2 Social Research
Sean Ashley and Christina Lennox
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, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.
Consider a study on the relationship between COVID-19 and crime rates published in Crime Science, a scholarly journal. Researchers hypothesized that COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions would lead to a drop both in street crimes and home burglaries. Researchers collected the data Swedish police used to track and project future crimes. They found that assaults, pickpocketing and burglary had decreased significantly (Gerell, Kardell, and Kindgren, 2020). In this way, researchers used empirical evidence and statistical analysis to answer the question how did COVID-19 restrictions impact crime rates. In this chapter, we will explore the approaches and methods sociologists use to conduct studies like this one.
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 behaviour.
However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behaviour. Sociologists are interested in discovering the underlying social forces at work in our daily lives. These forces are responsible for the patterns of behaviour we observe in the social world. Sociology, like other social sciences, is interested in these generative structures and attempts to capture them in their social theories, just as a physicist attempts to capture the generative principles of the physical world in their scientific theories.
Of course, people are different from atoms. We reflect on our action and when presented with a model could potentially change our behaviour based on that knowledge. This is what makes social science different from the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. Nevertheless, as you may well have experienced yourself, changing our behaviour even when we reflect is difficult. Social behaviour and its generative structures are incredibly durable (Tilly, 1999).
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.
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. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. Scholarship is a conversation you have with others. Citing your sources shows which ideas are yours and which points belong to others. It’s a they say, I say form of thinking (Graff and Birkenstein, 2014).
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)?
| Hypothesis | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable |
|---|---|---|
| The greater the availability of affordable housing, the lower the homeless rate. | Affordable Housing | Homeless Rate |
| The greater the availability of math tutoring, the higher the math grades. | Math Tutoring | Math Grades |
| The greater the police patrol presence, the safer the neighbourhood. | Police Patrol Presence | Safer Neighbourhood |
| The greater the factory lighting, the higher the productivity. | Factory Lighting | Productivity |
| The greater the amount of media coverage, the higher the public awareness. | Observation | Public Awareness |
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. Think about reliability in terms of cooking. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same result is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool.
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.
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.
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 Research
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, interpretive research 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.
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.
Research Methods
Surveys
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.
Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs or entertainment, rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge.
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 political candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.
During the pandemic, Bian et al. (2020) surveyed over 3,000 users of the Chinese social network WeChat to find out how people were coping with social isolation. They found that people with intense and extensive social connections online–or what they termed one’s virus-combat social capital–did better in terms of quality of life than those who had less intense or extensive networks.
A survey targets a specific population, people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes or international students. 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.
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.
Interviews
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 style 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 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.
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, mall, or a beach resort. The sociologist Erik Cohen, for example, has spent decades studying the top tourist sites of Thailand (Cohen, 1982). Now that is a well-chosen research site!
Participant Observation and Ethnography
Some sociologists take part in the very activities that they wish to study. This is known as participant observation, because it involves both participating and observing at the same time. Annie Marion Maclean was an early practitioner of this method. In the early 1900s, Maclean traveled with other workers to Oregon, USA, to pick hops, a plant that is used in making beer. She worked with these labourers picking hops herself, all the while observing and studying their activities (Maclean, 1909).
Participant research is a special form of field research, one that could be done for any length of time. When a research immerses themselves in a setting for an extended period in order to capture all the details they can about the groups social life, we call what they are doing ethnography.
An ethnographic study might observe, for example, gang life in Chicago (Venkatesh, 2008), political transition in previously socialist countries (Burawoy and Verderi, 1999), or a Buddhist monastery in Thailand (Ashley, 2013). The Canadian sociologist Amie Maclean (2016), for example, spent months travelling the highways of British Columbia interviewing long-haul truckers. She wasn’t sure in advance of what she would find, but her research demonstrated how South Asian truckers were frequently subjected to racism do to the normatively white, masculine culture that prevailed in the industry.
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. It takes seriously the ways our lives are mediated by texts and bureaucratic institutions. Take for example the problem of familial violence. If a woman wanted to activate a response from the police or the courts, a set of standard legal procedures must be followed, a case file must be opened, legally actionable evidence must be established, forms filled out. Institutional paperwork translates the specific details of locally lived experience into a standardized format that enables institutions to apply the institution’s understandings, regulations, and operations in different local contexts.
