why is systematic research important to sociologists

SOC101: Introduction to Sociology (2020.A.01)

Sociological research.

Read this chapter for a review of sociological research. As you read, consider the following topics:

• Take note of the bold terms throughout the chapter.
• Take some time to study Figure 1 and the accompanying text, which outline the scientific process of studying sociology.
• Take note of the differences in scientific approaches to studying sociology, including surveys, field research, participant observation, ethnographies, case studies, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
• Take note of the code of ethics and think about how these ethical standards are vital to conducting research about human subjects.

Approaches to Sociological Research

Learning objectives.

• Define and describe the scientific method
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research
• Understand the function and importance of an interpretive framework
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened family members, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms. The crime during a full moon discussion put forth a few loosely stated opinions. If the human behaviors around those claims were tested systematically, a police officer, for example, could write a report and offer the findings to sociologists and the world in general. The new perspective could help people understand themselves and their neighbors and help people make better decisions about their lives. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social trends, but, as we shall see, it's extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide. Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the sociologist forms the question, he or she proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior. However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results. The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scholarship.

Figure 2.2 The scientific method is an essential tool in research. But just because sociological studies use scientific methods does not make the results less human. Sociological topics are not reduced to right or wrong facts. In this field, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before - knowledge of other cultures, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research approach they use, researchers want to maximize the study's reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group. Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. Returning to the crime rate during a full moon topic, reliability of a study would reflect how well the resulting experience represents the average adult crime rate during a full moon. Validity would ensure that the study's design accurately examined what it was designed to study, so an exploration of adult criminal behaviors during a full moon should address that issue and not veer into other age groups' crimes, for example. In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits. Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze the data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in - but not attached to - the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This doesn't mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study. With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis. Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps - 1) ask a question, 2) research existing sources, 3) formulate a hypothesis - described below.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. "Are societies capable of sustained happiness?" would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. "What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?" would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study. Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms. That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as "personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health)," and a researcher might ask, "How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?" When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. The operational definition must be valid, appropriate, and meaningful. And it must be reliable, meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, "good drivers" might be defined in many ways: those who use their turn signals, those who don't speed, or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviors could be interpreted differently by different researchers and could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, "a driver who has never received a traffic violation" is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition.

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers - including student researchers - are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized. To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about child-rearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It's important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve studies' designs.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect, or thing that is changed. For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one's religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Interpretive Framework

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 2. Sociological Research

Learning Objectives

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Understand the difference between positivist and interpretive approaches to the scientific method in sociology.
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study.

2.2. Research Methods

• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, experiments, field research, and secondary data or textual analysis.
• Understand why certain topics are better suited to different research approaches.

2.3. Ethical Concerns

• Understand why ethical standards exist.
• Demonstrate awareness of the Canadian Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics.
• Define value neutrality, and outline some of the issues of value neutrality in sociology.

Introduction to Sociological Research

In an unfortunate comment following the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013, the then Prime Minister Stephen Harper said “this is not a time to commit sociology.” He implied that the “utter condemnation of this kind of violence” precluded drawing on sociological research into the causes of political violence  (Cohen, 2013). In his [Harper’s] position, there is a disjunction between taking a strong political and moral stance on violence on one hand and working towards a deeper, evidence-based understanding of the social causes of acts of violence on the other. Behind the political and moral rhetoric of Stephen Harper’s statement are a number of densely solidified beliefs about the nature of a “terrorist” individual — “people who have agendas of violence that are deep and abiding, [who] are a threat to all the values that our society stands for” (Cohen, 2013). In this framework, the terrorist is a kind of person who is beyond reason and morality. Therefore, sociological analysis is not only futile in the former Prime Minister’s opinion but also, for the same reasons, contrary to the “utter determination through our laws and through our activities to do everything we can to prevent and counter [terrorist violence]” (Cohen, 2013).

However, in the research of Robert Pape (2005) a different picture of the terrorist emerges. In the case of the 462 suicide bombers Pape studied, not only were the suicide bombers relatively well educated and affluent, but as other studies of suicide bombers in general confirm, they were not mentally imbalanced per se , not blindly motivated by religious zeal, and not unaffected by the moral ambivalence of their proposed acts. They were ordinary individuals caught up in extraordinary circumstances. How would this understanding of the terrorist individual affect the drafting of public policy and public responses to terrorism?

Sociological research is especially important with respect to public policy debates. The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to terrorism and violent crime are difficult to resolve at the level of political rhetoric. Often, in the news and in public discourse, the issue is framed in moral terms and therefore, for example, the policy alternatives get narrowed to the option of either being “tough” or “soft” on crime. Tough and soft are moral categories that reflect a moral characterization of the issue. A question framed by these types of moral categories cannot be resolved using evidence-based procedures. Posing the debate in these terms narrows the range of options available and undermines the ability to raise questions about what responses to crime actually work.

In fact policy debates over terrorism and crime seem especially susceptible to the various forms of specious, unscientific reasoning described later in this chapter. The story of the isolated individual, whose specific act of violence becomes the basis for the belief that the criminal justice system as a whole has failed, illustrates several qualities of unscientific thinking: knowledge based on casual observation, knowledge based on over-generalization, and knowledge based on selective evidence. The sociological approach to policy questions is essentially different since it focuses on examining the effectiveness of different social control strategies for addressing different types of violent behaviour and the different types of risk to public safety. Thus, from a sociological point of view, it is crucial to think systematically about who commits violent acts and why.

Although moral claims and opinions are of interest to sociologists, sociological researchers use empirical evidence (that is, evidence corroborated by direct experience and/or observation) combined with the scientific method to deliver sound sociological research.  A truly scientific sociological study of the social causes that lead to terrorist or criminal violence would involve a sequence of prescribed steps: defining a specific research question that can be answered through empirical observation; gathering information and resources through detailed observation; forming a hypothesis; testing the hypothesis in a reproducible manner; analyzing and drawing conclusions from the data; publishing the results; and anticipating further development when future researchers respond to and re-examine the findings.

An appropriate starting point in this case might be the question “What are the social conditions of individuals who are drawn to commit terrorist acts?” In a casual discussion of the issue, or in the back and forth of Twitter or news comment forums, people often make arguments based on their personal observations and insights, believing them to be accurate. But the results of casual observation are limited by the fact that there is no standardization—who is to say if one person’s observation of an event is any more accurate than another’s? To mediate these concerns, sociologists rely on systematic research processes.

The unwillingness to “commit sociology” and think more deeply about the roots of political violence might lead to a certain moral or rhetorical image of an “uncompromising” response to the “terrorist threat,” but not a response that has proven effective in practice nor one that exhausts the options for preventing and countering acts of political violence. Contrary to the former Prime Minister’s statements, the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing is precisely a moment to commit sociology if the issues that produce acts of violence are to be addressed.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behaviour is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behaviour as people move through the world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened parents, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Depending on the focus and the type of research conducted, sociological findings could be useful in addressing any of the three basic interests or purposes of sociological knowledge we discussed in the last chapter: the positivist interest in quantitative factual evidence to determine effective social policy decisions, the interpretive interest in understanding the meanings of human behaviour to foster mutual understanding and consensus, and the critical interest in knowledge useful for challenging power relations and emancipating people from conditions of servitude. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social phenomena but, as we have argued above, it is extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once a question is formed, a sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. Depending on the nature of the topic and the goals of the research, sociologists have a variety of methodologies to choose from. In particular, in deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a positivist methodology or an interpretive methodology . Both types of methodology can be useful for critical research strategies . The following sections describe these approaches to acquiring knowledge.

Science vs. Non-Science

We live in an interesting time in which the certitudes and authority of science are frequently challenged. In the natural sciences, people doubt scientific claims about climate change and the safety of vaccines. In the social sciences, people doubt scientific claims about the declining rate of violent crime or the effectiveness of needle exchange programs.  Sometimes there is a good reason to be skeptical about science, when scientific technologies prove to have adverse effects on the environment, for example; sometimes skepticism has dangerous outcomes, when epidemics of diseases like measles suddenly break-out in schools due to low vaccination rates. In fact, skepticism is central to both natural and social sciences, but from a scientific point of view the skeptical attitude needs to be combined with systematic research in order for knowledge to move forward.

In sociology, science provides the basis for being able to distinguish between everyday opinions or beliefs and propositions that can be sustained by evidence. In his paper The Normative Structure of Science (1942/1973) the sociologist Robert Merton argued that science is a type of empirical knowledge organized around four key principles, often referred to by the acronym CUDOS:

• Communalism: The results of science must be made available to the public; science is freely available, shared knowledge open to public discussion and debate.
• Universalism: The results of science must be evaluated based on universal criteria, not parochial criteria specific to the researchers themselves.
• Disinterestness: Science must not be pursued for private interests or personal reward.
• Organized Skepticism: The scientist must abandon all prior intellectual commitments, critically evaluate claims, and postpone conclusions until sufficient evidence has been presented; scientific knowledge is provisional.

For Merton, therefore, non-scientific knowledge is knowledge that fails in various respects to meet these criteria. Types of esoteric or mystical knowledge, for example, might be valid for someone on a spiritual path, but because this knowledge is passed from teacher to student and it is not available to the public for open debate, or because the validity of this knowledge might be specific to the individual’s unique spiritual configuration, esoteric or mystical knowledge is not scientific per se . Claims that are presented to persuade (rhetoric), to achieve political goals (propaganda, of various sorts), or to make profits (advertising) are not scientific because these claims are structured to satisfy private interests. Propositions which fail to stand up to rigorous and systematic standards of evaluation are not scientific because they can not withstand the criteria of organized skepticism and scientific method.

The basic distinction between scientific and common, non-scientific claims about the world is that in science “seeing is believing” whereas in everyday life “believing is seeing” (Brym, Roberts, Lie, & Rytina, 2013). Science is in crucial respects based on systematic observation following the principles of CUDOS. Only on the basis of observation (or “seeing”) can a scientist believe that a proposition about the nature of the world is correct. Research methodologies are designed to reduce the chance that conclusions will be based on error. In everyday life, the order is typically reversed. People “see” what they already expect to see or what they already believe to be true. Prior intellectual commitments or biases predetermine what people observe and the conclusions they draw.

Many people know things about the social world without having a background in sociology. Sometimes their knowledge is valid; sometimes it is not. It is important, therefore, to think about how people know what they know, and compare it to the scientific way of knowing. Four types of non-scientific reasoning are common in everyday life: knowledge based on casual observation, knowledge based on selective evidence, knowledge based on overgeneralization, and knowledge based on authority or tradition.

Many people know things simply because they have experienced them directly. If you grew up in Manitoba you may have observed what plenty of kids learn each winter, that it really is true that one’s tongue will stick to metal when it’s very cold outside. Direct experience may get us accurate information, but only if we are lucky. Unlike the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, in general we are not very careful observers. In this example, the observation process is not really deliberate or formal. Instead, you would come to know what you believe to be true through casual observation . The problem with casual observation is that sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Without any systematic process for observing or assessing the accuracy of our observations, we can never really be sure if our informal observations are accurate.

Many people know things because they overlook disconfirming evidence. Suppose a friend of yours declared that all men are liars shortly after she had learned that her boyfriend had deceived her. The fact that one man happened to lie to her in one instance came to represent a quality inherent in all men. But do all men really lie all the time? Probably not. If you prompted your friend to think more broadly about her experiences with men, she would probably acknowledge that she knew many men who, to her knowledge, had never lied to her and that even her boyfriend did not generally make a habit of lying. This friend committed what social scientists refer to as selective observation by noticing only the pattern that she wanted to find at the time. She ignored disconfirming evidence. If, on the other hand, your friend’s experience with her boyfriend had been her only experience with any man, then she would have been committing what social scientists refer to as overgeneralization , assuming that broad patterns exist based on very limited observations.

Another way that people claim to know what they know is by looking to what they have always known to be true. There is an urban legend about a woman who for years used to cut both ends off of a ham before putting it in the oven (Mikkelson, 2005). She baked ham that way because that is the way her mother did it, so clearly that was the way it was supposed to be done. Her knowledge was based on a family tradition ( traditional knowledge ). After years of tossing cuts of perfectly good ham into the trash, however, she learned that the only reason her mother cut the ends off ham before cooking it was that she did not have a pan large enough to accommodate the ham without trimming it.

Without questioning what we think we know is true, we may wind up believing things that are actually false. This is most likely to occur when an authority tells us that something is true ( authoritatve knowledge ). Our mothers are not the only possible authorities we might rely on as sources of knowledge. Other common authorities we might rely on in this way are the government, our schools and teachers, and churches and ministers. Although it is understandable that someone might believe something to be true if someone they look up to or respect has said it is so, this way of knowing differs from the sociological way of knowing. Whether quantitative, qualitative, or critical in orientation, sociological research is based on the scientific method.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried-and-true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, field research, and textual analysis. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that they can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving hypotheses about elementary particles right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behaviour. However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behaviour. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results. This is the case for both positivist quantitative methodologies, which seek to translate observable phenomena into unambiguous numerical data, and interpretive qualitative methodologies, which seek to translate observable phenomena into definable units of meaning. The social scientific method in both cases involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical (i.e., observable) evidence. The social scientific method is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the social world, and it strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of established steps known as the research cycle .

However,  just because sociological studies use the scientific method it does not make the results less human. Sociological topics like the causes and conditions of political violence are typically not amenable to the mathematical precision or quantifiable predictions of physics or chemistry. In the field of sociology, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before — knowledge of people’s social conditions, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, knowledge of trends and attitudes. Nevertheless, no matter what research approach is used, researchers want to maximize the study’s reliability (how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced). Reliability increases the likelihood that what is true of one person will be true of all people in a group. Researchers also want to maximize the study’s validity (how well the study measures what it was designed to measure).

A subtopic in the field of political violence would be to examine the sources of homegrown radicalization: What are the conditions under which individuals in Canada move from a state of indifference or moderate concern with political issues to a state in which they are prepared to use violence to pursue political goals? The reliability of a study of radicalization reflects how well the social factors unearthed by the research represent the actual experience of political radicals. Validity ensures that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study. An exploration of an individual’s propensity to plan or engage in violent acts or to go abroad to join a terrorist organization should address those issues and not confuse them with other themes such as why an individual adopts a particular faith or espouses radical political views. As research from the UK and United States has in fact shown, while jihadi terrorists typically identify with an Islamic world view, a well-developed Islamic identity counteracts jihadism . Similarly, research has shown that while it intuitively makes sense that people with radical views would adopt radical means like violence to achieve them, there is in fact no consistent homegrown terrorist profile, meaning that it is not possible to predict whether someone who espouses radical views will move on to committing violent acts (Patel, 2011). To ensure validity, research on political violence should focus on individuals who engage in political violence.

Sociologists use the scientific method not only to collect but to interpret and analyze the data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in but not attached to the results. Their research work is independent of their own political or social beliefs. This does not mean researchers are not critical. Nor does it mean they do not have their own personalities, preferences, and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study. With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. These steps provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton, 1949/1968). Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps, which are described below: 1) ask a question; 2) research existing sources; and 3) formulate a hypothesis.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study.

Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms. That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. Karl Popper (1902-1994) described the formulation of scientific propositions in terms of the concept of falsifiability (1963). He argued that the key demarcation between scientific and non-scientific propositions was not ultimately their truth, nor their empirical verification, but whether or not they were stated in such a way as to be falsifiable; that is, whether a possible empirical observation could prove them wrong. If one claimed that evil spirits were the source of criminal behaviour, this would not be a scientific proposition because there is no possible way to definitively disprove it. Evil spirits cannot be observed. However, if one claimed that higher unemployment rates are the source of higher crime rates, this would be a scientific proposition because it is theoretically possible to find an instance where unemployment rates were not correlated to crime rates. As Popper said, “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations” (1963).

Once a proposition is formulated in a way that would permit it to be falsified, the variables to be observed need to be operationalized. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition ; that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The concept is translated into an observable variable , a measure that has different values. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept.

By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. The operational definition must be valid in the sense that it is an appropriate and meaningful measure of the concept being studied. It must also be reliable, meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, good drivers might be defined in many ways: Those who use their turn signals; those who do not speed; or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviours could be interpreted differently by different researchers, so they could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition. Asking the question, “how many traffic violations has a driver received?” turns the concepts of “good drivers” and “bad drivers” into variables which might be measured by the number of traffic violations a driver has received. Of course the sociologist has to be wary of the way the variables are operationalized. In this example we know that black drivers are subject to much higher levels of police scrutiny than white drivers, so the number of traffic violations a driver has received might reflect less on their driving ability and more on the crime of “driving while black.”

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to a university library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. It allows them to sharpen the focus of their research question and avoid duplicating previous research. Researchers — including student researchers — are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or sources that inform their work. While it is fine to build on previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized. To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about childrearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It is important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates a researcher and helps refine and improve a study’s design.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. It is an educated guess because it is not random but based on theory, observations, patterns of experience, or the existing literature. The hypothesis formulates this guess in the form of a testable proposition. However, how the hypothesis is handled differs between the positivist and interpretive approaches. Positivist methodologies are often referred to as hypothetico-deductive methodologies . A hypothesis is derived from a theoretical proposition. On the basis of the hypothesis a prediction or generalization is logically deduced. In positivist sociology, the hypothesis predicts how one form of human behaviour influences another. How does being a black driver affect the number of times the police will pull you over?

Successful prediction will determine the adequacy of the hypothesis and thereby test the theoretical proposition. Typically positivist approaches operationalize variables as quantitative data ; that is, by translating a social phenomenon like health into a quantifiable or numerically measurable variable like “number of visits to the hospital.” This permits sociologists to formulate their predictions using mathematical language like regression formulas to present research findings in graphs and tables, and to perform mathematical or statistical techniques to demonstrate the validity of relationships.

Variables are examined to see if there is a correlation between them. When a change in one variable coincides with a change in another variable there is a correlation. This does not necessarily indicate that changes in one variable causes a change in another variable, however; just that they are associated. A key distinction here is between independent and dependent variables. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect, or thing that is changed. For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behaviour as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

For it to become possible to speak about causation , three criteria must be satisfied:

• There must be a relationship or correlation between the independent and dependent variables.
• The independent variable must be prior to the dependent variable.
• There must be no other intervening variable responsible for the causal relationship.

It is important to note that while there has to be a correlation between variables for there to be a causal relationship, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The relationship between variables can be the product of a third intervening variable that is independently related to both. For example, there might be a positive relationship between wearing bikinis and eating ice cream, but wearing bikinis does not cause eating ice cream. It is more likely that the heat of summertime causes both an increase in bikini wearing and an increase in the consumption of ice cream.

The distinction between causation and correlation can have significant consequences. For example, Aboriginal Canadians are overrepresented in prisons and arrest statistics. As we noted in Chapter 1, in 2013 Aboriginal people accounted for about 4 percent of the Canadian population, but they made up 23.2 percent of the federal penitentiary population (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2013). There is a positive correlation between being an Aboriginal person in Canada and being in jail. Is this because Aboriginal people are racially or biologically predisposed to crime? No. In fact there are at least four intervening variables that explain the higher incarceration of Aboriginal people (Hartnagel, 2004): Aboriginal people are disproportionately poor and poverty is associated with higher arrest and incarceration rates; Aboriginal lawbreakers tend to commit more detectable “street” crimes than the less detectable “white collar” crimes of other segments of the population; the criminal justice system disproportionately profiles and discriminates against Aboriginal people; and the legacy of colonization has disrupted and weakened traditional sources of social control in Aboriginal communities.

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define “good” grades as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for good. Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points, ensuring consistency and replicability in a study. As the chart shows, an independent variable is the one that causes a dependent variable to change. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough: Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis. Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis are not welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns.

In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding a rewarding career. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Hypothesis Formation in Qualitative Research

While many sociologists rely on the positivist hypothetico-deductive method in their research, others operate from an interpretive approach . While still systematic, this approach typically does not follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to make generalizable predictions from quantitative variables. Instead, an interpretive framework seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, leading to in-depth knowledge. It focuses on qualitative data, or the meanings that guide people’s behaviour. Rather than relying on quantitative instruments, like fixed questionnaires or experiments, which can be artificial, the interpretive approach attempts to find ways to get closer to the informants’ lived experience and perceptions.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings than positivist research. It can begin from a deductive approach by deriving a hypothesis from theory and then seeking to confirm it through methodologies like in-depth interviews. However, it is ideally suited to an inductive approach in which the hypothesis emerges only after a substantial period of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of approach is exploratory in that the researcher also learns as they proceed, sometimes adjusting the research methods or processes midway to respond to new insights and findings as they evolve.

For example, Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) classic elaboration of grounded theory proposed that qualitative researchers working with rich sources of qualitative data from interviews or ethnographic observations need to go through several stages of coding the data before a strong theory of the social phenomenon under investigation can emerge. In the initial stage, the researcher is simply trying to categorize and sort the data. The researchers do not predetermine what the relevant categories of the social experience are but analyze carefully what their subjects actually say. For example, what are the working definitions of health and illness that hospital patients use to describe their situation? In the first stage, the researcher tries to label the common themes emerging from the data: different ways of describing health and illness. In the second stage, the researcher takes a more analytical approach by organizing the data into a few key themes: perhaps the key assumptions that lay people make about the physiological mechanisms of the body, or the metaphors they use to describe their relationship to illness (e.g., a battle, a punishment, a message, etc.). In the third stage, the researcher would return to the interview subjects with a new set of questions that would seek to either affirm, modify, or discard the analytical themes derived from the initial coding of the interviews. This process can then be repeated until a thoroughly grounded theory is ready to be proposed. At every stage of the research, the researchers are obliged to follow the emerging data by revising their conceptions as new material is gathered, contradictions accounted for, commonalities categorized, and themes re-examined with further interviews.

Once the preliminary work is done and the hypothesis defined, it is time for the next research steps: choosing a research methodology, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. These research steps are discussed below.

Making Connections: Classic Sociologists

Harriet martineau: the first woman sociologist.

As was noted in Chapter 1, Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) was one of the first women sociologists in the 19th century. Particularly innovative was her early work on sociological methodology, How to Observe Manners and Morals (1838) . In this volume she developed the ground work for a systematic social-scientific approach to studying human behaviour. She recognized that the issues of the researcher — subject relationship would have to be addressed differently in a social science   as opposed to a natural science. The observer, or “traveller,” as she put it, needed to respect three criteria to obtain valid research: impartiality, critique, and sympathy. The impartial observer could not allow herself to be “perplexed or disgusted” by foreign practices that she could not personally reconcile herself with. Yet at the same time she saw the goal of sociology to be the fair but critical assessment of the moral status of a culture. In particular, the goal of sociology was to challenge forms of racial, sexual, or class domination in the name of autonomy: the right of every person to be a “self-directing moral being.” Finally, what distinguished the science of social observation from the natural sciences was that the researcher had to have unqualified sympathy for the subjects being studied (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007). This later became a central principle of Max Weber’s interpretive sociology, although it is not clear that Weber read Martineau’s work.

A large part of her research in the United States analyzed the situations of contradiction between stated public morality and actual moral practices. For example, she was fascinated with the way that the formal democratic right to free speech enabled slavery abolitionists to hold public meetings, but when the meetings were violently attacked by mobs, the abolitionists and not the mobs were accused of inciting the violence (Zeitlin, 1997). This emphasis on studying contradictions followed from the distinction she drew between morals — society’s collective ideas of permitted and forbidden behaviour — and manners — the actual patterns of social action and association in society. As she realized the difficulty in getting an accurate representation of an entire society based on a limited number of interviews, she developed the idea that one could identify key “Things” experienced by all people — age, gender, illness, death, etc. — and examine how they were experienced differently by a sample of people from different walks of life (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007). Martineau’s sociology, therefore, focused on surveying different attitudes toward “Things” and studying the anomalies that emerged when manners toward them contradicted a society’s formal morals.

Sociologists examine the world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study — perhaps a positivist, quantitative method for conducting research and obtaining data, or perhaps an ethnographic study utilizing an interpretive framework. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know that they are being observed. A researcher would not stroll into a crime-ridden neighbourhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?” And if a researcher walked into a coffee shop and told the employees they would be observed as part of a study on work efficiency, the self-conscious, intimidated baristas might not behave naturally. The unique nature of human research subjects is that they can react to the researcher and change their behaviour under observation.

Making Connections: Sociological Research

The hawthorne effect.

In the 1920s, leaders of a Chicago factory called Hawthorne Works commissioned a study to determine whether or not changing certain aspects of working conditions could increase or decrease worker productivity. Sociologists were surprised when the productivity of a test group increased when the lighting of their workspace was improved. They were even more surprised when productivity improved when the lighting of the workspace was dimmed. In fact almost every change of independent variable — lighting, breaks, work hours — resulted in an improvement of productivity. But when the study was over, productivity dropped again.

