The method and its fixed context

A survey/questionnaire is a self-report research method that collects participants’ answers to a set of questions. The guide treats the two names as interchangeable. In this class practical, the context is human relationships, with a minimum sample of 10 participants. Both levels have the same requirement; there is no separate higher-level version of the practical.

Assessment comes through Paper 2 Section A. Knowing that ten people are needed is only part of the task. You need to understand why the method was chosen and how participants were recruited, explain how responses were collected ethically, and judge what conclusions the evidence can support.

For example, a questionnaire could investigate perceptions of support within friendships. That is a suitable relationship-focused investigation, not a prescribed practical. When describing a completed investigation, identify its actual aim and participants. Explain the sampling procedure, questions and administration, along with the ethical safeguards and methodological limitations.

Selecting the method

Questionnaires suit psychological questions about experiences, attitudes or perceptions that participants can report. They reach several people efficiently and give everyone the same questions. Anonymous responses may also make some disclosures less uncomfortable. But reporting behaviour is not the same as recording it directly. Participants may remember inaccurately or interpret an item differently; they may also choose an answer that presents them favourably.

Choose a method according to the evidence needed. The distinctions below explain why a questionnaire might suit an investigation. They do not change the method required for this practical.

Collecting answers and establishing causes are different tasks. A questionnaire can describe reported experiences or reveal associations. On its own, it cannot show that one relationship experience caused another.

Turning a relationship question into answerable items

Begin with a focused aim. What evidence would answer it? A broad idea such as friendship support needs questions about identifiable experiences or perceptions. Being listened to and receiving practical help may capture different aspects of support. Neither should automatically stand for the whole idea.

A closed question restricts responses to specified alternatives. Responses are easier to compare, though the choices may not fit everyone’s experience. An open question allows participants to answer in their own words. It may reveal meanings the researcher did not anticipate, but organizing and interpreting the answers takes longer. The annotated questionnaire extract shows these different response demands.

Use wording that participants can understand. Keep it neutral and address one issue at a time. Asking whether friends are both trustworthy and available combines two judgments: someone might agree with one but not the other. A question that assumes supportive friendships are always beneficial steers respondents towards the researcher’s preferred answer. Giving a clear timeframe can also reduce differences in what participants are remembering.

Try the questionnaire briefly before the main collection. A short trial can expose confusing wording or missing response options, as well as an excessive completion time. Use those problems to justify changes—not whether the trial gave the result the researcher hoped to see.

Standardized administration means keeping relevant instructions and procedures consistent. Record whether participants completed the questionnaire privately and whether a researcher was present. Note, too, whether they took part individually or beside peers. With relationship questions, these details matter: answering next to a friend may change what someone is willing to disclose.

Sampling: ten participants is a minimum, not a guarantee

A population is the full group to which a research question refers. The sample is the subset of that population from which evidence is collected. Ten participants meet the practical’s minimum requirement. That does not establish that they represent the population.

Each of the guide’s sampling techniques has trade-offs:

• Random sampling selects participants so that every member of the target population has an equal chance of inclusion. It reduces systematic selection by the researcher, but needs access to a suitable population list. Chance imbalance and non-response can still occur.
• Stratified sampling selects participants from defined population subgroups, usually in proportions matching their representation in the population. It helps include relevant groups, but requires information about the population and a defensible choice of subgroups.
• Opportunity sampling selects people who are readily available. It is practical and quick, but available people may differ from those who are not available.
• Self-selected sampling selects people who volunteer in response to an invitation. It supports willing participation, but volunteers may hold unusually strong views or have particular experiences.
• Snowball sampling selects participants by asking existing participants to help recruit others through their contacts. It can reach less accessible groups, but shared networks may produce a socially similar sample.

Recruiting only from one friendship network could overrepresent people with shared experiences in a relationships questionnaire. Adding more participants from that same network does not necessarily fix the imbalance. In the write-up, explain who could participate and how recruitment worked. Identify who might have been missed, and justify the technique despite its limitations.

Measurement: validity and reliability

Validity is the extent to which a measure or research conclusion supports the interpretation intended for it. Reliability is the consistency of a measurement or procedure under comparable conditions. Consistent answers are not enough: a questionnaire can consistently measure the wrong thing.

Clear items and consistent instructions support reliability. A changed answer, though, does not automatically signal measurement failure. The participant’s relationship may genuinely have changed. An unchanged answer does not establish validity either.

Bias, perspective and reflexivity

Researcher bias is systematic distortion arising from a researcher’s expectations, assumptions or decisions. It can affect which topics are included and how items are worded, as well as recruitment and the interpretation of open responses. Participant bias is systematic distortion arising from how participants perceive or respond to the research situation. Someone may want to appear loyal or avoid criticizing a friend. Trying to supply an expected answer can also influence their report.

Reflexivity is a process of examining how the researcher’s position, assumptions and actions influence the research. Checking for unconscious bias requires making these influences open to scrutiny, rather than simply claiming to be objective. Before collecting responses, examine whether the questions assume everyone values the same kind of relationship. When interpreting them, check that answers which challenge expectations receive the same attention as those which support them.

Ask another reader to inspect the wording. Document decisions and consider alternative interpretations of open answers. Both the researcher’s perspective and the participant’s perspective shape the evidence; neither should silently be treated as a complete account of the relationship.

Ethical responsibility changes the procedure

Informed consent is voluntary agreement to participate after receiving sufficient information about what participation involves. Participants should understand the task and how their responses will be used, including any relevant risks. They must be able to decline without social pressure, especially when peers are recruiting them.

Questions about relationships may expose conflict or rejection, or reveal sensitive information about other people. Avoid collecting names or unnecessary identifying details. Let participants skip uncomfortable items and explain the withdrawal arrangements. Once responses become genuinely anonymous, it may be impossible to remove a particular response after submission. Explain that limit beforehand.

Anonymity is a condition in which responses cannot be linked to an identifiable participant. Confidentiality is the protection of identifiable information from unauthorized disclosure. The terms are not interchangeable. Even without a name, distinctive details in a questionnaire may identify someone, so handle open responses carefully too.

Ethical safeguards affect the evidence you collect. Optional items may leave missing responses, while removing sensitive questions may narrow what can be investigated. Privacy may encourage greater honesty. These effects call for careful interpretation, not weaker participant protection. Store responses securely. Afterwards, explain the investigation without revealing another participant’s disclosures.

Drawing conclusions and judging their reach

Generalizability is the extent to which findings from a sample apply to a wider population or other conditions. To judge it, examine recruitment and sample composition, taking account of non-response and the setting. Consider how similar the studied group is to the proposed wider population. Even a large sample from a narrow volunteer network may support only a limited generalization.

Transferability is the extent to which findings can meaningfully apply to another context on the basis of relevant similarities. When using detailed open responses, describe the participants and relationship setting, along with the collection procedure. These details help a reader judge whether the insight fits another setting. Transferability does not claim that everyone would give the same answer.

Credibility is the extent to which a research account provides a trustworthy interpretation of the evidence. A transparent procedure and careful checking of responses support it. So do explicit attention to contradictory answers and an honest account of limitations. In your conclusions, distinguish participants’ reported perceptions from independently verified behaviour.

External variables are factors outside the focal relationship being investigated that may affect the measured responses. Suppose reported support is associated with reported relationship satisfaction. Recent conflict, or a general tendency to answer positively, might help explain both. The association alone identifies neither its cause nor its direction. A single collection cannot establish change over time either. Keep the conclusion within what the method supports: what these participants reported, under these conditions, with these limits.