Paper 2 Section A question 1c asks you to compare and contrast the method you used in a class practical with another method. It is worth 6 marks, and it has the clearest gap between what most people write and what actually earns marks.
Here is the failure, and it is almost universal. One paragraph about experiments. One paragraph about interviews. No actual comparison anywhere.
That is describing, not comparing, and it caps your mark no matter how accurate both paragraphs are.
What the band actually demands
The strongest answers work through both what the two methods share and where they differ, in specific methodological language.
Both halves. Similarities and differences. In detail.
The middle range is where you land if you cover only one side, or cover both but thinly. A response that lists the advantages of method A and the disadvantages of method B is not a compare and contrast answer, however much true information it contains.
Every paragraph needs a comparative connective
This is the mechanical fix, and it is worth training until it is automatic.
- Both methods... however, whereas the experiment..., the interview...
- A similarity is that... The difference lies in...
- Where the experiment relies on..., the interview instead depends on...
- Both are vulnerable to..., but the mechanism differs: in the experiment..., while in the interview...
Check every paragraph you write. If there is no comparative connective in it, that paragraph is not comparing.
Compare the same dimensions every time
Do not try to memorise a separate essay for each of the possible method pairs. Compare the same dimensions, and you will never run out of material regardless of which pairing the paper gives you.
| Dimension | Ask this for both methods |
|---|---|
| Purpose | What kind of research question can this method answer well? |
| Evidence | What exactly becomes data: scores, self-report, verbal accounts, observed behaviour? |
| Standardisation | How consistent can the procedure be across participants? |
| Researcher interaction | How much can the researcher shape participant behaviour or responses? |
| Causality | Can this method manipulate a cause and rule out competing explanations? |
| Measurement | How is the construct operationalised, and what may be missed? |
| Bias | Which systematic distortions are especially likely, and by what mechanism? |
| Ethics | What responsibilities or trade-offs are characteristic? |
| Depth or breadth | Does it prioritise detailed meaning, broad comparison, or controlled inference? |
Pick three or four of those, and write one paragraph per dimension covering both methods inside it.
The map you can carry into any pairing
| Experiment | Survey | Interview | Observation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical evidence | Quantitative performance or behaviour | Structured self-report | Rich verbal, qualitative | Observed behaviour |
| Control | Potentially high | Low | Low | Varies with setting |
| Causality | Strongest in a true experiment | No, usually association | No, explores meanings and reasons | No, unless embedded in an experimental design |
| Depth | Usually narrow | Moderate to low | High | High for behaviour, low for private experience |
| Researcher interaction | Often standardised | Usually low | High | Varies |
| Common bias | Demand characteristics, experimenter effects | Social desirability, response bias | Interviewer effects, researcher bias | Observer bias, reactivity |
| Key measurement issue | Operationalisation of the IV and DV | Item and scale validity | Questioning and interpretation | Behavioural categories |
What a real comparison paragraph sounds like
Both a survey and a semi-structured interview can collect self-report about school belonging, but they generate different kinds of evidence. A survey can standardise the same items across a larger sample, making numerical comparison easier, whereas the interview allows participants to explain what belonging means in their own experience and permits neutral probing. The survey therefore offers greater breadth and consistency, while the interview offers greater depth but also more opportunity for interviewer influence. For a question about how common a pattern is, the survey may be more suitable. For a question about how belonging is experienced, the interview is likely to produce more relevant evidence.
Notice what the last sentence does. It reaches a judgement about which method suits which question, rather than stopping at a list of features. That is the move that separates the top band from a competent middle-band answer.
A worked similarity, because these are harder to write
Differences come easily. Similarities are where most answers thin out, so it helps to have seen one done properly.
Both the experiment and the interview are primary research methods that collect data directly from participants, and both require explicit informed consent and the right to withdraw. Debriefing matters in both, but not identically: it is an absolute requirement where information was withheld or deception was used, and it is appropriate after other designs depending on what participants were told. Both are also vulnerable to the researcher's influence on the participant, although the mechanism differs. In the experiment this appears as experimenter effects, where subtle cues in tone or timing shape performance, whereas in the interview it appears as interviewer effects, where the interviewer's manner and phrasing shape what a participant is willing to disclose.
That paragraph is a similarity paragraph that still ends up drawing a distinction, which is exactly what "compare and contrast" means.
The four mark-losers
| Error | Fix |
|---|---|
| Two separate descriptions | Check every paragraph for a comparative connective. If it is missing, you are not comparing |
| All differences, no similarities | Deliberately write one similarity paragraph first |
| Superficial comparison, such as "one is quantitative and one is qualitative" | Add the consequence. What does that difference do to the conclusion each method can support? |
| Comparing topics instead of methods | The focus of assessment is the method, not what your practical was about |
That last one is worth repeating. The focus of assessment in Section A is the research method itself, not the context you investigated. If half your answer is about sleep, or memory, or friendship, it is answering the wrong question.
One thing about applying the right standards
A quiet way to show methodological judgement: notice that different methods are judged by different criteria.
An experiment produces quantitative data assessed through reliability and internal validity. An interview produces qualitative data assessed through credibility, reflexivity and transferability.
Judging an interview by whether it is replicable applies the wrong standard, in the same way that judging an experiment by the richness of its description would. Saying that in a sentence demonstrates understanding rather than recall.
How to practise
Do not write six essays for six pairings.
Take one pair. Write one similarity paragraph, then two difference paragraphs, each built on a named dimension. Then swap one method and do it again using the same dimensions. Twenty minutes, and you will have proved to yourself that the dimensions transfer.
Before you finish any practice answer, check three things. Does every paragraph contain a comparative connective. Have you covered both similarities and differences. And does at least one sentence say what a difference means for the conclusions each method can support.
If you want worked comparisons for every method pairing, plus the models at each band, that is what the PsychExcel Paper 2 Student Guide is built around.