Why did this happen? In 1953, Henry A. Landsberger analyzed the study results to answer this question. He realized that employees’ productivity increased because sociologists were paying attention to them. The sociologists’ presence influenced the study results. Worker behaviours were altered not by the lighting but by the study itself. From this, sociologists learned the importance of carefully planning their roles as part of their research design (Franke & Kaul, 1978). Landsberger called the workers’ response the Hawthorne effect  — people changing their behaviour because they know they are being watched as part of a study.

The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research. In many cases, sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known for ethical reasons. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld, 1985). Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviours, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers cannot just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Ku Klux Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviours. In situations like these, other methods are needed. All studies shape the research design, while research design simultaneously shapes the study. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topic and that fit with their overall goal for the research.

In planning a study’s design, sociologists generally choose from four widely used methods of social investigation: survey, experiment, field research, and textual or secondary data analysis (or use of existing sources). Every research method comes with pluses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviours and opinions, often in the form of a written questionnaire. The survey is one of the most widely used sociological research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point or another, everyone responds to some type of survey. The Statistics Canada census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Customers also fill out questionnaires at stores or promotional events, responding to questions such as “How did you hear about the event?” and “Were the staff helpful?” You have probably picked up the phone and heard a caller ask you to participate in a political poll or similar type of survey: “Do you eat hot dogs? If yes, how many per month?” Not all surveys would be considered sociological research. Marketing polls help companies refine marketing goals and strategies; they are generally not conducted as part of a scientific study, meaning they are not designed to test a hypothesis or to contribute knowledge to the field of sociology. The results are not published in a refereed scholarly journal where design, methodology, results, and analyses are vetted.

Often, polls on TV do not reflect a general population, but are merely answers from a specific show’s audience. Polls conducted by programs such as American Idol or Canadian Idol represent the opinions of fans but are not particularly scientific. A good contrast to these are the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) (now called Numeris) ratings, which determine the popularity of radio and television programming in Canada through scientific market research. Their researchers ask a large random sample of Canadians, age 12 and over, to fill out a television or radio diary for one week, noting the times and the broadcasters they listened to or viewed. Based on this methodology they are able to generate an accurate account of media consumers preferences, which are used to provide broadcast ratings for radio and television stations and define the characteristics of their core audiences.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel and think — or at least how they say they feel and think. Surveys can track attitudes and opinions, political preferences, individual behaviours such as sleeping, driving, dietary, or texting habits, or factual information such as employment status, income, and education levels. A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as university athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes.

Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample : That is, a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. According to the laws of probability, random samples represent the population as a whole. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results will be in characterizing the population being studied. For practical purposes, however, a sample size of 1,500 people will give acceptably accurate results even if the population being researched was the entire adult population of Canada. For instance, an Ipsos Reid poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 1,500 or 10,000 people.

Typically surveys will include a figure that gives the margin of error of the survey results.  Based on probabilities, this will give a range of values within which the true value of the population characteristic will be. This figure also depends on the size of a sample. For example, a political poll based on a sample of 1,500 respondents might state that if an election were called tomorrow the Conservative Party would get 30% of the vote plus or minus 2.5% based on a confidence interval of 95%. That is, there is a 5% chance that the true vote would fall outside of the range of 27.5% to 32.5%, or 1 time out of 20  if you were to conduct the poll 20 times. If the poll was based on a sample of 1,000 respondents, the margin of error would be higher, plus or minus 3.1%. This is significant, of course, because if the Conservatives are polling at 30% and the Liberals are polling at 28% the poll would be inconclusive about which party is actually ahead with regard to actual voter preferences.

Problems with accuracy or validity can result if sample sizes are too small because there is a stronger chance the sample size will not capture the actual distribution of characteristics of the whole population. In small samples the characteristics of specific individuals have a greater chance of influencing the results. The validity of surveys can also be threatened when part of the population is inadvertently excluded from the sample (e.g., telephone surveys that rely on land lines exclude people that use only cell phones) or when there is a low response rate. There is also a question of what exactly is being measured by the survey. In the BC election of 2013, polls found that the NDP had the largest popular support but on election day many people who said they would vote NDP did not actually vote, which resulted in a Liberal majority government.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask a list of standardized questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the study upfront. If they agree to participate, researchers thank the subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researchers present the subjects with an instrument or means of gathering the information. A common instrument is a structured written questionnaire in which subjects answer a series of set questions. For some topics, the researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question.

This kind of quantitative data  — research collected in numerical form that can be counted — is easy to tabulate. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” answers or tabulate the scales of “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” etc. responses and chart them into percentages. This is also the chief drawback of questionnaires, however: their artificiality. In real life, there are rarely any unambiguously yes or no answers. Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers beyond yes, no, agree, strongly agree, or another option next to a check box. In those cases, the answers are subjective, varying from person to person. How do you plan to use your university education? Why do you follow Justin Bieber on Twitter? Those types of questions require short essay responses, and participants willing to take the time to write those answers will convey personal information about their beliefs, views, and attitudes.

Some topics that reflect internal subjective perspectives are impossible to observe directly. Sometimes they can be sensitive and difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum or with a stranger. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of information is qualitative data  — results that are subjective and often based on what is experienced in a natural setting. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, and some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and is another way of conducting surveys on a topic. Interviews are similar to the short answer questions on surveys in that the researcher asks subjects a series of questions. They can be quantitative if the questions are standardized and have numerically quantifiable answers: Are you employed? (Yes=0, No=1); On a scale of 1 to 5 how would you describe your level of optimism? They can also be qualitative if participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly. Questions such as “How did society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. Obviously, a sociological interview is also not supposed to be an interrogation. The researcher will benefit from gaining a subject’s trust by empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and by listening without judgement.

2. Experiments

You have probably tested personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test a theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis. One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis — a scientific approach. There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments, and natural or field experiments.

In a lab setting the research can be controlled so that, perhaps, more data can be recorded in a certain amount of time. In a natural or field-based experiment, the generation of data cannot be controlled, but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher. As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens, then another particular thing will result.

To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables. Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group . The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. This is similar to pharmaceutical drug trials in which the experimental group is given the test drug and the control group is given a placebo or sugar pill.

An Experiment in Action: Mincome

A real-life example will help illustrate the experimental process in sociology. Between 1974 and 1979 an experiment was conducted in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba (the “garden capital of Manitoba”). Each family received a modest monthly guaranteed income — a “mincome” — equivalent to a maximum of 60 percent of the “low-income cut-off figure” (a Statistics Canada measure of poverty, which varies with family size). The income was 50 cents per dollar less for families who had incomes from other sources. Families earning over a certain income level did not receive mincome. Families that were already collecting welfare or unemployment insurance were also excluded. The test families in Dauphin were compared with control groups in other rural Manitoba communities on a range of indicators such as number of hours worked per week, school performance, high school drop out rates, and hospital visits (Forget, 2011). A guaranteed annual income was seen at the time as a less costly, less bureaucratic public alternative for addressing poverty than the existing employment insurance and welfare programs. Today it is an active proposal being considered in Switzerland (Lowrey, 2013).

Intuitively, it seems logical that lack of income is the cause of poverty and poverty-related issues. One of the main concerns, however, was whether a guaranteed income would create a disincentive to work. The concept appears to challenge the principles of the Protestant work ethic (see the discussion of Max Weber in Chapter 1). The study did find very small decreases in hours worked per week: about 1 percent for men, 3 percent for married women, and 5 percent for unmarried women. Forget (2011) argues this was because the income provided an opportunity for people to spend more time with family and school, especially for young mothers and teenage girls. There were also significant social benefits from the experiment, including better test scores in school, lower high school drop out rates, fewer visits to hospital, fewer accidents and injuries, and fewer mental health issues.

Ironically, due to lack of guaranteed funding (and lack of political interest by the late 1970s), the data and results of the study were not analyzed or published until 2011. The data were archived and sat gathering dust in boxes. The mincome experiment demonstrated the benefits that even a modest guaranteed annual income supplement could have on health and social outcomes in communities. People seem to live healthier lives and get a better education when they do not need to worry about poverty. In her summary of the research, Forget notes that the impact of the income supplement was surprisingly large given that at any one time only about a third of the families were receiving the income and, for some families, the income amount would have been very small. The income benefit was largest for low-income working families, but the research showed that the entire community profited. The improvement in overall health outcomes for the community suggest that a guaranteed income would also result in savings for the public health system.

To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might expose the experimental group of students to tutoring while the control group does not receive tutoring. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record, for example.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is perhaps one of the most famous sociological experiments ever conducted. In 1971, 24 healthy, middle-class male university students were selected to take part in a simulated jail environment to examine the effects of social setting and social roles on individual psychology and behaviour. They were randomly divided into 12 guards and 12 prisoners. The prisoner subjects were arrested at home and transported blindfolded to the simulated prison in the basement of the psychology building on the campus of Stanford University. Within a day of arriving the prisoners and the guards began to display signs of trauma and sadism respectively. After some prisoners revolted by blockading themselves in their cells, the guards resorted to using increasingly humiliating and degrading tactics to control the prisoners through psychological manipulation. The experiment had to be abandoned after only six days because the abuse had grown out of hand (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). While the insights into the social dynamics of authoritarianism it generated were fascinating, the Stanford Prison Experiment also serves as an example of the ethical issues that emerge when experimenting on human subjects.

3. Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Sociologists seldom study subjects in their own offices or laboratories. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey. It is a research method suited to an interpretive approach rather than to positivist approaches. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In fieldwork, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element. The researcher interacts with or observes a person or people, gathering data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or a care home, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting, the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviours in that setting. Fieldwork is optimal for observing how people behave. It is less useful, however, for developing causal explanations of why they behave that way. From the small size of the groups studied in fieldwork, it is difficult to make predictions or generalizations to a larger population. Similarly, there are difficulties in gaining an objective distance from research subjects. It is difficult to know whether another researcher would see the same things or record the same data. We will look at three types of field research: participant observation, ethnography, and the case study.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

When is sharing not such a good idea.

Choosing a research methodology depends on a number of factors, including the purpose of the research and the audience for whom the research is intended. If we consider the type of research that might go into producing a government policy document on the effectiveness of safe injection sites for reducing the public health risks of intravenous drug use, we would expect public administrators to want “hard” (i.e., quantitative) evidence of high reliability to help them make a policy decision. The most reliable data would come from an experimental or quasi-experimental research model in which a control group can be compared with an experimental group using quantitative measures.

This approach has been used by researchers studying InSite in Vancouver (Marshall et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2006). InSite is a supervised safe-injection site where heroin addicts and other intravenous drug users can go to inject drugs in a safe, clean environment. Clean needles are provided and health care professionals are on hand to intervene in the case of overdoses or other medical emergency. It is a controversial program both because heroin use is against the law (the facility operates through a federal ministerial exemption) and because the heroin users are not obliged to quit using or seek therapy. To assess the effectiveness of the program, researchers compared the risky usage of drugs in populations before and after the opening of the facility and geographically near and distant to the facility. The results from the studies have shown that InSite has reduced both deaths from overdose and risky behaviours, such as the sharing of needles, without increasing the levels of crime associated with drug use and addiction.

On the other hand, if the research question is more exploratory (for example, trying to discern the reasons why individuals in the crack smoking subculture engage in the risky activity of sharing pipes), the more nuanced approach of fieldwork is more appropriate. The research would need to focus on the subcultural context, rituals, and meaning of sharing pipes, and why these phenomena override known health concerns. Graduate student Andrew Ivsins at the University of Victoria studied the practice of sharing pipes among 13 habitual users of crack cocaine in Victoria, B.C. (Ivsins, 2010). He met crack smokers in their typical setting downtown and used an unstructured interview method to try to draw out the informal norms that lead to sharing pipes. One factor he discovered was the bond that formed between friends or intimate partners when they shared a pipe. He also discovered that there was an elaborate subcultural etiquette of pipe use that revolved around the benefit of getting the crack resin smokers left behind. Both of these motives tended to outweigh the recognized health risks of sharing pipes (such as hepatitis) in the decision making of the users. This type of research was valuable in illuminating the unknown subcultural norms of crack use that could still come into play in a harm reduction strategy such as distributing safe crack kits to addicts.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see if anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a dot com company and exemplified the lengths to which a sociologist will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers study a naturally occurring social activity without imposing artificial or intrusive research devices, like fixed questionnaire questions, onto the situation. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behaviour. Researchers temporarily put themselves into “native” roles and record their observations. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, or live as a homeless person for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside. Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in shaping data into results.

In a study of small town America conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in American towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised their purpose. This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1959).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviours of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behaviour. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job. Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book, describing what they witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, as the story goes, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. “How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by?” she wondered. “Someone should do a study.” To her surprise, her editor responded, “Why don’t you do it?” That is how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the low-wage service sector. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter. She discovered the obvious: that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle- and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of service work employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the extended observation of the social perspective and cultural values of an entire social setting. Researchers seek to immerse themselves in the life of a bounded group by living and working among them. Often ethnography involves participant observation, but the focus is the systematic observation of an entire community. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a community. It aims at developing a “thick description” of people’s behaviour that describes not only the behaviour itself but the layers of meaning that form the context of the behaviour (Geertz, 1973). An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small Newfoundland fishing town, an Inuit community, a scientific research laboratory, a backpacker’s hostel, a private boarding school, or Disney World. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible, and keeping careful notes on their observations. A sociologist studying a ayahuasca ceremonies in the Amazon might learn the language, watch the way shamans go about their daily lives, ask individuals about the meaning of different aspects of the activity, study the group’s cosmology, and then write a paper about it. To observe a Buddhist retreat centre, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record how people experience spirituality in this setting, and collate the material into results.

The Feminist Perspective: Institutional Ethnography

The Case Study

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation, and even participant observation, if possible. Researchers might use this method to study a single case of, for example, a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that a developed study of a single case, while offering depth on a topic, does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can add tremendous knowledge to a certain discipline. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviours and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about 100 cases of feral children in the world. As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of normal child development. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject. At age three, a Ukrainian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, eating raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbour called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviours, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice, 2006). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be collectable by any other method.

4. Secondary Data or Textual Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data or textual analysis . Secondary data do not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are drawn from the already-completed work of other researchers. Sociologists might study texts written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines from any period in history. Using available information not only saves time and money, but it can add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behaviour and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the internet, or Facebook.

One methodology that sociologists employ with secondary data is content analysis . Content analysis is a quantitative approach to textual research that selects an item of textual content (i.e., a variable) that can be reliably and consistently observed and coded, and surveys the prevalence of that item in a sample of textual output. For example, Gilens (1996) wanted to find out why survey research shows that the American public substantially exaggerates the percentage of African Americans among the poor. He examined whether media representations influence public perceptions and did a content analysis of photographs of poor people in American news magazines. He coded and then systematically recorded incidences of three variables: (1) race: white, black, indeterminate; (2) employed: working, not working; and (3) age. Gilens discovered that not only were African Americans markedly overrepresented in news magazine photographs of poverty, but that the photos also tended to under represent “sympathetic” subgroups of the poor—the elderly and working poor—while over representing less sympathetic groups—unemployed, working age adults. Gilens concluded that by providing a distorted representation of poverty, U.S. news magazines “reinforce negative stereotypes of blacks as mired in poverty and contribute to the belief that poverty is primarily a ‘black problem’” (1996).

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments, public interest research groups, and global organizations like Statistics Canada, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, or the World Health Organization publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic that measures inequality of incomes might be useful for studying who benefited and who lost as a result of the 2008 recession; a demographic profile of different immigrant groups might be compared with data on unemployment to examine the reasons why immigration settlement programs are more effective for some communities than for others. One of the advantages of secondary data is that it is nonreactive (or unobtrusive) research, meaning that it does not include direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviours. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher needs to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. In some cases there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy, for example, to count how many drunk drivers are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their high school diplomas later. Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not include the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the salaries paid to professors at universities are often published, but the separate figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they have been teaching.

In his research, sociologist Richard Sennett uses secondary data to shed light on current trends. In The Craftsman (2008), he studied the human desire to perform quality work, from carpentry to computer programming. He studied the line between craftsmanship and skilled manual labour. He also studied changes in attitudes toward craftsmanship that occurred not only during and after the Industrial Revolution, but also in ancient times. Obviously, he could not have firsthand knowledge of periods of ancient history, so he had to rely on secondary data for part of his study.

When conducting secondary data or textual analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, Robert and Helen Lynd gathered research for their book Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture in the 1920s. Attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal the truth about small American communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

Reading Tables

One of the common forms in which one encounters secondary data is the contingency table . A contingency table provides a frequency distribution of at least two variables that allows the researcher to see at a glance how the variables are related. Table 2.3 shows the frequency of different types of firearm crime for Canada and the United States. In this table, the independent variable (the causal variable) is the country, either Canada or the United States. The dependent variable, displayed in the columns, is the frequency of offences that involve firearms in the two countries. This is given as an absolute number (“number”), as a percentage of the total number of crimes in that category (i.e., as a percentage of the total number of homicides, major assaults and robberies; “percent of total offences”), and as rate calculated per 100,000 population (“rate”).To interpret the table, the researcher has to pay attention to what adds up to 100%. In this table we have not been given the complete information in each column, but it is straight forward to recognize that if 33% of the homicides in Canada involved the use of a firearm, another 67% of homicides did not. The table, therefore, does not say that 33% of all firearm crimes in Canada were homicides. From these figures one can also calculate the total number of homicides that took place in Canada in 2012 by a simple ratio: If the 172 homicides that involved firearms represents 33% or 1/3 of all the Canadian homicides, then there were (approximately) 516 homicides in Canada in 2012.

The table suggests that there is a definite correlation between country and firearm-related violent crime. Violent crime in the United States tends to involve firearms much more frequently than violent crime in Canada. With respect to homicides, there were 8,813 homicides involving firearms in the United States in 2012, accounting for 69% of all homicides, while in Canada, firearms accounted for 33% of homicides. The column that gives the rates of firearm violence per 100,000 population allows the researcher to identify a comparison figure that takes into account the different population sizes of the two countries. The rate of firearm-related homicide in the United States was about seven times higher than in Canada in 2012 (0.5 per 100,000 compared to 3.5 per 100,000), firearm-related major assault was about ten times higher (53 per 100,000 compared to 5 per 100,000), and firearm-related robbery was about five times higher (8.9 per 100,000 compared to 45.1 per 100,000).

The question that this data raises is about causation. Why are firearm-related violent crimes so much lower in Canada than in the United States? One key element are the legal restrictions on firearm possession in the two countries. Canadian law requires that an individual has a valid license under the Firearms Act in order to own or possess a firearm or to purchase ammunition. Until 2012, all firearms also had to be registered, but with the repeal of the national gun registry provisions for long guns (rifles and shot guns), currently only hand guns and prohibited weapons (assault weapons, fully automatic firearms, and sawed-off rifles or shotguns) have to be registered. In the United States firearm regulations are state-specific and only a few states place restrictions on the possession of firearms. In 2007, there were 89 firearms for every 100 citizens in the United States, which is the highest rate of gun ownership of any country (Cotter, 2014). Nevertheless, as Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is higher than several peer countries, most notably Japan and the United Kingdom, variables other than gun control legislation might be a factor.

As noted above, there is not only a variety of theoretical perspectives in sociology, but also a diversity of research methodologies that can be used in studying the social. In large part, the choice of research methodology follows from the choice of the research question. Of course, the choice of the research question itself depends on the same sort of underlying values and decisions about the nature of the world that divide the theoretical perspectives in sociology. In addition, the choice of the research question involves both the character of the social phenomenon being studied and the purpose of the research in the first place.

Again, it is useful to map out the different methodologies in a diagram. We can position them along two axes according to: (a) whether the subject matter or purpose of the research calls for highly reliable findings — consistent between research contexts (high reliability) — or for highly valid and nuanced findings true to the specific social situation under observation (unique observation), and (b) whether the nature of the object of research can be meaningfully operationalized and measured using quantitative techniques (quantitative data) or is better grasped in terms of the texture of social meanings that constitute it (qualitative data). The advantages and disadvantages of the different methodologies are summarized in Table 2.4 below.

Sociologists conduct studies to shed light on human behaviours. Knowledge is a powerful tool that can be used toward positive change. And while a sociologist’s goal is often simply to uncover knowledge rather than to spur action, many people use sociological studies to help improve people’s lives. In that sense, conducting a sociological study comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. Like any researchers, sociologists must consider their ethical obligation to avoid harming subjects or groups while conducting their research. The Canadian Sociological Association (CSA), is the major professional organization of sociologists in Canada. The CSA is a great resource for students of sociology as well.

The CSA maintains a code of ethics  — formal guidelines for conducting sociological research — consisting of principles and ethical standards to be used in the discipline. It also describes procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct. These are in line with the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010) , which applies to any research with human subjects funded by one of the three federal research agencies — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Practising sociologists and sociology students have a lot to consider. Some of the guidelines state that researchers must try to be skillful and fair-minded in their work, especially as it relates to their human subjects. Researchers must obtain participants’ informed consent, and they must inform subjects of the responsibilities and risks of research before they agree to participate. During a study, sociologists must ensure the safety of participants and immediately stop work if a subject becomes potentially endangered on any level. Researchers are required to protect the privacy of research participants whenever possible. Even if pressured by authorities, such as police or courts, researchers are not ethically allowed to release confidential information. Researchers must make results available to other sociologists, must make public all sources of financial support, and must not accept funding from any organization that might cause a conflict of interest or seek to influence the research results for its own purposes. The CSA’s ethical considerations shape not only the study but also the publication of results.

Pioneer German sociologist Max Weber identified another crucial ethical concern. Weber understood that personal values could distort the framework for disclosing study results. While he accepted that some aspects of research design might be influenced by personal values, he declared it was entirely inappropriate to allow personal values to shape the interpretation of the responses. Sociologists, he stated, must establish value neutrality , a practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgement, during the course of a study and in publishing results (1949). Sociologists are obligated to disclose research findings without omitting or distorting significant data. Value neutrality does not mean having no opinions. It means striving to overcome personal biases, particularly subconscious biases, when analyzing data. It means avoiding skewing data in order to match a predetermined outcome that aligns with a particular agenda, such as a political or moral point of view. Investigators are ethically obligated to report results, even when they contradict personal views, predicted outcomes, or widely accepted beliefs. Is value neutrality possible?

Many sociologists believe it is impossible to set aside personal values and retain complete objectivity. Individuals inevitably see the world from a partial perspective. Their interests are central to the types of topics they choose, the types of questions they ask, the way they frame their research, and the research methodologies they select to pursue it. Moreover, facts, however objective, do not exist in a void. As was noted in Chapter 1, Jürgen Habermas (1972) argues that sociological research has built-in interests quite apart from the personal biases of individual researchers. Positivist sociology has an interest in pursuing types of knowledge that are useful for controlling and administering social life. Interpretive sociology has an interest in pursuing types of knowledge that promote greater mutual understanding and the possibility of consensus among members of society. Critical sociology has an interest in types of knowledge that enable emancipation from power relations and forms of domination in society. In Habermas’ view, sociological knowledge is not disinterested knowledge. This does not discredit the results of sociological research but allows readers to take into account the perspective of the research when judging the validity and applicability of its outcomes.

authoritative knowledge : Knowledge based on the accepted authority of the source.

case study:  In-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual.

casual observation:  Knowledge based on observations without any systematic process for observing or assessing the accuracy of observations.

code of ethics:  A set of guidelines that the Canadian Sociological Association has established to foster ethical research and professionally responsible scholarship in sociology.

content analysis: A quantitative approach to textual research that selects an item of textual content that can be reliably and consistently observed and coded, and surveys the prevalence of that item in a sample of textual output.

contingency table:  A statistical table that provides a frequency distribution of at least two variables.

control group: An experimental group that is not exposed to the independent variable.

correlation:  When a change in one variable coincides with a change in another variable, but does not necessarily indicate causation.

d ependent variable: Variable changed by another variable.

empirical evidence: Evidence corroborated by direct experience and/or observation.

ethnography: Observing a complete social setting and all that it entails.

experiment: The testing of a hypothesis under controlled conditions.

field research: Gathering data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey.

