chapter
stringlengths 1.97k
1.53M
| path
stringlengths 47
241
|
|---|---|
Now that you’ve figured out what to study, you need to figure out how to study it. Your library research can help in this regard. Reading published studies is a great way to familiarize yourself with the various components of a research project. It will also bring to your attention some of the major considerations to keep in mind when designing a research project. We’ll say more about reviewing the literature near the end of this chapter, but we’ll begin with a focus on research design. We’ll discuss the decisions you need to make about the goals of your research, the major components of a research project, along with a few additional aspects of designing research.
05: Research Design
Learning Objectives
• Understand and describe the differences among exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory research.
• Define and provide an example of idiographic research.
• Define and provide an example of nomothetic research.
• Identify circumstances under which research would be defined as applied and compare those to circumstances under which research would be defined as basic.
A recent news story about college students’ addictions to electronic gadgets (Lisk, 2011)Lisk, J. (2011). Addiction to our electronic gadgets. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/hea...tion.cnn?iref=allsearchdescribes findings from some current research by Professor Susan Moeller and colleagues from the University of Maryland (http://withoutmedia.wordpress.com). The story raises a number of interesting questions. Just what sorts of gadgets are students addicted to? How do these addictions work? Why do they exist, and who is most likely to experience them?
Sociological research is great for answering just these sorts of questions. But in order to answer our questions well, we must take care in designing our research projects. In this chapter, we’ll consider what aspects of a research project should be considered at the beginning, including specifying the goals of the research, the components that are common across most research projects, and a few other considerations.
One of the first things to think about when designing a research project is what you hope to accomplish, in very general terms, by conducting the research. What do you hope to be able to say about your topic? Do you hope to gain a deep understanding of whatever phenomenon it is that you’re studying, or would you rather have a broad, but perhaps less deep, understanding? Do you want your research to be used by policymakers or others to shape social life, or is this project more about exploring your curiosities? Your answers to each of these questions will shape your research design.
Exploration, Description, Explanation
You’ll need to decide in the beginning phases whether your research will be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory. Each has a different purpose, so how you design your research project will be determined in part by this decision.
Researchers conducting exploratory research are typically at the early stages of examining their topics. These sorts of projects are usually conducted when a researcher wants to test the feasibility of conducting a more extensive study; he or she wants to figure out the lay of the land, with respect to the particular topic. Perhaps very little prior research has been conducted on this subject. If this is the case, a researcher may wish to do some exploratory work to learn what method to use in collecting data, how best to approach research subjects, or even what sorts of questions are reasonable to ask. A researcher wanting to simply satisfy his or her own curiosity about a topic could also conduct exploratory research. In the case of the study of college students’ addictions to their electronic gadgets, a researcher conducting exploratory research on this topic may simply wish to learn more about students’ use of these gadgets. Because these addictions seem to be a relatively new phenomenon, an exploratory study of the topic might make sense as an initial first step toward understanding it.
In my research on child-free adults, I was unsure what the results might be when first embarking on the study. There was very little empirical research on the topic, so the initial goal of the research was simply to get a better grasp of what child-free people’s lives are like and how their decision to be child free shapes their relationships and everyday experiences. Conducting exploratory research on the topic was a necessary first step, both to satisfy my curiosity about the subject and to better understand the phenomenon and the research participants in order to design a larger, subsequent study.
Sometimes the goal of research is to describe or define a particular phenomenon. In this case, descriptive research would be an appropriate strategy. A descriptive study of college students’ addictions to their electronic gadgets, for example, might aim to describe patterns in how use of gadgets varies by gender or college major or which sorts of gadgets students tend to use most regularly.
Researchers at the Princeton Review conduct descriptive research each year when they set out to provide students and their parents with information about colleges and universities around the United States (http://www.princetonreview.com). They describe the social life at a school, the cost of admission, and student-to-faculty ratios (to name just a few of the categories reported). Although students and parents may be able to obtain much of this information on their own, having access to the data gathered by a team of researchers is much more convenient and less time consuming.
Market researchers also rely on descriptive research to tell them what consumers think of their products. In fact, descriptive research has many useful applications, and you probably rely on findings from descriptive research without even being aware that that is what you are doing.
Finally, sociological researchers often aim to explain why particular phenomena work in the way that they do. Research that answers “why” questions is referred to as explanatory research. In this case, the researcher is trying to identify the causes and effects of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying. An explanatory study of college students’ addictions to their electronic gadgets might aim to understand why students become addicted. Does it have anything to do with their family histories? With their other extracurricular hobbies and activities? With whom they spend their time? An explanatory study could answer these kinds of questions.
There are numerous examples of explanatory social scientific investigations. For example, in a recent study, Dominique Simons and Sandy Wurtele (2010)Simons, D. A., & Wurtele, S. K. (2010). Relationships between parents’ use of corporal punishment and their children’s endorsement of spanking and hitting other children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 639–646. sought to discover whether receiving corporal punishment from parents led children to turn to violence in solving their interpersonal conflicts with other children. In their study of 102 families with children between the ages of 3 and 7, the researchers found that experiencing frequent spanking did, in fact, result in children being more likely to accept aggressive problem-solving techniques. Another example of explanatory research can be seen in Robert Faris and Diane Felmlee’s research (2011; American Sociological Association, 2011)Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, 48–73; the American Sociological Association wrote a press release summarizing findings from the study. You can read it at asanet.org/press/Press_Releas...ment_Peers.cfm. The study has also been covered by several media outlets: Pappas, S. (2011). Popularity increases aggression in kids, study finds. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/11737-pop...udy-finds.html on the connections between popularity and bullying. They found, from their study of 8th, 9th, and 10th graders in 19 North Carolina schools, that as adolescents’ popularity increases, so, too, does their aggression.This pattern was found until adolescents reached the top 2% in the popularity ranks. After that, aggression declines.
Idiographic or Nomothetic?
Once you decide whether you will conduct exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory research, you will need to determine whether you want your research to be idiographic or nomothetic. A decision to conduct idiographic research means that you will attempt to explain or describe your phenomenon exhaustively. While you might have to sacrifice some breadth of understanding if you opt for an idiographic explanation, you will gain a much deeper, richer understanding of whatever phenomenon or group you are studying than you would if you were to pursue nomothetic research. A decision to conduct nomothetic research, on the other hand, means that you will aim to provide a more general, sweeping explanation or description of your topic. In this case, you sacrifice depth of understanding in favor of breadth of understanding.
Let’s look at some specific examples. As a graduate student, I conducted an in-depth study of breast cancer activism (Blackstone, 2003).Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. To do so, I joined an organization of local activists and participated in just about every aspect of the organization over a period of about 18 months. Perhaps it goes without saying, but over the course of a year and a half of participant observation, I learned quite a bit about this organization and its members. In other words, the study revealed the particular idiosyncrasies of the group, but it did not reveal much about the inner workings of other breast cancer activist organizations. Armed with an in-depth understanding about this single group, the study made a contribution to knowledge about how activists operate. For one thing, the organization I observed happened to be one of the largest and most well known of its type at the time, and many other organizations in the movement looked to this organization for ideas about how to operate. Understanding how this model organization worked was important for future activist efforts in a variety of organizations. Further, the study revealed far more intimate details of the inner workings of an activist organization than had it, say, instead been a survey of the top 50 breast cancer organizations in the United States (though that would have been an interesting study as well).
My collaborative research on workplace sexual harassment (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004),Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69, 64–92. on the other hand, aims to provide more sweeping descriptions and explanations. For this nomothetic research project, we mailed surveys to a large sample of young workers who look very much like their peers in terms of their jobs, social class background, gender, and other categories. Because of these similarities, we have been able to speak generally about what young workers’ experiences with sexual harassment are like. In an idiographic study of the same topic, the research team might follow a few workers around every day for a long period of time or conduct a series of very detailed, and lengthy, interviews with 10 or 15 workers.
Applied or Basic?
Finally, you will need to decide what sort of contribution you hope to make with your research. Do you want others to be able to use your research to shape social life? If so, you may wish to conduct a study that policymakers could use to change or create a specific policy. Perhaps, on the other hand, you wish to conduct a study that will contribute to sociological theories or knowledge without having a specific applied use in mind. In the example of the news story on students’ addictions to technological gadgets, an applied study of this topic might aim to understand how to treat such addictions. A basic study of the same topic, on the other hand, might examine existing theories of addiction and consider how this new type of addiction does or does not apply; perhaps your study could suggest ways that such theories may be tweaked to encompass technological addictions.
In Chapter 1, we learned about both applied and basic research. When designing your research project, think about where you envision your work fitting in on the applied–basic continuum. Recognize, however, that even basic research may ultimately be used for some applied purpose. Similarly, your applied research might not turn out to be applicable to the particular real-world social problem you were trying to solve, but it might better our theoretical understanding of some phenomenon. In other words, deciding now whether your research will be basic or applied doesn’t mean that will be its sole purpose forever. Basic research may ultimately be applied, and applied research can certainly contribute to general knowledge. Nevertheless, it is important to think in advance about what contribution(s) you hope to make with your research.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Exploratory research is usually conducted when a researcher has just begun an investigation and wishes to understand her or his topic generally.
• Descriptive research is research that aims to describe or define the topic at hand.
• Explanatory research is research that aims to explain why particular phenomena work in the way that they do.
• Idiographic investigations are exhaustive; nomothetic investigations are more general.
• While researchers may start out having some idea about whether they aim to conduct applied or basic research, it is also important to keep in mind that applied research may contribute to basic understandings and that basic research may turn out to have some useful application.
EXERCISES
1. Describe a scenario in which exploratory research might be the best approach. Similarly, describe a scenario in which descriptive and then explanatory research would be the preferred approach.
2. Which are you more drawn to personally, applied or basic research? Why? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/05%3A_Research_Design/5.01%3A_Goals_of_the_Research_Project.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Describe the role of causality in quantitative research as compared to qualitative research.
• Identify, define, and describe each of the three main criteria for causality.
• Describe the difference between and provide examples of independent and dependent variables.
• Define units of analysis and units of observation, and describe the two common errors people make when they confuse the two.
• Define hypothesis, be able to state a clear hypothesis, and discuss the respective roles of quantitative and qualitative research when it comes to hypotheses.
In Chapter 1, we discussed the importance of understanding the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Because this distinction is relevant to how researchers design their projects, we’ll revisit it here.
Causality
When designing a research project, how issues of causality are attended to will in part be determined by whether the researcher plans to collect qualitative or quantitative data. Causality refers to the idea that one event, behavior, or belief will result in the occurrence of another, subsequent event, behavior, or belief. In other words, it is about cause and effect.
In a qualitative study, it is likely that you will aim to acquire an idiographic understanding of the phenomenon that you are investigating. Using our example of students’ addictions to electronic gadgets, a qualitative researcher might aim to understand the multitude of reasons that two roommates exhibit addictive tendencies when it comes to their various electronic devices. The researcher might spend time in the dorm room with them, watching how they use their devices, follow them to class and watch them there, observe them at the cafeteria, and perhaps even observe them during their free time. At the end of this very intensive, and probably exhausting, set of observations, the researcher should be able to identify some of the specific causes of each student’s addiction. Perhaps one of the two roommates is majoring in media studies, and all her classes require her to have familiarity with and to regularly use a variety of electronic gadgets. Perhaps the other roommate has friends or family who live overseas, and she relies on a variety of electronic devices to communicate with them. Perhaps both students have a special interest in playing and listening to music, and their electronic gadgets help facilitate this hobby. Whatever the case, in a qualitative study that seeks idiographic understanding, a researcher would be looking to understand the plethora of reasons (or causes) that account for the behavior he or she is investigating.
In a quantitative study, on the other hand, a researcher is more likely to aim for a nomothetic understanding of the phenomenon that he or she is investigating. In this case, the researcher may be unable to identify the specific idiosyncrasies of individual people’s particular addictions. However, by analyzing data from a much larger and more representative group of students, the researcher will be able to identify the most likely, and more general, factors that account for students’ addictions to electronic gadgets. The researcher might choose to collect survey data from a wide swath of college students from around the country. He might find that students who report addictive tendencies when it comes to their gadgets also tend to be people who can identity which of Steven Seagal’s movies he directed, are more likely to be men, and tend to engage in rude or disrespectful behaviors more often than nonaddicted students. It is possible, then, that these associations can be said to have some causal relationship to electronic gadget addiction. However, items that seem to be related are not necessarily causal. To be considered causally related in a nomothetic study, such as the survey research in this example, there are a few criteria that must be met.
The main criteria for causality have to do with plausibility, temporality, and spuriousness. Plausibility means that in order to make the claim that one event, behavior, or belief causes another, the claim has to make sense. For example, if we attend a series of lectures during which a student’s incessant midclass texting or web surfing gets in the way of our ability to focus on the lecture, we might begin to wonder whether people who have a propensity to be rude are more likely to have a propensity to be addicted to their electronic gadgets (and therefore use them during class). However, the fact that there might be a relationship between general rudeness and gadget addiction does not mean that a student’s rudeness could cause him to be addicted to his gadgets. In other words, just because there might be some correlation between two variables does not mean that a causal relationship between the two is really plausible.
The criterion of temporality means that whatever cause you identify must precede its effect in time. As noted earlier, a survey researcher examining the causes of students’ electronic gadget addictions might find that more men than women exhibit addictive tendencies when it comes to their electronic gadgets. Thus the researcher has found a correlation between gender and addiction. So does this mean that a person’s gadget addiction determines his or her gender? Probably not, not only because this doesn’t make any sense but also because a person’s gender identity is most typically formed long before he or she is likely to own any electronic gadgets. Thus gender precedes electronic gadget ownership (and subsequent addiction) in time.
Finally, a spurious relationship is one in which an association between two variables appears to be causal but can in fact be explained by some third variable. In the example of a survey assessing students’ addictions to electronic gadgets, the researcher might have found that those who can identify which of Steven Seagal’s films the actor himself directed also exhibit addiction to their electronic gadgets.In case you’re curious, a visit to the Internet Movie Database will tell you that Seagal directed just one of his films, 1994’s On Deadly Ground: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000219. This relationship is exemplified in Figure 5.5.
So does knowledge about Seagal’s directorial prowess cause gadget addiction? Probably not. A more likely explanation is that being a man makes a person both more likely to know about Seagal’s films and more likely to be addicted to electronic gadgets. In other words, there is a third variable that explains the relationship between Seagal movie knowledge and electronic gadget addiction. This relationship is exemplified in Figure 5.6.
Let’s consider a few additional, real-world examples of spuriousness. Did you know, for example, that high rates of ice cream sales have been shown to cause drowning? Of course that’s not really true, but there is a positive relationship between the two. In this case, the third variable that causes both high ice cream sales and increased deaths by drowning is time of year, as the summer season sees increases in both (Babbie, 2010).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Here’s another good one: it is true that as the salaries of Presbyterian ministers in Massachusetts rise, so, too, does the price of rum in Havana, Cuba. Well, duh, you might be saying to yourself. Everyone knows how much ministers in Massachusetts love their rum, right? Not so fast. Both salaries and rum prices have increased, true, but so has the price of just about everything else (Huff & Geis, 1993).Huff, D., & Geis, I. (1993). How to lie with statistics. New York, NY: Norton. Finally, research shows that the more firefighters present at a fire, the more damage is done at the scene. What this statement leaves out, of course, is that as the size of a fire increases so, too, does the amount of damage caused as does the number of firefighters called on to help (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerro, 2011).Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerro, A. (2011). Social statistics for a diverse society (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. In each of these examples, it is the presence of a third variable that explains the apparent relationship between the two original variables.
In sum, the following criteria must be met in order for a correlation to be considered causal:
1. The relationship must be plausible.
2. The cause must precede the effect in time.
3. The relationship must be nonspurious.
What we’ve been talking about here is relationships between variables. When one variable causes another, we have what researchers call independent and dependent variables. In the example where gender was found to be causally linked to electronic gadget addiction, gender would be the independent variable and electronic gadget addiction would be the dependent variable. An independent variable is one that causes another. A dependent variable is one that is caused by another. Dependent variables depend on independent variables.
Relationship strength is another important factor to take into consideration when attempting to make causal claims if your research approach is nomothetic. I’m not talking strength of your friendships or marriage (though of course that sort of strength might affect your likelihood to keep your friends or stay married). In this context, relationship strength refers to statistical significance. The more statistically significant a relationship between two variables is shown to be, the greater confidence we can have in the strength of that relationship. We’ll discuss statistical significance in greater detail in Chapter 7. For now, keep in mind that for a relationship to be considered causal, it cannot exist simply because of the chance selection of participants in a study.
Some research methods, such as those used in qualitative and idiographic research, are not conducive to making predictions about when events or behaviors will occur. In these cases, what we are instead able to do is gain some understanding of the circumstances under which those causal relationships occur: to understand the how of causality. Qualitative research sometimes relies on quantitative work to point toward a relationship that may be interesting to investigate further. For example, if a quantitative researcher learns that men are statistically more likely than women to become addicted to their electronic gadgets, a qualitative researcher may decide to conduct some in-depth interviews and observations of men and women to learn more about how the different contexts and circumstances of men’s and women’s lives might shape their respective chances of becoming addicted. In other words, the qualitative researcher works to understand the contexts in which various causes and effects occur.
Units of Analysis and Units of Observation
Another point to consider when designing a research project, and which might differ slightly in qualitative and quantitative studies, has to do with units of analysis and units of observation. These two items concern what you, the researcher, actually observe in the course of your data collection and what you hope to be able to say about those observations. A unit of analysis is the entity that you wish to be able to say something about at the end of your study, probably what you’d consider to be the main focus of your study. A unit of observation is the item (or items) that you actually observe, measure, or collect in the course of trying to learn something about your unit of analysis. In a given study, the unit of observation might be the same as the unit of analysis, but that is not always the case. Further, units of analysis are not required to be the same as units of observation. What is required, however, is for researchers to be clear about how they define their units of analysis and observation, both to themselves and to their audiences.
More specifically, your unit of analysis will be determined by your research question. Your unit of observation, on the other hand, is determined largely by the method of data collection that you use to answer that research question. We’ll take a closer look at methods of data collection in Chapter 8 through Chapter 12. For now, let’s go back to the example we’ve been discussing over the course of this chapter, students’ addictions to electronic gadgets. We’ll consider first how different kinds of research questions about this topic will yield different units of analysis. Then we’ll think about how those questions might be answered and with what kinds of data. This leads us to a variety of units of observation.
If we were to ask, “Which students are most likely to be addicted to their electronic gadgets?” our unit of analysis would be the individual. We might mail a survey to students on campus, and our aim would be to classify individuals according to their membership in certain social classes in order to see how membership in those classes correlated with gadget addiction. For example, we might find that majors in new media, men, and students with high socioeconomic status are all more likely than other students to become addicted to their electronic gadgets. Another possibility would be to ask, “How do students’ gadget addictions differ, and how are they similar?” In this case, we could conduct observations of addicted students and record when, where, why, and how they use their gadgets. In both cases, one using a survey and the other using observations, data are collected from individual students. Thus the unit of observation in both examples is the individual. But the units of analysis differ in the two studies. In the first one, our aim is to describe the characteristics of individuals. We may then make generalizations about the populations to which these individuals belong, but our unit of analysis is still the individual. In the second study, we will observe individuals in order to describe some social phenomenon, in this case, types of gadget addictions. Thus our unit of analysis would be the social phenomenon.
Another common unit of analysis in sociological inquiry is groups. Groups of course vary in size, and almost no group is too small or too large to be of interest to sociologists. Families, friendship groups, and street gangs make up some of the more common microlevel groups examined by sociologists. Employees in an organization, professionals in a particular domain (e.g., chefs, lawyers, sociologists), and members of clubs (e.g., Girl Scouts, Rotary, Red Hat Society) are all mesolevel groups that sociologists might study. Finally, at the macro level, sociologists sometimes examine citizens of entire nations or residents of different continents or other regions.
A study of student addictions to their electronic gadgets at the group level might consider whether certain types of social clubs have more or fewer gadget-addicted members than other sorts of clubs. Perhaps we would find that clubs that emphasize physical fitness, such as the rugby club and the scuba club, have fewer gadget-addicted members than clubs that emphasize cerebral activity, such as the chess club and the sociology club. Our unit of analysis in this example is groups. If we had instead asked whether people who join cerebral clubs are more likely to be gadget-addicted than those who join social clubs, then our unit of analysis would have been individuals. In either case, however, our unit of observation would be individuals.
Organizations are yet another potential unit of analysis that social scientists might wish to say something about. As you may recall from your introductory sociology class, organizations include entities like corporations, colleges and universities, and even night clubs. At the organization level, a study of students’ electronic gadget addictions might ask, “How do different colleges address the problem of electronic gadget addiction?” In this case, our interest lies not in the experience of individual students but instead in the campus-to-campus differences in confronting gadget addictions. A researcher conducting a study of this type might examine schools’ written policies and procedures, so his unit of observation would be documents. However, because he ultimately wishes to describe differences across campuses, the college would be his unit of analysis.
Of course, it would be silly in a textbook focused on social scientific research to neglect socialphenomena as a potential unit of analysis. I mentioned one such example earlier, but let’s look more closely at this sort of unit of analysis. Many sociologists study a variety of social interactions and social problems that fall under this category. Examples include social problems like murder or rape; interactions such as counseling sessions, Facebook chatting, or wrestling; and other social phenomena such as voting and even gadget use or misuse. A researcher interested in students’ electronic gadget addictions could ask, “What are the various types of electronic gadget addictions that exist among students?” Perhaps the researcher will discover that some addictions are primarily centered around social media such as chat rooms, Facebook, or texting while other addictions center on gadgets such as handheld, single-player video games or DVR devices that discourage interaction with others. The resultant typology of gadget addictions would tell us something about the social phenomenon (unit of analysis) being studied. As in several of the preceding examples, however, the unit of observation would likely be individual people.
Finally, a number of social scientists examine policies and principles, the last type of unit of analysis we’ll consider here. Studies that analyze policies and principles typically rely on documents as the unit of observation. Perhaps a researcher has been hired by a college to help it write an effective policy against electronic gadget addiction. In this case, the researcher might gather all previously written policies from campuses all over the country and compare policies at campuses where addiction rates are low to policies at campuses where addiction rates are high.
In sum, there are many potential units of analysis that a sociologist might examine, but some of the most common units include the following:
1. Individuals
2. Groups
3. Organizations
4. Social phenomena
5. Policies and principles
Table 5.1 includes a summary of the preceding discussion of units of analysis and units of observation.
Table 5:1 Units of Analysis and Units of Observation: An Example Using a Hypothetical Study of Students’ Addictions to Electronic Gadgets
Research question Unit of analysis Data collection Unit of observation Statement of findings
Which students are most likely to be addicted to their electronic gadgets? Individuals Survey of students on campus Individuals New Media majors, men, and students with high socioeconomic status are all more likely than other students to become addicted to their electronic gadgets.
Do certain types of social clubs have more gadget-addicted members than other sorts of clubs? Groups Survey of students on campus Individuals Clubs with a scholarly focus, such as the sociology club and the math club, have more gadget-addicted members than clubs with a social focus, such as the 100-bottles-of-beer-on-the-wall club and the knitting club.
How do different colleges address the problem of electronic gadget addiction? Organizations Content analysis of policies Documents Campuses without strong computer science programs are more likely than those with such programs to expel students who have been found to have addictions to their electronic gadgets.
What are the various types of electronic gadget addictions that exist among students? Social phenomena Observations of students Individuals There are two main types of gadget addiction: social and antisocial.
What are the most effective policies against electronic gadget addiction? Policies and principles Content analysis of policies and student records Documents Policies that require students found to have an addiction to their electronic gadgets to attend group counseling for a minimum of one semester have been found to treat addictions more effectively than those that call for the expulsion of addicted students.
Note: Please don’t forget that the findings described here are hypothetical. There is no reason to think that any of the hypothetical findings described here would actually bear out if tested with empirical research.
One common error we see people make when it comes to both causality and units of analysis is something called the ecological fallacy. This occurs when claims about one lower-level unit of analysis are made based on data from some higher-level unit of analysis. In many cases, this occurs when claims are made about individuals, but only group-level data have been gathered. For example, we might want to understand whether electronic gadget addictions are more common on certain campuses than on others. Perhaps different campuses around the country have provided us with their campus percentage of gadget-addicted students, and we learn from these data that electronic gadget addictions are more common on campuses that have business programs than on campuses without them. We then conclude that business students are more likely than nonbusiness students to become addicted to their electronic gadgets. However, this would be an inappropriate conclusion to draw. Because we only have addiction rates by campus, we can only draw conclusions about campuses, not about the individual students on those campuses. Perhaps the sociology majors on the business campuses are the ones that caused the addiction rates on those campuses to be so high. The point is we simply don’t know because we only have campus-level data. By drawing conclusions about students when our data are about campuses, we run the risk of committing the ecological fallacy.
On the other hand, another mistake to be aware of is reductionism. Reductionism occurs when claims about some higher-level unit of analysis are made based on data from some lower-level unit of analysis. In this case, claims about groups or macrolevel phenomena are made based on individual-level data. An example of reductionism can be seen in some descriptions of the civil rights movement. On occasion, people have proclaimed that Rosa Parks started the civil rights movement in the United States by refusing to give up her seat to a white person while on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in December 1955. Although it is true that Parks played an invaluable role in the movement, and that her act of civil disobedience gave others courage to stand up against racist policies, beliefs, and actions, to credit Parks with starting the movement is reductionist. Surely the confluence of many factors, from fights over legalized racial segregation to the Supreme Court’s historic decision to desegregate schools in 1954 to the creation of groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (to name just a few), contributed to the rise and success of the American civil rights movement. In other words, the movement is attributable to many factors—some social, others political, others economic. Did Parks play a role? Of course she did—and a very important one at that. But did she cause the movement? To say yes would be reductionist.
It would be a mistake to conclude from the preceding discussion that researchers should avoid making any claims whatsoever about data or about relationships between variables. While it is important to be attentive to the possibility for error in causal reasoning about different levels of analysis, this warning should not prevent you from drawing well-reasoned analytic conclusions from your data. The point is to be cautious but not abandon entirely the social scientific quest to understand patterns of behavior.
Hypotheses
In some cases, the purpose of research is to test a specific hypothesis or hypotheses. At other times, researchers do not have predictions about what they will find but instead conduct research to answer a question or questions, with an open-minded desire to know about a topic, or to help develop hypotheses for later testing. A hypothesis is a statement, sometimes but not always causal, describing a researcher’s expectation regarding what he or she anticipates finding. Often hypotheses are written to describe the expected relationship between two variables (though this is not a requirement). To develop a hypothesis, one needs to have an understanding of the differences between independent and dependent variables and between units of observation and units of analysis. Hypotheses are typically drawn from theories and usually describe how an independent variable is expected to affect some dependent variable or variables. Researchers following a deductive approach to their research will hypothesize about what they expect to find based on the theory or theories that frame their study. If the theory accurately reflects the phenomenon it is designed to explain, then the researcher’s hypotheses about what he or she will observe in the real world should bear out.
Let’s consider a couple of examples. In my collaborative research on sexual harassment (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004),Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69, 64–92. we once hypothesized, based on feminist theories of sexual harassment, that “more females than males will experience specific sexually harassing behaviors.” What is the causal relationship being predicted here? Which is the independent and which is the dependent variable? In this case, we hypothesized that a person’s sex (independent variable) would predict her or his likelihood to experience sexual harassment (dependent variable).
Sometimes researchers will hypothesize that a relationship will take a specific direction. As a result, an increase or decrease in one area might be said to cause an increase or decrease in another. For example, you might choose to study the relationship between age and legalization of marijuana. Perhaps you’ve done some reading in your crime and deviance class and, based on the theories you’ve read, you hypothesize that “age is negatively related to support for marijuana legalization.”In fact, there are empirical data that support this hypothesis. Gallup has conducted research on this very question since the 1960s. For more on their findings, see Carroll, J. (2005). Who supports marijuana legalization? Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who...alization.aspx What have you just hypothesized? You have hypothesized that as people get older, the likelihood of their supporting marijuana legalization decreases. Thus as age (your independent variable) moves in one direction (up), support for marijuana legalization (your dependent variable) moves in another direction (down). If writing hypotheses feels tricky, it is sometimes helpful to draw them out. Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 depict each of the two hypotheses we have just discussed.
Figure 5.8 Hypothesis Describing the Expected Relationship Between Sex and Sexual Harassment
Figure 5.9 Hypothesis Describing the Expected Direction of Relationship Between Age and Support for Marijuana Legalization
Note that you will almost never hear researchers say that they have proven their hypotheses. A statement that bold implies that a relationship has been shown to exist with absolute certainty and that there is no chance that there are conditions under which the hypothesis would not bear out. Instead, researchers tend to say that their hypotheses have been supported (or not). This more cautious way of discussing findings allows for the possibility that new evidence or new ways of examining a relationship will be discovered. Researchers may also discuss a null hypothesis, one that predicts no relationship between the variables being studied. If a researcher rejects the null hypothesis, he or she is saying that the variables in question are somehow related to one another.
Quantitative and qualitative researchers tend to take different approaches when it comes to hypotheses. In quantitative research, the goal often is to empirically test hypotheses generated from theory. With a qualitative approach, on the other hand, a researcher may begin with some vague expectations about what he or she will find, but the aim is not to test one’s expectations against some empirical observations. Instead, theory development or construction is the goal. Qualitative researchers may develop theories from which hypotheses can be drawn and quantitative researchers may then test those hypotheses. Both types of research are crucial to understanding our social world, and both play an important role in the matter of hypothesis development and testing.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In qualitative studies, the goal is generally to understand the multitude of causes that account for the specific instance the researcher is investigating.
• In quantitative studies, the goal may be to understand the more general causes of some phenomenon rather than the idiosyncrasies of one particular instance.
• Quantitative research may point qualitative research toward general causal relationships that are worth investigating in more depth.
• In order for a relationship to be considered causal, it must be plausible and nonspurious, and the cause must precede the effect in time.
• A unit of analysis is the item you wish to be able to say something about at the end of your study while a unit of observation is the item that you actually observe.
• When researchers confuse their units of analysis and observation, they may be prone to committing either the ecological fallacy or reductionism.
• Hypotheses are statements, drawn from theory, which describe a researcher’s expectation about a relationship between two or more variables.
• Qualitative research may point quantitative research toward hypotheses that are worth investigating.
EXERCISES
1. Do a Google News search for the term ecological fallacy. Chances are good you’ll come across a number of news editorials using this term. Read a few of these editorials or articles, and print one out. Demonstrate your understanding of the term ecological fallacy by writing a short answer discussing whether the author of the article you printed out used the term correctly.
2. Pick two variables that are of interest to you (e.g., age and religiosity, gender and college major, geographical location and preferred sports). State a hypothesis that specifies what you expect the relationship between those two variables to be. Now draw your hypothesis, as in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/05%3A_Research_Design/5.02%3A_Qualitative_or_Quantitative_Some_Specific_Consider.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define triangulation.
• Provide an example of triangulation.
• Understand the benefits of triangulation.
Up to this point, we have discussed research design as though it is an either/or proposition. Either you will collect qualitative data or you will collect quantitative data. Either your approach will be idiographic or it will be nomothetic. In truth, you don’t necessarily have to choose one approach over another. In fact, some of the most highly regarded social scientific investigations combine approaches in an effort to gain the most complete understanding of their topic possible. Using a combination of multiple and different research strategies is called triangulation.
Think about the examples we’ve discussed of potential studies of electronic gadget addiction. Now imagine that you could conduct two, or even three, of those studies instead of just one. What if you could conduct a survey of students on campus, a content analysis of campus policies, andobservations of students in their natural environments (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1989)?Triangulation isn’t just about using multiple strategies of data collection. Triangulation of measures occurs when researchers use multiple approaches to measure a single variable. Triangulation of theories occurs when researchers rely on multiple theories to help explain a single event or phenomenon. If you’d like to learn more about triangulation, the following sources may be of interest: Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Aside from being pretty exhausted, and possibly broke, you’d probably end up with a fairly comprehensive understanding of the causes and consequences of, and campus responses to, students’ electronic gadget addictions. And certainly a more comprehensive understanding is better than a less comprehensive one. The drawback, of course, is that you may not have the resources, because of either limited time or limited funding, to conduct such a wide-ranging study.
At this stage, you may be telling yourself (or screaming at me) that it would be nearly impossible to conduct all these studies yourself. You have a life, after all. The good news is that you don’t necessarily have to do everything on your own in order to take advantage of the analytic benefits of triangulation. Perhaps someone already has conducted a large survey of the topic you wish to study. You could find out how those results compare with your one-on-one interviews with people on the same topic. Or perhaps you wish to administer a survey to test the generality of some findings that have been reached through the use of field methods. Whatever the case, don’t forget about all the good research that has come before you that can help strengthen your investigation. Also keep in mind that qualitative and quantitative research methods can be complementary. Triangulation is one way to take advantage of the best in both approaches.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Triangulation refers to using multiple research strategies in a single research project.
• Triangulation allows researchers to take advantage of the strengths of various methods and at the same time work to overcome some of each method’s weaknesses.
Exercises
1. Select one of the potential research topics you identified while reading Chapter 4. Discuss how you might study the topic if triangulation were your goal.
2. Working with the same topic in mind, find two different sociological studies of the same topic. How do the two studies complement each other? Are there ways in which the weaknesses in one study are overcome in the other? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/05%3A_Research_Design/5.03%3A_Triangulation.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Describe useful strategies to employ when searching for literature.
• Describe why sociologists review prior literature and how they organize their literature reviews.
• Identify the main sections contained in scholarly journal articles.
• Identify and describe the major components researchers need to plan for when designing a research project.
In this section, we’ll examine the most typical components that make up a research project, bringing in a few additional components to those we have already discussed. Keep in mind that our purpose at this stage is simply to provide a general overview of research design. The specifics of each of the following components will vary from project to project. Further, the stage of a project at which each of these components comes into play may vary. In later chapters, we will consider more specifically how these components work differently depending on the research method being employed.
Searching for Literature
Familiarizing yourself with research that has already been conducted on your topic is one of the first stages of conducting a research project and is crucial for coming up with a good research design. But where to start? How to start? In Chapter 4, you learned about some of the most common databases that house information about published sociological research. As you search for literature, you may have to be fairly broad in your search for articles.
I’m guessing you may feel you’ve heard enough about electronic gadget addiction in this chapter, so let’s consider a different example here. On my campus, much to the chagrin of a group of student smokers, smoking was recently banned. These students were so upset by the idea that they would no longer be allowed to smoke on university grounds that they staged several smoke-outs during which they gathered in populated areas around campus and enjoyed a puff or two together.
A student in my research methods class wanted to understand what motivated this group of students to engage in activism centered around what she perceived to be, in this age of smoke-free facilities, a relatively deviant act. Were the protesters otherwise politically active? How much effort and coordination had it taken to organize the smoke-outs? The student researcher began her research by attempting to familiarize herself with the literature on her topic. Yet her search in Sociological Abstracts for “college student activist smoke-outs,” yielded no results. Concluding there was no prior research on her topic, she informed me that she would need an alternative assignment to the annotated bibliography I required since there was no literature for her to review. How do you suppose I responded to this news? What went wrong with this student’s search for literature?
In her first attempt, the student had been too narrow in her search for articles. But did that mean she was off the hook for completing the annotated bibliography assignment? Absolutely not. Instead, she went back to Sociological Abstracts and searched again using different combinations of search terms. Rather than searching for “college student activist smoke-outs” she tried, among other sets of terms, “college student activism.” This time her search yielded a great many articles. Of course, they were not focused on prosmoking activist efforts, but they were focused on her population of interest, college students, and on her broad topic of interest, activism. I suggested that reading articles on college student activism might give her some idea about what other researchers have found in terms of what motivates college students to become involved in activist efforts. I also suggested she could play around with her search terms and look for research on activism centered on other sorts of activities that are perceived by some as deviant, such as marijuana use or veganism. In other words, she needed to be broader in her search for articles.
While this student found success by broadening her search for articles, her reading of those articles needed to be narrower than her search. Once she identified a set of articles to review by searching broadly, it was time to remind herself of her specific research focus: college student activist smoke-outs. Keeping in mind her particular research interest while reviewing the literature gave her the chance to think about how the theories and findings covered in prior studies might or might not apply to her particular point of focus. For example, theories on what motivates activists to get involved might tell her something about the likely reasons the students she planned to study got involved. At the same time, those theories might not cover all the particulars of student participation in smoke-outs. Thinking about the different theories then gave the student the opportunity to focus her research plans and even to develop a few hypotheses about what she thought she was likely to find.
Reviewing the Literature
Developing an annotated bibliography is often one of the early steps that researchers take as they begin to familiarize themselves with prior research on their topic. A second step involves a literature review in which a researcher positions his or her work within the context of prior scholarly work in the area. A literature review addresses the following matters: What sorts of questions have other scholars asked about this topic? What do we already know about this topic? What questions remain? As the researcher answers these questions, he or she synthesizes what is contained in the literature, possibly organizing prior findings around themes that are relevant to his or her particular research focus.
I once advised an undergraduate student who conducted a research project on speciesism, the belief that some species are superior to or have more value and rights than others. Her research question was “Why and how do humans construct divisions between themselves and animals?” This student organized her review of literature around the two parts of her research question: the why and the how. In the “why” section of her literature review, she described prior research that addressed questions of why humans are sometimes speciesist. She organized subsections around the three most common answers that were presented in the scholarly literature. She used the same structure in the “how” section of her literature review, arranging subsections around the answers posed in previous literature about how humans construct divisions between themselves and animals. This organizational scheme helped readers understand what we already know about the topic and what theories we rely on to help make sense of the topic. In addition, by also highlighting what we still don’t know, it helped the student set the stage for her own empirical research on the topic.
The preceding discussion about how to organize a review of scholarly literature assumes that we all know how to read scholarly literature. Yes, yes, I understand that you must know how to read. But reading scholarly articles can be a bit more challenging than reading a textbook. Here are a few pointers about how to do it successfully. First, it is important to understand the various sections that are typically contained in scholarly journals’ reports of empirical research. One of the most important and easiest to spot sections of a journal article is its abstract, the short paragraph at the beginning of an article that summarizes the author’s research question, methods used to answer the question, and key findings. The abstract may also give you some idea about the theoretical proclivities of the author. As a result, reading the abstract gives you both a framework for understanding the rest of the article and the punch line. It tells you what the author(s) found and whether the article is relevant to your area of inquiry.
After the abstract, most journal articles will contain the following sections (although exact section names are likely to vary): introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, and discussion. Of course, there will also be a list of references cited,Lists of references cited are a useful source for finding additional literature in an area. and there may be a few tables, figures, or appendices at the end of the article as well. While you should get into the habit of familiarizing yourself with articles you wish to cite in their entirety, there are strategic ways to read journal articles that can make them a little easier to digest. Once you have read the abstract and determined that this is an article you’d like to read in full, read through the discussion section at the end of the article next. Because your own review of literature is likely to emphasize findings from previous literature, you should make sure that you have a clear idea about what those findings are. Reading an article’s discussion section helps you understand what the author views as the study’s major findings and how the author perceives those findings to relate to other research.
As you read through the rest of the article, think about the elements of research design that we have covered in this chapter. What approach does the researcher take? Is the research exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory? Is it inductive or deductive? Idiographic or nomothetic? Qualitative or quantitative? What claims does the author make about causality? What are the author’s units of analysis and observation? Use what you have learned in this chapter about the promise and potential pitfalls associated with each of these research elements to help you responsibly read and understand the articles you review. Future chapters of this text will address other elements of journal articles, including choices about measurement, sampling, and research method. As you learn about these additional items, you will increasingly gain more knowledge that you can apply as you read and critique the scholarly literature in your area of inquiry.
Additional Important Components
Thinking about the overarching goals of your research project and finding and reviewing the existing literature on your topic are two of the initial steps you’ll take when designing a research project. Forming a clear research question, as discussed in Chapter 4, is another crucial step. There are a number of other important research design components you’ll need to consider, and we will discuss those here.
At the same time that you work to identify a clear research question, you will probably also think about the overarching goals of your research project. Will it be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory? Will your approach be idiographic or nomothetic, inductive or deductive? How you design your project might also be determined in part by whether you aim for your research to have some direct application or if your goal is to contribute more generally to sociological knowledge about your topic. Next, think about what your units of analysis and units of observation will be. These will help you identify the key concepts you will study. Once you have identified those concepts, you’ll need to decide how to define them, and how you’ll know that you’re observing them when it comes time to collect your data. Defining your concepts, and knowing them when you see them, has to do with conceptualization and operationalization, the focus of Chapter 6. Of course, you also need to know what approach you will take to collect your data. Thus identifying your research method is another important part of research design. You also need to think about who your research participants will be and what larger group(s) they may represent. These topics will be the focus of Chapter 7. Last, but certainly not least, you should consider any potential ethical concerns that could arise during the course of your research project. These concerns might come up during your data collection, but they might also arise when you get to the point of analyzing or sharing your research results.
Decisions about the various research components do not necessarily occur in sequential order. In fact, you may have to think about potential ethical concerns even before zeroing in on a specific research question. Similarly, the goal of being able to make generalizations about your population of interest could shape the decisions you make about your method of data collection. Putting it all together, the following list shows some of the major components you’ll need to consider as you design your research project:
1. Research question
2. Literature review
3. Research strategy (idiographic or nomothetic, inductive or deductive)
4. Research goals (basic or applied)
5. Units of analysis and units of observation
6. Key concepts (conceptualization and operationalization)
7. Method of data collection
8. Research participants (sample and population)
9. Ethical concerns
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• When identifying and reading relevant literature, be broad in your search for articles, but be narrower in your reading of articles.
• Writing an annotated bibliography can be a helpful first step to familiarize yourself with prior research in your area of interest.
• Literature reviews summarize and synthesize prior research.
• Literature reviews are typically organized around substantive ideas that are relevant to one’s research question rather than around individual studies or article authors.
• When designing a research project, be sure to think about, plan for, and identify a research question, a review of literature, a research strategy, research goals, units of analysis and units of observation, key concepts, method(s) of data collection, population and sample, and potential ethical concerns.
Exercises
1. Find and read a complete journal article that addresses a topic that is of interest to you (perhaps using Sociological Abstracts, which is introduced in Chapter 4). In four to eight sentences, summarize the author’s research question, theoretical framing, methods used, and major findings. Reread the article, and see how close you were in reporting these key elements. What did you understand and remember best? What did you leave out? What reading strategies may have helped you better recall relevant details from the article?
2. Using the example of students’ electronic gadget addictions, design a hypothetical research project by identifying a plan for each of the nine components of research design that are presented in this section. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/05%3A_Research_Design/5.04%3A_Components_of_a_Research_Project.txt |
In this chapter we’ll discuss measurement, conceptualization, and operationalization. If you’re not quite sure what any of those words mean, or even how to pronounce them, no need to worry. By the end of the chapter, you should be able to wow your friends and family with your newfound knowledge of these three difficult to pronounce, but relatively simple to grasp, terms.
06: Defining and Measuring Concepts
Learning Objectives
• Define measurement.
• Describe Kaplan’s three categories of the things that social scientists measure.
• Identify the stages at which measurement is important.
Measurement, Conceptualization, and Operationalization
Measurement is important. Recognizing that fact, and respecting it, will be of great benefit to you—both in research methods and in other areas of life as well. If, for example, you have ever baked a cake, you know well the importance of measurement. As someone who much prefers rebelling against precise rules over following them, I once learned the hard way that measurement matters. A couple of years ago I attempted to bake my husband a birthday cake without the help of any measuring utensils. I’d baked before, I reasoned, and I had a pretty good sense of the difference between a cup and a tablespoon. How hard could it be? As it turns out, it’s not easy guesstimating precise measures. That cake was the lumpiest, most lopsided cake I’ve ever seen. And it tasted kind of like Play-Doh. Figure 6.1 depicts the monstrosity I created, all because I did not respect the value of measurement.
Figure 6.1
Measurement is important in baking and in research.
Just as measurement is critical to successful baking, it is as important to successfully pulling off a social scientific research project. In sociology, when we use the term measurement we mean the process by which we describe and ascribe meaning to the key facts, concepts, or other phenomena that we are investigating. At its core, measurement is about defining one’s terms in as clear and precise a way as possible. Of course, measurement in social science isn’t quite as simple as using some predetermined or universally agreed-on tool, such as a measuring cup or spoon, but there are some basic tenants on which most social scientists agree when it comes to measurement. We’ll explore those as well as some of the ways that measurement might vary depending on your unique approach to the study of your topic.
What Do Social Scientists Measure?
The question of what social scientists measure can be answered by asking oneself what social scientists study. Think about the topics you’ve learned about in other sociology classes you’ve taken or the topics you’ve considered investigating yourself. Or think about the many examples of research you’ve read about in this text. In Chapter 2 we learned about Melissa Milkie and Catharine Warner’s study (2011)Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 4–22. of first graders’ mental health. In order to conduct that study, Milkie and Warner needed to have some idea about how they were going to measure mental health. What does mental health mean, exactly? And how do we know when we’re observing someone whose mental health is good and when we see someone whose mental health is compromised? Understanding how measurement works in research methods helps us answer these sorts of questions.
As you might have guessed, social scientists will measure just about anything that they have an interest in investigating. For example, those who are interested in learning something about the correlation between social class and levels of happiness must develop some way to measure both social class and happiness. Those who wish to understand how well immigrants cope in their new locations must measure immigrant status and coping. Those who wish to understand how a person’s gender shapes their workplace experiences must measure gender and workplace experiences. You get the idea. Social scientists can and do measure just about anything you can imagine observing or wanting to study. Of course, some things are easier to observe, or measure, than others, and the things we might wish to measure don’t necessarily all fall into the same category of measureables.
In 1964, philosopher Abraham Kaplan (1964)Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company. wrote what has since become a classic work in research methodology, The Conduct of Inquiry (Babbie, 2010).Earl Babbie offers a more detailed discussion of Kaplan’s work in his text. You can read it in Chapter 5 of the following: Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. In his text, Kaplan describes different categories of things that behavioral scientists observe. One of those categories, which Kaplan called “observational terms,” is probably the simplest to measure in social science. Observational terms are the sorts of things that we can see with the naked eye simply by looking at them. They are terms that “lend themselves to easy and confident verification” (1964, p. 54).Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company, p. 54. If, for example, we wanted to know how the conditions of playgrounds differ across different neighborhoods, we could directly observe the variety, amount, and condition of equipment at various playgrounds.
Indirect observables, on the other hand, are less straightforward to assess. They are “terms whose application calls for relatively more subtle, complex, or indirect observations, in which inferences play an acknowledged part. Such inferences concern presumed connections, usually causal, between what is directly observed and what the term signifies” (1964, p. 55).Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company, p. 55. If we conducted a study for which we wished to know a person’s income, we’d probably have to ask them their income, perhaps in an interview or a survey. Thus we have observed income, even if it has only been observed indirectly. Birthplace might be another indirect observable. We can ask study participants where they were born, but chances are good we won’t have directly observed any of those people being born in the locations they report.
Sometimes the measures that we are interested in are more complex and more abstract than observational terms or indirect observables. Think about some of the concepts you’ve learned about in other sociology classes—ethnocentrism, for example. What is ethnocentrism? Well, you might know from your intro to sociology class that it has something to do with the way a person judges another’s culture. But how would you measure it? Here’s another construct: bureaucracy. We know this term has something to do with organizations and how they operate, but measuring such a construct is trickier than measuring, say, a person’s income. In both cases, ethnocentrism and bureaucracy, these theoretical notions represent ideas whose meaning we have come to agree on. Though we may not be able to observe these abstractions directly, we can observe the confluence of things that they are made up of. Kaplan referred to these more abstract things that behavioral scientists measure as constructs. Constructs are “not observational either directly or indirectly” (1964, p. 55),Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company, p. 55. but they can be defined based on observables.
Thus far we have learned that social scientists measure what Abraham Kaplan called observational terms, indirect observables, and constructs. These terms refer to the different sorts of things that social scientists may be interested in measuring. But how do social scientists measure these things? That is the next question we’ll tackle.
How Do Social Scientists Measure?
Measurement in social science is a process. It occurs at multiple stages of a research project: in the planning stages, in the data collection stage, and sometimes even in the analysis stage. Recall that previously we defined measurement as the process by which we describe and ascribe meaning to the key facts, concepts, or other phenomena that we are investigating. Once we’ve identified a research question, we begin to think about what some of the key ideas are that we hope to learn from our project. In describing those key ideas, we begin the measurement process.
Let’s say that our research question is the following: How do new college students cope with the adjustment to college? In order to answer this question, we’ll need to some idea about what coping means. We may come up with an idea about what coping means early in the research process, as we begin to think about what to look for (or observe) in our data-collection phase. Once we’ve collected data on coping, we also have to decide how to report on the topic. Perhaps, for example, there are different types or dimensions of coping, some of which lead to more successful adjustment than others. However we decide to proceed, and whatever we decide to report, the point is that measurement is important at each of these phases.
As the preceding paragraph demonstrates, measurement is a process in part because it occurs at multiple stages of conducting research. We could also think of measurement as a process because of the fact that measurement in itself involves multiple stages. From identifying one’s key terms to defining them to figuring out how to observe them and how to know if our observations are any good, there are multiple steps involved in the measurement process. An additional step in the measurement process involves deciding what elements one’s measures contain. A measure’s elements might be very straightforward and clear, particularly if they are directly observable. Other measures are more complex and might require the researcher to account for different themes or types. These sorts of complexities require paying careful attention to a concept’s level of measurement and its dimensions. We’ll explore these complexities in greater depth at the end of this chapter, but first let’s look more closely at the early steps involved in the measurement process.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Measurement is the process by which we describe and ascribe meaning to the key facts, concepts, or other phenomena that we are investigating.
• Kaplan identified three categories of things that social scientists measure including observational terms, indirect observables, and constructs.
• Measurement occurs at all stages of research.
The ideal gas law is easy to remember and apply in solving problems, as long as you get the proper values a
Exercise
1. See if you can come up with one example of each of the following: an observational term, an indirect observable, and a construct. How might you measure each? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.01%3A_Measurement.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define concept.
• Describe why defining our concepts is important.
• Describe how conceptualization works.
• Define dimensions in terms of social scientific measurement.
• Describe reification.
In this section we’ll take a look at one of the first steps in the measurement process, conceptualization. This has to do with defining our terms as clearly as possible and also not taking ourselves too seriously in the process. Our definitions mean only what we say they mean—nothing more and nothing less. Let’s talk first about how to define our terms, and then we’ll examine what I mean about not taking ourselves (or our terms, rather) too seriously.
Concepts and Conceptualization
So far the word concept has come up quite a bit, and it would behoove us to make sure we have a shared understanding of that term. A concept is the notion or image that we conjure up when we think of some cluster of related observations or ideas. For example, masculinity is a concept. What do you think of when you hear that word? Presumably you imagine some set of behaviors and perhaps even a particular style of self presentation. Of course, we can’t necessarily assume that everyone conjures up the same set of ideas or images when they hear the word masculinity. In fact, there are many possible ways to define the term. And while some definitions may be more common or have more support than others, there isn’t one true, always-correct-in-all-settings definition. What counts as masculine may shift over time, from culture to culture, and even from individual to individual (Kimmel, 2008).Kimmel, M. (2008). Masculinity. In W. A. Darity Jr. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 1–5). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.This is why defining our concepts is so important.
You might be asking yourself why you should bother defining a term for which there is no single, correct definition. Believe it or not, this is true for any concept you might measure in a sociological study—there is never a single, always-correct definition. When we conduct empirical research, our terms mean only what we say they mean—nothing more and nothing less. There’s a New Yorkercartoon that aptly represents this idea (http://www.cartoonbank.com/1998/it-a...op/invt/117721). It depicts a young George Washington holding an ax and standing near a freshly chopped cherry tree. Young George is looking up at a frowning adult who is standing over him, arms crossed. The caption depicts George explaining, “It all depends on how you define ‘chop.’” Young George Washington gets the idea—whether he actually chopped down the cherry tree depends on whether we have a shared understanding of the term chop. Without a shared understanding of this term, our understandings of what George has just done may differ. Likewise, without understanding how a researcher has defined her or his key concepts, it would be nearly impossible to understand the meaning of that researcher’s findings and conclusions. Thus any decision we make based on findings from empirical research should be made based on full knowledge not only of how the research was designed, as described in Chapter 5, but also of how its concepts were defined and measured.
