Generally. Representativeness determines the extent to which it is possible to generalize the results of a study using a specific sample to the entire general population, from which it was collected.

Representativeness can also be defined as the property of a sample population to represent the parameters of the general population that are significant from the point of view of the research objectives.

Example

Let's assume that the population is all the students of the school (600 people from 20 classes, 30 people in each class). The subject of study is attitudes towards smoking. A sample of 60 high school students represents the population much less well than a sample of the same 60 people that includes 3 students from each grade. The main reason This is due to the unequal age distribution in classes. Consequently, in the first case, the representativeness of the sample is low, and in the second case, the representativeness is high (all other things being equal).

Literature

Ilyasov F.N. Representativeness of survey results in marketing research // Sociological Research. 2011. No. 3. pp. 112-116.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

See what “Representativeness” is in other dictionaries:

- (French representatif indicative, characteristic), representativeness, a measure of the ability to restore, reproduce an idea of the whole from its part or a measure of the ability to extend the idea of a part to include this part... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

The property of a sample to reflect the characteristics of the population being studied. In English: Representativeness Synonyms: Representativeness See also: Sample populations Financial Dictionary Finam ... Financial Dictionary

Representativeness, distinctiveness, demonstrativeness Dictionary of Russian synonyms. representativeness noun, number of synonyms: 3 representativeness (8) ... Synonym dictionary

- (from the French representatif indicative) the representativeness of a sample of economic indicators (most often statistical) used to analyze economic processes and phenomena. Representativeness depends both on the reliability of the available... ... Economic dictionary

representativeness- and, f. representatif adj. Representativeness, demonstrativeness. NS 2. Light, elegant stylization of the city landscape under an ancient engraving conveys the unique flavor of the era. The panel is characterized by solemnity and representativeness. bringing him closer to... ... Historical Dictionary Gallicisms of the Russian language

The validity of transferring the results obtained from the analysis of the sample population to the general population. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms

- (from the French representatif representing), in statistics, methods for determining the parameters of a sample population (parts of an object, a set), the study of which makes it possible to reasonably represent the state of the general... ... Modern encyclopedia

- (from the French representatif indicative) in statistics, the correspondence of characteristics obtained as a result of sample observation to indicators characterizing the entire population. The discrepancy between the indicated indicators represents... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (from the French representatif demonstrative) English. representativeness; German Reprasen tativitat. 1. Representativeness. 2. Indicator k.l. observations in statistics and other sciences. 3. The property of the sample to reflect the characteristics of the population being studied... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

- (from the French representatif representing something) the most important property of a particular sample of information, consisting in its reflection (representation) of the features of the entire general population (for example, the entire cenopopulation). About the representativeness of the sample... ... Ecological dictionary

representativeness- The property of a sample population to reproduce the parameters and significant elements of the structure of the general population. The term “representative sample” was first introduced in relation to socio-economic research by the Norwegian statistician A. Kiaer in ... Technical Translator's Guide

Books

Medieval Intellectual Culture, A. M. Shishkov. This textbook is a reference publication on the history of intellectual culture of the Middle Ages, as it was reflected in the works of philosophers, theologians, naturalists and...
The role of soil in the formation and conservation of biological diversity. The collective monograph presents materials and results of many years of research on the role and importance of soils in the formation and conservation of biological diversity, carried out by employees...

Representativeness (representativeness) - characteristic scientific and practical research, it is not a feature of sociology. The principle of representativeness is applied in cases where the object of research as a whole is inaccessible to humans, or a holistic study is unprofitable for some practical reasons. In search of minerals, a geologist takes rock samples from a proposed deposit, since he cannot transfer the entire deposit to the laboratory. The agronomist does not have to wait until the end of the harvest season to determine the yield: he can harvest and weigh 0.01 hectares of wheat, thus determining the yield for the entire field. About 5 liters of blood circulate in the human body, but only a few milliliters are sent to the laboratory for analysis. The teacher cannot interview every student on all questions. exam papers, so the student blindly takes a ticket and, based on the answers to his questions, the teacher judges the degree to which the student has mastered the entire course.

In sociology, representativeness is more complex than in the examples given. At least three concepts are used to characterize it.

General population (GS)- the object of study as a whole.

Sample population (PS)- part of the research object selected for research. The sample population is often called sampling.

Unit of observation- a direct source of information, which is an individual, family, team, organization or institution. Most often, the unit of observation is the individual.

Statistics have had the greatest influence on sociology on the issue of representativeness. The idea of selective observation of mass phenomena was first formulated by the Norwegian statistician A. Kier at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, mathematician A.I. Chuprov introduced it to Russian scientists.

Representativeness is the property of a sample population to reproduce the structure and properties of the general population that interest the researcher.. Representativeness is always a hypothesis that may be better or worse substantiated, but the truth of which is established only as a result of empirical research. Ideally, the relationship between the sample and the population should be the same as between a photographic negative and a photographic positive. Isomorphism (one-to-one correspondence) of the structures of both sets is a mandatory requirement. The saying “Reflected like a drop of water” very accurately characterizes the principle of representativeness. To determine the taste of borscht, the doctor taking a food sample does not need to eat the entire cauldron; it is enough to eat one spoon.