Hawthorne effect:  When study subjects behave in a certain manner due to their awareness of being observed by a researcher.

hypothesis:  An educated guess with predicted outcomes about the relationship between two or more variables.

hypothetico-deductive methodologies: Methodologies based on deducing a prediction from a hypothesis and testing the validity of the hypothesis by whether it correctly predicts observations.

independent variable:  Variable that causes change in a dependent variable.

inductive approach: Methodologies that derive a general statement from a series of empirical observations.

institutional ethnography:  The study of the way everyday life is coordinated through institutional, textually mediated practices.

interpretive approach:  A sociological research approach that seeks in-depth understanding of a topic or subject through observation or interaction.

intervening variable: An underlying variable that explains the correlation between two other variables.

interview:  A one-on-one conversation between a researcher and a subject.

literature review: A scholarly research step that entails identifying and studying all existing studies on a topic to create a basis for new research.

nonreactive:  Unobtrusive research that does not include direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviours.

operational definitions:  Specific explanations of abstract concepts that a researcher plans to study.

overgeneralization: Knowledge that draws general conclusions from limited observations.

participant observation: Immersion by a researcher in a group or social setting in order to make observations from an “insider” perspective.

population:  A defined group serving as the subject of a study.

positivist approach: A research approach based on the natural science model of knowledge utilizing a hypothetico-deductive formulation of the research question and quantitative data.

primary data: Data collected directly from firsthand experience.

qualitative data:  Information based on interpretations of meaning.

quantitative data:  Information from research collected in numerical form that can be counted.

random sample:  A study’s participants being randomly selected to serve as a representation of a larger population reliability a measure of a study’s consistency that considers how likely results are to be replicated if a study is reproduced research design a detailed, systematic method for conducting research and obtaining data.

sample:  Small, manageable number of subjects that represent the population.

scientific method:  A systematic research method that involves asking a question, researching existing sources, forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting a study, and drawing conclusions.

secondary data analysis: Using data collected by others but applying new interpretations.

selective observation: Knowledge based on observations that only confirm what the observer expects or wants to see.

surveys: Data collections from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviours and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire.

textually mediated communication: Institutional forms of communication that rely on written documents, texts, and paperwork.

traditional knowledge:  Knowledge based on received beliefs or the way things have always been done.

validity:  The degree to which a sociological measure accurately reflects the topic of study.

value neutrality:  A practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgment, during the course of a study and in publishing results.

variable:  A characteristic or measure of a social phenomenon that can take different values.

Section Summary

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method is useful in that it provides a clear method of organizing a study. Some sociologists conduct scientific research through a positivist framework utilizing a hypothetico-deductive formulation of the research question. Other sociologists conduct scientific research by employing an interpretive framework that is often inductive in nature. Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

2.2. Research Methods Sociological research is a fairly complex process. As you can see, a lot goes into even a simple research design. There are many steps and much to consider when collecting data on human behaviour, as well as in interpreting and analyzing data in order to form conclusive results. Sociologists use scientific methods for good reason. The scientific method provides a system of organization that helps researchers plan and conduct the study while ensuring that data and results are reliable, valid, and objective. The many methods available to researchers—including experiments, surveys, field studies, and secondary data analysis—all come with advantages and disadvantages. The strength of a study can depend on the choice and implementation of the appropriate method of gathering research. Depending on the topic, a study might use a single method or a combination of methods. It is important to plan a research design before undertaking a study. The information gathered may in itself be surprising, and the study design should provide a solid framework in which to analyze predicted and unpredicted data.

2.3. Ethical Concerns Sociologists and sociology students must take ethical responsibility for any study they conduct. They must first and foremost guarantee the safety of their participants. Whenever possible, they must ensure that participants have been fully informed before consenting to be part of a study. The Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) maintains ethical guidelines that sociologists must take into account as they conduct research. The guidelines address conducting studies, properly using existing sources, accepting funding, and publishing results. Sociologists must try to maintain value neutrality. They must gather and analyze data objectively, setting aside their personal preferences, beliefs, and opinions. They must report findings accurately, even if they contradict personal convictions.

Section Quiz

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research 1. A measurement is considered ______­ if it actually measures what it is intended to measure, according to the topic of the study.

• sociological
• quantitative

2. Sociological studies test relationships in which change in one ______ causes change in another.

• test subject
• operational definition

3. In a study, a group of 10-year-old boys are fed doughnuts every morning for a week and then weighed to see how much weight they gained. Which factor is the dependent variable?

• the doughnuts
• the duration of a week
• the weight gained

4. Which statement provides the best operational definition of “childhood obesity”?

• children who eat unhealthy foods and spend too much time watching television and playing video games
• a distressing trend that can lead to health issues including type 2 diabetes and heart disease
• body weight at least 20 percent higher than a healthy weight for a child of that height
• the tendency of children today to weigh more than children of earlier generations

2.2. Research Methods 5. Which materials are considered secondary data?

• photos and letters given to you by another person
• books and articles written by other authors about their studies
• information that you have gathered and included in your results
• responses from participants whom you both surveyed and interviewed

6. What method did Andrew Ivsins use to study crack cocaine users in Victoria?

• field research
• content analysis

7. Why is choosing a random sample an effective way to select participants?

• Participants do not know they are part of a study.
• The researcher has no control over who is in the study.
• It is larger than an ordinary sample.
• Everyone has the same chance of being part of the study.

8. What research method did John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd mainly use in their Middletown study?

• secondary data
• participant observation

9. Which research approach is best suited to the positivist approach?

• questionnaire
• ethnography
• secondary data analysis

10. The main difference between ethnography and other types of participant observation is:

• Ethnography isn’t based on hypothesis testing.
• Ethnography subjects are unaware they’re being studied.
• Ethnographic studies always involve minority ethnic groups.
• There is no difference.

11. Which best describes the results of a case study?

• It produces more reliable results than other methods because of its depth.
• Its results are not generally applicable.
• It relies solely on secondary data analysis.
• All of the above.

12. Using secondary data is considered an unobtrusive or ________ research method.

• nonreactive
• nonparticipatory
• nonrestrictive
• nonconfrontive

2.3. Ethical Concerns 13. Which statement illustrates value neutrality?

• Obesity in children is obviously a result of parental neglect; therefore, schools should take a greater role in preventing it.
• In 2003, states like Arkansas adopted laws requiring elementary schools to remove soft drink vending machines from schools.
• Merely restricting children’s access to junk food at school is not enough to prevent obesity.
• Physical activity and healthy eating are a fundamental part of a child’s education.

14. Which person or organization defined the concept of value neutrality?

• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Peter Rossi
• Canadian Sociological Association (CSA)

15. To study the effects of fast food on lifestyle, health, and culture, from which group would a researcher ethically be unable to accept funding?

• a fast-food restaurant
• a nonprofit health organization
• a private hospital
• a governmental agency like Health and Social Services

[Quiz answers at the end of the chapter]

Short Answer

• Write down the first three steps of the scientific method. Think of a broad topic that you are interested in and which would make a good sociological study—for example, ethnic diversity in a college, homecoming rituals, athletic scholarships, or teen driving. Now, take that topic through the first steps of the process. For each step, write a few sentences or a paragraph: 1) Ask a question about the topic. 2) Do some research and write down the titles of some articles or books you’d want to read about the topic. 3) Formulate a hypothesis.

2.2.Research Methods

• What type of data do surveys gather? For what topics would surveys be the best research method? What drawbacks might you expect to encounter when using a survey? To explore further, ask a research question and write a hypothesis. Then create a survey of about six questions relevant to the topic. Provide a rationale for each question. Now define your population and create a plan for recruiting a random sample and administering the survey.
• Imagine you are about to do field research in a specific place for a set time. Instead of thinking about the topic of study itself, consider how you, as the researcher, will have to prepare for the study. What personal, social, and physical sacrifices will you have to make? How will you manage your personal effects? What organizational equipment and systems will you need to collect the data?
• Create a brief research design about a topic in which you are passionately interested. Now write a letter to a philanthropic or grant organization requesting funding for your study. How can you describe the project in a convincing yet realistic and objective way? Explain how the results of your study will be a relevant contribution to the body of sociological work already in existence.
• Why do you think the CSA crafted such a detailed set of ethical principles? For reference, see the Canadian Sociological Association’s Statement of Professional Ethics (2012) [PDF] at https://www.csa-scs.ca/files/www/csa/documents/codeofethics/2012Ethics.pdf. What type of study could put human participants at risk? Think of some examples of studies that might be harmful. Do you think that, in the name of sociology, some researchers might be tempted to cross boundaries that threaten human rights? Why?
• Would you willingly participate in a sociological study that could potentially put your health and safety at risk, but had the potential to help thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people? For example, would you participate in a study of a new drug that could cure diabetes or cancer, even if it meant great inconvenience and physical discomfort for you, or possible permanent damage?

Further Research

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research For a historical perspective on the scientific method in sociology, read “The Elements of Scientific Method in Sociology” by F. Stuart Chapin (1914) in the American Journal of Sociology : https://archive.org/details/jstor-2763363

2.2. Research Methods Information on current real-world sociology experiments : https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/12/field-experiments-examples/

2.3. Ethical Concerns Founded in 1966, the CSA is a nonprofit organization located in Montreal, Quebec, with a membership of 900 researchers, faculty members, students, and practitioners of sociology. Its mission is to promote “research, publication and teaching in Sociology in Canada.” Learn more about the Canadian Sociological Association at http://www.csa-scs.ca/.

Brym, R., Roberts, L., Lie, J., & Rytina, S. (2013). Sociology: Your compass for a new world (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In  The sociology of science theoretical and empirical investigation (pp. 267-278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1942).

Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure . New York, NY: Free Press (Original work published 1949).

Mikkelson, B. (2005). Grandma’s cooking secret. Snopes.com. Rumor has it. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/weddings/newlywed/secret.asp. 

Pape, R. (2005). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism . New York, NY: Random House.

Patel, F. (2011). Rethinking radicalization. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/rethinking-radicalization.

Cotter, A. (2014). Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012.   Juristat  (Statistics Canada catalogue No. 85-002-X). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm.

Forget, E. (2011). The town with no poverty: Using health administration data to revisit outcomes of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Canadian Public Policy,  37(3), 282-305.

Franke, R., & Kaul, J. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation.  American Sociological Review, 43 (5), 632–643.

Geertz, C. (1977). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperceptions and the American news media.  The Public Opinion Quarterly,  60(4), 515–541.

Grice, E. (2006). Cry of an enfant sauvage.   The Telegraph . Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3653890/Cry-of-an-enfant-sauvage.html.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967).  The discovery of grounded theory: Stategies for qualitative research.  Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.  International Journal of Criminology and Penology,   1 , 69–97.

Hartnagel, T. (2004). Correlates of criminal behaviour.  In Criminology: A Canadian  perspective (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Ivsins, A. K. (2010). “Got a pipe?” The social dimensions and functions of crack pipe sharing among crack users in Victoria, BC [PDF] (Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria). Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/bitstream/handle/1828/3044/Full%20thesis%20Ivsins_CPS.2010_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1.

Lowrey, A. (2013, November 12). Switzerland’s proposal to pay people for being alive. The  New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2.

Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1959). Middletown: A study in modern American culture . San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Lynd, S. (2005). Making Middleton.  Indiana Magazine of History, 101 (3), 226–238.

Marshall, B. D. L., Milloy, M. J., Wood, E., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2011). Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study.  Lancet,   377 (9775), 1429–1437.

Office of the Correctional Investigator, Government of Canada. (2013). Backgrounder: Aboriginal offenders—a critical situation . Retrieved from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx.

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge. 

Rothman, R. (2000, November 27). My fake job.  The New Yorker , 120.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman . Retrieved from http://www.richardsennett.com/site/SENN/Templates/General.aspx?pageid=40.

Smith, D. (1990). Textually mediated social organization. In Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling (pp. 209–234). London: Routledge.

Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Toronto, ON: Altamira Press.

Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1985). Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies.  Journal of Occupational Behavior 6 , 125.

Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W.,  Montaner, J. S., & Kerr, T. (2006). Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility.  Canadian Medical Association Journal   175 (11), 1399–1404.

2.3. Ethical Concerns Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010).  Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans [PDF] . Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.

Canadian Sociological Association. (2012). Statement of professional ethics [PDF] . Retrieved from http://www.csa-scs.ca/files/www/csa/documents/codeofethics/2012Ethics.pdf.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Weber, M. (1949). Methodology of the social sciences  (H. Shils & E. Finch, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1 C, | 2 C, | 3 D, | 4 C, | 5 B, | 6 C, | 7 D, | 8 C, | 9 A, | 10 A, | 11 B, | 12 A, | 13 B, | 14 D, | 15 A, [Return to Quiz]

Image Attributions

Figure 2.9. Hawthorne Works factory of the Western Electric Company, 1925. By Western Electric Company (Western Electric Company Photograph Album, 1925.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawthorne,_Illinois_Works_of_the_Western_Electric_Company,_1925.jpg

Figure 2.10.  Didn’t they abolish the mandatory census? Then what’s this? by  Khosrow Ebrahimpour (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xosrow/5685345306/in/photolist-9EoT5W-ow4tdu-oeGG4m-oeMEcK-oy2jM2-ovJC8w-oePSRQ-9J2V24-of1Hnu-of243u-of2K2B-of2FHn-owiBSA-owtQN3-of1Ktd-oitLSC-oeVJte-oep8KX-ovEz8w-oeohhF-oew5Xb-oewdWN-owavju-oeMEnV-oweLcN-ovEPGG-ovAQUX-oeo2eL-oeo3Fd-oeoqxh-oxCKnv-ovEzA5-oewFHa-ovHRSz-ow8QtY-oeQY6Y-oeZReR-oeQmHw-oeKXid-oeQLKa-oy6fNT-ow4sVT-oeQMQq-oeQPPr-oeQYbL-ow8hS1-ow4n8v-owiPKS-oeQF41-oeiH5z) used under CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Figure 2.11. Dauphin Canadian Northern Railway Station by Bobak Ha’Eri (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-0520-TrainStation-Dauphin.jpg) used under CC BY 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en)

Figure 2.12.   Punk Band by Patrick (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordkhan/181561343/in/photostream/) used under CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Figure 2.13.   Crack Cocaine Smokers in Vancouver Alleyway (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crack_Cocaine_Smokers_in_Vancouver_Alleyway.jpg) is in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain)

Figure 2.15.   Muncie, Indiana High School: 1917 by Don O’Brien (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dok1/3694125269/) used under CC BY 2.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Long Descriptions

Figure 2.5 Long Description: The Scientific Method has a series of steps which can form a repeating cycle.

• Ask a question.
• Research existing sources
• Formulate a hypothesis.
• Design and conduct a study
• Draw conclusions.
• Report results.

[Return to Figure 2.5]

Figure 2.17 Long Description:

A sociology for women would offer a knowledge of the social organization and determinations of the properties and events of our directly experienced world.

[Return to Figure 2.17]

Figure 2.18 Long description: Different Research Methods: Textual analysis uses qualitative data and is highly reliable. Participant observation uses qualitative data and is a unique observation. Experiments and survey research use quantitative data and are highly reliable. Journalism uses quantitative data and is a unique observation. [Return to Figure 2.18]

Introduction to Sociology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2016 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Approaches to Sociological Research

• Define and describe the scientific method
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research
• Understand the function and importance of an interpretive framework
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened family members, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social trends, but, as we shall see, it’s extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide. Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the sociologist forms the question, he or she proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scholarship.

But just because sociological studies use scientific methods does not make the results less human. Sociological topics are not reduced to right or wrong facts. In this field, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before—knowledge of other cultures, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research approach they use, researchers want to maximize the study’s reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group. Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. Returning to the crime rate during a full moon topic, reliability of a study would reflect how well the resulting experience represents the average adult crime rate during a full moon. Validity would ensure that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study, so an exploration of adult criminal behaviors during a full moon should address that issue and not veer into other age groups’ crimes, for example.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze the data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This doesn’t mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963).

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps—1) ask a question, 2) research existing sources, 3) formulate a hypothesis —described below.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study. Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms.

That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” Now we see that this research question has  two variables that are believed to be related.

• Independent Variable (IV)-  This is the ‘driver’ variable, the one creating change
• Dependent Variable (DV)-  the is the ‘receiving’ variable, the one that is changed

The question above has personal hygiene habits as  shaped by  the cultural value placed on appearance. IV = the cultural value placed on appearance and DV = personal hygiene.

All of your sociological research questions need an independent variable and a dependent variable .

When forming basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner.

The operational definition must be valid , appropriate, and meaningful. And it must be reliable , meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, “good drivers” might be defined in many ways: those who use their turn signals, those who don’t speed, or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviors could be interpreted differently by different researchers and could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition.

Research Existing Sources: A Literature Review

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. In conducting a literature review, sociological researchers should be paying attention to these three aspects of research in all of the literature they examine:

• method used
• theory used
• topic of study

Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about child-rearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It’s important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve studies’ designs.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another.

For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough; their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Think about some other examples: How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis aren’t welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns.

In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Once the preliminary work is done, it’s time for the next research steps: designing and conducting a study and drawing conclusions. These research methods are discussed below.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework , sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective, seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of researcher also learns as he or she proceeds and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method is useful in that it provides a clear method of organizing a study. Some sociologists conduct research through an interpretive framework rather than employing the scientific method.

Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

A LOOK AT DATA: 

Redneck Revolt: Rethinking Discourse and Identity in Activism

Redneck Revolt is a now defunct social movement that challenged capitalism and racial injustice, while advocating for gun rights. After the collapse of Redneck Revolt, I interviewed N = 9 former participants from local chapters around the United States. The primary research questions the study was most interested in, include:

• How do the individuals view their own identity and role in the movement?
• How is discourse used in the movement?
• How does the identity of the activists shape the perception and goals of the movement?
• How does this political-cultural moment in the United States inform this activism?

What follows is a short essay that used the N = 9 interviews to provide context for the movement, and to highlight the voices of the activists. The indented quoted segments are direct quotes from interviews. Each number refers to a specific participant. Their names are not used to protect their identity. Read through the essay, then consider the questions below, using what you now know about sociology methods, ethics, and social context.

There have been armed anarchist-based movements on the left for decades in the United States. This is not new. What is new is a 21st century move to anarchist based armed Left movements that are steeped in intersectional discourse with nuanced approaches to tactical innovation . Redneck Revolts starts in 2009, goes in abeyance, re-emerges in 2016, and falls apart by 2019. It was a national activist organization that advocated for the downfall of capitalism through the elimination of racism. They framed their work as connected to a long historical lineage with roots in Marxist ideology. As a member stated:

“The rights to community are inherited – it’s not something the state gives you.” (1).

I wrote about Redneck Revolt earlier, (Rothschild, 2019) and since then was given access to interview a very small sample of members from chapters across the county. The context for these activists who participated for various lengths of time between 2015-2019 – is that in 2017 – prior to Charlottesville, democracy in the U.S. had already failed (Smolla, 2020). The N=9 activists I interviewed that were affiliated with Redneck Revolt primarily joined around 2017 and stayed until its demise in 2019. The short period of time does not minimize the power of the movement for these activists, and why it is important to continue to examine.  The narratives of the subjects interviewed provide more insight into what drew them to this movement, how they make sense of activism in the United States today, (Faysee, 2018) what their experience in the movement was, and what their take aways are now, after the decline of the movement.

When questioned about what they were looking for and why they joined this organization, all offered that they found the group online when they were searching for like-minded people. They were drawn to the movement because they viewed it as a radical anarchist organization that was ‘horizontal’ in leadership, emphasizing the importance of community over capitalism. The horizontal nature of the movement was a draw because these members were aware of the pitfalls of more ‘top-down’ social movement infrastructure and leadership. They knew of movements that were hierarchal, as well as those that were leaderless (Occupy Movement), and what the consequences of each structure were.

The participants ranged in age from 23-50, and none identified as woman or female, though several would be labeled that way in mainstream American society. This defies the representation that the movement is white working-class men exclusively. A few of the non-binary respondents were initially skeptical about the inclusion of guns in the movement and saw that as a limitation of the movement. Once they were engaged in the movement, they ‘came around’ and changed their views on guns broadly from advocates of ‘gun control’ to seeing the use of firearms as necessary to fight the state and protect the powerless.  The activists received overall support from family and friends for their affiliation with the organization, even though they all came from diverse racial, ethnic, political, and regional backgrounds, with family members from a range of social classes. All people interviewed saw themselves as solidly part of or central to the organization.  Some of the members had positions in the national chapter as well as in their specific local state chapters. They were drawn to the history of fighting capitalist oppression and a few mentioned groups such as the Young Patriots, white Appalachian activists who aligned with the Black Panthers in the 1960s.

Overall, they supported the name Redneck Revolt, even though the sample illustrated that they were much more diverse than media had portrayed the activists. Non-binary, queer, and racially and class diverse, the members came from different starting points, but shared anti-capitalist tendencies and embraced the fight for racial justice. Overall, there are very high levels of education among its former members. All the subjects I spoke with had completed college, and some had additional education. In addition to formal education, many had been involved in informally educating themselves through intellectual readings steeped in Marx and Lenin. Many of the younger activists interviewed were very conscious about their identities (Earl, et al, 2017) and articulated who they were and how they presented themselves, even when they were not prompted to do so. This was true among the activists across varied regions that were interviewed and seemed to illustrate a bit of the micro-culture of the movement.  Despite the racial, class, and sexuality diversity, many felt the organization was still ‘run by’ a white cis-gender man and woman.

Their activism was two-fold: challenging the state/capitalism and fascism (some see this as 2 or 1). Racism was embedded in both, and they want to challenge both. They argued that both poor white people and poor people of color are fighting against the same enemy – the wealthy. (Bray, 2017). They framed their work as attacking white supremacy. The activists understood white supremacy as central to capitalism. The right to bear arms is entwined in the right to overthrow the state, if necessary. When asked to explain their activism, two different participants shared:

“It is radical politics that is in the same historical family that many of us wanted to participate in.” (5)

“I wanted something above ground that was visible and transparent. I wanted people to be connected to safe community defense.” (8)

Class and community-defense were much used phrases that the activists used when discussing their participation.  For these activists, many ‘came to’ progressive politics, and were aware of how others would see them.

“I grew up outside of the Left. I was working-class. We realized to get people in we had to ‘make a plan’. (9)

Community defense was viewed as direct action. For them – to affect change requires guns. All emphasized the importance of firearms for themselves and training for communities who historically have not had access to firearms training. Ideology on what to do with arming is split between viewing guns as tools for self-empowerment and as tools for aiding others in community. Guns provided them the ability to directly fight fascism at its roots at all costs. A few respondents commented that sometimes the left leaning allies were not comfortable with the use and presence of firearms. The firearms of choice for members range from AK 47 machine guns to older Russian rifles that evoke a call to how firearms have been used in the past. Members did work at gaining trust with those on the left that did not carry firearms. They were ‘protecting’ and not initiating violence – and for many of the members, this distances them from Antifa. Though two subjects I spoke to aligned themselves with antifa ideology. Overall, Redneck Revolt activists saw the 2nd Amendment as not just right. They see gun control as racist – disarming black people. One convert to the use of guns as a tool in activism reported: “They showed me that guns were not the tool of the oppressor.” (1)

In addition to the use of guns, central to Redneck Revolt was what they called ‘counter-recruiting’. The Marxist rhetoric framed community and success as only possible with a coalition across classes, and identities to challenge the built-in oppression of capitalism. For Redneck Revolt this meant ‘working with’ white working-class people who might be ‘taught’ to embrace an alt-right or white supremacist ideology. “I didn’t want to do it [counter-recruiting] because I distrusted these people. But you are doing a great service by organizing and changing the way the alt-right think.” (6) Counter-recruiting was dreaded and hard, but it also helped bind the members together, and distinguished them from other Left leaning movements that centered firearms. “No one else was counter-recruiting…It really felt like a community.” (4)

  In their counter-recruiting work, they occupied spaces that are often associated with white working-class places: country music concerts, flea markets, gun shows, NASCAR events and rodeos. In these spaces, they stood against white supremacy as an aboveground militant formation that was an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-fascist group that used direct action to protect the marginalized and argued for the necessity of a revolution, while drawing attention to limits of liberalism. They saw themselves as challenging white nationalist groups, (Sonnie, 2011), arguing that these organizations do not ‘provide a way out’ for white working-class folks, but rather that these white nationalist organizations create more racial divisions while building up the capitalist enterprise. These tactics of Redneck Revolt were designed specifically to connect differing populations with new practices. Multiple responses to white nationalist demonstrations have come out of this as well. A way that the organization tried to practice this was to populate and support events that were not ‘theirs’ to connect to other groups. In the counter-recruiting, particular messaging was altered based on the audience. The necessity of racial and transgender justice might be geared towards rural whites, while the firearms trainings were for people who are typically shut out of gun culture in the United States: women and people of color.

In addition to the work of counter-recruiting, Redneck Revolt engaged in community survival projects and Mutual Aid. The community survival projects included firearm engagement, but also involved creating spaces in rural communities for Pride Parades. The mutual aid component included free stores, meet-ups, and attention to redistributing resources within their own communities. The attention to mutual aid was a way to build community and support as they garnered trust with people they were engaged in recruiting and/or working with. Mutual aid was also a deliberate means to challenge the tenets of capitalism, shunning consumerism in favor of cooperation and collectives. This was a clear activist practice of the group, more present in some regions, (Maine and California), according to my respondents.