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 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.
Indigenous Methodology
While sociology is a global field, many of our assumptions about how we should conduct research are grounded in European philosophies and traditions. This is not to say that other ways of engaging in research did and do not exist—rather the impact of colonialism and Eurocentric ways of knowing suggest that Indigenous voices have historically been devalued. Indigenous research methods are both a way of returning to a collective history and bringing Indigenous knowledge to the present. Although the term commonly used to describe this area is Indigenous Research methods, the area is by no means a homogenous field in both philosophy and practice. As is true that there are many distinct Indigenous cultures globally, there are also distinct Indigenous research methods. Indigenous research methods follow similar theoretical and practical roots as the other methods described in this chapter. As each method is unique and valid to its creators, Indigenous research methods reflect this.
As you will see in the subsequent paragraphs, Indigenous research methods value context and relationship. It would be naive for me as your author to not include my own context. At the time of writing this I am a fourth-year psychology honours student with maternal roots in the Red River (Métis) and paternal roots in western Europe. Professionally, my research interests are regarding Indigenous research methods, relational accountability, Indigenous statistics, and Métis ways of teaching within post-secondary institutions. My experience is largely rooted in my own ancestors and that of the Coast Salish community I have grown up in. If we were in circle, I would ask you to introduce yourself and your relations.
The research stories you are about to hear are primarily those from Turtle Island (term used by some Indigenous people for what is colonially known as North America). There are many other Indigenous research methodologies and methods—as the author I hope you explore those of your own ancestors and relations.
Relational Accountability
One of the more prominent Indigenous research methodologies is relational accountability (Wilson, 2008). This methodology is based in the importance of relationships—for one to understand better someone or something must develop greater relationships with them or it. Relational accountability in general can be described by breaking down the terms “relational” and “accountability.”
According to Wilson (2008), relationality refers to research being based in relationship and context. It is essential to consider the context of who carries the knowledge and what context the knowledge exists within. Wilson explains, “interpretation of the context of knowledge is necessary for that knowledge to become lived, become a part of our collective experience or part of our web of relationships” (Wilson, 2008, p. 103).
Relational accountability means being accountable to all our relations. This includes being responsible both for participants but also communities at large, the environment, the land, homelands, ancestors, lived history. All my relations is a term used by Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island to describe the interconnected relationships of all things (yes all things, i.e. people, environment/land, cosmos, ideas). For research to embody relational accountability, it needs to consider all our relations and how we are showing respect and reciprocity to them. Fiola shares, “In an Indigenous research paradigm, methodology is about relationships. If you want to understand someone or something better, you can increase your understanding of it by developing more relationships with it” (Fiola, 2015, p. 83).
Accountability on behalf of the researcher refers to holding responsibility for participants but also communities at large, the environment, the land, homelands, ancestors, and lived history. Accountability also extends to the participant as they are held accountable to their knowledge. It is uncommon for research employing relational accountability to use anonymous participants. Participants are commonly known to the researcher or are known to other participants.
Relational accountability guides every stage of research including the initial stages and publication. This approach positions researchers as intermediaries between the participants or community and the topic. Researchers are not authors, nor do they take ownership of the data gathered or outcome. The participants and community have the final say and maintain ownership of the research data and outcomes.
Research Spotlight: Rekindling the Sacred Fire
Fiola (2015) is a Métis-Anishinaabe scholar employing a research framework based in Anishinaabe values, relational accountability, and following culturally appropriate protocol. In Rekindling the Sacred Fire (2015), Fiola aims to explore the intersection of Métis identity and Anishinaabe spirituality using interviews and story. Fiola draws on a blend of Western research methods and Indigenous research methods.
Known participants were selected using quota sampling and snowball sampling from her own relationships. Quota sampling refers to a type of non-probability sampling where participants are selected based on meeting various proportional requirements. Snowball sampling is another form of non-probability sampling where new participants are recruited by existing participants.
Participants were interviewed and their stories collected. Fiola followed “normal” Western protocol including informed consent and receiving a mini report of key findings. She also follows Anishinaabe protocol, including offering asemma (tobacco) and burning mushkodaywushk (women’s sage). With consent, Fiola shared the real names and relationships of all her participants in accordance with relational accountability. Wilson (2008) shares, “However, how can I be held accountable to the relationships I have with these people if I don’t name them? How can they be held accountable to their own teachers if their words and relationships are deprived of names?” (Wilson, 2008, p. 63) .