So how do we define our concepts? This is part of the process of measurement, and this portion of the process is called conceptualization. Conceptualization involves writing out clear, concise definitions for our key concepts. Sticking with the previously mentioned example of masculinity, think about what comes to mind when you read that term. How do you know masculinity when you see it? Does it have something to do with men? With social norms? If so, perhaps we could define masculinity as the social norms that men are expected to follow. That seems like a reasonable start, and at this early stage of conceptualization, brainstorming about the images conjured up by concepts and playing around with possible definitions is appropriate. But this is just the first step. It would make sense as well to consult other previous research and theory to understand if other scholars have already defined the concepts we’re interested in. This doesn’t necessarily mean we must use their definitions, but understanding how concepts have been defined in the past will give us an idea about how our conceptualizations compare with the predominant ones out there. Understanding prior definitions of our key concepts will also help us decide whether we plan to challenge those conceptualizations or rely on them for our own work.
If we turn to the literature on masculinity, we will surely come across work by Michael Kimmel, one of the preeminent masculinity scholars in the United States. After consulting Kimmel’s prior work (2000; 2008),Kimmel, M. (2000). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Kimmel, M. (2008). Masculinity. In W. A. Darity Jr. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 1–5). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. we might tweak our initial definition of masculinity just a bit. Rather than defining masculinity as “the social norms that men are expected to follow,” perhaps instead we’ll define it as “the social roles, behaviors, and meanings prescribed for men in any given society at any one time.” Our revised definition is both more precise and more complex. Rather than simply addressing one aspect of men’s lives (norms), our new definition addresses three aspects: roles, behaviors, and meanings. It also implies that roles, behaviors, and meanings may vary across societies and over time. Thus, to be clear, we’ll also have to specify the particular society and time period we’re investigating as we conceptualize masculinity.
As you can see, conceptualization isn’t quite as simple as merely applying any random definition that we come up with to a term. Sure, it may involve some initial brainstorming, but conceptualization goes beyond that. Once we’ve brainstormed a bit about the images a particular word conjures up for us, we should also consult prior work to understand how others define the term in question. And after we’ve identified a clear definition that we’re happy with, we should make sure that every term used in our definition will make sense to others. Are there terms used within our definition that also need to be defined? If so, our conceptualization is not yet complete. And there is yet another aspect of conceptualization to consider: concept dimensions. We’ll consider that aspect along with an additional word of caution about conceptualization next.
A Word of Caution About Conceptualization
So now that we’ve come up with a clear definition for the term masculinity and made sure that the terms we use in our definition are equally clear, we’re done, right? Not so fast. If you’ve ever met more than one man in your life, you’ve probably noticed that they are not all exactly the same, even if they live in the same society and at the same historical time period. This could mean that there are dimensions of masculinity. In terms of social scientific measurement, concepts can be said to have dimensions when there are multiple elements that make up a single concept. With respect to the term masculinity, dimensions could be regional (Is masculinity defined differently in different regions of the same country?), age based (Is masculinity defined differently for men of different ages?), or perhaps power based (Are some forms of masculinity valued more than others?). In any of these cases, the concept masculinity would be considered to have multiple dimensions. While it isn’t necessarily a must to spell out every possible dimension of the concepts you wish to measure, it may be important to do so depending on the goals of your research. The point here is to be aware that some concepts have dimensions and to think about whether and when dimensions may be relevant to the concepts you intend to investigate.
Before we move on to the additional steps involved in the measurement process, it would be wise to caution ourselves about one of the dangers associated with conceptualization. While I’ve suggested that we should consult prior scholarly definitions of our concepts, it would be wrong to assume that just because prior definitions exist that they are any more real than whatever definitions we make up (or, likewise, that our own made-up definitions are any more real than any other definition). It would also be wrong to assume that just because definitions exist for some concept that the concept itself exists beyond some abstract idea in our heads. This idea, assuming that our abstract concepts exist in some concrete, tangible way, is known as reification.
To better understand reification, take a moment to think about the concept of social structure. This concept is central to sociological thinking. When we sociologists talk about social structure, we are talking about an abstract concept. Social structures shape our ways of being in the world and of interacting with one another, but they do not exist in any concrete or tangible way. A social structure isn’t the same thing as other sorts of structures, such as buildings or bridges. Sure, both types of structures are important to how we live our everyday lives, but one we can touch, and the other is just an idea that shapes our way of living.
Here’s another way of thinking about reification: Think about the term family. If you were interested in studying this concept, we’ve learned that it would be good to consult prior theory and research to understand how the term has been conceptualized by others. But we should also question past conceptualizations. Think, for example, about where we’d be today if we used the same definition of family that was used, say, 100 years ago. How have our understandings of this concept changed over time? What role does conceptualization in social scientific research play in our cultural understandings of terms like family? The point is that our terms mean nothing more and nothing less than whatever definition we assign to them. Sure, it makes sense to come to some social agreement about what various concepts mean. Without that agreement, it would be difficult to navigate through everyday living. But at the same time, we should not forget that we have assigned those definitions and that they are no more real than any other, alternative definition we might choose to assign.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Conceptualization is a process that involves coming up with clear, concise definitions.
• Some concepts have multiple elements or dimensions.
• Just because definitions for abstract concepts exist does not mean that the concept is tangible or concrete.
Exercises
1. Conceptualize the term discipline and identify possible dimensions of the term. Have someone who is in the class with you do the same thing (without seeing your conceptualization). Now compare what you each came up with. How do your conceptualizations and dimensions differ, and why?
2. Identify a concept that is important in your area of interest. Challenge yourself to conceptualize the term without first consulting prior literature. Now consult prior work to see how your concept has been conceptualized by others. How and where does your conceptualization differ from others? Are there dimensions of the concept that you or others hadn’t considered? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.02%3A_Conceptualization.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Describe how operationalization works.
• Define and give an example of indicators.
Now that we have figured out how to define, or conceptualize, our terms we’ll need to think about operationalizing them. Operationalization is the process by which we spell out precisely how a concept will be measured. It involves identifying the specific research procedures we will use to gather data about our concepts. This of course requires that one know what research method(s) he or she will employ to learn about her or his concepts, and we’ll examine specific research methods in Chapter 8 through Chapter 12. For now, let’s take a broad look at how operationalization works. We can then revisit how this process works when we examine specific methods of data collection in later chapters.
Indicators
Operationalization works by identifying specific indicators that will be taken to represent the ideas that we are interested in studying. If, for example, we are interested in studying masculinity, indicators for that concept might include some of the social roles prescribed to men in society such as breadwinning or fatherhood. Being a breadwinner or a father might therefore be considered indicators of a person’s masculinity. The extent to which a man fulfills either, or both, of these roles might be understood as clues (or indicators) about the extent to which he is viewed as masculine.
Let’s look at another example of indicators. Each day, Gallup researchers poll 1,000 randomly selected Americans to ask them about their well-being. To measure well-being, Gallup asks these people to respond to questions covering six broad areas: physical health, emotional health, work environment, life evaluation, healthy behaviors, and access to basic necessities. Gallup uses these six factors as indicators of the concept that they are really interested in: well-being (www.gallup.com/poll/123215/Ga...ays-Index.aspx).
Identifying indicators can be even simpler than the examples described thus far. What are the possible indicators of the concept of gender? Most of us would probably agree that “woman” and “man” are both reasonable indicators of gender, and if you’re a sociologist of gender, like me, you might also add an indicator of “other” to the list. Political party is another relatively easy concept for which to identify indicators. In the United States, likely indicators include Democrat and Republican and, depending on your research interest, you may include additional indicators such as Independent, Green, or Libertarian as well. Age and birthplace are additional examples of concepts for which identifying indicators is a relatively simple process. What concepts are of interest to you, and what are the possible indictors of those concepts?
We have now considered a few examples of concepts and their indicators but it is important that we don’t make the process of coming up with indicators too arbitrary or casual. One way to avoid taking an overly casual approach in identifying indicators, as described previously, is to turn to prior theoretical and empirical work in your area. Theories will point you in the direction of relevant concepts and possible indicators; empirical work will give you some very specific examples of how the important concepts in an area have been measured in the past and what sorts of indicators have been used. Perhaps it makes sense to use the same indicators as researchers who have come before you. On the other hand, perhaps you notice some possible weaknesses in measures that have been used in the past that your own methodological approach will enable you to overcome. Speaking of your methodological approach, another very important thing to think about when deciding on indicators and how you will measure your key concepts is the strategy you will use for data collection. A survey implies one way of measuring concepts, while field research implies a quite different way of measuring concepts. Your data-collection strategy will play a major role in shaping how you operationalize your concepts.
Putting It All Together
Moving from identifying concepts to conceptualizing them and then to operationalizing them is a matter of increasing specificity. You begin with a general interest, identify a few concepts that are essential for studying that interest, work to define those concepts, and then spell out precisely how you will measure those concepts. Your focus becomes narrower as you move from a general interest to operationalization. The process looks something like that depicted in Figure 6.7. Here, the researcher moves from a broader level of focus to a more narrow focus. The example provided in italics in the figure indicates what this process might look like for a researcher interested in studying the socialization of boys into their roles as men.
Figure 6.7 The Process of Measurement
One point not yet mentioned is that while the measurement process often works as outlined in Figure 6.7, it doesn’t necessarily always have to work out that way. What if your interest is in discovering how people define the same concept differently? If that’s the case, you probably begin the measurement process the same way as outlined earlier, by having some general interest and identifying key concepts related to that interest. You might even have some working definitions of the concepts you wish to measure. And of course you’ll have some idea of how you’ll go about discovering how your concept is defined by different people. But you may not go so far as to have a clear set of indicators identified before beginning data collection, for that would defeat the purpose if your aim is to discover the variety of indicators people rely on.
Let’s consider an example of when the measurement process may not work out exactly as depicted in Figure 6.7. One of my early research projects (Blackstone, 2003)Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. was a study of activism in the breast cancer movement compared to activism in the antirape movement. A goal of this study was to understand what “politics” means in the context of social movement participation. I began the study with a rather open-ended understanding of the term. By observing participants to understand how they engaged in politics, I began to gain an understanding of what politics meant for these groups and individuals. I learned from my observations that politics seemed to be about power: “who has it, who wants it, and how it is given, negotiated and taken away” (Blackstone, 2007).Blackstone, A. (2007). Finding politics in the silly and the sacred: Anti-rape activism on campus. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 151–163.Specific actions, such as the awareness-raising bicycle event Ride Against Rape, seemed to be political in that they empowered survivors to see that they were not alone, and they empowered clinics (through funds raised at the event) to provide services to survivors. By taking the time to observe movement participants in action for many months, I was able to learn how politics operated in the day-to-day goings-on of social movements and in the lives of movement participants. While it was not evident at the outset of the study, my observations led me to define politics as linked to action and challenging power. In this case, I conducted observations before actually coming up with a clear definition for my key term, and certainly before identifying indicators for the term. The measurement process therefore worked more inductively than Figure 6.7 implies that it might.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Operationalization involves spelling out precisely how a concept will be measured.
• The measurement process generally involves going from a more general focus to a narrower one, but the process does not proceed in exactly the same way for all research projects.
EXERCISE
1. Think of a concept that is of interest to you. Now identify some possible indicators of that concept. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.03%3A_Operationalization.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define reliability.
• Define validity.
Once we’ve managed to define our terms and specify the operations for measuring them, how do we know that our measures are any good? Without some assurance of the quality of our measures, we cannot be certain that our findings have any meaning or, at the least, that our findings mean what we think they mean. When social scientists measure concepts, they aim to achieve reliability and validity in their measures. These two aspects of measurement quality are the focus of this section. We’ll consider reliability first and then take a look at validity. For both aspects of measurement quality, let’s say our interest is in measuring the concepts of alcoholism and alcohol intake. What are some potential problems that could arise when attempting to measure this concept, and how might we work to overcome those problems?
Reliability
First, let’s say we’ve decided to measure alcoholism by asking people to respond to the following question: Have you ever had a problem with alcohol? If we measure alcoholism in this way, it seems likely that anyone who identifies as an alcoholic would respond with a yes to the question. So this must be a good way to identify our group of interest, right? Well, maybe. Think about how you or others you know would respond to this question. Would responses differ after a wild night out from what they would have been the day before? Might a teetotaler’s current headache from the single glass of wine he had last night influence how he answers the question this morning? How would that same person respond to the question before consuming the wine? In each of these cases, if the same person would respond differently to the same question at different points, it is possible that our measure of alcoholism has a reliability problem. Reliability in measurement is about consistency. If a measure is reliable, it means that if the same measure is applied consistently to the same person, the result will be the same each time.
One common problem of reliability with social scientific measures is memory. If we ask research participants to recall some aspect of their own past behavior, we should try to make the recollection process as simple and straightforward for them as possible. Sticking with the topic of alcohol intake, if we ask respondents how much wine, beer, and liquor they’ve consumed each day over the course of the past 3 months, how likely are we to get accurate responses? Unless a person keeps a journal documenting their intake, there will very likely be some inaccuracies in their responses. If, on the other hand, we ask a person how many drinks of any kind he or she has consumed in the past week, we might get a more accurate set of responses.
Reliability can be an issue even when we’re not reliant on others to accurately report their behaviors. Perhaps a field researcher is interested in observing how alcohol intake influences interactions in public locations. She may decide to conduct observations at a local pub, noting how many drinks patrons consume and how their behavior changes as their intake changes. But what if the researcher has to use the restroom and misses the three shots of tequila that the person next to her downs during the brief period she is away? The reliability of this researcher’s measure of alcohol intake, counting numbers of drinks she observes patrons consume, depends on her ability to actually observe every instance of patrons consuming drinks. If she is unlikely to be able to observe every such instance, then perhaps her mechanism for measuring this concept is not reliable.
Validity
While reliability is about consistency, validity is about shared understanding. What image comes to mind for you when you hear the word alcoholic? Are you certain that the image you conjure up is similar to the image others have in mind? If not, then we may be facing a problem of validity.
To be valid, we must be certain that our measures accurately get at the meaning of our concepts. Think back to the first possible measure of alcoholism we considered in the subsection “Reliability.” There, we initially considered measuring alcoholism by asking research participants the following question: Have you ever had a problem with alcohol? We realized that this might not be the most reliable way of measuring alcoholism because the same person’s response might vary dramatically depending on how he or she is feeling that day. Likewise, this measure of alcoholism is not particularly valid. What is “a problem” with alcohol? For some, it might be having had a single regrettable or embarrassing moment that resulted from consuming too much. For others, the threshold for “problem” might be different; perhaps a person has had numerous embarrassing drunken moments but still gets out of bed for work every day so doesn’t perceive himself or herself to have a problem. Because what each respondent considers to be problematic could vary so dramatically, our measure of alcoholism isn’t likely to yield any useful or meaningful results if our aim is to objectively understand, say, how many of our research participants are alcoholics.Of course, if our interest is in how many research participants perceive themselves to have a problem, then our measure may be just fine.
Let’s consider another example. Perhaps we’re interested in learning about a person’s dedication to healthy living. Most of us would probably agree that engaging in regular exercise is a sign of healthy living, so we could measure healthy living by counting the number of times per week that a person visits his local gym. At first this might seem like a reasonable measure, but if this respondent’s gym is anything like some of the gyms I’ve seen, there exists the distinct possibility that his gym visits include activities that are decidedly not fitness related. Perhaps he visits the gym to use their tanning beds, not a particularly good indicator of healthy living, or to flirt with potential dates or sit in the sauna. These activities, while potentially relaxing, are probably not the best indicators of healthy living. Therefore, recording the number of times a person visits the gym may not be the most valid way to measure his or her dedication to healthy living. Using this measure wouldn’t really give us an indication of a person’s dedication to healthy living. So we wouldn’t really be measuring what we intended to measure.
At its core, validity is about social agreement. One quick and easy way to help ensure that your measures are valid is to discuss them with others. One way to think of validity is to think of it as you would a portrait. Some portraits of people look just like the actual person they are intended to represent. But other representations of people’s images, such as caricatures and stick drawings, are not nearly as accurate. While a portrait may not be an exact representation of how a person looks, what’s important is the extent to which it approximates the look of the person it is intended to represent. The same goes for validity in measures. No measure is exact, but some measures are more accurate than others.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Reliability is a matter of consistency.
• Validity is a matter of social agreement.
Exercises
1. Operationalize a concept that is of interest to you. What are some possible problems of reliability or validity that you could run into given your operationalization? How could you tweak your operationalization and overcome those problems?
2. Sticking with the same concept you identified in exercise 1, find out how other sociologists have operationalized this concept. You can do this by revisiting readings from other sociology courses you’ve taken or by looking up a few articles using Sociological Abstracts. How does your plan for operationalization differ from that used in previous research? What potential problems of reliability or validity do you see? How do the researchers address those problems? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.04%3A_Measurement_Quality.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define and provide examples for each of the four levels of measurement.
• Define the terms index and typology, and discuss an example of each.
You should now have some idea about how conceptualization and operationalization work, and you also know a bit about how to assess the quality of your measures. But measurement is sometimes a complex process, and some concepts are more complex than others. Measuring a person’s political party affiliation, for example, is less complex than measuring her or his sense of alienation. In this section we’ll consider some of these complexities in measurement. First, we’ll take a look at the various levels of measurement that exist, and then we’ll consider a couple strategies for capturing the complexities of the concepts we wish to measure.
Levels of Measurement
When social scientists measure concepts, they sometimes use the language of variables and attributes. A variable refers to a grouping of several characteristics. Attributes are those characteristics. A variable’s attributes determine its level of measurement. There are four possible levels of measurement; they are nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio.
At the nominal level of measurement, variable attributes meet the criteria of exhaustiveness and mutual exclusivity. This is the most basic level of measurement. Relationship status, gender, race, political party affiliation, and religious affiliation are all examples of nominal-level variables. For example, to measure relationship status, we might ask respondents to tell us if they are currently partnered or single. These two attributes pretty much exhaust the possibilities for relationship status (i.e., everyone is always one or the other of these), and it is not possible for a person to simultaneous occupy more than one of these statuses (e.g., if you are single, you cannot also be partnered). Thus this measure of relationship status meets the criteria that nominal-level attributes must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive. One unique feature of nominal-level measures is that they cannot be mathematically quantified. We cannot say, for example, that being partnered has more or less quantifiable value than being single (note we’re not talking here about the economic impact of one’s relationship status—we’re talking only about relationship status on its own, not in relation to other variables).
Unlike nominal-level measures, attributes at the ordinal level can be rank ordered, though we cannot calculate a mathematical distance between those attributes. We can simply say that one attribute of an ordinal-level variable is more or less than another attribute. Ordinal-level attributes are also exhaustive and mutually exclusive, as with nominal-level variables. Examples of ordinal-level measures include social class, degree of support for policy initiatives, television program rankings, and prejudice. Thus while we can say that one person’s support for some public policy may be more or less than his neighbor’s level of support, we cannot say exactly how much more or less.
At the interval level, measures meet all the criteria of the two preceding levels, plus the distance between attributes is known to be equal. IQ scores are interval level, as are temperatures. Interval-level variables are not particularly common in social science research, but their defining characteristic is that we can say how much more or less one attribute differs from another. We cannot, however, say with certainty what the ratio of one attribute is in comparison to another. For example, it would not make sense to say that 50 degrees is half as hot as 100 degrees.
Finally, at the ratio level, attributes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, attributes can be rank ordered, the distance between attributes is equal, and attributes have a true zero point. Thus with these variables, we can say what the ratio of one attribute is in comparison to another. Examples of ratio-level variables include age and years of education. We know, for example, that a person who is 12 years old is twice as old as someone who is 6 years old.
Indexes, Scales, and Typologies
Earlier I mentioned that some concepts have dimensions. To account for a concept’s dimensions a researcher might rely on indexes, scales, or typologies. An index is a type of measure that contains several indicators and is used to summarize some more general concept. The Gallup poll on well-being described earlier in this chapter uses an index to measure well-being. Rather than ask respondents how well they think they are, Gallup has designed an index that includes multiple indicators of the more general concept of well-being (www.gallup.com/poll/123215/Ga...ays-Index.aspx).
Like an index, a scale is also a composite measure. But unlike indexes, scales are designed in a way that accounts for the possibility that different items on an index may vary in intensity. Take the Gallup well-being poll as an example and think about Gallup’s six dimensions of well-being: physical health, emotional health, work environment, life evaluation, healthy behaviors, and access to basic necessities. Is it possible that one of these dimensions is a more important contributor to overall well-being than the others? For example, it seems odd that a person who lacks access to basic necessities would rank equally in well-being to someone who has access to basic necessities but doesn’t regularly engage in healthy behaviors such as exercise. If we agree that this is the case, we may opt to give “access to basic necessities” greater weight in our overall measure of well-being than we give to “healthy behaviors,” and if we do so, we will have created a scale.
A typology, on the other hand, is a way of categorizing concepts according to particular themes. For example, in his classic study of suicide, Emile Durkheim (1897)Durkheim, E. (1897 [2006 translation by R. Buss]). On suicide. London, UK: Penguin. identified four types of suicide including altruistic, egoistic, anomic, and fatalistic. Each of these types is linked to the concept of suicide, but the typology allows us to classify suicide in ways that make the concept more meaningful and that help simplify the complexities of the concept.
Let’s consider another example. Sexual harassment is a concept for which there exist indexes, scales, and typologies. One typology of harassment, used in the US legal system, includes two forms of harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environment (Blackstone & McLaughlin, 2009).Blackstone, A., & McLaughlin, H. (2009). Sexual harassment. In J. O’Brien & E. L. Shapiro (Eds.), Encyclopedia of gender and society (pp. 762–766). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Quid pro quo harassment refers to the sort where sexual demands are made, or threatened to become, a condition of or basis for employment. Hostile work environment harassment, on the other hand, refers to sexual conduct or materials in the workplace that unreasonably interfere with a person’s ability to perform her or his job. While both types are sexual harassment, the typology helps us better understand the forms that sexual harassment can take and, in turn, helps us as researchers better identify what it is that we are observing and measuring when we study workplace harassment.
Sexual harassment is a concept for which there are also indexes. A sexual harassment index would use multiple items to measure the singular concept of sexual harassment. For example, you might ask research participants if they have ever experienced any of the following in the workplace: offensive sexual joking, exposure to offensive materials, unwanted touching, sexual threats, or sexual assault. These five indicators all have something to do with workplace sexual harassment. On their own, some of the more benign indicators, such as joking, might not be considered harassment (unless severe or pervasive), but collectively, the experience of these behaviors might add up to an overall experience of sexual harassment. The index allows the researcher in this case to better understand what shape a respondent’s harassment experience takes. If the researcher had only asked whether a respondent had ever experienced sexual harassment at work, she wouldn’t know what sorts of behaviors actually made up that respondent’s experience. Further, if the researcher decides to rank order the various behaviors that make up sexual harassment, perhaps weighting sexual assault more heavily than joking, then she will have created a scale rather than an index.
Let’s take a look at one more specific example of an index. In a recent study that I conducted of older workers, I wanted to understand how a worker’s sense of financial security might shape whether they leave or stay in positions where they feel underappreciated or harassed. Rather than ask a single question, I created an index to measure financial security. That index can be found in Figure 6.12. On their own, none of the questions in the index is likely to provide as accurate a representation of financial security as the collection of all the questions together.
Figure 6.12 Example of an Index Measuring Financial Security
In sum, indexes and typologies are tools that researchers use to condense large amounts of information, to simplify complex concepts, and most generally, to make sense of the concepts that they study.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In social science, our variables can be one of four different levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio.
• Indexes and typologies allow us to account for and simplify some of the complexities in our measures.
EXERCISES
1. Together with a fellow research methods student, identify six concepts that are of interest to you both. Next, on your own, identify each concept’s level of measurement. Share your answers with your peer. Discuss why you chose each level of measurement that you chose and, together, try to come to some agreement about any concepts that you labeled differently.
2. Take a look at Gallup’s page on their well-being index: www.gallup.com/poll/123215/Ga...ays-Index.aspx. Read about how various concepts there are operationalized and indexed. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.05%3A_Complexities_in_Measurement.txt |
Remember back in Chapter 1 when we saw the cute photo of the babies hanging out together and one of them was wearing a green onesie? I mentioned there that if we were to conclude that all babies wore green based on the photo that we would have committed selective observation. In that example of informal observation, our sampling strategy (just observing the baby in green) was of course faulty, but we nevertheless would have engaged in sampling. Sampling has to do with selecting some subset of one’s group of interest (in this case, babies) and drawing conclusions from that subset. How we sample and who we sample shapes what sorts of conclusions we are able to draw. Ultimately, this chapter focuses on questions about the who or the what that you want to be able to make claims about in your research. In the following sections we’ll define sampling, discuss different types of sampling strategies, and consider how to judge the quality of samples as consumers of social scientific research.
07: Sampling
Learning Objectives
• Understand the difference between populations and samples.
Who or What?
When I teach research methods, my students are sometimes disheartened to discover that the research projects they complete during the course will not make it possible for them to make sweeping claims about “all” of whomever it is that they’re interested in studying. What they fail to realize, however, is that they are not alone. One of the most surprising and frustrating lessons research methods students learn is that there is a difference between one’s population of interest and one’s study sample. While there are certainly exceptions, more often than not a researcher’s population and her or his sample are not the same.
In social scientific research, a population is the cluster of people, events, things, or other phenomena that you are most interested in; it is often the “who” or “what” that you want to be able to say something about at the end of your study. Populations in research may be rather large, such as “the American people,” but they are more typically a little less vague than that. For example, a large study for which the population of interest really is the American people will likely specify which American people, such as adults over the age of 18 or citizens or legal residents. A sample, on the other hand, is the cluster of people or events, for example, from or about which you will actually gather data. Some sampling strategies allow researchers to make claims about populations that are much larger than their actually sample with a fair amount of confidence. Other sampling strategies are designed to allow researchers to make theoretical contributions rather than to make sweeping claims about large populations. We’ll discuss both types of strategies later in this chapter.
As I’ve now said a couple of times, it is quite rare for a researcher to gather data from their entire population of interest. This might sound surprising or disappointing until you think about the kinds of research questions that sociologists typically ask. For example, let’s say we wish to answer the following research question: “How do men’s and women’s college experiences differ, and how are they similar?” Would you expect to be able to collect data from all college students across all nations from all historical time periods? Unless you plan to make answering this research question your entire life’s work (and then some), I’m guessing your answer is a resounding no way. So what to do? Does not having the time or resources to gather data from every single person of interest mean having to give up your research interest? Absolutely not. It just means having to make some hard choices about sampling, and then being honest with yourself and your readers about the limitations of your study based on the sample from whom you were able to actually collect data.
Sampling is the process of selecting observations that will be analyzed for research purposes. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers use sampling techniques to help them identify the what or whom from which they will collect their observations. Because the goals of qualitative and quantitative research differ, however, so, too, do the sampling procedures of the researchers employing these methods. First, we examine sampling types and techniques used in qualitative research. After that, we’ll look at how sampling typically works in quantitative research.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• A population is the group that is the main focus of a researcher’s interest; a sample is the group from whom the researcher actually collects data.
• Populations and samples might be one and the same, but more often they are not.
• Sampling involves selecting the observations that you will analyze.
Exercises
1. Read through the methods section of a couple of scholarly articles describing empirical research. How do the authors talk about their populations and samples, if at all? What do the articles’ abstracts suggest in terms of whom conclusions are being drawn about?
2. Think of a research project you have envisioned conducting as you’ve read this text. Would your population and sample be one and the same, or would they differ somehow? Explain. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/07%3A_Sampling/7.01%3A_Populations_Versus_Samples.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define nonprobability sampling, and describe instances in which a researcher might choose a nonprobability sampling technique.
• Describe the different types of nonprobability samples.
Qualitative researchers typically make sampling choices that enable them to deepen understanding of whatever phenomenon it is that they are studying. In this section we’ll examine the strategies that qualitative researchers typically employ when sampling as well as the various types of samples that qualitative researchers are most likely to use in their work.
Nonprobability Sampling
Nonprobability sampling refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s (or event’s or researcher’s focus’s) likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown. Because we don’t know the likelihood of selection, we don’t know with nonprobability samples whether a sample represents a larger population or not. But that’s OK, because representing the population is not the goal with nonprobability samples. That said, the fact that nonprobability samples do not represent a larger population does not mean that they are drawn arbitrarily or without any specific purpose in mind (once again, that would mean committing one of the errors of informal inquiry discussed in Chapter 1). In the following subsection, “Types of Nonprobability Samples,” we’ll take a closer look at the process of selecting research elements when drawing a nonprobability sample. But first, let’s consider why a researcher might choose to use a nonprobability sample.
So when are nonprobability samples ideal? One instance might be when we’re designing a research project. For example, if we’re conducting survey research, we may want to administer our survey to a few people who seem to resemble the folks we’re interested in studying in order to help work out kinks in the survey. We might also use a nonprobability sample at the early stages of a research project, if we’re conducting a pilot study or some exploratory research. This can be a quick way to gather some initial data and help us get some idea of the lay of the land before conducting a more extensive study. From these examples, we can see that nonprobability samples can be useful for setting up, framing, or beginning research. But it isn’t just early stage research that relies on and benefits from nonprobability sampling techniques.
Researchers also use nonprobability samples in full-blown research projects. These projects are usually qualitative in nature, where the researcher’s goal is in-depth, idiographic understanding rather than more general, nomothetic understanding. Evaluation researchers whose aim is to describe some very specific small group might use nonprobability sampling techniques, for example. Researchers interested in contributing to our theoretical understanding of some phenomenon might also collect data from nonprobability samples. Maren Klawiter (1999)Klawiter, M. (1999). Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: Mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer. Social Problems, 46, 104–126. relied on a nonprobability sample for her study of the role that culture plays in shaping social change. Klawiter conducted participant observation in three very different breast cancer organizations to understand “the bodily dimensions of cultural production and collective action.” Her intensive study of these three organizations allowed Klawiter to deeply understand each organization’s “culture of action” and, subsequently, to critique and contribute to broader theories of social change and social movement organization. Thus researchers interested in contributing to social theories, by either expanding on them, modifying them, or poking holes in their propositions, may use nonprobability sampling techniques to seek out cases that seem anomalous in order to understand how theories can be improved.
In sum, there are a number and variety of instances in which the use of nonprobability samples makes sense. We’ll examine several specific types of nonprobability samples in the next subsection.
Types of Nonprobability Samples
There are several types of nonprobability samples that researchers use. These include purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples. While the latter two strategies may be used by quantitative researchers from time to time, they are more typically employed in qualitative research, and because they are both nonprobability methods, we include them in this section of the chapter.
To draw a purposive sample, a researcher begins with specific perspectives in mind that he or she wishes to examine and then seeks out research participants who cover that full range of perspectives. For example, if you are studying students’ satisfaction with their living quarters on campus, you’ll want to be sure to include students who stay in each of the different types or locations of on-campus housing in your study. If you only include students from 1 of 10 dorms on campus, you may miss important details about the experiences of students who live in the 9 dorms you didn’t include in your study. In my own interviews of young people about their workplace sexual harassment experiences, I and my coauthors used a purposive sampling strategy; we used participants’ prior responses on a survey to ensure that we included both men and women in the interviews and that we included participants who’d had a range of harassment experiences, from relatively minor experiences to much more severe harassment.
While purposive sampling is often used when one’s goal is to include participants who represent a broad range of perspectives, purposive sampling may also be used when a researcher wishes to include only people who meet very narrow or specific criteria. For example, in their study of Japanese women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence, Miyoko Nagae and Barbara L. Dancy (2010)Nagae, M., & Dancy, B. L. (2010). Japanese women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 753–766. limited their study only to participants who had experienced intimate partner violence themselves, were at least 18 years old, had been married and living with their spouse at the time that the violence occurred, were heterosexual, and were willing to be interviewed. In this case, the researchers’ goal was to find participants who had had very specific experiences rather than finding those who had had quite diverse experiences, as in the preceding example. In both cases, the researchers involved shared the goal of understanding the topic at hand in as much depth as possible.
Qualitative researchers sometimes rely on snowball sampling techniques to identify study participants. In this case, a researcher might know of one or two people she’d like to include in her study but then relies on those initial participants to help identify additional study participants. Thus the researcher’s sample builds and becomes larger as the study continues, much as a snowball builds and becomes larger as it rolls through the snow.
Snowball sampling is an especially useful strategy when a researcher wishes to study some stigmatized group or behavior. For example, a researcher who wanted to study how people with genital herpes cope with their medical condition would be unlikely to find many participants by posting a call for interviewees in the newspaper or making an announcement about the study at some large social gathering. Instead, the researcher might know someone with the condition, interview that person, and then be referred by the first interviewee to another potential subject. Having a previous participant vouch for the trustworthiness of the researcher may help new potential participants feel more comfortable about being included in the study.
Snowball sampling is sometimes referred to as chain referral sampling. One research participant refers another, and that person refers another, and that person refers another—thus a chain of potential participants is identified. In addition to using this sampling strategy for potentially stigmatized populations, it is also a useful strategy to use when the researcher’s group of interest is likely to be difficult to find, not only because of some stigma associated with the group, but also because the group may be relatively rare. This was the case for Steven M. Kogan and colleagues (Kogan, Wejnert, Chen, Brody, & Slater, 2011)Kogan, S. M., Wejnert, C., Chen, Y., Brody, G. H., & Slater, L. M. (2011). Respondent-driven sampling with hard-to-reach emerging adults: An introduction and case study with rural African Americans. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26, 30–60. who wished to study the sexual behaviors of non-college-bound African American young adults who lived in high-poverty rural areas. The researchers first relied on their own networks to identify study participants, but because members of the study’s target population were not easy to find, access to the networks of initial study participants was very important for identifying additional participants. Initial participants were given coupons to pass on to others they knew who qualified for the study. Participants were given an added incentive for referring eligible study participants; they received not only \$50.00 for participating in the study but also \$20.00 for each person they recruited who also participated in the study. Using this strategy, Kogan and colleagues succeeded in recruiting 292 study participants.
Quota sampling is another nonprobability sampling strategy. This type of sampling is actually employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers, but because it is a nonprobability method, we’ll discuss it in this section. When conducting quota sampling, a researcher identifies categories that are important to the study and for which there is likely to be some variation. Subgroups are created based on each category and the researcher decides how many people (or documents or whatever element happens to be the focus of the research) to include from each subgroup and collects data from that number for each subgroup.
Let’s go back to the example we considered previously of student satisfaction with on-campus housing. Perhaps there are two types of housing on your campus: apartments that include full kitchens and dorm rooms where residents do not cook for themselves but eat in a dorm cafeteria. As a researcher, you might wish to understand how satisfaction varies across these two types of housing arrangements. Perhaps you have the time and resources to interview 20 campus residents, so you decide to interview 10 from each housing type. It is possible as well that your review of literature on the topic suggests that campus housing experiences vary by gender. If that is that case, perhaps you’ll decide on four important subgroups: men who live in apartments, women who live in apartments, men who live in dorm rooms, and women who live in dorm rooms. Your quota sample would include five people from each subgroup.
In 1936, up-and-coming pollster George Gallup made history when he successfully predicted the outcome of the presidential election using quota sampling methods. The leading polling entity at the time, The Literary Digest, predicted that Alfred Landon would beat Franklin Roosevelt in the presidential election by a landslide. When Gallup’s prediction that Roosevelt would win, turned out to be correct, “the Gallup Poll was suddenly on the map” (Van Allen, 2011).Van Allen, S. (2011). Gallup corporate history. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/corporate/1357...-History.aspx#2Gallup successfully predicted subsequent elections based on quota samples, but in 1948, Gallup incorrectly predicted that Dewey would beat Truman in the US presidential election.For more information about the 1948 election and other historically significant dates related to measurement, see the PBS timeline of “The first measured century” at http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/e1948election.htm. Among other problems, the fact that Gallup’s quota categories did not represent those who actually voted (Neuman, 2007)Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.underscores the point that one should avoid attempting to make statistical generalizations from data collected using quota sampling methods.If you are interested in the history of polling, I recommend a recent book: Fried, A. (2011). Pathways to polling: Crisis, cooperation, and the making of public opinion professions. New York, NY: Routledge. While quota sampling offers the strength of helping the researcher account for potentially relevant variation across study elements, it would be a mistake to think of this strategy as yielding statistically representative findings.
Finally, convenience sampling is another nonprobability sampling strategy that is employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. To draw a convenience sample, a researcher simply collects data from those people or other relevant elements to which he or she has most convenient access. This method, also sometimes referred to as haphazard sampling, is most useful in exploratory research. It is also often used by journalists who need quick and easy access to people from their population of interest. If you’ve ever seen brief interviews of people on the street on the news, you’ve probably seen a haphazard sample being interviewed. While convenience samples offer one major benefit—convenience—we should be cautious about generalizing from research that relies on convenience samples.
Table 7:1 Types of Nonprobability Samples
Sample type Description
Purposive Researcher seeks out elements that meet specific criteria.
Snowball Researcher relies on participant referrals to recruit new participants.
Quota Researcher selects cases from within several different subgroups.
Convenience Researcher gathers data from whatever cases happen to be convenient.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Nonprobability samples might be used when researchers are conducting exploratory research, by evaluation researchers, or by researchers whose aim is to make some theoretical contribution.
• There are several types of nonprobability samples including purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples.
EXERCISES
1. Imagine you are about to conduct a study of people’s use of the public parks in your hometown. Explain how you could employ each of the nonprobability sampling techniques described previously to recruit a sample for your study.
2. Of the four nonprobability sample types described, which seems strongest to you? Which seems weakest? Explain. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/07%3A_Sampling/7.02%3A_Sampling_in_Qualitative_Research.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Describe how probability sampling differs from nonprobability sampling.
• Define generalizability, and describe how it is achieved in probability samples.
• Identify the various types of probability samples, and provide a brief description of each.
Quantitative researchers are often interested in being able to make generalizations about groups larger than their study samples. While there are certainly instances when quantitative researchers rely on nonprobability samples (e.g., when doing exploratory or evaluation research), quantitative researchers tend to rely on probability sampling techniques. The goals and techniques associated with probability samples differ from those of nonprobability samples. We’ll explore those unique goals and techniques in this section.
Probability Sampling
Unlike nonprobability sampling, probability sampling refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s (or event’s) likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is known. You might ask yourself why we should care about a study element’s likelihood of being selected for membership in a researcher’s sample. The reason is that, in most cases, researchers who use probability sampling techniques are aiming to identify a representative sample from which to collect data. A representative sample is one that resembles the population from which it was drawn in all the ways that are important for the research being conducted. If, for example, you wish to be able to say something about differences between men and women at the end of your study, you better make sure that your sample doesn’t contain only women. That’s a bit of an oversimplification, but the point with representativeness is that if your population varies in some way that is important to your study, your sample should contain the same sorts of variation.
Obtaining a representative sample is important in probability sampling because a key goal of studies that rely on probability samples is generalizability. In fact, generalizability is perhaps the key feature that distinguishes probability samples from nonprobability samples. Generalizability refers to the idea that a study’s results will tell us something about a group larger than the sample from which the findings were generated. In order to achieve generalizability, a core principle of probability sampling is that all elements in the researcher’s target population have an equal chance of being selected for inclusion in the study. In research, this is the principle of random selection. Random selection is a mathematical process that we won’t go into too much depth about here, but if you have taken or plan to take a statistics course, you’ll learn more about it there. The important thing to remember about random selection here is that, as previously noted, it is a core principal of probability sampling. If a researcher uses random selection techniques to draw a sample, he or she will be able to estimate how closely the sample represents the larger population from which it was drawn by estimating the sampling error. Sampling error is a statistical calculation of the difference between results from a sample and the actual parameters of a population.
Types of Probability Samples
There are a variety of probability samples that researchers may use. These include simple random samples, systematic samples, stratified samples, and cluster samples.
Simple random samples are the most basic type of probability sample, but their use is not particularly common. Part of the reason for this may be the work involved in generating a simple random sample. To draw a simple random sample, a researcher starts with a list of every single member, or element, of his or her population of interest. This list is sometimes referred to as a sampling frame. Once that list has been created, the researcher numbers each element sequentially and then randomly selects the elements from which he or she will collect data. To randomly select elements, researchers use a table of numbers that have been generated randomly. There are several possible sources for obtaining a random number table. Some statistics and research methods textbooks offer such tables as appendices to the text. Perhaps a more accessible source is one of the many free random number generators available on the Internet. A good online source is the website Stat Trek, which contains a random number generator that you can use to create a random number table of whatever size you might need (stattrek.com/Tables/Random.aspx). Randomizer.org also offers a useful random number generator (http://randomizer.org).
As you might have guessed, drawing a simple random sample can be quite tedious. Systematic sampling techniques are somewhat less tedious but offer the benefits of a random sample. As with simple random samples, you must be able to produce a list of every one of your population elements. Once you’ve done that, to draw a systematic sample you’d simply select every kth element on your list. But what is k, and where on the list of population elements does one begin the selection process? k is your selection interval or the distance between the elements you select for inclusion in your study. To begin the selection process, you’ll need to figure out how many elements you wish to include in your sample. Let’s say you want to interview 25 fraternity members on your campus, and there are 100 men on campus who are members of fraternities. In this case, your selection interval, or k, is 4. To arrive at 4, simply divide the total number of population elements by your desired sample size. This process is represented in Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.5 Formula for Determining Selection Interval for Systematic Sample
To determine where on your list of population elements to begin selecting the names of the 25 men you will interview, select a random number between 1 and k, and begin there. If we randomly select 3 as our starting point, we’d begin by selecting the third fraternity member on the list and then select every fourth member from there. This might be easier to understand if you can see it visually. Table 7.2 lists the names of our hypothetical 100 fraternity members on campus. You’ll see that the third name on the list has been selected for inclusion in our hypothetical study, as has every fourth name after that. A total of 25 names have been selected.
Table 7:2 Systematic Sample of 25 Fraternity Members
Number Name Include in study? Number Name Include in study?
1 Jacob 51 Blake Yes
2 Ethan 52 Oliver
3 Michael Yes 53 Cole
4 Jayden 54 Carlos
5 William 55 Jaden Yes
6 Alexander 56 Jesus
7 Noah Yes 57 Alex
8 Daniel 58 Aidan
9 Aiden 59 Eric Yes
10 Anthony 60 Hayden
11 Joshua Yes 61 Brian
12 Mason 62 Max
13 Christopher 63 Jaxon Yes
14 Andrew 64 Brian
Number Name Include in study? Number Name Include in study?
15 David Yes 65 Matthew
16 Logan 66 Elijah
17 James 67 Joseph Yes
18 Gabriel 68 Benjamin
19 Ryan Yes 69 Samuel
20 Jackson 70 John
21 Nathan 71 Jonathan Yes
22 Christian 72 Liam
23 Dylan Yes 73 Landon
24 Caleb 74 Tyler
25 Lucas 75 Evan Yes
26 Gavin 76 Nicholas
27 Isaac Yes 77 Braden
28 Luke 78 Angel
29 Brandon 79 Jack Yes
30 Isaiah 80 Jordan
31 Owen Yes 81 Carter
32 Conner 82 Justin
33 Jose 83 Jeremiah Yes
34 Julian 84 Robert
35 Aaron Yes 85 Adrian
36 Wyatt 86 Kevin
37 Hunter 87 Cameron Yes
38 Zachary 88 Thomas
39 Charles Yes 89 Austin
40 Eli 90 Chase
41 Henry 91 Sebastian Yes
42 Jason 92 Levi
43 Xavier Yes 93 Ian
44 Colton 94 Dominic
45 Juan 95 Cooper Yes
46 Josiah 96 Luis
47 Ayden Yes 97 Carson
48 Adam 98 Nathaniel
49 Brody 99 Tristan Yes
50 Diego 100 Parker
Note: In case you’re wondering how I came up with 100 unique names for this table, I’ll let you in on a little secret: lists of popular baby names can be great resources for researchers. I used the list of top 100 names for boys based on Social Security Administration statistics for this table. I often use baby name lists to come up with pseudonyms for field research subjects and interview participants. See Family Education. (n.d.). Name lab. Retrieved from http://baby-names.familyeducation.co...lar-names/boys.
There is one clear instance in which systematic sampling should not be employed. If your sampling frame has any pattern to it, you could inadvertently introduce bias into your sample by using a systemic sampling strategy. This is sometimes referred to as the problem of periodicity. Periodicity refers to the tendency for a pattern to occur at regular intervals. Let’s say, for example, that you wanted to observe how people use the outdoor public spaces on your campus. Perhaps you need to have your observations completed within 28 days and you wish to conduct four observations on randomly chosen days. Table 7.3 shows a list of the population elements for this example. To determine which days we’ll conduct our observations, we’ll need to determine our selection interval. As you’ll recall from the preceding paragraphs, to do so we must divide our population size, in this case 28 days, by our desired sample size, in this case 4 days. This formula leads us to a selection interval of 7. If we randomly select 2 as our starting point and select every seventh day after that, we’ll wind up with a total of 4 days on which to conduct our observations. You’ll see how that works out in the following table.
Table 7:3 Systematic Sample of Observation Days
Number Day Include in study? Number Day Include in study?
1 Monday 15 Monday
2 Tuesday Yes 16 Tuesday Yes
3 Wednesday 17 Wednesday
4 Thursday 18 Thursday
5 Friday 19 Friday
6 Saturday 20 Saturday
7 Sunday 21 Sunday
8 Monday 22 Monday
9 Tuesday Yes 23 Tuesday Yes
10 Wednesday 24 Wednesday
11 Thursday 25 Thursday
12 Friday 26 Friday
13 Saturday 27 Saturday
14 Sunday 28 Sunday
Do you notice any problems with our selection of observation days? Apparently we’ll only be observing on Tuesdays. As you have probably figured out, that isn’t such a good plan if we really wish to understand how public spaces on campus are used. My guess is that weekend use probably differs from weekday use, and that use may even vary during the week, just as class schedules do. In cases such as this, where the sampling frame is cyclical, it would be better to use a stratified sampling technique. In stratified sampling, a researcher will divide the study population into relevant subgroups and then draw a sample from each subgroup. In this example, we might wish to first divide our sampling frame into two lists: weekend days and weekdays. Once we have our two lists, we can then apply either simple random or systematic sampling techniques to each subgroup.
Stratified sampling is a good technique to use when, as in our example, a subgroup of interest makes up a relatively small proportion of the overall sample. In our example of a study of use of public space on campus, we want to be sure to include weekdays and weekends in our sample, but because weekends make up less than a third of an entire week, there’s a chance that a simple random or systematic strategy would not yield sufficient weekend observation days. As you might imagine, stratified sampling is even more useful in cases where a subgroup makes up an even smaller proportion of the study population, say, for example, if we want to be sure to include both men’s and women’s perspectives in a study, but men make up only a small percentage of the population. There’s a chance simple random or systematic sampling strategy might not yield any male participants, but by using stratified sampling, we could ensure that our sample contained the proportion of men that is reflective of the larger population.
Up to this point in our discussion of probability samples, we’ve assumed that researchers will be able to access a list of population elements in order to create a sampling frame. This, as you might imagine, is not always the case. Let’s say, for example, that you wish to conduct a study of hairstyle preferences across the United States. Just imagine trying to create a list of every single person with (and without) hair in the country. Basically, we’re talking about a list of every person in the country. Even if you could find a way to generate such a list, attempting to do so might not be the most practical use of your time or resources. When this is the case, researchers turn to cluster sampling. Cluster sampling occurs when a researcher begins by sampling groups (or clusters) of population elements and then selects elements from within those groups.
Let’s take a look at a couple more examples. Perhaps you are interested in the workplace experiences of public librarians. Chances are good that obtaining a list of all librarians that work for public libraries would be rather difficult. But I’ll bet you could come up with a list of all public libraries without too much hassle. Thus you could draw a random sample of libraries (your cluster) and then draw another random sample of elements (in this case, librarians) from within the libraries you initially selected. Cluster sampling works in stages. In this example, we sampled in two stages. As you might have guessed, sampling in multiple stages does introduce the possibility of greater error (each stage is subject to its own sampling error), but it is nevertheless a highly efficient method.
Jessica Holt and Wayne Gillespie (2008)Holt, J. L., & Gillespie, W. (2008). Intergenerational transmission of violence, threatened egoism, and reciprocity: A test of multiple pychosocial factors affecting intimate partner violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 252–266. used cluster sampling in their study of students’ experiences with violence in intimate relationships. Specifically, the researchers randomly selected 14 classes on their campus and then drew a random subsample of students from those classes. But you probably know from your experience with college classes that not all classes are the same size. So if Holt and Gillespie had simply randomly selected 14 classes and then selected the same number of students from each class to complete their survey, then students in the smaller of those classes would have had a greater chance of being selected for the study than students in the larger classes. Keep in mind with random sampling the goal is to make sure that each element has the same chance of being selected. When clusters are of different sizes, as in the example of sampling college classes, researchers often use a method called probability proportionate to size(PPS). This means that they take into account that their clusters are of different sizes. They do this by giving clusters different chances of being selected based on their size so that each element within those clusters winds up having an equal chance of being selected.
Table 7:4 Types of Probability Samples
Sample type Description
Simple random Researcher randomly selects elements from sampling frame.
Systematic Researcher selects every kth element from sampling frame.
Stratified Researcher creates subgroups then randomly selects elements from each subgroup.
Cluster Researcher randomly selects clusters then randomly selects elements from selected clusters.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In probability sampling, the aim is to identify a sample that resembles the population from which it was drawn.
• There are several types of probability samples including simple random samples, systematic samples, stratified samples, and cluster samples.
EXERCISES
1. Imagine that you are about to conduct a study of people’s use of public parks. Explain how you could employ each of the probability sampling techniques described earlier to recruit a sample for your study.
2. Of the four probability sample types described, which seems strongest to you? Which seems weakest? Explain. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/07%3A_Sampling/7.03%3A_Sampling_in_Quantitative_Research.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify several questions we should ask about samples when reading the results of research.
• Name some tenets worth keeping in mind with respect to responsibly reading research findings.
We read and hear about research results so often that we might overlook the need to ask important questions about where research participants come from and how they are identified for inclusion in a research project. It is easy to focus only on findings when we’re busy and when the really interesting stuff is in a study’s conclusions, not its procedures. But now that you have some familiarity with the variety of procedures for selecting study participants, you are equipped to ask some very important questions about the findings you read and to be a more responsible consumer of research.
Who Sampled, How Sampled, and for What Purpose?
Have you ever been a participant in someone’s research? If you have ever taken an introductory psychology or sociology class at a large university, that’s probably a silly question to ask. Social science researchers on college campuses have a luxury that researchers elsewhere may not share—they have access to a whole bunch of (presumably) willing and able human guinea pigs. But that luxury comes at a cost—sample representativeness. One study of top academic journals in psychology found that over two-thirds (68%) of participants in studies published by those journals were based on samples drawn in the United States (Arnett, 2008).Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. Further, the study found that two-thirds of the work that derived from US samples published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology was based on samples made up entirely of American undergraduates taking psychology courses.
These findings certainly beg the question: What do we actually learn from social scientific studies and about whom do we learn it? That is exactly the concern raised by Joseph Henrich and colleagues (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010),Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. authors of the article “The Weirdest People in the World?” In their piece, Henrich and colleagues point out that behavioral scientists very commonly make sweeping claims about human nature based on samples drawn only from WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) societies, and often based on even narrower samples, as is the case with many studies relying on samples drawn from college classrooms. As it turns out, many robust findings about the nature of human behavior when it comes to fairness, cooperation, visual perception, trust, and other behaviors are based on studies that excluded participants from outside the United States and sometimes excluded anyone outside the college classroom (Begley, 2010).Newsweek magazine published an interesting story about Henrich and his colleague’s study: Begley, S. (2010). What’s really human? The trouble with student guinea pigs. Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/2010/07/23/w...lly-human.html This certainly raises questions about what we really know about human behavior as opposed to US resident or US undergraduate behavior. Of course not all research findings are based on samples of WEIRD folks like college students. But even then it would behoove us to pay attention to the population on which studies are based and the claims that are being made about to whom those studies apply.
In the preceding discussion, the concern is with researchers making claims about populations other than those from which their samples were drawn. A related, but slightly different, potential concern is sampling bias. Bias in sampling occurs when the elements selected for inclusion in a study do not represent the larger population from which they were drawn. For example, a poll conducted online by a newspaper asking for the public’s opinion about some local issue will certainly not represent the public since those without access to computers or the Internet, those who do not read that paper’s website, and those who do not have the time or interest will not answer the question.
