ML20149E945
| ML20149E945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1987 |
| From: | Cole S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-A-026, OL-A-26, NUDOCS 8802110324 | |
| Download: ML20149E945 (9) | |
Text
\c
\ o -
O V 40-</yJ/yy9-oc ,
/ f/ 5/E'l DQMT!D
/9 -26 '88 FEB -2 A9 :28 THE SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD ElcESdi.W An Introduction to the Science of Sociolost*
Stephen Cole
,. r ..vx $-?)$...
y#:3 %
R* ,
O. qD'I w$
n .
4.;k.- t,-
M>
spf .
<. . .cs .
Q
'h
?,e '
k
. 4fo ..
.f.<*f p t b7 ..g . -
- p. . c. t,..,/--@n* ..- s.
1, r 1. ;
~
,em i gf,, 2[em. N>-
g;"2. ' = y %' W,3='g; .q}?*
- apaf" - ' ,p M
' =,, ,
sy,,.tt gg' . ~
t r .r
- . . 1 wg A. .v. M 9 '
%mM eu.- *. ..:
t f ..G ;; e.
% - .g. r. 9 i' .;;;;p .ig
'g' .f
' Nkh.Y f. 'eg .
__.f .y -. .
l ditlOr) r > <., 7
- oe moocx eseo<mo y e x ,,4
- (2 9 6 w _
f
. (")
(3
%)
v Scence and Socciogy 137 significant, for most science it is not clear to participants whether the work will turn out to be important or not at the time when it is produced. Although we have always assumed that this is true ;
for the social sciences, the studies I have conducted suggest that '
I
, it is also true for the natural sciences.
Let us return to the question with which I began this section:
Is sociology a science? If we base our answer on a comparison of the day to-day behavior of researchers in sociology with that of I researchers in the natural sciences, we have to conclude that soci-ology is indeed a science. Although it would probably be true that physicists, for example. would be more likely than sociologists to agree on core knowleds;e, most social researchers spend no more I time than do physicists debatmg fundamentals. And when it comes to work at the research frontier, all sciences, including l sociology, seem to have roughly equal levels of consensus. Al-though much more work remains to be done on this topic, prelimi-nary studies mdicate that the differences between the natural and social sciences in the way m which new knowledge is developed are not as great as we had assumed.
CAN SOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES BE OBJECTIVE? For many years there has been a heated debate in the sociological commu-
. nity as to what the proper role of the sociologist should be.There are at least two important questions on which sociologists dis-agree. The tirst concems the orientation of researchers toward the subject matter of their studies. Should sociologists be neutral ob-servers and analysts of social events and structures, or should they r-crally evaluate and entique them? Should the sociologist be "value tree" or "value involved?" There is no nght or wrong an-swer to this question-the side a person takes depends on his or her own values. We should, however, be familiar with the argu-ments used on both sides.
T,-
Value Free Sociology? The sociologists who believe that soci-
'clogy should be value-free argue that, if researchers do not at-tempt to be objective and hmit their own biases, then the results they obtain and the conclusions they reach have no legitimac]y For example, suppose the sociologist is interested m studying whether or not discnmination against women is occurring in a particular
6 h
()
/ .
G
, \u/
d 138 Soonce and Sooology segment of the society. If sociologists start out with the strong belief that there is discnmination and that this is wrong and must be eliminated, won't they design their studies in such a way as to assure that they actually find evidence of discrimination? If their destre to prove that disenmination exists is greater than their desire to know the truth, then they will have dif6culty in design.
ing an objective study.They will also have problems in interpret-ing the results of their studies. Won't they t'e tempted to ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs and emphasize that which supports their beliefs?
Also, what happens if the evidence strongly contradicts the researchers' beliefs? If sociologists start out to prove that women are being discriminated against in a particular segment of society and they find no evidence of discnmination, should they publi>h these results? Supporters of value-free sociology answer ai6tma-tively; opponents. more than likely, would answer negauvely.
