Sociological Research Online

Accusations of bias are not uncommon in the social sciences. However, the term ‘bias’ is by no means straightforward in meaning. One problem is that it is ambiguous. Sometimes, it is used to refer to the adoption of a particular perspective from which some things become salient and others merge into the background. More commonly, ‘bias’ refers to systematic error: deviation from a true score, the latter referring to the valid measurement of some phenomenon or to accurate estimation of a population parameter. The term may also be used in a more specific sense, to denote one particular source of systematic error: that deriving from a conscious or unconscious tendency on the part of a researcher to produce data, and/or to interpret them, in a way that inclines towards erroneous conclusions which are in line with his or her commitments. In either form, the use of ‘bias’ to refer to systematic error is problematic. It depends on other concepts, such as ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity’, whose justification and role have been questioned. In particular, it seems to rely on foundationalist epistemological assumptions that have been discredited. And the various radical epistemological positions that some social scientists have adopted as an alternative either deny the validity of this concept of bias, explicitly or implicitly, or transform it entirely. We will argue, however, that while it is true that abandonment of a foundationalist conception of science has important implications for the meaning of ‘bias’ and its associated concepts, they are defensible; indeed, they form an essential framework for research as a social practice. In this context, we shall examine error as a matter of collegial accountability, and define ‘bias’ as one of several potential forms of error. We conclude by pointing to what we see as the growing threat of bias in the present state of social research.

This article results from reading Lather's Getting Smart (1991) and Hammersley's The Politics of Social Research (1995). The theme is the debates between ‘traditional’ research approaches and ‘emancipatory’ research approaches. It is argued that these debates are based on stereotypical views which obscure important characteristics held in common, and both require to be interrogated. The article examines two of these characteristics, appeals to a metanarrative of emancipation and the will to power, and considers the implications of the privileging of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. It concludes by considering the possibilities for a praxis-oriented research which may lead to possibilities for emancipatory action.

This paper addresses the use of a combined quantitative and qualitative methodology to assess the needs of elderly people within an outer London area. The study was in two stages; firstly, a postal survey of people aged 65 and over using the health profile tool, the Short Form-36 (SF-36), alongside a demographic questionnaire. This was followed by a small number of qualitative interviews on a subset of people who scored at the worst end of the SF-36. These interviews followed themes arising from answers to the SF-36 survey.

The SF-36 was able to pick up inequalities in health within the elderly population; with increasing age, even amongst the elderly, being an important factor in worsening SF-36 scores. Locality also appeared to influence the scoring although this was less conclusive.

The qualitative interviews were able to extract more information and greater understanding of the health of the elderly. Whilst the SF-36 could detect problems on a number of important dimensions such as functional status and well-being, the qualitative interviews addressed individual experiences of ill-health and other issues, such as environmental factors, which affected the health of an individual.

The mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies gave a broader understanding of the health experience of elderly people to a greater extent than either could on its own. It is important for health policy to address the needs of populations whilst also accommodating individual needs.

Most qualitative data analysis programs include a code and retrieve function. We argue that on-screen coding and the retrieval of coded segments, or snapshots, can result in researchers missing important process elements in focus group data, the moving picture. We review the literature on the analysis of focus group data and conclude that the focus group is not simply a data gathering technique where data collected are analyzed for their specific content such as all text relating to a particular theme. Important and potentially insightful communication and learning processes occur in focus groups as a result of participant interaction. These processes in the data can only be identified by several readings of the whole transcript and tracing an individual's text in the context of other participants’ text; this is difficult to effect on-screen. Thus, we recommend that transcripts are coded on-screen for content and off-screen for process.

The creation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia after the dismantling of the Yugoslav federation has led to a revival of Greek nationalism. Greece has refused to recognize the new state as the ‘Republic of Macedonia’, sustaining that its name and national symbols form part of Greek culture and identity and are, therefore, unacceptable. The aim of this study is to highlight the Greek claims of ‘property’ over certain cultural traditions and, more specifically, the relationship between these claims and the ethno-cultural character of Greek national identity. Moreover, the paper examines the strategic manipulation of nationalist feelings by Greek politicians. The role of political and cultural myths in (re)defining national identity and in drawing the boundaries, symbolic and territorial, between ‘us’ and the ‘others’ is investigated. The problems that may arise from such an ethnic conception of the nation-state are discussed and a ‘constitutional model of patriotism’ is proposed as an alternative solution.

The article reviews briefly the theory of nationalism, and introduces (yet another) definition of nations and nationalism. Starting from this definition of nationalism as a world order with specific characteristics, oppositions such as core and periphery, globalism/nationalism, and realism/idealism are formally rejected. Nationalism is considered as a purely global structure. Within this, it is suggested, the number of states tends to fall to an equilibrium number which is itself falling, this number of states being the current best approximation to a single world state. Within nationalism variants are associated with different equilibrium numbers: these variants compete. Together, as the nationalist structure, they formally exclude other world orders. Such a structure appears to have the function of blocking change, and it is tentatively suggested that it derives directly from an innate human conservatism. The article attempts to show how characteristics of classic nationalism, and more recent identity politics, are part of nationalist structures. They involve either the exclusion of other forms of state, or of other orders of states, or the intensification of identity as it exists.

This paper reflects on the recent experience of interviewing women MPs. The research process is analyzed in terms of the micro-politics of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Relevant methodological debates from two areas of sociology which are rarely brought together have been incorporated. Elite Studies and Gender Studies. Both of these fields have discussed the politics of space within the process of interviewing. However, the research experience of interviewing female MPs does not neatly fit in with the descriptions of interviewing to be found in either of these fields. This paper will discuss how the experience meets, criss-crosses and contradicts research reflections that are to be found in both of the above fields. So at times my experience echoed Ann Oakley's description of interviewing women as a cosy, friendly and sisterly exchange of information (Oakley, 1982: p. 55). Whilst at other times I could relate to Stephen Ball's description of interviews with MPs as ‘…events of struggle, as a complex interplay of dominance/resistance and chaos/freedom.’ (Ball, 1994: p. 113). Often the same interview shifted between these two types of scenarios. After a short introduction to the debates on space and power within Elite Studies and Gender Studies this paper will go on to detail some of the complexities of interviewing women MPs for a feminist project.