Achieving an isomorphic correspondence between the sample population and the general population is a major methodological problem in sociology. The first question in it is: how large should the BC be, what proportion of the GS should it be? Sociologists, hypnotized by mathematical statistics, agree that the law large numbers applicable for social processes. This correct position, however, is very difficult to implement as soon as the researcher begins to determine the sun. According to the law of large numbers, starting from a certain point, it is possible not to increase the BC, since such an increase will not provide new information. Russian sociologist A.A. Davydov believed that the quantitative ratio of GS to BC could be as follows: 500/222, 1000/286, 2000/333, 3000/356, 4000/360, 5000/370, 10000/385, 100000/398, infinite/400. So, 400 people are enough, according to the author, for any GS. True, he immediately stipulates that he proceeds from the assumption of a normal distribution of answers. However, it is precisely this normality, which presupposes the similarity of units of observation, that still needs to be proven.

Not all researchers take into account the condition of the law of large numbers: homogeneity of observed units. The blood donated for analysis, the wheat in the field, each spoonful of mixed borscht, etc. are homogeneous. But are people and the conditions of their existence so homogeneous? In relation to the homogeneity of observation units, there is a relationship: the more homogeneous the observation units, the smaller the volume of the BC and, conversely, the more heterogeneous the observation units, the larger the volume of the BC. In principle, people can be quite homogeneous in some respects. In a stable society that has been stable for a long time, people are mixed, standardized, averaged out, leveled out like the everyday objects around them. For example, in 1936 in the USA, respondents answered the question about the renewal of one of the laws. Out of 500 respondents, 54.9% were “against”, out of 1000 - 53.9%, out of 5000 - 55.4%, out of 10,000 - 55.4%, out of 30,000 - 55.5%. It follows that the survey could be stopped after 500 respondents.

When determining the volume of the BC, the sociologist proceeds from the belief in the homogeneity of units of observation in the relation of interest or from knowledge of such homogeneity. The latter is unlikely, so the compromise between faith and knowledge is assumption, homogeneity hypothesis. Since it requires proof, the sociologist must know the GS quite well. A contradiction arises here: in order to justify the VS, one must know the GS well, and if we know the GV, there is no need to construct the VS. The exit from it is made by small steps of accumulation of knowledge about the GE. In essence, this is a method of trial and error, moving by touch, correlating each step of research with practice, when the fog of uncertainty dissipates and certain assumptions are confirmed or refuted. Not all sociologists suffer from this contradiction: some construct random samples, others interview the first person they meet, etc. The sample may be random, but society is not random, you can interview the first person you meet, but such shamanism is no longer science.

An unambiguous answer to the question about the quantitative relationship between the sun and the gas is impossible, just as it is impossible identical people and the conditions of their existence. It depends on specific characteristics GS. Thus, one of the articles provides data that in 24% of studies the ratio of BC to HS was less than 10%, and in 8% of studies - more than 50%. Such a scatter of data indicates a large heterogeneity of observation units and warns an honest researcher about caution in determining the VS.

The quantitative establishment of HS should begin not with any “standards”, but with the use of available data on HS. There are no absolutely unknown objects in society, as in natural science ( desert island, mysterious comet, etc.). At least something is known about them. If, for example, a sociologist is interested in the value orientations of the youth of Ukraine beginning of the XXI century, he uses census data and other materials. Let’s assume that youth will be understood as people aged 14 to 25 years and there will be 5,000,000 such people in Ukraine. 5 million is the general population (GS). Without trying to quantify the sun, the sociologist will take a different route - by studying the composition of young people according to various characteristics - indicators. Indicator- a characteristic of the object being studied that is accessible to observation and measurement, thanks to which it is possible to establish unavailable observation of other characteristics of a given object. For example, by observing a person’s actions, one can establish his actual, rather than declared, interests. An indicator, a pointer, is a connection between the known and the unknown, but not all indicators are equal. Those that the researcher considers the most significant are selected for the study.

In the example of Ukrainian youth, the first significant indicator is age. Youth itself is an age, but at the same time there are significant differences “within” it: it is unlikely that a 14-year-old schoolgirl and a 25-year-old candidate of sciences have the same value orientations. The second indicator is gender, since men and women always have different views on life. The third indicator is the level of education, the influence of which on worldview is well known. Place of residence is also important: city or village, as well as class, nationality, religious affiliation and region (eastern or western parts of Ukraine). Other indicators are also possible: profession, presence or absence of a criminal record, etc.

Isolating indicators is establishing structural representativeness. Even professional sociologists sometimes violate the principle of structural representativeness, not to mention amateurs. The results of surveys presented by the media are of murky origin, since it is unclear which population groups were surveyed and how their proportions correspond to those of the GS. Structural representativeness is a one-to-one correspondence between the structure of the BC and the structure of the GE. In practice, ensuring such compliance is not always easy, but this is a requirement for the objectivity of scientific research.