The essential problem involves the credibility of the results of the research. If researchers are not objective, why should anybody believe the results of their research? Sociology could become a crude attempt to justify a set of values or a polit:calideology rather than a way of discovering knowledge about human behavior. If sociology is not value free, it could become nothing more than ideology. And if sociology becomes ideology or is used merely to justify a particular ideology,it will have no utility in solving social problems.
Qhe critics of the value free approach,of course, disagree with 7 the above argument. They claim that leaving aside the question of whether or not value free sociology is a good thing,it is impossi-ble for the sociologist to be value-free. All of us have cut own values, biases, and opinions. It is impossible to suppress them:
they willinfluence the design of the studies and the interpretation
, of the results. We cannot be objective even if we try, and therefore we might as well make our biases explicit. Any attempt to hide our biases produces nothing more than p>eudo-objectivity.
- Furthermore, even if it were possible to be objective,it would
- be immoral for researchers to ignore the political implications of their work. Just as nuclear physicists should have refused to work on the development oi nuclear weapons, sociologists should refuse (to publish work that may have "undesirable" consequ
p pa V
~,
Soence and Soedogy 139 dence in support of the belief that differences in learning ability have a substantial biological component, the sociologists should refuse to publish this work since it will be used by racists to lustify continued discrimination against minority groups. Ridding the society of discrimination is more important than discovering the real reasons why some people 6nd it easier to learn than others.
Sociologist as Technician or Reformer? The second major question that sociologists have been debatmg is: Shuuld sociolo.
L gists be "technicians" available to society or should they t to change society to conform more closely to their own values he u people who believe in value free sociology tend to take t e 6tst position: the entics of value free sociology, the latter.
The peopie who believe that sociologists should act as techni-cians argue that how society should be organized is a matter of values and not science. Whether, for example, capitalism is "bet-ter"or"worse than socialism cannot be determined scient 6cally.
In fact, all important social questions facing us involve (values.
Should we have capital punishment? Should heroin be legalized?
Should we have a guaranteed national incomet should we have socialized rnedicine? The answers we give to these questions de-pend on our values. Since an answer cannot be scienti6cally proven to be nght or wrong, the sociologist's opinion on what shouu be is worth no more than that of anyone else.
Once a goalis determmed, however, the role of the sociologist is to inform the society as to what techniques will be effective or ineffective in attaining it and, perhaps even more importantly, what unexpected consequences a particular course of social action might have. For example, let us consider the problem of urban enme. If society wants to reduce urban enme, some sociologists may suggest that one eincient course of action would be to legalize heroin. Since in some cities like New York City, a high percentage of cnmes are committed by heroin addicts who must steal to support their habit. the legalization of heroin would reduce crime.
This measure however, might also have the undesirable conse-quence of increasing the number of addicts. Which is more impor-tant to society-the reduction of cnme or the limiting of the number of drug addictsi it is the belief of the advocates of the first position (sociologists should act as technicians) that the question of the legalization of
p U
w .
140 Science anc Sectology heroin is a political and net a sociological one. Each member of society can mdividually answer this question and can encourage his or her politicai representatives to act in the way each individual believes is right. Theret' ore. the sociologist's opinion on this ques.
tio is no more valid than that of anyone el>e.
People who believe that the primary aim of the sociologist should be to change society reiect the notion that the sociologist should be merely a technician, or consultant. These people argue that if sociologists are merciy technicians, they will become t1unk.
ies of the ruling class. Only the rich and powerful have enough money to hire sociologists, and these patrons have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It is the moral obligation of sociolo-gists to criticize and try to change society. Although it in true that how society should be orcanized cannot be scientifically deter.
mined. this is all the more reason why sociologists must take an active political role. They must become critics of the establishment and champions of the underdog.
~
As is typicalin most ideologica debates, the two positions that I have described are not as contradictory as they appear. And they actually have little effect on how sociologists go about their work.