Social media was a primary tool of tactical innovation (Kim and Lim, 2019) for the activists. Many participated in memes that initially showed their alliances to, and later their questioning or disdain for Redneck Revolt. Discord was used a way to communicate within and across chapters. Initially, the ability for all members to participate on Discord led to a sense of a ‘leaderless’ organization. The emphasis on a horizontal model of equity was strong initially, but calls of sexism, questions of sexual assault, and insular communication among select members led to a feeling of a more traditional ‘vertical’ organization, with hierarchy ‘built in’. This ultimately led to the downfall of the organization. As one member recalled: “Social media created and destroyed Redneck Revolt.” (9)

Everyone was very savvy and aware of their individual media presence, (Carty and Barron, 2018) and Redneck Revolt’s as well. They saw it as a double edge sword. On the one hand, they did get media coverage because of the perceived juxtaposition between who they are, and what they do.  However, this coverage was often reductive and sensationalized, resulting in essentialized narratives of the members and the mission. At times this created more social distance between themselves as a group, as well as between members and society at large.

By the time I spoke to the participants in the Spring and Summer of 2022, no one had remained active in the organization, and the movement was defunct. Some cited social media, others misogyny, still others the press, as the primary reason of the collapse. However, many argued that there was a pseudo-intellectualism that was not healthy for their movement in the long run. Another spoke directly about Lenin and Marxism in reference to intellectualism as having the ability to harm a movement. For the most part though, most of the members spoken to, left the movement because they felt disillusioned with Redneck Revolt as a whole. Two reported not knowing what the movement stood for anymore. One was trying to keep the local chapter he was involved in afloat with a new name, another was repeatedly ‘doxed’, and was unsure if it was from people within or beyond the movement. “People who spend time on the internet have a warped sense of what is reasonable and what is bat-shit insane.” (5) As community eroded, so did the clear message of protest and the purpose of the movement: “People just don’t get collective action.” (5). “It was not in the Mission Statement to be paternalistic white people protecting people of color – but, anyway I think it happened.” (9)

However, despite the decline of the movement, everyone claimed that they are still connected to at least someone in the movement today – and see themselves forever part of a community, even if some of them have never met each other past the keyboard. Many viewed the movement overall as a success. A few pointed out that the success or ‘footprint’ would not be seen until people could look back and see how much Redneck Revolt accomplished by countering militia movements, emphasizing firearm training, and counter-recruiting.

References:

Bray, Mark (2017).  Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook . Brooklyn: Melville House Publishing, 2017.

Carty, Victoria and Francisco G. Reynoso Barron.  “Social Movement and new technology: The dynamics of cyberactivism in the digital age.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Social Movements and Social Transformation. London: Palgrave Publishers,  2018: 373-397, 2018.

Earl, Jennifer and Thomas Maher and Thomas Elliot. “Youth, Activism, and Social Movements.” Sociology Compass. Volume 11, Number 4, 2017: 1-14.

Faysse, Nicholas. “Finding common ground between theories of collective action: The potential of analyses at a meso-scale.” International Journal of the Commons.  Volume 11, Number 2, 2017: 928-949.

Hyun-soo Kim, Harris and Chaeyoan Lim. “From Virtual Space to Public Space: The Roles of Online Political Activism in Protest Participation During Arab Spring. International Journal of Comparative Sociology.  2019, Volume 60, Number 6, 2019: 409-434.

Rothschild, Teal. “ Multiplicity in movements: the case for Redneck Revolt.” Contexts. American Sociological Association Journal. Summer 2019, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp.57-59, 2019.

Smolla, Rodney A. “Rednecks and Saint Paul” in Confessions of a Free Speech Lawyer: Charlottesville and the Politics of Hate.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020; 243-246.

Sonnie, Amy and James Tracy. Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times. Brooklyn: Melville House Publishers, 2011

Student Questions:

• How do the primary questions that guide this research lend themselves to semi-structured interviews? Are there other methods I could have employed, given these research questions?
• Why do you think ‘context’ and ‘history’ are so important to this particular group of activists?
• What are some examples of how the narratives (direct quotes from subjects) illustrate how these activists viewed their activism?
• Why do you think the participants emphasize aspects of their identity so much?
• Try to use their particular (micro) experience with social media and activism to develop a broader more generalized research project (macro) that focuses on social media and activism.
• Try and find some narratives that show emotions. The subjects might not say “I am angry”, for example, but there are emotional themes that are present here. Try and find some individual examples, and then locate any emotional themes across interviews.

Section Quiz

Further research.

For a historical perspective on the scientific method in sociology, read “The Elements of Scientific Method in Sociology” by F. Stuart Chapin (1914) in the American Journal of Sociology : http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Method-in-Sociology

Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2009. “Lunacy and the Full Moon: Does a full moon really trigger strange behavior?” Scientific American. Retrieved October 20, 2014 ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon ).

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Merton, Robert. 1968 [1949]. Social Theory and Social Structure . New York: Free Press.

“Scientific Method Lab,” the University of Utah, http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/scientific_method/sci_method_main.html .

an established scholarly research method that involves asking a question, researching existing sources, forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting a study, and drawing conclusions

a sociological research approach that seeks in-depth understanding of a topic or subject through observation or interaction; this approach is not based on hypothesis testing

a measure of a study’s consistency that considers how likely results are to be replicated if a study is reproduced

the degree to which a sociological measure accurately reflects the topic of study

a testable proposition

variables that cause changes in dependent variables

a variable changed by other variables

specific explanations of abstract concepts that a researcher plans to study

a scholarly research step that entails identifying and studying all existing studies on a topic to create a basis for new research

Rothschild's Introduction to Sociology Copyright © by Teal Rothschild is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

3.2 Approaches to Sociological Research

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a question about a new trend or a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

3.2.1 Developing a Research Question and the Steps of the Scientific Method

As sociology made its way into American universities, scholars developed it into a science that relies on research to build a body of knowledge. Sociologists began collecting data (observations and documentation) and applying the scientific method or an interpretative framework to increase understanding of societies and social interactions.

Our observations about social situations often incorporate biases based on our own views and limited data. To avoid subjectivity, sociologists conduct systematic research to collect and analyze empirical evidence from direct experience. Peers review the conclusions from this research. Examples of peer-reviewed research are found in scholarly journals.

Sociologists use a variety of methods for research, such as surveys, ethnographies (field research), and interviews. Humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. However, scientific models and the scientific process of research can be applied to the study of human behavior. A scientific approach to research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. The scientific method follows deductive reasoning, rather than the inductive approach we see with grounded theory. It involves a series of seven steps as shown in figure 3.2. Not every research project follows the steps in order, but this approach provides a plan for conducting research systematically.

Figure 3.2 outlines key stages in the research process. Please note that these stages or steps can be experienced as an ongoing process. Researchers and students undertaking projects may need to repeat steps as they go through the research process.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of community cohesiveness, employment, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, neighborhood organizations, and higher education patterns.

Good research questions address sociological issues, connect to prior sociological research studies, are narrow enough that one study could help answer it, and can be examined through data (readily available or able to be collected given your time and resources) (Smith-Lovin and Moskovitz 2017:57). The process of designing research questions involves an emphasis on first reviewing the previous literature to identify connections the researcher should explore in their study (Loske 2017). This is something you will want to keep in mind; it is not uncommon for research questions to change overtime as you continue to incorporate new literature.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure consistency in exploring a social phenomena.

Step 1: Identify a Social Issue/Find a Research Topic and Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to be of significance. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variable (IV), which is the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV), which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

With a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect the rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)? The table in Figure 3.3 demonstrates the relationship between a hypothesis, independent variable, and dependent variable.

Figure 3.3. Examples of Dependent and Independent Variables. Typically, the independent variable causes the dependent variable to change in some way.

Taking an example from figure 3.3, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two related topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Select a Research Method and Design a Study

Researchers select a research method that is appropriate to answer their research question in this step. Surveys, experiments, interviews, ethnography, and content analysis are just a few examples that researchers may use. You will learn more about these and other research methods later in this chapter in the section “Social Science Research Methods.” Typically your research question influences the type of methods that will be used.

Step 5: Collect Data

Next the researcher collects data. Depending on the research design (step 4), the researcher will begin the process of collecting information on their research topic. After all the data is gathered, the researcher will be able to systematically organize and analyze the data.

Step 6: Analyze the Data

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss what this might mean. For example, there could be implications for public policy or existing theories. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, that can be an important finding to report. Some researchers may consider repeating the study or think of ways to improve their procedure (this step is more commonly seen with experiments).

Even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, the results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, for example, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Step 7: Report Findings

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develop as the relationships between social phenomena are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

3.2.2 Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework. Interpretive framework is an approach that involves detailed understanding of a particular subject through observation, not through hypothesis testing. Interpretive frameworks allow researchers to have reflexivity so they can describe how their own social position influences what they research. By reflexivity, we refer to the ability of the researcher to examine how their own social position influences how and what they research. Reflexivity requires the researcher to evaluate how their own feelings, reactions and motives influence how they think and behave in a situation.

While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective or approach, seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience. Ethnography is one research method that uses an interpretive framework. You will learn more about this method in the next section.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

3.2.3 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory uses an interpretive framework to make sense of the social world. Grounded theory is an approach developed by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967) at a time when researchers were questioning positivism. As you learned in Chapter 2 , positivism refers to Auguste Comte’s theory that science produces universal laws, science controls what is true, and that objective methods allow you to pursue that truth. A counter perspective, anti-positivism , offers a different theoretical perspective that suggests social life cannot be studied with the same methods used in natural sciences. Instead there is a push to use a different approach.

Grounded theory offers a different approach to analysis that is sometimes used in qualitative research and aims to help with the development of theory (Charmaz 2003). This systematic theory is “grounded in” or based on observations. It uses induction or inductive reasoning, which means you use specific observations or evidence to arrive at broad conclusions. With grounded theory the research starts by gathering observations before creating categories to organize the data in. After initially organizing the data into categories, they begin to look for patterns and relationships among categories (Glaser and Strauss 1967). A few methods that may commonly utilize a grounded theory approach are participant observation, interviewing, and secondary data collection of artifacts and texts.

3.2.4 Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. This approach to methods is nformed by the work of Karl Marx, and feminist, postmodern, postcolonial, and critical race scholars. These critical sociologists propose that social science is embedded in systems of power. Power is constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. We will take a closer look at these power relations in later chapters. Consequently, power cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimize and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. We’ll explore examples of this approach in the section, “Pedagogical Element: A Closer Look at Indigenous Knowledge and Decolonizing Research Methods” section later in this chapter.

3.2.5 Licenses and Attributions for Approaches to Sociological Research

“Approaches to Sociological Research” from “2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Openstax Sociology 3e , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Access for free at

https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

“Developing a Research Question & the Steps of the Scientific Method” – First two paragraphs from “Introduction” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Openstax Sociology 3e , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-introduction

Paragraphs 3 and 4 edited for consistency and brevity, Figure 3.3 and Step sections edited and modified from “2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Openstax Sociology 3e , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

Figure 3.2. “Interpretive Framework” modified from “2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Openstax Sociology 3e , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Access for free at

Interpretive framework definition modified from the Open Education Sociology Dictionary is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 .

Reflexivity definition modified from the Cambridge Dictionary is licensed under X

“Grounded Theory” is original content by Jennifer Puentes and is licensed under CC BY 4.0 .

Anti – positivism definition is adapted from the Open Education Sociology Dictionary and is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and from Wikipedia is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 .

“Critical Theory” remixed from “2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Openstax Sociology 3e , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Edited for clarity. Access for free at

All other content in this section is original content by Jennifer Puentes and is licensed under CC BY 4.0 .

Image Description for Figure 3.2: A circle of arrows around the words Scientific Process. The top arrow says Identify a Social Issue or Find a Research Topic and Ask a Question. This points to the next arrow, which says review existing literature and sources. Build a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position your own research to build on prior knowledge. The next arrow says Formulate a Hypothesis: What are the general causes of the phenomenon you’re wondering about? The next arrow says Select a Research Method and Design a Study: Select a research method appropriate to answer your question. Typically, your research question influences the method you will use. The next arrow says Collect data: Collect information on the topic using the research design. The next arrow says Analyze data: Organize and analyze the data after it is collected. If the analysis does or does not support the hypothesis, discuss implications for theory or policy. From here there is an arrow that goes back to Select a Research Method that says Based on findings, what new questions do you have? How can these new questions help develop future projects? Another arrow from Analyze Data continues the circle and says Report Findings: Share results at conferences and in academic journals. Before the conclusions of a study are widely accepted, the studies are often repeated. New research questions may emerge to inspire more research projects. This arrow points back to the top arrow where we started. There is also an attribution statement saying this image is CC BY 4.0 and created by Jennifer Puentes and Michaela Willi Hooper. [Return to Figure 3.2]

Sociology in Everyday Life Copyright © by Matt Gougherty and Jennifer Puentes. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 Sociological Research

Learning Objectives

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Understand the difference between positivist and interpretive approaches to the scientific method in sociology.
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study.

2.2. Research Methods

• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, experiments, field research, and secondary data or textual analysis.
• Understand why certain topics are better suited to different research approaches.

2.3. Ethical Concerns

• Understand why ethical standards exist.
• Demonstrate awareness of the Canadian Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics.
• Define value neutrality, and outline some of the issues of value neutrality in sociology.

Introduction to Sociological Research

After the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, “this is not a time to commit sociology.” He thought we should condemn the violence, not discuss sociological research about causes of political violence. Harper’s statement suggests that talking about social causes of violence can weaken a stand against terrorism.

Behind statements like Harper’s are beliefs about the nature of a “terrorist”. In this view, the terrorist is a person beyond reason and morality. Therefore, sociological analysis is not useful. Sociology would interfere with our determination to prevent terrorism.

However, Robert Pape’s (2005) research shows a different picture of terrorists. Pape studied 462 suicide bombers. They were not mentally imbalanced or blindly motivated by religious zeal or unconcerned by morality. They were ordinary individuals caught up in extraordinary circumstances. Other studies of suicide bombers in confirm this. How would this understanding affect public policy and public responses to terrorism?

Sociological research is important for public policy. For example, what’s the most effective way to respond to terrorism or violent crime?  Often, the news talks about terrorism and violence in moral terms. Then the solutions are narrowed to either being “tough” or “soft” on crime. Tough and soft are moral categories. A question framed by moral categories cannot be solved using evidence-based procedures. Narrow moral categories can prevent asking about responses to crime that actually work.

The sociological approach differs. Sociology examines the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violent behaviour. Sociologists ask who commits violent acts and why. Sociologists rely on systematic research rather than opinion.

Sociological researchers use empirical evidence (evidence gathered by direct experience and observation) combined with the scientific method. Scientific sociological study of the social causes of crime or terrorism would involve careful steps:

• defining a research question that can be answered through empirical observation
• gathering information through detailed observation
• forming a hypothesis
• testing the hypothesis
• analyzing data and drawing conclusions from the data
• publishing the results and thinking about future research on the topic.

A starting point might be the question “What are the social conditions of individuals who commit terrorist acts?”

Unwillingness to “commit sociology” and think about the roots of political violence might lead to moral outrage, but not to violence prevention. Events like the Boston Marathon bombing are precisely the moment to commit sociology to find causes.

Sociologists study the social world created by humans. They notice patterns of behaviour as people move through the world. Sociological research methods are based on the scientific method rather than casual observation.

There are three basic approaches to sociological knowledge:

• positivist interest in quantitative evidence: This evidence can be used to make good social policy decisions.
• interpretive interest in understanding the meanings of human behaviour. This can help greater mutual understanding.
• critical interest in knowledge useful for challenging power relations and liberating people.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen. A sociologist then goes though through a scientific process to answer the question. Sociologists can choose from different research methods. Choice of method depends on the topic and goals of the research.

The researcher may use a positivist methodology or an interpretive methodology . Both methods can be used by critical research . The following sections describe these approaches.

Science vs. Non-Science

Sometimes we need to be skeptical about science: for example, when technologies based on science destroy the natural environment. But skepticism can be dangerous: for example, when epidemics like measles occur because of low vaccination rates. Skepticism is important to both natural and social sciences, but a skeptical attitude needs to be combined with systematic research. The scientific method allows sociologists to distinguish between everyday opinions and ideas supported by evidence.

Here is one distinction between scientific and non-scientific claims about the world: In science “seeing is believing” but in everyday life “believing is seeing” (Brym, Roberts, Lie, & Rytina, 2013). Science is based on systematic observation. Only by observation (or “seeing”) can a scientist believe that an idea about the world is correct. Research methodologies reduce the chance that conclusions will made in error. In everyday life, people often “see” what they already expect to see or what they already believe to be true.

Many people know things about the social world without having a background in sociology. Sometimes their knowledge is valid; sometimes it is not. Think about how people know what they know, and compare this to the scientific way of knowing. Four types of non-scientific reasoning are common in everyday life:

• knowledge based on casual observation,
• knowledge based on selective evidence,
• knowledge based on overgeneralization,
• knowledge based on authority or tradition.

Ways of Knowing

Science and research methods.

Scientific Research Methods are organized, logical ways of learning and knowing about our social world. Many people know things because they experienced them directly. If you grew up in Manitoba, you may have observed what some kids learn each winter: it is true that tongues will stick to metal when it’s very cold outside. Direct experience may get us accurate information, but only if we are lucky. We are not very careful observers. In this example, the observation process is not really deliberate or formal. Instead, you would come to know what you believe to be true through casual observation . Sometimes casual observation is right, and sometimes it’s wrong. Without a systematic process for observing and judging the accuracy of observations, we can’t be sure if informal observations are accurate.

Many people overlook contrary evidence. Suppose a friend insists that all men are liars shortly after she had learned that her boyfriend cheated. One man’s lies started to represent a quality of all men to her. But do all men really lie all the time? Probably not. If you asked your friend to think about her experiences with men, she would probably admit that she knew many men who had never lied to her. Maybe even her boyfriend did not habitually lie. This friend committed what social scientists refer to as selective observation:  She notices only the pattern that she wanted to find. She ignored contrary evidence. If, on the other hand, your friend’s experience with her boyfriend had been her only experience with any man, then she would have been committing what social scientists call overgeneralization , assuming that patterns exist based on very limited observations.

Another way that people claim to “know” is believing what they hear. An urban legend claims a woman used to cut both ends off a ham before putting it in the oven (Mikkelson, 2005). She baked ham that way for years because that’s the way her mother did it, so clearly that was the way it was supposed to be done. She based her knowledge on a family tradition ( traditional knowledge ). After years of tossing perfectly good ham into the trash, she learned that her mother cut the ends off ham only because she did not have a pan large enough for the ham.

Without questioning what we think we know is true, we can believe false statements. This is more likely when an authority tells us that something is true ( authoritative knowledge ). Sometimes we might need to rely on authorities like government, school or churches. This way of knowing differs from the sociological way of knowing, however. Whether quantitative, qualitative, or critical, sociological research is based on the scientific method.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists use research methods such as experiments, surveys, field research, and secondary data analysis.

Social interactions are complicated. They can seem impossible to measure and explain. This is sociology uses scientific methods to study human behaviour. Scientific research establishes rules to help ensure results are as objective and accurate as possible. Scientific methods focus a study and organize results.

• Positivist quantitative methodologies seek to translate observable phenomena into numerical data.
• Interpretive qualitative methodologies seek to translate observable phenomena into units of meaning.

The social scientific method in both cases involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical (observable) evidence. The social scientific method commits to systematic observation of the social world. It strives to be objective, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of established steps known as the research process .

No matter what research approach is used, researchers want studies to have reliability (how likely research results are to be the same if the study conducted again). Reliability increases the likelihood that what is true of one person will be true of all people in a group.

Researchers also want to maximize the study’s validity (how well the study measures what it was designed to measure).

Sociologists use the scientific method to be as objective and consistent as possible. The scientific method steps provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity.

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps:

• ask a question
• research existing sources
• formulate a hypothesis.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method: ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and period. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have wide interest. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at Scuzi High School?” might be too narrow.

Next, ideas need to be clearly defined or operationalized . In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance.” A researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition ; they define a concept by the concrete steps needed to measure it. The concept is translated into an observable variable , a measure that has different values. An operational definition identifies an observable condition.

Operationalizing variables allows researchers to collect data systematically. The operational definition must be a meaningful measure. It must also be reliable, meaning that results will be similar when tested on more than one person. For example, good drivers might be defined in many ways: Those who use their turn signals; those who do not speed; or those who allow others to merge. But these driving behaviours could be interpreted differently by different researchers, so they could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is a good operational definition. Asking the question, “how many traffic violations a driver has received?” turns the concepts of “good drivers” and “bad drivers” into variables which might be measured by the number of traffic violations.

Sociologists need to be careful how they operationalize variables. In this example we know that Black drivers receive much higher levels of police scrutiny than white drivers, so the number of traffic violations a driver has received might reflect less on their driving ability and more on the crime of “driving while Black.”

Research Existing Sources

Next researchers conduct background research through a literature review.  The researcher reads similar and related studies. This lets them build on prior knowledge. They focus their research question and avoid duplicating previous research. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing all existing sources they use.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; A hypothesis makes a statement about the relationship between those variables. It’s sometimes called an educated guess because it’s based on theory, observations or the existing literature. The hypothesis puts this guess in the form of a testable statement. In positivist sociology, the hypothesis predicts how one form of human behaviour influences another.

Positivist approaches operationalize variables as quantitative data : They translate a social phenomenon like health into numerically measurable variable like “number of visits to the hospital.” This permits sociologists to make predictions using math. They can perform statistical techniques to demonstrate the validity of relationships.

Variables are examined to see if there is a correlation between them. When a change in one variable coincides with a change in another variable, there is a correlation. This does not necessarily mean that one variable causes another variable, however; just that changes in the variables are associated.

The difference between independent and dependent variables is important. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect or thing that is changed. For example, how does gender (the independent variable) affect income (the dependent variable)? How does religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)? (Why is the third example different?)

To claim causation , three criteria must be satisfied:

• There must be a correlation between the independent and dependent variables.
• The independent variable must happen before the dependent variable.
• There must be no other intervening variable responsible for the causal relationship.

While there needs to a correlation between variables for a causal relationship, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The relationship between variables can be the result of a third, intervening variable.

For example, there might be a positive relationship between wearing bikinis and eating ice cream. But wearing bikinis does not cause eating ice cream. It is more likely that the heat of summer causes both an increase in bikini wearing and an increase in the consumption of ice cream.

The distinction between causation and correlation can have significant consequences. For example, Indigenous Canadians are overrepresented in prisons. In 2013, Indigenous people made up about 4 percent of the Canadian population, but they made up 23.2 percent of the federal penitentiary population (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2013). There is a positive correlation between being an Indigenous person in Canada and being in jail. Is this because Indigenous people are predisposed to crime? No. There are at least four intervening variables that explain the higher imprisonment of Indigenous people (Hartnagel, 2004):

• Indigenous people are more likely to live in poverty, and poverty is associated with higher arrest and incarceration rates
• Indigenous lawbreakers tend to commit more detectable “street” crimes than the less detectable “white collar” crimes
• the criminal justice system profiles and discriminates against Indigenous people
• the legacy of colonization disrupted and weakened traditional Indigenous communities.

Operational definitions help measure variables reliably. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define “good” grades as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for good. Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points, ensuring consistency and replicability in a study.

Simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough: Their relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

A sociologist makes a hypothesis, but that doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis are not welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns.

In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding a rewarding career. While many assume the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are many exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Hypothesis Formation in Qualitative Research

While many sociologists rely on positivist methods in their research, others operate from an interpretive approach . While still systematic, this interpretive approach does not follow the hypothesis-testing model using quantitative variables. Instead, an interpretive framework wants to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants. This leads to in-depth knowledge. The interpretive approach focuses on qualitative data, or the meanings that guide people. Rather than relying on quantitative instruments, like fixed questionnaires or experiments, the interpretive approach tries to find ways to get closer to the lived experience. Interpretive research is usually more descriptive than positivist research.

Once the hypothesis defined, it is time for the next research steps:

• choosing a research methodology,
• conducting a study,
• and drawing conclusions.

2.2. Sociological Research Methods

Sociologists examine the world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is very important in any sociological study.

When entering a social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be open. There are times to conduct interviews and times to just observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know that they are being observed. A researcher would not stroll into a high crime neighbourhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?” And if a researcher walked into a coffee shop and told the employees they would be observed as part of a study on work efficiency, the self-conscious servers might not behave naturally. Human research subjects can react to the researcher and change their behaviour under observation.

In planning a study’s design, sociologists generally choose from four widely used methods of social investigation:

• field research
• secondary data analysis (or use of existing sources).

The topic of study influences which method is used. Every research method comes with advantages and disadvantages.

1. Surveys and Interviews

A survey collects data from subjects who answer questions about opinions or behaviour. Surveys are often written questionnaires. Surveys are one of the most widely used sociological research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals to express personal ideas anonymously.

The Statistics Canada census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey. Customers also fill out questionnaires at stores and events, responding to questions such as “How did you hear about the event?” and “Were the staff helpful?” Telephone surveys ask for participation in a political poll or a survey: “Do you eat hot dogs? If yes, how many per month?”