Another thing to keep in mind is that just because a sample may be representative in all respects that a researcher thinks are relevant, there may be aspects that are relevant that didn’t occur to the researcher when she was drawing her sample. You might not think that a person’s phone would have much to do with their voting preferences, for example. But had pollsters making predictions about the results of the 2008 presidential election not been careful to include both cell phone–only and landline households in their surveys, it is possible that their predictions would have underestimated Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain because Obama was much more popular among cell-only users than McCain (Keeter, Dimock, & Christian, 2008).Keeter, S., Dimock, M., & Christian, L. (2008). Calling cell phones in ’08 pre-election polls. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from people-press.org/peopl...commentary.pdf
So how do we know when we can count on results that are being reported to us? While there might not be any magic or always-true rules we can apply, there are a couple of things we can keep in mind as we read the claims researchers make about their findings. First, remember that sample quality is determined only by the sample actually obtained, not by the sampling method itself. A researcher may set out to administer a survey to a representative sample by correctly employing a random selection technique, but if only a handful of the people sampled actually respond to the survey, the researcher will have to be very careful about the claims he can make about his survey findings. Another thing to keep in mind, as demonstrated by the preceding discussion, is that researchers may be drawn to talking about implications of their findings as though they apply to some group other than the population actually sampled. Though this tendency is usually quite innocent and does not come from a place of malice, it is all too tempting a way to talk about findings; as consumers of those findings, it is our responsibility to be attentive to this sort of (likely unintentional) bait and switch.
Finally, keep in mind that a sample that allows for comparisons of theoretically important concepts or variables is certainly better than one that does not allow for such comparisons. In a study based on a nonrepresentative sample, for example, we can learn about the strength of our social theories by comparing relevant aspects of social processes. Klawiter’s previously mentioned study (1999)Klawiter, M. (1999). Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: Mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer. Social Problems, 46, 104–126. of three carefully chosen breast cancer activist groups allowed her to contribute to our understandings of activism by addressing potential weaknesses in theories of social change.
At their core, questions about sample quality should address who has been sampled, how they were sampled, and for what purpose they were sampled. Being able to answer those questions will help you better understand, and more responsibly read, research results.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Sometimes researchers may make claims about populations other than those from whom their samples were drawn; other times they may make claims about a population based on a sample that is not representative. As consumers of research, we should be attentive to both possibilities.
• A researcher’s findings need not be generalizable to be valuable; samples that allow for comparisons of theoretically important concepts or variables may yield findings that contribute to our social theories and our understandings of social processes.
Exercise
1. Find any news story or blog entry that describes results from any social scientific study. How much detail is reported about the study’s sample? What sorts of claims are being made about the study’s findings, and to whom do they apply? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/07%3A_Sampling/7.04%3A_Questions_to_Ask_About_Samples.txt |
In 2008, the voters of the United States elected our first African American president, Barack Obama. It may not surprise you to learn that when President Obama was coming of age in the 1970s, one-quarter of Americans reported that they would not vote for a qualified African American presidential nominee. Three decades later, when President Obama ran for the presidency, fewer than 8% of Americans still held that position, and President Obama won the election (Smith, 2009).Smith, T. W. (2009). Trends in willingness to vote for a black and woman for president, 1972–2008. GSS Social Change Report No. 55. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. We know about these trends in voter opinion because the General Social Survey (http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website), a nationally representative survey of American adults, included questions about race and voting over the years described here. Without survey research, we may not know how Americans’ perspectives on race and the presidency shifted over these years.
08: Survey Research- A Quantitative Technique
Learning Objectives
• Define survey research.
• Identify when it is appropriate to employ survey research as a data-collection strategy.
Why Survey Research?
Most of you have probably taken a survey at one time or another, so you probably have a pretty good idea of what a survey is. Sometimes students in my research methods classes feel that understanding what a survey is and how to write one is so obvious, there’s no need to dedicate any class time to learning about it. This feeling is understandable—surveys are very much a part of our everyday lives—we’ve probably all taken one, we hear about their results in the news, and perhaps we’ve even administered one ourselves. What students quickly learn is that there is more to constructing a good survey than meets the eye. Survey design takes a great deal of thoughtful planning and often a great many rounds of revision. But it is worth the effort. As we’ll learn in this chapter, there are many benefits to choosing survey research as one’s method of data collection. We’ll take a look at what a survey is exactly, what some of the benefits and drawbacks of this method are, how to construct a survey, and what to do with survey data once one has it in hand.
Survey research is a quantitative method whereby a researcher poses some set of predetermined questions to an entire group, or sample, of individuals. Survey research is an especially useful approach when a researcher aims to describe or explain features of a very large group or groups. This method may also be used as a way of quickly gaining some general details about one’s population of interest to help prepare for a more focused, in-depth study using time-intensive methods such as in-depth interviews or field research. In this case, a survey may help a researcher identify specific individuals or locations from which to collect additional data.
As is true of all methods of data collection, survey research is better suited to answering some kinds of research question more than others. In addition, as you’ll recall from Chapter 6, operationalization works differently with different research methods. If your interest is in political activism, for example, you likely operationalize that concept differently in a survey than you would for a field research study of the same topic.
KEY TAKEAWAY
• Survey research is often used by researchers who wish to explain trends or features of large groups. It may also be used to assist those planning some more focused, in-depth study.
Exercise
1. Recall some of the possible research questions you came up with while reading previous chapters of this text. How might you frame those questions so that they could be answered using survey research? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/08%3A_Survey_Research-_A_Quantitative_Technique/8.01%3A_What_Is_It_and_When_Shou.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify and explain the strengths of survey research.
• Identify and explain the weaknesses of survey research.
Survey research, as with all methods of data collection, comes with both strengths and weaknesses. We’ll examine both in this section.
Strengths of Survey Method
Researchers employing survey methods to collect data enjoy a number of benefits. First, surveys are an excellent way to gather lots of information from many people. In my own study of older people’s experiences in the workplace, I was able to mail a written questionnaire to around 500 people who lived throughout the state of Maine at a cost of just over \$1,000. This cost included printing copies of my seven-page survey, printing a cover letter, addressing and stuffing envelopes, mailing the survey, and buying return postage for the survey. I realize that \$1,000 is nothing to sneeze at. But just imagine what it might have cost to visit each of those people individually to interview them in person. Consider the cost of gas to drive around the state, other travel costs, such as meals and lodging while on the road, and the cost of time to drive to and talk with each person individually. We could double, triple, or even quadruple our costs pretty quickly by opting for an in-person method of data collection over a mailed survey. Thus surveys are relatively cost effective.
Related to the benefit of cost effectiveness is a survey’s potential for generalizability. Because surveys allow researchers to collect data from very large samples for a relatively low cost, survey methods lend themselves to probability sampling techniques, which we discussed in Chapter 7. Of all the data-collection methods described in this text, survey research is probably the best method to use when one hopes to gain a representative picture of the attitudes and characteristics of a large group.
Survey research also tends to be a reliable method of inquiry. This is because surveys are standardized in that the same questions, phrased in exactly the same way, are posed to participants. Other methods, such as qualitative interviewing, which we’ll learn about in Chapter 9, do not offer the same consistency that a quantitative survey offers. This is not to say that all surveys are always reliable. A poorly phrased question can cause respondents to interpret its meaning differently, which can reduce that question’s reliability. Assuming well-constructed question and questionnaire design, one strength of survey methodology is its potential to produce reliable results.
The versatility of survey research is also an asset. Surveys are used by all kinds of people in all kinds of professions. I repeat, surveys are used by all kinds of people in all kinds of professions. Is there a light bulb switching on in your head? I hope so. The versatility offered by survey research means that understanding how to construct and administer surveys is a useful skill to have for all kinds of jobs. Lawyers might use surveys in their efforts to select juries, social service and other organizations (e.g., churches, clubs, fundraising groups, activist groups) use them to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts, businesses use them to learn how to market their products, governments use them to understand community opinions and needs, and politicians and media outlets use surveys to understand their constituencies.
In sum, the following are benefits of survey research:
1. Cost-effective
2. Generalizable
3. Reliable
4. Versatile
Weaknesses of Survey Method
As with all methods of data collection, survey research also comes with a few drawbacks. First, while one might argue that surveys are flexible in the sense that we can ask any number of questions on any number of topics in them, the fact that the survey researcher is generally stuck with a single instrument for collecting data (the questionnaire), surveys are in many ways rather inflexible. Let’s say you mail a survey out to 1,000 people and then discover, as responses start coming in, that your phrasing on a particular question seems to be confusing a number of respondents. At this stage, it’s too late for a do-over or to change the question for the respondents who haven’t yet returned their surveys. When conducting in-depth interviews, on the other hand, a researcher can provide respondents further explanation if they’re confused by a question and can tweak their questions as they learn more about how respondents seem to understand them.
Validity can also be a problem with surveys. Survey questions are standardized; thus it can be difficult to ask anything other than very general questions that a broad range of people will understand. Because of this, survey results may not be as valid as results obtained using methods of data collection that allow a researcher to more comprehensively examine whatever topic is being studied. Let’s say, for example, that you want to learn something about voters’ willingness to elect an African American president, as in our opening example in this chapter. General Social Survey respondents were asked, “If your party nominated an African American for president, would you vote for him if he were qualified for the job?” Respondents were then asked to respond either yes or no to the question. But what if someone’s opinion was more complex than could be answered with a simple yes or no? What if, for example, a person was willing to vote for an African American woman but not an African American man?I am not at all suggesting that such a perspective makes any sense, but it is conceivable that an individual might hold such a perspective.
In sum, potential drawbacks to survey research include the following:
1. Inflexibility
2. Validity
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Strengths of survey research include its cost effectiveness, generalizability, reliability, and versatility.
• Weaknesses of survey research include inflexibility and issues with validity.
Exercises
1. What are some ways that survey researchers might overcome the weaknesses of this method?
2. Find an article reporting results from survey research (remember how to use Sociological Abstracts?). How do the authors describe the strengths and weaknesses of their study? Are any of the strengths or weaknesses described here mentioned in the article? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/08%3A_Survey_Research-_A_Quantitative_Technique/8.02%3A_Pros_and_Cons_of_Survey_.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Explain the following laws within the Ideal Gas Law
• Define cross-sectional surveys, provide an example of a cross-sectional survey, and outline some of the drawbacks of cross-sectional research.
• Describe the various types of longitudinal surveys.
• Define retrospective surveys, and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
• Discuss some of the benefits and drawbacks of the various methods of delivering self-administered questionnaires.
There is much variety when it comes to surveys. This variety comes both in terms of time—when or with what frequency a survey is administered—and in terms of administration—how a survey is delivered to respondents. In this section we’ll take a look at what types of surveys exist when it comes to both time and administration.
Time
In terms of time, there are two main types of surveys: cross-sectional and longitudinal. Cross-sectional surveys are those that are administered at just one point in time. These surveys offer researchers a sort of snapshot in time and give us an idea about how things are for our respondents at the particular point in time that the survey is administered. My own study of older workers mentioned previously is an example of a cross-sectional survey. I administered the survey at just one time.
Another example of a cross-sectional survey comes from Aniko Kezdy and colleagues’ study (Kezdy, Martos, Boland, & Horvath-Szabo, 2011)Kezdy, A., Martos, T., Boland, V., & Horvath-Szabo, K. (2011). Religious doubts and mental health in adolescence and young adulthood: The association with religious attitudes. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 39–47. of the association between religious attitudes, religious beliefs, and mental health among students in Hungary. These researchers administered a single, one-time-only, cross-sectional survey to a convenience sample of 403 high school and college students. The survey focused on how religious attitudes impact various aspects of one’s life and health. The researchers found from analysis of their cross-sectional data that anxiety and depression were highest among those who had both strong religious beliefs and also some doubts about religion. Yet another recent example of cross-sectional survey research can be seen in Bateman and colleagues’ study (Bateman, Pike, & Butler, 2011) of how the perceived publicness of social networking sites influences users’ self-disclosures.Bateman, P. J., Pike, J. C., & Butler, B. S. (2011). To disclose or not: Publicness in social networking sites. Information Technology & People, 24, 78–100. These researchers administered an online survey to undergraduate and graduate business students. They found that even though revealing information about oneself is viewed as key to realizing many of the benefits of social networking sites, respondents were less willing to disclose information about themselves as their perceptions of a social networking site’s publicness rose. That is, there was a negative relationship between perceived publicness of a social networking site and plans to self-disclose on the site.
One problem with cross-sectional surveys is that the events, opinions, behaviors, and other phenomena that such surveys are designed to assess don’t generally remain stagnant. Thus generalizing from a cross-sectional survey about the way things are can be tricky; perhaps you can say something about the way things were in the moment that you administered your survey, but it is difficult to know whether things remained that way for long after you administered your survey. Think, for example, about how Americans might have responded if administered a survey asking for their opinions on terrorism on September 10, 2001. Now imagine how responses to the same set of questions might differ were they administered on September 12, 2001. The point is not that cross-sectional surveys are useless; they have many important uses. But researchers must remember what they have captured by administering a cross-sectional survey; that is, as previously noted, a snapshot of life as it was at the time that the survey was administered.
One way to overcome this sometimes problematic aspect of cross-sectional surveys is to administer a longitudinal survey. Longitudinal surveys are those that enable a researcher to make observations over some extended period of time. There are several types of longitudinal surveys, including trend, panel, and cohort surveys. We’ll discuss all three types here, along with another type of survey called retrospective. Retrospective surveys fall somewhere in between cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys.
The first type of longitudinal survey is called a trend survey. The main focus of a trend survey is, perhaps not surprisingly, trends. Researchers conducting trend surveys are interested in how people’s inclinations change over time. The Gallup opinion polls are an excellent example of trend surveys. You can read more about Gallup on their website: http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx. To learn about how public opinion changes over time, Gallup administers the same questions to people at different points in time. For example, for several years Gallup has polled Americans to find out what they think about gas prices (something many of us happen to have opinions about). One thing we’ve learned from Gallup’s polling is that price increases in gasoline caused financial hardship for 67% of respondents in 2011, up from 40% in the year 2000. Gallup’s findings about trends in opinions about gas prices have also taught us that whereas just 34% of people in early 2000 thought the current rise in gas prices was permanent, 54% of people in 2011 believed the rise to be permanent. Thus through Gallup’s use of trend survey methodology, we’ve learned that Americans seem to feel generally less optimistic about the price of gas these days than they did 10 or so years ago.You can read about these and other findings on Gallup’s gasoline questions at www.gallup.com/poll/147632/Gas-Prices.aspx#1. It should be noted that in a trend survey, the same people are probably not answering the researcher’s questions each year. Because the interest here is in trends, not specific people, as long as the researcher’s sample is representative of whatever population he or she wishes to describe trends for, it isn’t important that the same people participate each time.
Next are panel surveys. Unlike in a trend survey, in a panel survey the same people do participate in the survey each time it is administered. As you might imagine, panel studies can be difficult and costly. Imagine trying to administer a survey to the same 100 people every year for, say, 5 years in a row. Keeping track of where people live, when they move, and when they die takes resources that researchers often don’t have. When they do, however, the results can be quite powerful. The Youth Development Study (YDS), administered from the University of Minnesota, offers an excellent example of a panel study. You can read more about the Youth Development Study at its website: http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/yds. Since 1988, YDS researchers have administered an annual survey to the same 1,000 people. Study participants were in ninth grade when the study began, and they are now in their thirties. Several hundred papers, articles, and books have been written using data from the YDS. One of the major lessons learned from this panel study is that work has a largely positive impact on young people (Mortimer, 2003).Mortimer, J. T. (2003). Working and growing up in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Contrary to popular beliefs about the impact of work on adolescents’ performance in school and transition to adulthood, work in fact increases confidence, enhances academic success, and prepares students for success in their future careers. Without this panel study, we may not be aware of the positive impact that working can have on young people.
Another type of longitudinal survey is a cohort survey. In a cohort survey, a researcher identifies some category of people that are of interest and then regularly surveys people who fall into that category. The same people don’t necessarily participate from year to year, but all participants must meet whatever categorical criteria fulfill the researcher’s primary interest. Common cohorts that may be of interest to researchers include people of particular generations or those who were born around the same time period, graduating classes, people who began work in a given industry at the same time, or perhaps people who have some specific life experience in common. An example of this sort of research can be seen in Christine Percheski’s work (2008)Percheski, C. (2008). Opting out? Cohort differences in professional women’s employment rates from 1960 to 2005. American Sociological Review, 73, 497–517. on cohort differences in women’s employment. Percheski compared women’s employment rates across seven different generational cohorts, from Progressives born between 1906 and 1915 to Generation Xers born between 1966 and 1975. She found, among other patterns, that professional women’s labor force participation had increased across all cohorts. She also found that professional women with young children from Generation X had higher labor force participation rates than similar women from previous generations, concluding that mothers do not appear to be opting out of the workforce as some journalists have speculated (Belkin, 2003).Belkin, L. (2003, October 26). The opt-out revolution. New York Times, pp. 42–47, 58, 85–86.
All three types of longitudinal surveys share the strength that they permit a researcher to make observations over time. This means that if whatever behavior or other phenomenon the researcher is interested in changes, either because of some world event or because people age, the researcher will be able to capture those changes. Table 8.1 summarizes each of the three types of longitudinal surveys.
Table 8:1 Types of Longitudinal Surveys
Sample type Description
Trend Researcher examines changes in trends over time; the same people do not necessarily participate in the survey more than once.
Panel Researcher surveys the exact same sample several times over a period of time.
Cohort Researcher identifies some category of people that are of interest and then regularly surveys people who fall into that category.
Finally, retrospective surveys are similar to other longitudinal studies in that they deal with changes over time, but like a cross-sectional study, they are administered only once. In a retrospective survey, participants are asked to report events from the past. By having respondents report past behaviors, beliefs, or experiences, researchers are able to gather longitudinal-like data without actually incurring the time or expense of a longitudinal survey. Of course, this benefit must be weighed against the possibility that people’s recollections of their pasts may be faulty. Imagine, for example, that you’re asked in a survey to respond to questions about where, how, and with whom you spent last Valentine’s Day. As last Valentine’s Day can’t have been more than 12 months ago, chances are good that you might be able to respond accurately to any survey questions about it. But now let’s say the research wants to know how last Valentine’s Day compares to previous Valentine’s Days, so he asks you to report on where, how, and with whom you spent the preceding six Valentine’s Days. How likely is it that you will remember? Will your responses be as accurate as they might have been had you been asked the question each year over the past 6 years rather than asked to report on all years today?
In sum, when or with what frequency a survey is administered will determine whether your survey is cross-sectional or longitudinal. While longitudinal surveys are certainly preferable in terms of their ability to track changes over time, the time and cost required to administer a longitudinal survey can be prohibitive. As you may have guessed, the issues of time described here are not necessarily unique to survey research. Other methods of data collection can be cross-sectional or longitudinal—these are really matters of research design. But we’ve placed our discussion of these terms here because they are most commonly used by survey researchers to describe the type of survey administered. Another aspect of survey administration deals with how surveys are administered. We’ll examine that next.
Administration
Surveys vary not just in terms of when they are administered but also in terms of how they are administered. One common way to administer surveys is in the form of self-administered questionnaires. This means that a research participant is given a set of questions, in writing, to which he or she is asked to respond. Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered in hard copy format, typically via mail, or increasingly more commonly, online. We’ll consider both modes of delivery here.
Hard copy self-administered questionnaires may be delivered to participants in person or via snail mail. Perhaps you’ve take a survey that was given to you in person; on many college campuses it is not uncommon for researchers to administer surveys in large social science classes (as you might recall from the discussion in our chapter on sampling). In my own introduction to sociology courses, I’ve welcomed graduate students and professors doing research in areas that are relevant to my students, such as studies of campus life, to administer their surveys to the class. If you are ever asked to complete a survey in a similar setting, it might be interesting to note how your perspective on the survey and its questions could be shaped by the new knowledge you’re gaining about survey research in this chapter.
Researchers may also deliver surveys in person by going door-to-door and either asking people to fill them out right away or making arrangements for the researcher to return to pick up completed surveys. Though the advent of online survey tools has made door-to-door delivery of surveys less common, I still see an occasional survey researcher at my door, especially around election time. This mode of gathering data is apparently still used by political campaign workers, at least in some areas of the country.
If you are not able to visit each member of your sample personally to deliver a survey, you might consider sending your survey through the mail. While this mode of delivery may not be ideal (imagine how much less likely you’d probably be to return a survey that didn’t come with the researcher standing on your doorstep waiting to take it from you), sometimes it is the only available or the most practical option. As I’ve said, this may not be the most ideal way of administering a survey because it can be difficult to convince people to take the time to complete and return your survey.
Often survey researchers who deliver their surveys via snail mail may provide some advance notice to respondents about the survey to get people thinking about and preparing to complete it. They may also follow up with their sample a few weeks after their survey has been sent out. This can be done not only to remind those who have not yet completed the survey to please do so but also to thank those who have already returned the survey. Most survey researchers agree that this sort of follow-up is essential for improving mailed surveys’ return rates (Babbie, 2010).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
In my own study of older workers’ harassment experiences, people in the sample were notified in advance of the survey mailing via an article describing the research in a newsletter they received from the agency with whom I had partnered to conduct the survey. When I mailed the survey, a \$1 bill was included with each in order to provide some incentive and an advance token of thanks to participants for returning the surveys. Two months after the initial mailing went out, those who were sent a survey were contacted by phone. While returned surveys did not contain any identifying information about respondents, my research assistants contacted individuals to whom a survey had been mailed to remind them that it was not too late to return their survey and to say thank to those who may have already done so. Four months after the initial mailing went out, everyone on the original mailing list received a letter thanking those who had returned the survey and once again reminding those who had not that it was not too late to do so. The letter included a return postcard for respondents to complete should they wish to receive another copy of the survey. Respondents were also provided a telephone number to call and were provided the option of completing the survey by phone. As you can see, administering a survey by mail typically involves much more than simply arranging a single mailing; participants may be notified in advance of the mailing, they then receive the mailing, and then several follow-up contacts will likely be made after the survey has been mailed.
Earlier I mentioned online delivery as another way to administer a survey. This delivery mechanism is becoming increasingly common, no doubt because it is easy to use, relatively cheap, and may be quicker than knocking on doors or waiting for mailed surveys to be returned. To deliver a survey online, a researcher may subscribe to a service that offers online delivery or use some delivery mechanism that is available for free. SurveyMonkey offers both free and paid online survey services (http://www.surveymonkey.com). One advantage to using a service like SurveyMonkey, aside from the advantages of online delivery already mentioned, is that results can be provided to you in formats that are readable by data analysis programs such as SPSS, Systat, and Excel. This saves you, the researcher, the step of having to manually enter data into your analysis program, as you would if you administered your survey in hard copy format.
Many of the suggestions provided for improving the response rate on a hard copy questionnaire apply to online questionnaires as well. One difference of course is that the sort of incentives one can provide in an online format differ from those that can be given in person or sent through the mail. But this doesn’t mean that online survey researchers cannot offer completion incentives to their respondents. I’ve taken a number of online surveys; many of these did not come with an incentive other than the joy of knowing that I’d helped a fellow social scientist do his or her job, but on one I was given a printable \$5 coupon to my university’s campus dining services on completion, and another time I was given a coupon code to use for \$10 off any order on Amazon.com. I’ve taken other online surveys where on completion I could provide my name and contact information if I wished to be entered into a drawing together with other study participants to win a larger gift, such as a \$50 gift card or an iPad.
Sometimes surveys are administered by having a researcher actually pose questions directly to respondents rather than having respondents read the questions on their own. These types of surveys are a form of interviews. We discuss interviews in Chapter 9, where we’ll examine interviews of the survey (or quantitative) type and qualitative interviews as well. Interview methodology differs from survey research in that data are collected via a personal interaction. Because asking people questions in person comes with a set of guidelines and concerns that differ from those associated with asking questions on paper or online, we’ll reserve our discussion of those guidelines and concerns for Chapter 9.
Whatever delivery mechanism you choose, keep in mind that there are pros and cons to each of the options described here. While online surveys may be faster and cheaper than mailed surveys, can you be certain that every person in your sample will have the necessary computer hardware, software, and Internet access in order to complete your online survey? On the other hand, perhaps mailed surveys are more likely to reach your entire sample but also more likely to be lost and not returned. The choice of which delivery mechanism is best depends on a number of factors including your resources, the resources of your study participants, and the time you have available to distribute surveys and wait for responses. In my own survey of older workers, I would have much preferred to administer my survey online, but because so few people in my sample were likely to have computers, and even fewer would have Internet access, I chose instead to mail paper copies of the survey to respondents’ homes. Understanding the characteristics of your study’s population is key to identifying the appropriate mechanism for delivering your survey.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Time is a factor in determining what type of survey researcher administers; cross-sectional surveys are administered at one time, and longitudinal surveys are administered over time.
• Retrospective surveys offer some of the benefits of longitudinal research but also come with their own drawbacks.
• Self-administered questionnaires may be delivered in hard copy form to participants in person or via snail mail or online.
Exercises
1. If the idea of a panel study piqued your interest, check out the Up series of documentary films. While not a survey, the films offer one example of a panel study. Filmmakers began filming the lives of 14 British children in 1964, when the children were 7 years old. They have since caught up with the children every 7 years. In 2012, the eighth installment of the documentary, 56 Up, will come out. Many clips from the series are available on YouTube.
2. For more information about online delivery of surveys, check out SurveyMonkey’s website: http://www.surveymonkey.com. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/08%3A_Survey_Research-_A_Quantitative_Technique/8.03%3A_Types_of_Surveys.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the steps one should take in order to write effective survey questions.
• Describe some of the ways that survey questions might confuse respondents and how to overcome that possibility.
• Recite the two response option guidelines when writing closed-ended questions.
• Define fence-sitting and floating.
• Describe the steps involved in constructing a well-designed questionnaire.
• Discuss why pretesting is important.
To this point we’ve considered several general points about surveys including when to use them, some of their pros and cons, and how often and in what ways to administer surveys. In this section we’ll get more specific and take a look at how to pose understandable questions that will yield useable data and how to present those questions on your questionnaire.
Asking Effective Questions
The first thing you need to do in order to write effective survey questions is identify what exactly it is that you wish to know. As silly as it sounds to state what seems so completely obvious, I can’t stress enough how easy it is to forget to include important questions when designing a survey. Let’s say you want to understand how students at your school made the transition from high school to college. Perhaps you wish to identify which students were comparatively more or less successful in this transition and which factors contributed to students’ success or lack thereof. To understand which factors shaped successful students’ transitions to college, you’ll need to include questions in your survey about all the possible factors that could contribute. Consulting the literature on the topic will certainly help, but you should also take the time to do some brainstorming on your own and to talk with others about what they think may be important in the transition to college. Perhaps time or space limitations won’t allow you to include every single item you’ve come up with, so you’ll also need to think about ranking your questions so that you can be sure to include those that you view as most important.
Although I have stressed the importance of including questions on all topics you view as important to your overall research question, you don’t want to take an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach by uncritically including every possible question that occurs to you. Doing so puts an unnecessary burden on your survey respondents. Remember that you have asked your respondents to give you their time and attention and to take care in responding to your questions; show them your respect by only asking questions that you view as important.
Once you’ve identified all the topics about which you’d like to ask questions, you’ll need to actually write those questions. Questions should be as clear and to the point as possible. This is not the time to show off your creative writing skills; a survey is a technical instrument and should be written in a way that is as direct and succinct as possible. As I’ve said, your survey respondents have agreed to give their time and attention to your survey. The best way to show your appreciation for their time is to not waste it. Ensuring that your questions are clear and not overly wordy will go a long way toward showing your respondents the gratitude they deserve.
Related to the point about not wasting respondents’ time, make sure that every question you pose will be relevant to every person you ask to complete it. This means two things: first, that respondents have knowledge about whatever topic you are asking them about, and second, that respondents have experience with whatever events, behaviors, or feelings you are asking them to report. You probably wouldn’t want to ask a sample of 18-year-old respondents, for example, how they would have advised President Reagan to proceed when news of the United States’ sale of weapons to Iran broke in the mid-1980s. For one thing, few 18-year-olds are likely to have any clue about how to advise a president (nor does this 30-something-year-old). Furthermore, the 18-year-olds of today were not even alive during Reagan’s presidency, so they have had no experience with the event about which they are being questioned. In our example of the transition to college, heeding the criterion of relevance would mean that respondents must understand what exactly you mean by “transition to college” if you are going to use that phrase in your survey and that respondents must have actually experienced the transition to college themselves.
If you decide that you do wish to pose some questions about matters with which only a portion of respondents will have had experience, it may be appropriate to introduce a filter question into your survey. A filter question is designed to identify some subset of survey respondents who are asked additional questions that are not relevant to the entire sample. Perhaps in your survey on the transition to college you want to know whether substance use plays any role in students’ transitions. You may ask students how often they drank during their first semester of college. But this assumes that all students drank. Certainly some may have abstained, and it wouldn’t make any sense to ask the nondrinkers how often they drank. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that drinking frequency may have an impact on someone’s transition to college, so it is probably worth asking this question even if doing so violates the rule of relevance for some respondents. This is just the sort of instance when a filter question would be appropriate. You may pose the question as it is presented in Figure 8.8.
Figure 8.8 Filter Question
There are some ways of asking questions that are bound to confuse a good many survey respondents. Survey researchers should take great care to avoid these kinds of questions. These include questions that pose double negatives, those that use confusing or culturally specific terms, and those that ask more than one question but are posed as a single question. Any time respondents are forced to decipher questions that utilize two forms of negation, confusion is bound to ensue. Taking the previous question about drinking as our example, what if we had instead asked, “Did you not drink during your first semester of college?” A response of no would mean that the respondent did actually drink—he or she did not not drink. This example is obvious, but hopefully it drives home the point to be careful about question wording so that respondents are not asked to decipher double negatives. In general, avoiding negative terms in your question wording will help to increase respondent understanding.Though this is generally true, some researchers argue that negatively worded questions should be integrated with positively worded questions in order to ensure that respondents have actually carefully read each question. See, for example, the following: Vaterlaus, M., & Higgenbotham, B. (2011). Writing survey questions for local program evaluations. Retrieved from http://extension.usu.edu/files/publi..._2011-02pr.pdf
You should also avoid using terms or phrases that may be regionally or culturally specific (unless you are absolutely certain all your respondents come from the region or culture whose terms you are using). When I first moved to Maine from Minnesota, I was totally confused every time I heard someone use the word wicked. This term has totally different meanings across different regions of the country. I’d come from an area that understood the term wicked to be associated with evil. In my new home, however, wicked is used simply to put emphasis on whatever it is that you’re talking about. So if this chapter is extremely interesting to you, if you live in Maine you might say that it is “wicked interesting.” If you hate this chapter and you live in Minnesota, perhaps you’d describe the chapter simply as wicked. I once overheard one student tell another that his new girlfriend was “wicked athletic.” At the time I thought this meant he’d found a woman who used her athleticism for evil purposes. I’ve come to understand, however, that this woman is probably just exceptionally athletic. While wicked may not be a term you’re likely to use in a survey, the point is to be thoughtful and cautious about whatever terminology you do use.
Asking multiple questions as though they are a single question can also be terribly confusing for survey respondents. There’s a specific term for this sort of question; it is called a double-barreled question. Using our example of the transition to college, Figure 8.9shows a double-barreled question.
Figure 8.9 Double-Barreled Question
Do you see what makes the question double-barreled? How would someone respond if they felt their college classes were more demanding but also more boring than their high school classes? Or less demanding but more interesting? Because the question combines “demanding” and “interesting,” there is no way to respond yes to one criterion but no to the other.
Another thing to avoid when constructing survey questions is the problem of social desirability. We all want to look good, right? And we all probably know the politically correct response to a variety of questions whether we agree with the politically correct response or not. In survey research, social desirability refers to the idea that respondents will try to answer questions in a way that will present them in a favorable light. Perhaps we decide that to understand the transition to college, we need to know whether respondents ever cheated on an exam in high school or college. We all know that cheating on exams is generally frowned upon (at least I hope we all know this). So it may be difficult to get people to admit to cheating on a survey. But if you can guarantee respondents’ confidentiality, or even better, their anonymity, chances are much better that they will be honest about having engaged in this socially undesirable behavior. Another way to avoid problems of social desirability is to try to phrase difficult questions in the most benign way possible. Earl Babbie (2010)Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. offers a useful suggestion for helping you do this—simply imagine how you would feel responding to your survey questions. If you would be uncomfortable, chances are others would as well.
Finally, it is important to get feedback on your survey questions from as many people as possible, especially people who are like those in your sample. Now is not the time to be shy. Ask your friends for help, ask your mentors for feedback, ask your family to take a look at your survey as well. The more feedback you can get on your survey questions, the better the chances that you will come up with a set of questions that are understandable to a wide variety of people and, most importantly, to those in your sample.
In sum, in order to pose effective survey questions, researchers should do the following:
1. Identify what it is they wish to know.
2. Keep questions clear and succinct.
3. Make questions relevant to respondents.
4. Use filter questions when necessary.
5. Avoid questions that are likely to confuse respondents such as those that use double negatives, use culturally specific terms, or pose more than one question in the form of a single question.
6. Imagine how they would feel responding to questions.
7. Get feedback, especially from people who resemble those in the researcher’s sample.
Response Options
While posing clear and understandable questions in your survey is certainly important, so, too, is providing respondents with unambiguous response options. Response options are the answers that you provide to the people taking your survey. Generally respondents will be asked to choose a single (or best) response to each question you pose, though certainly it makes sense in some cases to instruct respondents to choose multiple response options. One caution to keep in mind when accepting multiple responses to a single question, however, is that doing so may add complexity when it comes to tallying and analyzing your survey results.
Offering response options assumes that your questions will be closed-ended questions. In a quantitative written survey, which is the type of survey we’ve been discussing here, chances are good that most if not all your questions will be closed ended. This means that you, the researcher, will provide respondents with a limited set of options for their responses. To write an effective closed-ended question, there are a couple of guidelines worth following. First, be sure that your response options are mutually exclusive. Look back at Figure 8.8, which contains questions about how often and how many drinks respondents consumed. Do you notice that there are no overlapping categories in the response options for these questions? This is another one of those points about question construction that seems fairly obvious but that can be easily overlooked. Response options should also be exhaustive. In other words, every possible response should be covered in the set of response options that you provide. For example, note that in question 10a in Figure 8.8 we have covered all possibilities—those who drank, say, an average of once per month can choose the first response option (“less than one time per week”) while those who drank multiple times a day each day of the week can choose the last response option (“7+”). All the possibilities in between these two extremes are covered by the middle three response options.
Surveys need not be limited to closed-ended questions. Sometimes survey researchers include open-ended questions in their survey instruments as a way to gather additional details from respondents. An open-ended question does not include response options; instead, respondents are asked to reply to the question in their own way, using their own words. These questions are generally used to find out more about a survey participant’s experiences or feelings about whatever they are being asked to report in the survey. If, for example, a survey includes closed-ended questions asking respondents to report on their involvement in extracurricular activities during college, an open-ended question could ask respondents why they participated in those activities or what they gained from their participation. While responses to such questions may also be captured using a closed-ended format, allowing participants to share some of their responses in their own words can make the experience of completing the survey more satisfying to respondents and can also reveal new motivations or explanations that had not occurred to the researcher.
In Section 8.4.1 "Asking Effective Questions" we discussed double-barreled questions, but response options can also be double barreled, and this should be avoided. Figure 8.10 is an example of a question that uses double-barreled response options.
Figure 8.10 Double-Barreled Response Options
Other things to avoid when it comes to response options include fence-sitting and floating. Fence-sitters are respondents who choose neutral response options, even if they have an opinion. This can occur if respondents are given, say, five rank-ordered response options, such as strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, and strongly disagree. Some people will be drawn to respond “no opinion” even if they have an opinion, particularly if their true opinion is the nonsocially desirable opinion. Floaters, on the other hand, are those that choose a substantive answer to a question when really they don’t understand the question or don’t have an opinion. If a respondent is only given four rank-ordered response options, such as strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree, those who have no opinion have no choice but to select a response that suggests they have an opinion.
As you can see, floating is the flip side of fence-sitting. Thus the solution to one problem is often the cause of the other. How you decide which approach to take depends on the goals of your research. Sometimes researchers actually want to learn something about people who claim to have no opinion. In this case, allowing for fence-sitting would be necessary. Other times researchers feel confident their respondents will all be familiar with every topic in their survey. In this case, perhaps it is OK to force respondents to choose an opinion. There is no always-correct solution to either problem.
Finally, using a matrix is a nice way of streamlining response options. A matrix is a question type that that lists a set of questions for which the answer categories are all the same. If you have a set of questions for which the response options are the same, it may make sense to create a matrix rather than posing each question and its response options individually. Not only will this save you some space in your survey but it will also help respondents progress through your survey more easily. A sample matrix can be seen in Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.11 Survey Questions Utilizing Matrix Format
Designing Questionnaires
In addition to constructing quality questions and posing clear response options, you’ll also need to think about how to present your written questions and response options to survey respondents. Questions are presented on a questionnaire, the document (either hard copy or online) that contains all your survey questions that respondents read and mark their responses on. Designing questionnaires takes some thought, and in this section we’ll discuss the sorts of things you should think about as you prepare to present your well-constructed survey questions on a questionnaire.
One of the first things to do once you’ve come up with a set of survey questions you feel confident about is to group those questions thematically. In our example of the transition to college, perhaps we’d have a few questions asking about study habits, others focused on friendships, and still others on exercise and eating habits. Those may be the themes around which we organize our questions. Or perhaps it would make more sense to present any questions we had about precollege life and habits and then present a series of questions about life after beginning college. The point here is to be deliberate about how you present your questions to respondents.
Once you have grouped similar questions together, you’ll need to think about the order in which to present those question groups. Most survey researchers agree that it is best to begin a survey with questions that will want to make respondents continue (Babbie, 2010; Dillman, 2000; Neuman, 2003).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley; Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. In other words, don’t bore respondents, but don’t scare them away either. There’s some disagreement over where on a survey to place demographic questions such as those about a person’s age, gender, and race. On the one hand, placing them at the beginning of the questionnaire may lead respondents to think the survey is boring, unimportant, and not something they want to bother completing. On the other hand, if your survey deals with some very sensitive or difficult topic, such as child sexual abuse or other criminal activity, you don’t want to scare respondents away or shock them by beginning with your most intrusive questions.
In truth, the order in which you present questions on a survey is best determined by the unique characteristics of your research—only you, the researcher, hopefully in consultation with people who are willing to provide you with feedback, can determine how best to order your questions. To do so, think about the unique characteristics of your topic, your questions, and most importantly, your sample. Keeping in mind the characteristics and needs of the people you will ask to complete your survey should help guide you as you determine the most appropriate order in which to present your questions.
You’ll also need to consider the time it will take respondents to complete your questionnaire. Surveys vary in length, from just a page or two to a dozen or more pages, which means they also vary in the time it takes to complete them. How long to make your survey depends on several factors. First, what is it that you wish to know? Wanting to understand how grades vary by gender and year in school certainly requires fewer questions than wanting to know how people’s experiences in college are shaped by demographic characteristics, college attended, housing situation, family background, college major, friendship networks, and extracurricular activities. Keep in mind that even if your research question requires a good number of questions be included in your questionnaire, do your best to keep the questionnaire as brief as possible. Any hint that you’ve thrown in a bunch of useless questions just for the sake of throwing them in will turn off respondents and may make them not want to complete your survey.
Second, and perhaps more important, how long are respondents likely to be willing to spend completing your questionnaire? If you are studying college students, asking them to use their precious fun time away from studying to complete your survey may mean they won’t want to spend more than a few minutes on it. But if you have the endorsement of a professor who is willing to allow you to administer your survey in class, students may be willing to give you a little more time (though perhaps the professor will not). The time that survey researchers ask respondents to spend on questionnaires varies greatly. Some advise that surveys should not take longer than about 15 minutes to complete (cited in Babbie 2010),This can be found at http://www.worldopinion.com/the_frame/frame4.html, cited in Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. others suggest that up to 20 minutes is acceptable (Hopper, 2010).Hopper, J. (2010). How long should a survey be? Retrieved from http://www.verstaresearch.com/blog/h...ld-a-survey-be As with question order, there is no clear-cut, always-correct answer about questionnaire length. The unique characteristics of your study and your sample should be considered in order to determine how long to make your questionnaire.
A good way to estimate the time it will take respondents to complete your questionnaire is through pretesting. Pretesting allows you to get feedback on your questionnaire so you can improve it before you actually administer it. Pretesting can be quite expensive and time consuming if you wish to test your questionnaire on a large sample of people who very much resemble the sample to whom you will eventually administer the finalized version of your questionnaire. But you can learn a lot and make great improvements to your questionnaire simply by pretesting with a small number of people to whom you have easy access (perhaps you have a few friends who owe you a favor). By pretesting your questionnaire you can find out how understandable your questions are, get feedback on question wording and order, find out whether any of your questions are exceptionally boring or offensive, and learn whether there are places where you should have included filter questions, to name just a few of the benefits of pretesting. You can also time pretesters as they take your survey. Ask them to complete the survey as though they were actually members of your sample. This will give you a good idea about what sort of time estimate to provide respondents when it comes time to actually administer your survey, and about whether you have some wiggle room to add additional items or need to cut a few items.
Perhaps this goes without saying, but your questionnaire should also be attractive. A messy presentation style can confuse respondents or, at the very least, annoy them. Be brief, to the point, and as clear as possible. Avoid cramming too much into a single page, make your font size readable (at least 12 point), leave a reasonable amount of space between items, and make sure all instructions are exceptionally clear. Think about books, documents, articles, or web pages that you have read yourself—which were relatively easy to read and easy on the eyes and why? Try to mimic those features in the presentation of your survey questions.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Brainstorming and consulting the literature are two important early steps to take when preparing to write effective survey questions.
• Make sure that your survey questions will be relevant to all respondents and that you use filter questions when necessary.
• Getting feedback on your survey questions is a crucial step in the process of designing a survey.
• When it comes to creating response options, the solution to the problem of fence-sitting might cause floating, whereas the solution to the problem of floating might cause fence sitting.
• Pretesting is an important step for improving one’s survey before actually administering it.
Exercises
1. Do a little Internet research to find out what a Likert scale is and when you may use one.
2. Write a closed-ended question that follows the guidelines for good survey question construction. Have a peer in the class check your work (you can do the same for him or her!). | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/08%3A_Survey_Research-_A_Quantitative_Technique/8.04%3A_Designing_Effective_Ques.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define response rate, and discuss some of the current thinking about response rates.
• Describe what a codebook is and what purpose it serves.
• Define univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis.
• Describe each of the measures of central tendency.
• Describe what a contingency table displays.
This text is primarily focused on designing research, collecting data, and becoming a knowledgeable and responsible consumer of research. We won’t spend as much time on data analysis, or what to do with our data once we’ve designed a study and collected it, but I will spend some time in each of our data-collection chapters describing some important basics of data analysis that are unique to each method. Entire textbooks could be (and have been) written entirely on data analysis. In fact, if you’ve ever taken a statistics class, you already know much about how to analyze quantitative survey data. Here we’ll go over a few basics that can get you started as you begin to think about turning all those completed questionnaires into findings that you can share.
From Completed Questionnaires to Analyzable Data
It can be very exciting to receive those first few completed surveys back from respondents. Hopefully you’ll even get more than a few back, and once you have a handful of completed questionnaires, your feelings may go from initial euphoria to dread. Data are fun and can also be overwhelming. The goal with data analysis is to be able to condense large amounts of information into usable and understandable chunks. Here we’ll describe just how that process works for survey researchers.
As mentioned, the hope is that you will receive a good portion of the questionnaires you distributed back in a completed and readable format. The number of completed questionnaires you receive divided by the number of questionnaires you distributed is your response rate. Let’s say your sample included 100 people and you sent questionnaires to each of those people. It would be wonderful if all 100 returned completed questionnaires, but the chances of that happening are about zero. If you’re lucky, perhaps 75 or so will return completed questionnaires. In this case, your response rate would be 75% (75 divided by 100). That’s pretty darn good. Though response rates vary, and researchers don’t always agree about what makes a good response rate, having three-quarters of your surveys returned would be considered good, even excellent, by most survey researchers. There has been lots of research done on how to improve a survey’s response rate. We covered some of these previously, but suggestions include personalizing questionnaires by, for example, addressing them to specific respondents rather than to some generic recipient such as “madam” or “sir”; enhancing the questionnaire’s credibility by providing details about the study, contact information for the researcher, and perhaps partnering with agencies likely to be respected by respondents such as universities, hospitals, or other relevant organizations; sending out prequestionnaire notices and postquestionnaire reminders; and including some token of appreciation with mailed questionnaires even if small, such as a \$1 bill.
The major concern with response rates is that a low rate of response may introduce nonresponse bias into a study’s findings. What if only those who have strong opinions about your study topic return their questionnaires? If that is the case, we may well find that our findings don’t at all represent how things really are or, at the very least, we are limited in the claims we can make about patterns found in our data. While high return rates are certainly ideal, a recent body of research shows that concern over response rates may be overblown (Langer, 2003).Langer, G. (2003). About response rates: Some unresolved questions. Public Perspective, May/June, 16–18. Retrieved from www.aapor.org/Content/aapor/R...s_-_Langer.pdf Several studies have shown that low response rates did not make much difference in findings or in sample representativeness (Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2000; Keeter, Kennedy, Dimock, Best, & Craighill, 2006; Merkle & Edelman, 2002).Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 413–428; Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759–779; Merkle, D. M., & Edelman, M. (2002). Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. In M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 243–258). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. For now, the jury may still be out on what makes an ideal response rate and on whether, or to what extent, researchers should be concerned about response rates. Nevertheless, certainly no harm can come from aiming for as high a response rate as possible.
Whatever your survey’s response rate, the major concern of survey researchers once they have their nice, big stack of completed questionnaires is condensing their data into manageable, and analyzable, bits. One major advantage of quantitative methods such as survey research, as you may recall from Chapter 1, is that they enable researchers to describe large amounts of data because they can be represented by and condensed into numbers. In order to condense your completed surveys into analyzable numbers, you’ll first need to create a codebook. A codebook is a document that outlines how a survey researcher has translated her or his data from words into numbers. An excerpt from the codebook I developed from my survey of older workers can be seen in Table 8.2. The coded responses you see can be seen in their original survey format in Chapter 6, Figure 6.12. As you’ll see in the table, in addition to converting response options into numerical values, a short variable name is given to each question. This shortened name comes in handy when entering data into a computer program for analysis.
Table 8:2 Codebook Excerpt From Survey of Older Workers
Variable # Variable name Question Options
11 FINSEC In general, how financially secure would you say you are? 1 = Not at all secure
2 = Between not at all and moderately secure
3 = Moderately secure
4 = Between moderately and very secure
5 = Very secure
12 FINFAM Since age 62, have you ever received money from family members or friends to help make ends meet? 0 = No
1 = Yes
13 FINFAMT If yes, how many times? 1 = 1 or 2 times
2 = 3 or 4 times
3 = 5 times or more
14 FINCHUR Since age 62, have you ever received money from a church or other organization to help make ends meet? 0 = No
1 = Yes
15 FINCHURT If yes, how many times? 1 = 1 or 2 times
2 = 3 or 4 times
3 = 5 times or more
16 FINGVCH Since age 62, have you ever donated money to a church or other organization? 0 = No
1 = Yes
17 FINGVFAM Since age 62, have you ever given money to a family member or friend to help them make ends meet? 0 = No
1 = Yes
If you’ve administered your questionnaire the old fashioned way, via snail mail, the next task after creating your codebook is data entry. If you’ve utilized an online tool such as SurveyMonkey to administer your survey, here’s some good news—most online survey tools come with the capability of importing survey results directly into a data analysis program. Trust me—this is indeed most excellent news. (If you don’t believe me, I highly recommend administering hard copies of your questionnaire next time around. You’ll surely then appreciate the wonders of online survey administration.)
For those who will be conducting manual data entry, there probably isn’t much I can say about this task that will make you want to perform it other than pointing out the reward of having a database of your very own analyzable data. We won’t get into too many of the details of data entry, but I will mention a few programs that survey researchers may use to analyze data once it has been entered. The first is SPSS, or the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (http://www.spss.com). SPSS is a statistical analysis computer program designed to analyze just the sort of data quantitative survey researchers collect. It can perform everything from very basic descriptive statistical analysis to more complex inferential statistical analysis. SPSS is touted by many for being highly accessible and relatively easy to navigate (with practice). Other programs that are known for their accessibility include MicroCase (www.microcase.com/index.html), which includes many of the same features as SPSS, and Excel (office.microsoft.com/en-us/ex...005203873.aspx), which is far less sophisticated in its statistical capabilities but is relatively easy to use and suits some researchers’ purposes just fine. Check out the web pages for each, which I’ve provided links to in the chapter’s endnotes, for more information about what each package can do.
Identifying Patterns
Data analysis is about identifying, describing, and explaining patterns. Univariate analysis is the most basic form of analysis that quantitative researchers conduct. In this form, researchers describe patterns across just one variable. Univariate analysis includes frequency distributions and measures of central tendency. A frequency distribution is a way of summarizing the distribution of responses on a single survey question. Let’s look at the frequency distribution for just one variable from my older worker survey. We’ll analyze the item mentioned first in the codebook excerpt given earlier, on respondents’ self-reported financial security.
Table 8:3 Frequency Distribution of Older Workers’ Financial Security
In general, how financially secure would you say you are? Value Frequency Percentage
Label
Not at all secure 1 46 25.6
Between not at all and moderately secure 2 43 23.9
Moderately secure 3 76 42.2
Between moderately and very secure 4 11 6.1
Very secure 5 4 2.2
Total valid cases = 180; no response = 3
As you can see in the frequency distribution on self-reported financial security, more respondents reported feeling “moderately secure” than any other response category. We also learn from this single frequency distribution that fewer than 10% of respondents reported being in one of the two most secure categories.
Another form of univariate analysis that survey researchers can conduct on single variables is measures of central tendency. Measures of central tendency tell us what the most common, or average, response is on a question. Measures of central tendency can be taken for any level variable of those we learned about in Chapter 6, from nominal to ratio. There are three kinds of measures of central tendency: modes, medians, and means. Mode refers to the most common response given to a question. Modes are most appropriate for nominal-level variables. A median is the middle point in a distribution of responses. Median is the appropriate measure of central tendency for ordinal-level variables. Finally, the measure of central tendency used for interval- and ratio-level variables is the mean. To obtain a mean, one must add the value of all responses on a given variable and then divide that number of the total number of responses.
In the previous example of older workers’ self-reported levels of financial security, the appropriate measure of central tendency would be the median, as this is an ordinal-level variable. If we were to list all responses to the financial security question in order and then choose the middle point in that list, we’d have our median. In Figure 8.12, the value of each response to the financial security question is noted, and the middle point within that range of responses is highlighted. To find the middle point, we simply divide the number of valid cases by two. The number of valid cases, 180, divided by 2 is 90, so we’re looking for the 90th value on our distribution to discover the median. As you’ll see in Figure 8.12, that value is 3, thus the median on our financial security question is 3, or “moderately secure.”
Figure 8.12 Distribution of Responses and Median Value on Workers’ Financial Security
As you can see, we can learn a lot about our respondents simply by conducting univariate analysis of measures on our survey. We can learn even more, of course, when we begin to examine relationships among variables. Either we can analyze the relationships between two variables, called bivariate analysis, or we can examine relationships among more than two variables. This latter type of analysis is known as multivariate analysis.
Bivariate analysis allows us to assess covariation among two variables. This means we can find out whether changes in one variable occur together with changes in another. If two variables do not covary, they are said to have independence. This means simply that there is no relationship between the two variables in question. To learn whether a relationship exists between two variables, a researcher may cross-tabulate the two variables and present their relationship in a contingency table. A contingency table shows how variation on one variable may be contingent on variation on the other. Let’s take a look at a contingency table. In Table 8.4, I have cross-tabulated two questions from my older worker survey: respondents’ reported gender and their self-rated financial security.
Table 8:4 Financial Security Among Men and Women Workers Age 62 and Up
Men Women
Not financially secure (%) 44.1 51.8
Moderately financially secure (%) 48.9 39.2
Financially secure (%) 7.0 9.0
Total N = 43 N = 135
You’ll see in Table 8.4 that I collapsed a couple of the financial security response categories (recall that there were five categories presented in Table 8.3; here there are just three). Researchers sometimes collapse response categories on items such as this in order to make it easier to read results in a table. You’ll also see that I placed the variable “gender” in the table’s columns and “financial security” in its rows. Typically, values that are contingent on other values are placed in rows (a.k.a. dependent variables), while independent variables are placed in columns. This makes comparing across categories of our independent variable pretty simple. Reading across the top row of our table, we can see that around 44% of men in the sample reported that they are not financially secure while almost 52% of women reported the same. In other words, more women than men reported that they are not financially secure. You’ll also see in the table that I reported the total number of respondents for each category of the independent variable in the table’s bottom row. This is also standard practice in a bivariate table, as is including a table heading describing what is presented in the table.