I.et us consider the question of whether sociologists should be value. free. With few exceptions, most social researchers, whether they be radical, conservative, or totally apolitical, try to convince their readers that their research has been obiettive. Even sociolo.
gists with very radical views realize that few people will take their work seriously if it is obviously biased and subjective. If sociolo.
gists of any political persuasion want their colleagues to consider their studies and conclusions, they must convince them that the work was carried out obl ectively, even if its purpose was not strictly analytical. Thus, in practice, most sociologists who may argue that it is impossible to be value-free still continue with their studies, while workingin as objective a manner as they can. There .
are, of course, some exceptiuns, but for the most part, they are ignored by other sociologists and nonsociologists alike. .
it is important to understand that, although it is probably true that it is impossible to be completely objective and suppress per.
sonal values, the extent to which objectivity is attained varies.
Some studies will have been more affected by the researchers
- values and biases than others Since sociological research, once it
[
g
, ,, l
. l l
Science and Soedogy 141 is published, becomes public knowledge, it would be difficult for l biases to go undetected. Research is subject to criticism and repli-cation. Sxiologists who would publish work that is clearly biased and could not be replicated by other researchers would lose credi-bility and have their work ignored.
The one area in which values enter sociological work in a potentially dangerous manner is in choice of topics. Conservatives may be more likely to choose to do research on areas of social activity in which the society is functioning well and ignore areas in which there are significant problems. Radicals may do the oppo-site. But since sociologists have tvidely diffenng personal values, this does not turn out to be a serious problem. Whereas the value biases of some sociologists may cause them to ignore a particular subject, the value biases of other sociologists direct them to the very topic ignored by their colleagues.
On the question of whether sociologists should be technicians or entics,it is reasonable to state that there is no need to have all sociologists be one type or the other. Here, as in otherjreas of I human endeavor, division of labor solves the problemLThere is probably a need for sociologists as technicians and critics, and indeed there are many sociologists who are one type or the other j or both]
SUMMARY
According to the traditional view of science < what differennates science from other forms of knowledge is the com-mitment by scientists to test the validity of their ideas by the use of empirical observations. Theories that are not supported by em-pincal data are supposed to be rejected. Using this empirical method scientists will come increasingly closer to learning the "t ru t h."
Research by historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science ha s shown that in actual operation science is not as rational and as cumulative as the traditional view described it. Thomas Kuhn has shown that scientists frequently icnore empirical evi-dence that contradicts their theory and that new theories are not invanably better than the ones they replace.
Studies investigating the relationship between theor/ and em-pirical research in sociology lend support to Kuhn's views. Most s.xiolegists who use theory in their own work do not attempt to i
O
=
O . . m 9'
142 sconce and s%
empirically test its validity. Instead, theory is generally used to legitimate the author's interpretations, suggest problems, and in- ,
terpret data.
Although sociology is a science in the sense that sociologists attempt to support their hypotheses with empirical evidence. it is widely believed that the social sciences are less theoretically de-
~' veloped and have less censensus than the natural sciences. My research indicates that, if we censider new knowledge as it is produced, there is actually as much consensus in the social sciences as in the natural sciences.
r l
4 a
r 1
L d
. - - . , . . - , - . . - , . . - - < - , ,.,..-.-,.--...----.,,,..-..n -,.m-,=-., . . ~ , - - - . - . , - - - , y . , 7.._ - ---._- -- , ,- --- --, - -- --
1 5 --
E a N g9 . - _ - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .
=w p
, m - - _-----
mnt h -- - _ ,- - w c;w d g_
. _ _ - A 1 ?
- ',E E =
$ 5 T--
=
~
~
r l
F _
M E-r W
? :
1.
J 2!~
N The Socio4og, cal Researen Protect 61 -
} .
f have 50 percent Catholics.' Some samples show 58 percent Catho- L . _s - 1 ';
lics and some show 42 percent Catholics. In a sample of only 300 fjt@.>:4.tr/6;.7..'4.b.jgn-y.c.- (
t cases, then, it is quite possible to get considerable discrepancy j from the population proportion. However, even with samples .#m.f c
M.
n e..: t=' P:e1y;.