Not all surveys are sociological research. Marketing polls help companies with marketing goals and strategies; they are generally not conducted as part of a scientific study, meaning they are not designed to test a hypothesis or to contribute knowledge to the field of sociology. The results are not published in a scholarly journal where design, methodology, results, and analyses are examined.

TV polls do not represent the general population, but are merely answers from a specific show’s audience. Polls conducted by programs such as Canadian  Idol represent the opinions of fans but are  not scientific. A good contrast to these are Numeris ratings, which determine the popularity of television programming in Canada through scientific market research. Researchers ask a large random sample of Canadians to fill out a television diary for one week, noting the times and the broadcasters they listened to or viewed. Based on this methodology they are able to generate an accurate description of consumer preferences.

While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a good method for discovering how people feel and think—or at least how they say they feel and think. Surveys can track attitudes and opinions, political preferences, individual behaviours such as sleeping, driving, dietary, or texting habits, or factual information such as employment status, income, and education levels. A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as university athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes.

Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample: A sample is a smaller number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a sample represents a population. In a random sample, every person in a population has an equal chance of being chosen for the study.

According to the laws of probability, random samples represent the population as a whole. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results will be in characterizing the population being studied. For practical purposes, however, a sample size of 1,500 people will give acceptably accurate results even if   the population being researched was the entire adult population of Canada. For instance, an Ipsos Reid poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 1,500 or 10,000 people.

Typically, surveys include a figure that gives the margin of error of the survey results. Based on probabilities, this gives a range of values within which the true value of the population characteristic can be. This figure also depends on the size of a sample. A political poll based on a sample of 1,500 respondents might state that if an election were called tomorrow the Conservative Party would get 30% of the vote, plus or minus 2.5%, based on a confidence interval of 95%. That is, there is a 5% chance that the true vote would fall outside of the range of 27.5% to 32.5%, or. If the poll was based on a sample of 1,000 respondents, the margin of error would be higher.

Problems with accuracy or validity can result if sample sizes are too small because there is a stronger chance the sample size will not represent the whole population. In small samples, the characteristics of unusual individuals have a greater chance of influencing the results. The validity of surveys is damaged when part of the population is inadvertently excluded from the sample (e.g., telephone surveys that rely on landlines exclude people that use only cell phones) or when there is a low response rate.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a plan to ask a list of standardized questions and record responses. Researchers must inform subjects of the nature and purpose of a study in advance. Researchers thank the subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researchers present the subjects with an instrument for gathering the information. A common instrument is a structured written questionnaire in which subjects answer a series of questions. For some topics, the researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question.

This kind of quantitative data —research collected in numerical form that can be counted— is easy to tabulate. Just count the number of “yes” and “no” answers or count the “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” etc. responses and chart them into percentages. This is also the chief drawback of questionnaires, however: they are artificial. In real life, there are rarely any unambiguous yes or no answers.

Some topics are impossible to observe directly. Sometimes they can be sensitive and difficult to discuss honestly in a public or with a stranger. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of information is qualitative data —results are subjective and often based on what is experienced in a natural setting. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, and some may be unexpected.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject. Interviews are similar to short answer questions on surveys because the researcher asks questions. They can be quantitative if the questions are standardized and have numerically quantifiable answers: Are you employed? (Yes=0, No=1); On a scale of 1 to 5 how would you describe your level of optimism?

Interviews can also be qualitative if participants are free to respond as they wish. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are more complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly. Questions such as “How did society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable.

2. Experiments

You have probably tested personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my marks.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” When you test “if this, then that” you are looking for cause and effect,. When you test a theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis. One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis. There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments, and natural or field experiments.

In a lab setting, the research can be controlled. In field-based experiment, the data cannot be controlled, but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference by the researcher. As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens, then another particular thing will result.

To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables. The sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group .  The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. This is similar to pharmaceutical drug trials in which the experimental group is given the test drug and the control group is given a placebo or sugar pill.

To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, a researcher might arrange tutoring for an experimental group of students, while the control group does not receive tutoring. Then both groups would be tested for differences in grades to see if tutoring influenced the experimental group. The researcher would not want to jeopardize either group of students, so the setting would be artificial. The test would not be for a grade on their transcript, for example.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most famous social science experiments. In 1971, 24 healthy, middle-class male university students were selected to take part in a simulated jail environment. The purpose: to examine the effects of social setting and social roles on individual psychology and behaviour. They were randomly divided into 12 guards and 12 prisoners. The prisoner subjects were arrested at home and taken blindfolded to the simulated prison in the basement of a Stanford University building. Within a day of arriving, the prisoners and the guards began to display signs of trauma and sadism, respectively.

After some prisoners revolted by blockading themselves in their cells, the guards resorted to using increasingly humiliating and degrading tactics to control the prisoners through psychological manipulation. The experiment had to be abandoned after only six days because the abuse had grown out of hand (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). While the insights into the social dynamics of authoritarianism are fascinating, the Stanford Prison Experiment also serves as an example of the ethical issues when experimenting on human subjects.

3. Field Research

Sociologists seldom study subjects in laboratories. Sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research is doing research in a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey. It is an interpretive approach rather than a positivist approach. The researcher interacts with or observes people, gathering data along the way. Field research takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or a care home, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

Fieldwork is useful for observing how people behave. It is less useful, however, for developing causal explanations of why they behave that way. From the small size of the groups studied in fieldwork, it is difficult to make predictions to a larger population. Similarly, it can be difficult to know whether another researcher would see the same things or record the same data. We will look at two types of field research: participant observation and the case study.

Participant Observation

In participant observation , researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine to observe in their natural context. This method lets researchers study a naturally occurring social activity without imposing artificial or intrusive research devices, like fixed questionnaire questions. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, or live as a homeless person for several weeks, or ride with police officers on patrol. Often, these researchers try to blend in with the population they study, and they may not tell their true identity if that would interfere with the research results.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner in town?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation can help explore an environment from the inside. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in shaping data into results.

Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job. Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book, describing what he or she witnessed and experienced.

Barbara Ehrenreich conducted this type of research for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. “How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by?” she wondered. “Someone should do a study.” To her surprise, her editor responded, “Why don’t you do it?”

Ehrenreich joined the low-wage service sector. For several months, she left her comfortable home, lived, and worked with people who lacked higher education and job skills. Undercover, she worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.  She discovered the obvious: In the United States, it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work.

She also experienced and observed the treatment of service work employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat illnesses, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She described difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer in her book.

The Case Study

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. A researcher examines existing documents, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation, and even participant observation. Researchers might use this method to study a single case of, for example, a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim.

While a case study gathers in-depth information, it does not provide enough evidence to make a generalized conclusion. Researchers can’t make universal claims based on just one person. One person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies.

4. Secondary Data or Textual Analysis

Sociologists use secondary data analysis . Secondary data do not result from firsthand research but come from previous work of others. Sociologists might study texts written by historians, economists, or teachers. They might search through newspapers or magazines from any period in history. Using available information not only saves time and money, but it can add depth to a study.

Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose. To study how women were encouraged to behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies and television shows from that period.

One kind of secondary data analysis is content analysis . Content analysis is a quantitative approach to textual research that selects an item of textual content ( a variable) that can be reliably and consistently observed and coded. Content analysis counts the frequency of that item in a sample of text.

For example, Gilens (1996) wanted to understand why survey research shows that the American public exaggerates the percentage of African Americans among the poor. He examined whether media representations influence public perception. He did content analysis of photographs of poor people in American news magazines. He coded and then recorded incidences of three variables: (1) race: white, black, indeterminate; (2) employed: working, not working; and (3) age.

Gilens discovered that not only were African Americans overrepresented in news magazine photographs of poverty, but that the photos  also tended to under-represent other subgroups of the poor—the elderly and working poor—while over-representing less sympathetic groups—unemployed, working age adults. Gilens concluded that through a distorted representation of poverty, U.S. news magazines “reinforce negative stereotypes of blacks as mired in poverty and contribute to the belief that poverty is primarily a ‘black problem’” (1996).

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies like government departments, public research groups, and organizations like Statistics Canada and the World Health Organization. These all publish studies useful to sociologists. Statistics that measure income inequality are useful understanding who benefited or lost as a result of federal budget, for example.

Secondary data analysis is not always easy. Public records are sometimes not easy to access. Sometimes there is no way to check their accuracy. It is easy, for example, to count how many drunk drivers are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their high school diplomas later.

Secondary data analysis must consider the publication date of sources. Attitudes and common cultural ideas may have influenced the research.

There are not only several theoretical perspectives in sociology, but also many research methodologies. The choice of research methodology depends on the research question. The choice of the research question depends on:

• the sociology perspective of the researcher
• the nature of the social phenomenon being studied
• and the purpose of the research.

Sociologists conduct studies to understand human behaviour. Many also use sociological studies to improve people’s lives. Conducting a sociological study comes with much responsibility. Sociologists must consider their ethical duty to avoid harming people while conducting research.

The Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) has a code of ethics —formal guidelines for conducting sociological research — consisting of principles and ethical standards to be used in the discipline. It also describes procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct.

Some of the guidelines state that researchers must try to be skillful and fair-minded in their work, especially as it relates to human subjects. Researchers must obtain participants’ informed consent, and before participants agree to participate, researchers must inform subjects of the responsibilities and risks. During a study, sociologists must ensure the safety of participants and immediately stop work if a subject is potentially endangered.

Researchers are required to protect the privacy of participants. Even if pressured by authorities, such as police or courts, researchers are not ethically allowed to release confidential information. Researchers must make results available to other sociologists, must make public all sources of financial support, and must not accept funding from any organization that might seek to influence the research results for its own purposes. The CSA’s ethical considerations shape not only the study but also the publication of results.

Although some aspects of research design might be influenced by personal values, it’s inappropriate to allow personal values to shape the interpretation of results. Sociologists must establish value neutrality , a practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgement, during the course of a study and in publishing results (Weber 1949). Sociologists must disclose research findings without omitting or changing significant data.

Value neutrality does not mean having no opinions. It means striving to overcome personal biases when analyzing data. It means avoiding spinning data to match a desired outcome, such as a political or moral point of view. Investigators are ethically obligated to report results, even when they contradict personal views, predicted outcomes, or widely accepted beliefs. Is value neutrality possible?

Many sociologists believe it is impossible to set aside personal values and retain complete objectivity. Individuals inevitably see the world from a partial perspective. Their interests affect topics they choose, the types of questions they ask, the way they frame their research, and the research methodologies they select to pursue it. Moreover, facts, however objective, do not exist in a vacuum.

Positivist sociology researches knowledge useful for controlling and administering social life. Interpretive sociology pursues knowledge to promote greater mutual understanding.  Critical sociology pursues knowledge to liberate people. Readers need to know the perspective of the research to judge its validity and applicability.

Making Connections: Sociological Research

The hawthorne effect.

In the 1920s, leaders of a Chicago factory called Hawthorne Works commissioned a study to determine whether or not changing certain aspects of working conditions could increase or decrease worker productivity. Sociologists were surprised when the productivity of a test group increased when the lighting of their workspace was improved. They were even more surprised when productivity improved when the lighting of the workspace was dimmed. In fact almost every change of independent variable — lighting, breaks, work hours — resulted in an improvement of productivity. But when the study was over, productivity dropped again.

Why did this happen? In 1953, Henry A. Landsberger analyzed the study results to answer this question. He realized that employees’ productivity increased because sociologists were paying attention to them. The sociologists’ presence influenced the study results. Worker behaviours were altered not by the lighting but by the study itself. From this, sociologists learned the importance of carefully planning their roles as part of their research design (Franke & Kaul, 1978). Landsberger called the workers’ response the Hawthorne effect — people changing their behaviour because they know they are being watched as part of a study.

The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research. In many cases, sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known for ethical reasons. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld, 1985). Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviours, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers cannot just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Ku Klux Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviours. In situations like these, other methods are needed. All studies shape the research design, while research design simultaneously shapes the study. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topic and that fit with their overall goal for the research.

An Experiment in Action: Mincome

A real-life example will help illustrate the experimental process in sociology. Between 1974 and 1979 an experiment was conducted in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba (the “garden capital of Manitoba”). Each family received a modest monthly guaranteed income — a “mincome” — equivalent to a maximum of 60 percent of the “low-income cut-off figure” (a Statistics Canada measure of poverty, which varies with family size). The income was 50 cents per dollar less for families who had incomes from other sources. Families earning over a certain income level did not receive mincome. Families that were already collecting welfare or unemployment insurance were also excluded. The test families in Dauphin were compared with control groups in other rural Manitoba communities on a range of indicators such as number of hours worked per week, school performance, high school drop out rates, and hospital visits (Forget, 2011). A guaranteed annual income was seen at the time as a less costly, less bureaucratic public alternative for addressing poverty than the existing employment insurance and welfare programs. Today it is an active proposal being considered in Switzerland (Lowrey, 2013).

Intuitively, it seems logical that lack of income is the cause of poverty and poverty-related issues. One of the main concerns, however, was whether a guaranteed income would create a disincentive to work. The concept appears to challenge the principles of the Protestant work ethic (see the discussion of Max Weber in Chapter 1). The study did find very small decreases in hours worked per week: about 1 percent for men, 3 percent for married women, and 5 percent for unmarried women. Forget (2011) argues this was because the income provided an opportunity for people to spend more time with family and school, especially for young mothers and teenage girls. There were also significant social benefits from the experiment, including better test scores in school, lower high school drop out rates, fewer visits to hospital, fewer accidents and injuries, and fewer mental health issues.

Ironically, due to lack of guaranteed funding (and lack of political interest by the late 1970s), the data and results of the study were not analyzed or published until 2011. The data were archived and sat gathering dust in boxes. The mincome experiment demonstrated the benefits that even a modest guaranteed annual income supplement could have on health and social outcomes in communities. People seem to live healthier lives and get a better education when they do not need to worry about poverty. In her summary of the research, Forget notes that the impact of the income supplement was surprisingly large given that at any one time only about a third of the families were receiving the income and, for some families, the income amount would have been very small. The income benefit was largest for low-income working families, but the research showed that the entire community profited. The improvement in overall health outcomes for the community suggest that a guaranteed income would also result in savings for the public health system.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

When is sharing not such a good idea.

Choosing a research methodology depends on a number of factors, including the purpose of the research and the audience for whom the research is intended. If we consider the type of research that might go into producing a government policy document on the effectiveness of safe injection sites for reducing the public health risks of intravenous drug use, we would expect public administrators to want “hard” (i.e., quantitative) evidence of high reliability to help them make a policy decision. The most reliable data would come from an experimental or quasi-experimental research model in which a control group can be compared with an experimental group using quantitative measures.

This approach has been used by researchers studying InSite in Vancouver (Marshall et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2006). InSite is a supervised safe-injection site where heroin addicts and other intravenous drug users can go to inject drugs in a safe, clean environment. Clean needles are provided and health care professionals are on hand to intervene in the case of overdoses or other medical emergency. It is a controversial program both because heroin use is against the law (the facility operates through a federal ministerial exemption) and because the heroin users are not obliged to quit using or seek therapy. To assess the effectiveness of the program, researchers compared the risky usage of drugs in populations before and after the opening of the facility and geographically near and distant to the facility. The results from the studies have shown that InSite has reduced both deaths from overdose and risky behaviours, such as the sharing of needles, without increasing the levels of crime associated with drug use and addiction.

On the other hand, if the research question is more exploratory (for example, trying to discern the reasons why individuals in the crack smoking subculture engage in the risky activity of sharing pipes), the more nuanced approach of fieldwork is more appropriate. The research would need to focus on the subcultural context, rituals, and meaning of sharing pipes, and why these phenomena override known health concerns. Graduate student Andrew Ivsins at the University of Victoria studied the practice of sharing pipes among 13 habitual users of crack cocaine in Victoria, B.C. (Ivsins, 2010). He met crack smokers in their typical setting downtown and used an unstructured interview method to try to draw out the informal norms that lead to sharing pipes. One factor he discovered was the bond that formed between friends or intimate partners when they shared a pipe. He also discovered that there was an elaborate subcultural etiquette of pipe use that revolved around the benefit of getting the crack resin smokers left behind. Both of these motives tended to outweigh the recognized health risks of sharing pipes (such as hepatitis) in the decision making of the users. This type of research was valuable in illuminating the unknown subcultural norms of crack use that could still come into play in a harm reduction strategy such as distributing safe crack kits to addicts.

Chapter Summary

Approaches to sociological research.

Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method provides a clear method of organizing a study.  Some sociologists conduct scientific research through a positivist framework utilizing a hypothesis as a research question. Other sociologists conduct scientific research using an interpretive framework that is often inductive in nature. Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

Research Methods

Even a simple research design involves much work and planning. The scientific method provides a system of organization to help researchers plan and conduct a study.  The scientific method ensured that data and results are reliable, valid, and objective. The many methods available to researchers—including experiments, surveys, field studies, and secondary data analysis—all have advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the topic, a study might use a single method or a combination of methods. The study design should provide a solid framework in which to analyze predicted and unpredicted data.

Ethical Concerns

Sociologists and sociology students must take ethical responsibility for their research.

• They must first and foremost guarantee the safety of their participants.
• Whenever possible, they must ensure that participants have been fully informed before consenting to be part of a study.

The Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) maintains ethical guidelines for  research. The guidelines address conducting studies, properly using existing sources, accepting funding, and publishing results. Sociologists must try to maintain value neutrality. They must gather and analyze data objectively, setting aside their personal preferences, beliefs, and opinions. They must report findings accurately, even if they contradict personal convictions.

authoritative knowledge: Knowledge based on the accepted authority of the source.

case study:  In-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual.

casual observation: Knowledge based on observations without any systematic process for observing or assessing the accuracy of observations.

code of ethics: A set of guidelines that the Canadian Sociological Association has established to foster ethical research and professionally responsible scholarship in sociology.

content analysis: A quantitative approach to textual research that selects an item of textual content that can be reliably and consistently observed and coded, and surveys the prevalence of that item in a sample of textual output.

contingency table:  A statistical table that provides a frequency distribution of at least two variables.

control group: An experimental group that is not exposed to the independent variable.

correlation:  When a change in one variable coincides with a change in another variable, but does not necessarily indicate causation.

dependent variable: Variable changed by another variable.

empirical evidence: Evidence corroborated by direct experience and/or observation.

ethnography: Observing a complete social setting and all that it entails.

experiment: The testing of a hypothesis under controlled conditions.

field research: Gathering data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey.

Hawthorne effect:  When study subjects behave in a certain manner due to their awareness of being observed by a researcher.

hypothesis:  An educated guess with predicted outcomes about the relationship between two or more variables.

hypothetico-deductive methodologies: Methodologies based on deducing a prediction from a hypothesis and testing the validity of the hypothesis by whether it correctly predicts observations.

independent variable:  Variable that causes change in a dependent variable.

inductive approach: Methodologies that derive a general statement from a series of empirical observations.

institutional ethnography:  The study of the way everyday life is coordinated through institutional, textually mediated practices.

interpretive approach:  A sociological research approach that seeks in-depth understanding of a topic or subject through observation or interaction.

intervening variable: An underlying variable that explains the correlation between two other variables.

interview: A one-on-one conversation between a researcher and a subject.

literature review: A scholarly research step that entails identifying and studying all existing studies on a topic to create a basis for new research.

nonreactive:  Unobtrusive research that does not include direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviours.

operational definitions:  Specific explanations of abstract concepts that a researcher plans to study.

overgeneralization: Knowledge that draws general conclusions from limited observations.

participant observation: Immersion by a researcher in a group or social setting in order to make observations from an “insider” perspective.

population:  A defined group serving as the subject of a study.

positivist approach: A research approach based on the natural science model of knowledge utilizing a hypothetico-deductive formulation of the research question and quantitative data.

primary data: Data collected directly from firsthand experience.

qualitative data:  Information based on interpretations of meaning.

quantitative data:  Information from research collected in numerical form that can be counted.

random sample:  A study’s participants being randomly selected to serve as a representation of a larger population

reliability: a measure of a study’s consistency that considers how likely results are to be replicated if a study is reproduced

research design: a detailed, systematic method for conducting research and obtaining data.

sample:  Small, manageable number of subjects that represent the population.

scientific method:  A systematic research method that involves asking a question, researching existing sources, forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting a study, and drawing conclusions.

secondary data analysis: Using data collected by others but applying new interpretations.

selective observation: Knowledge based on observations that only confirm what the observer expects or wants to see.

surveys: Data collections from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviours and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire.

textually mediated communication: Institutional forms of communication that rely on written documents, texts, and paperwork.

traditional knowledge: Knowledge based on received beliefs or the way things have always been done.

validity: The degree to which a sociological measure accurately reflects the topic of study.

value neutrality:  A practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgment, during the course of a study and in publishing results.

variable:  A characteristic or measure of a social phenomenon that can take different values.

Chapter Quiz

• sociological
• quantitative
• test subject
• operational definition
• the doughnuts
• the duration of a week
• the weight gained
• children who eat unhealthy foods and spend too much time watching television and playing video games
• a distressing trend that can lead to health issues including type 2 diabetes and heart disease
• body weight at least 20 percent higher than a healthy weight for a child of that height
• the tendency of children today to weigh more than children of earlier generations
• photos and letters given to you by another person
• books and articles written by other authors about their studies
• information that you have gathered and included in your results
• responses from participants whom you both surveyed and interviewed
• content analysis
• Participants do not know they are part of a study.
• The researcher has no control over who is in the study.
• It is larger than an ordinary sample.
• Everyone has the same chance of being part of the study.
• questionnaire
• ethnography
• secondary data analysis
• It produces more reliable results than other methods because of its depth.
• Its results are not generally applicable.
• It relies solely on secondary data analysis.
• All of the above.
• a fast-food restaurant
• a nonprofit health organization
• a private hospital
• a governmental agency like Health and Social Services

Short Answer

Write down the first three steps of the scientific method.

• Think of a topic that would make a good sociological study—for example, ethnic diversity in a college, homecoming rituals, athletic scholarships, or teen driving.
• Take that topic through the first steps of the process. For each step, write a few sentences or a paragraph:
• Ask a question about the topic.
• Do some research and write down the citations for articles or books you’d want to read about the topic.
• Formulate a hypothesis.

2.2.Research Methods

What type of data do surveys gather? For what topics would surveys be the best research method? What drawbacks might you expect to encounter when using a survey?

Ask a research question and write a hypothesis.

• Create a survey (six questions) for the topic. Provide a rationale for each question.
• Define your population.
• Create a plan for recruiting a random sample and administering the survey.

Imagine you are about to do field research in a specific place for a set time. Consider how you will have to prepare for the study. What personal, social, and physical sacrifices will you have to make? How will you manage your personal effects? What organizational equipment and systems will you need to collect the data?

Create a brief research design about a topic of interest. Write a letter to an organization requesting funding for your study. Describe your project in a convincing, realistic and objective way. Explain how the results of your study will contribute to sociology.

Why do you think the CSA created such a detailed set of ethical principles? For reference, see the Canadian Sociological Association’s Statement of Professional Ethics (2012) [PDF] at https://www.csa-cs.ca/files/www/csa/documents/codeofethics/2012Ethics.pdf.

What type of study could put participants at risk? Think of some examples of studies that might be harmful. Do you think that, in the name of sociology, some researchers might be tempted to cross boundaries that threaten human rights? Why?

Would you willingly participate in a sociological study that could put your health and safety at risk if the study also had the potential to help thousands of people? For example, would you participate in a study of a new drug that could cure diabetes or cancer, even if it meant great inconvenience, physical discomfort or possible permanent damage?

Further Research

For a historical perspective on the scientific method in sociology, read “The Elements of Scientific Method in Sociology” by F. Stuart Chapin (1914) in the American Journal of Sociology : https://archive.org/details/jstor-2763363

Information on current real-world sociology experiments : https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/12/field-experiments-examples/

Brym, R., Roberts, L., Lie, J., & Rytina, S. (2013). Sociology: Your compass for a new world (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In  The sociology of science theoretical and empirical investigation (pp. 267-278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1942).

Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure . New York, NY: Free Press (Original work published 1949).

Mikkelson, B. (2005). Grandma’s cooking secret. Snopes.com. Rumor has it. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/weddings/newlywed/secret.asp.

Pape, R. (2005). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism . New York, NY: Random House.

Patel, F. (2011). Rethinking radicalization. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/rethinking-radicalization.

Cotter, A. (2014). Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012.   Juristat  (Statistics Canada catalogue No. 85-002-X). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm.

Forget, E. (2011). The town with no poverty: Using health administration data to revisit outcomes of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Canadian Public Policy,  37(3), 282-305.

Franke, R., & Kaul, J. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation.  American Sociological Review, 43 (5), 632–643.

Geertz, C. (1977). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperceptions and the American news media.  The Public Opinion Quarterly,  60(4), 515–541.

