existing sources that can be analysed as sociological evidence.
Because they already exist, documents are normally a form of secondary data. Depending on the source and how it is analysed, they may provide qualitative or quantitative evidence.
Possible strengths
Documents may:
provide evidence that already exists
save the researcher the time required to collect entirely new data
provide information about events or experiences that may otherwise be difficult to investigate.
Possible limitations
The sociologist did not usually create the material specifically for their research question. They therefore need to consider how and why it was produced and whether it provides appropriate evidence for the issue being investigated.
The method is examined separately in documents [Documents].
Official statistics and crime
Official statistics are numerical data produced by official organisations. They are a form of quantitative secondary data.
They are especially important when studying crime because they can be used to examine patterns and trends.
AQA mark schemes identify several possible advantages of official statistics:
large quantities of data may be available
statistics can allow comparisons between groups or regions
patterns and trends can be examined over time
they are often accessible at relatively low cost
standardised collection may increase reliability
large-scale data may improve representativeness.
However, official statistics do not automatically provide a perfectly valid measure of criminal behaviour.
For example, AQA crime questions and mark schemes recognise that some crimes can be hidden or less likely to appear in official statistics. The operation of law enforcement and recording can therefore affect the patterns that appear.
This is why evidence about social class and crime [Social class and crime], gender or ethnicity should be evaluated rather than simply accepted at face value.
Reliability, validity and representativeness
These concepts help sociologists evaluate research evidence.
Reliability
Reliability concerns the consistency or repeatability of research.
Standardised methods and consistently collected statistics may be relatively reliable because the same procedures can be used repeatedly.
Validity
Validity concerns whether the research provides a truthful or accurate picture of the social reality being investigated.
A method may be reliable but still have limited validity. For example, consistently collected numerical data may show recorded crime very reliably, while still failing to include offending that was never detected or recorded.
Qualitative research may sometimes achieve greater validity by allowing participants to express their meanings and experiences in depth.
Representativeness
Representativeness concerns how far the people or evidence studied reflect the wider group about which the researcher wants to draw conclusions.
Large-scale official statistics may provide extensive coverage. Small, difficult-to-access groups may be less representative of a wider population.
These concepts should not be treated as interchangeable. The 2023 examiner report specifically noted confusion between reliability and validity.
Theoretical considerations
Theoretical considerations concern the sociological ideas and assumptions that influence a researcher's choices.
These can affect:
the topic selected
the type of evidence valued
the method chosen
the way findings are interpreted.
AQA requires students to understand the relationship between positivism, interpretivism and sociological methods.
At this stage, the key distinction is:
approaches associated with positivism tend to value quantitative evidence, reliability, patterns and the possibility of identifying relationships between social phenomena
approaches associated with interpretivism tend to value qualitative evidence, meanings, deeper understanding and validity.
These ideas are developed fully in positivism and social facts [Positivism and social facts] and interpretivism and sociological methods [Interpretivism and sociological methods].
The researcher's theoretical position therefore helps explain why two sociologists investigating crime might select very different methods.
Practical considerations
Practical considerations are the real-world factors affecting whether research can be carried out.
AQA examination material identifies issues including:
funding and cost
time
gaining access
researcher skills
researcher characteristics
the sensitivity of the research topic.
Crime can create particular practical difficulties.
Access
People involved in criminal or deviant behaviour may be difficult for researchers to contact or may be unwilling to cooperate.
Time
In-depth qualitative research may require substantial time, especially if the sociologist is trying to establish trust.
Cost and funding
Large primary research projects can be expensive. Existing secondary data may therefore be more practical.
Researcher characteristics
The characteristics of the researcher may affect whether participants trust them and how fully they cooperate.
These factors are covered in greater depth in practical considerations in sociological research [Practical considerations in sociological research].
Ethical considerations
Ethical considerations concern the responsibilities sociologists have towards the people involved in their research.
Issues identified in AQA assessment material include:
informed consent
deception
the right to withdraw
danger or harm to participants
sensitive research
information about wrongdoing gained during research.
Crime research may make these concerns particularly significant.
Informed consent
Participants should understand what their involvement in the research means. This may become difficult if revealing the complete purpose of research would change participants' behaviour.
Harm
Research should consider the possibility of physical or psychological harm. Discussing experiences connected with crime may involve sensitive material.
Deception
Researchers must consider the ethical implications of withholding information or misleading participants.
Guilty knowledge
Research may expose the sociologist to information about illegal activity. This creates an ethical difficulty concerning information gained through the research process.
These issues are developed further in ethical considerations in sociological research [Ethical considerations in sociological research].
Choosing a method for studying crime
There is no single method that is always most appropriate.