After establishing structural representativeness, only the specific number of respondents in each component group of the Armed Forces remains uncertain. A guideline in determining the size of each group can be the smallest number of members of any group in the GS. For example, in the State Council, consisting of 5,000,000 people, the smallest group is candidates and doctors of sciences - 1,000 people. This number is taken as one, therefore, only one person should be included in the Armed Forces. The distribution of HS according to other indicators creates various combinations of youth groups. Relatively speaking, it can be as follows: city dwellers - 3,500,000 people, villagers - 150,000, Christians - 900,000, Muslims - 100,000, 2,600,000 girls, 2,400,000 boys, schoolchildren - 200,000, students - 150,000, workers - 300,000, etc. Therefore, in relation to a unit (1000 candidates and doctors of science), the Armed Forces should include 3500 city dwellers, 1500 rural residents, 900 Christians, 100 Muslims, 2600 girls, 2400 boys, 200 schoolchildren, 150 students, 300 workers, etc.

The largest number in relation to the unit in the above example it is 3500. This is the value of BC. All other numbers are smaller, so you need to start constructing the aircraft from the indicator of the place of residence of the respondents. And a city dweller can be a girl or a boy, a student or a schoolboy, a Christian or a Muslim, a worker or a scientist, a resident of the eastern or western part of Ukraine.

But even with a methodologically sound definition of VS, a source of error remains. The fact is that any component of the HS group, distinguished by any indicator, is divided into subgroups, distinguished by any indicator, is divided into subgroups, and those, in turn, into second-order subgroups, etc. Subgroups may not be represented in the Armed Forces, which is why errors arise. For example, the Gallup Institute in the USA allows an error of 5%, and in Ukrainian sociology an error of 3% is allowed; Moreover, according to this institute, there is such a dependence: with 100 respondents the error is 11%, with 200 - 8%, with 400 - 6%, with 600 - 5%, with 750 -4%, with 1000 - 4%, with 1500 - 3%, at 4000 - 2%.

This is how the principle of representativeness in sociological research is implemented in the most general terms. It can be applied to various units of observation, including documents. If in basic research Sometimes one document can be decisive, then in applied research statistical documents must also be representative. Representativeness is proven or disproved only if real phenomena correspond or do not correspond to those predicted.

4. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

As is known, in the social sciences there are no benchmarks, standards and measuring instruments. However, science cannot do without measurements, therefore, within the framework of each of them, certain methods and units of measurement are formulated. The measurement method has acquired particular complexity in sociology.

Measurement in sociology is a standard-free method of understanding social phenomena, the means of which is a person’s attitude to the object of study.

American sociologist P. L. Laearsfeld believes that if the vague term “measurement” is called a search for an ordered classification, it will be good definition, on the basis of which any other types of specification can be introduced. Often in textbooks you can find judgments that the sociologist himself constructs a standard and uses it to measure phenomena. Such judgments mix up the objectivity of scientific research and the subjectivity of the researcher. At one time, standards of the meter, kilogram, etc. were constructed, but they all had analogues in objective reality. The standard that a sociologist constructs has no such analogue; it is a product of the researcher’s thoughts and is not directly related to the phenomenon being studied. Different sociologists can create different standards regarding the same phenomenon: in an economic crisis, some measure the profits of the most successful businessmen, others the level of employment, others the level of poverty, the fourth degree of propaganda treatment of the population, etc., and each researcher considers his approach the most important. Strictly speaking, the standard can only be objective, that is, independent of the will and consciousness of a person. Otherwise, there is no standard, but there is what can more accurately be called a means of measurement - the term is more general and includes the standard.

Measurement in sociology begins with recording continuum- the extent of the aspect of the phenomenon being studied, indicating the extreme states of the respondents’ attitude towards it: from the beginning (maximum) to the end (minimum). Extreme and intermediate states form scale- kit possible options a person’s relationship to the phenomenon being studied. Social research uses different kinds scales, of which the most commonly used ordinal scale containing an odd number of positions (usually 3 or 5). Such scales provide only one answer to the question posed. For example, to the question: “Are you satisfied with the conditions of study at the Law Academy?” The answers of each respondent are expressed on a 3-term scale as follows:

1) Yes, satisfied;

2) I find it difficult to answer (intermediate position);

3) No, not satisfied.

The same question on a 5-point scale will receive the following answers:

1) Yes, satisfied;

2) Rather satisfied than dissatisfied;

3) I find it difficult to answer (intermediate position);

4) Rather dissatisfied than satisfied;

5) No, not satisfied.

The five-item scale takes into account student responses more flexibly.

There is another type of scale used - nominal scale, containing a set of signs of a phenomenon reflected in the human mind. If the ordinal scale assumes only one answer from among those proposed, then the nominal scale allows the choice of several answers and, in addition, your own answer option. For example, to the question “Under what circumstances did you enter the law academy?” may be offered the following options:

1) on the advice of parents;

2) on the advice of friends and acquaintances;

4) the university is located near home;

5) it is easy to study at this university;

6) the prestige of the legal academy;

7) I have an inclination towards the legal profession;

8) you have to study somewhere;

9) your own answer.

The given example of a nominal scale reveals value orientations regarding studies. Depending on the content of the question posed, the nominal scale shows one or another facet of the respondent’s worldview and is interesting for this reason, and not just for its “measurement”;

Measurement requirements.