Grice, E. (2006). Cry of an enfant sauvage.   The Telegraph . Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3653890/Cry-of-an-enfant-sauvage.html.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967).  The discovery of grounded theory: Stategies for qualitative research.  Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.  International Journal of Criminology and Penology,   1 , 69–97.

Hartnagel, T. (2004). Correlates of criminal behaviour.  In Criminology: A Canadian  perspective (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Ivsins, A. K. (2010). “Got a pipe?” The social dimensions and functions of crack pipe sharing among crack users in Victoria, BC [PDF] (Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria). Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/bitstream/handle/1828/3044/Full%20thesis%20Ivsins_CPS.2010_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1.

Lowrey, A. (2013, November 12). Switzerland’s proposal to pay people for being alive. The  New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2.

Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1959). Middletown: A study in modern American culture . San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Lynd, S. (2005). Making Middleton.  Indiana Magazine of History, 101 (3), 226–238.

Marshall, B. D. L., Milloy, M. J., Wood, E., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2011). Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study.  Lancet,   377 (9775), 1429–1437.

Office of the Correctional Investigator, Government of Canada. (2013). Backgrounder: Aboriginal offenders—a critical situation . Retrieved from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx.

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge. 

Rothman, R. (2000, November 27). My fake job.  The New Yorker , 120.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman . Retrieved from http://www.richardsennett.com/site/SENN/Templates/General.aspx?pageid=40.

Smith, D. (1990). Textually mediated social organization. In Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling (pp. 209–234). London: Routledge.

Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Toronto, ON: Altamira Press.

Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1985). Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies.  Journal of Occupational Behavior 6 , 125.

Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W.,  Montaner, J. S., & Kerr, T. (2006). Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility.  Canadian Medical Association Journal   175 (11), 1399–1404.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010).  Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans [PDF] . Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.

Canadian Sociological Association. (2012). Statement of professional ethics [PDF] . Retrieved from http://www.csa-scs.ca/files/www/csa/documents/codeofethics/2012Ethics.pdf.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Weber, M. (1949). Methodology of the social sciences  (H. Shils & E. Finch, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Image Attributions

Figure 2.4.  Didn’t they abolish the mandatory census? Then what’s this? by  Khosrow Ebrahimpour (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xosrow/5685345306/) used under CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Figure 2.5. Punk Band by Patrick (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordkhan/181561343/in/photostream/) used under CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Figure 2.8. Hawthorne Works factory of the Western Electric Company, 1925. By Western Electric Company (Western Electric Company Photograph Album, 1925.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawthorne,_Illinois_Works_of_the_Western_Electric_Company,_1925.jpg

Figure 2.9. Dauphin Canadian Northern Railway Station by Bobak Ha’Eri (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-0520-TrainStation-Dauphin.jpg) used under CC BY 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en)

Figure 2.10.   Crack Cocaine Smokers in Vancouver Alleyway (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crack_Cocaine_Smokers_in_Vancouver_Alleyway.jpg) is in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain)

Figure 2.15.   Muncie, Indiana High School: 1917 by Don O’Brien (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dok1/3694125269/) used under CC BY 2.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Long Descriptions

Figure 2.3: The Scientific Method has a series of steps which can form a repeating cycle.

• Ask a question.
• Research existing sources
• Design and conduct a study
• Draw conclusions.
• Report results.

[Return to Figure 2.3]

Figure 2.7: Different Research Methods: Textual analysis uses qualitative data and is highly reliable. Participant observation uses qualitative data and is a unique observation. Experiments and survey research use quantitative data and are highly reliable. Journalism uses quantitative data and is a unique observation. [Return to Figure 2.7]

Figure 2._: A sociology for women would offer a knowledge of the social organization and determinations of the properties and events of our directly experienced world.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1 c, | 2 c, | 3 d, | 4 c, | 5 b, | 6 c, | 7 d, | 8 c, | 9 a, | 10 a [Return to Quiz]

NSCC Introduction to Sociology Copyright © 2019 by NSCC and William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: Approaches to Sociological Research

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 164436

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Describe the function and importance of an interpretive framework.
• Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of six prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scientific scholarship.

Sociological research does not reduce knowledge to right or wrong facts. Results of studies tend to provide people with insights they did not have before—explanations of human behaviors and social practices and access to knowledge of other cultures, rituals and beliefs, or trends and attitudes.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This does not mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in collecting and analyzing data in research studies.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963). Typically, the scientific method has 6 steps which are described below.

Step 1: Ask a Question or Find a Research Topic

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?”

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study crime, a researcher might also sort through existing data from the court system, police database, prison information, interviews with criminals, guards, wardens, etc. It’s important to examine this information in addition to existing research to determine how these resources might be used to fill holes in existing knowledge. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variables (IV) , which are the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV) , which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

In a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Taking an example from Table 12.1, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying related two topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Design and Conduct a Study

Researchers design studies to maximize reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group or what will happen in one situation will happen in another. Cooking is a science. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same results is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool. The measuring cup introduces accuracy into the process. If a person uses a less accurate tool, such as their hand, to measure ingredients rather than a cup, the same result may not be replicated. Accurate tools and methods increase reliability.

Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. To produce reliable and valid results, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define each concept, or variable, in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. Moreover, researchers can determine whether the experiment or method validly represent the phenomenon they intended to study.

A study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, might define “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” However, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” For the results to be replicated and gain acceptance within the broader scientific community, researchers would have to use a standard operational definition. These definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

We will explore research methods in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 5: Draw Conclusions

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, tabulate or categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss the implications of the results for the theory or policy solution that they were addressing. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, researchers may consider repeating the experiment or think of ways to improve their procedure.

However, even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, these results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Sociologists carefully keep in mind how operational definitions and research designs impact the results as they draw conclusions. Consider the concept of “increase of crime,” which might be defined as the percent increase in crime from last week to this week, as in the study of Swedish crime discussed above. Yet the data used to evaluate “increase of crime” might be limited by many factors: who commits the crime, where the crimes are committed, or what type of crime is committed. If the data is gathered for “crimes committed in Houston, Texas in zip code 77021,” then it may not be generalizable to crimes committed in rural areas outside of major cities like Houston. If data is collected about vandalism, it may not be generalizable to assault.

Step 6: Report Results

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develops as the relationships between social phenomenon are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective , seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. Informed by the work of Karl Marx, scholars known collectively as the Frankfurt School proposed that social science, as much as any academic pursuit, is embedded in the system of power constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. Consequently, it cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimate and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. Deconstruction can involve data collection, but the analysis of this data is not empirical or positivist.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Learning Objectives

• Define and describe the scientific method
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research
• Understand the function and importance of an interpretive framework
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened family members, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

The crime during a full moon discussion put forth a few loosely stated opinions. If the human behaviors around those claims were tested systematically, a police officer, for example, could write a report and offer the findings to sociologists and the world in general. The new perspective could help people understand themselves and their neighbors and help people make better decisions about their lives. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social trends, but, as we shall see, it’s extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the sociologist forms the question, he or she proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scholarship.

But just because sociological studies use scientific methods does not make the results less human. Sociological topics are not reduced to right or wrong facts. In this field, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before—knowledge of other cultures, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research approach they use, researchers want to maximize the study’s reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group. Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. Returning to the crime rate during a full moon topic, reliability of a study would reflect how well the resulting experience represents the average adult crime rate during a full moon. Validity would ensure that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study, so an exploration of adult criminal behaviors during a full moon should address that issue and not veer into other age groups’ crimes, for example.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze the data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This doesn’t mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963).

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps—1) ask a question, 2) research existing sources, 3) formulate a hypothesis—described below.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study. Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms.

That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner.

The operational definition must be valid, appropriate, and meaningful. And it must be reliable, meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, “good drivers” might be defined in many ways: those who use their turn signals, those who don’t speed, or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviors could be interpreted differently by different researchers and could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition.

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about child-rearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It’s important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve studies’ designs.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect , or thing that is changed.

For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

As the table shows, an independent variable is the one that causes a dependent variable to change. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough; their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis aren’t welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Once the preliminary work is done, it’s time for the next research steps: designing and conducting a study and drawing conclusions. These research methods are discussed below.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework , sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective, seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of researcher also learns as he or she proceeds and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method is useful in that it provides a clear method of organizing a study. Some sociologists conduct research through an interpretive framework rather than employing the scientific method.

Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

Section Quiz

A measurement is considered ______­ if it actually measures what it is intended to measure, according to the topic of the study.

• sociological
• quantitative

Sociological studies test relationships in which change in one ______ causes change in another.

• test subject
• operational definition

In a study, a group of ten-year-old boys are fed doughnuts every morning for a week and then weighed to see how much weight they gained. Which factor is the dependent variable?

• The doughnuts
• The duration of a week
• The weight gained

Which statement provides the best operational definition of “childhood obesity”?

• Children who eat unhealthy foods and spend too much time watching television and playing video games
• A distressing trend that can lead to health issues including type 2 diabetes and heart disease
• Body weight at least 20 percent higher than a healthy weight for a child of that height
• The tendency of children today to weigh more than children of earlier generations

Short Answer

Write down the first three steps of the scientific method. Think of a broad topic that you are interested in and which would make a good sociological study—for example, ethnic diversity in a college, homecoming rituals, athletic scholarships, or teen driving. Now, take that topic through the first steps of the process. For each step, write a few sentences or a paragraph: 1) Ask a question about the topic. 2) Do some research and write down the titles of some articles or books you’d want to read about the topic. 3) Formulate a hypothesis.

Further Research

For a historical perspective on the scientific method in sociology, read “The Elements of Scientific Method in Sociology” by F. Stuart Chapin (1914) in the American Journal of Sociology : http://openstax.org/l/Method-in-Sociology

Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2009. “Lunacy and the Full Moon: Does a full moon really trigger strange behavior?” Scientific American. Retrieved October 20, 2014 ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon ).

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Merton, Robert. 1968 [1949]. Social Theory and Social Structure . New York: Free Press.

“Scientific Method Lab,” the University of Utah, http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/scientific_method/sci_method_main.html .

Introduction to Sociology Copyright © 2012 by OSCRiceUniversity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Doing Sociology in the Age of ‘Evidence-Based Research’: Scientific Epistemology versus Political Dominance

• Published: 04 July 2017
• Volume 49 , pages 80–97, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Paolo Parra Saiani 1  

1046 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Social science history from its beginnings has witnessed periods of confrontation between – generally speaking – qualitative and quantitative paradigms, even talking of ‘war’, ‘wrestlers’ and ‘warriors’. And, again from the very beginnings, our discipline has been forced to relate with funding agencies. Sometimes, the two paths – the scientific one and the financial one – cross: we may think at the role of the private foundations in financing a certain type of investigation, notably surveys against case studies or qualitative research. Nowadays, we see an increased attention by federal agencies and private foundations on a particular sector of research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on techniques seen intrinsically superior from the methodological and epistemological point of view. This article will analyze the recent increase of the randomized controlled trials as the new “gold standard” for social research; the call for the “experimenting society” (Campbell American Psychologist , 24 (4), 409–429, 1969 ), willing to import the randomized controlled trials approach into the field of social policy and planning, is not new, if we think that yet in 1963 Campbell and Stanley wrote that “a wave of enthusiasm for experimentation dominated the field of education in the Thorndike era, perhaps reaching its apex in the 1920s” (Campbell and Stanley 1963/1966 : 2). Many problems of validity with RCTs soon came to be recognized – even by Campbell, who stated that he has “held off advocating an experimenting society until they can be solved” (Campbell Evaluation Practice , 15 (3), 291–298, 1994 : 294). In the following years a different set of evaluation strategies were developed, but today there’s a new effort to re-introduce the experimental approach in the academic arena. What is the difference? As we will see, the scientifically-based research is now established and codified by law, funding is linked to a particular way of doing research, and the consequences on scientists work are yet to be explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Sociological Experiment on Methodological Design—Strengths and Limits of a Pragmatist Approach to Research Methods in the TRUE Project

Are randomised controlled trials positivist? Reviewing the social science and philosophy literature to assess positivist tendencies of trials of social interventions in public health and health services

Mixed-Methods Designs in Comparative Public Policy Research: The Dismantling of Pension Policies

‘Evidence-based research’ is a cognate expression of ‘evidence-based medicine”, “a powerful movement that promises to change the content and structure of medicine and its allied professions. Indications of the impact of this movement are new institutions, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for England and Wales, and the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (formerly the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research [AHCPR]); new journals, such as Evidence-Based Medicine, Clinical Practice Guidelines Update, Best Evidence (a CD ROM) , POEMs (Patient-Oriented Evidence that Matters), Bandolier, Effectiveness Matters, and The ACP Journal Club ; recurring editorials in top medical journals such as the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine ” (Timmermans and Berg 2003 : 6–7).

The earliest description of a random allocation procedure in a social or educational intervention study found by Forsetlund et al. ( 2007 ) was published by Remmers in 1928. Still, Forsetlund et al. warn that their results are provisional, since they “did not search hard for studies published in languages other than English; authors may have used terms and words other than those we used to locate descriptions of random allocation; the publications we examined are an unknown proportion of all potentially relevant documents; and the coverage of PsycInfo was incomplete for the period on which we concentrated, in addition to the inadequate descriptions of research methods in abstracts and in indexing. We urge others to extend the search we have described, for example, by hand searching journals or yearbooks” ( 2007 : 379).

See Congressional Record, vol. 144, no. 133, September 29th, 1998, Page S11084. Signed by the President: Oct.7, 1998

On October 21st, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed into law The 1999 Omnibus Bill (H.R. 4328) which included the Reading Excellence Act of 1999 (REA). The REA too was backed by a bipartisan coalition, including the White House, the Congress and the U.S. Department of Education.

Robert Sweet was a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Education, White House domestic policy advisor to President Reagan, head of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency under President Bush, and former high-school teacher. In July 1997, he resigned as President of the foundation to become a professional staff member on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce ( http://www.nrrf.org/learning/the-reading-excellence-act-a-breakthrough-for-reading-teacher-training/ , retrieved on 7th October, 2016).

The first definition of ‘research’ we find in the House is “Reliable, replicable research – the term “reliable, replicable research” means objective, valid scientific studies that – (A) include rigorously defined samples of subjects that are sufficiently large and representative to support the general conclusions drawn; (B) rely on measurements that meet established standards of reliability and validity; (C) test competing theories, where multiple theories exist; (D) are subjected to peer review before their results are published; and (E) discover effective strategies for improving reading skills”. In the Senate, the definition becomes “Scientifically-based reading research – the term “scientifically based reading research” – (A) means the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; and (B) shall include research that (i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; (ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and (iv) has been accepted by a peer- reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review” (the legislative text is available at http://thomas.loc.gov ).

See, for example, H.R. 4875 [2000] as introduced by Rep. Castle [R-DE]; the legislation pertained to the reauthorization of the Office of Research and Improvement (OERI) and included the goal of improving “Federal education research, evaluation, information, and dissemination” (p. 1). The final version of the Castle Bill (H.R. 3801, 2002) to reauthorize OERI and to define the standards for federally funded education research passed Congress and was signed by the president in the fall of 2002. Thus, ESRA ( 2002 ) became law. It replaced OERI with the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), and it stated another set of definitions for scientifically based research in education.

The study was supported by Contract No. ED-00-00-0038 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (National Research Council 2002 , n.p.). The members of the Committee were Richard J. Shavelson ( Chair ), Lisa Towne (study director), Donald I. Barfield, Robert F. Boruch, Jere Confrey, Rudolph Crew, Robert L. DeHaan, Margaret Eisenhart, Jack McFarlin Fletcher, Eugene E. Garcia, Norman Hackerman, Eric Hanushek, Robert Hauser, Paul W. Holland, Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, Denis C. Phillips, Carol H. Weiss, Tina Winters, Linda DePugh.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – signed by Lyndon Johnson on April 11, 1965 – “was composed of five discrete sections, one of which – Title I – provided aid to school districts with “educationally deprived children of low income families”, breaking “the longstanding logjam that to [that] point had blocked federal aid to education” (Lagemann 2000 : 200). Interestingly, Robert F. Kennedy, “then a senator from New York […] did not believe schools did a good job educating black students [and] he was also not convinced that aid alone would change that. In order to impose greater accountability on the schools, Kennedy therefore insisted that Title I, which involved the lion’s share of ESEA funds, be evaluated to ensure that the schools did, in fact, change” (Lagemann 2000 : 200–201). In 2002, another Sen. Kennedy, Edward, will share President George W. Bush’s enthusiasm for “the start of a “new era” in American public education with the signing of the NCLB Act” (Rudalevige 2003 : 63). For an analysis of the alliances of interests and the various coalitions of Republicans, New Democrats, and the Democratic regulars that lead to NCLB Act, see Rudalevige ( 2003 ).

While the REA “passed without fanfare” (Eisenhart and Towne 2003 : 32), although “this action was not without controversy or consequences”[…], as educators and researchers across the country launched a massive letter-writing campaign in opposition to the legislation” (Edmondson 2005 : 4).

The main reason is that the law required State to institute comprehensive standards, testing, and in general accountability reforms.

See ESRA, §102(18) & (19).

The term ‘methodology’ refers to a discourse about method; in this case it would be more appropriate to talk about “random assignment technique”.

See Section 413 of Title IVA of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613).

Farrington wrote that the “history of the use of randomized experiments in criminology consists of feast and famine periods and a few oases (clusters of experiments) in a desert of nonrandomized research” ( 2003 : 219)

Deaton speaks of ‘randomistas’ in a short essay in the Boston Review; unfortunately many authors cite various reference works (see Sampson 2010 : 499 quoting Deaton 2008 ) in which the word does not compare. Others (see Ravallion 2009 ) didn’t cited Deaton at all.

Furthermore, it is quite curious to see the RCT be defined as “new”: as Angrist and Pischke ( 2010 ) wrote, an important impetus for more randomized trials came from studies questioning the reliability of econometric evaluations of subsidized government training programs, the landmark being LaLonde ( 1986 ). See also Breslau ( 1998 ) for the role of randomized trials in U.S. labor market policy.

Commonly – but erroneously – research techniques are called ‘methods’ or ‘methodologies.

Maybe the proposal of the same authors that immediately follows is not the best argumentation against the evidence-based research: “In response to such challenges, a methodology of the heart, a prophetic, feminist postpragmatism that embraces an ethics of truth grounded in love, care, hope and forgiveness is needed” (Denzin et al. 2006 : 770).

“No discipline or activity bore the name of sociology in the Soviet Union until the mid-1950s. The discipline that existed in Russia in the early years of the century […] was suppressed in 1924 […], and even the term ‘sociology’ – firmly associated with “bourgeois social science” – was banished” (Greenfeld 1988 : 100).

“Sociology was denounced as a bourgeois science after the Communists took power in 1949 and the discipline had been abolished in Chinese universities and replaced by Marxist social philosophy (historical materialism) since 1952” (Wu 2015 : 7).

“Together with income from the endowment and fundraising, is projected to spend over £200 million in the next 15 years” (EEF, Education Endowment Foundation 2011–2012 : 2).

The first time that the phrase ‘gold standard’ is referred to RCTs came in the pages of The New England Journal of Medicine in 1982, in an article written by Feinstein and Horwitz, where they defined a randomized controlled trial “as the scientific “gold standard” in cause-effect research” ( 1982 : 1613), even if they recognized that it is an “unattainable scientific gold standard” ( 1982 : 1617). After this first occurrence, “the phrase became commonplace, appearing less often within quotation marks, and by the 1990s paralleling the rise of the term evidence-based medicine” (Jones and Podolsky 2015 : 1503). For further references to the origins of the use of the phrase ‘gold standard’, see Jones and Podolsky ( 2015 ).

The report prepared by the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy ( 2003 : 10) for the Institute of Education Sciences (Grover J. Whitehurst, Director) stated that “strong” evidence of effectiveness “requires: (i) that the intervention be demonstrated effective, through well-designed randomized controlled trials, in more than one site of implementation, and (ii) that these sites be typical school or community settings, such as public school classrooms taught by regular teachers”.

Eisenhart and Towne ( 2003 ) offer a broad and detailed reconstruction about the evolution of the definition of ‘scientifically based research’ in different laws.

As maintained by the National Research Council ( 2012 : 21), the growing demand for performance measures and enhanced accountability in federal agencies and not-for-profit organizations is intertwined “with the call for evidence-based policy and practice, part of a broader focus on data-driven decision making across government agencies”. The editors (Prewitt, Schwandt and Straf) recall the memorandum from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Office of the President (May 18, 2012) to agency heads stating that “Agencies should demonstrate the use of evidence throughout their Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget submissions. Budget submissions also should include a separate section on agencies’ most innovative uses of evidence and evaluation […] the Budget is more likely to fund requests that demonstrate a commitment to developing and using evidence” ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-14.pdf , retrieved October 25th 2016].

Masson ( 2008 ) has noted how the areas of research in France have been affected by changing opportunities for employment on governmental contracts; “the European Union’s funding requirement of cross-national cooperation must have affected the amount of comparative work; […] U.S. criminology has shifted over time in ways that corresponded to shifts in policy thinking – and consequent research funding” (Platt 2010 : 118).

See Foster et al. ( 2015 : 876) for the complete bibliographic references.

“With both a head start from the Bush administration and a new team of powerful OMB officials fully committed to the value of experimental evaluations, the Obama administration lost little time in launching its bold initiative to expand evidence-based social programs” (Haskins and Baron 2011 : 10).

As we may read in the first SBST Annual report, Building on SBST’s successful first year, on September 15, 2015, President Obama signed an Executive Order entitled “Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People.” “The Executive Order formally establishes SBST and directs Federal agencies to integrate behavioral insights into their policies and programs. Specifically, the Order directs agencies to: (i) identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness; (ii) develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights; (iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government; and (iv) strengthen agency relationships with the research community to better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences” (Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2015 : 4–5).

Also Lather ( 2004 : 762) speaks of the Foucaultian “tribunal of reason”.

Abramov, R. (2016). Understanding Professionalism in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet Russia: an Analytical Review. The American Sociologist, 47 (1), 81–101.

Agger, B. (2000). Public sociology: From social facts to literary acts . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Google Scholar  

Angrist, J. D. (2004). American education research changes tack. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20 (2), 198–212.

Article   Google Scholar  

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24 (2), 3–30.

Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge. Democratic education in a conservative age . New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Backhouse, R. E., & Fontaine, P. (2010). Toward a history of the social sciences. In R. E. Backhouse & P. Fontaine (Eds.), The history of the social sciences since 1945 (pp. 184–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty . New York: Public Affairs.

Bannister, R. C. (1987). Sociology and scientism. The American quest for objectivity, 1880–1940 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Studying mind and brain with fMRI. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1 (2), 158–161.

Boruch, R. (1976). On common contentions about randomized field experiments. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 1 , 158–194.

Boruch, R., & Rui, N. (2008). From randomized controlled trials to evidence grading schemes: Current state of evidence-based practice in social sciences. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 1 , 41–49.

Boruch, R. F., Mcsweeney, A. J., & Soderstrom, E. J. (1978). Randomized field experiments for program planning, development and evaluation: An illustrative bibliography. Evaluation Quarterly Review, 4 , 655–696.

Bothwell, L. E., Greene, J. A., Podolsky, S. H., & Jones, D. S. (2016). Assessing the gold standard lessons from the history of RCTs. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374 (22), 2175–2181.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum, 6 (1), 3–26.

Boyle, P. (2013). A U.K. view on the U.S. attack on social sciences. Science, 341 , 719.

Breslau, D. (1998). In search of the unequivocal. The political economy of measurement in U.S. Labor Market Policy . Westport: Praeger.

Bucchi, M. (1998). La provetta trasparente. A proposito del caso Di Bella. il Mulino, 1 , 90–99.

Byrne, D. (2002). Interpreting quantitative data . London: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24 (4), 409–429.

Campbell, D. T. (1994). Retrospective and prospective on program impact assessment. Evaluation Practice, 15 (3), 291–298.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963/1966). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cartwright, N. (2007). Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties, 2 , 11–20.

Ceglowski, D., Bacigalupa, C., & Peck, E. (2011). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of “scientifically based research”. Qualitative Inquiry, 17 , 679–686.

Chapoulie, J.-M. (2001). La tradition sociologique de Chicago. 1892–1961 . Paris: Seuil.

Chubin, D., & McCartney, J. (1982). An editorial afterword: Financing sociological research: A future only dimly perceived. The American Sociologist, 17 (4), 226–235.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2003). Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User Friendly Guide . Report prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (2003). Washington, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences – National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2006). What works and what doesn’t work in social policy? Findings from well-designed randomized controlled trials. http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/ .

Crowther-Heyck, H. (2006). Patrons of the revolution: Ideals and institutions in postwar behavioral science. Isis, 97 (3), 420–446.