Researchers interested in simultaneously analyzing relationships among more than two variables conduct multivariate analysis. If I hypothesized that financial security declines for women as they age but increases for men as they age, I might consider adding age to the preceding analysis. To do so would require multivariate, rather than bivariate, analysis. We won’t go into detail here about how to conduct multivariate analysis of quantitative survey items here, but we will return to multivariate analysis in Chapter 14, where we’ll discuss strategies for reading and understanding tables that present multivariate statistics. If you are interested in learning more about the analysis of quantitative survey data, I recommend checking out your campus’s offerings in statistics classes. The quantitative data analysis skills you will gain in a statistics class could serve you quite well should you find yourself seeking employment one day.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• While survey researchers should always aim to obtain the highest response rate possible, some recent research argues that high return rates on surveys may be less important than we once thought.
• There are several computer programs designed to assist survey researchers with analyzing their data include SPSS, MicroCase, and Excel.
• Data analysis is about identifying, describing, and explaining patterns.
• Contingency tables show how, or whether, one variable covaries with another.
EXERCISES
1. Codebooks can range from relatively simple to quite complex. For an excellent example of a more complex codebook, check out the coding for the General Social Survey (GSS): publicdata.norc.org:41000/gss...S_Codebook.pdf.
2. The GSS allows researchers to cross-tabulate GSS variables directly from its website. Interested? Check out www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Web.../Data+Analysis. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/08%3A_Survey_Research-_A_Quantitative_Technique/8.05%3A_Analysis_of_Survey_Data.txt |
Knowing how to create and conduct a good interview is one of those skills you just can’t go wrong having. Interviews are used by market researchers to learn how to sell their products, journalists use interviews to get information from a whole host of people from VIPs to random people on the street. Regis Philbin (a sociology major in collegeThis information comes from the following list of famous sociology majors provided by the American Sociological Association on their website: http://www.asanet.org/students/famous.cfm.) used interviews to help television viewers get to know guests on his show, employers use them to make decisions about job offers, and even Ruth Westheimer (the famous sex doctor who has an MA in sociologyRead more about Dr. Ruth, her background, and her credentials at her website: www.drruth.com.) used interviews to elicit details from call-in participants on her radio show.Interested in hearing Dr. Ruth’s interview style? There are a number of audio clips from her radio show, Sexually Speaking, linked from the following site: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/ruthpg. Warning: some of the images and audio clips on this page may be offensive to some readers. It seems everyone who’s anyone knows how to conduct an interview.
09: Interviews- Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Learning Objectives
• Define interviews from the social scientific perspective.
• Identify when it is appropriate to employ interviews as a data-collection strategy.
From the social scientific perspective, interviews are a method of data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers. The questions are designed by a researcher to elicit information from interview participant(s) on a specific topic or set of topics. Typically interviews involve an in-person meeting between two people, an interviewer and an interviewee. But as you’ll discover in this chapter, interviews need not be limited to two people, nor must they occur in person.
The question of when to conduct an interview might be on your mind. Interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. They also have an advantage over surveys; with a survey, if a participant’s response sparks some follow-up question in your mind, you generally don’t have an opportunity to ask for more information. What you get is what you get. In an interview, however, because you are actually talking with your study participants in real time, you can ask that follow-up question. Thus interviews are a useful method to use when you want to know the story behind responses you might receive in a written survey.
Interviews are also useful when the topic you are studying is rather complex, when whatever you plan to ask requires lengthy explanation, or when your topic or answers to your questions may not be immediately clear to participants who may need some time or dialogue with others in order to work through their responses to your questions. Also, if your research topic is one about which people will likely have a lot to say or will want to provide some explanation or describe some process, interviews may be the best method for you. For example, I used interviews to gather data about how people reach the decision not to have children and how others in their lives have responded to that decision. To understand these “how’s” I needed to have some back-and-forth dialog with respondents. When they begin to tell me their story, inevitably new questions that hadn’t occurred to me from prior interviews come up because each person’s story is unique. Also, because the process of choosing not to have children is complex for many people, describing that process by responding to closed-ended questions on a survey wouldn’t work particularly well.
In sum, interview research is especially useful when the following are true:
1. You wish to gather very detailed information
2. You anticipate wanting to ask respondents for more information about their responses
3. You plan to ask questions that require lengthy explanation
4. The topic you are studying is complex or may be confusing to respondents
5. Your topic involves studying processes
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Understanding how to design and conduct interview research is a useful skill to have.
• In a social scientific interview, two or more people exchange information through a series of questions and answers.
• Interview research is often used when detailed information is required and when a researcher wishes to examine processes.
Exercise
1. Think about a topic about which you might wish to collect data by conducting interviews. What makes this topic suitable for interview research? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/09%3A_Interviews-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/9.01%3A_What_Is_It_and.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the primary aim of in-depth interviews.
• Describe what makes qualitative interview techniques unique.
• Define the term interview guide and describe how to construct an interview guide.
• Outline the guidelines for constructing good qualitative interview questions.
• Define the term focus group and identify one benefit of focus groups.
• Identify and describe the various stages of qualitative interview data analysis.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interviews are sometimes called intensive or in-depth interviews. These interviews are semistructured; the researcher has a particular topic about which he or she would like to hear from the respondent, but questions are open ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent. In in-depth interviews, the primary aim is to hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand and to hear it in their own words. In this section, we’ll take a look at how to conduct interviews that are specifically qualitative in nature, analyze qualitative interview data, and use some of the strengths and weaknesses of this method. In Section 9.4, we return to several considerations that are relevant to both qualitative and quantitative interviewing.
Conducting Qualitative Interviews
Qualitative interviews might feel more like a conversation than an interview to respondents, but the researcher is in fact usually guiding the conversation with the goal in mind of gathering information from a respondent. A key difference between qualitative and quantitative interviewing is that qualitative interviews contain open-ended questions. The meaning of this term is of course implied by its name, but just so that we’re sure to be on the same page, I’ll tell you that open-ended questions are questions that a researcher poses but does not provide answer options for. Open-ended questions are more demanding of participants than closed-ended questions, for they require participants to come up with their own words, phrases, or sentences to respond.
In a qualitative interview, the researcher usually develops a guide in advance that he or she then refers to during the interview (or memorizes in advance of the interview). An interview guide is a list of topics or questions that the interviewer hopes to cover during the course of an interview. It is called a guide because it is simply that—it is used to guide the interviewer, but it is not set in stone. Think of an interview guide like your agenda for the day or your to-do list—both probably contain all the items you hope to check off or accomplish, though it probably won’t be the end of the world if you don’t accomplish everything on the list or if you don’t accomplish it in the exact order that you have it written down. Perhaps new events will come up that cause you to rearrange your schedule just a bit, or perhaps you simply won’t get to everything on the list.
Interview guides should outline issues that a researcher feels are likely to be important, but because participants are asked to provide answers in their own words, and to raise points that they believe are important, each interview is likely to flow a little differently. While the opening question in an in-depth interview may be the same across all interviews, from that point on what the participant says will shape how the interview proceeds. This, I believe, is what makes in-depth interviewing so exciting. It is also what makes in-depth interviewing rather challenging to conduct. It takes a skilled interviewer to be able to ask questions; actually listen to respondents; and pick up on cues about when to follow up, when to move on, and when to simply let the participant speak without guidance or interruption.
I’ve said that interview guides can list topics or questions. The specific format of an interview guide might depend on your style, experience, and comfort level as an interviewer or with your topic. I have conducted interviews using different kinds of guides. In my interviews of young people about their experiences with workplace sexual harassment, the guide I used was topic based. There were few specific questions contained in the guide. Instead, I had an outline of topics that I hoped to cover, listed in an order that I thought it might make sense to cover them, noted on a sheet of paper. That guide can be seen in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.4 Interview Guide Displaying Topics Rather Than Questions
In my interviews with child-free adults, the interview guide contained questions rather than brief topics. One reason I took this approach is that this was a topic with which I had less familiarity than workplace sexual harassment. I’d been studying harassment for some time before I began those interviews, and I had already analyzed much quantitative survey data on the topic. When I began the child-free interviews, I was embarking on a research topic that was entirely new for me. I was also studying a topic about which I have strong personal feelings, and I wanted to be sure that I phrased my questions in a way that didn’t appear biased to respondents. To help ward off that possibility, I wrote down specific question wording in my interview guide. As I conducted more and more interviews, and read more and more of the literature on child-free adults, I became more confident about my ability to ask open-ended, nonbiased questions about the topic without the guide, but having some specific questions written down at the start of the data collection process certainly helped. The interview guide I used for the child-free project is displayed in Figure 9.5.
Figure 9.5 Interview Guide Displaying Questions Rather Than Topics
As you might have guessed, interview guides do not appear out of thin air. They are the result of thoughtful and careful work on the part of a researcher. As you can see in both of the preceding guides, the topics and questions have been organized thematically and in the order in which they are likely to proceed (though keep in mind that the flow of a qualitative interview is in part determined by what a respondent has to say). Sometimes qualitative interviewers may create two versions of the interview guide: one version contains a very brief outline of the interview, perhaps with just topic headings, and another version contains detailed questions underneath each topic heading. In this case, the researcher might use the very detailed guide to prepare and practice in advance of actually conducting interviews and then just bring the brief outline to the interview. Bringing an outline, as opposed to a very long list of detailed questions, to an interview encourages the researcher to actually listen to what a participant is telling her. An overly detailed interview guide will be difficult to navigate through during an interview and could give respondents the misimpression that the interviewer is more interested in her questions than in the participant’s answers.
When beginning to construct an interview guide, brainstorming is usually the first step. There are no rules at the brainstorming stage—simply list all the topics and questions that come to mind when you think about your research question. Once you’ve got a pretty good list, you can begin to pare it down by cutting questions and topics that seem redundant and group like questions and topics together. If you haven’t done so yet, you may also want to come up with question and topic headings for your grouped categories. You should also consult the scholarly literature to find out what kinds of questions other interviewers have asked in studies of similar topics. As with quantitative survey research, it is best not to place very sensitive or potentially controversial questions at the very beginning of your qualitative interview guide. You need to give participants the opportunity to warm up to the interview and to feel comfortable talking with you. Finally, get some feedback on your interview guide. Ask your friends, family members, and your professors for some guidance and suggestions once you’ve come up with what you think is a pretty strong guide. Chances are they’ll catch a few things you hadn’t noticed.
In terms of the specific questions you include on your guide, there are a few guidelines worth noting. First, try to avoid questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no, or if you do choose to include such questions, be sure to include follow-up questions. Remember, one of the benefits of qualitative interviews is that you can ask participants for more information—be sure to do so. While it is a good idea to ask follow-up questions, try to avoid asking “why” as your follow-up question, as this particular question can come off as confrontational, even if that is not how you intend it. Often people won’t know how to respond to “why,” perhaps because they don’t even know why themselves. Instead of “why,” I recommend that you say something like, “Could you tell me a little more about that?” This allows participants to explain themselves further without feeling that they’re being doubted or questioned in a hostile way.
Also, try to avoid phrasing your questions in a leading way. For example, rather than asking, “Don’t you think that most people who don’t want kids are selfish?” you could ask, “What comes to mind for you when you hear that someone doesn’t want kids?” Or rather than asking, “What do you think about juvenile delinquents who drink and drive?” you could ask, “How do you feel about underage drinking?” or “What do you think about drinking and driving?” Finally, as noted earlier in this section, remember to keep most, if not all, of your questions open ended. The key to a successful qualitative interview is giving participants the opportunity to share information in their own words and in their own way.
Even after the interview guide is constructed, the interviewer is not yet ready to begin conducting interviews. The researcher next has to decide how to collect and maintain the information that is provided by participants. It is probably most common for qualitative interviewers to take audio recordings of the interviews they conduct.
Recording interviews allows the researcher to focus on her or his interaction with the interview participant rather than being distracted by trying to take notes. Of course, not all participants will feel comfortable being recorded and sometimes even the interviewer may feel that the subject is so sensitive that recording would be inappropriate. If this is the case, it is up to the researcher to balance excellent note-taking with exceptional question asking and even better listening. I don’t think I can understate the difficulty of managing all these feats simultaneously. Whether you will be recording your interviews or not (and especially if not), practicing the interview in advance is crucial. Ideally, you’ll find a friend or two willing to participate in a couple of trial runs with you. Even better, you’ll find a friend or two who are similar in at least some ways to your sample. They can give you the best feedback on your questions and your interview demeanor.
All interviewers should be aware of, give some thought to, and plan for several additional factors, such as where to conduct an interview and how to make participants as comfortable as possible during an interview. Because these factors should be considered by both qualitative and quantitative interviewers, we will return to them in Section 9.4 after we’ve had a chance to look at some of the unique features of each approach to interviewing.
Although our focus here has been on interviews for which there is one interviewer and one respondent, this is certainly not the only way to conduct a qualitative interview. Sometimes there may be multiple respondents present, and occasionally more than one interviewer may be present as well. When multiple respondents participate in an interview at the same time, this is referred to as a focus group. Focus groups can be an excellent way to gather information because topics or questions that hadn’t occurred to the researcher may be brought up by other participants in the group. Having respondents talk with and ask questions of one another can be an excellent way of learning about a topic; not only might respondents ask questions that hadn’t occurred to the researcher, but the researcher can also learn from respondents’ body language around and interactions with one another. Of course, there are some unique ethical concerns associated with collecting data in a group setting. We’ll take a closer look at how focus groups work and describe some potential ethical concerns associated with them in Chapter 12.
Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data
Analysis of qualitative interview data typically begins with a set of transcripts of the interviews conducted. Obtaining said transcripts requires having either taken exceptionally good notes during an interview or, preferably, recorded the interview and then transcribed it. Transcribing interviews is usually the first step toward analyzing qualitative interview data. To transcribe an interview means that you create, or someone whom you’ve hired creates, a complete, written copy of the recorded interview by playing the recording back and typing in each word that is spoken on the recording, noting who spoke which words. In general, it is best to aim for a verbatim transcription, one that reports word for word exactly what was said in the recorded interview. If possible, it is also best to include nonverbals in an interview’s written transcription. Gestures made by respondents should be noted, as should the tone of voice and notes about when, where, and how spoken words may have been emphasized by respondents.
If you have the time (or if you lack the resources to hire others), I think it is best to transcribe your interviews yourself. I never cease to be amazed by the things I recall from an interview when I transcribe it myself. If the researcher who conducted the interview transcribes it himself or herself, that person will also be able to make a note of nonverbal behaviors and interactions that may be relevant to analysis but that could not be picked up by audio recording. I’ve seen interviewees roll their eyes, wipe tears from their face, and even make obscene gestures that spoke volumes about their feelings but that could not have been recorded had I not remembered to include these details in their transcribed interviews.
The goal of analysis is to reach some inferences, lessons, or conclusions by condensing large amounts of data into relatively smaller, more manageable bits of understandable information. Analysis of qualitative interview data often works inductively (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2006).For an additional reminder about what an inductive approach to analysis means, see Chapter 2. If you would like to learn more about inductive qualitative data analysis, I recommend two titles: Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine; Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. To move from the specific observations an interviewer collects to identifying patterns across those observations, qualitative interviewers will often begin by reading through transcripts of their interviews and trying to identify codes. A code is a shorthand representation of some more complex set of issues or ideas. In this usage, the word code is a noun. But it can also be a verb. The process of identifying codes in one’s qualitative data is often referred to as coding. Coding involves identifying themes across interview data by reading and rereading (and rereading again) interview transcripts until the researcher has a clear idea about what sorts of themes come up across the interviews.
Qualitative researcher and textbook author Kristin Esterberg (2002)Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. describes coding as a multistage process. Esterberg suggests that there are two types of coding: open coding and focused coding. To analyze qualitative interview data, one can begin by open coding transcripts. This means that you read through each transcript, line by line, and make a note of whatever categories or themes seem to jump out to you. At this stage, it is important that you not let your original research question or expectations about what you think you might find cloud your ability to see categories or themes. It’s called open coding for a reason—keep an open mind. Open coding will probably require multiple go-rounds. As you read through your transcripts, it is likely that you’ll begin to see some commonalities across the categories or themes that you’ve jotted down. Once you do, you might begin focused coding.
Focused coding involves collapsing or narrowing themes and categories identified in open coding by reading through the notes you made while conducting open coding. Identify themes or categories that seem to be related, perhaps merging some. Then give each collapsed/merged theme or category a name (or code), and identify passages of data that fit each named category or theme. To identify passages of data that represent your emerging codes, you’ll need to read through your transcripts yet again (and probably again). You might also write up brief definitions or descriptions of each code. Defining codes is a way of making meaning of your data and of developing a way to talk about your findings and what your data mean. Guess what? You are officially analyzing data!
As tedious and laborious as it might seem to read through hundreds of pages of transcripts multiple times, sometimes getting started with the coding process is actually the hardest part. If you find yourself struggling to identify themes at the open coding stage, ask yourself some questions about your data. The answers should give you a clue about what sorts of themes or categories you are reading. In their text on analyzing qualitative data, Lofland and Lofland (1995)Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. identify a set of questions that I find very useful when coding qualitative data. They suggest asking the following:
1. Of what topic, unit, or aspect is this an instance?
2. What question about a topic does this item of data suggest?
3. What sort of answer to a question about a topic does this item of data suggest (i.e., what proposition is suggested)?
Asking yourself these questions about the passages of data that you’re reading can help you begin to identify and name potential themes and categories.
Still feeling uncertain about how this process works? Sometimes it helps to see how interview passages translate into codes. In Table 9.1, I present two codes that emerged from the inductive analysis of transcripts from my interviews with child-free adults. I also include a brief description of each code and a few (of many) interview excerpts from which each code was developed.
Table 9:1 Interview Coding Example
Code Code description Interview excerpts
Reify gender Participants reinforceheteronormative ideals in two ways: (a) by calling up stereotypical images of gender and family and (b) by citing their own “failure” to achieve those ideals. “The woman is more involved with taking care of the child. [As a woman] I’d be the one waking up more often to feed the baby and more involved in the personal care of the child, much more involved. I would have more responsibilities than my partner. I know I would feel that burden more than if I were a man.”
“I don’t have that maternal instinct.”
“I look at all my high school friends on Facebook, and I’m the only one who isn’t married and doesn’t have kids. I question myself, like if there’s something wrong with me that I don’t have that.”
“I feel badly that I’m not providing my parents with grandchildren.”
Resist Gender Participants resist gender norms in two ways: (a) by pushing back against negative social responses and (b) by redefining family for themselves in a way that challenges normative notions of family. “Am I less of a woman because I don’t have kids? I don’t think so!”
“I think if they’re gonna put their thoughts on me, I’m putting it back on them. When they tell me, ‘Oh, Janet, you won’t have lived until you’ve had children. It’s the most fulfilling thing a woman can do!’ then I just name off the 10 fulfilling things I did in the past week that they didn’t get to do because they have kids.”
“Family is the group of people that you want to be with. That’s it.”
“The whole institution of marriage as a transfer of property from one family to another and the supposition that the whole purpose in life is to create babies is pretty ugly. My definition of family has nothing to do with that. It’s about creating a better life for ourselves.”
As you might imagine, wading through all these data is quite a process. Just as quantitative researchers rely on the assistance of special computer programs designed to help with sorting through and analyzing their data, so, too, do qualitative researchers. Where quantitative researchers have SPSS and MicroCase (and many others), qualitative researchers have programs such as NVivo (http://www.qsrinternational.com) and Atlasti (http://www.atlasti.com). These are programs specifically designed to assist qualitative researchers with organizing, managing, sorting, and analyzing large amounts of qualitative data. The programs work by allowing researchers to import interview transcripts contained in an electronic file and then label or code passages, cut and paste passages, search for various words or phrases, and organize complex interrelationships among passages and codes.
In sum, the following excerpt, from a paper analyzing the workplace sexual harassment interview data I have mentioned previously, summarizes how the process of analyzing qualitative interview data often works:
All interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed and imported into the computer program NVivo. NVivo is designed to assist researchers with organizing, managing, interpreting, and analyzing non-numerical, qualitative data. Once the transcripts, ranging from 20 to 60 pages each, were imported into NVivo, we first coded the data according to the themes outlined in our interview guide. We then closely reviewed each transcript again, looking for common themes across interviews and coding like categories of data together. These passages, referred to as codes or “meaning units” (Weiss, 2004),Weiss, R. S. (2004). In their own words: Making the most of qualitative interviews. Contexts, 3, 44–51. were then labeled and given a name intended to succinctly portray the themes present in the code. For this paper, we coded every quote that had something to do with the labeling of harassment. After reviewing passages within the “labeling” code, we placed quotes that seemed related together, creating several sub-codes. These sub-codes were named and are represented by the three subtitles within the findings section of this paper.Our three subcodes were the following: (a) “It’s different because you’re in high school”: Sociability and socialization at work; (b) Looking back: “It was sexual harassment; I just didn’t know it at the time”; and (c) Looking ahead: New images of self as worker and of workplace interactions. Once our sub-codes were labeled, we re-examined the interview transcripts, coding additional quotes that fit the theme of each sub-code. (Blackstone, Houle, & Uggen, 2006)Blackstone, A., Houle, J., & Uggen, C. “At the time, I thought it was great”: Age, experience, and workers’ perceptions of sexual harassment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, QC, August 2006. Currently under review.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews
As the preceding sections have suggested, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. Whatever topic is of interest to the researcher employing this method can be explored in much more depth than with almost any other method. Not only are participants given the opportunity to elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods such as survey research, but they also are able share information with researchers in their own words and from their own perspectives rather than being asked to fit those perspectives into the perhaps limited response options provided by the researcher. And because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes, or the “how” of various phenomena. Yet another, and sometimes overlooked, benefit of qualitative interviews that occurs in person is that researchers can make observations beyond those that a respondent is orally reporting. A respondent’s body language, and even her or his choice of time and location for the interview, might provide a researcher with useful data.
Of course, all these benefits do not come without some drawbacks. As with quantitative survey research, qualitative interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall whatever details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors are being asked about. As Esterberg (2002) puts it, “If you want to know about what people actually do, rather than what they say they do, you should probably use observation [instead of interviews].”Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Further, as you may have already guessed, qualitative interviewing is time intensive and can be quite expensive. Creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, and conducting interviews are just the beginning. Transcribing interviews is labor intensive—and that’s before coding even begins. It is also not uncommon to offer respondents some monetary incentive or thank-you for participating. Keep in mind that you are asking for more of participants’ time than if you’d simply mailed them a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. Conducting qualitative interviews is not only labor intensive but also emotionally taxing. When I interviewed young workers about their sexual harassment experiences, I heard stories that were shocking, infuriating, and sad. Seeing and hearing the impact that harassment had had on respondents was difficult. Researchers embarking on a qualitative interview project should keep in mind their own abilities to hear stories that may be difficult to hear.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In-depth interviews are semistructured interviews where the researcher has topics and questions in mind to ask, but questions are open ended and flow according to how the participant responds to each.
• Interview guides can vary in format but should contain some outline of the topics you hope to cover during the course of an interview.
• NVivo and Atlas.ti are computer programs that qualitative researchers use to help them with organizing, sorting, and analyzing their data.
• Qualitative interviews allow respondents to share information in their own words and are useful for gathering detailed information and understanding social processes.
• Drawbacks of qualitative interviews include reliance on respondents’ accuracy and their intensity in terms of time, expense, and possible emotional strain.
Exercises
1. Based on a research question you have identified through earlier exercises in this text, write a few open-ended questions you could ask were you to conduct in-depth interviews on the topic. Now critique your questions. Are any of them yes/no questions? Are any of them leading?
2. Read the open-ended questions you just created, and answer them as though you were an interview participant. Were your questions easy to answer or fairly difficult? How did you feel talking about the topics you asked yourself to discuss? How might respondents feel talking about them? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/09%3A_Interviews-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/9.02%3A_Qualitative_In.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define and describe standardized interviews.
• Describe how quantitative interviews differ from qualitative interviews.
• Describe the process and some of the drawbacks of telephone interviewing techniques.
• Describe how the analysis of quantitative interview works.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative interviews.
Quantitative interviews are similar to qualitative interviews in that they involve some researcher/respondent interaction. But the process of conducting and analyzing findings from quantitative interviews also differs in several ways from that of qualitative interviews. Each approach also comes with its own unique set of strengths and weaknesses. We’ll explore those differences here.
Conducting Quantitative Interviews
Much of what we learned in the previous chapter on survey research applies to quantitative interviews as well. In fact, quantitative interviews are sometimes referred to as survey interviews because they resemble survey-style question-and-answer formats. They might also be called standardized interviews. The difference between surveys and standardized interviews is that questions and answer options are read to respondents rather than having respondents complete a questionnaire on their own. As with questionnaires, the questions posed in a standardized interview tend to be closed ended.See Chapter 8 for the definition of closed ended.There are instances in which a quantitative interviewer might pose a few open-ended questions as well. In these cases, the coding process works somewhat differently than coding in-depth interview data. We’ll describe this process in the following subsection.
In quantitative interviews, an interview schedule is used to guide the researcher as he or she poses questions and answer options to respondents. An interview schedule is usually more rigid than an interview guide. It contains the list of questions and answer options that the researcher will read to respondents. Whereas qualitative researchers emphasize respondents’ roles in helping to determine how an interview progresses, in a quantitative interview, consistency in the way that questions and answer options are presented is very important. The aim is to pose every question-and-answer option in the very same way to every respondent. This is done to minimize interviewer effect, or possible changes in the way an interviewee responds based on how or when questions and answer options are presented by the interviewer.
Quantitative interviews may be recorded, but because questions tend to be closed ended, taking notes during the interview is less disruptive than it can be during a qualitative interview. If a quantitative interview contains open-ended questions, however, recording the interview is advised. It may also be helpful to record quantitative interviews if a researcher wishes to assess possible interview effect. Noticeable differences in responses might be more attributable to interviewer effect than to any real respondent differences. Having a recording of the interview can help a researcher make such determinations.
Quantitative interviewers are usually more concerned with gathering data from a large, representative sample. As you might imagine, collecting data from many people via interviews can be quite laborious. Technological advances in telephone interviewing procedures can assist quantitative interviewers in this process. One concern about telephone interviewing is that fewer and fewer people list their telephone numbers these days, but random digit dialing (RDD) takes care of this problem. RDD programs dial randomly generated phone numbers for researchers conducting phone interviews. This means that unlisted numbers are as likely to be included in a sample as listed numbers (though, having used this software for quantitative interviewing myself, I will add that folks with unlisted numbers are not always very pleased to receive calls from unknown researchers). Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) programs have also been developed to assist quantitative survey researchers. These programs allow an interviewer to enter responses directly into a computer as they are provided, thus saving hours of time that would otherwise have to be spent entering data into an analysis program by hand.
Conducting quantitative interviews over the phone does not come without some drawbacks. Aside from the obvious problem that not everyone has a phone, research shows that phone interviews generate more fence-sitters than in-person interviews (Holbrook, Green, & Krosnick, 2003).Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79–125. Responses to sensitive questions or those that respondents view as invasive are also generally less accurate when data are collected over the phone as compared to when they are collected in person. I can vouch for this latter point from personal experience. While conducting quantitative telephone interviews when I worked at a research firm, it was not terribly uncommon for respondents to tell me that they were green or purple when I asked them to report their racial identity.
Analysis of Quantitative Interview Data
As with the analysis of survey data, analysis of quantitative interview data usually involves coding response options numerically, entering numeric responses into a data analysis computer program, and then running various statistical commands to identify patterns across responses. Section 8.5 of Chapter 8 describes the coding process for quantitative data. But what happens when quantitative interviews ask open-ended questions? In this case, responses are typically numerically coded, just as closed-ended questions are, but the process is a little more complex than simply giving a “no” a label of 0 and a “yes” a label of 1.
In some cases, quantitatively coding open-ended interview questions may work inductively, as described in Section 9.2.2 "Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data". If this is the case, rather than ending with codes, descriptions of codes, and interview excerpts, the researcher will assign a numerical value to codes and may not utilize verbatim excerpts from interviews in later reports of results. Keep in mind, as described in Chapter 1, that with quantitative methods the aim is to be able to represent and condense data into numbers. The quantitative coding of open-ended interview questions is often a deductive process. The researcher may begin with an idea about likely responses to his or her open-ended questions and assign a numerical value to each likely response. Then the researcher will review participants’ open-ended responses and assign the numerical value that most closely matches the value of his or her expected response.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Interviews
Quantitative interviews offer several benefits. The strengths and weakness of quantitative interviews tend to be couched in comparison to those of administering hard copy questionnaires. For example, response rates tend to be higher with interviews than with mailed questionnaires (Babbie, 2010).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. That makes sense—don’t you find it easier to say no to a piece of paper than to a person? Quantitative interviews can also help reduce respondent confusion. If a respondent is unsure about the meaning of a question or answer option on a questionnaire, he or she probably won’t have the opportunity to get clarification from the researcher. An interview, on the other hand, gives the researcher an opportunity to clarify or explain any items that may be confusing.
As with every method of data collection we’ve discussed, there are also drawbacks to conducting quantitative interviews. Perhaps the largest, and of most concern to quantitative researchers, is interviewer effect. While questions on hard copy questionnaires may create an impression based on the way they are presented, having a person administer questions introduces a slew of additional variables that might influence a respondent. As I’ve said, consistency is key with quantitative data collection—and human beings are not necessarily known for their consistency. Interviewing respondents is also much more time consuming and expensive than mailing questionnaires. Thus quantitative researchers may opt for written questionnaires over interviews on the grounds that they will be able to reach a large sample at a much lower cost than were they to interact personally with each and every respondent.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Unlike qualitative interviews, quantitative interviews usually contain closed-ended questions that are delivered in the same format and same order to every respondent.
• Quantitative interview data are analyzed by assigning a numerical value to participants’ responses.
• While quantitative interviews offer several advantages over self-administered questionnaires such as higher response rates and lower respondent confusion, they have the drawbacks of possible interviewer effect and greater time and expense.
Exercises
1. The General Social Survey (GSS), which we’ve mentioned in previous chapters, is administered via in-person interview, just like quantitative interviewing procedures described here. Read more about the GSS at http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website.
2. Take a few of the open-ended questions you created after reading Section 9.2 on qualitative interviewing techniques. See if you can turn them into closed-ended questions. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/09%3A_Interviews-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/9.03%3A_Quantitative_I.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the main issues that both qualitative and quantitative interviewers should consider.
• Describe the options that interviewers have for balancing power between themselves and interview participants.
• Describe and define rapport.
• Define the term probe and describe how probing differs in qualitative and quantitative interviewing.
While quantitative interviews resemble survey research in their question/answer formats, they share with qualitative interviews the characteristic that the researcher actually interacts with her or his subjects. The fact that the researcher interacts with his or her subjects creates a few complexities that deserve attention. We’ll examine those here.
Power
First and foremost, interviewers must be aware of and attentive to the power differential between themselves and interview participants. The interviewer sets the agenda and leads the conversation. While qualitative interviewers aim to allow participants to have some control over which or to what extent various topics are discussed, at the end of the day it is the researcher who is in charge (at least that is how most respondents will perceive it to be). As the researcher, you are asking someone to reveal things about themselves they may not typically share with others. Also, you are generally not reciprocating by revealing much or anything about yourself. All these factors shape the power dynamics of an interview.
A number of excellent pieces have been written dealing with issues of power in research and data collection. Feminist researchers in particular paved the way in helping researchers think about and address issues of power in their work (Oakley, 1981).Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Suggestions for overcoming the power imbalance between researcher and respondent include having the researcher reveal some aspects of her own identity and story so that the interview is a more reciprocal experience rather than one-sided, allowing participants to view and edit interview transcripts before the researcher uses them for analysis, and giving participants an opportunity to read and comment on analysis before the researcher shares it with others through publication or presentation (Reinharz, 1992; Hesse-Biber, Nagy, & Leavy, 2007).Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (Eds.). (2007). Feminist research practice: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. On the other hand, some researchers note that sharing too much with interview participants can give the false impression that there is no power differential, when in reality researchers retain the ability to analyze and present participants’ stories in whatever way they see fit (Stacey, 1988).Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 21–27.
However you feel about sharing details about your background with an interview participant, another way to balance the power differential between yourself and your interview participants is to make the intent of your research very clear to the subjects. Share with them your rationale for conducting the research and the research question(s) that frame your work. Be sure that you also share with subjects how the data you gather will be used and stored. Also, be sure that participants understand how their privacy will be protected including who will have access to the data you gather from them and what procedures, such as using pseudonyms, you will take to protect their identities. Many of these details will be covered by your institutional review board’s informed consent procedures and requirements, but even if they are not, as researchers we should be attentive to how sharing information with participants can help balance the power differences between ourselves and those who participate in our research.
There are no easy answers when it comes to handling the power differential between the researcher and researched, and even social scientists do not agree on the best approach for doing so. It is nevertheless an issue to be attentive to when conducting any form of research, particularly those that involve interpersonal interactions and relationships with research participants.
Location, Location, Location
One way to balance the power between researcher and respondent is to conduct the interview in a location of the participants’ choosing, where he or she will feel most comfortable answering your questions. Interviews can take place in any number of locations—in respondents’ homes or offices, researchers’ homes or offices, coffee shops, restaurants, public parks, or hotel lobbies, to name just a few possibilities. I have conducted interviews in all these locations, and each comes with its own set of benefits and its own challenges. While I would argue that allowing the respondent to choose the location that is most convenient and most comfortable for her or him is of utmost importance, identifying a location where there will be few distractions is also important. For example, some coffee shops and restaurants are so loud that recording the interview can be a challenge. Other locations may present different sorts of distractions. For example, I have conducted several interviews with parents who, out of necessity, spent more time attending to their children during an interview than responding to my questions (of course, depending on the topic of your research, the opportunity to observe such interactions could be invaluable). As an interviewer, you may want to suggest a few possible locations, and note the goal of avoiding distractions, when you ask your respondents to choose a location.
Of course, the extent to which a respondent should be given complete control over choosing a location must also be balanced by accessibility of the location to you, the interviewer, and by your safety and comfort level with the location. I once agreed to conduct an interview in a respondent’s home only to discover on arriving that the living room where we conducted the interview was decorated wall to wall with posters representing various white power organizations displaying a variety of violently racist messages. Though the topic of the interview had nothing to do with the topic of the respondent’s home décor, the discomfort, anger, and fear I felt during the entire interview consumed me and certainly distracted from my ability to carry on the interview. In retrospect, I wish I had thought to come up with some excuse for needing to reschedule the interview and then arranged for it to happen in a more neutral location. While it is important to conduct interviews in a location that is comfortable for respondents, doing so should never come at the expense of your safety.
Researcher-Respondent Relationship
Finally, a unique feature of interviews is that they require some social interaction, which means that to at least some extent, a relationship is formed between interviewer and interviewee. While there may be some differences in how the researcher-respondent relationship works depending on whether your interviews are qualitative or quantitative, one essential relationship element is the same: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.You should know by now that I can’t help myself. If you, too, now have Aretha Franklin on the brain, feel free to excuse yourself for a moment to enjoy a song and dance: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0XAI-PFQcA. A good rapport between you and the person you interview is crucial to successful interviewing. Rapport is the sense of connection you establish with a participant. Some argue that this term is too clinical, and perhaps it implies that a researcher tricks a participant into thinking they are closer than they really are (Esterberg, 2002).Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. While it is unfortunately true that some researchers might adopt this misguided approach to rapport, that is not the sense in which I use the term here nor is that the sort of rapport I advocate researchers attempt to establish with their subjects. Instead, as already mentioned, it is respect that is key.
There are no big secrets or tricks for how to show respect for research participants. At its core, the interview interaction should not differ from any other social interaction in which you show gratitude for a person’s time and respect for a person’s humanity. It is crucial that you, as the interviewer, conduct the interview in a way that is culturally sensitive. In some cases, this might mean educating yourself about your study population and even receiving some training to help you learn to effectively communicate with your research participants. Do not judge your research participants; you are there to listen to them, and they have been kind enough to give you their time and attention. Even if you disagree strongly with what a participant shares in an interview, your job as the researcher is to gather the information being shared with you, not to make personal judgments about it. In case you still feel uncertain about how to establish rapport and show your participants respect, I will leave you with a few additional bits of advice.
Developing good rapport requires good listening. In fact, listening during an interview is an active, not a passive, practice. Active listening means that you, the researcher, participate with the respondent by showing that you understand and follow whatever it is that he or she is telling you (Devault, 1990).For more on the practice of listening, especially in qualitative interviews, see Devault, M. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37, 96–116. The questions you ask respondents should indicate that you’ve actually heard what they’ve just said. Active listening probably means that you will probe the respondent for more information from time to time throughout the interview. A probe is a request for more information. Both qualitative and quantitative interviewers probe respondents, though the way they probe usually differs. In quantitative interviews, probing should be uniform. Often quantitative interviewers will predetermine what sorts of probes they will use. As an employee at the research firm I’ve mentioned before, our supervisors used to randomly listen in on quantitative telephone interviews we conducted. We were explicitly instructed not to use probes that might make us appear to agree or disagree with what respondents said. So “yes” or “I agree” or a questioning “hmmmm” were discouraged. Instead, we could respond with “thank you” to indicate that we’d heard a respondent. We could use “yes” or “no” if, and only if, a respondent had specifically asked us if we’d heard or understood what they had just said.
In some ways qualitative interviews better lend themselves to following up with respondents and asking them to explain, describe, or otherwise provide more information. This is because qualitative interviewing techniques are designed to go with the flow and take whatever direction the respondent goes during the interview. Nevertheless, it is worth your time to come up with helpful probes in advance of an interview even in the case of a qualitative interview. You certainly do not want to find yourself stumped or speechless after a respondent has just said something about which you’d like to hear more. This is another reason that practicing your interview in advance with people who are similar to those in your sample is a good idea.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• While there are several key differences between qualitative and quantitative interviewing techniques, all interviewers using either technique should take into consideration the power differential between themselves and respondents, should take care in identifying a location for an interview, and should take into account the fact that an interview is, to at least some extent, a form of relationship.
• Feminist researchers paved the way for helping interviewers think about how to balance the power differential between themselves and interview participants.
• Interviewers must always be respectful of interview participants.
Exercises
1. Imagine that you will be conducting interviews. What are some possible locations in your area you think might be good places to conduct interviews? What makes those locations good?
2. What do you think about the suggestions for balancing power between interviewers and interviewees? How much of your own story do you think you’d be likely to share with interview participants? Why? What are the possible consequences (positive and negative) of revealing information about yourself when you’re the researcher? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/09%3A_Interviews-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/9.04%3A_Issues_to_Cons.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define field research.
• Define participant observation and describe the continuum of participant observation.
• Discuss at least two examples of field research.
Why Field Research?
If we wanted to know who conducts more of the housework in households, how could we find the answer? One way might be to interview people and simply ask them. That is exactly what Arlie Hochschild did in her study of the second shift, her term for the work that goes on in the home after the day’s work for pay is completed. Hochschild (1989)Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home (1st ed.). New York, NY: Viking. interviewed 50 heterosexual, married couples with children to learn about how they did, or did not, share the work of the second shift. Many of these couples reported to her that they shared the load of the second shift equally, sometimes dividing the house into areas that were “her responsibility” and those that were “his.” But Hochschild wasn’t satisfied with just people’s personal accounts of second-shift work. She chose to observe 12 of these couples in their homes as well, to see for herself just how the second shift was shared.
What Hochschild discovered was that even those couples who claimed to share the second shift did not have as equitable a division of duties as they’d professed. For example, one couple who told Hochschild during their interview that they shared the household work equally had explained that the wife was responsible for the upstairs portion of the house and the husband took responsibility for the downstairs portion. Upon conducting observations in this couple’s home, however, Hochschild discovered that the upstairs portion of the house contained all the bedrooms and bathrooms, the kitchen, the dining room, and the living room, while the downstairs included a storage space and the garage. This division of labor meant that the woman actually carried the weight of responsibility for the second shift. Without a field research component to her study, Hochschild might never have uncovered these and other truths about couples’ behaviors and sharing (or not sharing) of household duties.
There’s a New Yorker cartoon that pretty accurately portrays life for a field researcher (Cotham, 2003).Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 It depicts “Two Barbarians and a Professor of Barbarian Studies.” As field researchers, just as in the cartoon, we immerse ourselves in the settings that we study. While the extent to which we immerse ourselves varies (note in the cartoon the professor is riding a horse but has chosen to retain his professorial jacket and pipe), what all field researchers have in common is their participation in “the field.”
Field research is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. Thus when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they’re talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. In this text, we’ll use two main terms: field research and participant observation. You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate, they observe, they usually interview some of the people they observe, and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.
Figure 10.2
Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis. This chapter focuses primarily on participant observation.
Because we cover interviews and document/artifact analysis in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11, here we’ll focus only on the participation and observation aspects of field research. These aspects of field research are usually referenced together and are known as participant observation. Like field research, participant observation also has multiple meanings. Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe (Junker, 1960).Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. You might say that there’s a continuum of participant observation, where complete observation lies at end of the continuum and complete participation lies at the other end.
In other chapters, we discuss two works that could fall on either end of the participant observation continuum. Barrie Thorne’s (1993)Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. observations of children in classrooms, school cafeterias, hallways, and playgrounds rest near the complete observation end of the continuum. Rather than actually pretending to be an elementary school student and interacting with her research participants as they would each other, Thorne observed (which, as discussed in Chapter 4, was probably a wise move since it would have been difficult to convince the students that she was one of them). Laud Humphreys’s (1970)Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. London, UK: Duckworth. research on the tearoom trade, described in Chapter 3, could be said to rest on the other end of the continuum. Rather than only observe, Humphreys played the key tearoom role of watch queen, a role that nonresearcher participants in the trade also played. Humphreys also did not tell many of the people he observed that he was a researcher; thus from the perspectives of many of his “subjects,” he was only a participant. The participant observation continuum is represented in Figure 10.3.
There are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant observer’s role. Complete observers may miss important aspects of group interaction and don’t have the opportunity to fullygrasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant them opportunities to see interactions that they would miss were they more involved. Complete participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that we investigate. On the other hand, complete participants may find themselves in situations that they’d rather not face but cannot excuse themselves from because they’ve adopted the role of complete participant. Also, complete participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their “subjects.” In reality, most field research projects lie somewhere near the middle of the observer-participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may just observe. Where would you feel most comfortable as a field researcher—as an observer, a participant, or a bit of both?
As you might have imagined based on the examples of Thorne’s and Humphreys’s work, field research is well equipped to answer “how” kinds of questions. Whereas survey researchers often aim to answer “why” questions, field researchers ask how the processes they study occur, how the people they spend time with in the field interact, and how events unfold. Table 10.1 presents just a few examples of the kinds of questions field researchers have asked in past projects along with a brief summary of where and what role those researchers took in the field. The examples presented in Table 10.1 by no means represent an exhaustive list of the variations of questions field researchers have asked or of the range of field research projects that have been conducted over the years, but they do provide a snapshot of the kinds of work sociological field researchers engage in.
Table 1:.1 Field Research Examples
Question Researcher role Author (year)
How is the social structure of a local “slum” organized? Over 3 years of participation and observations among an Italian community in Boston’s North End Whyte (1942)William Foote Whyte is considered by many to be the pioneer of the use of participant observation methods in sociological studies. Whyte, W. F. (1942). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
How do the urban poor live? Twenty months of participation and observations among an African American community in Washington, DC Liebow (1967)Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Why and how do workers consent to their own exploitation? Ten months of participation as a machine operator in a Chicago factory along with observations of workers in the factory Burawoy (1979)Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
How is erotic labor organized in two different countries, and what are sex workers’ experiences in each? Brief participation in sex transactions in the Netherlands and California along with observations of and interviews with sex workers in both locations Chapkis (1997)Chapkis, W. (1997). Live sex acts: Women performing erotic labor. New York, NY: Routledge.
How does childrearing differ across social classes? Approximately one month each participating and observing in the homes and lives of 12 different families Lareau (2003)Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
How is masculinity constructed by and among high school students, and what does this mean for our understandings of gender and sexuality? Eighteen months of observations and interviews in a racially diverse working-class high school Pascoe (2007)Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
How do sports play a role in shaping gender, class, family, and community? Participation as a youth soccer volunteer along with observations and interviews Messner (2009)Messner, M. (2009). It’s all for the kids: Gender, families, and youth sports. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Field research is a method that was originally crafted by anthropologists for the purpose of cultural understanding and interpretation (Wolcott, 2008).Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Dissatisfied with studying groups of people based solely on secondhand accounts and inspection of artifacts, several anthropologists decided to try living in or near the communities they studied to learn from and about them. Two anthropologists in particular, Franz Boas (1888)Boas, F. (1888). The central Eskimo. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. and Bronislaw Malinowski (1922),Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London, UK: G. Routledge & Sons; New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. are credited with developing this method around the turn of the 20th century. Boas lived with native populations in Canada and in the American Northwest. Malinowski lived in Papua New Guinea with people who were native to the area. Sociologists picked up on the idea and on the benefits of field research (which we’ll examine in Section 10.2). Soon a number of sociologists had embraced this new method and adapted field research for their own studies of groups. Many of the early field researchers in sociology were former social workers who got interested in sociological research because of experiences in their roles as social reformers. The University of Chicago in particular played a key role in the development of American field research through, among other projects, its involvement in Hull House,Jane Addams Hull House Association. Retrieved from www.hullhouse.org a social settlement founded for European immigrants in Chicago (Deegan, 1986).Deegan, M. J. (1986). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis.
• Different participant observation projects rest in different places on the continuum of complete observer to complete participant; most lie near the middle of the continuum.
• Field research has its origins in anthropology.
Exercises
1. As a preview to some of the pros, cons, joys, and frustrations of doing field research, watch the following clip, which shows “news” personality Stephen Colbert interviewing sociologist Sudhir VenkateshVenkatesh’s work was introduced in Chapter 2, the chapter on linking methods with theory. about his field research in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...dhir-venkatesh. The clip highlights some of the advantages field research has over survey interviewing; it also highlights some of the disadvantages of field research. Based on what you see in the clip, what are some of the main advantages of field research as compared to survey interviewing? What are some of the main disadvantages?
2. If you would like to learn more about William Foote Whyte’s groundbreaking field research, a 40-minute interview with Whyte and several of his research participants, conducted nearly 40 years after the publication of Street Corner Society, can be found at the following link: www.northendwaterfront.com/ho...north-end.html. What role did Whyte play in the field: complete observer, complete participant, or something in between? Use evidence from the interview to support your answer. What pros and cons of field research come up in the interview?
3. Where do you think is the best place to reside on the observer-participant continuum? Why? What are the pros and cons of each of the various places on the continuum? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/10%3A_Field_Research-_A_Qualitative_Technique/10.01%3A_What_Is_It_and_When_to_Us.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify and explain the strengths of field research.
• Identify and explain the weaknesses of field research.
Field research has many benefits, as well as a set of drawbacks. We’ll explore both here.
Strengths of Field Research
Field research allows researchers to gain firsthand experience and knowledge about the people, events, and processes that they study. No other method offers quite the same kind of closeup lens on everyday life. This close-up on everyday life means that field researchers can obtain very detailed data about people and processes, perhaps more detailed than they can obtain using any other method.
Field research is an excellent method for understanding the role of social context in shaping people’s lives and experiences. It enables a greater understanding of the intricacies and complexities of daily life. Field research may also uncover elements of people’s experiences or of group interactions of which we were not previously aware. This in particular is a unique strength of field research. With other methods, such as interviews and surveys, we certainly can’t expect a respondent to answer a question to which they do not know the answer or to provide us with information of which they are not aware. And because field research typically occurs over an extended period of time, social facts that may not even be immediately revealed to a researcher but that become discovered over time can be uncovered during the course of a field research project.
In sum, the major benefits of field research are the following:
1. It yields very detailed data.
2. It emphasizes the role and relevance of social context.
3. It can uncover social facts that may not be immediately obvious or of which research participants may be unaware.
Weaknesses of Field Research
Earlier I described the fact that field researchers are able to collect very detailed data as a benefit of this method. This benefit, however, does come at a cost. Because a field researcher’s focus is so detailed, it is by necessity also somewhat narrow. Field researchers simply are not able to gather data from as many individuals as, say, a survey researcher can reach. Indeed, field researchers generally sacrifice breadth in exchange for depth. Related to this point is the fact that field research is extremely time intensive.
Field research can also be emotionally taxing. In Chapter 9, I assert that interview research requires, to a certain extent, the development of a relationship between a researcher and her participants. But if interviews and field research both require relationship development, you might say that interviews are more like casual dating while field research is more like a full-blown, committed marriage.
The relationships you develop as a field researcher are sustained over a much longer period than the hour or two it might take you to conduct an interview. Not only do the relationships last longer, but they are also more intimate. A number of field researchers have documented the complexities of relationships with research participants (Arditti, Joest, Lambert-Shute, & Walker, 2010; Keinman & Copp, 1993; MacLeod, 1995).MacLeod, J. (1995). On the making of ain’t no makin’ it. In J. MacLeod (Ed.), Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood (pp. 270–302). Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Arditti, J. A., Joest, K. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Walker, L. (2010). The role of emotions in fieldwork: A self-study of family research in a corrections setting. The Qualitative Report, 15, 1387–1414; Keinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. On the plus side, these relationships can be very rewarding (and yield the rich, detailed data noted as a strength in the preceding discussion). But, as in any relationship, field researchers experience not just the highs but also the lows of daily life and interactions. And participating in day-to-day life with one’s research subjects can result in some tricky ethical quandaries (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of some of these quandaries). It can also be a challenge if your aim is to observe as “objectively” as possible.
Finally, documentation can be challenging for field researchers. Where survey researchers have the questionnaires participants complete and interviewers have recordings, field researchers generally have only themselves to rely on for documenting what they observe. This challenge becomes immediately apparent upon entering the field. It may not be possible to take field notes as you observe, nor will you necessarily know which details to document or which will become the most important details to have noted. And when you take notes after some observation, you may not recall everything exactly as you saw it when you were there.
In sum, the weaknesses of field research include the following:
1. It may lack breadth; gathering very detailed information means being unable to gather data from a very large number of people or groups.
2. It may be emotionally taxing.
3. Documenting observations may be more challenging than with other methods.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Strengths of field research include the fact that it yields very detailed data, it is designed to pay heed to social context, and it can uncover social facts that are not immediately obvious.
• Weaknesses of field research include that researchers may have to sacrifice breadth for depth, the possibility that the research will be emotionally taxing, and the fact that documenting observations can be challenging.
Exercises
1. In your opinion, what is the most important strength of field research? What do you view as its greatest weakness? Explain your position.
2. Find an article reporting results from field research. You can do this by using the Sociological Abstracts database, which was introduced in Chapter 4. How do the authors describe the strengths and weaknesses of their study? Are any of the strengths or weaknesses described in this section mentioned in the article? Are there additional strengths or weaknesses not mentioned in this section? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/10%3A_Field_Research-_A_Qualitative_Technique/10.02%3A_Pros_and_Cons_of_Field_Re.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the two major considerations with respect to “getting in” field research sites.
• Describe the factors one should consider when choosing a field research site.
• Explain how one’s social location is relevant for choosing a field research site.
• Describe the factors one should consider when deciding what role to play in a field research site.
• Explain the difference between overt and covert roles in field research.
When embarking on a field research project, there are two major things to consider: where to observe and what role you’ll take in your field site. Your decision about each of these will be shaped by a number of factors, some of which you’ll have control over and others which you won’t. Your decision about where to observe and what role to play will also have consequences for the data you are able to gather and how you analyze and share those data with others. We’ll examine each of these contingencies in the following subsections.
Choosing a Site
Where you observe might be determined by your research question, but because field research often works inductively, you may not have a totally focused question before you begin your observations. In some cases, field researchers home in on a research question once they embark on data collection. Other times, they begin with a research question but remain open to the possibility that their focus may shift as they gather data. In either case, when you choose a site, there are a number of factors to consider. What do you hope to accomplish with your field research? What is your topical/substantive interest? Where are you likely to observe behavior that has something to do with that topic? How likely is it that you’ll actually have access to the locations that are of interest to you? How much time do you have to conduct your participant observations? Will your participant observations be limited to a single location, or will you observe in multiple locations?
Perhaps the best place to start as you work to identify a site or sites for your field research is to think about your limitations. One limitation that could shape where you conduct participant observation is time. Field researchers typically immerse themselves in their research sites for many months, sometimes even years. In my field research on activism in the breast cancer and antirape movements, I conducted over 300 hours of participant observation over a period of 3 years and conducted interviews with more than 60 activists (Blackstone, 2003).Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. And as shown in Table 10.1, other field researchers have spent as much or even more time in the field. Do you have several years available to conduct research, or are you seeking a smaller-scale field research experience? How much time do you have to participate and observe per day? Per week? Identifying how available you’ll be in terms of time will help you determine where and what sort of research sites to choose.