Measurement in sociology, due to its specificity, requires the fulfillment of a number of requirements.

1) Validity- validity of measurement. It indicates that what is being measured is what they wanted to measure. Validity indicates that a measurement is free from theoretical errors. For example, you can find out about the attitude of citizens towards justice and “measure” this attitude. Attitudes towards justice are measured (for example, part of the population wants the introduction of jury trials), but it would be a mistake to assume that justice itself is being “measured”. As a rule, the opinion of the population does not coincide with the opinion of the state.

Errors in understanding what exactly is being measured are clearly visible in the example of the “electronic matchmaker” that was popular in the past. Everyone who wanted to find a life partner, by providing information about themselves, “ordered” the desired qualities from candidates for husbands or wives. Naturally, there were people with such qualities. By processing the information, the computer made recommendations on who would make an “ideal couple” with whom. It was all too good to be true. Life has refuted “ perfect couples" It became clear to the most enthusiastic supporters of “electronic matchmakers” that he was not considering the objective properties of people, but their subjective ideas and wishes.

2) Completeness- taking into account all indicator values. For example, social characteristic“education” has such an indicator as “level of education”, and the indicator values are “incomplete secondary education”, “general secondary education”, “special secondary education”, “incomplete higher education”, “higher”, “academic degree”. Education may have another indicator, for example, “content curricula" Its values will be “ standard program”, “program for school with a mathematical, musical and other focus”, “program for a university”, “program for the Suvorov Military School”, etc. Whatever the sociologist measures, he is obliged to take into account all the values of the selected indicator. Otherwise, there will be a distortion of the picture of the phenomenon.

3) Reliability measurements - constancy and repeatability of the results of measuring the same properties, carried out under the same conditions. So, for example, if a sociologist is interested in the attitude of students to the exactingness of teachers, then the measurement should always be carried out at the same time: at the beginning of the semester, during the certification period, or during the session. During the indicated periods of time, the student is different: relaxation and complacency at the beginning of the semester turn into wariness during certification (“what does he want from me?”), which gives way to slight panic during the session

His assessment of the teacher’s demandingness depends on these conditions. Then everything will repeat again from the beginning.

The means of measurement in sociology is index- a generalizing qualitative and quantitative empirical indicator of any qualities of the object of interest. The index is calculated in the range from +1 to -1 or expressed as a percentage. If, for example, students’ satisfaction with the quality of teaching of any discipline separately or all together is studied, the index is determined as follows.

There are 100 student respondents in the stream. On a 3-member scale, their answers can be distributed as follows:

1) Yes, satisfied - 60 people.

2) Difficult to answer - 10 people

3) No, not satisfied - 30 people.

The satisfaction index is +0.3 or 30% (30 is subtracted from +60 and we get +30 or 0.3 in plus). The attitude of those who found it difficult to answer is not taken into account.

Answers on a 5-point scale can be distributed as follows:

1) Yes, satisfied - 40 people.

2) Rather satisfied than dissatisfied - 20 people

3) I find it difficult to answer - 10 people.

4) Rather dissatisfied than satisfied - 10 people.

5) No, not satisfied - 20 people.

The satisfaction index will be the same +0.3 or 30%, but it will show more differentiated student responses. If we do not forget about validity, then it is clear that the attitude of students towards the teacher is being measured, and not the work of the teacher. The “rating” of a teacher is nonsense, which is very convenient for the administration to fire someone they don’t like. A student is objectively unable to evaluate the work of a teacher; he can only say which teacher he likes and which one is “bad.”

Also used in sociology odds- quantitative relationship between various properties of people or processes. Unlike an index, the coefficient is focused on objective indicators, even if we are talking about human subjectivity. For example, during the semester, student Ivanov made reports at two seminars out of a possible eight. His diligence coefficient is +0.25 or 25% (2:8= 0.25). The attendance rate with 20 people present out of 100 is 0.2 or 20%.

Thus, the use of scales (scaling), indices (indexing) and coefficients makes it possible to take into account the subjective and objective aspects of the phenomena being studied and, as far as possible, to “measure” them.

5. Observation method in sociological research.

Among the methods of sociological research important place takes the observation method. In the very general view it is defined as follows: observation is a research method consisting of recording and systematizing information obtained through the readings of the senses. This method is widely used in natural, technical, medical and agricultural sciences. In the humanities, observation was first used in anthropology, later penetrating other sciences.

The observation method is characterized by a number of features.

1) The observer never interferes with the observed phenomenon. Otherwise, his actions can no longer be called observation. Moreover, even without interfering, the observer has no right to express his likes or dislikes towards the observed. His position is strict neutrality and impartiality. For a sociologist, the techniques used by some journalists are unacceptable. One of them lay down on his back among the rows of stunted corn and filmed them with a camera. The public saw on the television screen a mighty forest of corn that dwarfed the Amazon jungle.

2) The object of the sociologist-observer is the same people as himself, perhaps even surpassing him in intelligence and erudition. These people have certain interests, are guided by their values, and they are, in principle, able to outwit the observer, thus distorting the results of his observation.