Deaton, A. (2006). Evidence-based aid must not become the latest in a long string of development fads. Boston Review, July/August, http://bostonreview.net/deaton-evidence-based-aid

Deaton, A. (2008). Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development . London: The Keynes Lecture, British Academy.

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30 (3), 418–446.

Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. The politics of interpretation . Malden: Blackwell.

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9 , 139–160.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Giardina, M. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19 , 769–782.

Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100 (4), 627–635.

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-279). Retrieved June 17, 2017, from https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ279/PLAW-107publ279.pdf

Edmondson, J. (2005). Policymaking in education: Understanding influences on the reading excellence act. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (11), 1–18 Retrieved 7/26/2016 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n11/ .

EEF (Education Endowment Foundation). (2011-2012). Annual report 2011/12 . London: EEF.

Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in National Policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32 (7), 31–38.

Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Farewell radio and television address to the American people, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Dwight D. Eisenhower. 1960-61. Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President. January 1, 1960, to January 20, 1961 (pp. 1035-1040) . Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register – National Archives and Records Service – General Services Administration.

Executive Board of Science Council of Japan (2015). Statement of the Executive Board of Science Council of Japan On the Future Direction of the University: In Relation to the Departments/Graduate Schools of Teacher Training and Humanities and Social Sciences , 23rd July, http://www.scj.go.jp/en/pdf/kohyo-23-kanji-1e.pdf retrieved 30/12/2015.

Farrington, D. P. (2003). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology. A meager feast. Evaluation Review, 27 (3), 218–227.

Feinstein, A. R., & Horwitz, R. I. (1982). Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 307 (26), 1611–1617.

Ferrell, J., Hayward, K. J., & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology: An invitation . London: Sage.

Fishman, M. E., & Weinberg, D. (1992). The role of evaluation in state welfare reform waiver demonstration. In C. F. Manski & I. Garfinkel (Eds.), Evaluating welfare and training programs (pp. 115–142). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Forsetlund, L., Chalmers, I., & Bjørndal, A. (2007). When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effects of social interventions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16 , 371–384.

Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 875–908.

Foucault, M. (1976/1977). Intervista a Michel Foucault. In M. Foucault (Ed.), Microfisica del potere. Interventi politici , A. Fontana & P. Pasquino (pp. 3-28). Turin: Einaudi; cit. from trans. By C. Gordon , the political function of the intellectual. Radical Philosophy, 17 (Summer 1977), 12–14.

Gobo, G. (2005). The renaissance of qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (3), 1–8.

Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2003). The Underprovision of experiments in political science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September, 589 , 94–112.

Greenfeld, L. (1988). Soviet sociology and sociology in the Soviet Union. Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1), 99–123.

Hammersley, M. (2013). The myth of research-based policy & practice . London: Sage.

Hanley, P., Chambers, B., & Haslam, J. (2016). Reassessing RCTs as the ‘gold standard’: Synergy not separatism in evaluation designs. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39 (3), 287–298.

Haskins, R., & Baron, J. (2011). Building the connection between policy and evidence . London: Nesta.

Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29 (2), 77–94.

Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2004). The politics of no child left behind. Will the coalition hold? Journal of Education, 185 (3), 13–25.

Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool’s gold: The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10 (1), 11–22.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–61.

Johnson, A. T., & Hirt, J. B. (2011). Reshaping academic capitalism to meet development priorities: The case of public universities in Kenya. Higher Education, 61 (4), 483–499.

Jones, D. S., & Podolsky, S. H. (2015). The history and fate of the gold standard. Lancet, 385 (9977), 1502–1503.

Kleinman, D. L., & Vallas, S. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30 (4), 451–492.

Kuenzi, J. J., & Stoll, A. (2014). The Education Sciences Reform Act . Congressional research service 7-5700.

Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1996). The computational experiment: An econometric tool. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10 (1), 69–85.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science. The troubling history of education research . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LaLonde, R. J. (1986). Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review, 76 (4), 604–620.

Lam, T. (2011). A passion for facts. Social surveys and the construction of the Chinese nation-state, 1900–1949 . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: A Critical perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (6), 759–772.

Lemert, C. C. (1992). Series Editor’s preface. In N. K. Denzin, Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. The politics of interpretation (pp. vii-xi) . Malden: Blackwell.

Leonelli, S. (2014). What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big Data in biology. Big Data & Society, 1 (1), 1–11.

Lin, V., & Gibson, B. (Eds.). (2003). Evidence-based health policy: Problems and possibilities . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Institutional review board and methodological conservatism. The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of qualitative research (Third ed., pp. 165–181). London: Thousand Oaks.

Marradi, A. (2010). Misurazione, esperimenti, leggi: il sillogismo scientista. Quaderni di Sociologia, 54 (3), 101–139.

Masson, P. (2008). Faire de la sociologie: Les grandes enquêtes françaises depuis 1945 . Paris: La Découverte.

Mazzonis, D., & Cini, M. (1981). Il gioco delle regole. L’evoluzione delle strutture del sapere scientifico . Milano: Feltrinelli.

Merton, R. K. (1935a). Fluctuations in the rate of industrial invention. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49 (3), 454–470.

Merton, R. K. (1935b). Science and military technique. The Scientific Monthly, 41 (6), 542–545.

Merton, R. K. (1936). Puritanism, pietism and science. The Sociological Review, XXVIII (1), 1–30.

Merton, R. K. (1939). Science and the economy of seventeenth century England. Science and Society, 3 (1), 1–27.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2008). Experimentation in political science. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of political methodology (pp. 339–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research . Washington: Brookings.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education . Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy . Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy. In K. Prewitt, T. A. Schwandt, & M. L. Straf (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . Washington: The National Academies Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. Retrieved June 17, 2017, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1: :

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved June 17, 2017, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1: .

Oakley, A. (1998). Experimentation and social interventions: A forgotten but important history. British Medical Journal, 317 , 1239–1242.

Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing . New York: New Press.

Oakley, A. (2006). Resistances to ‘new’ technologies of evaluation: Education research in the UK as a case study. Evidence and Policy, 2 (1), 63–87.

Oakley, A., & Fullerton, D. (1996). The lamp-post of research: Support or illumination: The case for and against randomised controlled trials. In A. Oakley & H. Roberts (Eds.), Evaluating social interventions . Essex: Barnardo’s.

Orr, L. L. (1999). Social experiments: Evaluating public programs with experimental methods . London: Sage Publications.

Packer, M. J. (2011). The science of qualitative research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Platt, J. (1996). A history of sociological research methods in America. 1920–1960 . Cambridge: University Press.

Platt, J. (2010). Sociology. In R. E. Backhouse & P. Fontaine (Eds.), The history of the social sciences since 1945 (pp. 102–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ravallion, M. (2009). Should the Randomistas rule? Economists’ Voice, 6 (2). doi: 10.2202/1553-3832.1368 .

Rhodes, J. H. (2012). An education in politics. The origin and the evolution of no child left behind . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Roberts, A. R., & Yeager, K. R. (Eds.). (2006). Foundations of evidence-based social work practice . New York: Oxford University Press.

Ross, D. (2003). Changing contours of the social science disciplines. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science , The modern social sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 205–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Evaluation research: An assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 10 , 331–352.

Rudalevige, A. (2003). No child left behind: Forging a Congressional compromise. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 23–54). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.

Sampson, R. J. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26 , 489–500.

Sawa, T. (2015). Humanities under attack. The Japan Times, August, 23 , 1–4.

Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention . New York: Routledge.

Simpson, C. (1998). Universities, empire, and the production of knowledge: An Introduction. In C. Simpson (Ed.), Universities and Empire. Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War (pp. xi–xxxiv). New York: The New Press.

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31 (7), 15–21.

Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (2015). Annual report . Executive Office of the President – National Science and technology Council. Retrieved from https://sbst.gov/assets/files/2015-annual-report.pdf

Solovey, M. (2001). Project Camelot and the 1960s epistemological revolution. Rethinking the politics-patronage-social science nexus. Social Studies of Science, 31 (2), 171–206.

Solovey, M. (2013). Shaky foundations the politics-patronage-social science nexus in cold war America . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Sorokin, P. A. (1956). Fads and foibles in modern sociology and related sciences . Chicago: Henry Regnery, Gateway Edition, 1965.

Telep, C. W., Garner, J. H., & Visher, C. A. (2015). The production of criminological experiments revisited: The nature and extent of federal support for experimental designs, 2001-2013. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 (4), 541–563.

Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The gold standard. The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Torgerson, C. J., & Torgerson, D. J. (2001). The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49 , 316–328.

Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Designing randomised trials in health, education, and the social sciences. An Introduction . Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Torrance, H. (2008). Building confidence in qualitative research. Engaging the demands of policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14 (4), 507–527.

Towne, L. (2006). The National Academies’ role in defining and promoting high-quality scientific education research, 2000–2004. In R. F. Subotnik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), The scientific basis of educational productivity (pp. 185–199). Information Age: Greenwich.

Turner, S. (2014). American sociology. From pre-disciplinary to post-normal . Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

von Hayek, F. A. (1974). The Pretence of knowledge. Nobel memorial lecture held December 11. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 77 (4), 1975, 433–442.

Wu, X. (2015). Towards a professional sociology on China. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 1 (1), 6–14.

Zaino, J. (2013). The war against political science. Inside Higher Ed. , 30 th June.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper benefitted from comments of two anonymous reviewers and from Lawrence Nichols and Sandro Segre. The author is solely responsible for.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Sciences, University of Genoa, 16125, Genoa, Italy

Paolo Parra Saiani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Parra Saiani .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Parra Saiani, P. Doing Sociology in the Age of ‘Evidence-Based Research’: Scientific Epistemology versus Political Dominance. Am Soc 49 , 80–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9358-9

Download citation

Published : 04 July 2017

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9358-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Randomized controlled trials
• Scientifically-based research
• Science and politics
• Epistemology
• Social research methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

1 Introduction and Methods

We all belong to many groups; you’re a member of your sociology class, and you’re a member of your family; you may belong to a political party, a sports team, or the crowd watching a sporting event; you’re a citizen of your country, and you’re part of a generation. You may have a somewhat different role in each group and feel differently in each.

Groups vary in their sizes and formalities, as well as in the levels of attachment between group members, among other things. Within a large group, smaller groups may exist, and each group may behave differently.

At a rock concert, for example, some may enjoy singing along, others may prefer to sit and observe, while still others may join in a mosh pit or try crowd surfing. Why do we feel and act differently in different types of social situations? Why might people of a single group exhibit different behaviors in the same situation? Why might people acting similarly not feel connected to others exhibiting the same behavior? These are some of the many questions sociologists ask as they study people and societies.

1.1 What Is Sociology?

Learning Objectives

• Explain concepts central to sociology
• Understand how different sociological perspectives have developed

What Are Society and Culture?

Sociology is the systematic study of social institutions, social relationships, and society, from small and personal groups to very large groups. Sociologists study social institutions or standardized ways of accomplishing tasks in society and how they change over time. The main social institutions in society are Economy, Education, Kinship, Polity, and Religion. For example, the social institutions of the Economy manage the organization, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The economy of 2022 operates differently than the economy of 1922, so the changes between the two time periods can be measured. A group of people who live in a defined geographic area, who interact with one another, and who share a common culture is what sociologists call a society . Lastly, sociologists study all aspects and levels of society and social interactions. This embodies social relationships. Sociologists working from the micro-level  study small groups and individual interactions, while those using  macro-level  analysis look at trends among and between large groups and societies. For example, a micro-level study might look at the accepted rules of conversation in various groups such as among teenagers or business professionals. In contrast, a macro-level analysis might research the ways that language use has changed over time or in social media outlets.

The term  culture  refers to the group’s shared practices, values, and beliefs. Culture encompasses a group’s way of life, from routine, everyday interactions to the most important parts of group members’ lives. It includes everything produced by a society, including all of the social rules. Sociologists often study culture using the  sociological imagination , which pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills described as an awareness of the relationship between a person’s behavior and experience and the wider culture that shaped the person’s choices and perceptions. It’s a way of seeing our own and other people’s behavior in relationship to history and social structure (1959).

One illustration of this is a person’s decision to marry. In the United States, this choice is heavily influenced by individual feelings; however, the social acceptability of marriage relative to the person’s circumstances also plays a part. Remember, though, that culture is a product of the people in a society; sociologists take care not to treat the concept of “culture” as though it were alive in its own right.  Reification is the error of treating an abstract concept as though it has a real, material existence (Sahn 2013).

Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society

All sociologists are interested in the experiences of individuals and how those experiences are shaped by interactions with social groups and society as a whole. To a sociologist, the personal decisions an individual makes do not exist in a vacuum. Cultural patterns and social forces put pressure on people to select one choice over another. Sociologists try to identify these general patterns by examining the behavior of large groups of people living in the same society and experiencing the same societal pressures.

Changes in the U.S. family structure offer an example of patterns that sociologists are interested in studying. A “typical” family now is vastly different than in past decades when most U.S. families consisted of married parents living in a home with their unmarried children. The percentage of unmarried couples, same-sex couples, and single-parent and single-adult households is increasing, as well as the number of expanded households, in which extended family members such as grandparents, cousins, or adult children live together in the family home (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the number of children who live only with their mothers has doubled in the past 50 years, and both the number and percentage of children under 18 who live with two parents has gone from over 90% in the 1950s to less than 70% in 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).

While mothers still make up the majority of single parents, millions of fathers are also raising their children alone, and more than 1 million of these single fathers have never been married (Williams Institute 2010; cited in Ludden 2012). Increasingly, single men and women and cohabitating opposite-sex or same-sex couples are choosing to raise children outside of marriage through surrogates or adoption.

Some sociologists study  social facts , which are the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and cultural rules that govern social life, that may contribute to these changes in the family. Do people in the United States view marriage and family differently than before? Do employment and economic conditions play a role? How has culture influenced the choices that individuals make in living arrangements? Other sociologists are studying the consequences of these new patterns, such as the ways children are affected by them or changing needs for education, housing, and healthcare.

Sociologists identify and study patterns related to all kinds of contemporary social issues. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the emergence of the Tea Party as a political faction, how Twitter has influenced everyday communication—these are all examples of topics that sociologists might explore.

Studying Part and Whole: How Sociologists View Social Structures

A key basis of the sociological perspective is the concept that the individual and society are inseparable. It is impossible to study one without the other. German sociologist Norbert Elias called the process of simultaneously analyzing the behavior of individuals and the society that shapes that behavior  figuration .

An application that makes this concept understandable is the practice of religion. While people experience their religions in a distinctly individual manner, religion exists in a larger social context. For instance, an individual’s religious practice may be influenced by what government dictates, holidays, teachers, places of worship, rituals, and so on. These influences underscore the important relationship between individual practices of religion and social pressures that influence that religious experience (Elias 1978).

SOCIOLOGY IN THE REAL WORLD

Individual-society connections.

When sociologist Nathan Keirns spoke to his friend Ashley (a pseudonym) about the move she and her partner had made from an urban center to a small Midwestern town, he was curious about how the social pressures placed on a lesbian couple differed from one community to the other. Ashley said that in the city they had been accustomed to getting looks and hearing comments when she and her partner walked hand in hand. Otherwise, she felt that they were at least being tolerated. There had been little to no outright discrimination.

Things changed when they moved to the small town for her partner’s job. For the first time, Ashley found herself experiencing direct discrimination because of her sexual orientation. Some of it was particularly hurtful. Landlords would not rent to them. Ashley, who is a highly trained professional, had a great deal of difficulty finding a new job.

When Nathan asked Ashley if she and her partner became discouraged or bitter about this new situation, Ashley said that rather than letting it get to them, they decided to do something about it. Ashley approached groups at a local college and several churches in the area. Together they decided to form the town’s first gay-straight alliance.

The alliance has worked successfully to educate their community about same-sex couples. It also worked to raise awareness about the kinds of discrimination that Ashley and her partner experienced in the town and how those could be eliminated. The alliance has become a strong advocacy group, and it is working to attain equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LBGT, individuals. Keirns observed that this is an excellent example of how negative social forces can result in a positive response from individuals to bring about social change (Keirns 2011).

1.2 The History of Sociology

• Explain why sociology emerged when it did
• Describe how sociology became a separate academic discipline

Since ancient times, people have been fascinated by the relationship between individuals and the societies to which they belong. Many topics studied in modern sociology were also studied by ancient philosophers in their desire to describe an ideal society, including theories of social conflict, economics, social cohesion, and power (Hannoum 2003).

In the thirteenth century, Ma Tuan-Lin, a Chinese historian, first recognized social dynamics as an underlying component of historical development in his seminal encyclopedia,  General Study of Literary Remains . The next century saw the emergence of the historian some consider to be the world’s first sociologist: Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) of Tunisia. He wrote about many topics of interest today, setting a foundation for both modern sociology and economics, including a theory of social conflict, a comparison of nomadic and sedentary life, a description of political economy, and a study connecting a tribe’s social cohesion to its capacity for power (Hannoum 2003).

But the development of Sociology as an academic discipline has its roots in revolution. The first revolution was a revolution of thought that occurred as a result of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution showed how systematic research could uncover laws of the natural world. These methods were borrowed by individuals who applied the research principles to the social world. In the eighteenth century, Age of Enlightenment philosophers developed general principles that could be used to explain social life. Thinkers such as John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Hobbes responded to what they saw as social ills by writing on topics that they hoped would lead to social reform. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) wrote about women’s conditions in society. Her works were long ignored by the male academic structure, but since the 1970s, Wollstonecraft has been widely considered the first feminist thinker of consequence. These thinkers looked to logic and reason as well as an application of scientific research to social conditions to help uncover laws about the social world.

The second revolution was a political revolution with social implications – The French Revolution. France was one of the most powerful countries in the world, along with England. The main contribution of the French Revolution to the development of Sociology as an academic discipline lies in the reaction people had to the political and social upheaval. Some people wanted society to stay the way it was while others advocated for changes to the major social institutions. These reactions are captured in the theoretical perspectives or paradigms noted below.

The third and most transformative was the Industrial revolution or the complete transformation of western society from rural and agricultural to urban and industrial. The early nineteenth century saw great changes with the Industrial Revolution, increased mobility, and new kinds of employment. It was also a time of great social and political upheaval with the rise of empires that exposed many people—for the first time—to societies and cultures other than their own. Millions of people moved into cities and many people turned away from their traditional religious beliefs. The increased urbanization and industrialization brought about new social problems that would be studied by the earliest Sociologists.

Creating a Discipline

Auguste comte (1798–1857).

The term sociology was first coined in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) in an unpublished manuscript (Fauré et al. 1999). In 1838, the term was reinvented by Auguste Comte (1798–1857). Comte originally studied to be an engineer, but he later became a pupil of social philosopher Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825). They both thought that social scientists could study society using the same scientific methods utilized in natural sciences. Comte also believed in the potential of social scientists to work toward the betterment of society. He held that once scholars identified the laws that governed society, sociologists could address problems such as poor education and poverty (Abercrombie et al. 2000).

Comte named the scientific study of social patterns  positivism . He described his philosophy in a series of books called  The Course in Positive Philosophy  (1830–1842) and  A General View of Positivism  (1848). He believed that using scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would usher in a new “positivist” age of history.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876)—the First Woman Sociologist

Harriet Martineau was a writer who addressed a wide range of social science issues. She was an early observer of social practices, including economics, social class, religion, suicide, government, and women’s rights. Her writing career began in 1831 with a series of stories titled  Illustrations of Political Economy , in which she tried to educate ordinary people about the principles of economics (Johnson 2003).

Martineau was the first to translate Comte’s writing from French to English and thereby introduced sociology to English-speaking scholars (Hill 1991). She is also credited with the first systematic methodological international comparisons of social institutions in two of her most famous sociological works:  Society in America  (1837) and  Retrospect of Western Travel  (1838). Martineau found the workings of capitalism at odds with the professed moral principles of people in the United States; she pointed out the faults with the free enterprise system in which workers were exploited and impoverished while business owners became wealthy. She further noted that the belief in all being created equal was inconsistent with the lack of women’s rights. Much like Mary Wollstonecraft, Martineau was often discounted in her own time by the male domination of academic sociology.

Karl Marx (1818–1883)

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher and economist. In 1848, he and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) coauthored the Communist Manifesto . This book is one of the most influential political manuscripts in history. It also presents Marx’s theory of society, which differed from what Comte proposed.

Marx rejected Comte’s positivism. He believed that societies grew and changed as a result of the struggles of different social classes over the means of production. At the time when he was developing his theories, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism led to great disparities in wealth between the owners of the factories and workers. Capitalism, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and the means to produce them, grew in many nations.

Marx predicted that the inequalities of capitalism would become so extreme that workers would eventually revolt. This would lead to the collapse of capitalism, which would be replaced by communism. Communism is an economic system under which there is no private or corporate ownership: everything is owned communally and distributed as needed. Marx believed that communism was a more equitable system than capitalism.

While his economic predictions may not have come true in the time frame he predicted, Marx’s idea that social conflict leads to change in society is still one of the major theories used in modern sociology.

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)

In 1873, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer published  The Study of Sociology , the first book with the term “sociology” in the title. Spencer rejected much of Comte’s philosophy as well as Marx’s theory of class struggle and his support of communism. Instead, he favored a form of government that allowed market forces to control capitalism. His work influenced many early sociologists, including Émile Durkheim (1858–1917).

Georg Simmel (1858–1918)

Georg Simmel was a German art critic who wrote widely on social and political issues as well. Simmel took an antipositivism stance and addressed topics such as social conflict, the function of money, individual identity in city life, and the European fear of outsiders (Stapley 2010). Much of his work focused on the micro-level theories, and it analyzed the dynamics of two-person and three-person groups. His work also emphasized individual culture as the creative capacities of individuals. Simmel’s contributions to sociology are not often included in academic histories of the discipline, perhaps overshadowed by his contemporaries Durkheim, Mead, and Weber (Ritzer and Goodman 2004).

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917)

Durkheim helped establish sociology as a formal academic discipline by establishing the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895 and by publishing his  Rules of the Sociological Method  in 1895. In another important work,  Division of Labour in Society (1893), Durkheim laid out his theory on how societies transformed from primitive states into capitalist, industrial societies. According to Durkheim, people rise to their proper levels in society based on belief in a meritocracy.

Durkheim believed that sociologists could study objective “social facts” (Poggi 2000). He also believed that through such studies it would be possible to determine if a society was “healthy” or “pathological.” He saw healthy societies as stable, while pathological societies experienced a breakdown in social norms between individuals and society.

In 1897, Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research when he published a work titled  Suicide . Durkheim examined suicide statistics in different police districts to research differences between Catholic and Protestant communities. He attributed the differences to socioreligious forces rather than to individual or psychological causes.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931)

George Herbert Mead was a philosopher and sociologist whose work focused on the ways in which the mind and the self were developed as a result of social processes (Cronk n.d.). He argued that how an individual comes to view himself or herself is based to a very large extent on interactions with others. Mead called specific individuals that impacted a person’s life  significant others,  and he also conceptualized “ generalized others ” as the organized and generalized attitude of a social group. Mead’s work is closely associated with the symbolic interactionist approach and emphasizes the micro-level of analysis.

Max Weber (1864–1920)

Prominent sociologist Max Weber established a sociology department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 1919. Weber wrote on many topics related to sociology including political change in Russia and social forces that affect factory workers. He is known best for his 1904 book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . The theory that Weber sets forth in this book is still controversial. Some believe that Weber argued that the beliefs of many Protestants, especially Calvinists, led to the creation of capitalism. Others interpret it as simply claiming that the ideologies of capitalism and Protestantism are complementary.

Weber believed that it was difficult, if not impossible, to use standard scientific methods to accurately predict the behavior of groups as people hoped to do. He argued that the influence of culture on human behavior had to be taken into account. This even applied to the researchers themselves, who, they believed, should be aware of how their own cultural biases could influence their research. To deal with this problem, Weber and Dilthey introduced the concept of verstehen , a German word that means to understand in a deep way. In seeking verstehen, outside observers of a social world—an entire culture or a small setting—attempt to understand it from an insider’s point of view.

In his book  The Nature of Social Action  (1922), Weber described sociology as striving to “interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which action proceeds and the effects it produces.” He and other like-minded sociologists proposed a philosophy of  antipositivism  whereby social researchers would strive for subjectivity as they worked to represent social processes, cultural norms, and societal values. This approach led to some research methods whose aim was not to generalize or predict (traditional in science), but to systematically gain an in-depth understanding of social worlds.

The different approaches to research based on positivism or antipositivism are often considered the foundation for the differences found today between quantitative sociology and qualitative sociology.  Quantitative sociology  uses statistical methods such as surveys with large numbers of participants. Researchers analyze data using statistical techniques to see if they can uncover patterns of human behavior.  Qualitative sociology  seeks to understand human behavior by learning about it through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and analysis of content sources (like books, magazines, journals, and popular media).