Also think about where you live and whether travel is an option for you. Some field researchers actually move to live with or near their population of interest. Is this something you might consider? Is it even an option? How you answer these questions will shape how you identify your research site. Professor Erik Larson’s (2010)Larson, E. (2010). Time and the constitution of markets: Internal dynamics and external relations of stock exchanges in Fiji, Ghana, and Iceland. Economy and Society, 39, 460–487. research on variations in economic institutions in a global environment, for example, has taken him across the globe, from Fiji to Ghana to Iceland. Sociologist Sara Dorow’s (2006)Dorow, S. (2006). Transnational adoption: A cultural economy of race, gender, and kinship. New York, NY: New York University Press. research on transnational adoption took her from the United States to China. And the work of Wendy Chapkis (1997),Chapkis, W. (1997). Live sex acts: Women performing erotic labor. New York, NY: Routledge. described in Table 10.1, required her to conduct research not only in her original home state of California but also in the Netherlands. These are just a few of many examples of sociological researchers who have traveled the globe for the purpose of collecting data. Where might your field research questions take you?
In choosing a site, also consider how your social location might limit what or where you can study. The ascribed aspects of our locations are those that are involuntary, such as our age or race or mobility. How might my ascribed status as a middle-aged woman, for example, shape my ability to conduct complete participation in a study of children’s birthday parties? The achieved aspects of our locations, on the other hand, are those that we have some choice about. In field research, we may also have some choice about whether or the extent to which we reveal the achieved aspects of our identities. There are numerous examples of field researchers whose achieved statuses granted them access to field sites into which they might not have otherwise been allowed. Jennifer Pierce (1995),Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press. for example, utilized her achieved status as a paralegal to gain entry into two law offices for her ethnographic study of the gendered division of labor in corporate law firms. In Lauraine Leblanc’s (1999)Leblanc, L. (1999). Pretty in punk: Girls’ gender resistance in a boys’ subculture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. case, the achieved status of her appearance, including tattoos and a “punk” hairstyle and color, helped her gain the acceptance of research participants in her study of punk girls.
The preceding discussion should not be taken to mean that sociologists cannot, should not, or do not study those from whom we differ. In fact there have been plenty of successful field studies conducted by researchers who may have looked out of place in the sites they chose to investigate. Teresa Gowan, a self-described “small, white English woman” (2010, p. 16),Gowan, T. (2010). Hobos, hustlers, and backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. conducted field research with homeless men in some of San Francisco’s most notoriously rough neighborhoods. The aim here is not to reify the socially constructed categories upon which our society places so much emphasis in organizing itself. Rather, the point is to be aware of which ascribed and achieved aspects of your identity may shape your decisions about field sites.
Finally, in choosing a research site consider whether your research will be a collaborative project or whether you are on your own (Douglas, 1976).Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Collaborating with others has many benefits; you can cover more ground and therefore collect more data than you can on your own. And having collaborators in any research project, but especially field research, means having others with whom to share your trials and tribulations in the field. However, collaborative research comes with its own set of challenges such as possible personality conflicts among researchers, competing commitments in terms of time and contributions to the project, and differences in methodological or theoretical perspectives (Shaffir, Marshall, & Haas, 1979).Shaffir, W., Marshall, V., & Haas, J. (1979). Competing commitments: Unanticipated problems of field research. Qualitative Sociology, 2, 56–71.If you are considering collaborative field research, you are in good company; many fascinating examples precede you. David Snow and Leon Anderson (1993)Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1993). Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press.conducted a collaborative study of homelessness in Austin, Texas. And researchers at the University of Minnesota recently conducted a large-scale, cross-country field study of how forms of difference such as race and religion shape American life and experience (http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp.html). When considering something that is of interest to you, consider also whether you have possible collaborators. How might having collaborators shape the decisions you make about where to conduct participant observation?
I began this discussion by asking you to think about limitations that might shape your field site decisions. But it makes sense to also think about the opportunities—social, geographic, and otherwise—that your location affords. Perhaps you are already a member of an organization where you’d like to conduct research. Maybe you know someone who knows someone else who might be able to help you access a site. Perhaps you have a friend you could stay with, enabling you to conduct participant observations away from home. Choosing a site for participation is shaped by all these factors—your research question and area of interest, a few limitations, some opportunities, and sometimes a bit of being in the right place at the right time.
Choosing a Role
As with choosing a research site, some limitations and opportunities beyond your control might shape the role you take once you begin your participant observation. You’ll also need to make some deliberate decisions about how you enter the field and “who” you’ll be once you’re in.
In terms of entering the field, one of the earliest decisions you’ll need to make is whether to be overt or covert. As an overt researcher, you enter the field with research participants having some awareness about the fact that they are the subjects of social scientific research. Covert researchers, on the other hand, enter the field as though they are full participants, opting not to reveal that they are also researchers or that the group they’ve joined is being studied. As you might imagine, there are pros and cons to both approaches. A critical point to keep in mind is that whatever decision you make about how you enter the field will affect many of your subsequent experiences in the field.
As an overt researcher, you may experience some trouble establishing rapport at first. Having an insider at the site who can vouch for you will certainly help, but the knowledge that subjects are being “watched” will inevitably (and understandably) make some people uncomfortable and possibly cause them to behave differently than they would were they not aware of being research subjects. Because field research is typically a sustained activity that occurs over several months or years, it is likely that participants will become more comfortable with your presence over time. Overt researchers also avoid a variety of moral and ethical dilemmas that they might otherwise face. A Far Side cartoon demonstrates this point perfectly. It depicts a “researcher” dressed up like a gorilla, hanging out with a few other gorillas. In the cartoon, one of the real gorillas is holding out a few beetle grubs to the researcher, and the caption reads, “So you’re a real gorilla, are you? Well I guess you wouldn’t mind munchin’ down a few beetle grubs, would you? In fact, we wanna see you chug ’em!” (www.e-noah.net/asa/asashoponl...ID=ASAOE710N04).
As a covert researcher, “getting in” your site might be easier, but then you might face other issues. For how long would you plan to conceal your identity? How might participants respond once they discover you’ve been studying them? And how will you respond if asked to engage in activities you find unsettling or unsafe? Field researcher Richard Mitchell (1991)Mitchell, R. G., Jr. (1991). Secrecy and disclosure in fieldwork. In W. B. Shaffir and R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 97–108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. was forced to consider these very questions during his covert research among right-wing survivalists when he was asked to participate in the swapping of violently racist and homophobic stories, an experience over which he later expressed profound grief and deep regret. Beyond your own personal level of comfort with deceiving participants and willingness to take risks, it is possible that the decision about whether to enter the field covertly will be made for you. If you are conducting research while associated with any federally funded agency (and even many private entities), your institutional review board (IRB) probably will have something to say about any planned deception of research subjects. Some IRBs approve deception, but others look warily upon a field researcher engaging in covert participation. The extent to which your research site is a public location, where people may not have an expectation of privacy, might also play a role in helping you decide whether covert research is a reasonable approach.
I mentioned that having an insider at your site who can vouch for you is helpful. Such insiders, with whom a researcher may have some prior connection or a closer relationship than with other site participants, are called key informants. A key informant can provide a framework for your observations, help “translate” what you observe, and give you important insight into a group’s culture. If possible, having more than one key informant at a site is ideal, as one informant’s perspective may vary from another’s.
Once you’ve made a decision about how to enter your field site, you’ll need to think about the role you’ll adopt while there. Aside from being overt or covert, how close will you be to participants? In the words of Fred Davis (1973),Davis, F. (1973). The Martian and the convert: Ontological polarities in social research. Urban Life, 2, 333–343. who coined these terms in reference to researchers’ roles, will you be a Martian, a Convert, or a bit of both? Davis describes the Martian role as one in which a field researcher stands back a bit, not fully immersed in the lives of his subjects, in order to better problematize, categorize, and see with the eyes of a newcomer what’s being observed. From the Martian perspective, a researcher should remain disentangled from too much engagement with participants. The Convert, on the other hand, intentionally dives right into life as a participant. From this perspective, it is through total immersion that understanding is gained. Which approach do you feel best suits you?
In the preceding section we examined how ascribed and achieved statuses might shape how or which sites you choose for your field research. They also shape the role you adopt in your field site. The fact that I am a professor, for example, is an achieved status, and I can choose the extent to which I share this aspect of my identity with field study participants. In some cases perhaps sharing that I am a professor would enhance my ability to establish rapport; in other field sites it might stifle conversation and rapport-building. As you’ve seen from the examples provided throughout this chapter, different field researchers have taken different approaches when it comes to using their social locations to help establish rapport and dealing with ascribed statuses that differ from those of their “subjects.”
Whatever role you choose, many of the points made in Chapter 9 about power and relationships with participants apply to field research as well. In fact, the researcher-researched relationship is even more complex in field studies, where interactions with participants last far longer than the hour or two it might take to interview someone. Moreover, the potential for exploitation on the part of the researcher is even greater in field studies as relationships are usually closer and lines between “research” and personal or off-the-record interaction may get blurred. These precautions should be seriously considered before deciding to embark upon a field research project.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• When beginning a field research project, one must take care in planning where to conduct observations and what role to adopt in one’s field site.
• The time you have available to spend in the field will be a major factor in choosing your research site.
• There are pros and cons to both the overt and the covert researcher roles.
• Ascribed and achieved statuses both shape the choices that field researchers make about their sites and about their roles within those sites.
Exercises
1. Try to name at least three different locations where you might like to conduct field research. What barriers would you face were you to attempt to enter those sites as a researcher? In what ways might your entrée into the sites be facilitated by your social location?
2. What is your opinion about researchers taking on a covert as compared with an overt role in field research? Which role would you like to take in a field research project? Why? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/10%3A_Field_Research-_A_Qualitative_Technique/10.03%3A_Getting_In.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define descriptive field notes.
• Cite the variety of ways that field researchers might take notes while in the field.
• Describe what should be noted when taking field notes.
Field notes are your opportunity to write poorly and get away with it. I say that in jest, but there is some truth to it. This is one type of writing where you should not be going for literary value, to make your writing interesting, and even to make it readable for anyone other than yourself. Instead, the aim is to record your observations as straightforwardly and, while in the field, as quickly as possible in a way that makes sense to you. Field notes are the first—and a necessary—step toward developing quality analysis. They are also the record that affirms what you observed. In other words, field notes are not to be taken lightly or overlooked as unimportant.
Some say that there are two different kinds of field notes: descriptive and analytic. Though the lines between what counts as “description” and what counts as “analysis” can get pretty fuzzy, the distinction is nevertheless useful when thinking about how to write and how to interpret field notes. In this section, we’ll focus on descriptive field notes. Descriptive field notes are notes that simply describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible. These notes typically do not contain explanations of or comments about those observations. Instead, the observations are presented on their own, as clearly as possible. In the following section, we’ll examine the uses and writing of analytic field notes more closely.
Writing in the Field
Field researchers use a variety of strategies to take notes while in the field. Some research is conducted in settings where sitting with a notebook, iPad, or computer is no problem (e.g., if conducting observations in a classroom or at a meeting), but this is probably the exception rather than the norm. More often, field researchers must find creative ways to note their observations while engaged in the field. I’ve heard about field researchers jotting notes on their hands and arms, keeping very small notebooks in their pockets and occasionally jotting notes there, carrying small recorders to make quick observations, and even writing notes on toilet paper during visits to the restroom. With the advent of smartphones, taking notes in the field has become less arduous than it once was, as it is common to see someone texting or surfing the web from their phone in almost any setting.
Your strategy for recording your observations while in the field will be determined mostly by the site you choose and the role you play in that site. Will you be in a setting where having a notebook or smartphone in your hands will look out of place? If no, by all means, take notes! But don’t let your note taking distract you from what’s happening around you. Writing notes while in the field requires a fine balance between jotting down your observations and actually engaging in the setting. If you are strictly an observer, these will be easy to balance. But if you are also a participant, don’t let your note taking keep you from participating. If you do happen to be in a location where taking notes “in the moment” would be too obvious, rude, or distracting, you may still be able to occasionally jot down a few things very quickly. You may also need to develop a way of jotting down observations that doesn’t require complete sentences or perhaps even words. I know several field researchers who developed their own version of shorthand to take notes, using some combination of abbreviations and symbols, without taking too much time away from their participation in the field.
As with other proficiencies one develops, writing field notes is a skill that can be improved with practice. Recall the discussion in Chapter 1 about the dangers of informal observation. Conducting field research and taking field notes are decidedly not informal activities. In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard. That said, for a first-time field researcher, taking field notes can feel like a pretty haphazard activity. Understanding when to write, what to write, where to write, and how to write are all skills that field researchers develop with experience. I demonstrate this point to students early in our discussion of field methods by sending them out of the classroom in groups of two or three each and having them take notes about what they observe over a 15-minute period of time. No problem, they say. How hard can it be? Pretty tough, as it turns out. Students typically return from their 15 minutes of observation frustrated, confused, and annoyed with me for putting them through the experience.
So why torture my students in this way? It isn’t just to be a jerk, I promise. When students return to the classroom, I ask them to compare notes with their group members and discuss what strategies they used in making and recording observations. Typically, students have some overlap in the kinds of things noted, but inevitably one person will have paid more attention to conversations overheard, another to actions and unspoken physical expressions such how people walked or dressed, and yet another to nonhuman surroundings such as the landscape, sounds, and scents. Students conducting this exercise also often use different note-taking strategies, some drawing more pictures, others writing in complete sentences, others using abbreviations. I ask them to talk about what they’ve learned from the experience and the following two “lessons” are among the most frequently cited: (a) taking field notes is hard, and (b) it would have been nice to have some more direction before the exercise so they knew what to zero in on.
I’m always glad to hear that students recognize the difficulty of the task, and it’s true that I give them very few instructions prior to the field note exercise. This is intentional. In part I hope to make the point that while field research projects often occur inductively, this doesn’t mean that field researchers enter the field with absolutely no idea about what they plan to observe. Having a research question or topic in mind helps a researcher focus her or his observations. At the same time, it is important that field researchers not allow their original question or topic blind them to occurrences in the field that may not seem particularly important at the time. As I share with my students, you never know whether or how some observation might be important down the line. We’ll take a closer look at this point in Section 10.5.
No matter how difficult it can be to write notes while in the field, it is worth the effort. Field researchers rely on the notes they take in the field to develop more complete notes later and, eventually, to develop analysis. Have you heard the popular philosophical question about trees falling? It goes something like this: If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, did it actually make a sound? I don’t have a good answer for you from a philosophical perspective, but I can say that when it comes to field research, if you observe something but neglect to note it, it might as well not have happened. This is because you, like any other human being, cannot possibly be expected to remember everything that you see happen over the hours, days, months, or years that you spend collecting data in the field. For this reason, writing notes in the field (to the extent possible) is important, as is “filling in” those notes as soon as you are in a location where you can focus on more formal note taking. We examine this more formal aspect of note taking next.
Writing out of the Field
Immediately upon leaving any observation in the field, you should take the time to complete the brief notes you took while in the field. Even if you feel that the notes you’ve taken in the field are complete, you’ll be surprised by how much more you’ll recall once you sit down without distractions and read through what you’ve jotted down. You’ll also have the opportunity to add your own reflections, or observations about your observations, when you write up more complete notes.
When you type up notes upon returning from an observation, you should “fill in the blanks” and write as much as possible about what you’ve just observed. Even if it seems mundane, I think it’s fair to say that one’s field notes can never contain too much detail. Writing as much as possible, in as much detail as possible, should also help you avoid generalizing in your field notes. Be specific about what you observe; rather than saying that “everyone” said or did something, make note of exactly who said or did X (or note that you’re not sure exactly who did so but that it seemed as if most everyone did). Rather than saying that someone you observed was “angry,” describe what gave you that impression. For example, was that person yelling, red in the face, or shaking her fist?
Don’t forget to describe exactly where you were and detail your surroundings (in addition to describing the interactions and conversations you observed and participated in). Early in a field research project you may focus slightly more on describing the “lay of the land” than you do later on. This might mean writing up very detailed descriptions of the locations you observe and the people with whom you interact. You might also draw a map or, if appropriate in your setting, take pictures of your field sites. If your observations will be conducted in the same place and with the same people, these descriptive details you write up early on will become less noticeable to you over time. It will be helpful to have some documentation of your first impressions and of the sort of details that later become so much a part of the everyday scene that you stop noticing them. The following excerpt from my own field notes comes from my first meeting with two of the key informants in my field research in the breast cancer movement.
1/14/99, 11:00am
Met Jane and Polly at the XX office today. I was scheduled to be there at 10:30 but traffic was so bad due to last night’s snow storm that I did not get there until 11:00am. Jane and Polly did not seem bothered by my tardiness (Polly, “We don’t keep a time clock around here.”). I walked into the building and took the elevator up to the second floor. I was a little unsure about where to go from there so I just walked into the first open door and said, “I’m looking for the XX office.” A woman showed me into a large office (long and slightly irregular shape with windows on one wall, a desk and table and many chairs. Also two computers set up on a counter that runs along the wall across from the windows.) Two women were looking at a computer screen that was on the counter. When I walked in I introduced myself and Jane and Polly introduced themselves to me. Both women shook my hand, though Jane was the first to do so and did so with slightly more self-assurance than Polly. Polly told me to hang my coat on one of the “coat racks” and gestured to the many chairs that were around the office. I placed my coat and purse in what I hoped would be the most out of the way location; a corner behind the table. (Blackstone, 2003)Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
The description in my field notes continues for several more paragraphs, but I won’t torture you with those details. As you can see, this field notes excerpt is definitely not going to win the Pulitzer Prize for its riveting story or prose. Thankfully, that isn’t its purpose. Instead, the goal was to describe a location where I knew I’d be spending a fair amount of time and to describe my first impressions of the two women I knew would be likely candidates for key informants. One thing you’ll notice is that I used quotation marks every time I directly quoted a person. Including as many direct quotes as you can is a good idea, as such quotes provide support for the analytic points you’ll make when you later describe patterns in your data. This is another reason that taking notes in the field (to the extent possible) is a good idea. Direct quotes may be difficult to remember hours or even minutes after hearing them. For this reason you may wish to write verbatim quotes while in the field and then take the time to describe the circumstances under which something was said later on when you write up your full notes after leaving the scene.
Another thing you might find were you to read through the many pages of field notes I took during my participant observation is that I use all capital letters and brackets in some places. This is the strategy I developed for expressing my own personal feelings and impressions in my field notes. While the distinction between what one actually observed and what one thinks about what he or she observed is not always easy to make, most field researchers do attempt to distinguish between these two categories of information.
The bracketed portions of your field notes may never be used, but in some cases they will become the very early stages in your analysis of data. My notes from three years of participant observation include bracketed notes of both types. Sometimes, I used bracketed notes to express emotion or purge difficult thoughts or feelings. This was especially helpful when I felt upset about or annoyed by something that had occurred in the field. Because field research requires developing personal relationships with “subjects,” and because interpersonal relationships all experience various highs and lows, it is important to express your feelings about those relationships in your notes. Writing these more personal reflections may become important for analysis later or they may simply be cathartic at the moment. They might also reveal biases you have about the participants that you should confront and be honest about.
Every field researcher’s approach to writing up field notes will vary according to whatever strategy works best for that individual. Where I used brackets to document personal feelings and reflections on bits of data, other field researchers may use the “comments” function in a word processing program or use a different font type, size, or color to distinguish observations from reflections. Others might create two columns for their full field notes—one containing notes only about what was observed directly and the other containing reactions and impressions. There isn’t a wrong way to write field notes. What’s important is that you adopt a strategy that enables you to write accurately, to write as much detail as possible, and to distinguish observations from reflections.
key takeaways
• When taking descriptive field notes, researchers should try to make note of their observations as straightforwardly as possible.
• Field researchers might use any number of tools or strategies to facilitate taking notes in the field such as writing on one’s own hands, dictating observations into a handheld recorder, or taking notes in the form of text messages on one’s phone.
• In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard.
• Note taking does not end when a researcher exits an observation; handwritten notes are typed up immediately upon leaving the field so that researchers can “fill in the blanks” in their brief notes taken while in the field.
Exercises
1. Try out the note-taking exercise that my students complete in class. Find another person or two with whom you can conduct observations and take notes for about 15 minutes (perhaps someplace in your campus library, student union, or dorm). Sit near your peers who are also taking notes but do not talk with them during this portion of the exercise. Be sure to use all of your senses as you take notes: your eyes, your ears, your nose, your mouth, and your sense of touch. When your 15 minutes are up, compare notes with your peers. Where are there similarities? Where are their differences? Why do those similarities and differences exist? What strategy did you each employ to take notes? How might you approach field note taking differently were you asked to do it again? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/10%3A_Field_Research-_A_Qualitative_Technique/10.04%3A_Field_Notes.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define analytic field notes and explain how they differ from descriptive field notes.
• Explain why making note of mundane details is a good idea.
• Describe the process by which field researchers analyze their data.
• Define grounded theory.
Field notes are data. But moving from having pages of data to presenting findings from a field study in a way that will make sense to others requires that those data be analyzed. Analysis of field research data is the focus in this final section of the chapter.
From Description to Analysis
Writing and analyzing field notes involves moving from description to analysis. In Section 10.4, we considered field notes that are mostly descriptive in nature. Here we’ll consider analytic field notes. Analytic field notes are notes that include the researcher’s impressions about his observations. Analyzing field note data is a process that occurs over time, beginning at the moment a field researcher enters the field and continuing as interactions are happening in the field, as the researcher writes up descriptive notes, and as the researcher considers what those interactions and descriptive notes mean.
Often field notes will develop from a more descriptive state to an analytic state when the field researcher exits a given observation period, messy jotted notes or recordings in hand (or in some cases, literally on hand), and sits at a computer to type up those notes into a more readable format. We’ve already noted that carefully paying attention while in the field is important; so too is what goes on immediately upon exiting the field. Field researchers typically spend several hours typing up field notes after each observation has occurred. This is often where the analysis of field research data begins. Having time outside of the field to reflect upon your thoughts about what you’ve seen and the meaning of those observations is crucial to developing analysis in field research studies.
Once the analytic field notes have been written or typed up, the field researcher can begin to look for patterns across the notes by coding the data. This will involve the iterative process of open and focused coding that is outlined in Chapter 9. As mentioned several times in Section 10.4, it is important to note as much as you possibly can while in the field and as much as you can recall after leaving the field because you never know what might become important. Things that seem decidedly unimportant at the time may later reveal themselves to have some relevance.
In my field research experience, I was often surprised by the bits of data that turned out to hold some analytic relevance later on. For example, my field notes included a number of direct quotes and descriptions of informal interactions with participants that I didn’t expect would be important but that I nevertheless jotted down. Several of these quotes eventually made their way into my analysis. For example, Polly, who ran the volunteer office for a breast cancer organization, once remarked to me, “We [in the volunteer office] don’t use disposable cups here. It is always best to have coffee in a real mug. It’s much nicer that way” (Blackstone, 2004, p. 187).Blackstone, A. (2004). Sociability, work, and gender. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 29–44.
It didn’t occur to me at the time that this was just one of many tasks that Polly and other women volunteers do that remains largely invisible to the beneficiaries of their work. Because it is “much nicer” for volunteers to drink out of a real mug instead of a disposable cup, Polly actually spends a large amount of time washing mugs every day, and throughout the day, so that a clean, real mug is always available to the many volunteers who show up for brief volunteer shifts at the office each day. Had I not made a note of the coffee cup interaction with Polly, which at the time seemed rather mundane, I may have missed an important analytic point about the invisibility of some components of women’s volunteer labor that I was later able to make in presentations and publications of the work.
Sometimes the analytic process of field researchers and others who conduct inductive analysis is referred to as grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine; Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grounded theory occurs, as you might imagine, from the “ground up.” It requires that one begin with an open-ended and open-minded desire to understand a social situation or setting and involves a systematic process whereby the researcher lets the data guide her rather than guiding the data by preset hypotheses. The goal when employing a grounded theory approach is, perhaps not surprisingly, to generate theory. Its name not only implies that discoveries are made from the ground up but also that theoretical developments are grounded in a researcher’s empirical observations and a group’s tangible experiences.
As exciting as it might sound to generate theory from the ground up, the experience can also be quite intimidating and anxiety-producing as the open nature of the process can sometimes feel a little out of control. Without hypotheses to guide their analysis, researchers engaged in grounded theory work may experience some feelings of frustration or angst. The good news is that the process of developing a coherent theory that is grounded in empirical observations can be quite rewarding—not only to researchers but also to their peers who can contribute to the further development of new theories through additional research and to research participants who may appreciate getting a bird’s-eye view of their everyday experiences.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In analytic field notes, a researcher makes note of impressions about her or his observations.
• Details that may seem unimportant in the moment may turn out to be important during later analysis; it is therefore crucial that field researchers make note of these observations when conducting field research.
• In analyzing their data, many field researchers conduct grounded theory.
• Grounded theory involves generating theory from the ground up.
Exercises
1. Interested in learning more about grounded theory? Read all about it at the Grounded Theory Institute’s website: http://www.groundedtheory.com/. What do you think about grounded theory? Is this way of conducting research something that is of interest to you? Why or why not? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/10%3A_Field_Research-_A_Qualitative_Technique/10.05%3A_Analysis_of_Field_Researc.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define unobtrusive research.
• Define historical comparative research.
Why Unobtrusive Research?
Are female and male athletes at the professional and college levels treated equally? You might think, 40 years since the passing of Title IX (the civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education including athletics) and with the growing visibility of women athletes in sports such as golf, basketball, hockey, and tennis, that the answer would be an easy yes. But Professor Michael Messner’s (2002)Messner, M. A. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. unobtrusive research shows otherwise, as does Professors Jo Ann M. Buysse and Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert’s (2004)Buysse, J. A. M., & Embser-Herbert, M. S. (2004). Constructions of gender in sport: An analysis of intercollegiate media guide cover photographs. Gender & Society, 18, 66–81. content analysis of college athletics media guide photographs. In fact, Buysse and Embser-Herbert’s unobtrusive research shows that traditional definitions of femininity are fiercely maintained through colleges’ visual representations of women athletes as passive and overtly feminine (as opposed to strong and athletic). In addition, Messner and colleagues’ (Messner, Duncan, & Jensen, 1993)Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Jensen, K. (1993). Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gender & Society, 7, 121–137. content analysis of verbal commentary in televised coverage of men’s and women’s sports shows that announcers’ comments vary depending on an athlete’s gender identity. Such commentary not only infantilizes women athletes but also asserts an ambivalent stance toward their accomplishments.
Without unobtrusive research we might be inclined to think that more has changed for women athletes over the past 40 years than actually has changed.
In this chapter, we explore unobtrusive methods of collecting data. Unobtrusive research refers to methods of collecting data that don’t interfere with the subjects under study (because these methods are not obtrusive). Both qualitative and quantitative researchers use unobtrusive research methods. Unobtrusive methods share the unique quality that they do not require the researcher to interact with the people he or she is studying. It may seem strange that sociology, a discipline dedicated to understanding human social behavior, would employ a methodology that requires no interaction with human beings. But humans create plenty of evidence of their behaviors—they write letters to the editor of their local paper, they create various sources of entertainment for themselves such as movies and televisions shows, they consume goods, they walk on sidewalks, they lie on the grass in public parks. All these activities leave something behind—worn paths, trash, recorded shows, and printed papers. These are all potential sources of data for the unobtrusive researcher.
Sociologists interested in history are likely to use unobtrusive methods, which are also well suited to comparative research. Historical comparative research is “research that focuses either on one or more cases over time (the historical part) or on more than one nation or society at one point in time (the comparative part)” (Esterberg, 2002, p. 129).Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. While not all unobtrusive researchers necessarily conduct historical, comparative, or even some combination of historical and comparative work, unobtrusive methods are well suited to such work. As an example, Melissa Weiner (2010)Weiner, M. (2010). Power, protest, and the public schools: Jewish and African American struggles in New York City. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. used a historical comparative approach to study racial barriers historically experienced by Jews and African Americans in New York City public schools. Weiner analyzed public records from several years of newspapers, trial transcripts, and several organizations as well as private manuscript collections to understand how parents, children, and other activists responded to inequality and worked to reform schools. Not only did this work inform readers about the little-known similarities between Jewish and African American experiences, but it also informs current debates over inequalities experienced in public schools today.
In this chapter, we’ll examine content analysis as well as analysis of data collected by others. Both types of analysis have in common their use of data that do not require direct interaction with human subjects, but the particular type and source of data for each type of analysis differs. We’ll explore these similarities and differences in the following sections, after we look at some of the pros and cons of unobtrusive research methods.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Unobtrusive methods allow researchers to collect data without interfering with the subjects under study.
• Historical comparative methods, which are unobtrusive, focus on changes in multiple cases over time or on more than one nation or society at a single point in time.
Exercises
1. What are some additional sources of unobtrusive data, aside from those already mentioned, that sociologists might take interest in examining?
2. What locations might you like to compare in your own research? Are there changes that occur over time that you might be interested in exploring? Explain. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/11%3A_Unobtrusive_Research-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/11.01%3A_Wha.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the major strengths of unobtrusive research.
• Identify the major weaknesses of unobtrusive research.
• Define researcher bias.
• Define the Hawthorne effect.
As is true of the other research types examined in this text, unobtrusive research has a number of strengths and several weaknesses.
Strengths of Unobtrusive Research
Researchers who seek evidence of what people actually do, as opposed to what they say they do (as in survey and interview research), might wish to consider using unobtrusive methods. Field researchers may also claim this advantage over interview and survey research, but field researchers cannot be certain about what effect their presence in the field may have on the people and the interactions that they observe. While unobtrusive research projects, like all research projects, face the risk of introducing researcher bias into the work, researchers employing unobtrusive methods do not need to be concerned about the effect of the research on their subjects. This effect, known as the Hawthorne effect, is not a concern for unobtrusive researchers because they do not interact directly with their research participants. In fact, this is one of the major strengths of unobtrusive research.
Another benefit of unobtrusive research is that it can be relatively low-cost compared to some of the other methods we’ve discussed. Because “participants” are generally inanimate objects as opposed to human beings, researchers may be able to access data without having to worry about paying participants for their time (though certainly travel to or access to some documents and archives can be costly).
Unobtrusive research is also pretty forgiving. It is far easier to correct mistakes made in data collection when conducting unobtrusive research than when using any of the other methods described in this text. Imagine what you would do, for example, if you realized at the end of conducting 50 in-depth interviews that you’d accidentally omitted two critical questions from your interview guide. What are your options? Reinterview all 50 participants? Try to figure out what they might have said based on their other responses? Reframe your research question? Scratch the project entirely? Obviously none of these options is ideal. The same problems arise if a mistake is made in survey research. For field researchers, the consequences of “messing up” during data collection can be even more disastrous. Imagine discovering after tagging along on a political candidate’s campaign that you needed a “do-over.” In this case, that simply isn’t an option. The campaign is over, and you’d need to find a new source of data. Fortunately for unobtrusive researchers, going back to the source of the data to gather more information or correct some problem in the original data collection is a relatively straightforward prospect.
Finally, as described in Section 11.1, unobtrusive research is well suited to studies that focus on processes that occur over time. While longitudinal surveys and long-term field observations are also suitable ways of gathering such information, they cannot examine processes that occurred decades before data collection began, nor are they the most cost-effective ways to examine long-ranging processes. Unobtrusive methods, on the other hand, enable researchers to investigate events and processes that have long since passed. They also do not rely on retrospective accounts, which may be subject to errors in memory, as some longitudinal surveys do.
In sum, the strengths of unobtrusive research include the following:
1. There is no possibility for the Hawthorne effect.
2. The method is cost effective
3. It is easier in unobtrusive research than with other methods to correct mistakes.
4. Unobtrusive methods are conducive to examining processes that occur over time or in the past.
Weaknesses of Unobtrusive Research
While there are many benefits to unobtrusive research, this method also comes with a unique set of drawbacks. Because unobtrusive researchers analyze data that may have been created or gathered for purposes entirely different from the researcher’s aim, problems of validity sometimes arise in such projects. It may also be the case that data sources measuring whatever a researcher wishes to examine simply do not exist. This means that unobtrusive researchers may be forced to tweak their original research interests or questions to better suit the data that are available to them. Finally, it can be difficult in unobtrusive research projects to account for context. In a field research project, for example, the researcher is able to see what events lead up to some occurrence and observe how people respond to that occurrence. What this means for unobtrusive research is that while it can be difficult to ascertain why something occurred, we can gain a good understanding of what has occurred.
In sum, the weaknesses of unobtrusive research include the following:
1. There may be potential problems with validity.
2. The topics or questions that can be investigated are limited by data availability.
3. It can be difficult to see or account for social context.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Unobtrusive research is cost effective and allows for easier correction of mistakes than other methods of data collection do.
• The Hawthorne effect, which occurs when research subjects alter their behaviors because they know they are being studied, is not a risk in unobtrusive research as it is in other methods of data collection.
• Weaknesses of unobtrusive research include potential problems with validity, limitations in data availability, and difficulty in accounting for social context.
Exercises
1. Want to see the Hawthorne effect in action? Check out this totally nonscientific yet wholly entertaining application of the principle from Korea:
(click to see video)
What evidence of the Hawthorne effect do you see in the video?
2. What do you view as the most important strength and the most important weakness of unobtrusive research? Why? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/11%3A_Unobtrusive_Research-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/11.02%3A_Pro.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define content analysis.
• Describe the kinds of texts that content analysts analyze.
• Name at least two examples of content analysis research.
• Define primary and secondary sources, describe their differences, and provide an example of each.
• Define physical traces and compare them to material artifacts.
• Outline the differences between manifest content and latent content.
• Discuss the differences between qualitative and quantitative content analysis.
• Describe code sheets and their purpose.
This section focuses on how to gather data unobtrusively and what to do with those data once they have been collected. There are two main ways of gathering data unobtrusively: conducting a content analysis of existing texts and analyzing physical traces of human behavior. We’ll explore both approaches.
Content Analysis
One way of conducting unobtrusive research is to analyze texts. Texts come in all kinds of formats. At its core, content analysis addresses the questions of “Who says what, to whom, why, how, and with what effect?” (Babbie, 2010, pp. 328–329).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Content analysis is a type of unobtrusive research that involves the study of human communications. Another way to think of content analysis is as a way of studying texts and their meaning. Here we use a more liberal definition of text than you might find in your dictionary. The text that content analysts investigate includes such things as actual written copy (e.g., newspapers or letters) and content that we might see or hear (e.g., speeches or other performances). Content analysts might also investigate more visual representations of human communication such as television shows, advertisements, or movies. The following table provides a few specific examples of the kinds of data that content analysts have examined in prior studies. Which of these sources of data might be of interest to you?
Table 1:.1 Content Analysis Examples
Data Research question Author(s) (year)
Spam e-mails What is the form, content, and quantity of unsolicited e-mails? Berzins (2009)Berzins, M. (2009). Spams, scams, and shams: Content analysis of unsolicited email. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 5, 143–154.
James Bond films How are female characters portrayed in James Bond films, and what broader lessons can be drawn from these portrayals? Neuendorf, Gore, Dalessandro, Janstova, and Snyder-Suhy (2010)Neuendorf, K. A., Gore, T. D., Dalessandro, A., Janstova, P., & Snyder-Suhy, S. (2010). Shaken and stirred: A content analysis of women’s portrayals in James Bond films. Sex Roles, 62, 747–761.
Console video games How is male and female sexuality portrayed in the best-selling console video games? Downs and Smith (2010)Downs, E., & Smith, S. L. (2010). Keeping abreast of hypersexuality: A video game character content analysis. Sex Roles, 62, 721–733.
Newspaper articles How do newspapers cover closed-circuit television surveillance in Canada, and what are the implications of coverage for public opinion and policymaking? Greenberg and Hier (2009)Greenberg, J., & Hier, S. (2009). CCTV surveillance and the poverty of media discourse: A content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34, 461–486.
Pro-eating disorder websites What are the features of pro-eating disorder websites, and what are the messages to which users may be exposed? Borzekowski, Schenk, Wilson, and Peebles (2010)Borzekowski, D. L. G., Schenk, S., Wilson, J. L., & Peebles, R. (2010). e-Ana and e-Mia: A content analysis of pro-eating disorder Web sites. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1526–1534.
One thing you might notice about Table 11.1 is that the data sources represent primary sources. That is, they are original. Secondary sources, on the other hand, are those that have already been analyzed. Shulamit Reinharz offers a helpful way of distinguishing between these two types of sources in her methods text. She explains that while primary sources represent the “‘raw’ materials of history,” secondary sources are the “‘cooked’ analyses of those materials” (1992, p. 155).Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is important for many aspects of social science, but it is especially important to understand when conducting content analysis. While there are certainly instances of content analysis in which secondary sources are analyzed, I think it is safe to say that it is more common for content analysts to analyze primary sources.
In those instances where secondary sources are analyzed, the researcher’s focus is usually on the process by which the original analyst or presenter of data reached his conclusions or on the choices that were made in terms of how and in what ways to present the data. For example, Ferree and Hall (1990)Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (1990). Visual images of American society: Gender and race in introductory sociology textbooks. Gender & Society, 4(4), 500–533. conducted a content analysis of introductory sociology textbooks, but their aim was not to learn about the content of sociology as a discipline. Instead, the researchers sought to learn how students are taught the subject of sociology and understand what images are presented to students as representative of sociology as a discipline.
Sometimes students new to research methods struggle to grasp the difference between a content analysis of secondary sources and a review of literature, which is discussed in Chapter 5. In a review of literature, researchers analyze secondary materials to try to understand what we know, and what we don’t know, about a particular topic. The sources used to conduct a scholarly review of the literature are typically peer-reviewed sources, written by trained scholars, published in some academic journal or press, and based on empirical research that has been conducted using accepted techniques of data collection for the discipline (scholarly theoretical pieces are included in literature reviews as well). These sources are culled in a review of literature in order to arrive at some conclusion about our overall knowledge about a topic. Findings are generally taken at face value.
Conversely, a content analysis of scholarly literature would raise questions not raised in a literature review. A content analyst might examine scholarly articles to learn something about the authors (e.g., Who publishes what, where?), publication outlets (e.g., How well do different journals represent the diversity of the discipline?), or topics (e.g., How has the popularity of topics shifted over time?). A content analysis of scholarly articles would be a “study of the studies” as opposed to a “review of studies.” Perhaps, for example, a researcher wishes to know whether more men than women authors are published in the top-ranking journals in the discipline. The researcher could conduct a content analysis of different journals and count authors by gender (though this may be a tricky prospect if relying only on names to indicate gender). Or perhaps a researcher would like to learn whether or how various topics of investigation go in and out of style. She could investigate changes over time in topical coverage in various journals. In these latter two instances, the researcher is not aiming to summarize the content of the articles but instead is looking to learn something about how, why, or by whom particular articles came to be published.
Content analysis can be qualitative or quantitative, and often researchers will use both strategies to strengthen their investigations. In qualitative content analysis the aim is to identify themes in the text being analyzed and to identify the underlying meaning of those themes. A graduate student colleague of mine once conducted qualitative content analysis in her study of national identity in the United States. To understand how the boundaries of citizenship were constructed in the United States, Alyssa Goolsby (2007)Goolsby, A. (2007). U.S. immigration policy in the regulatory era: Meaning and morality in state discourses of citizenship (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. conducted a qualitative content analysis of key historical congressional debates focused on immigration law. Quantitative content analysis, on the other hand, involves assigning numerical values to raw data so that it can be analyzed using various statistical procedures. One of my research collaborators, Jason Houle, conducted a quantitative content analysis of song lyrics. Inspired by an article on the connections between fame, chronic self-consciousness (as measured by frequent use of first-person pronouns), and self-destructive behavior (Schaller, 1997),Schaller, M. (1997). The psychological consequences of fame: Three tests of the self-consciousness hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 65, 291–309. Houle counted first-person pronouns in Elliott Smith song lyrics. Houle found that Smith’s use of self-referential pronouns increased steadily from the time of his first album release in 1994 until his suicide in 2003 (2008).Houle, J. (2008). Elliott Smith’s self referential pronouns by album/year. Prepared for teaching SOC 207, Research Methods, at Pennsylvania State University, Department of Sociology. We’ll elaborate on how qualitative and quantitative researchers collect, code, and analyze unobtrusive data in the final portion of this section.
Indirect Measures
Texts are not the only sort of data that researchers can collect unobtrusively. Unobtrusive researchers might also be interested in analyzing the evidence that humans leave behind that tells us something about who they are or what they do. This kind evidence includes the physical traces left by humans and the material artifacts that tell us something about their beliefs, values, or norms. Physical traces include such things as worn paths across campus, the materials in a landfill or in someone’s trash can (a data source William Rathje and colleagues [Rathje, 1992; Rathje & Murthy, 1992]Rathje, W. (1992). How much alcohol do we drink? It’s a question…so to speak. Garbage, 4, 18–19; Rathje, W., & Murthy, C. (1992). Garbage demographics. American Demographics, 14, 50–55. have used), indentations in furniture, or empty shelves in the grocery store. Examples of material artifacts include video games and video game equipment, sculptures, mementos left on gravestones, housing structures, or even kitchen utensils. What kinds of physical traces or material artifacts might be of interest to you?
I recently visited the National Museum of American History in Washington, DC. While there I saw an exhibit displaying chef Julia Child’s home kitchen, where she filmed many of her famous cooking shows. Seeing the kitchen made me wonder how cooking has changed over the past few decades since Child’s shows were on air. I wondered how the layout of our kitchens and the utensils and appliances they contain might influence how we entertain guests, how much time we spend preparing meals, and how much time we spend cleaning up afterward. Our use of particular kitchen gadgets and utensils might even indicate something about our social class identities.Watch the following clip, featuring satirist Joe Queenan, from the PBS documentary People Like Us on social class in the United States: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Rtl3Y4EuI. The clip aptly demonstrates the sociological relevance of kitchen gadgets. Answers to these questions have bearing on our norms and interactions as humans; thus they are just the sorts of questions sociologists using unobtrusive methods might be interested in answering. I snapped a few photos of the kitchen while at the museum. Though the glass surrounding the exhibit prevents ideal picture taking, I hope the photos in Figure 11.4 give you an idea of what I saw. Might the organizational scheme used in this kitchen, or the appliances that are either present or missing from it, shape the answers to the questions I pose above about human behaviors and interactions?
Figure 11.4
A visit to Chef Julia Child’s kitchen at the National Museum of American History inspired the author to think about how kitchens, kitchen utensils, and kitchen appliances have changed over time.
One challenge with analyzing physical traces and material artifacts is that you generally don’t have access to the people who left the traces or created the artifacts that you are analyzing. (And if you did find a way to contact them, then your research would no longer qualify as unobtrusive!) It can be especially tricky to analyze meanings of these materials if they come from some historical or cultural context other than your own. Situating the traces or artifacts you wish to analyze both in their original contexts and in your own is not always easy and can lead to problems related to validity and reliability. How do you know that you are viewing an object or physical trace in the way that it was intended to be viewed? Do you have the necessary understanding or knowledge about the background of its original creators or users to understand where they were coming from when they created it?
Imagine an alien trying to understand some aspect of Western human culture simply by examining our artifacts. Cartoonist Mark Parisi demonstrates the misunderstanding that could ensue in his drawing featuring three very small aliens standing atop a toilet. One alien says, “Since water is the life-blood on this planet, this must be a temple of some sort.…Let’s stick around and see how they show their respect” (1989).Parisi, M. (1989). Alien cartoon 6. Off the Mark. Retrieved from www.offthemark.com/aliens/aliens06.htm Without a contextual understanding of Western human culture, the aliens have misidentified the purpose of the toilet, and they will be in for quite a surprise when someone shows up to use it!
The point is that while physical traces and material artifacts make excellent sources of data, analyzing their meaning takes more than simply trying to understand them from your own contextual position. You must also be aware of who caused the physical trace or created the artifact, when they created it, why they created, and for whom they created it. Answering these questions will require accessing materials in addition to the traces or artifacts themselves. It may require accessing historical documents or, if a contemporary trace or artifact, perhaps another method of data collection such as interviews with its creators.
Analysis of Unobtrusive Data Collected by You
Once you have identified the set of texts, physical traces, or artifacts that you would like to analyze, the next step is to figure out how you’ll analyze them. This step requires that you determine your procedures for coding, understand the difference between manifest and latent content, and understand how to identify patterns across your coded data. We’ll begin by discussing procedures for coding.
You might recall being introduced to coding procedures in Chapter 9, where we discussed the coding of qualitative interview data. While the coding procedures used for written documents obtained unobtrusively may resemble those used to code interview data, many sources of unobtrusive data differ dramatically from written documents or transcripts. What if your data are sculptures or worn paths, or perhaps kitchen utensils, as in the previously discussed example? The idea of conducting open coding and focused coding on these sources as you would for a written document sounds a little silly, not to mention impossible. So how do we begin to identify patterns across the sculptures or worn paths or utensils we wish to analyze? One option is to take field notes as we observe our data and then code patterns in those notes. Let’s say, for example, that we’d like to analyze kitchen utensils. Taking field notes might be a useful approach were we conducting observations of people actually using utensils in a documentary or on a television program. (Remember, if we’re observing people in person then our method is no longer unobtrusive.)
If rather than observing people in documentaries or television shows our data include a collection of actual utensils, note taking may not be the most effective way to record our observations. Instead, we could create a code sheet to record details about the utensils in our sample. A code sheet, sometimes referred to as a tally sheet in quantitative coding, is the instrument an unobtrusive researcher uses to record observations.
In the example of kitchen utensils, perhaps we’re interested in how utensils have changed over time. If we had access to sales records for utensils over the past 50 years, we could analyze the top-selling utensil for each year. To do so, we’d want to make some notes about each of the 50 utensils included in our sample. For each top-rated utensil, we might note its name, its purpose, and perhaps its price in current dollar amounts. We might also want to make some assessment about how easy or difficult it is to use or some other qualitative assessment about the utensil and its use or purpose. To rate the difficulty of use we could use a 5-point scale, with 1 being very easy to use and 5 being very difficult to use. We could even record other notes or observations about the utensils that may not occur to us until we actually see the utensils. Our code sheet might look something like the sample shown in Table 11.2. Note that the sample sheet contains columns only for 10 years’ worth of utensils. If you were to conduct this project, obviously you’d need to create a code sheet that allows you to record observations for each of the 50 items in your sample.
Table 1:.2 Sample Code Sheet for Study of Kitchen Utensil Popularity Over Time
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Utensil name
Utensil purpose
Price (in 2011 \$)
Ease of use (1–5 scale)
Other notes
As you can see, our code sheet will contain both qualitative and quantitative data. Our “ease of use” rating is a quantitative assessment; we can therefore conduct some statistical analysis of the patterns here, perhaps noting the mean value on ease of use for each decade we’ve observed. We could do the same thing with the data collected in the row labeled Price, which is also quantitative. The final row of our sample code sheet, containing notes about our impressions of the utensils we observe, will contain qualitative data. We may conduct open and focused coding on these notes to identify patterns across those notes. In both cases, whether the data being coded are quantitative or qualitative, the aim is to identify patterns across the coded data.
The Purpose row in our sample code sheet provides an opportunity for assessing both manifest and latent content. Manifest content is the content we observe that is most apparent; it is the surface content. This is in contrast to latent content, which is less obvious. Latent content refers to the underlying meaning of the surface content we observe. In the example of utensil purpose, we might say a utensil’s manifest content is the stated purpose of the utensil. The latent content would be our assessment of what it means that a utensil with a particular purpose is top rated. Perhaps after coding the manifest content in this category we see some patterns that tell us something about the meanings of utensil purpose. Perhaps we conclude, based on the meanings of top-rated utensils across five decades, that the shift from an emphasis on utensils designed to facilitate entertaining in the 1960s to those designed to maximize efficiency and minimize time spent in the kitchen in the 1980s reflects a shift in how (and how much) people spend time in their homes.
Kathleen Denny’s (2011)Denny, K. (2011). Gender in context, content, and approach: Comparing gender messages in Girl Scout and Boy Scout handbooks. Gender & Society, 25, 27–47. recent study of scouting manuals offers another excellent example of the differences between manifest and latent content. Denny compared Boy Scout and Girl Scout handbooks to understand gender socializing among scouts. By counting activity types described in the manuals, Denny learned from this manifest content that boys are offered more individual-based and more scientific activities while girls are offered more group-based and more artistic activities. Denny also analyzed the latent meaning of the messages that scouting handbooks portray about gender; she found that girls were encouraged to become “up-to-date traditional women” while boys were urged to adopt “an assertive heteronormative masculinity” (p. 27).
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Content analysts study human communications.
• The texts that content analysts analyze include actual written texts such as newspapers or journal entries as well as visual and auditory sources such as television shows, advertisements, or movies.
• Content analysts most typically analyze primary sources, though in some instances they may analyze secondary sources.
• Indirect measures that content analysts examine include physical traces and material artifacts.
• Manifest content is apparent; latent content is underlying.
• Content analysts use code sheets to collect data.
ExerciseS
1. Identify a research question you could answer using unobtrusive research. Now state a testable hypothesis having to do with your research question. Next identify at least two potential sources of data you might analyze to answer your research question and test your hypothesis.
2. Create a code sheet for each of the two potential sources of data that you identified in the preceding exercise. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/11%3A_Unobtrusive_Research-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/11.03%3A_Uno.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Name at least two sources of publicly available quantitative data.
• Name at least two sources of publicly available qualitative data.
One advantage (or disadvantage, depending on which parts of the research process you most enjoy) of unobtrusive research is that you may be able to skip the data collection phase altogether. Whether you wish to analyze qualitative data or quantitative data sources, there are a number of free data sets available to social researchers. This section introduces you to several of those sources.
Many sources of quantitative data are publicly available. The General Social Survey (GSS), which was discussed in Chapter 8, is one of the most commonly used sources of publicly available data among quantitative researchers (http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website). Data for the GSS have been collected regularly since 1972, thus offering social researchers the opportunity to investigate changes in Americans’ attitudes and beliefs over time. Questions on the GSS cover an extremely broad range of topics, from family life to political and religious beliefs to work experiences.
Other sources of quantitative data include Add Health (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth), a study that was initiated in 1994 to learn about the lives and behaviors of adolescents in the United States, and the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch), a study that has, for over 40 years, surveyed 10,000 women and men who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. Quantitative researchers interested in studying social processes outside of the United States also have many options when it comes to publicly available data sets. Data from the British Household Panel Study (www.iser.essex.ac.uk/bhps), a longitudinal, representative survey of households in Britain, are freely available to those conducting academic research (private entities are charged for access to the data). The International Social Survey Programme (http://www.issp.org) merges the GSS with its counterparts in other countries around the globe. These represent just a few of the many sources of publicly available quantitative data.
Unfortunately for qualitative researchers, far fewer sources of free, publicly available qualitative data exist. This is slowly changing, however, as technical sophistication grows and it becomes easier to digitize and share qualitative data. Despite comparatively fewer sources than for quantitative data, there are still a number of data sources available to qualitative researchers whose interests or resources limit their ability to collect data on their own. The Murray Research Archive Harvard, housed at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University, offers case histories and qualitative interview data (http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/mra). The Global Feminisms project at the University of Michigan offers interview transcripts and videotaped oral histories focused on feminist activism; women’s movements; and academic women’s studies in China, India, Poland, and the United States.These data are not free, though they are available at a reasonable price. See the Global Feminism’s order site for more on pricing: www.umich.edu/~glblfem/dvd.html; www.umich.edu/~glblfem/index.html. At the University of Connecticut, the Oral History Office provides links to a number of other oral history sites (www.oralhistory.uconn.edu/links.html). Not all the links offer publicly available data, but many do. Finally, the Southern Historical Collection at University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill offers digital versions of many primary documents online such as journals, letters, correspondence, and other papers that document the history and culture of the American South (dc.lib.unc.edu/ead/archivalho...?CISOROOT=/ead).
Keep in mind that the resources mentioned here represent just a snapshot of the many sources of publicly available data that can be easily accessed via the web. Table 11.3 summarizes the data sources discussed in this section.