- n it7.W. cW ,
"; f. :Pl.'.4 .7
~
j of this relatively small size, we notice that most of the samples Q.j%:9l.j-% ,.' -lJ '.;lz 2 are concentrated within 3 percentage pomts of the population E
g proportion. (pd-di.h p_.Q:;%,Cv;A f' 4..(.
- ,[j -
g These three bar graphs show that the larger a random sample, gp 3 the less the chance that the sample results will citfier greatly from -
. -t .*: CN s i
the real population. Thus,in studies that requue highly accurate N'[g. ,g$hk%\{2 NT +?sg.g $4.j .kh 9(O,y;A,- descuption, such as pol 2tical polls that will be used to predict who l: I will win an election,it is tmportant to have large random samples. yp*.4.Jg.D.tg@V T.or .i.J.l.$ R On the other hand,in studies aimed at showmg the relationships W n 8 y .D. W OA:? '%,y: Di k w r ;.:.. :: . , , . , 7m i. 5 among vanables,it is possible to use smaller samples because the %:yg.[ kk v.c.4 .)$.f;;.G!1: ?
- primary purpose is to dascover the relationship among vanables, W P'o N,t & IV . "6{.MQ.yM %.fM@ -
y not the population proportion. 4
- it should be remembered that the precision of a random sample hhhdh
- g"f7.$4flqtff
- u. Qj.:1.BW -d g is a result of its size and net the proportic,n of the population @ %ysNi'hh@.$Q71'i.;I$.d .
represented by the umple. Thus,1.000 will be iust about as accu-rate a sample of a population of 10,000 000 as it will be of a ' O Tf A*F $
'5
[ population of 10.000 If we are doing a political poll m a county k:hNg%y-26%.yggc. gep.p }Q h of 200.000 people, we will need just as large a sample as we would i__ - - - - i [-b_ _- f ; { in a country of 200,000.000 people. This would not be true, how- lJ = miser ] g ever, if the variance in the population of the small county were :* " ~ k
~
g.
}.f cg "g- . b -
j- + considerably lower than that of thelarge country Smce w e usually na -- -, j $ do not know the vanance pnor to domg the study. we must as-sume that it may be large and use a large sample N '.[M.[f ,
~
F Systematic Sample One of the preblems m taimg social sur-veys is making sure we get a representanve sample ci the people we want to study We must pick our sample m such a way that .
-j ~l,D every member of the population has an equal chance to fall into
.f,.
the sample For exan.ple. if we wanted to study the students m a : s3 .- v.
; particular school, what would be wrong with mteruewing every -j ;H l ,~ de } {
d il c[W[0 .'s 2 , tenth student to enter the library? This would not be a random ? ' ..; : 3 x Jh b. .
.%%- an g(QQ I- sample because not all students use the library. and the students (
2 f I'g ' who do not use it would have no chance to be represented We M M S 6 1
- ,- u s - ,,- .. . ., ~ ,, m so s
p , tw tent Lthoucs ~ - }ff Y lY. ' A .Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ch s- ' ' ) . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
/~g . . _
x..(,. 9
-p. . - . v.:q (.. vv.
. . s t -
. .s .
. g ;;.:.,.
Q,j,9}g:. ;7e- s ; 9%sy c-
%y a . -
t - ..
.. .(<e.
- k. <: s,.
[-i x. r - .;[. i .-. . .' ..' .g., t. ' N '.h, , 62 The Sociok9ed Reseeren Protect
..v....e _:..-: - w:;. . :. - .,...,,7,.
. ;.a.
u
. m. :
q; 77.g.:..-c,., g : 7.i.?.. W l ' could, however, get a list of all the students and pick every tenth ,l. 'l 1. 2;. . . . S . =.? : 14 student on the list. This kind of s.mple is called a systemate sample.