To analyze the interview data Fiola employed thematic coding, prayerful analysis, intuitive analysis and use of mushkodaywushk (women’s sage). Fiola approached prayerful and intuitive analysis by offering asemma (tobacco), smudging, consulting with spiritual advisors and attending ceremony to uncover the themes in the data.
The primary finding of Fiola’s research is that Anishinaabe identity among Métis interviewed is based in their relationships and not labels. Participants shared that building relationships with community supported them in learning about themselves, their language. and their Indigenous identity. Some participants also felt unwelcome at ceremonies due to tension and being perceived as an “other”.
Fiola’s research can remind us that there are diverse ways of approaching research. This approach requires the reader to consider the context, relationship to and with the topic, community, and self. Fiola’s work extends in Returning to Ceremony (2021) where she continues to explore Métis spirituality.
Considerations
A question that often comes up when discussing Indigenous research methods is when are they appropriate to use and by whom? I will not offer you a simple or clear answer. We first need to act in ways that show respect and reciprocity to Indigenous peoples and their research methods. Settlers and non-Indigenous peoples are not entitled to Indigenous knowledge. It is up to the Indigenous Nation and people themselves as to what and with whom they share their knowledge and research methods with. To begin a respectful relationship to Indigenous research methods one must begin with their own self-reflective work and building meaningful and reciprocal relationship with Indigenous people and scholars.
The specific methods available to Indigenous researchers such offering asemma (tobacco) and burning mushkodaywushk (women’s sage) are to be used by the those within the culture—these are closed practices. However, many are not closed practices (e.g. using real names). I again offer you no clear answer but rather to reflect and listen to knowledge keepers.
As the author I want to remind you to consider the research methods of your own people/relations/ancestors. We are all Indigenous to somewhere—I encourage you to consider how you can honour all your relations in your scholarship.
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 eating pizza every day, 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.
Between 1974 and 1979 an experiment was conducted in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba, in Canada. 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 Universal Basic Income is hotly debated, especially in the wake of the cash distributions many countries made to their citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 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 dropout rates, fewer visits to hospital, fewer accidents and injuries, and fewer mental health issues.
Unobtrusive Methods
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.
One of the advantages of using unobtrusive data like 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.
Content Analysis
A common form of unobtrusive research is content analysis. Content analysis is the systematic analysis of various kinds of text, imagery, sound recordings, and other cultural artifacts from which meaning can be read. Content analysis can include both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. A researcher might study bollywood films, for example, to see how gender roles are represented (Dudrah, 2006).
Ethics
Sociologists conduct studies to shed light on human behaviors. Knowledge is a powerful tool that can be used to achieve positive change. As a result, conducting a sociological study comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. Like all researchers, sociologists must consider their ethical obligation to avoid harming human subjects or groups while conducting research.
Pioneer German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) 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 judgment, during the course of a study and in publishing results (Weber, 1949). Sociologists are obligated to disclose research findings without omitting or distorting significant data.
Is value neutrality possible? Many sociologists believe it is impossible to retain complete objectivity. They caution readers, rather, to understand that sociological studies may contain a certain amount of value bias. This does not discredit the results but allows readers to view them as one form of truth—one fact-based perspective. In fact, Sandra Harding argues that acknowledging your personal values and their effect on your research makes your research more objective, because those who proclaim value neutrality are in fact deluding themselves to their own biases.
Some sociologists attempt to remain uncritical and as objective as possible when studying social institutions. They strive to overcome personal biases, particularly subconscious biases, when collecting and analyzing data. They avoid 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.
The International Sociological Association, or ISA, is a professional organization for sociologists around the globe. The ISA is a great resource for students of sociology as well. The ISA maintains a code of ethics—formal guidelines for conducting sociological research—consisting of principles and ethical standards to be used in the discipline, including that:
- Sociologists should be aware of the fact that their assumptions may have an impact upon society.
- No sociological assumption should be presented as indisputable truth.
- As scientists, sociologists should disclose the methods by which they proceed as well as the general sources of their data.