Table 1:.3 Sources of Publicly Available Data
Organizational home Focus/topic Data Web address
National Opinion Research Center General Social Survey; demographic, behavioral, attitudinal, and special interest questions; national sample Quantitative www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website/
Carolina Population Center Add Health; longitudinal social, economic, psychological, and physical well-being of cohort in grades 7–12 in 1994 Quantitative http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth
Center for Demography of Health and Aging Wisconsin Longitudinal Study; life course study of cohorts who graduated from high school in 1957 Quantitative http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/
Institute for Social & Economic Research British Household Panel Survey; longitudinal study of British lives and well-being Quantitative www.iser.essex.ac.uk/bhps
International Social Survey Programme International data similar to GSS Quantitative http://www.issp.org/
The Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University Large archive of written data, audio, and video focused on many topics Quantitative and qualitative http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/mra
Institute for Research on Women and Gender Global Feminisms Project; interview transcripts and oral histories on feminism and women’s activism Qualitative www.umich.edu/~glblfem/index.html
Oral History Office Descriptions and links to numerous oral history archives Qualitative www.oralhistory.uconn.edu/links.html
UNC Wilson Library Digitized manuscript collection from the Southern Historical Collection Qualitative dc.lib.unc.edu/ead/archivalho...?CISOROOT=/ead
While the public and free sharing of data has become increasingly common over the years, and it is an increasingly common requirement of those who fund research, Harvard researchers recently learned of the potential dangers of making one’s data available to all (Parry, 2011).Parry, M. (2011, July 10). Harvard researchers accused of breaching students’ privacy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/article/Harvard...eltdown/128166 In 2008, Professor Nicholas Christakis, Jason Kaufman, and colleagues, of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, rolled out the first wave of their data collected from the profiles of 1,700 Facebook users (2008).Berkman Center for Internet & Society. (2008, September 25). Tastes, ties, and time: Facebook data release. Retrieved from cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4682 But shortly thereafter, the researchers were forced to deny public access to the data after it was discovered that subjects could easily be identified with some careful mining of the data set. Perhaps only time and additional experience will tell what the future holds for increased access to data collected by others.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Previously collected data sources enable researchers to conduct analysis without having to collect any of their own data.
• Some publicly available data sources are quantitative; others are qualitative.
Exercises
1. If you’re interested in learning about additional sources of publicly available data, check out the American Sociological Association’s lengthy and thorough list of public data resources: www2.asanet.org/student/pubdata00a.html. Which of those that you read about on the site are of most interest to you? Why?
2. Read The Chronicle of Higher Education article on Harvard’s recent “privacy meltdown”: chronicle.com/article/Harvard...ltdown/128166/. What do you think the future holds for the public sharing of data? How might the incident described in the Chronicle article shape how, when, and whether public sharing of social scientific data occurs? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/11%3A_Unobtrusive_Research-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/11.04%3A_Ana.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define stability and describe strategies for overcoming problems of stability.
• Define reproducibility and describe strategies for overcoming problems of reproducibility.
• Define accuracy and describe strategies for overcoming problems of accuracy.
This final section of the chapter investigates a few particularities related to reliability in unobtrusive research projects (Krippendorff, 2009)Krippendorff, K. (2009). Testing the reliability of content analysis data: What is involved and why. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 350–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. that warrant our attention. These particularities have to do with how and by whom the coding of data occurs. Issues of stability, reproducibility, and accuracy all speak to the unique problems—and opportunities—with establishing reliability in unobtrusive research projects.
Stability refers to the extent to which the results of coding vary across different time periods. If stability is a problem, it will reveal itself when the same person codes the same content at different times and comes up with different results. Coding is said to be stable when the same content has been coded multiple times by the same person with the same result each time. If you discover problems of instability in your coding procedures, it is possible that your coding rules are ambiguous and need to clarified. Ambiguities in the text itself might also contribute to problems of stability. While you cannot alter your original textual data sources, simply being aware of possible ambiguities in the data as you code may help reduce the likelihood of problems with stability. It is also possible that problems with stability may result from a simple coding error, such as inadvertently jotting a 1 instead of a 10 on your code sheet.
Reproducibility, sometimes referred to as intercoder reliability (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Campanella Bracken, 2010),Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Campanella Bracken, C. (2004). Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Retrieved from astro.temple.edu/~lombard/reliability is the extent to which one’s coding procedures will result in the same results when the same text is coded by different people. Cognitive differences among the individuals coding data may result in problems with reproducibility, as could ambiguous coding instructions. Random coding errors might also cause problems. One way of overcoming problems of reproducibility is to have coders code together. While working as a graduate research assistant, I participated in a content analysis project in which four individuals shared the responsibility for coding data. To reduce the potential for reproducibility problems with our coding, we conducted our coding at the same time in the same room, while sitting around a large, round table. We coded at the same time in the same room so that we could consult one another when we ran into problems or had questions about what we were coding. Resolving those ambiguities together meant that we grew to have a shared understanding of how to code various bits of data.
Finally, accuracy refers to the extent to which one’s coding procedures correspond to some preexisting standard. This presumes that a standard coding strategy has already been established for whatever text you’re analyzing. It may not be the case that official standards have been set, but perusing the prior literature for the collective wisdom on coding on your particular area is time well spent. Scholarship focused on similar data or coding procedures will no doubt help you to clarify and improve your own coding procedures.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Stability can become an issue in unobtrusive research project when the results of coding by the same person vary across different time periods.
• Reproducibility has to do with multiple coders’ results being the same for the same text.
• Accuracy refers to the extent to which one’s coding procedures correspond to some preexisting standard.
Exercises
1. With a peer, create a code sheet that you can use to record instances of violence on the television program of your choice. Now, on your own, watch two or three episodes of that program, coding for instances of violence as you go along. Your peer should do the same. Finally, compare your code sheet to that of your peer. How similar were you in your coding? Where do your coding results differ, and why? Which issues of reliability may be relevant? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/11%3A_Unobtrusive_Research-_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Approaches/11.05%3A_Rel.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define focus groups and outline how they differ from one-on-one interviews.
• Discuss how different groups have used focus groups for different purposes.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of focus group methodology.
• Describe how to determine the best size for focus groups.
• Identify the major considerations in focus group composition.
• Discuss how to moderate focus groups.
Why Additional Methods?
While the data collection methods described thus far in the text may be among the most commonly used in sociology, they certainly are not the only methods that social scientists use. Here we’ll describe some of the other methods used in social science, including focus groups, experiments, and ethnomethodology and conversation analysis.
Focus groups resemble qualitative interviews in that a researcher may prepare an interview guide in advance and interact with participants by asking them questions. But anyone who has conducted both one-on-one interviews and focus groups knows that each is unique. In an interview, usually one member (the research participant) is most active while the other (the researcher) plays the role of listener, conversation guider, and question asker. Focus groups, on the other hand, are planned discussions designed to elicit group interaction and “obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment” (Krueger & Casey, 2000, p. 5).Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In this case, the researcher may play a less active role than in a one-on-one interview. The researcher’s aim is to get participants talking to each other and to observe interactions among participants.
Focus groups are typically more dynamic than interviews. The researcher takes the role of moderator, posing questions or topics for discussion, but then lets the group members discuss the question or topic among themselves. Participants may ask each other follow-up questions, agree or disagree with one another, display body language that tells us something about their feelings about the conversation, or even come up with questions not previously conceived of by the researcher. It is just these sorts of interactions and displays that are of interest to the researcher. A researcher conducting focus groups collects data on more than people’s direct responses to her or his questions; the group interaction is a key focal point. Due to the nature and unpredictability of group interaction, and the fact that focus group researchers generally want to draw out group interaction, focus groups tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative.
There are numerous examples of sociological research using focus group methodology. In their 2008 study, for example, Amy Slater and Marika Tiggemann (2010)Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2010). “Uncool to do sport”: A focus group study of adolescent girls’ reasons for withdrawing from physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 619–626. conducted six focus groups with 49 adolescent girls between the ages of 13 and 15 to learn more about girls’ attitudes toward their own and other girls’ participation in sports. In order to get focus group participants to speak with one another rather than with the group facilitator, the study’s interview guide contained just two questions: “Can you tell me some of the reasons that girls stop playing sports or other physical activities?” and “Why do you think girls don’t play as much sport/physical activity as boys?” In another focus group study, Virpi Ylanne and Angie Williams (2009)Ylanne, V., & Williams, A. (2009). Positioning age: Focus group discussions about older people in TV advertising. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 200, 171–187. held nine focus group sessions with adults of different ages to gauge their perceptions of how older characters are represented in television commercials. Among other considerations, the researchers were interested in discovering how focus group participants position themselves and others in terms of age stereotypes and identities during the group discussion. In both examples, the researchers’ core interest in group interaction could not have been assessed had interviews been conducted on a one-on-one basis; thus the focus group method was the ideal choice in each instance.
The preceding examples come from the work of academics who have used focus groups as their method of data collection. But focus groups have proven quite useful for those outside of academia as well. In fact, this method is especially popular among applied researchers. Market researchers use focus groups to gather information about the products or services they aim to sell. Government officials and political campaign workers use them to learn how members of the public feel about a particular issue or candidate. One of the earliest documented uses of focus groups comes from World War II when researchers used them to assess the effectiveness of troop training materials and of various propaganda efforts (Merton & Kendall, 1946; Morgan, 1997).Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Market researchers quickly adopted this method of collecting data to learn about human beliefs and behaviors. Within social science, the use of focus groups did not really take off until the 1980s, when demographers and communication researchers began to appreciate their use in understanding knowledge, attitudes, and communication (Morgan, 1997).Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Focus groups share many of the strengths and weaknesses of one-on-one qualitative interviews. Both methods can yield very detailed, in-depth information; are excellent for studying social processes; and provide researchers with an opportunity not only to hear what participants say but also to observe what they do in terms of their body language. Focus groups offer the added benefit of giving researchers a chance to collect data on human interaction by observing how group participants respond and react to one another. Like one-on-one qualitative interviews, focus groups can also be quite expensive and time-consuming. However, there may be some time savings with focus groups as it takes fewer group events than one-on-one interviews to gather data from the same number of people. Another potential drawback of focus groups, which is not a concern for one-on-one interviews, is that one or two participants might dominate the group, silencing other participants. Careful planning and skillful moderation on the part of the researcher are crucial for avoiding, or at least dealing with, such possibilities. The various strengths and weaknesses of focus group research are summarized in Table 12.1.
Table 1:.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Focus Group Research
Strengths Weaknesses
Yield detailed, in-depth data Expensive
Less time-consuming than one-on-one interviews May be more time-consuming than survey research
Useful for studying social processes Minority of participants may dominate entire group
Allow researchers to observe body language in addition to self-reports
Allow researchers to observe interaction between multiple participants
As mentioned, careful planning and skillful moderating are two crucial considerations in the effective use of focus groups as a method of data collection. In some ways, focus groups require more advance planning than other qualitative methods of data collection such as one-on-one interviews, where a researcher may be better able to control the setting and the dialogue, or field research, where “going with the flow” and observing events as they happen in their natural setting is the primary aim and time is less limited. Researchers must take care to form focus groups whose members will want to interact with one another and to control the timing of the event so that participants are not asked nor expected to stay for a longer time than they’ve agreed to participate. The researcher should also be prepared to inform focus group participants of their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of what is said in the group. But while the researcher can and should encourage all focus group members to maintain confidentiality, she should also clarify to participants that the unique nature of the group setting prevents her from being able to promise that confidentiality will be maintained.
Group size should be determined in part by the topic of the interview and your sense of the likelihood that participants will have much to say without much prompting. If the topic is one about which you think participants feel passionately and will have much to say, I think a group of 3–5 is ideal. Groups larger than that, especially for heated topics, can easily become unmanageable. Some recommend that a group of about 6–10 participants is the ideal size for focus group research (Morgan, 1997);Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. others recommend that groups should include 3–12 participants (Adler & Clark, 2008).Adler, E. S., & Clark, R. (2008). How it’s done: An invitation to social research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. The size of the focus group is ultimately your decision as the researcher. When forming groups and deciding how large or small to make them, take into consideration what you know about the topic and participants’ potential interest in, passion for, and feelings about the topic. Also consider your comfort level and experience in conducting focus groups. These factors will help you decide which size is right in your particular case.
It may seem counterintuitive, but in general, it is better to form focus groups consisting of participants who do not know one another than to create groups consisting of friends, relatives, or acquaintances (Agar & MacDonald, 1995).Agar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organization, 54, 78–86. The reason for this is that groups who know each other may share some take-for-granted knowledge or assumptions. In sociological research, it is precisely the taken-for-granted that is often of interest; thus the focus group researcher should avoid setting up interactions where participants may be discouraged to question or raise issues that they take for granted. However, groups should not be so heterogeneous that participants will be unlikely to feel comfortable talking with one another.
Focus group researchers must carefully consider the composition of the groups they put together. In his text on conducting focus groups, Morgan suggests that “homogeneity in background and not homogeneity in attitudes” (p. 36) should be the goal, since participants must feel comfortable speaking up but must also have enough differences to facilitate a productive discussion (1997).Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Whatever composition a researcher designs for her or his focus groups, the important point to keep in mind is that focus group dynamics are shaped by multiple social contexts (Hollander, 2004).Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social context of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602–637. Participants’ silences as well as their speech may be shaped by gender, race, class, sexuality, age, or other background characteristics or social dynamics, all of which might be suppressed or exacerbated depending on the composition of the group. Hollander suggests that researchers must pay careful attention to group composition, must be attentive to group dynamics during the focus group discussion, and should triangulate multiple methods of data collection in order to “untangle participants’ responses and their relationship to the social contexts of the focus group” (p. 632).
In addition to the importance of advance planning, focus groups also require skillful moderation. While a researcher certainly doesn’t want to be viewed as a stick-in-the-mud or as overly domineering, it is important to set ground rules for focus groups at the outset of the discussion. Remind participants that you’ve invited them to participate because you want to hear from all of them. Therefore the group should aim to let just one person speak at a time and avoid letting just a couple of participants dominate the conversation. One way to do this is to begin the discussion by asking participants to briefly introduce themselves or to provide a brief response to an opening question. This will help set the tone of having all group members participate. Also ask participants to avoid having side conversations; sharing thoughts about or reactions to what is said in the group is important and should not be limited to only a few group members.
As the focus group gets rolling, the moderator will play a less active role than he does in a one-on-one interview. There may be times when the conversation stagnates or when you, as moderator, wish to guide the conversation in another direction. In these instances, it is important to demonstrate that you’ve been paying attention to what participants have said. Being prepared to interject statements or questions such as “I’d really like to hear more about what Sally and Joe think about what Dominick and Ashley have been saying” or “Several of you have mentioned ____. What do others think about this?” will be important for keeping the conversation going. It can also help redirect the conversation, shift the focus to participants who have been less active in the group, and serve as a cue to those who may be dominating the conversation that it is time to allow others to speak.
In sum, focus groups are a useful method for researchers who wish to gather in-depth information about social processes. Focus groups are similar to one-on-one qualitative interviews in many ways, but they give researchers the opportunity to observe group dynamics that cannot be observed in one-on-one interviews. Historically, focus group research was more commonly used by applied researchers than by academics, though in recent decades social scientists from all domains have discovered the usefulness of focus groups for gaining understanding of social processes and have begun using this method of data collection in their studies.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Focus groups are designed to elicit group interaction.
• Focus groups are used in a variety of professions, from market research to academia to government and political research.
• Like one-on-one qualitative interviews, focus groups can yield very detailed information, are excellent for studying social processes, and provide researchers with an opportunity to observe participants’ body language; they also allow researchers to observe human interaction.
• Focus groups can be expensive and time-consuming, as are one-on-one interviews; there is also the possibility that a few participants will dominate the group and silence others in the group.
• In terms of focus group composition, homogeneity of background among participants is recommended while diverse attitudes within the group are ideal.
Exercises
1. Musician John Mayer held a “focus group” to get fan feedback on his career. Watch and critique his focus group facilitation style in this clip:
(click to see video)
How well does Mayer play the role of a “behind-the-scenes” focus group moderator? How well does he get focus group participants to talk with each other? Knowing what you now know about interviews and focus group research, what advice would you give Mayer for improving his focus group facilitation skills?
2. To see what a real marketing focus group looks like, watch the following video:
(click to see video)
You’ll see several of the tips mentioned in this section applied. As you watch, what elements of the major strengths and weaknesses of focus group research seem to be in play? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/12%3A_Other_Methods_of_Data_Collection_and_Analysis/12.01%3A_Focus_Groups.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define experiment.
• Distinguish “true” experiments from preexperimental designs.
• Identify the core features of true experimental designs.
• Describe the difference between an experimental group and a control group.
• Identify and describe the various types of true experimental designs.
• Identify and describe the various types of preexperimental designs.
• Name the key strengths and weaknesses of experiments.
• Define internal validity and external validity.
Experiments are an excellent data collection strategy for those wishing to observe the consequences of very specific actions or stimuli. Most commonly a quantitative research method, experiments are used more often by psychologists than sociologists, but understanding what experiments are and how they are conducted is useful for all social scientists, whether they actually plan to use this methodology or simply aim to understand findings based on experimental designs. An experiment is a method of data collection designed to test hypotheses under controlled conditions. Students in my research methods classes often use the term experiment to describe all kinds of empirical research projects, but in social scientific research, the term has a unique meaning and should not be used to describe allresearch methodologies.
Several kinds of experimental designs exist. In general, designs considered to be “true experiments” contain three key features: independent and dependent variables, pretesting and posttesting, and experimental and control groups. In the classic experiment, the effect of a stimulus is tested by comparing two groups: one that is exposed to the stimulus (the experimental group) and another that does not receive the stimulus (the control group). In other words, the effects of an independent variable upon a dependent variable are tested. Because the researcher’s interest lies in the effects of an independent variable, she must measure participants on the dependent variable before and after the independent variable (or stimulus) is administered. Thus pretesting and posttesting are both important steps in a classic experiment.
One example of experimental research can be found in Shannon K. McCoy and Brenda Major’s (2003)McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional response to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–1017. study of people’s perceptions of prejudice. In one portion of this multifaceted study, all participants were given a pretest to assess their levels of depression. No significant differences in depression were found between the experimental and control groups during the pretest. Participants in the experimental group were then asked to read an article suggesting that prejudice against their own racial group is severe and pervasive, while participants in the control group were asked to read an article suggesting that prejudice against a racial group other than their own is severe and pervasive. Upon measuring depression scores during the posttest period, the researchers discovered that those who had received the experimental stimulus (the article citing prejudice against their same racial group) reported greater depression than those in the control group. This is just one of many examples of social scientific experimental research.
In addition to the classic experimental design, there are two other ways of designing experiments that are considered to fall within the purview of “true” experiments (Babbie, 2010; Campbell & Stanley, 1963).Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. They are the Solomon four-group design and the posttest-only control group design. In the former, four groups exist. Two groups are treated as they would be in a classic experiment. Another group receives the stimulus and is then given the posttest. The remaining group does not receive the stimulus but is given the posttest. Table 12.2illustrates the features of each of the four groups in the Solomon four-group design.
Table 1:.2 Solomon Four-Group Design
Pretest Stimulus Posttest No stimulus
Group 1 X X X
Group 2 X X X
Group 3 X X
Group 4 X X
Finally, the posttest only control group is also considered a “true” experimental design though it lacks any pretest group. In this design, participants are assigned to either an experimental or a control group. Individuals are then measured on some dependent variable following the administration of an experimental stimulus to the experimental group. In theory, as long as the control and experimental groups have been determined randomly, no pretest is needed.
Time, other resources such as funding, and even one’s topic may limit a researcher’s ability to conduct a true experiment. For researchers in the medical and health sciences, conducting a true experiment could require denying needed treatment to patients, which is a clear ethical violation. Even those whose research may not involve the administration of needed medications or treatments may be limited in their ability to conduct a classic experiment. In social scientific experiments, for example, it might not be equitable or ethical to provide a large financial or other reward only to members of the experimental group. When random assignment of participants into experimental and control groups is not feasible, researchers may turn to a preexperimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. However, this type of design comes with some unique disadvantages, which we’ll describe as we review the preexperimental designs available.
If we wished to measure the impact of some natural disaster, for example, Hurricane Katrina, we might conduct a preexperiment by identifying an experimental group from a community that experienced the hurricane and a control group from a similar community that had not been hit by the hurricane. This study design, called a static group comparison, has the advantage of including a comparison control group that did not experience the stimulus (in this case, the hurricane) but the disadvantage of containing experimental and control groups that were determined by a factor or factors other than random assignment. As you might have guessed from our example, static group comparisons are useful in cases where a researcher cannot control or predict whether, when, or how the stimulus is administered, as in the case of natural disasters.
In cases where the administration of the stimulus is quite costly or otherwise not possible, a one-shot case study design might be used. In this instance, no pretest is administered, nor is a control group present. In our example of the study of the impact of Hurricane Katrina, a researcher using this design would test the impact of Katrina only among a community that was hit by the hurricane and not seek out a comparison group from a community that did not experience the hurricane. Researchers using this design must be extremely cautious about making claims regarding the effect of the stimulus, though the design could be useful for exploratory studies aimed at testing one’s measures or the feasibility of further study.
Finally, if a researcher is unlikely to be able to identify a sample large enough to split into multiple groups, or if he or she simply doesn’t have access to a control group, the researcher might use a one-group pre-/posttest design. In this instance, pre- and posttests are both taken but, as stated, there is no control group to which to compare the experimental group. We might be able to study of the impact of Hurricane Katrina using this design if we’d been collecting data on the impacted communities prior to the hurricane. We could then collect similar data after the hurricane. Applying this design involves a bit of serendipity and chance. Without having collected data from impacted communities prior to the hurricane, we would be unable to employ a one-group pre-/posttest design to study Hurricane Katrina’s impact.
Table 12.3 summarizes each of the preceding examples of preexperimental designs.
Table 1:.3 Preexperimental Designs
Pretest Posttest Experimental group Control group
One-shot case study X X
Static group comparison X X X
One-group pre-/posttest X X X
As implied by the preceding examples where we considered studying the impact of Hurricane Katrina, experiments do not necessarily need to take place in the controlled setting of a lab. In fact, many applied researchers rely on experiments to assess the impact and effectiveness of various programs and policies. You might recall our discussion of the police experiment described in Chapter 2. It is an excellent example of an applied experiment. Researchers did not “subject” participants to conditions in a lab setting; instead, they applied their stimulus (in this case, arrest) to some subjects in the field and they also had a control group in the field that did not receive the stimulus (and therefore were not arrested).
Finally, a review of some of the strengths and weaknesses of experiments as a method of data collection is in order. A strength of this method, particularly in cases where experiments are conducted in lab settings, is that the researcher has substantial control over the conditions to which participants are subjected. Experiments are also generally easier to replicate than are other methods of data collection. Again, this is particularly true in cases where an experiment has been conducted in a lab setting.
As sociologists, who are especially attentive to how social context shapes social life, are likely to point out, a disadvantage of experiments is that they are rather artificial. How often do real-world social interactions occur in the same way that they do in a lab? Experiments that are conducted in applied settings may not be as subject to artificiality, though then their conditions are less easily controlled. Experiments also present a few unique concerns regarding validity. Problems of external validitymight arise when the conditions of an experiment don’t adequately represent those of the world outside the boundaries of the experiment. In the case of McCoy and Major’s (2003)McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional response to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–1017. research on prejudice described earlier in this section, for example, the questions to ask with regard to external validity are these: Can we say with certainty that the stimulus applied to the experimental group resembles the stimuli that people are likely to encounter in their real lives outside of the lab? Will reading an article on prejudice against one’s race in a lab have the same impact that it would outside of the lab? This is not to suggest that experimental research is not or cannot be valid, but experimental researchers must always be aware that external validity problems can occur and be forthcoming in their reports of findings about this potential weakness. Concerns about internal validity also arise in experimental designs. These have to do with our level of confidence about whether the stimulus actually produced the observed effect or whether some other factor, such as other conditions of the experiment or changes in participants over time, may have produced the effect.
In sum, the potential strengths and weaknesses of experiments as a method of data collection in social scientific research include the following:
Table 1:.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Experimental Research
Strengths Weaknesses
Researcher control Artificiality
Reliability Unique concerns about internal and external validity
Key takeaways
• Experiments are designed to test hypotheses under controlled conditions.
• True experimental designs differ from preexperimental designs.
• Preexperimental designs each lack one of the core features of true experimental designs.
• Experiments enable researchers to have great control over the conditions to which participants are subjected and are typically easier to replicate than other methods of data collection.
• Experiments come with some degree of artificiality and may run into problems of external or internal validity.
Exercises
1. Taking into consideration your own research topic of interest, how might you conduct an experiment to learn more about your topic? Which experiment type would you use, and why?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the sociological critique that experiments are artificial? Why or why not? How important is this weakness? Do the strengths of experimental research outweigh this drawback?
3. Be a research participant! The Social Psychology Network offers many online opportunities to participate in social psychological experiments. Check them out at http://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/12%3A_Other_Methods_of_Data_Collection_and_Analysis/12.02%3A_Experiments.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define ethnomethodology and describe its purpose.
• Define and describe conversation analysis.
Though not unique methods of data collection per se, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are unique enough, and prominent enough in sociology, that they warrant some dedicated attention in this text. Ethnomethodology refers to the study of everyday reality. Rather than assume that the purpose of social science is to understand some objective reality, ethnomethodologists investigate how people construct, prolong, and maintain their realities. The term ethnomethodology was coined by sociologist Harold Garfinkel (1967),Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. who, as described in his 2011 obituary, was a “sociologist who delved into the minutiae of everyday life” (Lynch, 2011).Lynch, M. (2011, July 13). Harold Garfinkel obituary. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.guardian.co.uk/education/...inkel-obituary Ethnomethodology’s emphasis on the everyday, and on ordinary people’s methods for producing order in their social worlds, is perhaps its most distinctive characteristic.
An example of ethnomethodological research is C. M. Scharff’s (2008)Scharff, C. M. (2008). Doing class: A discursive and ethnomethodological approach. Critical Discourse Studies, 5, 331–343. study of how young feminist women “do” social class. In her study, Scharff examines data from interviews with 40 German and British young women to understand how they “think, talk, and feel about feminism” (p. 334). By focusing in on language, talk, and interaction, Scharff argues that her account is ethnomethodological in nature. Kevin Whitehead (2009)Whitehead, K. (2009). “Categorizing the categorizer”: The management of racial common sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 325–342. also takes an ethnomethodological approach in his study of the social organization of race. In Whitehead’s words, he considers “one mechanism by which racial categories, racial ‘common sense,’ and thus the social organization of race itself, are reproduced in interaction” (p. 325).Whitehead, K. (2009). “Categorizing the categorizer”: The management of racial common sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 325–342. To study these processes, Whitehead analyzed the interactions and practices of participants in an employment “race training” workshop and found that individuals use race as a framework from which to understand their own and others’ actions, thereby reproducing race as a relevant social category.
Conversation analysis grew out of ethnomethodology (Schutt, 2006)Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. and thus shares its focus on the construction of reality as opposed to the discovery of reality. Conversation analysts focus specifically on talk in interaction: how talk progresses, how it is facilitated or impeded, how turns are taken in talk, and how these processes both shape and are shaped by social context. In conversation analysis, what people say is just as important as how they say it. Also important are the pauses people take in expressing themselves and how or whether they interrupt themselves or others while talking. Conversation analysts might study recordings of court proceedings or legislative debates to learn about the social construction of law and punishment. They might also study more simple interactions, such as a conversation between two people meeting for coffee.
Some research methods texts include coverage of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis in their presentations of qualitative data analysis (Schutt, 2006).Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. It makes sense to do so; both represent unique approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Yet they also rest upon particular ontological and epistemological assumptions that set them apart, in some ways at least, from more traditional mechanisms of analysis such as coding.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Ethnomethodologists study everyday reality and how people produce those realities through their presentations of self and interactions with others.
• Conversation analysts focus specifically on the dynamics of talk.
Exercises
1. Professor Dhiraj Murthy requires his Introduction to Sociology students to conduct an ethnomethodology exercise to help them understand the sociological, and very social, aspects of “everyday activities.” To understand how these activities are social, Murthy asks students to engage in some activity that interrupts the “natural facts of life” (Garfinkel’s words). Read about their experiences here: learn.bowdoin.edu/sociology/soc101/?p=68. What do these students’ reports tell us about how “everyday activities” are also social activities? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/12%3A_Other_Methods_of_Data_Collection_and_Analysis/12.03%3A_Ethnomethodology_an.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the six questions social researchers should be able to answer to ensure that their ethical obligations have been met.
• Describe how differences in one’s audience might shape how a person shares research findings.
Research as Public Activity
In Chapter 1, you were introduced to the recent trend toward public sociology. As you might recall, public sociology refers to the application of sociological theories and research to matters of public interest. You might also recall that sociologists differ in their feelings about whether and the extent to which sociologists should aspire to conduct public sociology. Whether they support the movement toward public sociology or not, most sociologists who conduct research hope that their work will have relevance to others besides themselves. As such, research is in some ways a public activity. While the work may be conducted by an individual in a private setting, the knowledge gained from that work should be shared with one’s peers and other parties who may have an interest. Understanding how to share one’s work is an important aspect of the research process.
When preparing to share our work with others we must decide what to share, with whom to share it, and in what format(s) to share it. In this section, we’ll consider the former two aspects of sharing our work. In the sections that follow, we’ll consider the various formats and mechanisms through which social scientists might share their work.
Sharing It All: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Because conducting sociological research is a scholarly pursuit and because sociological researchers generally aim to reach a true understanding of social processes, it is crucial that we share all aspects of our research—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Doing so helps ensure that others will understand, be able to build from, and effectively critique our work. We considered this aspect of the research process in Chapter 3, but it is worth reviewing here.
In Chapter 3, we learned about the importance of sharing all aspects of our work for ethical reasons and for the purpose of replication. In preparing to share your work with others, and in order to meet your ethical obligations as a sociological researcher, challenge yourself to answer the following questions:
1. Why did I conduct this research?
2. How did I conduct this research?
3. For whom did I conduct this research?
4. What conclusions can I reasonably draw from this research?
5. Knowing what I know now, what would I do differently?
6. How could this research be improved?
Understanding why you conducted your research will help you be honest—with yourself and your readers—about your own personal interest, investments, or biases with respect to the work. In Chapter 4, I suggested that starting where you are is a good way to begin a research project. While this is true, using the idea of starting where you are effectivelyrequires that you be honest with yourself and your readers about where you are and why you have chosen to conduct research in a particular area. Being able to clearly communicate how you conducted your research is also important. This means being honest about your data collection methods, sample and sampling strategy, and analytic strategy.
The third question in the list is designed to help you articulate who the major stakeholders are in your research. Of course, the researcher is a stakeholder. Additional stakeholders might include funders, research participants, or others who share something in common with your research subjects (e.g., members of some community where you conducted research or members of the same social group, such as parents or athletes, upon whom you conducted your research). Professors for whom you conducted research as part of a class project might be stakeholders, as might employers for whom you conducted research. We’ll revisit the concept of stakeholders in Chapter 15.
The fourth question should help you think about the major strengths of your work. Finally, the last two questions are designed to make you think about potential weaknesses in your work and how future research might build from or improve upon your work.
Knowing Your Audience
Once you are able to articulate what to share, you must decide with whom to share it. Certainly the most obvious candidates with whom you’ll share your work are other social scientists. If you are conducting research for a class project, your main “audience” will probably be your professor. Perhaps you’ll also share your work with other students in the class. Other potential audiences include stakeholders, reporters and other media representatives, policymakers, and members of the public more generally.
While you would never alter your actual findings for different audiences, understanding who your audience is will help you frame your research in a way that is most meaningful to that audience. For example, I have shared findings from my study of older worker harassment with a variety of audiences, including students in my classes, colleagues in my own discipline (Blackstone, 2010)Blackstone, A. (2010, August). “The young girls thought I should be home waiting to die!” Harassment of older workers. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA. and outside of it (Blackstone, forthcoming),Blackstone, A. (forthcoming). Harassment of older adults in the workplace. In P. Brownell & J. Kelly (Eds.), Ageism in the workplace. London, UK: Springer-Verlag. news reporters (Leary, 2010),Leary, M. (2010, August). Interview by Maine Public Broadcasting Network, Maine State Capitol News Service. the organization that funded my research (Blackstone, 2008),Blackstone, A. (2008). Workplace harassment: Conceptualizations of older workers, National Science Foundation Grant SES-0817673.older workers themselves, and government (2010)Blackstone, A. (2010, June). Workplace harassment: Conceptualizations and experiences of older workers in Maine. Presentation to the Maine Jobs Council, Augusta, ME. and other agencies that deal with workplace policy and worker advocacy. I shared with all these audiences what I view as the study’s three major findings: that devaluing older workers’ contributions by ignoring them or excluding them from important decisions is the most common harassment experience for people in my sample, that there were few differences between women’s and men’s experiences and their perceptions of workplace harassment, and that the most common way older workers respond when harassed is to keep it to themselves and tell no one. But how I presented these findings and the level of detail I shared about how I reached these findings varied by audience.
I shared the most detail about my research methodology, including data collection method, sampling, and analytic strategy, with colleagues and with my funding agency. In addition, the funding agency requested and received information about the exact timeline during which I collected data and any minor bureaucratic hiccups I encountered during the course of collecting data. These hiccups had no bearing on the data actually collected or relevance to my findings, but they were nevertheless details to which I felt my funder should be privy. I shared similar information with my student audience though I attempted to use less technical jargon with students than I used with colleagues.
Now that you’ve considered what to share and with whom to share it, let’s consider how social scientists share their research.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• As they prepare to share their research, researchers must keep in mind their ethical obligations to their peers, their research participants, and the public.
• Audience peculiarities will shape how much and in what ways details about one’s research are reported.
Exercises
1. Read a scholarly article of your choice. What evidence can you find that might indicate that the author gave some thought to the six questions outlined in this section? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/13%3A_Sharing_Your_Work/13.01%3A_Deciding_What_to_Share_and_With_Whom_to_Share_I.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the major principles of formal presentations of research.
• Describe roundtable presentations and their benefits.
• Discuss the purpose of and formatting principles for poster presentations.
Presenting your research is an excellent way to get feedback on your work. Professional sociologists often make presentations to their peers to prepare for more formally writing up and eventually publishing their work. Presentations might be formal talks, either as part of a panel at a professional conference or to some other group of peers or other interested parties; less formal roundtable discussions, another common professional conference format; or posters that are displayed in some specially designated area. We’ll look at all three presentation formats here.
When preparing a formal talk, it is very important to get details well in advance about how long your presentation is expected to last and whether any visual aids such as video or PowerPoint slides are expected by your audience. At conferences, the typical formal talk is usually expected to last between 15 and 20 minutes. While this may sound like a torturously lengthy amount of time, you’ll be amazed the first time you present formally by how easily time can fly. Once a researcher gets into the groove of talking about something as near and dear to him as his very own research, it is common for him to become so engrossed in it and enamored of the sound of his own voice that he forgets to watch the clock and finds himself being dragged offstage after giving only an introduction of his research method! To avoid this all-too-common occurrence, it is crucial that you repeatedly practice your presentation in advance—and time yourself.
One stumbling block in formal presentations of research work is setting up the study or problem the research addresses. Keep in mind that with limited time, audience members will be more interested to hear about your original work than to hear you cite a long list of previous studies to introduce your own research. While in scholarly written reports of your work you must discuss the studies that have come before yours, in a presentation of your work the key is to use what precious time you have to highlight your work. Whatever you do in your formal presentation, do not read your paper verbatim. Nothing will bore an audience more quickly than that. Highlight only the key points of your study. These generally include your research question, your methodological approach, your major findings, and a few final takeaways.
In less formal roundtable presentations of your work, the aim is usually to help stimulate a conversation about a topic. The time you are given to present may be slightly shorter than in a formal presentation, and you’ll also be expected to participate in the conversation that follows all presenters’ talks. Roundtables can be especially useful when your research is in the earlier stages of development. Perhaps you’ve conducted a pilot study and you’d like to talk through some of your findings and get some ideas about where to take the study next. A roundtable is an excellent place to get some suggestions and also get a preview of the objections reviewers may raise with respect to your conclusions or your approach to the work. Roundtables are also great places to network and meet other scholars who share a common interest with you.
Finally, in a poster presentation you visually represent your work. Just as you wouldn’t read a paper verbatim in a formal presentation, avoid at all costs printing and pasting your paper onto a poster board. Instead, think about how to tell the “story” of your work in graphs, charts, tables, and other images. Bulleted points are also fine, as long as the poster isn’t so wordy that it would be difficult for someone walking by very slowly to grasp your major argument and findings. Posters, like roundtables, can be quite helpful at the early stages of a research project because they are designed to encourage the audience to engage you in conversation about your research. Don’t feel that you must share every detail of your work in a poster; the point is to share highlights and then converse with your audience to get their feedback, hear their questions, and provide additional details about your research.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• In formal presentations, include your research question, methodological approach, major findings, and a few final takeaways.
• Roundtable presentations emphasize discussion among participants.
• Poster presentations are visual representations of research findings.
Exercises
1. Imagine how you might present some of your work in poster format. What would the poster look like? What would it contain? Many helpful web resources offer advice on how to create a scholarly poster presentation. Simply google “scholarly poster presentation” and you’ll find hundreds of sites that share tips on creating an effective poster. Visit a few of the links that your Google search yielded. How has your vision for your poster changed and why?
2. One way to prepare yourself for presenting your work in any format is to get comfortable talking casually with others about your research. Practice with your friends and family. Engage them in a conversation about your research. Or if you haven’t conducted research yet, talk about your research interests. Ask them to repeat what they heard you express about your research project or interest. How closely do their reports match what you intended to express? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/13%3A_Sharing_Your_Work/13.02%3A_Presenting_Your_Research.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify the differences between reports for scholarly consumption and reports for public consumption.
• Define plagiarism and explain why it should be taken seriously.
I once had a student who conducted research on how children interact with each other in public. She was inspired to conduct her work after reading Barrie Thorne’s (1993)Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. research on how children regulate gender through their interactions with one another. This student conducted field observations of children on playgrounds for an assignment in my research methods class. The assignment included writing up a scholarly report of findings. After writing up her scholarly report, the student revised it and submitted it for publication in the student column of Contexts, the American Sociological Association’s public-interest magazine (Yearwood, 2009).Yearwood, E. (2009). Children and gender. Contexts, 8. Because Contexts readers run the gamut from academic sociologists to nonacademics and nonsociologists who simply have an interest in the magazine’s content, articles in the magazine are presented in a different format from the format used in other sociology journals. Thus my student had the opportunity to write up her findings in two different ways—first for scholarly consumption and then for public consumption. As she learned, and as we’ll discuss in this section, reports for fellow scholars typically differ from reports for a more general public audience.
Reports of findings that will be read by other scholars generally follow the format outlined in the discussion of reviewing the literature in Chapter 5. As you may recall from that chapter, most scholarly reports of research include an abstract, an introduction, a literature review, a discussion of research methodology, a presentation of findings, and some concluding remarks and discussion about implications of the work. Reports written for scholarly consumption also contain a list of references, and many include tables or charts that visually represent some component of the findings. Reading prior literature in your area of interest is an excellent way to develop an understanding of the core components of scholarly research reports and to begin to learn how to write those components yourself. There also are many excellent resources to help guide students as they prepare to write scholarly reports of research (Johnson, Rettig, Scott, & Garrison, 2009; Sociology Writing Group, 2007; Becker, 2007; American Sociological Association, 2010).Johnson, W. A., Rettig, R. P., Scott, G. M., & Garrison, S. M. (2009). The sociology student writer’s manual (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Sociology Writing Group. (2007). A guide to writing sociology papers. New York, NY: Worth; Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; American Sociological Association. (2010). ASA style guide (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. A very brief version of the ASA style guide can be found at www.asanet.org/students/ASA%2...n%20update.pdf.
Reports written for public consumption differ from those written for scholarly consumption. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, knowing your audience is crucial when preparing a report of your research. What are they likely to want to hear about? What portions of the research do you feel are crucial to share, regardless of the audience? Answering these questions will help you determine how to shape any written reports you plan to produce. In fact, some outlets answer these questions for you, as in the case of newspaper editorials where rules of style, presentation, and length will dictate the shape of your written report.
Whoever your audience, don’t forget what it is that you are reporting: social scientific evidence. Take seriously your role as a social scientist and your place among peers in your discipline. Present your findings as clearly and as honestly as you possibly can; pay appropriate homage to the scholars who have come before you, even while you raise questions about their work; and aim to engage your readers in a discussion about your work and about avenues for further inquiry. Even if you won’t ever meet your readers face-to-face, imagine what they might ask you upon reading your report, imagine your response, and provide some of those details in your written report.
Finally, take extraordinary care not to commit plagiarism. Presenting someone else’s words or ideas as if they are your own is among the most egregious transgressions a scholar can commit. Indeed, plagiarism has ended many careers (Maffly, 2011)As just a single example, take note of this story: Maffly, B. (2011, August 19). “Pattern of plagiarism” costs University of Utah scholar his job. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars...tml.csp?page=1 and many students’ opportunities to pursue degrees (Go, 2008).As a single example (of many) of the consequences for students of committing plagiarism, see Go, A. (2008). Two students kicked off semester at sea for plagiarism. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from www.usnews.com/education/blog...for-plagiarism Take this very, very seriously. If you feel a little afraid and paranoid after reading this warning, consider it a good thing—and let it motivate you to take extra care to ensure that you are not plagiarizing the work of others.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Reports for public consumption usually contain fewer details than reports for scholarly consumption.
• Keep your role and obligations as a social scientist in mind as you write up research reports.
• Plagiarism is among the most egregious transgressions a scholar can commit.
Exercises
1. Imagine that you’ve been tasked with sharing the results of some of your research with your parents. What details would you be sure to include? What details might you leave out, and why?
2. Have a discussion with a few of your peers about plagiarism. How do you each define the term? What strategies do you employ to ensure that you avoid committing plagiarism? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/13%3A_Sharing_Your_Work/13.03%3A_Writing_Up_Research_Results.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define dissemination.
• Discuss the three considerations to keep in mind in order to successfully disseminate your findings.
Presenting your work, discussed in Section 13.2, is one way of disseminating your research findings. In this section, we’ll focus on disseminating the written results of your research. Dissemination refers to “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91).Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Natareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science, 5, 91. In other words, dissemination of research findings involves careful planning, thought, consideration of target audiences, and communication with those audiences. Writing up results from your research and having others take notice are two entirely different propositions. In fact, the general rule of thumb is that people will not take notice unless you help and encourage them to do so. To paraphrase the classic line from the film Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they will come.
Disseminating your findings successfully requires determining who your audience is, where your audience is, and how to reach them. When considering who your audience is, think about who is likely to take interest in your work. Your audience might include those who do not express enthusiastic interest but might nevertheless benefit from an awareness of your research. Your research participants and those who share some characteristics in common with your participants are likely to have some interest in what you’ve discovered in the course of your research. Other scholars who study similar topics are another obvious audience for your work. Perhaps there are policymakers who should take note of your work. Organizations that do work in an area related to the topic of your research are another possibility. Finally, any and all inquisitive and engaged members of the public represent a possible audience for your work.
Where your audience is should be fairly obvious once you’ve determined who you’d like your audience to be. You know where your research participants are because you’ve studied them. You can find interested scholars on your campus (e.g., perhaps you could offer to present your findings at some campus event), at professional conferences, and via publications such as professional organizations’ newsletters (an often-overlooked source for sharing findings in brief form) and scholarly journals. Policymakers include your state and federal representatives who, at least in theory, should be available to hear a constituent speak on matters of policy interest. Perhaps you’re already aware of organizations that do work in an area related to your research topic, but if not, a simple web search should help you identify possible organizational audiences for your work. Disseminating your findings to the public more generally could take any number of forms: a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, a blog, or even a post or two on your Facebook wall.
Finally, determining how to reach your audiences will vary according to which audience you wish to reach. Your strategy should be determined by the norms of the audience. For example, scholarly journals provide author submission instructions that clearly define requirements for anyone wishing to disseminate their work via a particular journal. The same is true for newspaper editorials; check your newspaper’s website for details about how to format and submit letters to the editor. If you wish to reach out to your political representatives, a call to their offices or, again, a simple web search should tell you how to do that.
Whether you act on all these suggestions is ultimately your decision. But if you’ve conducted high-quality research and you have findings that are likely to be of interest to any constituents besides yourself, I would argue that it is your duty as a scholar and a sociologist to share those findings. In sum, disseminating findings involves the following three steps:
1. Determine who your audience is.
2. Identify where your audience is.
3. Discover how best to reach them.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Disseminating findings takes planning and careful consideration of one’s audiences.
• The dissemination process includes determining the who, where, and how of reaching one’s audiences.
ExerciseS
1. What additional potential audiences for your research, aside from those already mentioned, can you identify? How might you reach those audiences?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that researchers who conduct high-quality research have a duty to share their findings with others? Explain. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/13%3A_Sharing_Your_Work/13.04%3A_Disseminating_Findings.txt |
You might think that sociological research plays a very small role in our day-to-day lives, but once you know what to look for, you will soon discover that it is more a part of our everyday lives than you might have imagined. This is even truer now that you have taken a class in sociological research methods. Having some background in and understanding of the scientific method means that you are now better equipped to understand, question, and critique all kinds of scientific research as many of the basic tenets of good research are similar across disciplines that employ the scientific method. Those tenets include having a well-designed and carefully planned study, having some theoretical grounding and understanding of research that has come before one’s own work, and engaging in peer review, to name just a few. In this chapter, we’ll consider how to responsibly read research findings and examine areas of everyday life where sociological research may be present, even if it is not immediately visible.
As you read this chapter and Chapter 15, you may recall several of the topics and points made in other chapters of this text. The aim in these final chapters is to remind you of the relevance of sociological research and why one might care to know something about it. These chapters are also designed to encourage you to think critically about how sociology does and can shape your everyday life, both in ways you might choose and in ways you might not be aware of.
14: Reading and Understanding Social Research
Learning Objectives
• Identify what one can learn from an article simply by reading its abstract and its acknowledgments.
• Describe how tables presenting causal relationships are typically presented.
• Identify several key questions to ask when reading research reports.
By now you should have a good idea about the basic components of sociological research projects. You know how sociological research is designed, and you are familiar with how to frame a review of sociological literature. In Chapter 5, we discussed the various components of a research project and presented some tips on how to review literature as you design your own research project. But I hope that you’ll find the sociological literature to be of interest and relevance to you beyond figuring out how to summarize and critique it in relation to your research plans. We sociologists like to think the research we do matters, but it cannot matter if our research reports go unread or are not understandable. In this section we’ll review some material from Chapter 5 regarding sociological literature and we’ll consider some additional tips for how to read and understand reports of sociological research.
As mentioned in Chapter 5, reading the abstract that appears in most reports of scholarly research will provide you with an excellent, easily digestible review of a study’s major findings and of the framework the author is using to position her findings. Abstracts typically contain just a few hundred words, so reading them is a nice way to quickly familiarize yourself with a study. Another thing to look for as you set out to read and comprehend a research report is the author’s acknowledgments. Who supported the work by providing feedback or other assistance? If relevant, are you familiar with the research of those who provided feedback on the report you are about to read? Are any organizations mentioned as having supported the research in some way, either through funding or by providing other resources to the researcher? Familiarizing yourself with an author’s acknowledgments will give you additional contextual information within which to frame and understand what you are about to read.
Once you have read the abstract and acknowledgments, you could next peruse the discussion section near the end of the report, as suggested in Chapter 5. You might also take a look at any tables that are included in the article. A table provides a quick, condensed summary of the report’s key findings. The use of tables is not limited to one form or type of data, though they are used most commonly in quantitative research. Tables are a concise way to report large amounts of data. Some tables present descriptive information about a researcher’s sample. These tables will likely contain frequencies (N) and percentages (%). For example, if gender happened to be an important variable for the researcher’s analysis, a descriptive table would show how many and what percent of all study participants are women and how many/what percent are men. Frequencies, or “how many,” will probably be listed as N, while the percent symbol (%) might be used to indicate percentages.
In a table presenting a causal relationship, independent variable attributes are typically presented in the table’s columns, while dependent variable attributes are presented in rows. This allows the reader to scan across a table’s rows to see how values on the dependent variable attributes change as the independent variable attribute values change. Tables displaying results of quantitative analysis will also likely include some information about the strength and statistical significance of the relationships presented in the table. These details tell the reader how likely it is that the relationships presented will have occurred simply by chance.
Let’s look at a specific example. Table 14.1, based on data from my study of older workers, presents the causal relationship between gender and experiencing harassing behaviors at work. In this example, gender is the independent variable and the harassing behaviors listed are the dependent variables.It wouldn’t make any sense to say that people’s workplace experiences cause their gender, so in this example, the question of which is the independent variable and which are the dependent variables has a pretty obvious answer. I have therefore placed gender in the table’s columns and harassing behaviors in the table’s rows. Reading across the table’s top row, we see that 2.9% of women in the sample reported experiencing subtle or obvious threats to their safety at work, while 4.7% of men in the sample reported the same. We can read across each of the rows of the table in this way. Reading across the bottom row, we see that 9.4% of women in the sample reported experiencing staring or invasion of their personal space at work while just 2.3% of men in the sample reported having the same experience.
Of course, we cannot assume that these patterns didn’t simply occur by chance. How confident can we be that the findings presented in the table did not occur by chance? This is where tests of statistical significance come in handy. Statistical significance tells us the likelihood that the relationships we observe could be caused by something other than chance. While your statistics class will give you more specific details on tests of statistical significance and reading quantitative tables, the important thing to be aware of as a nonexpert reader of tables is that some of the relationships presented will be statistically significant and others may not be. Tables should provide information about the statistical significance of the relationships presented. When reading a researcher’s conclusions, be sure to pay attention to which relationships are statistically significant and which are not.
In Table 14.1, you’ll see that a p value is noted in the last very column of the table. A p value is a statistical measure of the probability that there is no relationship between the variables under study. Another way of putting this is that the p value provides guidance on whether or not we should reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is simply the assumption that no relationship exists between the variables in question. In Table 14.1, we see that for the first behavior listed, the pvalue is 0.623. This means that there is a 62.3% chance that the null hypothesis is correct in this case. In other words, it seems likely that any relationship between observed gender and experiencing threats to safety at work in this sample is simply due to chance.
In the final row of the table, however, we see that the p value is 0.039. In other words, there is a 3.9% chance that the null hypothesis is correct. Thus we can be somewhat more confident than in the preceding example that there may be some relationship between a person’s gender and his experiencing the behavior noted in this row. We might say that this finding is significant at the .05 level. This means that the probability that the relationship between gender and experiencing staring or invasion of personal space at work is due to sampling error alone is less than 5 in 100. Notice that I’m hedging my bets here by using words like somewhat and may be. When testing hypotheses, social scientists generally couch their findings in terms of rejecting the null hypothesis rather than making bold statements about the relationships observed in their tables. You can learn more about creating tables, reading tables, and tests of statistical significance in a class focused exclusively on statistical analysis. For now, I hope this brief introduction to reading tables will give you more confidence in your ability to read and understand the quantitative tables you encounter while reading reports of sociological research.
Table 1:.1 Percentage Reporting Harassing Behaviors at Work
Behavior Experienced at work Women Men p value
Subtle or obvious threats to your safety 2.9% 4.7% 0.623
Being hit, pushed, or grabbed 2.2% 4.7% 0.480
Comments or behaviors that demean your gender 6.5% 2.3% 0.184
Comments or behaviors that demean your age 13.8% 9.3% 0.407
Staring or invasion of your personal space 9.4% 2.3% 0.039
Note: Sample size was 138 for women and 43 for men.
Having read the tables in a research report, along with the abstract, acknowledgments, and discussion in the report, you are finally ready to read the report in its entirety. As you read a research report, there are several questions you can ask yourself about each section, from abstract to conclusion. Those questions are summarized in Table 14.2. Keep in mind that the questions covered here are designed to help you, the reader, to think critically about the research you come across and to get a general understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and key takeaways from a given study. I hope that by considering how you might respond to the following questions while reading research reports, you’ll feel confident that you could describe the report to others and discuss its meaning and impact with them.
Table 1:.2 Questions Worth Asking While Reading Research Reports
Report section Questions worth asking
Abstract What are the key findings? How were those findings reached? What framework does the researcher employ?
Acknowledgments Who are this study’s major stakeholders? Who provided feedback? Who provided support in the form of funding or other resources?
Introduction How does the author frame his or her research focus? What other possible ways of framing the problem exist? Why might the author have chosen this particular way of framing the problem?
Literature review How selective does the researcher appear to have been in identifying relevant literature to discuss? Does the review of literature appear appropriately extensive? Does the researcher provide a critical review?
Sample Was probability sampling or nonprobability sampling employed? What is the researcher’s sample? What is the researcher’s population? What claims will the researcher be able to make based on the sample? What are the sample’s major strengths and major weaknesses?
Data collection How were the data collected? What do you know about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the method employed? What other methods of data collection might have been employed, and why was this particular method employed? What do you know about the data collection strategy and instruments (e.g., questions asked, locations observed)? What don’t you know about the data collection strategy and instruments?
Data analysis How were the data analyzed? Is there enough information provided that you feel confident that the proper analytic procedures were employed accurately?
Results What are the study’s major findings? Are findings linked back to previously described research questions, objectives, hypotheses, and literature? Are sufficient amounts of data (e.g., quotes and observations in qualitative work, statistics in quantitative work) provided in order to support conclusions drawn? Are tables readable?
