At the research stage for my investigation into recycling in the local park, I gathered two main types of evidence. Firstly, I conducted primary research by carrying out a survey of 50 park users. This showed that 90% of them wanted recycling bins and 75% said they would use them if available. This evidence was extremely useful as it was specific to our park and provided direct, quantitative data demonstrating local demand. It was powerful evidence to show our councillor.
Secondly, I gathered secondary research from the local council's website and the website of the charity 'Keep Britain Tidy'. The council's website showed their current waste management policy but didn't mention parks specifically. This was useful in showing a gap in their policy. The 'Keep Britain Tidy' website provided national statistics on plastic pollution in parks, which was useful for putting our local problem into a wider context and adding weight to our argument. However, this national data was less useful for persuading the local council, who were more concerned with local opinions and budgets. Overall, the primary survey data was the most useful piece of evidence because of its direct relevance to our specific campaign.
This question tests your understanding of research methods and evaluation. A strong answer will not just list the research conducted but will critically assess its value. For example, a survey of local people (primary data) is often very useful for a local campaign because it's highly relevant and up-to-date. A newspaper article (secondary data) might be useful for background information but could be biased or out of date. The evaluation should focus on how the evidence helped you to understand the issue or persuade others. You need to explain the strengths and weaknesses of your sources in the context of your specific investigation.
Expert