A sociologist should judge a method against the purpose of the research.
Research aim | Potentially useful approach | Why it may be useful | Issue to consider |
Identify broad patterns of recorded crime | Official statistics | Large-scale quantitative comparisons | Recorded data may not include all crime |
Investigate attitudes or experiences across many participants | Questionnaire | Comparable primary data | Sensitive answers may lack validity |
Understand meanings and experiences in depth | Unstructured interview | Detailed qualitative evidence | Time, access and researcher influence |
Study behaviour within a group | Participant observation | Close involvement may increase understanding | Ethics, access, objectivity and safety |
Analyse existing evidence | Documents | Data already exist | Researcher did not control their production |
The strongest evaluation usually recognises a trade-off. A strength gained in one area may create a limitation elsewhere.
For example, increasing standardisation may improve reliability while reducing opportunities for participants to explain their experiences in depth. A very detailed qualitative study may achieve validity but be harder to reproduce or generalise from.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Quantitative data | Numerical data that can be used to identify patterns, comparisons and trends. | Explain why a sociologist may use statistics or other structured evidence. |
Qualitative data | Detailed, non-numerical evidence about meanings, experiences and interpretations. | Explain why methods such as unstructured interviews may produce greater depth. |
Primary data | Data collected directly by the researcher for their own study. | Identify questionnaires, interviews or observations as primary methods. |
Secondary data | Data that already exist and were produced previously. | Explain the use of documents or official statistics. |
Reliability | The consistency or repeatability of research and its findings. | Evaluate standardised methods or official statistics. |
Validity | The extent to which research gives an accurate or truthful picture of what is being studied. | Evaluate whether evidence captures the reality of offending or participants' meanings. |
Representativeness | The extent to which the people or evidence studied reflect the wider group. | Assess whether findings can be generalised more widely. |
Research design | The overall planning of how sociological evidence will be collected and investigated. | Explain why particular methods are suitable for a research question. |
Practical considerations | Factors such as time, cost, access and researcher characteristics that affect research. | Explain why a method may be difficult to use when researching crime. |
Ethical considerations | Responsibilities concerning how research affects participants and others. | Apply issues such as consent, deception, harm or sensitive information to research. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Be precise about the type of method you are discussing. In the 2020 paper, some students could identify ethical issues but were unclear about which methods counted as primary quantitative methods. Stronger responses linked the ethical issue directly to an appropriate method.
Examiner hint: Do not confuse reliability with validity. The 2023 report identified this as a difficulty for some students. Define the concept mentally before applying it to the method.
Examiner hint: Read the command carefully. A 10-mark outline and explain Theory and Methods question does not award evaluation marks. In 2023, some students spent time evaluating when the question required explanation instead.
Examiner hint: Develop the exact number of reasons requested. Examiner reports have noted that students sometimes introduce several separate issues instead of fully explaining two. A developed method-specific point is more useful than a list.
Examiner hint: Keep your application specific. If the question is about problems faced when collecting primary data, identify a problem and then explain how it affects a particular primary method rather than drifting into a general discussion of research.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating primary data as the same thing as qualitative data
Why this is incorrect: Primary and qualitative describe different features of data. Primary refers to who collected the data and why. Qualitative refers to its form.
How to improve: Ask two separate questions: "Who collected the data?" and "What form does the data take?"
Mistake: Treating official statistics as a complete measure of crime
Why this is incorrect: Official statistics record officially recognised information. Offending that is not detected, reported or recorded may not appear.
How to improve: When using crime statistics, consider both what they show and how the data were produced.
Mistake: Confusing reliability with validity
Why this is incorrect: Reliability concerns consistency. Validity concerns whether the evidence accurately reflects the social reality being studied.
How to improve: Use the memory cue:
reliable = repeatable, valid = truthful picture.
Mistake: Giving a generic strength without applying it to the method
Why this is incorrect: Saying "it has high validity" does not explain why.
How to improve: Build a chain: method feature → type of evidence → why this matters. For example, an unstructured interview allows participants to explain experiences in their own terms, which may increase the validity of the data.
Mistake: Listing practical, ethical and theoretical issues without distinguishing them
Why this is incorrect: These are different influences on research.
How to improve:
Classify each issue before writing:
time, cost and access = practical
consent, deception and harm = ethical
reliability, validity and methodological preference = theoretical
Mistake: Evaluating an "outline and explain" question
Why this is incorrect: AQA examiner reports note that evaluation is not rewarded in this type of 10-mark Theory and Methods question.
How to improve: Use the marks to develop two detailed explanations rather than adding unrelated criticisms.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following is a source of secondary quantitative data?