Discussion/conclusion Does the author generalize to some population beyond her or his sample? How are these claims presented? Are claims made supported by data provided in the results section (e.g., supporting quotes, statistical significance)? Have limitations of the study been fully disclosed and adequately addressed? Are implications sufficiently explored?
Key takeaways
• In tables presenting causal relationships, the independent variable is typically presented in the table’s columns while the dependent variables are presented in the table’s rows.
• When reading a research report, there are several key questions you should ask yourself for each section of the report.
ExerciseS
1. Find a table in a research report of your choosing. Challenge yourself to summarize the relationships represented by the table. Check your work by reading the Findings section of the article.
2. Read a scholarly article from start to finish, answering the questions outlined in Table 14.2 as you read through each section. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/14%3A_Reading_and_Understanding_Social_Research/14.01%3A_Reading_Reports_of_Soci.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify what one needs to do to be a responsible consumer of research.
Being a responsible consumer of research requires that you take seriously your identity as a social scientist. Now that you are familiar with how to conduct research and how to read the results of others’ research, you have some responsibility to put your knowledge and skills to use. Doing so is in part a matter of being able to distinguish what you do know based on the information provided by research findings from what you do not know. It is also a matter of having some awareness about what you can and cannot reasonably know as you encounter research findings.
When assessing social scientific findings, think about what information has been provided to you. In a scholarly journal article, you will presumably be given a great deal of information about the researcher’s method of data collection, her or his sample, and information about how the researcher identified and recruited research participants. All these details provide important contextual information that can help you assess the researcher’s claims. If, on the other hand, you come across some discussion of social scientific research in a popular magazine or newspaper, chances are that you will not find the same level of detailed information that you would find in a scholarly journal article. In this case, what you do and do not know is more limited than in the case of a scholarly journal article.
Also take into account whatever information is provided about a study’s funding source. Most funders want, and in fact require, that recipients acknowledge them in publications. But more popular press may leave out a funding source. In this Internet age, it can be relatively easy to obtain information about how a study was funded. If this information is not provided in the source from which you learned about a study, it might behoove you to do a quick search on the web to see if you can learn more about a researcher’s funding. Findings that seem to support a particular political agenda, for example, might have more or less weight once you know whether and by whom a study was funded.
There is some information that even the most responsible consumer of research cannot know. Because researchers are ethically bound to protect the identities of their subjects, for example, we will never know exactly who participated in a given study. Researchers may also choose not to reveal any personal stakes they hold in the research they conduct. While researchers may “start where they are,” a process outlined in Chapter 4, we cannot know for certain whether or how researchers are personally connected to their work unless they choose to share such details. Neither of these “unknowables” is necessarily problematic, but having some awareness of what you may never know about a study does provide important contextual information from which to assess what one can “take away” from a given report of findings.
KEY TAKEAWAY
• Being a responsible consumer of research means giving serious thought to and understanding what you do know, what you don’t know, what you can know, and what you can’t know.
Exercise
1. Find a report of scholarly research in a newspaper. What do you know from the report? What don’t you know? How might you find the answers to your remaining questions? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/14%3A_Reading_and_Understanding_Social_Research/14.02%3A_Being_a_Responsible_Con.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Cite the major differences between scholarly and media reports of sociological research.
• Identify the kinds of questions that may remain unanswered in media reports of sociological research.
As you have probably already gathered, we are likely to encounter sociological research in the news and other media. For example, check out the American Sociological Association’s media coverage links (www.asanet.org/press/media_co...highlights.cfm). There you’ll see that for just one study, on the consequences of parental divorce for child development (Kim, 2011),Kim, H. S. (2011). Consequences of parental divorce for child development. American Sociological Review, 76,487–511. there were 170 news articles describing the study and its findings over the course of one month, June 2011. This particular study provides a good example of the difference between the information provided about a study in a scholarly journal article and the media’s coverage of the same study.
Let’s look at some of the differences between the aforementioned study’s coverage in the media and its treatment in a scholarly journal. First, watch the following coverage from The View’s August 24, 2011, program: http://theview.abc.go.com/video/hot-...s-divorce-kids. Once you have watched the clip, ask yourself what you have learned about the study. Who conducted the research described? What are the study’s key findings? How many people participated in the study? Who were those participants? What sorts of data were analyzed? Which findings were statistically significant? Also note what questions you still have about the study. Where might you go to get the answers to your questions?
After watching The View clip several times, I was able to gather that the study has two key findings: (a) a child is more negatively affected by losing a parent to divorce than by the tension that leads to the breakup, and (b) children’s math scores drop after a divorce but reading and “other skills” do not suffer. As far as who participated, I heard that “3-year-olds and so on” were the participants, though I am not certain how many of them participated. I also don’t know who conducted the study, who (if anyone) provided funding for the study, when the data were collected, and so on. But if you review the article published in the American Sociological Review (ASR) that reports results of the study, all these questions are answered.
You might be saying to yourself, “So what?” Perhaps you took note that The View coverage doesmention that the study was published in the ASR. If you did notice this, then kudos to you. Because the ASR is a peer-reviewed publication of the American Sociological Association, we should have some confidence that the study is reputable. But we still don’t hear all the information that might shape what we choose to take away from this study. For example, a review of the ASR article will tell us that the data come from a sample of people who were in kindergarten from 1998 to 1999. Perhaps that is of little consequence, but we might wish to pause to consider whether or how our cultural social context has shifted since 1998 and how that might impact how kindergartners today respond to parental divorce. I am not at all suggesting that only studies whose data are seconds or days old hold value. (If that were the case, I’d say we can safely disregard any of my own publications.) Instead, I want to call your attention to some of the questions you might ask yourself as a responsible consumer of research.
In addition to all the times that sociological research does make the news, there are also instances when it does not but probably should. In June 2011, for example, an article on children’s gender nonconformity appeared in the New York Times (Hoffman).Hoffman, J. (2011, June 10). “Boys will be boys?” Not in these families. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/fashion/new-challenge-for-parents-childrens-gender-roles.html?pagewanted=all The article took the perspective that children’s expressions of gender were natural and biologically ingrained. While we cannot say for certain that this isn’t true, we do know from many years of reputable and highly regarded research by sociologists of gender that gender norms and behaviors are in many cases constructed socially, not biologically. That the article omits this perspective and the voices of sociologists who do research in this area is unfortunate—both for New York Times’ readers and for sociology.
Keeping in mind your knowledge about sociology and sociological research the next time you come across descriptions of sociological research in various media outlets, ask yourself some questions about the research you encounter.
1. Where do you see sociological research described?
2. How is it described?
3. What information is present, and what is missing from the media account of sociological research?
4. How and where might you access the details that are missing?
Keep an eye out for the absence of sociological research as well and consider the following:
1. Are there programs or news stories that might be well served to incorporate sociological research findings?
2. How might the inclusion of sociological research shift the story?
By asking yourself these questions as you go about your daily routine, you will have integrated sociological research into your everyday life.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Media reports of sociological research, while important, may leave key questions about the research unanswered.
• When reading media reports of sociological research, it is useful to follow up your reading by checking the original scholarly source in which the research is reported.
Exercises
1. Find a report of scholarly research in a nonscholarly source other than a newspaper. What would you say are the key takeaways reported by the nonscholarly source? Next, find and read a scholarly source’s report of the same research. What would you say are the key takeaways reported by the scholarly source? How do the takeaways from each source differ? How are they similar? How has your own understanding of the work changed by reading the scholarly report?
2. Find a news story that you think could have be strengthened by the inclusion of sociological research. How might the inclusion of sociological research shift the story? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/14%3A_Reading_and_Understanding_Social_Research/14.03%3A_Media_Reports_of_Sociol.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify locations where we might find examples of sociology and sociological research.
• Describe how having a background in sociological research methods is useful for our everyday encounters with sociology.
A few years ago, I was at home minding my own business and watching one of my favorite shows, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, when sociology made an appearance. The episode, as I recall, centered on a child who was bullied at school because she had two mothers. In the show, the lawyers discuss research on parenting that was published in the American Sociological Review.While my search uncovered that the episode to which I’m referring originally aired on NBC on December 6, 2005, I have not been able to unearth the article to which the show’s characters refer. The American Sociological Association does note, however, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit’s mention of the journal on its website: www.asanet.org/news/2005.cfm.
It’s amazing where and how often you might discover sociology rearing its head when you begin to pay attention, look for it, and listen for it. The benefit of having knowledge about sociological research methods is that when sociology does appear in your everyday life, you’ll be better equipped to understand those brief mentions than you would be without some background in research methods.
Sometimes we might come across sociological research and not even realize it. As you’ve seen in the examples described throughout this chapter, there are opportunities every day to encounter sociological research or, at the very least, its effects. Remember our discussion of the Walmart case in Chapter 1? As you may recall, Professor William Bielby testified as a sociologist on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case. The Walmart case is a great example of sociology playing a role in matters of everyday life even when we may not realize it. Sociologists have participated as expert witnesses in numerous other cases as well. As a sociologist who studies workplace harassment, I was once called upon to offer the sociological perspective in sexual harassment suit. Professor Emeritus Lewis Yablonsky (2002)You can read more about the cases that Professor Yablonsky has been involved in in the following article he wrote for the American Sociological Association’s newsletter in 2002: Yablonsky, L. (2002, January). Sociologists as expert witnesses in the criminal justice system. Footnotes. Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan02/fn17.html has been involved in more than 50 cases, providing his expert sociological opinion on cases involving homicide and other forms of violence.
In addition to offering their expert testimony in court cases and law suits, sociologists also play a role in shaping social policy. Professor Valerie Jenness, for example, has consulted with the state of California to help craft corrections policies there, particularly those focused on transgender inmates, sexual assault in correctional facilities, and hate crime statute implementation (www.asanet.org/about/awards/public/Jenness.cfm). Professor Diane Vaughn, an organizational sociologist, participated in the investigation following the space shuttle Columbia’s disintegration during reentry in 2003. Vaughn’s sociological perspective added a social dimension to the investigation and helped identify the social and cultural factors at NASA that contributed to the Columbia’s demise (www.asanet.org/about/awards/public/vaughan.cfm). Finally, Dr. Darlene Iskra’s research “had a dramatic impact on national policy” (www.asanet.org/about/awards/public/segal.cfm) when her work on gender discrimination in the military led to legislation that eliminated unequal requirements for men and women personnel serving in Saudi Arabia (“What is a trailblazer?,” 2011).What is a trailblazer? Dr. Darlene Iskra, adjunct instructor, sociology, is a Navy pioneer. (2011, July 15). Columbia College Spotlights. Retrieved from http://spotlight.ccis.edu/2011/07/what-is-trailblazer.html These are just a few of the many examples of how the sociological perspective and sociological researchers have played a role in shaping our policies.A useful source for additional examples is the American Sociological Association’s descriptions of past winners of its prestigious Public Understanding of Sociology Award. Those descriptions can be found at www.asanet.org/about/awards/public.cfm.
Another way that we might inadvertently come across sociology is when we encounter the ever-popular armchair sociologist. Perhaps you’ve met some of these folks or even played the role yourself a time or two. Armchair sociologists tend to wax poetic about how society “is” or how various groups of people “are” without having anything more than anecdotal evidence (or perhaps no evidence at all) to support their sweeping claims. Remember the example from Chapter 1 about a friend who once proclaimed that “all men lie all the time?” That’s a perfect example of armchair sociology. Now that you are equipped with a better understanding of how we know what we know, and in particular how sociologists know what they know, you are well prepared to question the assumptions of the armchair sociologists you meet. And by sharing with others what you know about how we “know” things, perhaps you’ll even help others break the habit of making unfounded assumptions. Understanding sociological research methods is excellent preparation for questioning the everyday assumptions that others make. And let’s face it; we’ve all probably made some unfounded assumptions about the way the world works or about what “other” people are like at one time or another.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Sociological research appears in many areas of our lives and sometimes in unexpected locations.
• Having an understanding of sociological research methods can be of benefit in areas of your life outside of the classroom.
Exercises
1. Find evidence of sociological research in a location where you did not expect to find it or may not have found it if not deliberately seeking it out. Ask two or three of your peers to do the same and then swap stories. Where did you find sociology? How did you find it? What relevance does sociology have to the example that you found? How did your knowledge about research methods help you identify or understand the instance of sociology that you found? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/14%3A_Reading_and_Understanding_Social_Research/14.04%3A_Its_Everywhere.txt |
The examples of sociological research provided throughout this text come from a variety of positions on the basic-public-applied continuum presented in Chapter 1. Some examples came from scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles, others from public-interest magazines, and others from applied settings. Nevertheless, students sometimes walk away from a research course wondering how any of what they’ve learned applies to their lives today and to their future plans. In this, the final chapter, we explore that question. We’ll consider the variety of locations where research might crop up in your “real-world” life. For some, research might be a career. For others, perhaps research will provide a means to become engaged in social change efforts. For all of us, I hope that public sociology will present itself from time to time, perhaps in our reading, our web surfing, our television viewing, or our conversations with others. At the end of this chapter, we’ll remind ourselves of some of the answers to the “why should I care” question that we addressed at the beginning of this text. I hope that by now you have your own ideas about how you might answer that question but I’ll nevertheless remind you of the answers that we’ve already covered and provide a few others that perhaps hadn’t occurred to you.
15: Research Methods in the Real World
Learning Objectives
• Identify the areas outside of academia where sociologists are most commonly employed.
• Define evaluation research and provide an example of it.
• Describe the work of a market researcher.
• Describe what sociologists working in policy and other government research do.
There are a variety of employers who hire social researchers. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, market research firms, corporations, public relations and communications firms, academic institutions, think tanks and other private research firms, public research firms and policy groups, and all levels of government. Some businesses hire social researchers to assist with personnel selection, many universities hire social researchers for their research institutes,For example, see University of Washington’s Social Development Research Group (http://www.sdrg.org/), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Carolina Population Center (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/), Penn State’s Survey Research Center (www.ssri.psu.edu/survey), University of Nebraska’s Public Policy Center (http://ppc.unl.edu/), and University of Minnesota’s Immigration History Research Center (http://www.ihrc.umn.edu/), to name just a few. and other firms such as Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx) and Nielsen (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en.html) hire social researchers to examine societal trends. The areas where sociologists holding undergraduate degrees in research are most likely to find employment as researchers are in evaluation research, market research, and government research. Each of these represents a particular use of research rather than a research method per se. Evaluation, market, and government researchers may use any of the data collection or analysis strategies we described in Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, but their purpose and aims may differ. We’ll explore each of these different uses of social scientific research methods in the following.
Evaluation Research
As you may recall from the definition provided in Chapter 1, evaluation research is research that is conducted to assess the effects of specific programs or policies. Evaluation research is often used when some form of social intervention is planned, such as welfare reform or school curriculum change. It might be used to assess the extent to which intervention is necessary by attempting to define and diagnose social problems, and it might also be used to understand whether applied interventions have had their intended consequences. Let’s consider a couple of specific examples of evaluation research to better understand how and when it is employed.
In Chapter 1, I mentioned my experience conducting evaluation research with a transitional housing program. Among other services, workers at the transitional housing locations counseled residents on finding and maintaining employment. One purpose of the evaluation research therefore was to determine whether residents felt they were able to transition successfully back into their communities after a period of institutionalization by obtaining employment that could sustain a life outside of the transitional housing site. This outcomes assessment was conducted in order to determine whether the jobs counseling provided by the transitional housing employees produced the desired goal of preparing residents for finding and maintaining employment.
My first experience with evaluation research occurred during my senior year of college. That year, I conducted an internship at a hospital development office. My main task as an intern was to help the office assess how effective it had been in the preceding years in meeting its goal of raising local awareness of and support for the hospital. Using interview research methodology, I collected data from hospital employees and board members as well as members of the local community to learn about what people knew about the hospital, its development office, and the hospital’s services and needs. This project culminated in written report and a final presentation to several members of the hospital board in which I and the development office director outlined several recommendations for future development office activities based on the feedback provided by the people I had interviewed.
Being able to apply what I’d learned in my research methods class to a real-world problem and solutions was an invaluable experience. Not only that, while gaining this experience I was able to contribute to the well-being of my community by helping a needed local resource (the hospital) find ways improve its relationship with the community. Perhaps you could look for similar opportunities in your community. Of course, this specific example isn’t one of “doing research for a living,” as suggested by this section’s title, but it certainly gave me an experience worth noting on my resume and got me in the door of several potential employers for interviews when I began looking for jobs.
There are many other instances of applied evaluation research conducted by social scientists who are employed by firms for their skills as researchers. Just google the phrase evaluation research firm and you’ll find scores of examples. Different firms may specialize in different areas of research. For example, Hoffman Clark & Associates, a California-based firm, specializes in public health and K–12 education assessment (www.hoffmanclark.org/index.php). Arizona firm LeCroy & Milligan Associates Inc. conducts evaluation research in the areas of criminal justice and health and human services (www.lecroymilligan.com/index.html). In Colorado, Outcomes Inc. focuses on children and families (www.outcomescolorado.com/home). Wilder Research, based in Minnesota, conducts evaluation research designed to help strengthen families and their communities (http://www.wilder.org/research.0.html). Massachusetts firm Social Science Research & Evaluation Inc. specializes in, among other areas, evaluation research on highway safety and transportation (http://www.ssre.org/index.html). Finally, Inventivo Design LLC in Colorado tailors its evaluation research services to corporations wishing to assess whether their investments “meet the goals of management and deliver on objectives” (http://www.inventivodesign.com). As you can see from this very limited sampling of evaluation research firms, employment as an evaluation researcher could take you to just about any area of the country and involve work with any number of industries and sectors.
Market Research
Market research is another way that you might engage in social scientific research to make a living. Just as with evaluation research, market research is not a particular research method per se. Instead, it is a particular way of utilizing research methodology for a particular purpose. Market research is research that is conducted for the purpose of guiding businesses and other organizations as they make decisions about how best to sell, improve, or promote a product or service. This sort of research might involve gathering data from and about one’s core market and customers, about competitors, or about an industry more generally. Market research occurs in a variety of settings and institutions. Some firms specialize in market research specifically and are hired by others who wish to learn more about how to best promote or sell a product or service. Market research might also be conducted in-house, perhaps by large businesses that sell products or by nonprofits that wish to better understand how best to meet the needs of their clientele or promote their services.
Market researchers assess how best to sell, improve, or promote a product by gathering data about that product’s consumers. Understanding consumers’ preferences, tastes, attitudes, and behaviors can help point an organization in the right direction in its effort to reach and appeal to consumers. There are many ways to do this. You could observe customers in a store to watch which displays draw them in and which they ignore. You could administer a survey to assess consumers’ satisfaction with a good or service. You could conduct covert observations by being a secret shopper or dining someplace as though you, the researcher, are a real customer. You could conduct focus groups with consumers. As you already know from reading this text, social scientific research is an excellent way to gauge people’s preferences, tastes, attitudes, and behaviors. Each of these market research methods requires knowledge and skills in collecting data from human subjects—the very thing that sociological researchers do.
In the preceding section I identified just a small sampling of the many evaluation research firms that exist throughout the United States. There are also many firms that exist for the sole purpose of carrying out market research, all of which hire individuals who have a background in or knowledge about social scientific research methodology. Market research firms specialize in all kinds of areas. For example, Arbitron Inc. focuses on media, gathering data about radio audiences around the globe (http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm). From Maine, Market Decisions conducts market research on “a wide variety of topics from public policy to branding to feasibility” (http://www.marketdecisions.com/index.php). Nielsen, a company many are familiar with, conducts media research of all kinds (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en.html) but is perhaps best known for its ratings of television programming in the United States (www.nielsen.com/us/en/insight...elevision.html). Specializing in the area of information technology, Gartner collects data to help its clients make IT-related decisions (http://www.gartner.com/technology/home.jsp). These are just a few of the many potential market research employers that seek individuals with research skills.
Policy and Other Government Research
Finally, many social science researchers do policy and other government-related kinds of work. In fact, the federal government is one of the largest employers of applied social science researchers. Government and policy research could be in any number of areas. For example, nonpartisan private firms such as Child Trends (www.childtrends.org/index.cfm) conduct research that is specifically intended to be useful for policymakers. In the case of Child Trends, researchers aim to improve the lives of children by “conducting high-quality research and sharing it with the people and institutions whose decisions and actions affect children” (www.childtrends.org/_catdisp_page.cfm?LID=124). Other private firms, such as Belden Russonello & Stewart, conduct research aimed at helping create social change, including projects on biodiversity, education, and energy use (www.brspoll.com/index.htm).
As for government work, Contexts magazine recently published an article featuring four sociological researchers to whom President Obama’s administration has turned, “relying on their unique understanding of American society to apply the most relevant research to policy-making” (2010, p. 14).Working for the G-man. (2010, Fall). Contexts, 9, 14–15. Those researchers include James P. Lynch, Bureau of Justice Statistics Director; John Laub, Director of the National Institute of Justice; Robert M. Groves, US Census Bureau Director; and David Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy in the US Department of Health and Human Services.
KEY TAKEAWAY
• Sociologists are employed in many arenas. Some of the most common include evaluation research, market research, and policy and other government research.
Exercise
1. If you’re interested in hearing more from sociologists who do research, or sociology more generally, for a living, check out Contexts’ article on “embedded sociologists” (Nyseth, Shannon, Heise, & McElrath, 2011)Nyseth, H., Shannon, S., Heise, K., & McElrath, S. M. (2011). Embedded sociologists. Contexts, 10, 44–50. who work in fields as diverse as epidemiology to housing rights to human resources. The article can be found online at http://contexts.org/articles/spring-...-sociologists/. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/15%3A_Research_Methods_in_the_Real_World/15.01%3A_Doing_Research_for_a_Living.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define and provide at least one example of action research.
• Define stakeholders.
Some sociologists engage in research for reasons in addition to or aside from career motivations. These individuals might conduct some form of action research. While action research may be conducted as part of a person’s paid employment, as described in Section 15.1, you might also conduct action research as a volunteer working for a cause that you find worthy. If you’ve discovered that you have an interest in sociological research but would rather not pursue a career in research, perhaps some volunteer involvement in action is for you.
Action research, sometimes referred to as participatory action research, is defined as research that is conducted for the purpose of creating some form of social change. When conducting action research, scholars collaborate with community stakeholders at all stages of the research process with the aim of producing results that will be usable in the community and by scientists. On the continuum of basic to applied research, action research is very far on the applied end of the spectrum. Sociologists who engage in this form of research never just go it alone; instead, they collaborate with the people who are affected by the research. Kristin Esterberg puts it quite eloquently when she says, “At heart, all action researchers are concerned that research not simply contribute to knowledge but also lead to positive changes in people’s lives” (2002, p. 137).Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Action research was first developed in the 1960s and 1970s (Freire, 1970)Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Herder and Herder. for the purpose of empowering individuals in underdeveloped nations (Reason, 1994).Reason, P. (1994). Participation in human inquiry. London, UK: Sage. Since then, action research has become increasingly popular among scholars who wish for their work to have tangible outcomes that benefit the groups that they study.
There are many excellent examples of action research. Some of these focus solely on arriving at useful outcomes for the communities upon which and with whom research is conducted. Other action research projects result in some new knowledge that has a practical application and purpose in addition to the creation of knowledge for basic scientific purposes. A search using the key term action research in Sociological Abstracts will yield a number of examples of the latter type.
One example of action research can be seen in Fred Piercy and colleagues’ (Piercy, Franz, Donaldson, & Richard, 2011)Piercy, F. P., Franz, N., Donaldson, J. L., & Richard, R. F. (2011). Consistency and change in participatory action research: Reflections on a focus group study about how farmers learn. The Qualitative Report, 16, 820–829. work with farmers in Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Together with farmers in these states, the researchers conducted focus groups to understand how farmers learn new information about farming. Ultimately, the aim of this study was to “develop more meaningful ways to communicate information to farmers about sustainable agriculture.” This improved communication, the researchers and farmers believed, would benefit not just researchers interested in the topic but also farmers and their communities. Farmers and researchers were both involved in all aspects of the research, from designing the project and determining focus group questions to conducting the focus groups and finally to analyzing data and disseminating findings.
Many additional examples of action research can be found at Loyola University Chicago’s Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL; http://www.luc.edu/curl/index.shtml). At the center, researchers seek “to promote equality and to improve people’s lives in communities throughout the Chicago metropolitan region.” For example, in 2006 researchers at CURL embarked on a project to assess the impact on small, local retailers of new Walmart stores entering urban areas (Jones, 2008).Jones, S. M. (2008, May 13). Cities may mute effect of Wal-Mart. Chicago Tribune. The study found that, while the effect of Walmart on local retailers seems to have a larger impact in rural areas, Chicago-area local retailers did not experience as dramatic an impact. Nevertheless a “small but statistically significant relationship” was found between Walmart’s arrival in the city and local retailers’ closing their doors. This and other research conducted by CURL aims to raise awareness about and promote positive social change around issues affecting the lives of people in the Chicago area. CURL meets this aim by collaborating with members of the community to shape a research agenda, collect and analyze data, and disseminate results.
Perhaps one of the most unique and rewarding aspects of engaging in action research is that it is often interdisciplinary. Action research projects might bring together researchers from any number of disciplines, from the social sciences, such as sociology, political science, and psychology; to an assortment of physical and natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry; to engineering, philosophy, and history (to name just a few). One recent example of this kind of interdisciplinary action research can be seen in the University of Maine’s Sustainability Solutions Initiative (SSI) (http://www.umaine.edu/sustainability...ions/index.htm). This initiative unites researchers from across campus together with local community members to “connect knowledge with action in ways that promote strong economies, vibrant communities, and healthy ecosystems in and beyond Maine.” The knowledge-action connection is essential to SSI’s mission, and the collaboration between community stakeholders and researchers is crucial to maintaining that connection. SSI is a relatively new effort; stay tuned to the SSI website to follow how this collaborative action research initiative develops.
Anyone interested in social change can benefit from having some understanding of social scientific research methods. The knowledge you’ve gained from your methods course can be put to good use even if you don’t have an interest in pursuing a career in research. As a member of a community, perhaps you will find that the opportunity to engage in action research presents itself to you one day. And your background in research methodology will no doubt assist you and your collaborators in your effort to make life better for yourself and those who share your interests, circumstances, or geographic region.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Action research is conducted by researchers who wish to create some form of social change.
• Action research is often conducted by teams of interdisciplinary researchers.
Exercise
1. If you’re interested in learning more about action research, or perhaps reading some specific examples of action research, check out the journal Gateways. It is a free, electronic, peer-reviewed scholarly journal focused on community-engaged research. Here’s the link: http://www.luc.edu/curl/uts/index.html. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/15%3A_Research_Methods_in_the_Real_World/15.02%3A_Doing_Research_for_a_Cause.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Identify and describe at least two examples of public sociology.
In Chapter 1, we discussed public sociology and its place on the continuum of applied-basic research. One of the most delightful consequences of the trend toward public sociology is that the discipline has become more visible and more accessible to much broader audiences than perhaps ever before. But even with the increased accessibility of sociological research, you’ll find that having a basic understanding of how sociologists conduct research, which you’ve gained from this text, is beneficial. In this section, we’ll take a look at a few recent examples of public sociology and examine how your background in sociological research methods can help you read, make sense of, discuss, and even share the findings you come across.
In recent months, I’ve been interviewed by a journalist writing for a website run by Dr. Mehmet Oz of The Dr. Oz Show (http://www.youbeauty.com) and another writing for a website dedicated to any and every thing having to do with “video games and geek culture” (http://www.unwinnable.com). Inspired by the fall 2011 television programming lineup in the United States—in particular two new shows, including one featuring Playboy Bunnies and the other focused on the experiences of early PanAm flight attendants—the youbeauty.com interview focused on how expressions of gender, workplace norms, and harassment have changed in the past few decades.You can read the final article at http://www.youbeauty.com/relationshi...-good-grooming. Interestingly, while the single quote attributed to me is accurate, the context within which I made the remark is not provided. One important caution for sociologists who choose to participate in press interviews is that your perspective may not always be represented in a way that you’d choose. In the other interview, conducted for an article on how heroism has changed since September 11, 2001 (Bannen, 2011),Bannen, B. (2011, July 19). Superheroes in a post-9/11 society. Unwinnable. Retrieved from http://www.unwinnable.com/2011/07/29...t-911-society/ I was asked questions about patterns of social change. In both cases I was “doing” public sociology, drawing from my own background and knowledge about the sociological perspective on human behavior to help make sense of recent and current trends in society.
Many other sociologists engage in public sociology as well. Professor Pepper Schwartz, whose name you might recall from Chapter 4, is perhaps one of the most recognized public sociologists. In Chapter 4, I mentioned Schwartz’s role as the relationship expert for the dating website PerfectMatch.com. Schwartz is also the sex and relationship expert for the American Association for Retired Persons, for whom she writes a regular column offering advice to those aged 50 and up. Her participation with these venues enables Schwartz to provide relevant sociological understanding, perspective, and knowledge to broad audiences.
Another example of public sociology can be seen in Professor Nikki Jones’s work. Jones, an urban ethnographer who studies adolescent girls’ violence, has found that the “mean girl” phenomenon represented in so much of our popular culture and so many news stories today is far more hype than reality (Chesney-Lind & Jones, 2010; Jones, 2009).Jones, N. (2009). Between good and ghetto: African American girls and inner-city violence. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers; Chesney-Lind, M., & Jones, N. (Eds.). (2010). Fighting for girls: New perspectives on gender and violence. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. In an effort to promote a better understanding of this and other matters of public interest upon which sociological and other scholarly evidence can and should be brought to bear, Jones collaborates with two other editors to maintain the website The Public Intellectual(http://thepublicintellectual.org). The site publishes work by academics and other researchers who write pieces intended to debunk “common knowledge” on matters of public concern, analyze social policies and problems, and examine cultural trends.
Finally, Professors Lisa Wade and Gwen Sharp provide another excellent example of public sociology on their website Sociological Images (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages). The site provides sociological observations and commentary on images of all kinds, from advertisements to charts and graphs, and from around the globe. Their aim is to “encourage all kinds of people to exercise and develop their sociological imagination by presenting brief sociological discussions of compelling and timely imagery that spans the breadth of sociological inquiry.” The images Wade and Sharp display on the site are chosen for their ability to illustrate sociological ideas in a way that is both compelling and accessible to sociological and nonsociological audiences alike. Peruse their site and as you’ll see from the comments noted underneath each of the discussion/image posts that the Sociological Images audience runs the gamut in background, ideology, and perspective. In other words, the site accomplishes the exact aim of public sociology: to engage the public.
Key takeaways
• One of the positive consequences of public sociology is that the discipline has become more visible and more accessible to much broader audiences than in the past.
• Having a background in sociological research methods can help you read, make sense of, discuss, and share the research findings you encounter.
Exercises
1. Check out at least one of the websites mentioned in the preceding section. What do you think of these examples of public sociology? Ask one of your nonsociologist friends to peruse the site. Discuss what you each found compelling. How does your knowledge of sociological research methods shape your understanding of what you’ve read?
2. Discuss public sociology with a few of your sociology peers. In what areas do you think public sociology can and should play a role? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/15%3A_Research_Methods_in_the_Real_World/15.03%3A_Public_Sociology.txt |
Learning Objectives
• Define transferable skills.
• Identify several of the transferable skills you’ve gained from your understanding of sociological research methods.
I hope that by now I’ve managed to convince you that developing an understanding of how sociologists conduct research has many benefits. On the chance that I haven’t done so, or in case you simply want a refresher, let’s spend this final section of the final chapter reviewing some of the reasons you might care about research methods.
Transferable Skills
In Chapter 1, I suggested that one reason to care about research methods is that knowing how to conduct social science research could lead to a variety of job opportunities. The skills and knowledge you’ve gained from this text will situate you well for a number of research-oriented positions. Moreover, your background in social science research methodology provides you with a number of transferable skills that will serve you well in any profession you choose. Transferable skills are the conglomeration of tasks that a person develops proficiency in from one realm that can be applied in another realm. Whether you realize it or not, you have gained a host of transferable skills from taking a course in social scientific research methods. Those skills can assist you in your search for employment in a variety of arenas.
Perhaps the primary transferable skill you’ve developed by learning how to conduct social scientific research is an ability to solve problems. Not only that, you are now also better equipped to identify problems. What do social researchers do if not identify social problems and then seek to gain knowledge aimed at understanding and eradicating those problems? Having the ability to seek out problems and the requisite knowledge and tools to begin to solve those problems is crucial in many areas of employment. The investigative skills you’ve developed as a result of learning how to conduct social scientific research can be put to use in just about any job where taken-for-granted assumptions are called into question. These might include jobs such as journalism, but work in criminal justice requires investigative skills as does just about any position that requires one to solve problems, ask questions, and learn new ways of doing things.
Related to the problem-identification and problem-solving skills that you’ve developed by learning how to conduct social scientific research is another important ability: a talent for asking good questions. Not only is the ability to ask good questions essential in many areas of employment (and in most areas life as well), but also this skill is linked to another key area that comes up in research methods courses and is appreciated in many realms: critical thinking. Thinking critically does not mean that someone sits backs and criticizes every idea or person that comes her way. Critical thinking is a skill that takes practice to develop. It involves the careful evaluation of assumptions, actions, values, and other factors that influence a particular way of being or doing. It requires an ability to identify both weaknesses and strengths in taken-for-granted ways of doing things. A person who thinks critically should be able to demonstrate some level of understanding of the varying positions one might take on any given issue, even if he or she does not agree with those positions.
Understanding sociological research methods also means having some understanding of how to analyze, synthesize, and interpret information. And having a well-developed ability to carefully take in, think about, and understand the meaning of new information that you are confronted with will serve you well in all varieties of life circumstance and employment. In addition, the ability to communicate and clearly express oneself, both in writing and orally, is crucial in all professions. As you practice the tasks described throughout this text, you will attain and improve the oral and written communication skills that so many employers value. Finally, related to the ability to communicate effectively is the ability to effectively frame an argument or presentation. Successfully framing an argument requires not only good communication skills but also strength in the area of listening to others.
In sum, the transferable skills you’ve gained as a result of learning how to conduct social scientific research include the following:
1. Identifying problems
2. Identifying solutions to problems
3. Investigative skills and techniques
4. Asking good questions
5. Framing an argument
6. Listening
7. Critical thinking
8. Analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting information
9. Oral and written communication skills
Table 15.1 links each of the identified transferable skills to specific chapters in the text.
Table 1:.1 Transferable Skills Featured in This Text
Transferable skill Chapters featuring skill (relevant focus within chapter)
Identifying problems Chapter 2 (inductive and deductive approaches)
Chapter 4 (starting where you are)
Identifying solutions to problems Chapter 2 (how theories and paradigms shape approach)
Chapter 5 (research design)
Chapter 7 (sampling)
Investigative skills and techniques Chapter 5 (searching for and reviewing the literature)
Chapter 6 and Chapter 7(measurement and sampling)
Chapter 8 through Chapter 12 (data collection)
Chapter 14 (reading reports of research)
Asking good questions Chapter 3 (ethics)
Chapter 4 (making questions empirical and sociological)
Framing an argument Chapter 1 (ontology and epistemology)
Chapter 2 (theories)
Chapter 5 (hypotheses)
Listening Chapter 9 (conducting interviews)
Chapter 10 (getting into and establishing rapport in field)
Chapter 12 (focus groups, ethnomethodology)
Chapter 14 (being responsible consumers of research)
Critical thinking Chapter 1 (sources of knowledge)
Chapter 2 (theories)
Chapter 3 (ethics)
Chapter 14 (understanding social research)
Analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting information Chapter 5 (reviewing the literature)
Chapter 8 through Chapter 12 (data analysis)
Chapter 14 (reading and understanding social research)
Oral and written communication skills Chapter 13 (sharing your work)
Chapter 1 through Chapter 15 (written and oral exercises throughout)
Understanding Yourself, Your Circumstances, and Your World
Perhaps the most rewarding consequence of understanding social scientific research methods is the ability to gain a better understanding of yourself, your circumstances, and your world. Through the application of social scientific research methods, sociologists have asked—and answered—many of the world’s most pressing questions. Certainly those answers are not always complete, nor are they infallible, but the quest for knowledge and understanding is an ongoing process. As social scientists continue the process of asking questions and seeking answers, perhaps you will choose to participate in that quest now that you have gained some knowledge and skill in how to conduct research.
Having thought about what you know and how you know it, as well as what others claim to know and how they know it, I hope will provide you with some clarity in an often-murky world. Whether you choose to adopt the particular ways of knowing described in this text as your preferred ways of knowing is totally up to you. I hope that you will find that the knowledge you’ve gained here is of use, perhaps in terms of your personal life and interests, in your relationships with others, or in your longer-range school or career goals.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Having a background in social science research methodology provides you with a number of transferable skills.
• Having a background in social science research methodology gives you the opportunity to gain greater insight into yourself, your circumstances, and your world.
Exercises
1. If you’re interested in gaining some more research experience, check out the National Science Foundation’s Research for Undergraduates (REU) program. The program provides opportunities for students to conduct research at a host institution along with a small group of undergraduate peers. To learn more about the program and search for current locations hosting REU programs, see the following: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/.
2. Review Table 15.1. Are there transferable skills listed there that you’re not yet convinced you’ve attained? If so, take another look at the cited chapter(s). Are there transferable skills you feel you’ve gained that are not listed in the table? If so, what are they and in which chapter(s) are they featured? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/15%3A_Research_Methods_in_the_Real_World/15.04%3A_Why_Should_We_Care.txt |
What is research? Depending on who you ask, you will likely get very different answers to this seemingly innocuous question. Some people will say that they routinely research different online websites to find the best place to buy goods or services they want. Television news channels supposedly conduct research in the form of viewer polls on topics of public interest such as forthcoming elections or government-funded projects. Undergraduate students research the Internet to find the information they need to complete assigned projects or term papers. Graduate students working on research projects for a professor may see research as collecting or analyzing data related to their project. Businesses and consultants research different potential solutions to remedy organizational problems such as a supply chain bottleneck or to identify customer purchase patterns. However, none of the above can be considered “scientific research” unless: (1) it contributes to a body of science, and (2) it follows the scientific method. This chapter will examine what these terms mean.
Science
What is science? To some, science refers to difficult high school or college-level courses such as physics, chemistry, and biology meant only for the brightest students. To others, science is a craft practiced by scientists in white coats using specialized equipment in their laboratories. Etymologically, the word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia meaning knowledge. Science refers to a systematic and organized body of knowledge in any area of inquiry that is acquired using “the scientific method” (the scientific method is described further below). Science can be grouped into two broad categories: natural science and social science. Natural science is the science of naturally occurring objects or phenomena, such as light, objects, matter, earth, celestial bodies, or the human body. Natural sciences can be further classified into physical sciences, earth sciences, life sciences, and others. Physical sciences consist of disciplines such as physics (the science of physical objects), chemistry (the science of matter), and astronomy (the science of celestial objects). Earth sciences consist of disciplines such as geology (the science of the earth). Life sciences include disciplines such as biology (the science of human bodies) and botany (the science of plants). In contrast, social science is the science of people or collections of people, such as groups, firms, societies, or economies, and their individual or collective behaviors. Social sciences can be classified into disciplines such as psychology (the science of human behaviors), sociology (the science of social groups), and economics (the science of firms, markets, and economies).
The natural sciences are different from the social sciences in several respects. The natural sciences are very precise, accurate, deterministic, and independent of the person m aking the scientific observations. For instance, a scientific experiment in physics, such as measuring the speed of sound through a certain media or the refractive index of water, should always yield the exact same results, irrespective of the time or place of the experiment, or the person conducting the experiment. If two students conducting the same physics experiment obtain two different values of these physical properties, then it generally means that one or both of those students must be in error. However, the same cannot be said for the social sciences, which tend to be less accurate, deterministic, or unambiguous. For instance, if you measure a person’s happiness using a hypothetical instrument, you may find that the same person is more happy or less happy (or sad) on different days and sometimes, at different times on the same day. One’s happiness may vary depending on the news that person received that day or on the events that transpired earlier during that day. Furthermore, there is not a single instrument or metric that can accurately measure a person’s happiness. Hence, one instrument may calibrate a person as being “more happy” while a second instrument may find that the same person is “less happy” at the same instant in time. In other words, there is a high degree of measurement error in the social sciences and there is considerable uncertainty and little agreement on social science policy decisions. For instance, you will not find many disagreements among natural scientists on the speed of light or the speed of the earth around the sun, but you will find numerous disagreements among social scientists on how to solve a social problem such as reduce global terrorism or rescue an economy from a recession. Any student studying the social sciences must be cognizant of and comfortable with handling higher levels of ambiguity, uncertainty, and error that come with such sciences, which merely reflects the high variability of social objects.
Sciences can also be classified based on their purpose. Basic sciences , also called pure sciences, are those that explain the most basic objects and forces, relationships between them, and laws governing them. Examples include physics, mathematics, and biology. Applied sciences , also called practical sciences, are sciences that apply scientific knowledge from basic sciences in a physical environment. For instance, engineering is an applied science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry for practical applications such as building stronger bridges or fuel efficient combustion engines, while medicine is an applied science that applies the laws of biology for solving human ailments. Both basic and applied sciences are required for human development. However, applied sciences cannot stand on their own right, but instead relies on basic sciences for its progress. Of course, the industry and private enterprises tend to focus more on applied sciences given their practical value, while universities study both basic and applied sciences.
Scientific Knowledge
The purpose of science is to create scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge refers to a generalized body of laws and theories to explain a phenomenon or behavior of interest that are acquired using the scientific method. Laws are observed patterns of phenomena or behaviors, while theories are systematic explanations of the underlying phenomenon or behavior. For instance, in physics, the Newtonian Laws of Motion describe what happens when an object is in a state of rest or motion (Newton’s First Law), what force is needed to move a stationary object or stop a moving object (Newton’s Second Law), and what happens when two objects collide (Newton’s Third Law). Collectively, the three laws constitute the basis of classical mechanics – a theory of moving objects. Likewise, the theory of optics explains the properties of light and how it behaves in different media, electromagnetic theory explains the properties of electricity and how to generate it, quantum mechanics explains the properties of subatomic \particles, and thermodynamics explains the properties of energy and mechanical work. An introductory college level text book in physics will likely contain separate chapters devoted to each of these theories. Similar theories are also available in social sciences. For instance, cognitive dissonance theory in psychology explains how people react when their observations of an event is different from what they expected of that event, general deterrence theory explains why some people engage in improper or criminal behaviors, such as illegally download music or commit software piracy, and the theory of planned behavior explains how people make conscious reasoned choices in their everyday lives.
The goal of scientific research is to discover laws and postulate theories that can explain natural or social phenomena, or in other words, build scientific knowledge. It is important to understand that this knowledge may be imperfect or even quite far from the truth. Sometimes, there may not be a single universal truth, but rather an equilibrium of “multiple truths.” We must understand that the theories, upon which scientific knowledge is based, are only explanations of a particular phenomenon, as suggested by a scientist. As such, there may be good or poor explanations, depending on the extent to which those explanations fit well with reality, and consequently, there may be good or poor theories. The progress of science is marked by our progression over time from poorer theories to better theories, through better observations using more accurate instruments and more informed logical reasoning.
We arrive at scientific laws or theories through a process of logic and evidence. Logic (theory) and evidence (observations) are the two, and only two, pillars upon which scientific knowledge is based. In science, theories and observations are interrelated and cannot exist without each other. Theories provide meaning and significance to what we observe, and observations help validate or refine existing theory or construct new theory. Any other means of knowledge acquisition, such as faith or authority cannot be considered science.
Scientific Research
Given that theories and observations are the two pillars of science, scientific research operates at two levels: a theoretical level and an empirical level. The theoretical level is concerned with developing abstract concepts about a natural or social phenomenon and relationships between those concepts (i.e., build “theories”), while the empirical level is concerned with testing the theoretical concepts and relationships to see how well they reflect our observations of reality, with the goal of ultimately building better theories. Over time, a theory becomes more and more refined (i.e., fits the observed reality better), and the science gains maturity. Scientific research involves continually moving back and forth between theory and observations. Both theory and observations are essential components of scientific research. For instance, relying solely on observations for making inferences and ignoring theory is not considered valid scientific research.
Depending on a researcher’s training and interest, scientific inquiry may take one of two possible forms: inductive or deductive. In inductive research , the goal of a researcher is to infer theoretical concepts and patterns from observed data. In deductive research , the goal of the researcher is to test concepts and patterns known from theory using new empirical data. Hence, inductive research is also called theory-building research, and deductive research is theory-testing research. Note here that the goal of theory-testing is not just to test a theory, but possibly to refine, improve, and extend it. Figure 1.1 depicts the complementary nature of inductive and deductive research. Note that inductive and deductive research are two halves of the research cycle that constantly iterates between theory and observations. You cannot do inductive or deductive research if you are not familiar with both the theory and data components of research. Naturally, a complete researcher is one who can traverse the entire research cycle and can handle both inductive and deductive research.
It is important to understand that theory-building (inductive research) and theory-testing (deductive research) are both critical for the advancement of science. Elegant theories are not valuable if they do not match with reality. Likewise, mountains of data are also useless until they can contribute to the construction to meaningful theories. Rather than viewing these two processes in a circular relationship, as shown in Figure 1.1, perhaps they can be better viewed as a helix, with each iteration between theory and data contributing to better explanations of the phenomenon of interest and better theories. Though both inductive and deductive research are important for the advancement of science, it appears that inductive (theory-building) research is more valuable when there are few prior theories or explanations, while deductive (theory-testing) research is more productive when there are many competing theories of the same phenomenon and researchers are interested in knowing which theory works best and under what circumstances.
Theory building and theory testing are particularly difficult in the social sciences, given the imprecise nature of the theoretical concepts, inadequate tools to measure them, and the presence of many unaccounted factors that can also influence the phenomenon of interest. It is also very difficult to refute theories that do not work. For instance, Karl Marx’s theory of communism as an effective means of economic production withstood for decades, before it was finally discredited as being inferior to capitalism in promoting economic growth and social welfare. Erstwhile communist economies like the Soviet Union and China eventually moved toward more capitalistic economies characterized by profit-maximizing private enterprises. However, the recent collapse of the mortgage and financial industries in the United States demonstrates that capitalism also has its flaws and is not as effective in fostering economic growth and social welfare as previously presumed. Unlike theories in the natural sciences, social science theories are rarely perfect, which provides numerous opportunities for researchers to improve those theories or build their own alternative theories.
Conducting scientific research, therefore, requires two sets of skills – theoretical and methodological – needed to operate in the theoretical and empirical levels respectively. Methodological skills (“know-how”) are relatively standard, invariant across disciplines, and easily acquired through doctoral programs. However, theoretical skills (“know-what”) is considerably harder to master, requires years of observation and reflection, and are tacit skills that cannot be “taught” but rather learned though experience. All of the greatest scientists in the history of mankind, such as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Neils Bohr, Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Simon, were master theoreticians, and they are remembered for the theories they postulated that transformed the course of science. Methodological skills are needed to be an ordinary researcher, but theoretical skills are needed to be an extraordinary researcher!
Scientific Method
In the preceding sections, we described science as knowledge acquired through a scientific method. So what exactly is the “scientific method”? Scientific method refers to a standardized set of techniques for building scientific knowledge, such as how to make valid observations, how to interpret results, and how to generalize those results. The scientific method allows researchers to independently and impartially test preexisting theories and prior findings, and subject them to open debate, modifications, or enhancements. The scientific method must satisfy four characteristics:
• Replicability: Others should be able to independently replicate or repeat a scientific study and obtain similar, if not identical, results.
• Precision: Theoretical concepts, which are often hard to measure, must be defined with such precision that others can use those definitions to measure those concepts and test that theory.
• Falsifiability: A theory must be stated in a way that it can be disproven. Theories that cannot be tested or falsified are not scientific theories and any such knowledge is not scientific knowledge. A theory that is specified in imprecise terms or whose concepts are not accurately measurable cannot be tested, and is therefore not scientific. Sigmund Freud’s ideas on psychoanalysis fall into this category and is therefore not considered a “theory”, even though psychoanalysis may have practical utility in treating certain types of ailments.
• Parsimony: When there are multiple explanations of a phenomenon, scientists must always accept the simplest or logically most economical explanation. This concept is called parsimony or “Occam’s razor.” Parsimony prevents scientists from pursuing overly complex or outlandish theories with endless number of concepts and relationships that may explain a little bit of everything but nothing in particular.
Any branch of inquiry that does not allow the scientific method to test its basic laws or theories cannot be called “science.” For instance, theology (the study of religion) is not science because theological ideas (such as the presence of God) cannot be tested by independent observers using a replicable, precise, falsifiable, and parsimonious method. Similarly, arts, music, literature, humanities, and law are also not considered science, even though they are creative and worthwhile endeavors in their own right.
The scientific method, as applied to social sciences, includes a variety of research approaches, tools, and techniques, such as qualitative and quantitative data, statistical analysis, experiments, field surveys, case research, and so forth. Most of this book is devoted to learning about these different methods. However, recognize that the scientific method operates primarily at the empirical level of research, i.e., how to make observations and analyze and interpret these observations. Very little of this method is directly pertinent to the theoretical level, which is really the more challenging part of scientific research.
Types of Scientific Research
Depending on the purpose of research, scientific research projects can be grouped into three types: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. Exploratory research is often conducted in new areas of inquiry, where the goals of the research are: (1) to scope out the magnitude or extent of a particular phenomenon, problem, or behavior, (2) to generate some initial ideas (or “hunches”) about that phenomenon, or (3) to test the feasibility of undertaking a more extensive study regarding that phenomenon. For instance, if the citizens of a country are generally dissatisfied with governmental policies regarding during an economic recession, exploratory research may be directed at measuring the extent of citizens’ dissatisfaction, understanding how such dissatisfaction is manifested, such as the frequency of public protests, and the presumed causes of such dissatisfaction, such as ineffective government policies in dealing with inflation, interest rates, unemployment, or higher taxes. Such research may include examination of publicly reported figures, such as estimates of economic indicators, such as gross domestic product (GDP), unemployment, and consumer price index, as archived by third-party sources, obtained through interviews of experts, eminent economists, or key government officials, and/or derived from studying historical examples of dealing with similar problems. This research may not lead to a very accurate understanding of the target problem, but may be worthwhile in scoping out the nature and extent of the problem and serve as a useful precursor to more in-depth research.
Descriptive research is directed at making careful observations and detailed documentation of a phenomenon of interest. These observations must be based on the scientific method (i.e., must be replicable, precise, etc.), and therefore, are more reliable than casual observations by untrained people. Examples of descriptive research are tabulation of demographic statistics by the United States Census Bureau or employment statistics by the Bureau of Labor, who use the same or similar instruments for estimating employment by sector or population growth by ethnicity over multiple employment surveys or censuses. If any changes are made to the measuring instruments, estimates are provided with and without the changed instrumentation to allow the readers to make a fair before-and-after comparison regarding population or employment trends. Other descriptive research may include chronicling ethnographic reports of gang activities among adolescent youth in urban populations, the persistence or evolution of religious, cultural, or ethnic practices in select communities, and the role of technologies such as Twitter and instant messaging in the spread of democracy movements in Middle Eastern countries.
Explanatory research seeks explanations of observed phenomena, problems, or behaviors. While descriptive research examines the what, where, and when of a phenomenon, explanatory research seeks answers to why and how types of questions. It attempts to “connect the dots” in research, by identifying causal factors and outcomes of the target phenomenon. Examples include understanding the reasons behind adolescent crime or gang violence, with the goal of prescribing strategies to overcome such societal ailments. Most academic or doctoral research belongs to the explanation category, though some amount of exploratory and/or descriptive research may also be needed during initial phases of academic research. Seeking explanations for observed events requires strong theoretical and interpretation skills, along with intuition, insights, and personal experience. Those who can do it well are also the most prized scientists in their disciplines.
History of Scientific Thought
Before closing this chapter, it may be interesting to go back in history and see how science has evolved over time and identify the key scientific minds in this evolution. Although instances of scientific progress have been documented over many centuries, the terms “science,” “scientists,” and the “scientific method” were coined only in the 19 th century. Prior to this time, science was viewed as a part of philosophy, and coexisted with other branches of philosophy such as logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics, although the boundaries between some of these branches were blurred.
In the earliest days of human inquiry, knowledge was usually recognized in terms of theological precepts based on faith. This was challenged by Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates during the 3 rd century BC, who suggested that the fundamental nature of being and the world can be understood more accurately through a process of systematic logical reasoning called rationalism . In particular, Aristotle’s classic work Metaphysics (literally meaning “beyond physical [existence]”) separated theology (the study of Gods) from ontology (the study of being and existence) and universal science (the study of first principles, upon which logic is based). Rationalism (not to be confused with “rationality”) views reason as the source of knowledge or justification, and suggests that the criterion of truth is not sensory but rather intellectual and deductive, often derived from a set of first principles or axioms (such as Aristotle’s “law of non-contradiction”).