3) Difficulty, and sometimes even impossibility, of repeated observation. Social processes in their development they are influenced by a large number of factors, and therefore the phenomenon of interest to a sociologist rarely remains unchanged. Observation, in principle, should be one-time and exhaustive.

The observation method is integrated into almost all other sociological methods. In these methods, especially in experiment, there is a certain "part" of observation. Therefore, other methods are influenced by the advantages and disadvantages of observation. The advantages of observation are as follows.

1. Immediacy of perception, which allows you to record specific, natural situations, facts, fragments of life, rich in details, colors, halftones.

2) The ability to take into account the specific behavior of groups real people, which is not effective enough when using other methods.

3) Observation does not depend on the willingness of the observed persons to speak about themselves, which is typical, for example, of a sociological interview.

However, the observation method also has some disadvantages.

1) This is, first of all, the subjectivity of the observer, the level of his training and ideological position. For example, a student’s critical attitude towards a teacher can be regarded by one observer as a sign of his independence, while another may think that the student is obstinate and ill-mannered.

2) Observation is characterized by a halo effect, based on the general impression made by the observed on the observer. If the observer notes a series of positive traits, in his opinion, essential, then everything negative traits softened or hushed up. So in the recent past on the honor board with the general heading " The best people"There were photos of excellent workers who terrorized the whole family at home. Everything was forgiven to a drunkard and a hooligan if he worked well. The halo effect sometimes happens at school or university when an excellent student who wrote poorly test, still remains an excellent student.

In its most general form, the procedure for sociological observation provides for the following order of research actions:

1. Determining the purpose and objectives of observation, that is, solving the question: why to observe and for what purpose.

2. Selection of object and subject of observation (what to observe?)

3.Selection of observation situation (under what conditions to observe?)

4.Choice of method (type) of observation (how to observe?)

5.Selecting a method for recording the observed event (how to keep records?)

6. Processing and interpretation of information obtained through observation (what is the result?)

The versatility of the observation method suggests its various types.

1.Depending on the control elements during research, observation can be uncontrollable And controlled. Uncontrolled observation is used in cases where real life situations become the object for the purpose of describing them. The social atmosphere of the observed phenomenon is reproduced. Observation is carried out without a rigid plan and is exploratory in nature. This type of observation allows you to “grope” for a problem, which can subsequently be subjected to controlled observation. The latter aims to collect primary information to create a more accurate picture and test certain hypotheses. Supervised observation is targeted and carried out sufficiently big amount observers using technical means.

2. Depending on the activity of the observer and his position relative to the observed object, observation occurs non-involved and included observation. Non-involved refers to observation as if from the outside, when the researcher does not become an equal participant in the group being studied and does not have any influence on it. It is relatively simple, however, superficial, since it does not adequately take into account the motives of behavior of the observed group. The results of non-participant observation are almost impossible to quantify. This type of observation is often used in monographic studies. In participant observation, the researcher is, to one degree or another, a direct participant in the observed phenomenon or social group. He comes into contact with the people he observes and lives the same life with them for some time. One of the Russian sociologists, V. Olshansky, while studying the value orientations of young workers, worked for a long time as an assembly mechanic at a factory. American sociologist J. Anderson wandered around the country with tramps for many months, recorded the unique features of their life and even tried to justify the standards of living of tramps. Participant observation is popular among journalists; some of them infiltrate groups of homeless people and study their lives “from the inside.” There are elements of participant observation in the films “It’s Hard to Be God” and “The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed.”

3.According to the degree of formalization, observation can be unstructured And structured. In unstructured observation, the researcher does not determine in advance which elements of the process or phenomenon being studied he will observe in advance. The purpose of this type of observation is to study the object as a whole and its main parts. It applies to initial stages applied research, as well as in monographic research. Structured observation, in contrast to unstructured observation, presupposes a clear preliminary definition of what and how to observe. The purpose of this type of observation is to systematically describe a situation or test a working hypothesis. This type of observation involves the use of some knowledge about the object available before the start of observation.

4.According to the awareness of the observed about the research process, observation occurs open and incognito. With open observation, a small social group is aware of the fact of observation, which can significantly affect the result of the study. People tend to appear better than they really are. Such observation is often forced or carried out for ethical reasons. Incognito or hidden observation differs from included observation in that the sociologist, being in the group being studied, does not influence the course of the event. He observes as if from the side, he is disguised. In Western sociology there is an expression “to disguise yourself as a lamppost.” Such “lamp posts” in observation are business travelers, trainees, students in practice, etc. These people are present, everyone sees them, they get used to them and stop paying attention. They are like extras in the life of the team. When such a role is successful, the observer collects information of interest to him. With covert surveillance, there is a risk of moral violations because the observer is a “spy.”

5.According to the conditions for organizing observation, this type of research is divided into field and laboratory observation. Field observation is carried out in a real life situation. The observed group is in natural conditions and is used in sociological intelligence. A significant part of sociological work is carried out in field conditions. Laboratory observation is a type of research in which the conditions environment determined by the researcher. This type observation merges with the experimental method. An example of this type of observation in relation to students would be observation of those individuals who study on an individual schedule.