- The security, anonymity and privacy of research subjects and informants should be respected rigourously, in both quantitative and qualitative research. The sources of personal information obtained by researchers should be kept confidential, unless the informants have asked or agreed to be cited.
- Sociologists who are being given access to records are expected to respect the privacy conditions under which the data were collected. They can, however, make use of data gathered in historical archives, both private and public.
- The consent of research subjects and informants should be obtained in advance. Covert research should be avoided in principle, unless it is the only method by which information can be gathered, and/or when access to the usual sources of information is obstructed by those in power (International Sociological Association, 2021).
Conclusion
In this chapter we considered some of the ways sociologists investigate society in a systematic and rigorous fashion. Underlying the various techniques and methods lie important assumptions about how the nature of the social world and how we as human beings can know things about it. As our understanding of the world grows, as new voices enter the discussion, our ways of knowing will also expand, as is happening today in regards to Indigenous methodologies the world over.
Study Questions
- What is the difference between qualitative research and quantitative research? How might bot be used to approach the same research topic? (I.e., poverty or taste in music).
- Sociologists often use interviews and surveys as methods for collecting data. What are limitations or weaknesses with each of these methods? What might researchers do to ensure that they are collecting quality data?
- Imagine that your school has recently documented a dramatic rise in plagiarism reported by teachers. Your sociology class has been invited to study this issue. What research questions might you ask? What methods might you use to investigate this phenomenon?
References
Ashley, S. (2013). Narrating identity and belonging: Buddhist authenticity and contested ethnic marginalization in the mountains of Northern Thailand. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 28(1), 1–35. DOI: 10.1355/sj28-1a
Bian, Y., X. Miao, X. Lu, X. Ma & X. Guo. (2020). The emergence of a COVID-19 Related Social Capital: The Case of China. International Journal of Sociology, 50(5), 419-433. DOI: 10.1080/00207659.2020.1802141
Burowoy, M. and K. Verdery. (1999). Uncertain transitions: Ethnographies of change in the postsocialist world. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Buchanan, S. (2019). Competition and controlling images as the fuel igniting Beyoncé and Rihanna fandom fights. Transformative Works and Cultures, 29. https://doaj.org/article/557dc6f3b65a4e168f22a243eed914e2
Cohen, E. (1982). Marginal paradises: Bungalow tourism on the islands of Southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 189-228.
Dudrah, R. (2006). Bollywood: Sociology goes to the movies. Sage Publications.
Fiola, C. (2015). Rekindling the sacred fire: Métis ancestry and Anishinaabe spirituality. University of Manitoba Press.
Fiola, C. (2021). Returning to ceremony: Spirituality in Manitoba Métis communities. University of Manitoba Press.
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.
Gerell, M., Kardell, J., & Kindgren, J. (2020, May 2). Minor covid-19 association with crime in Sweden, a ten week follow up. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/w7gka
Graff, G. and C. Birkenstein. (2014). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing, 3rd edition. W. W. Norton & Co.
Harding, S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press.
International Sociological Association. (2021). Code of Ethics. https://www.isa-sociology.org/en/about-isa/code-of-ethics
Maclean, A. (1909). With the hop pickers of Oregon. American Journal of Sociology, 15(1), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1086/211756
Maclean, A. (2016). “Four guys and a hole in the floor”: Racial politics of mobility and excretion among BC-based long haul truckers. Transfers: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies, 6(1), 45-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2016.060105
Merton, R. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Smith, D. (1990). Textually mediated social organization. In Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling (pp. 209–234). London: Routledge.
Tilly, C. (1999). Durable inequality. University of California Press.
Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang leader for a day. Penguin Press.
Weber, M. (1949). Methodology of the social sciences. Free Press.
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.
Specific explanations of abstract concepts that a researcher plans to study.
A study’s participants being randomly selected to serve as a representation of a larger population.
Data collected in numerical form that can be counted and analyzed using statistics.
A term used by some Indigenous people for what is colonially known as North America.
Refers to research being based in relationship and context.
A term used by Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island to describe the interconnected relationships of all things.
Refers to holding responsibility for participants but also communities at large, the environment, the land, homelands, ancestors, and lived history.
refers to a type of non-probability sampling where participants are selected based on meeting various proportional requirements
A form of non-probability sampling where new participants are recruited by existing participants.
A practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgment during the course of a study and in publishing results.