Marbury
Education
AS
Sociology
Unit 2
Research
Methods used in Sociology
The
research methods used in Sociology are little different to those used in other
social and political sciences. Common modes of enquiry include the use of
social surveys: experiments, interviews and observation. Descriptions of their
various strengths and weaknesses can be found in any introductory School or
College text and Themes and Perspectives by Michael J. Haralambos is probably
the most comprehensive of these. Yet what is more interesting is why particular
methods are used or not used.
What is your theoretical position?
Positivist sociologists like Marx, Comte and Durkheim
attempted to explain society by discovering universal laws. They sought to
emulate the methods used in the natural sciences and by doing so they hoped to
raise the status of the subject and to convince others about the worthiness of
their political views. Those that follow this research tradition are referred
to as macro theorists and they use methods that necessarily involve the
generation and collation of quantitative data taken from large, representative
samples.
Additionally, man is viewed as relatively passive.
Powerful institutions and structures like the mass media, family, education and
social classes, shape our identity and behavior. This is important because
without subscribing to a passive view of man, the quest to discover scientific
laws is doomed to failure. If this belief was mistaken and we are all directed
by our own consciousness, behavior could not be generalized and sociology would
remain very much to poor relation to natural science. Therefore, one tradition
within the subject is positivist, macro and structural.
These factors dictate that the research methods used must
be imbued with objectivity in order to collect data on social facts. The survey
method can be implemented on a large scale and it has a kudos that makes it
attractive to national governments to help them with social planning and policy
reform. Questions are predetermined and possible answers are limited and fixed.
Research can be replicated in order to ensure that it is reliable and surveys
can be implemented at intervals to provide data on longitudinal patterns. This
standardized method can also be used for comparative approaches like Durkheim's
study of suicide or it might be used as part of a unique case study.
Anti Positivists like Goulder, Becker, or Mead argue that universal laws of social behavior don't exist. So the pursuit of them, no matter how "scientific" you are in going about it, is a folly. Natural science and social science deal with different subjects. One concerns itself with matter and one concerns itself with people. One always acts in the same way in the same set of circumstances and one doesn't. Micro theorists argue that social actors have agency, self determination. As people have a large degree of control over their own behavior, social actors are unpredictable, fickle creatures who defy generalization. Social behavior defies neat typologies and universal laws only apply to the natural world. The focus of sociology should be to explain the social actors first order constructs; why we act in the ways we do and how we make sense of the social world. The best way to achieve this explanatory and essentially subjective aim is to apply qualitative techniques like observation or unstructured interviews. So the search for meaning dictates the methodology
If you
are conducting research on a social problem like crime, some form of positivist
methodology would set you on the right path. It gives you an overview and
paints a broad picture of your topic. It might give you data on national,
regional or local trends, offender profiles and it should tell you if the
problem is getting better or worse. If your enquiry is descriptive in nature,
then quantitative approaches make sense. However, if you want to go deeper and
delve into the reasons for offender behavior, then a qualitative approach like
interviews or covert participant observation might be used. Whether that
technique is ethical in the circumstances is another matter. That said, many
contemporary researchers triangulate and use varying combinations of positivist
and anti positivist methods. This helps to inject greater rigor into their work
and deters critics from trivializing the research because of its methodological
exclusivity.
What
is state of your finances?
If your coffers are full, you may be able to afford the
indulgence of taking several months or years to complete your research. As a
general rule, anti positive research tends to be more expensive than positivist
methods because it is far more time consuming. Merely identifying your research
subjects can take time, access to group has to be negotiated and once the
primary research has been carried out, the data may take months to transcribe
or collate before you have even had a chance to write a meaningful sentence
worthy of appearing in a learned journal. If your coffers are empty, it may be
prudent to opt for a method that generates statistics and make best use of
SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Also, statistical methods
often convey a certain seriousness and competence about an individual. So less
senior researchers who don't enjoy the financial benefits of a professorial
Chair might do well to invest in the requisite computer software and training.
The
British Sociological Association is actually quite non committal regarding what
one should and shouldn't do as a researcher. Although they have ethical
guidelines, they are quite broadly written and essentially say that one
shouldn't do harm and that researchers shouldn't conduct research they are
neither qualified nor competent to do. Certain subjects like child abuse,
domestic violence and other forms of crime or deviance are prone to a number of
ethical problems or dilemmas. Merely speaking to a researcher about some things
may do harm in certain cases and it might not be ethical to pry into someone's
painful or embarrassing experiences just to satisfy ones professional curiosity
or career aspirations. Laud Humphreys Tea Room Trade, which investigated
homosexual relations in public toilets was not only criticized for its subject
matter but also for its methodology. Humphreys was complicit in the criminality
because he acted a lookout and he was also criticized for deceiving his
subjects and invading their privacy (what privacy one might expect in a public
toilet is another issue). In short, positivist methods avoid many of the
ethical problems inherent in studying social behavior but it lacks depth and
humanism. Researchers sometimes excuse the inexcusable by saying that "the
ends justify the means."
No comments:
Post a Comment