Breaking down the question

The command word is explain, and the phrase with examples is not decorative — illustrations are required for the marks. Two specific designs must be treated: the explanatory and the exploratory. The examiner is testing whether you know that a research design is the logical plan of an enquiry and that the appropriate design depends on the state of knowledge about the problem.

The natural way to distinguish them is by purpose: the exploratory design is used when a field is unfamiliar and the aim is to generate insight and hypotheses; the explanatory design is used when a relationship is already suspected and the aim is to test it and establish cause.

Threads to develop:

  • What a research design is and why purpose determines its form.
  • The exploratory design — its aim, features and an example.
  • The explanatory design — its aim, features and an example.

How to approach it

Open with a one-line definition of research design as the blueprint that links research question to evidence. Then contrast the two along the axes of purpose, stage of knowledge, flexibility and use of hypotheses. Give each a concrete illustration — an unfamiliar new phenomenon for the exploratory, an established causal question for the explanatory. Anchor the discussion in the note on research methods in sociology.

Close by noting that the two are often sequential — exploration generates the hypothesis that explanation then tests.

Model answer

A research design is the logical plan of an enquiry — the blueprint that connects the research question to the data and specifies how evidence will be collected and analysed. The design chosen depends chiefly on the purpose of the study and on how much is already known about the problem. Exploratory and explanatory designs mark two such purposes.

An exploratory design, sometimes called a formulative study, is used when a topic is new, unfamiliar or poorly understood and the researcher cannot yet frame precise hypotheses. Its aim is to gain insight, clarify concepts and generate hypotheses for later testing rather than to reach firm conclusions. It is therefore flexible and open-ended, relying on a review of existing literature, discussion with knowledgeable informants, and the study of illuminating cases. For example, when cyber-crime or the social life of gig-economy delivery workers first emerged, a researcher with no established theory would begin with an exploratory study — interviewing workers, observing the field, reading available accounts — to identify the key issues and formulate researchable questions.

An explanatory design, by contrast, is used when enough is already known to suspect a relationship, and the aim is to explain why something occurs by establishing cause and effect. It tests a definite hypothesis about the connection between variables and seeks to show that changes in one produce changes in another. It is therefore more structured and rigorous, controlling for other influences so that a causal claim can be defended. Durkheim's study of suicide is the classic example: starting from the hypothesis that suicide rates vary with social integration, he compared groups and demonstrated a systematic causal relationship. A contemporary instance would be testing whether female literacy causes a fall in fertility, holding income and region constant.

The two designs differ along clear axes. The exploratory is used at an early stage to generate ideas, is flexible, and works without firm hypotheses; the explanatory is used at a later stage to test ideas, is structured, and turns on the verification of hypotheses about causal relationships.

In practice they are often sequential: an exploratory study maps an unfamiliar terrain and produces a hypothesis, which an explanatory study then tests. Together they carry a research problem from first curiosity to demonstrated explanation.

Examiner's perspective

For a ten-marker the examiner wants both designs clearly distinguished by purpose — insight-generation versus causal testing — and each supported by an example, as the question explicitly requires. Answers that define the two abstractly without illustration, or that blur exploratory into merely descriptive work, forfeit marks.

Strong scripts contrast the designs on stage of knowledge, flexibility and use of hypotheses, and choose apt examples — an emerging social phenomenon for the exploratory, Durkheim's suicide study for the explanatory. Noting that the two are frequently sequential shows an understanding of the research process as a whole and secures the top band.