These are the most common types of surveillance. Their various combinations are dictated by the purpose and circumstances of the study, which include the capabilities of observers. The research results are recorded in special cards. The observation method, in comparison with the methods of survey and experiment, is relatively passive, but still it provides quite valuable sociological information.

6. Experimental method in sociological research.

In the arsenal of means of sociological knowledge, a special place is occupied by the method of experiment (from the Latin experimentum - sample, test, experience). One of the first to use this experiment was G. Galileo in the 17th century. From the field of natural sciences, this method has spread to all areas scientific knowledge. In the 20s of the XX century it began to be used in social cognition. An experiment is a method of cognition in which the object under study is placed in artificially created and controlled conditions in order to obtain the necessary information.

As even etymology shows, the experiment originated in social practice under the influence of one or another vital necessity. Tests of a person's maturity and suitability for life were used by all peoples without exception. The only differences were in the forms of testing. The boy or girl who passed the test was considered an adult member of the clan. In modern civilized societies, tests are expressed in the form of examinations, probationary periods, checks, etc. Each of the forms corresponded to a certain way of life. A person who finds himself from one cultural system to another is, as a rule, unable to pass the tests. This was shown in a comical form in the film "Signor Robinson". In ancient times, so-called “investigative experiments” were also carried out. A person suspected of committing a crime or deception was subjected to torture by fire. The testimony of the person who did not change it under torture was considered true. Ordinary experience has given rise to the notoriously ineffective trial and error method. A person who has not mastered the theory tries to comprehend the essence of a phenomenon, for example, working on a computer, by trying out options for action. Sometimes in this way it is possible to learn something, but this path is always fraught with great costs: loss of time, effort, and sometimes there is a risk for the “experimenter” himself.

The experimental method in the field of social relations differs significantly from the natural science experiment. Distinctive features are as follows.

1.The object of sociological research is people, not things. In this regard, no less requirements are imposed on a social experiment than on a medical experiment. The experimenter is the same person as the people he studies. The “experimental” people may have the same values, knowledge, even interests. The researcher should theoretically rise above the researched and look at them, as it were, from a bird's eye view. As a result of the experiment, a situation may arise that is contrary to the interests of individual or all members of the group being studied. For example, some secrets will become known, thanks to which attention and respect for group members was maintained. One of the films shows the very modest role of a toolmaker in a factory. She laid out the tools so that her shift worker could not give the tool to the team on time. In this way, the woman tried to maintain her importance among the members of the team. Human weaknesses are countless, and all researchers must be experienced “diplomats.”

2. The researcher is obliged to take into account the “factor” of human nature. We are too accustomed to the thesis that man is the pinnacle of evolution. The top is the top, however, assessments are relative. Finding themselves in certain conditions, people lose control of themselves and sink to the level of animals. For example, one of the American sociologists, Philip Zimbardo, built a mock prison in which some students voluntarily played the roles of guards, and others - prisoners. The purpose of the experiment was to observe the extent to which these different roles produced changes in the students' worldview and behavior. The results shocked the experimenter. The students who played the role of guards quickly acquired an authoritarian, commanding voice; they showed real hostility towards the prisoners, commanding and insulting them, beating and threatening them. But the student “prisoners” demonstrated a mixture of apathy and protest, which is often observed in real prisons. The level of confrontation between the two groups of students was so high that the experiment had to be stopped. It was hardly worth putting it up, since it is known from everyday experience what a tiny number of people are able to withstand the test of power. This kind of “experimentation” is carried out on children by television companies. By showing scenes of violence every day, they raise tough people.

3. When conducting an experiment, researchers dream of the purity of its conditions. This is a difficult desire to fulfill even when conducting a natural science experiment: there are always undesirable phenomena that interfere with the course of the study. The dream is even more relevant when conducting a social experiment. I would like all conditions to be under the control of the researcher, however, the influence of environmental phenomena is constantly making adjustments. Such phenomena are most often customs, traditions, mentality and other elements of culture. The same experiment carried out in different cultural conditions will give different results. Even the latest weapons did not help some Arab peoples in the fight against Israel. Even during a battle, the Arabs perform prayers at the appointed hour; what the enemy is doing at this time is not difficult to guess...

In the scientific literature, a distinction is made between a social experiment and a sociological experiment proper. The first concept applies to any experiments in which people are the object, the second takes into account the specifics of sociological objects, methods of processing information and its interpretation. Strictly speaking, any social experiment is at the same time a sociological experiment. The subject of sociology is social relations. It follows that, regardless of the field of application of this method (economics, pedagogy, law, etc.), a sociologist studies social relations, and therefore any social experiment is at the same time a sociological experiment. In favor of identifying a sociological experiment as a separate type of this method is the fact that the object of an experiment in sociology can only be a small social group(work collective, student group, etc.) Although a social experiment can be carried out on one person, as is possible in psychology, pedagogy, during an investigation, in sociology it is meaningless. In sociology the smallest "unit"

The section is very easy to use. Just enter the desired word in the field provided, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.

Meaning of the word representativeness

representativeness in the crossword dictionary

representativeness

Dictionary of medical terms

representativeness (French representation, representation) in statistics

correspondence of the studied characteristics of the sample population to the characteristics of the general population; taken into account when organizing a sample study.