William Edward Burghardt “W. E. B.” Du Bois (1868–1963)

W.E.B. Du Bois is a critical figure in the development of sociology. He made lasting and profound contributions to the social sciences by pioneering several sociological methodologies. For many years though, these efforts were largely ignored and omitted from history.

His now well-known studies introduced and implemented many of the principles that became the foundation for modern sociology, some 20 years before the University of Chicago developed what is considered the first department of sociology in the United States.

Du Bois was an impressive scholar, skilled civil rights activist, prolific social scientist, and the first African American to graduate from Harvard University with a doctorate.

1.3 Theoretical Perspectives

• Explain what sociological theories are and how they are used
• Understand the similarities and differences between structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop a theory in an attempt to explain why things work as they do. In sociology, a  theory  is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and to create a testable proposition, called a  hypothesis,  about society (Allan 2006).

For example, although suicide is generally considered an individual phenomenon, Émile Durkheim was interested in studying the social factors that affect it. He studied social ties within a group, or  social solidarity , and hypothesized that differences in suicide rates might be explained by religion-based differences. Durkheim gathered a large amount of data about Europeans who had ended their lives, and he did indeed find differences based on religion. Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics in Durkheim’s society, and his work supports the utility of theory in sociological research.

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain. Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups.  Grand theories  attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still considered important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of their predecessors and add to them (Calhoun 2002).

In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms.  Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms have come to dominate sociological thinking because they provide useful explanations: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

Functionalism , also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist Hebert Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and the human body; he argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions,  or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spencer’s theory to explain how societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim 1893) and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it plays in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and continuity (Radcliffe-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium  by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts.  Social facts are laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural rules that govern social life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions.  Manifest functions  are the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while  latent functions  are the unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called  dysfunctions . In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory; repetitive behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.

BIG PICTURE

A global culture.

Sociologists around the world look closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practiced different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the Internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.

Sociologists research many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some explore the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own countries. Other sociologists study the impact this growing international culture has on smaller, less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers explore how international markets and the outsourcing of labor impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s ability to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who saw society as being made up of individuals in different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources such as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions like government, education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent inequalities and help maintain the unequal social structure. Some individuals and organizations are able to obtain and keep more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and influence to maintain social institutions. Several theorists suggested variations on this basic theme.

Polish-Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) expanded on Marx’s ideas by arguing that war and conquest are the basis of civilizations. He believed that cultural and ethnic conflicts led to states being identified and defined by a dominant group that had power over other groups (Irving 2007).

German sociologist Max Weber agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict. Weber noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and gender and that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power.

German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) believed that conflict can help integrate and stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups, and the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to create internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. Resolving conflicts can reduce tension and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.

In the 1930s and 1940s, German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, developed critical theory as an elaboration on Marxist principles. Critical theory is an expansion of conflict theory and is broader than just sociology, including other social sciences and philosophy. Critical theory attempts to address structural issues causing inequality; it must explain what’s wrong in the current social reality, identify the people who can make changes, and provide practical goals for social transformation (Horkeimer 1982).

More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been explained in a similar manner, and institutionalized power structures have been identified that help to maintain inequality between groups. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1941–2006) presented a model of feminist theory that attempts to explain the forces that maintain gender inequality as well as a theory of how such a system can be changed (Turner 2003). Similarly, critical race theory grew out of a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Critical race theory looks at structural inequality based on white privilege and associated wealth, power, and prestige.

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would suggest.

Farming and Locavores: How Sociological Perspectives Might View Food Consumption

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence, yet it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested in the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized production. Another examination might study the different functions that occur in food production: from farming and harvesting to flashy packaging and mass consumerism.

A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, by exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a conflict theorist might be interested in the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates, which the documentary Food Inc.  depicts as resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social classes.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in micro-level topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also study the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food).

Symbolic Interactionist Theory

Symbolic interactionism  is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds. Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church; maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve the observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class differences, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message. The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis . Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings that are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society. This approach is often used to understand what’s defined as deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as associating different behaviors with deviance. One situation that illustrates this is what you believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning the wallet in to local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself; turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be considered deviant behavior.

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Sociological Theory Today

These three approaches are still the main foundation of modern sociological theory, but some evolution has been seen. Structural-functionalism was a dominant force after World War II and until the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, sociologists began to feel that structural-functionalism did not sufficiently explain the rapid social changes happening in the United States at that time.

Conflict theory then gained prominence, as there was a renewed emphasis on institutionalized social inequality. Critical theory, and the particular aspects of feminist theory and critical race theory, focused on creating social change through the application of sociological principles, and the field saw a renewed emphasis on helping ordinary people understand sociology principles, in the form of public sociology.

Postmodern social theory attempts to look at society through an entirely new lens by rejecting previous macro-level attempts to explain social phenomena. Generally considered as gaining acceptance in the late 1970s and early 1980s, postmodern social theory is a micro-level approach that looks at small, local groups and individual reality. Its growth in popularity coincides with the constructivist aspects of symbolic interactionism.

1.4 Why Study Sociology?

• Explain why it is worthwhile to study sociology

When Elizabeth Eckford tried to enter Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, in September 1957, she was met by an angry crowd. But she knew she had the law on her side. Three years earlier in the landmark  Brown vs. Board of Education  case, the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned twenty-one state laws that allowed blacks and whites to be taught in separate school systems as long as the school systems were “equal.” One of the major factors influencing that decision was research conducted by the husband-and-wife team of sociologists, Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their research showed that segregation was harmful to young black schoolchildren, and the Court found that harm to be unconstitutional.

Since it was first founded, many people interested in sociology have been driven by the scholarly desire to contribute knowledge to this field, while others have seen it as a way not only to study society but also to improve it. Besides desegregation, sociology has played a crucial role in many important social reforms, such as equal opportunity for women in the workplace, improved treatment for individuals with mental disabilities or learning disabilities, increased accessibility and accommodation for people with physical handicaps, the right of native populations to preserve their land and culture, and prison system reforms.

The prominent sociologist Peter L. Berger (1929–1917 ),  in his 1963 book  Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective , describes a sociologist as “someone concerned with understanding society in a disciplined way.” He asserts that sociologists have a natural interest in the monumental moments of people’s lives, as well as a fascination with banal, everyday occurrences. Berger also describes the “aha” moment when a sociological theory becomes applicable and understood:

There is a deceptive simplicity and obviousness about some sociological investigations. One reads them, nods at the familiar scene, remarks that one has heard all this before and don’t people have better things to do than to waste their time on truisms—until one is suddenly brought up against an insight that radically questions everything one had previously assumed about this familiar scene. This is the point at which one begins to sense the excitement of sociology. (Berger, 1963)

Sociology can be exciting because it teaches people ways to recognize how they fit into the world and how others perceive them. Looking at themselves and society from a sociological perspective helps people see where they connect to different groups based on the many different ways they classify themselves and how society classifies them in turn. It raises awareness of how those classifications—such as economic and status levels, education, ethnicity, or sexual orientation—affect perceptions.

Sociology teaches people not to accept easy explanations. It teaches them a way to organize their thinking so that they can ask better questions and formulate better answers. It makes people more aware that there are many different kinds of people in the world who do not necessarily think the way they do. It increases their willingness and ability to try to see the world from other people’s perspectives. This prepares them to live and work in an increasingly diverse and integrated world.

1.5 How to Study Sociology

• Define and describe the scientific method
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study

Have you ever wondered if home schooling affects a person’s later success in college or how many people wait until they are in their forties to get married? Do you wonder if texting is changing teenagers’ abilities to spell correctly or to communicate clearly? How do social movements like Occupy Wall Street develop? How about the development of social phenomena like the massive public followings for TikTok and Harry Potter? The goal of research is to answer questions. Sociological research attempts to answer a vast variety of questions, such as these and more, about our social world.

We often have opinions about social situations, but these may be biased by our expectations or based on limited data. Instead, scientific research is based on  empirical evidence , which is evidence that comes from direct experience, scientifically gathered data, or experimentation. Many people believe, for example, that crime rates go up when there’s a full moon, but research doesn’t support this opinion. Researchers Rotton and Kelly (1985) conducted a  meta-analysis  of research on the full moon’s effects on behavior. Meta-analysis is a technique in which the results of virtually all previous studies on a specific subject are evaluated together. Rotton and Kelly’s meta-analysis included thirty-seven prior studies on the effects of the full moon on crime rates, and the overall findings were that full moons are entirely unrelated to crime, suicide, psychiatric problems, and crisis center calls (cited in Arkowitz and Lilienfeld 2009). We may each know of an instance in which a crime happened during a full moon, but it was likely just a coincidence.

People commonly try to understand the happenings in their world by finding or creating an explanation for an occurrence. Social scientists may develop a  hypothesis  for the same reason. A hypothesis is a testable educated guess about predicted outcomes between two or more variables; it’s a possible explanation for specific happenings in the social world and allows for testing to determine whether the explanation holds true in many instances, as well as among various groups or in different places. Sociologists use empirical data and the  scientific method , or an interpretative framework, to increase understanding of societies and social interactions, but research begins with the search for an answer to a question.

Then sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions; no topic is off-limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened family members, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

The crime during a full moon discussion put forth a few loosely stated opinions. If the human behaviors around those claims were tested systematically, a police officer, for example, could write a report and offer the findings to sociologists and the world in general. The new perspective could help people understand themselves and their neighbors and help people make better decisions about their lives. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social trends, but, as we shall see, it’s extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the sociologist forms the question, he or she proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scholarship.

But just because sociological studies use scientific methods does not make the results less human. Sociological topics are not reduced to right or wrong facts. In this field, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before—knowledge of other cultures, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research approach they use, researchers want to maximize the study’s  reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group. Researchers also strive for  validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. Returning to the crime rate during a full moon topic, the reliability of a study would reflect how well the resulting experience represents the average adult crime rate during a full moon. Validity would ensure that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study, so an exploration of adult criminal behaviors during a full moon should address that issue and not veer into other age groups’ crimes, for example.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This doesn’t mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963).

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps—(1) ask a question, (2) research existing sources, (3) formulate a hypothesis—described below.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study. Sociologists do not rule out any topic but strive to frame these questions in better research terms.

That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an  operational definition— that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner.

The operational definition must be valid, appropriate, and meaningful. And it must be reliable, meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, “good drivers” might be defined in many ways: those who use their turn signals, those who don’t speed, or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviors could be interpreted differently by different researchers and could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition.

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a  literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about child-rearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It’s important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve studies’ designs.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A  hypothesis  is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. In research,  independent variables  are the  cause  of the change. The  dependent variable  is the  effect , or thing that is changed.

For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect the rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by the level of education (the independent variable)?

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

As the table shows, an independent variable is the one that causes a dependent variable to change. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough; their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis aren’t welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Once the preliminary work is done, it’s time for the next research steps: designing and conducting a study and drawing conclusions. These research methods are discussed below.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an  interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an  interpretive framework , sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective, seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of researcher also learns as he or she proceeds and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

1.1   What Is Sociology?

Sociology is the systematic study of social institutions, social relationships, and society. In order to carry out their studies, sociologists identify cultural patterns and social forces and determine how they affect individuals and groups. They also develop ways to apply their findings to the real world.

1.2   The History of Sociology

Sociology was developed as a way to study and try to understand the changes to society brought on by the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some of the earliest sociologists thought that societies and individuals’ roles in society could be studied using the same scientific methodologies that were used in the natural sciences, while others believed that it was impossible to predict human behavior scientifically, and still others debated the value of such predictions. Those perspectives continue to be represented within sociology today.

1.3   Theoretical Perspectives

Sociologists develop theories to explain social events, interactions, and patterns. A theory is a proposed explanation of those social interactions. Theories have different scales. Macro-level theories, such as structural functionalism and conflict theory, attempt to explain how societies operate as a whole. Micro-level theories, such as symbolic interactionism, focus on interactions between individuals.

1.4   Why Study Sociology?

Studying sociology is beneficial both for the individual and for society. By studying sociology people learn how to think critically about social issues and problems that confront our society. The study of sociology enriches students’ lives and prepares them for careers in an increasingly diverse world. Society benefits because people with sociological training are better prepared to make informed decisions about social issues and take effective action to deal with them.

1.5   How to Study Sociology

Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method is useful in that it provides a clear method of organizing a study. Some sociologists conduct research through an interpretive framework rather than employing the scientific method.

Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

Elias, Norbert. 1978.  What Is Sociology?  New York: Columbia University Press.

Ludden, Jennifer. 2012. “Single Dads By Choice: More Men Going It Alone.” npr. Retrieved December 30, 2014 (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/154860588/single-dads-by-choice-more-men-going-it-alone).

Mills, C. Wright. 2000 [1959].  The Sociological Imagination . 40th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sahn, Richard. 2013. “The Dangers of Reification.”  The Contrary Perspective . Retrieved October 14, 2014 (http://contraryperspective.com/2013/06/06/the-dangers-of-reification/).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012.” Retrieved December 30, 2014 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. “Percentage and Number of Children Living with Two Parents Has Dropped Since 1968.” (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years.html)

Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner. 2000.  The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology . London: Penguin.

Buroway, Michael. 2005. “2004 Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.”  American Sociological Review  70 (February): 4–28. Retrieved December 30, 2014 (http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Public%20Sociology,%20Live/Burawoy.pdf).

Cable Network News (CNN). 2014. “Should the minimum wage be raised?” CNN Money. Retrieved December 30, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/infographic/pf/low-wage-worker/).

Cronk, George. n.d. “George Herbert Mead.”  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource . Retrieved October 14, 2014 (http://www.iep.utm.edu/mead/).

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895].  The Rules of Sociological Method , edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. 8th ed. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Fauré, Christine, Jacques Guilhaumou, Jacques Vallier, and Françoise Weil. 2007 [1999].  Des Manuscrits de Sieyès, 1773–1799 , Volumes I and II. Paris: Champion.

Hannoum, Abdelmajid. 2003.  Translation and the Colonial Imaginary: Ibn Khaldun Orientalist . Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University. Retrieved January 19, 2012 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3590803).

Hill, Michael. 1991. “Harriet Martineau.”  Women in Sociology: A Bio-Bibliographic Sourcebook , edited by Mary Jo Deegan. New York: Greenwood Press.

Johnson, Bethany. 2003. “Harriet Martineau: Theories and Contributions to Sociology.”  Education Portal . Retrieved October 14, 2014 (http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/harriet-martineau-theories-and-contributions-to-sociology.html#lesson).

Poggi, Gianfranco. 2000.  Durkheim . Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Ritzer, George, and Goodman, Douglas. 2004.  Sociological Theory, 6th Edition . New York: McGraw Hill Education.

Stapley, Pierre. 2010. “Georg Simmel.” Cardiff University School of Social Sciences. Retrieved October 21, 2014 (http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/simmel.html).

U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. 2010.  Women and the Economy, 2010: 25 Years of Progress But Challenges Remain . August. Washington, DC: Congressional Printing Office. Retrieved January 19, 2012 (http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8be22cb0-8ed0-4a1a-841b-aa91dc55fa81).

Allan, Kenneth. 2006.  Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Blumer, H. 1969.  Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Broce, Gerald. 1973.  History of Anthropology . Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company.

Calhoun, Craig J. 2002.  Classical Sociological Theory . Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Durkheim, Émile. 1984 [1893].  The Division of Labor in Society . New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1958.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.

Goldschmidt, Walter. 1996. “Functionalism” in  Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 2 , edited by D. Levinson and M. Ember. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Henry, Stuart. 2007. “Deviance, Constructionist Perspectives.”  Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Retrieved October 14, 2014 (http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2011_chunk_g978140512433110_ss1-41).

Herman, Nancy J., and Larry T. Reynolds. 1994.  Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology . Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Horkeimer, M. 1982.  Critical Theory . New York: Seabury Press.

Irving, John Scott. 2007.  Fifty Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists . New York: Routledge.

LaRossa, R., and D.C. Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Pp. 135–163 in  Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach , edited by P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Springer.

Maryanski, Alexandra, and Jonathan Turner. 1992.  The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1998 [1848].  The Communist Manifesto . New York: Penguin.

Parsons, T. 1961.  Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory . New York: Free Press.

Pew Research Center. 2012. “Mobile Technology Fact Sheet.”  Pew Research Internet Project , April 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/).

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952.  Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses . London: Cohen and West.

Spencer, Herbert. 1898.  The Principles of Biology . New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Turner, J. 2003.  The Structure of Sociological Theory.  7 th  ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

UCLA School of Public Affairs. n.d. “What is Critical Race Theory?”  UCLA School of Public Affairs: Critical Race Studies . Retrieved October 20, 2014 (http://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory/).

Berger, Peter L. 1963.  Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Department of Sociology, University of Alabama. N.d.  Is Sociology Right for You?  Huntsville: University of Alabama. Retrieved January 19, 2012 (https://www.uah.edu/ahs/departments/sociology/about).

Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2009. “Lunacy and the Full Moon: Does a full moon really trigger strange behavior?”  Scientific American . Retrieved December 30, 2014 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/).

Rotton, James, and Ivan W. Kelly. 1985. “Much Ado about the Full Moon: A Meta-analysis of Lunar-Lunacy Research.”  Psychological Bulletin  97 (no. 2): 286–306.

Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2009. “Lunacy and the Full Moon: Does a full moon really trigger strange behavior?” Scientific American. Retrieved October 20, 2014 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon).

Merton, Robert. 1968 [1949].  Social Theory and Social Structure . New York: Free Press.

“Scientific Method Lab,” the University of Utah, http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/scientific_method/sci_method_main.html.

Media Attributions

• yvette-de-wit-NYrVisodQ2M-unsplash © Yvette deWitt/upsplash is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• CNX_Soc2e_Figure_01_01_003 © Tony Alter/Wikimedia Commons is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_022_Image_0001
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_030_Image_0001 © quasireversible/flickr
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_024_Image_0001 © John Mayall/Wikimedia Commons
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_027_Image_0001 © voanews.com/Wikimedia Commons
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_034_Image_0001 is licensed under a Public Domain license
• Introduction-to-Sociology-1655759772_Page_037_Image_0001 © OpenStax is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

Introduction to Sociology Copyright © 2022 by LOUIS: The Louisiana Library Network is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Recall the 6 Steps of the Scientific Method
• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
• Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to received demographical data pertaining to residents. The questions pertain to the demographics of the residents who live in the United States. Currently, the Census is received by residents in the United Stated and five territories and consists of 12 questions.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample , a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal thought processes are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and lady gaga as sociological subjects.

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and fingers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.

This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study . To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male- dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Sociological Research

The making of middletown: a study in modern u.s. culture.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000) as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minorities or outsiders—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds objectively described what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. As a result, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six chapters: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg. 2000).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times. Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

A real-life example will help illustrate the process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory, she conducted research. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: Black, White, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who had had perfect driving records for longer than a year.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support for the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The research was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm, 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization (WHO), publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of a recession. A racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

Why study sociology, what is sociology.

Sociology is the systematic study of social groups, and the basic premise of sociology is a powerful intuition about human life: Human beings are not islands unto themselves. We are social creatures. We are “group animals,” as the phrase goes.  

In a very general sense, sociologists are interested in why different social groups form, change, and fade away; how people make sense of their belonging to different social groups; and how different social groups shape the world that we live in. 

That is not in the least bit inaccurate, but it is a bit general and abstract. 

The different types of specific questions that sociologists ask are easier to grasp. Do children from more affluent families have access to better educational opportunities? If so, is it because of what they learn at home from their parents or because they are sorted into better schools? Why are some countries in Latin American richer than other countries, and is the difference related to where liberally minded, commercially oriented townspeople tended to live in the Spanish Empire during the seventeenth century? Why did the town elders of Birmingham, Alabama, suddenly concede to the demands of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and civil rights movement on the morning of May 7, 1963? Was it concern about the bad publicity generated by the violent response of the police force to mass protest in the streets, or was it the fact that protestors were able to bring economic life in Birmingham to a virtual standstill with no end in sight? 

Sociology is distinctive in the social sciences for the special emphasis it places on the importance of social groups in human life. It does not deny that individuals matter. It simply recognizes that individuals are not always and everywhere the sole building blocks of human interaction. In the eyes of sociologists, people are not simply automatons that are wired to maximize their utility or self-interest at every waking moment of their lives. Nor do sociologists think of people as creatures who merely follow the biological dictates of their genetic blueprints or merely act out the underlying tendencies of their individual psychologies. Sociologists are committed to the idea that human life is a collective phenomenon in crucially important ways. Human life is a product of our belonging to social groups. It cannot be understood simply as the aggregation of individual responses to the supply and demand of scare resources. 

When thousands of Americans (many of them white) took to the streets last May and June in the midst of a global pandemic to protest the killing of George Floyd, were they motivated strictly by a desire to maximize their personal utility? Or, were they motivated by something else, something bigger than themselves? If your thoughts turned toward the latter possibility, then your sociological imagination is alive and well! 

Why study sociology?

Career skills.

As the broadest of all of the social sciences, Sociology provides a wide range of practical and marketable skills, including critical analysis, statistical methods, theory, and field research.

Our majors have gone on to work in in law, medicine and public health, consulting, finance, non-profit and public administration, social network research, culture, and the arts. To learn more about careers in Sociology please visit our careers page .

Our Department

The Department of Sociology at Northwestern is a top-ranked program with world-class faculty committed to teaching all students to engage more effectively with the world around them. The undergraduate program features a generous faculty-student ratio and many opportunities for students to get to know their professors beyond the classroom.

Sociology is an ideal major for pursuing a senior thesis , an internship through the Chicago Field Studies Program , or other capstone project.

Empirical Research

Reading: approaches to sociological research.

• Define and describe the scientific method
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research
• Understand the function and importance of an interpretive framework
• Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened family members, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

The crime during a full moon discussion put forth a few loosely stated opinions. If the human behaviors around those claims were tested systematically, a police officer, for example, could write a report and offer the findings to sociologists and the world in general. The new perspective could help people understand themselves and their neighbors and help people make better decisions about their lives. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social trends, but, as we shall see, it’s extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the sociologist forms the question, he or she proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scholarship.

The scientific method is an essential tool in research.

But just because sociological studies use scientific methods does not make the results less human. Sociological topics are not reduced to right or wrong facts. In this field, results of studies tend to provide people with access to knowledge they did not have before—knowledge of other cultures, knowledge of rituals and beliefs, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research approach they use, researchers want to maximize the study’s reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group. Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. Returning to the crime rate during a full moon topic, reliability of a study would reflect how well the resulting experience represents the average adult crime rate during a full moon. Validity would ensure that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study, so an exploration of adult criminal behaviors during a full moon should address that issue and not veer into other age groups’ crimes, for example.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze the data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This doesn’t mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in a particular study.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963).

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps—1) ask a question, 2) research existing sources, 3) formulate a hypothesis—described below.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geography and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study. Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms.

That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner.

The operational definition must be valid, appropriate, and meaningful. And it must be reliable, meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, “good drivers” might be defined in many ways: those who use their turn signals, those who don’t speed, or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviors could be interpreted differently by different researchers and could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition.

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about child-rearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. It’s important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve studies’ designs.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect , or thing that is changed.

For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

As the table shows, an independent variable is the one that causes a dependent variable to change. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough; their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome doesn’t mean data contradicting the hypothesis aren’t welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Once the preliminary work is done, it’s time for the next research steps: designing and conducting a study and drawing conclusions. These research methods are discussed below.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework , sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective, seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of researcher also learns as he or she proceeds and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Using the scientific method, a researcher conducts a study in five phases: asking a question, researching existing sources, formulating a hypothesis, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. The scientific method is useful in that it provides a clear method of organizing a study. Some sociologists conduct research through an interpretive framework rather than employing the scientific method.

Scientific sociological studies often observe relationships between variables. Researchers study how one variable changes another. Prior to conducting a study, researchers are careful to apply operational definitions to their terms and to establish dependent and independent variables.

Short Answer

Write down the first three steps of the scientific method. Think of a broad topic that you are interested in and which would make a good sociological study—for example, ethnic diversity in a college, homecoming rituals, athletic scholarships, or teen driving. Now, take that topic through the first steps of the process. For each step, write a few sentences or a paragraph: 1) Ask a question about the topic. 2) Do some research and write down the titles of some articles or books you’d want to read about the topic. 3) Formulate a hypothesis.

Further Research

For a historical perspective on the scientific method in sociology, read “The Elements of Scientific Method in Sociology” by F. Stuart Chapin (1914) in the American Journal of Sociology : http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Method-in-Sociology

Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2009. “Lunacy and the Full Moon: Does a full moon really trigger strange behavior?” Scientific American. Retrieved October 20, 2014 ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon ).

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Merton, Robert. 1968 [1949]. Social Theory and Social Structure . New York: Free Press.

“Scientific Method Lab,” the University of Utah, http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/scientific_method/sci_method_main.html .

• Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/02040312-72c8-441e-a685-20e9333f3e1d/Introduction_to_Sociology_2e . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]