Methodology

The Methodology of my Primary research would start off with me trying to sort out my target audience; teenagers. Once I know what my target audience would be, I would start to create a survey that would be answered by teenagers because they use social media, play games and know things about the media in general, as well as their behaviour after reacting to something. I would need to survey 15+ teenagers because I want my research to be valid and reliable.  The advantage of using a survey would be that the teenagers will be able to answer the questions with no one present; there’s no pressure on them, unlike an interview. On the other hand, there are disadvantages, which includes the issue of time wasting. People don’t like to be thinking hard on the questions, so this gives me the thought hat my questions should be suitable and easy for them to answer. My aim is to find out why children/youth react after playing a violent game or movie. 

The methodology of my Secondary research would start off with me finding information, facts and statistics on the internet about Media violence and the effect it has on children and youth. I would search on google scholar information about Media violence and how it effects children; what type of games they play, what type of television shows and films they watch and the reactions after they view the media piece. My main aim is to find out why children/youth have violent reactions after watching films or playing games. A way of finding secondary research is by using academic sources, so information from the library or from professionals. I will need to consider this when I am collecting my secondary research. An advantage of this would be that the information I get will be reliable because it is from a source about media violence. However, a disadvantage about getting secondary research will be that it may be from an unreliable source from the internet because it may have been altered by a random person. 

homework

Evaluation of the Presentation

My group’s presentation was about trying to answer the hypothesis and prove it wrong. The hypothesis was “Due to Social Media, there is no subculture or group identity for Millennials”.

From the feedback, responses and information in terms of research we compiled, as a whole our presentation was not successful. What went well was that each member of the group was able to act in finding research, primary and secondary, we were able to present our findings and all our points we presented we explained them to the best of our ability, but all of this was not shown by the quality and quantity of our findings. This made our presentation unsuccessful because the quality and quantity of our findings and research were poor. Our primary research didn’t link with the secondary research; this was a big issue in our presentation because the primary research wouldn’t be reliable if it wasn’t backed with the secondary. The primary research responses were not enough and we didn’t expand the range of people we asked, in terms of ‘how many people’ and ‘different generation groups’. We only asked people from the ‘Millennials’ generation, which makes our research narrow in responses. This is because we don’t know what people from other generations think, we don’t know if they feel like there are subcultures in millennials. Furthermore, our secondary research quality was not good enough in terms of how much findings we found and we didn’t collect enough statistics, which could prove that there are still subcultures.

In part of our research, we identified different subculture groups that we still here today. Groups like Goths, punk and emos are still present and even other groups like Gangsters are still here in our generation, but we didn’t target relevant groups to a high level of research. Our questions were not as clear because some of the people didn’t know what subculture groups are. Our findings were only relevant to an extent because our research was not reliable or enough to have answered the hypothesis really well. In our survey research, there were a couple of answered that hit both sides because some of the answers were for and some were against. For example: One question I asked was is it hard to keep up the standard of fashion. Meaning, do you have to wear designer clothes just to look good in front of people and your friends. Some responses said that they don’t like to be the old one in the group, some said they don’t care about what other people think and that they dress for themselves, just to look good.

Our research does not provide solid evidence of the conclusion that we had.


1. How valid is your sample - is it large enough and specific enough? 
My groups evaluation was not reliable because the sample of people we asked was not enough, wasn't large enough and we didn't target specific groups for our survey.

3. Does your primary research based on the theories, debates or opinions or results of your secondary research?
Our primary research wasn't based on theories, debates or opinions or results and it wasn't related to our secondary research, we had no connection between primary and secondary. 
4. Were your questions specific or clear enough to explain or breakdown what a Subculture is in order to gather the right information
Our questions were not easy for the audience to understand and therefore had made them skip the question. Some of them knew what subculture meant only because they take a subject which knows about subculture. 
6. How specific or relevant to the hypothesis were your findings you included in your presentation?
Our findings weren't specific because it didn't really answer the hypothesis.
7. How well did you analyse the data you collected? Did you find any correlations or cause and effect in your findings?

We didn't really analyse our data properly because we didn't collect a lot.