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

representativeness

REPRESENTATIVITY (from the French representatif - indicative) in statistics - the correspondence of the characteristics obtained as a result of sample observation to indicators characterizing the entire population. The discrepancy between these indicators represents a representativeness error, which can be random or systematic.

Representativeness

(from the French représentatif ≈ representing something, indicative) in statistics, the main property of a sample population, consisting in the proximity of its characteristics (composition, average values, etc.) to the corresponding characteristics of the general population from which it was selected (subject to certain rules ) selective (see Selective observation). A judgment about the degree of R. is made based on consideration of the sample population in two directions. First, it is compared with the general population with respect to all characteristics recorded in both. Thus, to judge R. of the totality of families selected for observation family budgets, compare their distribution by level wages workers with a similar distribution according to general statistical data or (in the absence of general data on distribution) compare average wage levels, etc. Secondly, a judgment about the degree of R. can be made on the basis of the variability of the characteristics under study in the sample population. Thus, if, according to a survey of family budgets, for example, per capita consumption of bread from family to family varies much less than meat consumption, then this gives reason to consider the R. of this sample in relation to bread consumption to be greater than in relation to meat.

R. is measured by the “error of representativeness,” that is, the difference between the characteristics of the sample and general populations. However, the actual (real) value of the specified difference remains unknown, as a result of which the measure of R. is its probable value, determined according to the rules of mathematical statistics, or the mean square of its possible values (see also Sampling method).

A. Ya. Boyarsky.

Wikipedia

Representativeness

Representativeness- correspondence of sample characteristics to the characteristics of the population or population as a whole. Representativeness determines the extent to which it is possible to generalize the results of a study using a particular sample to the entire population from which it was collected.

Examples of the use of the word representativeness in literature.

At the level of conditions of the possibility of thinking, Ricardo, separating the formation of value from its representativeness, was able to identify the interconnectedness of economy and history.

The property of sampling, due to which the results of a sample study allow one to draw conclusions about the general population and the empirical object as a whole, is called representativeness.

Representativeness (representativeness) of the sample is the ability of a sample to reproduce certain characteristics of the population within acceptable errors. A sample is called representative if the measurement result a certain parameter for a given sample coincides, taking into account the permissible error, with the known result of measuring the general population. If a sample measurement deviates from known parameter population is greater than the selected error level, then such a sample is considered unrepresentative.

The proposed definition first of all establishes relationship between sample and population research. It is the general population that is represented by the sample, and only the general population can be extended to the trends identified in the sample study. It should now be clear why such attention was previously paid to the problems of correctly defining the population and describing it in research documentation and publications. The sample cannot represent a population other than the one from which the units for measurement were actually selected. If the researcher is mistaken about the actual boundaries of the population, then his conclusions will be incorrect. If he mistakenly or intentionally expands or distorts the boundaries of the population in reporting materials, publications, or presentations based on the results of the study, then this misleads users and can be considered as falsification of results.

The test of representativeness is carried out by comparing individual parameters of the sample and the general population. A common misconception is that representative samples exist “at all.”

The representativeness or non-representativeness of a sample can be determined solely in relation to individual variables. Moreover, the same sample can be representative in some respects and unrepresentative in others.

As a rule, in the professional discourse of sociologists, representativeness is presented as a dichotomous property - a sample is either representative or not. But this is not a completely correct approach. In reality, a sample may reproduce some parameters of the population more accurately and others less accurately. Therefore, it is more correct (although from a practical point of view and less convenient) to talk about degree of representativeness specific sample according to specific parameters.

As with the sample as a whole, the key to determining the representativeness of a sample is to justify the margin of error within which the sample is considered representative for the purposes of the study. The opposite is also possible - fixing the size of factual errors and stating the fact that the sample represents the general population with certain errors. Again, the nature of the use of research findings plays a key role in this. Consequently, the same sample may be considered sufficiently representative for some purposes (for example, to predict voter turnout in upcoming elections), but not sufficiently representative for others (for example, to determine candidate ratings and predict voting results).

What parameters should be used to check the representativeness of the sample? First, there are few such parameters in most research situations. After all, it is possible to compare the results of a sample measurement with data on the general population only if the latter are available. And the research is being carried out because there is just not enough such data. Therefore, even at the stage of object modeling and subsequent development of tools, it is advisable to provide for the measurement of one or more control parameters for which data characterizing the general population is available. This will provide the necessary empirical basis for testing representativeness.

Secondly, one should strive to check the representativeness of the sample on parameters that are significant for subject area research. In modern practice, control of representativeness by basic demographic parameters - gender, age, education, etc. has become widespread. These data, as a rule, are available for any territorial object, since they are recorded during population censuses and subsequently recalculated by statistical institutions using well-founded mathematical models . For this reason, the mandatory inclusion of several demographic variables in the data sheet has become a generally accepted professional norm. However, such a practice can be classified as naive and subject to justified criticism. The fact is that basic demographic parameters that are publicly available for comparison do not always play the role of structuring factors in relation to the subjects of sociological research. Their nature in itself is not social, and their influence on the objects of research is often quite indirect. Therefore, demographically representative samples may actually hide significant problems in the form of system errors and uncontrolled biases. On the contrary, the demographic representativeness of samples that are effective from the point of view of the goals and objectives of the study may turn out to be low.

