Grigoriou (2004) examined close friendships between gay men and heterosexual women.

The
participants were eight pairs of gay men and heterosexual women who were close friends.
The sample consisted of British men and women. She used face-to-face unstructured
interviews to gather data. The interview schedule focused on the initiation, maintenance, and
qualities of their friendships. The schedule asked questions about the perception of others in
their social network about their friendship. The participants who were single were asked to
reflect on their previous partner’s conception of this friendship. Finally, the participants were
asked to compare friendships between gay men and heterosexual women with other forms of
friendship they might have.

The researchers carried out a thematic analysis. To verify the credibility of th analysis, the
researcher checked with other researchers to confirm that her analysis was grounded in the
data.
Data analysis eventually revealed the following predominant themes.

1. Being valued for their personality and not their sexuality

2. Trust
3. Social support
4. Perception of others
In conclusion, the research found that the participants were satisfied with their friendships for
a number of reasons. For women, the lack of an underlying sexual agenda contributed to
positive self-esteem, because they were valued for their personality and not their sexuality.
The men said that they trusted their female friends because they could rely on them.
Questions
1. What considerations should the researcher have addressed before carrying out the
interviews?
2. How did the researcher establish credibility for her interpretation of the interviews? Why is
this important?
3. Is it possible to generalize the findings from this study? Why or Why not?
Read the following study on aggressive behaviour during hockey tournaments.

Participants were 79 male varsity hockey players. Coaches were approached and informed of
the study. Once permission was granted the teams were approached and asked for consent.
The consent process occurred roughly 3 weeks before the tournament, in an attempt to
minimize any social desirability biases. On game day, two cameras were placed on opposite
sides of the rink. The cameras were placed at center ice, in order to provide the most detailed
picture of the entire playing surface. Camera operators were instructed to capture as many of
the players as possible at any one time, while always maintaining a relatively clear view of
the players’ numbers. In total, three games were observed.

The competitive tapes were coded by two independent observers using an operationalized
check-list, with a high inter-rater reliability. The “intent to harm” was the defining
characteristic of aggressive behaviour. Fourteen behaviours were labelled as “aggression”,
including cross-checking, fighting, charging, head-butting, kneeing, spearing, high sticking,
and elbowing.

A total of 74 aggressive behaviours were coded from the three games under investigation. Of
the 74 behaviours coded by the two independent observers, only 14 received actual on-ice
penalization. With respect to overall performance, winning, losing, and tied teams committed
relatively equal numbers of aggressive acts. Also, there was no significant difference
observed between players occupying different positions. Both offensive and defensive
players committed relatively the same number of aggressive acts.
1. What type of observation was this? What is one strength and one limitation of using
this type of observation?
2. The summary above says that,” the consent process occurred roughly three weeks
before the tournament, in an attempt to minimize any social desirability biases’. What
is meant by ‘ minimize any social desirability biases’
3. The summary above says that “ The competitive tapes were coded by two
independent observers using an operationalized check-list, with a high inter-rater
reliability.” What is meant by “inter-rater reliability?”
4. This study used a deductive approach to analysis. What would this study look like if
it were analysed using an inductive approach?
5. Identify one concern you have about the way that this study was carried out.