A. Participant observation
B. Official statistics
C. An unstructured interview
D. A researcher's questionnaire
[1 mark]
Question 2
Explain the difference between primary data and secondary data.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Outline two differences between quantitative and qualitative data.
[4 marks]
Question 4
A sociologist wants to investigate people who have committed offences but finds that many potential participants are unwilling to take part.
Explain two practical problems the sociologist may experience when conducting primary research.
[4 marks]
Question 5
A sociologist uses unstructured interviews to investigate how people interpret their involvement in deviant behaviour.
Explain one strength and one limitation of using this method for the research.
[6 marks]
Question 6
Outline and explain two reasons why official statistics may be useful when sociologists investigate patterns of crime.
[10 marks]
Question 7
Outline and explain two problems sociologists may face when using participant observation to investigate a group involved in deviant behaviour.
[10 marks]
Question 8
Evaluate the view that quantitative research methods are more useful than qualitative research methods for studying crime and deviance.
[20 marks]
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Answer: B, official statistics. [1 mark]
Official statistics are existing numerical data and are therefore secondary quantitative data.
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks:
1 mark for explaining that primary data are collected directly by the sociologist for their own research.
1 mark for explaining that secondary data already exist and were originally collected or produced for another purpose.
Question 3
Award 2 marks for each clearly outlined difference, for example:
quantitative data are numerical, whereas qualitative data provide detailed accounts of meanings or experiences
quantitative evidence is suited to identifying broad patterns and comparisons, whereas qualitative evidence is suited to exploring interpretations in greater depth.
Maximum 4 marks.
Question 4
Award 2 marks for each developed practical problem.
Possible answers include:
Access: people involved in offending may be difficult to contact or unwilling to participate, making it difficult for the researcher to obtain sufficient primary data.
Time: establishing cooperation or carrying out detailed interviews or observation may take a substantial amount of time.
Cost: collecting new primary evidence can require more resources than using existing secondary data.
Maximum 4 marks.
Question 5
Award up to 3 marks for the strength and 3 marks for the limitation.
Indicative strength:
Unstructured interviews allow participants to express their interpretations in detail. This can produce qualitative data that give the sociologist a deeper understanding of the meanings behind deviant behaviour, increasing validity.
Indicative limitation:
The method may be time-consuming and difficult to standardise. Participants discussing sensitive or illegal behaviour may also be unwilling to disclose information, which could reduce the validity of the evidence.
Maximum 6 marks.
Question 6
A strong response should develop two separate reasons.
Indicative content includes:
official statistics allow sociologists to identify patterns and trends in recorded crime over time
large quantities of data may allow comparison between social groups or areas
standardised collection may increase reliability
large-scale statistics may provide more representative evidence
data may already be available, reducing cost and time.
For the highest marks, each reason should be clearly identified, developed and linked to how sociologists can use the evidence when researching crime.
8 to 10 marks: Very good knowledge and understanding of two developed reasons, with clear application and analysis.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge, with one or two partly developed reasons.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge, little development or substantial drift from the question.
Question 7
Indicative problems include:
gaining access to a deviant group
ethical problems involving consent or deception
danger or harm
loss of objectivity through close involvement
difficulties caused by knowledge of illegal behaviour
the time required to gain trust and participate in the group.
For each reason, the problem should be explained specifically in relation to participant observation rather than simply named.
8 to 10 marks: Two well-developed and clearly applied problems with appropriate analysis.
4 to 7 marks: One or two reasonable problems with some development.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge or largely generic discussion of research.
Question 8
A strong answer should compare the usefulness of quantitative and qualitative approaches rather than discussing them separately.
Indicative content may include:
Arguments supporting quantitative research:
it can identify broad patterns and trends in crime
numerical evidence facilitates comparisons
standardised evidence may have greater reliability
large data sets may improve representativeness
official statistics can provide extensive secondary evidence.
Limitations of quantitative research:
numerical evidence may provide limited insight into meanings
recorded crime may not capture all offending
highly standardised measures may have limited validity.
Arguments supporting qualitative research:
unstructured interviews and participant observation may provide detailed evidence
participants can express meanings and interpretations
qualitative research may achieve greater validity
unfamiliar or sensitive aspects of deviance can be explored in depth.
Limitations of qualitative research:
evidence may be difficult to standardise
research can be time-consuming
access may be difficult
findings from small groups may have limited representativeness
researcher involvement can create methodological and ethical difficulties.
Top-level responses should explicitly weigh these strengths and limitations and reach a reasoned judgement. A well-supported conclusion might argue that usefulness depends on the research question: quantitative approaches are particularly valuable for identifying patterns, while qualitative methods may be more useful for understanding the meanings and experiences behind those patterns.
Comments