Here interesting example from practice. In 2009, one of the research companies working in the Urals carried out a survey in the city of Kizel Perm region. During the fieldwork, the researchers encountered serious obstacles to recruiting the sample envisaged by the research plan - the lack of a sufficient number of available respondents, worsening weather conditions. Apparently, the research company was not fully prepared to carry out work on such a large-scale project. Its production facilities worked at maximum capacity to ensure that 6,000 respondents were surveyed over a fairly large area within a week. As a result, the actual sample in many survey sites was, by the researchers' own admission, filled with everyone who could be recruited to participate in the study. The demographic quotas established by the terms of reference were violated in most areas of the survey. In some areas, the distortion in the proportions of the sample in relation to the quota target reached 2.5 times for certain categories of the population, which actually cast doubt on the very fact of using quota sampling. It seemed that the customer of the study had every reason to make reasonable claims against the researchers.

However, an examination carried out on behalf of the arbitration court found that such significant distortions of quotas and, accordingly, the obvious unrepresentativeness of the resulting sample in terms of basic demographic parameters practically did not lead to distortion of the research data! By reweighing the data array, the experts obtained the effect of a representative sample based on controlled parameters. Almost all frequency distributions of data tested by experts showed statistically insignificant differences between the results of processing the actual and reweighted arrays. De facto, this means that, despite gross violations of survey technology and practical disregard for quota assignments, the researchers provided the customer with the same data that he could have counted on if the sampling procedures had been fully followed and demographic representativeness had been ensured.

How could this happen? The answer is simple - the demographic parameters used to control representativeness had practically no significance (and this was confirmed by correlation analysis) influence on the subject variables of the study - the population’s assessment of the socio-economic situation and the parameters of its socio-political activity. In addition, the sample size was very large relative to the general population (in fact, the study covered a quarter of the adult population of the municipal district), which, as a result of the law of large numbers, led to the stabilization of the observed distributions long before the required number of respondents was interviewed.

The practical implication from this cautionary tale is that effort and resources should be directed toward ensuring and controlling representativeness with respect to those sampling parameters that the researcher expects to have a significant impact on the subject of the study. This means that parameters to control representativeness must be selected specifically for each research project according to its subject specificity. For example, assessments of socio-economic status are always strongly related to the real well-being of the respondent’s family, his position in the labor market and in the business sphere. Accordingly, it is advisable to use these parameters to control representativeness. Another thing is that it can be difficult to obtain objective data characterizing the general population. This requires creativity and perhaps compromise. For example, the level of well-being can be monitored by the presence of a car in the respondent’s family, because statistics of registered cars in the region may be available.

Interestingly, research reports and publications almost always refer to representative samples. Are unrepresentative samples really that rare? Of course not. There are quite a few samples that are problematic in terms of representativeness in certain parameters in research practice. Rather, there are even more of them than samples, the representativeness of which can be assessed not formally (by demographic parameters), but essentially. However, their public mention in professional sociological circles is, unfortunately, taboo. And none of the researchers is ready to admit that the representativeness of his sample in terms of parameters essential for the subject area of measurement is problematic or unverifiable.

In fact, discovering signs of non-representative sampling is not a disaster. Firstly, existing technologies“repairing” (reweighing) the sample in many cases makes it possible to completely eliminate the effect of unrepresentativeness regarding the parameter that worries the sociologist or his client. The essence of the reweighting method is to assign certain categories of observations (in the case of a survey, respondents) weighting coefficients, compensating for insufficient or excessive actual representation of these categories in the sample. Subsequently, these weights are taken into account when carrying out all calculation operations with the data array, which makes it possible to obtain distributions that fully correspond to a balanced (corresponding to the calculation quotas) data array. Modern statistical programs, such as BRvv, allow calculations to be made taking into account weighting coefficients in automatic mode, which makes this procedure quite easy to perform.

Secondly, even if it is not possible to obtain a “good” representative sample, “moderate” representativeness may be sufficient to solve many research problems. Recall that representativeness is a measure of fit rather than a dichotomous marker. And only certain research tasks - mainly related to the accurate prediction of certain events - require samples to be truly high (statistically confirmed) representativeness.

For example, in order to predict the market share of a new product in marketing research, a sample is required that covers and represents potential clients. However, most often marketers do not have sufficient data about who actually makes up their circle of clients, especially potential ones. In this situation, it is generally impossible to check the representativeness of the sample - after all, it is not known what parameters it should reproduce. Nevertheless, many marketing tasks are successfully solved, since to identify customer preferences, respond to advertising materials, analyze reviews of New Product Statistically representative samples are not needed - it is enough to cover a typical clientele, which is easy to find right in stores. Non-representative samples are quite suitable for solving search problems, identifying strong trends, analyzing the specifics of individual categories (represented by small independent subsamples), comparing such categories with each other (bivariate analysis), analyzing relationships between variables and other tasks in which the accuracy of the obtained statistical distributions is limited. of secondary importance.