.. . ! ;y.. '...; /N. i
;' .- /l -;;i, L ; : .. : .c.J }.: :
, .. If we intemewed all the stuents chosen m this way, our results could be generalized to all the students at the school.
--?,. . .' .J ,. : : .' ']
.: a. .
., 3 , { 4.. V What if 30 percent of the students chosen to be interviewed f (
...t. could not be found or retused to be interviewed? We would never
.y. / ,,"~.,.1, 4
,7 / J.(.[ know if the students we were able to interview were different
-. jdj.
- h. I -
.[~ f, ...e ;; . f.;, ~ $ ;' ' : 5Q-.
from the students we could not interview. This is a very senous problem in usmg mail questionnaires or telephone surveys Re- '~).M i f.E[fk.[.k.7f.67. .' ' 4 - )Oy. ',. M. .A ;53... y.j searchers who use these techniques rarelv complete interv ews
.. ; with more than N percent of their sample They never really know if the peopie who did not return the questionnaire or refused to $@.1@, ... .W 6 %. pgdgrMN[p s . . . . .
ppp) d be meerv ewed were different from those who did. We may check the accuracy of samples by companng charac- [.j-c' , ..:iy h i.. d l d. :. W =. ':g%,d.3 M J tenstics of the sample with known charactenstics of the popula-
.w mn ."- e:;
. -. 4
....v tion For example, if we were usmg a m.ul questionnaire to study l
- n. 9:.; .~. . p%. -
O. .. .y . ,. &, . { e. drug use by students at the school, we might first compare the
. . .- < 8.;, cf.'<?.Y.2.? -%
Q.. u
'J; \.h. ,f-y "N.o5 F oportion of upperclassmen m our sample with the proportien in
.v, ph>i . . ,
. J.' , <f . * . N. y" ;-
- the school However, even if the sample perfectly matched the L .r.1.ny..
i g .-cc.
- 4U.i'..
j x . :5
*.S '. f V..f% q population on known charactenstics. it would still be possible that . s ', y.dic J 7. i.X people who retumed the questionnaire ddfered in important ways -[. ;1[.ij;l y hl. ' ?t.:;:p[hh,p .
from those who did not. For example. it would be possible that Ul,.15 . Q. . %.N.?sff 3',Mg heavy drug users would be less hLely to return the questionnaire 5:.q7p
.y g 4 Tf.Q. because they might fear that m doing so they might te disclosmg hr.l.M;.;d . .-
kgf1.g'[ y-[fy f s;d .;j ,-Q..Qy.g: ( their identity and be sub!ect to repercussions. It is important, therefore. to be warv of acceptmg generahzations made from non- [,".jd-n...; .;y., n ;.,:W.
. 3..y'
- .797 . g w ;.;'.y., p.
$ /.d.9f.f "}gg[9 f.^ .. ,7 random samples and appbed to populations.
o , ~r *'. 7
.ia. f .'
.$, f' -~ . * 'l =
C M % gpj,; SAMPLING METHODS FOR POLITICAL POLLS In conductmg b.[iIl '.{i y$.d.U i A .M.M [#;,yp. Cs[Q. Nh,h, . .. E.N l' M @;pg?yg the pohtical poll on the Maryland gubernatonal election, I faced a dif6 cult samphng problem Because face-to-face interviews take too long and cost too much,I was unable to employ this technique. J.QJ;'a p;.$y p,$ryg%-f g. g g.g.$ Y A .7;<i..o h W . Ge_ 'j;f. t.S Q; N ( Mail surveys take too long to get the responses back, and the ,__ ,- .. proportion of people receivmg questionnatres who return them is mmWReumJ g,g-8?neraHy too smau to be qed for a survey requinng a high degree 9_. 2 .ct, ?a I:.W;e= d-- *% ot accuracy, such as a positical poll. Theretore. the survey was conducted by telephone Who should be called' One way to select the sample would be to choose a systematic sampie et residentul telephone numbers
=
l _ g-.,-w .
.M--M#
. _ _ . . .n1 -w--
=.-~ M}}