The next major shift in scientific thought occurred during the 16 th century, when British philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) suggested that knowledge can only be derived from observations in the real world. Based on this premise, Bacon emphasized knowledge acquisition as an empirical activity (rather than as a reasoning activity), and developed empiricism as an influential branch of philosophy. Bacon’s works led to the popularization of inductive methods of scientific inquiry, the development of the “scientific method” (originally called the “Baconian method”), consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation, and may have even sowed the seeds of atheism or the rejection of theological precepts as “unobservable.”
Empiricism continued to clash with rationalism throughout the Middle Ages, as philosophers sought the most effective way of gaining valid knowledge. French philosopher Rene Descartes sided with the rationalists, while British philosophers John Locke and David Hume sided with the empiricists. Other scientists, such as Galileo Galilei and Sir Issac Newton, attempted to fuse the two ideas into natural philosophy (the philosophy of nature), to focus specifically on understanding nature and the physical universe, which is considered to be the precursor of the natural sciences. Galileo (1564-1642) was perhaps the first to state that the laws of nature are mathematical, and contributed to the field of astronomy through an innovative combination of experimentation and mathematics.
In the 18 th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to resolve the dispute between empiricism and rationalism in his book Critique of Pure Reason , by arguing that experience is purely subjective and processing them using pure reason without first delving into the subjective nature of experiences will lead to theoretical illusions. Kant’s ideas led to the development of German idealism , which inspired later development of interpretive techniques such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical social theory.
At about the same time, French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857), founder of the discipline of sociology, attempted to blend rationalism and empiricism in a new doctrine called positivism . He suggested that theory and observations have circular dependence on each other. While theories may be created via reasoning, they are only authentic if they can be verified through observations. The emphasis on verification started the separation of modern science from philosophy and metaphysics and further development of the “scientific method” as the primary means of validating scientific claims. Comte’s ideas were expanded by Emile Durkheim in his development of sociological positivism (positivism as a foundation for social research) and Ludwig Wittgenstein in logical positivism.
In the early 20 th century, strong accounts of positivism were rejected by interpretive sociologists (antipositivists) belonging to the German idealism school of thought. Positivism was typically equated with quantitative research methods such as experiments and surveys and without any explicit philosophical commitments, while antipositivism employed qualitative methods such as unstructured interviews and participant observation. Even practitioners of positivism, such as American sociologist Paul Lazarsfield who pioneered large-scale survey research and statistical techniques for analyzing survey data, acknowledged potential problems of observer bias and structural limitations in positivist inquiry. In response, antipositivists emphasized that social actions must be studied though interpretive means based upon an understanding the meaning and purpose that individuals attach to their personal actions, which inspired Georg Simmel’s work on symbolic interactionism, Max Weber’s work on ideal types, and Edmund Husserl’s work on phenomenology.
In the mid-to-late 20 th century, both positivist and antipositivist schools of thought were subjected to criticisms and modifications. British philosopher Sir Karl Popper suggested that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock solid foundations, but rather on a set of tentative conjectures that can never be proven conclusively, but only disproven. Empirical evidence is the basis for disproving these conjectures or “theories.” This metatheoretical stance, called postpositivism (or postempiricism), amends positivism by suggesting that it is impossible to verify the truth although it is possible to reject false beliefs, though it retains the positivist notion of an objective truth and its emphasis on the scientific method.
Likewise, antipositivists have also been criticized for trying only to understand society but not critiquing and changing society for the better. The roots of this thought lie in Das Capital , written by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which critiqued capitalistic societies as being social inequitable and inefficient, and recommended resolving this inequity through class conflict and proletarian revolutions. Marxism inspired social revolutions in countries such as Germany, Italy, Russia, and China, but generally failed to accomplish the social equality that it aspired. Critical research (also called critical theory) propounded by Max Horkheimer and Jurgen Habermas in the 20 th century, retains similar ideas of critiquing and resolving social inequality, and adds that people can and should consciously act to change their social and economic circumstances, although their ability to do so is constrained by various forms of social, cultural and political domination. Critical research attempts to uncover and critique the restrictive and alienating conditions of the status quo by analyzing the oppositions, conflicts and contradictions in contemporary society, and seeks to eliminate the causes of alienation and domination (i.e., emancipate the oppressed class). More on these different research philosophies and approaches will be covered in future chapters of this book. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.01%3A_Chapter_1_Science_and_Scientific_Research.txt |
Conducting good research requires first retraining your brain to think like a researcher.
This requires visualizing the abstract from actual observations, mentally “connecting the dots” to identify hidden concepts and patterns, and synthesizing those patterns into generalizable laws and theories that apply to other contexts beyond the domain of the initial observations. Research involves constantly moving back and forth from an empirical plane where observations are conducted to a theoretical plane where these observations are abstracted into generalizable laws and theories. This is a skill that takes many years to develop, is not something that is taught in graduate or doctoral programs or acquired in industry training, and is by far the biggest deficit amongst Ph.D. students. Some of the mental abstractions needed to think like a researcher include unit of analysis, constructs, hypotheses, operationalization, theories, models, induction, deduction, and so forth, which we will examine in this chapter.
Unit of Analysis
One of the first decisions in any social science research is the unit of analysis of a scientific study. The unit of analysis refers to the person, collective, or object that is the target of the investigation. Typical unit of analysis include individuals, groups, organizations, countries, technologies, objects, and such. For instance, if we are interested in studying people’s shopping behavior, their learning outcomes, or their attitudes to new technologies, then the unit of analysis is the individual . If we want to study characteristics of street gangs or teamwork in organizations, then the unit of analysis is the group . If the goal of research is to understand how firms can improve profitability or make good executive decisions, then the unit of analysis is the firm . In this case, even though decisions are made by individuals in these firms, these individuals are presumed to represent their firm’s decision rather than their personal decisions. If research is directed at understanding differences in national cultures, then the unit of analysis becomes a country . Even inanimate objects can serve as units of analysis. For instance, if a researcher is interested in understanding how to make web pages more attractive to its users, then the unit of analysis is a web page (and not users). If we wish to study how knowledge transfer occurs between two firms, then our unit of analysis becomes the dyad (the combination of firms that is sending and receiving knowledge).
Understanding the units of analysis can sometimes be fairly complex. For instance, if we wish to study why certain neighborhoods have high crime rates, then our unit of analysis becomes the neighborhood , and not crimes or criminals committing such crimes. This is because the object of our inquiry is the neighborhood and not criminals. However, if we wish to compare different types of crimes in different neighborhoods, such as homicide, robbery, assault, and so forth, our unit of analysis becomes the crime . If we wish to study why criminals engage in illegal activities, then the unit of analysis becomes the individual (i.e., the criminal). Like, if we want to study why some innovations are more successful than others, then our unit of analysis is an innovation . However, if we wish to study how some organizations innovate more consistently than others, then the unit of analysis is the organization . Hence, two related research questions within the same research study may have two entirely different units of analysis.
Understanding the unit of analysis is important because it shapes what type of data you should collect for your study and who you collect it from. If your unit of analysis is a web page, you should be collecting data about web pages from actual web pages, and not surveying people about how they use web pages. If your unit of analysis is the organization, then you should be measuring organizational-level variables such as organizational size, revenues, hierarchy, or absorptive capacity. This data may come from a variety of sources such as financial records or surveys of Chief Executive Officers (CEO), who are presumed to be representing their organization (rather than themselves). Some variables such as CEO pay may seem like individual level variables, but in fact, it can also be an organizational level variable because each organization has only one CEO pay at any time. Sometimes, it is possible to collect data from a lower level of analysis and aggregate that data to a higher level of analysis. For instance, in order to study teamwork in organizations, you can survey individual team members in different organizational teams, and average their individual scores to create a composite team-level score for team-level variables like cohesion and conflict. We will examine the notion of “variables” in greater depth in the next section.
Concepts, Constructs, and Variables
We discussed in Chapter 1 that although research can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory, most scientific research tend to be of the explanatory type in that they search for potential explanations of observed natural or social phenomena. Explanations require development of concepts or generalizable properties or characteristics associated with objects, events, or people. While objects such as a person, a firm, or a car are not concepts, their specific characteristics or behavior such as a person’s attitude toward immigrants, a firm’s capacity for innovation, and a car’s weight can be viewed as concepts.
Knowingly or unknowingly, we use different kinds of concepts in our everyday conversations. Some of these concepts have been developed over time through our shared language. Sometimes, we borrow concepts from other disciplines or languages to explain a phenomenon of interest. For instance, the idea of gravitation borrowed from physics can be used in business to describe why people tend to “gravitate” to their preferred shopping destinations. Likewise, the concept of distance can be used to explain the degree of social separation between two otherwise collocated individuals. Sometimes, we create our own concepts to describe a unique characteristic not described in prior research. For instance, technostress is a new concept referring to the mental stress one may face when asked to learn a new technology.
Concepts may also have progressive levels of abstraction. Some concepts such as a person’s weight are precise and objective, while other concepts such as a person’s personality may be more abstract and difficult to visualize. A construct is an abstract concept that is specifically chosen (or “created”) to explain a given phenomenon. A construct may be a simple concept, such as a person’s weight , or a combination of a set of related concepts such as a person’s communication skill , which may consist of several underlying concepts such as the person’s vocabulary, syntax , and spelling . The former instance (weight) is a unidimensional construct , while the latter (communication skill) is a multi-dimensional construct (i.e., it consists of multiple underlying concepts). The distinction between constructs and concepts are clearer in multi-dimensional constructs, where the higher order abstraction is called a construct and the lower order abstractions are called concepts. However, this distinction tends to blur in the case of unidimensional constructs.
Constructs used for scientific research must have precise and clear definitions that others can use to understand exactly what it means and what it does not mean. For instance, a seemingly simple construct such as income may refer to monthly or annual income, before-tax or after-tax income, and personal or family income, and is therefore neither precise nor clear. There are two types of definitions: dictionary definitions and operational definitions. In the more familiar dictionary definition, a construct is often defined in terms of a synonym. For instance, attitude may be defined as a disposition, a feeling, or an affect, and affect in turn is defined as an attitude. Such definitions of a circular nature are not particularly useful in scientific research for elaborating the meaning and content of that construct. Scientific research requires operational definitions that define constructs in terms of how they will be empirically measured. For instance, the operational definition of a construct such as temperature must specify whether we plan to measure temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin scale. A construct such as income should be defined in terms of whether we are interested in monthly or annual income, before-tax or after-tax income, and personal or family income. One can imagine that constructs such as learning , personality , and intelligence can be quite hard to define operationally.
A term frequently associated with, and sometimes used interchangeably with, a construct is a variable. Etymologically speaking, a variable is a quantity that can vary (e.g., from low to high, negative to positive, etc.), in contrast to constants that do not vary (i.e., remain constant). However, in scientific research, a variable is a measurable representation of an abstract construct. As abstract entities, constructs are not directly measurable, and hence, we look for proxy measures called variables. For instance, a person’s intelligence is often measured as his or her IQ (intelligence quotient) score , which is an index generated from an analytical and pattern-matching test administered to people. In this case, intelligence is a construct, and IQ score is a variable that measures the intelligence construct. Whether IQ scores truly measures one’s intelligence is anyone’s guess (though many believe that they do), and depending on whether how well it measures intelligence, the IQ score may be a good or a poor measure of the intelligence construct. As shown in Figure 2.1, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualized at the theoretical (abstract) plane, while variables are operationalized and measured at the empirical (observational) plane. Thinking like a researcher implies the ability to move back and forth between these two planes.
Depending on their intended use, variables may be classified as independent, dependent, moderating, mediating, or control variables. Variables that explain other variables are called independent variables , those that are explained by other variables are dependent variables , those that are explained by independent variables while also explaining dependent variables are mediating variables (or intermediate variables), and those that influence the relationship between independent and dependent variables are called moderating variables . As an example, if we state that higher intelligence causes improved learning among students, then intelligence is an independent variable and learning is a dependent variable. There may be other extraneous variables that are not pertinent to explaining a given dependent variable, but may have some impact on the dependent variable. These variables must be controlled for in a scientific study, and are therefore called control variables .
To understand the differences between these different variable types, consider the example shown in Figure 2.2. If we believe that intelligence influences (or explains) students’ academic achievement, then a measure of intelligence such as an IQ score is an independent variable, while a measure of academic success such as grade point average is a dependent variable. If we believe that the effect of intelligence on academic achievement also depends on the effort invested by the student in the learning process (i.e., between two equally intelligent students, the student who puts is more effort achieves higher academic achievement than one who puts in less effort), then effort becomes a moderating variable. Incidentally, one may also view effort as an independent variable and intelligence as a moderating variable. If academic achievement is viewed as an intermediate step to higher earning potential, then earning potential becomes the dependent variable for the independent variable academic achievement , and academic achievement becomes the mediating variable in the relationship between intelligence and earning potential. Hence, variable are defined as an independent, dependent, moderating, or mediating variable based on their nature of association with each other. The overall network of relationships between a set of related constructs is called a nomological network (see Figure 2.2). Thinking like a researcher requires not only being able to abstract constructs from observations, but also being able to mentally visualize a nomological network linking these abstract constructs.
Propositions and Hypotheses
Figure 2.2 shows how theoretical constructs such as intelligence, effort, academic achievement, and earning potential are related to each other in a nomological network. Each of these relationships is called a proposition. In seeking explanations to a given phenomenon or behavior, it is not adequate just to identify key concepts and constructs underlying the target phenomenon or behavior. We must also identify and state patterns of relationships between these constructs. Such patterns of relationships are called propositions. A proposition is a tentative and conjectural relationship between constructs that is stated in a declarative form. An example of a proposition is: “An increase in student intelligence causes an increase in their academic achievement.” This declarative statement does not have to be true, but must be empirically testable using data, so that we can judge whether it is true or false. Propositions are generally derived based on logic (deduction) or empirical observations (induction).
Because propositions are associations between abstract constructs, they cannot be tested directly. Instead, they are tested indirectly by examining the relationship between corresponding measures (variables) of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses (see Figure 2.1). Since IQ scores and grade point average are operational measures of intelligence and academic achievement respectively, the above proposition can be specified in form of the hypothesis: “An increase in students’ IQ score causes an increase in their grade point average.” Propositions are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence, hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data, and may be rejected if not supported by empirical observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is valid.
Hypotheses can be strong or weak. “Students’ IQ scores are related to their academic achievement” is an example of a weak hypothesis, since it indicates neither the directionality of the hypothesis (i.e., whether the relationship is positive or negative), nor its causality (i.e., whether intelligence causes academic achievement or academic achievement causes intelligence). A stronger hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores are positively related to their academic achievement”, which indicates the directionality but not the causality. A still better hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement”, which specifies both the directionality and the causality (i.e., intelligence causes academic achievement, and not the reverse). The signs in Figure 2.2 indicate the directionality of the respective hypotheses.
Also note that scientific hypotheses should clearly specify independent and dependent variables. In the hypothesis, “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement,” it is clear that intelligence is the independent variable (the “cause”) and academic achievement is the dependent variable (the “effect”). Further, it is also clear that this hypothesis can be evaluated as either true (if higher intelligence leads to higher academic achievement) or false (if higher intelligence has no effect on or leads to lower academic achievement). Later on in this book, we will examine how to empirically test such cause-effect relationships. Statements such as “students are generally intelligent” or “all students can achieve academic success” are not scientific hypotheses because they do not specify independent and dependent variables, nor do they specify a directional relationship that can be evaluated as true or false.
Theories and Models
A theory is a set of systematically interrelated constructs and propositions intended to explain and predict a phenomenon or behavior of interest, within certain boundary conditions and assumptions. Essentially, a theory is a systemic collection of related theoretical propositions. While propositions generally connect two or three constructs, theories represent a system of multiple constructs and propositions. Hence, theories can be substantially more complex and abstract and of a larger scope than propositions or hypotheses.
I must note here that people not familiar with scientific research often view a theory as a speculation or the opposite of fact . For instance, people often say that teachers need to be less theoretical and more practical or factual in their classroom teaching. However, practice or fact are not opposites of theory, but in a scientific sense, are essential components needed to test the validity of a theory. A good scientific theory should be well supported using observed facts and should also have practical value, while a poorly defined theory tends to be lacking in these dimensions. Famous organizational research Kurt Lewin once said, “Theory without practice is sterile; practice without theory is blind.” Hence, both theory and facts (or practice) are essential for scientific research.
Theories provide explanations of social or natural phenomenon. As emphasized in Chapter 1, these explanations may be good or poor. Hence, there may be good or poor theories. Chapter 3 describes some criteria that can be used to evaluate how good a theory really is. Nevertheless, it is important for researchers to understand that theory is not “truth,” there is nothing sacrosanct about any theory, and theories should not be accepted just because they were proposed by someone. In the course of scientific progress, poorer theories are eventually replaced by better theories with higher explanatory power. The essential challenge for researchers is to build better and more comprehensive theories that can explain a target phenomenon better than prior theories.
A term often used in conjunction with theory is a model. A model is a representation of all or part of a system that is constructed to study that system (e.g., how the system works or what triggers the system). While a theory tries to explain a phenomenon, a model tries to represent a phenomenon. Models are often used by decision makers to make important decisions based on a given set of inputs. For instance, marketing managers may use models to decide how much money to spend on advertising for different product lines based on parameters such as prior year’s advertising expenses, sales , market growth, and competing products. Likewise, weather forecasters can use models to predict future weather patterns based on parameters such as wind speeds, wind direction, temperature, and humidity. While these models are useful, they may not necessarily explain advertising expenditure or weather forecasts. Models may be of different kinds, such as mathematical models, network models, and path models. Models can also be descriptive, predictive, or normative. Descriptive models are frequently used for representing complex systems, for visualizing variables and relationships in such systems. An advertising expenditure model may be a descriptive model. Predictive models (e.g., a regression model) allow forecast of future events. Weather forecasting models are predictive models. Normative models are used to guide our activities along commonly accepted norms or practices. Models may also be static if it represents the state of a system at one point in time, or dynamic, if it represents a system’s evolution over time.
The process of theory or model development may involve inductive and deductive reasoning. Recall from Chapter 1 that deduction is the process of drawing conclusions about a phenomenon or behavior based on theoretical or logical reasons and an initial set of premises. As an example, if a certain bank enforces a strict code of ethics for its employees (Premise 1) and Jamie is an employee at that bank (Premise 2), then Jamie can be trusted to follow ethical practices (Conclusion). In deduction, the conclusions must be true if the initial premises and reasons are correct.
In contrast, induction is the process of drawing conclusions based on facts or observed evidence. For instance, if a firm spent a lot of money on a promotional campaign (Observation 1), but the sales did not increase (Observation 2), then possibly the promotion campaign was poorly executed (Conclusion). However, there may be rival explanations for poor sales, such as economic recession or the emergence of a competing product or brand or perhaps a supply chain problem. Inductive conclusions are therefore only a hypothesis, and may be disproven. Deductive conclusions generally tend to be stronger than inductive conclusions, but a deductive conclusion based on an incorrect premise is also incorrect.
As shown in Figure 2.3, inductive and deductive reasoning go hand in hand in theory and model building. Induction occurs when we observe a fact and ask, “Why is this happening?”
In answering this question, we advance one or more tentative explanations (hypotheses). We then use deduction to narrow down the tentative explanations to the most plausible explanation based on logic and reasonable premises (based on our understanding of the phenomenon under study). Researchers must be able to move back and forth between inductive and deductive reasoning if they are to post extensions or modifications to a given model or theory, or built better ones, which are the essence of scientific research. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.02%3A_Chapter_2_Thinking_Like_a_Researcher.txt |
In Chapter 1, we saw that scientific research is the process of acquiring scientific knowledge using the scientific method. But how is such research conducted? This chapter delves into the process of scientific research, and the assumptions and outcomes of the research process.
Paradigms of Social Research
Our design and conduct of research is shaped by our mental models or frames of references that we use to organize our reasoning and observations. These mental models or frames (belief systems) are called paradigms. The word “paradigm” was popularized by
Thomas Kuhn (1962) in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he examined the history of the natural sciences to identify patterns of activities that shape the progress of science. Similar ideas are applicable to social sciences as well, where a social reality can be viewed by different people in different ways, which may constrain their thinking and reasoning about the observed phenomenon. For instance, conservatives and liberals tend to have very different perceptions of the role of government in people’s lives, and hence, have different opinions on how to solve social problems. Conservatives may believe that lowering taxes is the best way to stimulate a stagnant economy because it increases people’s disposable income and spending, which in turn expands business output and employment. In contrast, liberals may believe that governments should invest more directly in job creation programs such as public works and infrastructure projects, which will increase employment and people’s ability to consume and drive the economy. Likewise, Western societies place greater emphasis on individual rights, such as one’s right to privacy, right of free speech, and right to bear arms. In contrast, Asian societies tend to balance the rights of individuals against the rights of families, organizations, and the government, and therefore tend to be more communal and less individualistic in their policies. Such differences in perspective often lead Westerners to criticize Asian governments for being autocratic, while Asians criticize Western societies for being greedy, having high crime rates, and creating a “cult of the individual.” Our personal paradigms are like “colored glasses” that govern how we view the world and how we structure our thoughts about what we see in the world.
Paradigms are often hard to recognize, because they are implicit, assumed, and taken for granted. However, recognizing these paradigms is key to making sense of and reconciling differences in people’ perceptions of the same social phenomenon. For instance, why do liberals believe that the best way to improve secondary education is to hire more teachers, but conservatives believe that privatizing education (using such means as school vouchers) are more effective in achieving the same goal? Because conservatives place more faith in competitive markets (i.e., in free competition between schools competing for education dollars), while liberals believe more in labor (i.e., in having more teachers and schools). Likewise, in social science research, if one were to understand why a certain technology was successfully implemented in one organization but failed miserably in another, a researcher looking at the world through a “rational lens” will look for rational explanations of the problem such as inadequate technology or poor fit between technology and the task context where it is being utilized, while another research looking at the same problem through a “social lens” may seek out social deficiencies such as inadequate user training or lack of management support, while those seeing it through a “political lens” will look for instances of organizational politics that may subvert the technology implementation process. Hence, subconscious paradigms often constrain the concepts that researchers attempt to measure, their observations, and their subsequent interpretations of a phenomenon. However, given the complex nature of social phenomenon, it is possible that all of the above paradigms are partially correct, and that a fuller understanding of the problem may require an understanding and application of multiple paradigms.
Two popular paradigms today among social science researchers are positivism and post-positivism. Positivism , based on the works of French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), was the dominant scientific paradigm until the mid-20 th century. It holds that science or knowledge creation should be restricted to what can be observed and measured. Positivism tends to rely exclusively on theories that can be directly tested. Though positivism was originally an attempt to separate scientific inquiry from religion (where the precepts could not be objectively observed), positivism led to empiricism or a blind faith in observed data and a rejection of any attempt to extend or reason beyond observable facts. Since human thoughts and emotions could not be directly measured, there were not considered to be legitimate topics for scientific research. Frustrations with the strictly empirical nature of positivist philosophy led to the development of post-positivism (or postmodernism) during the mid-late 20 th century. Post-positivism argues that one can make reasonable inferences about a phenomenon by combining empirical observations with logical reasoning. Post-positivists view science as not certain but probabilistic (i.e., based on many contingencies), and often seek to explore these contingencies to understand social reality better. The post -positivist camp has further fragmented into subjectivists , who view the world as a subjective construction of our subjective minds rather than as an objective reality, and critical realists , who believe that there is an external reality that is independent of a person’s thinking but we can never know such reality with any degree of certainty.
Burrell and Morgan (1979), in their seminal book Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, suggested that the way social science researchers view and study social phenomena is shaped by two fundamental sets of philosophical assumptions: ontology and epistemology. Ontology refers to our assumptions about how we see the world, e.g., does the world consist mostly of social order or constant change. Epistemology refers to our assumptions about the best way to study the world, e.g., should we use an objective or subjective approach to study social reality. Using these two sets of assumptions, we can categorize social science research as belonging to one of four categories (see Figure 3.1).
If researchers view the world as consisting mostly of social order (ontology) and hence seek to study patterns of ordered events or behaviors, and believe that the best way to study such a world is using objective approach (epistemology) that is independent of the person conducting the observation or interpretation, such as by using standardized data collection tools like surveys, then they are adopting a paradigm of functionalism . However, if they believe that the best way to study social order is though the subjective interpretation of participants involved, such as by interviewing different participants and reconciling differences among their responses using their own subjective perspectives, then they are employing an interpretivism paradigm. If researchers believe that the world consists of radical change and seek to understand or enact change using an objectivist approach, then they are employing a radical structuralism paradigm. If they wish to understand social change using the subjective perspectives of the participants involved, then they are following a radical humanism paradigm.
To date, the majority of social science research has emulated the natural sciences, and followed the functionalist paradigm. Functionalists believe that social order or patterns can be understood in terms of their functional components, and therefore attempt to break down a problem into small components and studying one or more components in detail using objectivist techniques such as surveys and experimental research. However, with the emergence of post-positivist thinking, a small but growing number of social science researchers are attempting to understand social order using subjectivist techniques such as interviews and ethnographic studies. Radical humanism and radical structuralism continues to represent a negligible proportion of social science research, because scientists are primarily concerned with understanding generalizable patterns of behavior, events, or phenomena, rather than idiosyncratic or changing events. Nevertheless, if you wish to study social change, such as why democratic movements are increasingly emerging in Middle Eastern countries, or why this movement was successful in Tunisia, took a longer path to success in Libya, and is still not successful in Syria, then perhaps radical humanism is the right approach for such a study. Social and organizational phenomena generally consists elements of both order and change. For instance, organizational success depends on formalized business processes, work procedures, and job responsibilities, while being simultaneously constrained by a constantly changing mix of competitors, competing products, suppliers, and customer base in the business environment. Hence, a holistic and more complete understanding of social phenomena such as why are some organizations more successful than others, require an appreciation and application of a multi-paradigmatic approach to research.
Overview of the Research Process
So how do our mental paradigms shape social science research? At its core, all scientific research is an iterative process of observation, rationalization, and validation. In the observation phase, we observe a natural or social phenomenon, event, or behavior that interests us. In the rationalization phase, we try to make sense of or the observed phenomenon, event, or behavior by logically connecting the different pieces of the puzzle that we observe, which in some cases, may lead to the construction of a theory. Finally, in the validation phase, we test our theories using a scientific method through a process of data collection and analysis, and in doing so, possibly modify or extend our initial theory. However, research designs vary based on whether the researcher starts at observation and attempts to rationalize the observations (inductive research), or whether the researcher starts at an ex ante rationalization or a theory and attempts to validate the theory (deductive research). Hence, the observation-rationalization-validation cycle is very similar to the induction-deduction cycle of research discussed in Chapter 1.
Most traditional research tends to be deductive and functionalistic in nature. Figure 3.2 provides a schematic view of such a research project. This figure depicts a series of activities to be performed in functionalist research, categorized into three phases: exploration, research design, and research execution. Note that this generalized design is not a roadmap or flowchart for all research. It applies only to functionalistic research, and it can and should be modified to fit the needs of a specific project.
The first phase of research is exploration . This phase includes exploring and selecting research questions for further investigation, examining the published literature in the area of inquiry to understand the current state of knowledge in that area, and identifying theories that may help answer the research questions of interest.
The first step in the exploration phase is identifying one or more research questions dealing with a specific behavior, event, or phenomena of interest. Research questions are specific questions about a behavior, event, or phenomena of interest that you wish to seek answers for in your research. Examples include what factors motivate consumers to purchase goods and services online without knowing the vendors of these goods or services, how can we make high school students more creative, and why do some people commit terrorist acts. Research questions can delve into issues of what, why, how, when, and so forth. More interesting research questions are those that appeal to a broader population (e.g., “how can firms innovate” is a more interesting research question than “how can Chinese firms innovate in the service-sector”), address real and complex problems (in contrast to hypothetical or “toy” problems), and where the answers are not obvious. Narrowly focused research questions (often with a binary yes/no answer) tend to be less useful and less interesting and less suited to capturing the subtle nuances of social phenomena. Uninteresting research questions generally lead to uninteresting and unpublishable research findings.
The next step is to conduct a literature review of the domain of interest. The purpose of a literature review is three-fold: (1) to survey the current state of knowledge in the area of inquiry, (2) to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and (3) to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area. Literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases. Keywords can be combined using “and” and “or” operations to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a shortlist of relevant articles is generated from the keyword search, the researcher must then manually browse through each article, or at least its abstract section, to determine the suitability of that article for a detailed review. Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix. A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature (which would obviate the need to study them again), whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review. The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions.
Since functionalist (deductive) research involves theory-testing, the third step is to identify one or more theories can help address the desired research questions. While the literature review may uncover a wide range of concepts or constructs potentially related to the phenomenon of interest, a theory will help identify which of these constructs is logically relevant to the target phenomenon and how. Forgoing theories may result in measuring a wide range of less relevant, marginally relevant, or irrelevant constructs, while also minimizing the chances of obtaining results that are meaningful and not by pure chance. In functionalist research, theories can be used as the logical basis for postulating hypotheses for empirical testing. Obviously, not all theories are well-suited for studying all social phenomena. Theories must be carefully selected based on their fit with the target problem and the extent to which their assumptions are consistent with that of the target problem. We will examine theories and the process of theorizing in detail in the next chapter.
The next phase in the research process is research design . This process is concerned with creating a blueprint of the activities to take in order to satisfactorily answer the research questions identified in the exploration phase. This includes selecting a research method, operationalizing constructs of interest, and devising an appropriate sampling strategy.
Operationalization is the process of designing precise measures for abstract theoretical constructs. This is a major problem in social science research, given that many of the constructs, such as prejudice, alienation, and liberalism are hard to define, let alone measure accurately. Operationalization starts with specifying an “operational definition” (or “conceptualization”) of the constructs of interest. Next, the researcher can search the literature to see if there are existing prevalidated measures matching their operational definition that can be used directly or modified to measure their constructs of interest. If such measures are not available or if existing measures are poor or reflect a different conceptualization than that intended by the researcher, new instruments may have to be designed for measuring those constructs. This means specifying exactly how exactly the desired construct will be measured (e.g., how many items, what items, and so forth). This can easily be a long and laborious process, with multiple rounds of pretests and modifications before the newly designed instrument can be accepted as “scientifically valid.” We will discuss operationalization of constructs in a future chapter on measurement.
Simultaneously with operationalization, the researcher must also decide what research method they wish to employ for collecting data to address their research questions of interest. Such methods may include quantitative methods such as experiments or survey research or qualitative methods such as case research or action research, or possibly a combination of both. If an experiment is desired, then what is the experimental design? If survey, do you plan a mail survey, telephone survey, web survey, or a combination? For complex, uncertain, and multi-faceted social phenomena, multi-method approaches may be more suitable, which may help leverage the unique strengths of each research method and generate insights that may not be obtained using a single method.
Researchers must also carefully choose the target population from which they wish to collect data, and a sampling strategy to select a sample from that population. For instance, should they survey individuals or firms or workgroups within firms? What types of individuals or firms they wish to target? Sampling strategy is closely related to the unit of analysis in a research problem. While selecting a sample, reasonable care should be taken to avoid a biased sample (e.g., sample based on convenience) that may generate biased observations. Sampling is covered in depth in a later chapter.
At this stage, it is often a good idea to write a research proposal detailing all of the decisions made in the preceding stages of the research process and the rationale behind each decision. This multi-part proposal should address what research questions you wish to study and why, the prior state of knowledge in this area, theories you wish to employ along with hypotheses to be tested, how to measure constructs, what research method to be employed and why, and desired sampling strategy. Funding agencies typically require such a proposal in order to select the best proposals for funding. Even if funding is not sought for a research project, a proposal may serve as a useful vehicle for seeking feedback from other researchers and identifying potential problems with the research project (e.g., whether some important constructs were missing from the study) before starting data collection. This initial feedback is invaluable because it is often too late to correct critical problems after data is collected in a research study.
Having decided who to study (subjects), what to measure (concepts), and how to collect data (research method), the researcher is now ready to proceed to the research execution phase. This includes pilot testing the measurement instruments, data collection, and data analysis.
Pilot testing is an often overlooked but extremely important part of the research process. It helps detect potential problems in your research design and/or instrumentation (e.g., whether the questions asked is intelligible to the targeted sample), and to ensure that the measurement instruments used in the study are reliable and valid measures of the constructs of interest. The pilot sample is usually a small subset of the target population. After a successful pilot testing, the researcher may then proceed with data collection using the sampled population. The data collected may be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the research method employed.
Following data collection, the data is analyzed and interpreted for the purpose of drawing conclusions regarding the research questions of interest. Depending on the type of data collected (quantitative or qualitative), data analysis may be quantitative (e.g., employ statistical techniques such as regression or structural equation modeling) or qualitative (e.g., coding or content analysis).
The final phase of research involves preparing the final research report documenting the entire research process and its findings in the form of a research paper, dissertation, or monograph. This report should outline in detail all the choices made during the research process (e.g., theory used, constructs selected, measures used, research methods, sampling, etc.) and why, as well as the outcomes of each phase of the research process. The research process must be described in sufficient detail so as to allow other researchers to replicate your study, test the findings, or assess whether the inferences derived are scientifically acceptable. Of course, having a ready research proposal will greatly simplify and quicken the process of writing the finished report. Note that research is of no value unless the research process and outcomes are documented for future generations; such documentation is essential for the incremental progress of science.
Common Mistakes in Research
The research process is fraught with problems and pitfalls, and novice researchers often find, after investing substantial amounts of time and effort into a research project, that their research questions were not sufficiently answered, or that the findings were not interesting enough, or that the research was not of “acceptable” scientific quality. Such problems typically result in research papers being rejected by journals. Some of the more frequent mistakes are described below.
Insufficiently motivated research questions. Often times, we choose our “pet” problems that are interesting to us but not to the scientific community at large, i.e., it does not generate new knowledge or insight about the phenomenon being investigated. Because the research process involves a significant investment of time and effort on the researcher’s part, the researcher must be certain (and be able to convince others) that the research questions they seek to answer in fact deal with real problems (and not hypothetical problems) that affect a substantial portion of a population and has not been adequately addressed in prior research.
Pursuing research fads. Another common mistake is pursuing “popular” topics with limited shelf life. A typical example is studying technologies or practices that are popular today. Because research takes several years to complete and publish, it is possible that popular interest in these fads may die down by the time the research is completed and submitted for publication. A better strategy may be to study “timeless” topics that have always persisted through the years.
Unresearchable problems. Some research problems may not be answered adequately based on observed evidence alone, or using currently accepted methods and procedures. Such problems are best avoided. However, some unresearchable, ambiguously defined problems may be modified or fine tuned into well-defined and useful researchable problems.
Favored research methods. Many researchers have a tendency to recast a research problem so that it is amenable to their favorite research method (e.g., survey research). This is an unfortunate trend. Research methods should be chosen to best fit a research problem, and not the other way around.
Blind data mining. Some researchers have the tendency to collect data first (using instruments that are already available), and then figure out what to do with it. Note that data collection is only one step in a long and elaborate process of planning, designing, and executing research. In fact, a series of other activities are needed in a research process prior to data collection. If researchers jump into data collection without such elaborate planning, the data collected will likely be irrelevant, imperfect, or useless, and their data collection efforts may be entirely wasted. An abundance of data cannot make up for deficits in research planning and design, and particularly, for the lack of interesting research questions. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.03%3A_Chapter_3_The_Research_Process.txt |
As we know from previous chapters, science is knowledge represented as a collection of “theories” derived using the scientific method. In this chapter, we will examine what is a theory, why do we need theories in research, what are the building blocks of a theory, how to evaluate theories, how can we apply theories in research, and also presents illustrative examples of five theories frequently used in social science research.
Theories
Theories are explanations of a natural or social behavior, event, or phenomenon. More formally, a scientific theory is a system of constructs (concepts) and propositions (relationships between those constructs) that collectively presents a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumptions and boundary conditions (Bacharach 1989). [1]
Theories should explain why things happen, rather than just describe or predict. Note that it is possible to predict events or behaviors using a set of predictors, without necessarily explaining why such events are taking place. For instance, market analysts predict fluctuations in the stock market based on market announcements, earnings reports of major companies, and new data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, based on previously observed correlations . Prediction requires only correlations. In contrast, explanations require causations , or understanding of cause-effect relationships. Establishing causation requires three conditions: (1) correlations between two constructs, (2) temporal precedence (the cause must precede the effect in time), and (3) rejection of alternative hypotheses (through testing). Scientific theories are different from theological, philosophical, or other explanations in that scientific theories can be empirically tested using scientific methods.
Explanations can be idiographic or nomothetic. Idiographic explanations are those that explain a single situation or event in idiosyncratic detail. For example, you did poorly on an exam because: (1) you forgot that you had an exam on that day, (2) you arrived late to the exam due to a traffic jam, (3) you panicked midway through the exam, (4) you had to work late the previous evening and could not study for the exam, or even (5) your dog ate your text book. The explanations may be detailed, accurate, and valid, but they may not apply to other similar situations, even involving the same person, and are hence not generalizable. In contrast, nomothetic explanations seek to explain a class of situations or events rather than a specific situation or event. For example, students who do poorly in exams do so because they did not spend adequate time preparing for exams or that they suffer from nervousness, attention-deficit, or some other medical disorder. Because nomothetic explanations are designed to be generalizable across situations, events, or people, they tend to be less precise, less complete, and less detailed. However, they explain economically, using only a few explanatory variables. Because theories are also intended to serve as generalized explanations for patterns of events, behaviors, or phenomena, theoretical explanations are generally nomothetic in nature.
While understanding theories, it is also important to understand what theory is not. Theory is not data, facts, typologies, taxonomies, or empirical findings. A collection of facts is not a theory, just as a pile of stones is not a house. Likewise, a collection of constructs (e.g., a typology of constructs) is not a theory, because theories must go well beyond constructs to include propositions, explanations, and boundary conditions. Data, facts, and findings operate at the empirical or observational level, while theories operate at a conceptual level and are based on logic rather than observations.
There are many benefits to using theories in research. First, theories provide the underlying logic of the occurrence of natural or social phenomenon by explaining what are the key drivers and key outcomes of the target phenomenon and why, and what underlying processes are responsible driving that phenomenon. Second, they aid in sense-making by helping us synthesize prior empirical findings within a theoretical framework and reconcile contradictory findings by discovering contingent factors influencing the relationship between two constructs in different studies. Third, theories provide guidance for future research by helping identify constructs and relationships that are worthy of further research. Fourth, theories can contribute to cumulative knowledge building by bridging gaps between other theories and by causing existing theories to be reevaluated in a new light.
However, theories can also have their own share of limitations. As simplified explanations of reality, theories may not always provide adequate explanations of the phenomenon of interest based on a limited set of constructs and relationships. Theories are designed to be simple and parsimonious explanations, while reality may be significantly more complex. Furthermore, theories may impose blinders or limit researchers’ “range of vision,” causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined by the theory.
Building Blocks of a Theory
David Whetten (1989) suggests that there are four building blocks of a theory: constructs, propositions, logic, and boundary conditions/assumptions. Constructs capture the “what” of theories (i.e., what concepts are important for explaining a phenomenon), propositions capture the “how” (i.e., how are these concepts related to each other), logic represents the “why” (i.e., why are these concepts related), and boundary conditions/assumptions examines the “who, when, and where” (i.e., under what circumstances will these concepts and relationships work). Though constructs and propositions were previously discussed in Chapter 2, we describe them again here for the sake of completeness.
Constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of abstraction that are chosen specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest. Recall from Chapter 2 that constructs may be unidimensional (i.e., embody a single concept), such as weight or age, or multi-dimensional (i.e., embody multiple underlying concepts), such as personality or culture. While some constructs, such as age, education, and firm size, are easy to understand, others, such as creativity, prejudice, and organizational agility, may be more complex and abstruse, and still others such as trust, attitude, and learning, may represent temporal tendencies rather than steady states. Nevertheless, all constructs must have clear and unambiguous operational definition that should specify exactly how the construct will be measured and at what level of analysis (individual, group, organizational, etc.). Measurable representations of abstract constructs are called variables . For instance, intelligence quotient (IQ score) is a variable that is purported to measure an abstract construct called intelligence. As noted earlier, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualized at the theoretical plane, while variables are operationalized and measured at the empirical (observational) plane. Furthermore, variables may be independent, dependent, mediating, or moderating, as discussed in Chapter 2. The distinction between constructs (conceptualized at the theoretical level) and variables (measured at the empirical level) is shown in Figure 4.1.
Propositions are associations postulated between constructs based on deductive logic. Propositions are stated in declarative form and should ideally indicate a cause-effect relationship (e.g., if X occurs, then Y will follow). Note that propositions may be conjectural but MUST be testable, and should be rejected if they are not supported by empirical observations. However, like constructs, propositions are stated at the theoretical level, and they can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationship between measurable variables of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses . The distinction between propositions (formulated at the theoretical level) and hypotheses (tested at the empirical level) is depicted in Figure 4.1.
The third building block of a theory is the logic that provides the basis for justifying the propositions as postulated. Logic acts like a “glue” that connects the theoretical constructs and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs. Logic also represents the “explanation” that lies at the core of a theory. Without logic, propositions will be ad hoc, arbitrary, and meaningless, and cannot be tied into a cohesive “system of propositions” that is the heart of any theory.
Finally, all theories are constrained by assumptions about values, time, and space, and boundary conditions that govern where the theory can be applied and where it cannot be applied. For example, many economic theories assume that human beings are rational (or boundedly rational) and employ utility maximization based on cost and benefit expectations as a way of understand human behavior. In contrast, political science theories assume that people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or personal environment in a way that maximizes their power and control over others. Given the nature of their underlying assumptions, economic and political theories are not directly comparable, and researchers should not use economic theories if their objective is to understand the power structure or its evolution in a organization. Likewise, theories may have implicit cultural assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to individualistic or collective cultures), temporal assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to early stages or later stages of human behavior), and spatial assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to certain localities but not to others). If a theory is to be properly used or tested, all of its implicit assumptions that form the boundaries of that theory must be properly understood. Unfortunately, theorists rarely state their implicit assumptions clearly, which leads to frequent misapplications of theories to problem situations in research.
Attributes of a Good Theory
Theories are simplified and often partial explanations of complex social reality. As such, there can be good explanations or poor explanations, and consequently, there can be good theories or poor theories. How can we evaluate the “goodness” of a given theory? Different criteria have been proposed by different researchers, the more important of which are listed below:
• Logical consistency: Are the theoretical constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, and assumptions logically consistent with each other? If some of these “building blocks” of a theory are inconsistent with each other (e.g., a theory assumes rationality, but some constructs represent non-rational concepts), then the theory is a poor theory.
• Explanatory power: How much does a given theory explain (or predict) reality? Good theories obviously explain the target phenomenon better than rival theories, as often measured by variance explained (R-square) value in regression equations.
• Falsifiability: British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the 1940’s that for theories to be valid, they must be falsifiable. Falsifiability ensures that the theory is potentially disprovable, if empirical data does not match with theoretical propositions, which allows for their empirical testing by researchers. In other words, theories cannot be theories unless they can be empirically testable. Tautological statements, such as “a day with high temperatures is a hot day” are not empirically testable because a hot day is defined (and measured) as a day with high temperatures, and hence, such statements cannot be viewed as a theoretical proposition. Falsifiability requires presence of rival explanations it ensures that the constructs are adequately measurable, and so forth. However, note that saying that a theory is falsifiable is not the same as saying that a theory should be falsified. If a theory is indeed falsified based on empirical evidence, then it was probably a poor theory to begin with!
• Parsimony: Parsimony examines how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few variables. The concept is attributed to 14 th century English logician Father William of Ockham (and hence called “Ockham’s razor” or “Occam’s razor), which states that among competing explanations that sufficiently explain the observed evidence, the simplest theory (i.e., one that uses the smallest number of variables or makes the fewest assumptions) is the best. Explanation of a complex social phenomenon can always be increased by adding more and more constructs. However, such approach defeats the purpose of having a theory, which are intended to be “simplified” and generalizable explanations of reality. Parsimony relates to the degrees of freedom in a given theory. Parsimonious theories have higher degrees of freedom, which allow them to be more easily generalized to other contexts, settings, and populations.
Approaches to Theorizing
How do researchers build theories? Steinfeld and Fulk (1990) [2] recommend four such approaches. The first approach is to build theories inductively based on observed patterns of events or behaviors. Such approach is often called “grounded theory building”, because the theory is grounded in empirical observations. This technique is heavily dependent on the observational and interpretive abilities of the researcher, and the resulting theory may be subjective and non -confirmable. Furthermore, observing certain patterns of events will not necessarily make a theory, unless the researcher is able to provide consistent explanations for the observed patterns. We will discuss the grounded theory approach in a later chapter on qualitative research.
The second approach to theory building is to conduct a bottom-up conceptual analysis to identify different sets of predictors relevant to the phenomenon of interest using a predefined framework. One such framework may be a simple input-process-output framework, where the researcher may look for different categories of inputs, such as individual, organizational, and/or technological factors potentially related to the phenomenon of interest (the output), and describe the underlying processes that link these factors to the target phenomenon. This is also an inductive approach that relies heavily on the inductive abilities of the researcher, and interpretation may be biased by researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon being studied.
The third approach to theorizing is to extend or modify existing theories to explain a new context, such as by extending theories of individual learning to explain organizational learning. While making such an extension, certain concepts, propositions, and/or boundary conditions of the old theory may be retained and others modified to fit the new context. This deductive approach leverages the rich inventory of social science theories developed by prior theoreticians, and is an efficient way of building new theories by building on existing ones.
The fourth approach is to apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon the structural similarities between the two contexts. This approach relies on reasoning by analogy, and is probably the most creative way of theorizing using a deductive approach. For instance, Markus (1987) [3] used analogic similarities between a nuclear explosion and uncontrolled growth of networks or network-based businesses to propose a critical mass theory of network growth. Just as a nuclear explosion requires a critical mass of radioactive material to sustain a nuclear explosion, Markus suggested that a network requires a critical mass of users to sustain its growth, and without such critical mass, users may leave the network, causing an eventual demise of the network.
Examples of Social Science Theories
In this section, we present brief overviews of a few illustrative theories from different social science disciplines. These theories explain different types of social behaviors, using a set of constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, assumptions, and underlying logic. Note that the following represents just a simplistic introduction to these theories; readers are advised to consult the original sources of these theories for more details and insights on each theory.
Agency Theory. Agency theory (also called principal-agent theory), a classic theory in the organizational economics literature, was originally proposed by Ross (1973) [4] to explain two-party relationships (such as those between an employer and its employees, between organizational executives and shareholders, and between buyers and sellers) whose goals are not congruent with each other. The goal of agency theory is to specify optimal contracts and the conditions under which such contracts may help minimize the effect of goal incongruence. The core assumptions of this theory are that human beings are self-interested individuals, boundedly rational, and risk-averse, and the theory can be applied at the individual or organizational level.
The two parties in this theory are the principal and the agent; the principal employs the agent to perform certain tasks on its behalf. While the principal’s goal is quick and effective completion of the assigned task, the agent’s goal may be working at its own pace, avoiding risks, and seeking self-interest (such as personal pay) over corporate interests. Hence, the goal incongruence. Compounding the nature of the problem may be information asymmetry problems caused by the principal’s inability to adequately observe the agent’s behavior or accurately evaluate the agent’s skill sets. Such asymmetry may lead to agency problems where the agent may not put forth the effort needed to get the task done (the moral hazard problem) or may misrepresent its expertise or skills to get the job but not perform as expected (the adverse selection problem). Typical contracts that are behavior-based, such as a monthly salary, cannot overcome these problems. Hence, agency theory recommends using outcome-based contracts, such as a commissions or a fee payable upon task completion, or mixed contracts that combine behavior-based and outcome-based incentives. An employee stock option plans are is an example of an outcome-based contract while employee pay is a behavior-based contract. Agency theory also recommends tools that principals may employ to improve the efficacy of behavior-based contracts, such as investing in monitoring mechanisms (such as hiring supervisors) to counter the information asymmetry caused by moral hazard, designing renewable contracts contingent on agent’s performance (performance assessment makes the contract partially outcome-based), or by improving the structure of the assigned task to make it more programmable and therefore more observable.
Theory of Planned Behavior. Postulated by Azjen (1991) [5] , the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a generalized theory of human behavior in the social psychology literature that can be used to study a wide range of individual behaviors. It presumes that individual behavior represents conscious reasoned choice, and is shaped by cognitive thinking and social pressures. The theory postulates that behaviors are based on one’s intention regarding that behavior, which in turn is a function of the person’s attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm regarding that behavior, and perception of control over that behavior (see Figure 4.2). Attitude is defined as the individual’s overall positive or negative feelings about performing the behavior in question, which may be assessed as a summation of one’s beliefs regarding the different consequences of that behavior, weighted by the desirability of those consequences.
Subjective norm refers to one’s perception of whether people important to that person expect the person to perform the intended behavior, and represented as a weighted combination of the expected norms of different referent groups such as friends, colleagues, or supervisors at work. Behavioral control is one’s perception of internal or external controls constraining the behavior in question. Internal controls may include the person’s ability to perform the intended behavior (self-efficacy), while external control refers to the availability of external resources needed to perform that behavior (facilitating conditions). TPB also suggests that sometimes people may intend to perform a given behavior but lack the resources needed to do so, and therefore suggests that posits that behavioral control can have a direct effect on behavior, in addition to the indirect effect mediated by intention.
TPB is an extension of an earlier theory called the theory of reasoned action, which included attitude and subjective norm as key drivers of intention, but not behavioral control. The latter construct was added by Ajzen in TPB to account for circumstances when people may have incomplete control over their own behaviors (such as not having high-speed Internet access for web surfing).
Innovation diffusion theory. Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) is a seminal theory in the communications literature that explains how innovations are adopted within a population of potential adopters. The concept was first studied by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, but the theory was developed by Everett Rogers in 1962 based on observations of 508 diffusion studies. The four key elements in this theory are: innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. Innovations may include new technologies, new practices, or new ideas, and adopters may be individuals or organizations. At the macro (population) level, IDT views innovation diffusion as a process of communication where people in a social system learn about a new innovation and its potential benefits through communication channels (such as mass media or prior adopters) and are persuaded to adopt it. Diffusion is a temporal process; the diffusion process starts off slow among a few early adopters, then picks up speed as the innovation is adopted by the mainstream population, and finally slows down as the adopter population reaches saturation. The cumulative adoption pattern therefore an S-shaped curve, as shown in Figure 4.3, and the adopter distribution represents a normal distribution. All adopters are not identical, and adopters can be classified into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards based on their time of their adoption. The rate of diffusion a lso depends on characteristics of the social system such as the presence of opinion leaders (experts whose opinions are valued by others) and change agents (people who influence others’ behaviors).
At the micro (adopter) level, Rogers (1995) [6] suggests that innovation adoption is a process consisting of five stages: (1) knowledge: when adopters first learn about an innovation from mass-media or interpersonal channels, (2) persuasion: when they are persuaded by prior adopters to try the innovation, (3) decision: their decision to accept or reject the innovation, (4) implementation: their initial utilization of the innovation, and (5) confirmation: their decision to continue using it to its fullest potential (see Figure 4.4). Five innovation characteristics are presumed to shape adopters’ innovation adoption decisions: (1) relative advantage: the expected benefits of an innovation relative to prior innovations, (2) compatibility: the extent to which the innovation fits with the adopter’s work habits, beliefs, and values, (3) complexity: the extent to which the innovation is difficult to learn and use, (4) trialability: the extent to which the innovation can be tested on a trial basis, and (5) observability: the extent to which the results of using the innovation can be clearly observed. The last two characteristics have since been dropped from many innovation studies. Complexity is negatively correlated to innovation adoption, while the other four factors are positively correlated. Innovation adoption also depends on personal factors such as the adopter’s risk- taking propensity, education level, cosmopolitanism, and communication influence. Early adopters are venturesome, well educated, and rely more on mass media for information about the innovation, while later adopters rely more on interpersonal sources (such as friends and family) as their primary source of information. IDT has been criticized for having a “pro-innovation bias,” that is for presuming that all innovations are beneficial and will be eventually diffused across the entire population, and because it does not allow for inefficient innovations such as fads or fashions to die off quickly without being adopted by the entire population or being replaced by better innovations.
Elaboration Likelihood Model . Developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) [7], the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of attitude formation or change in the psychology literature. It explains how individuals can be influenced to change their attitude toward a certain object, events, or behavior and the relative efficacy of such change strategies. The ELM posits that one’s attitude may be shaped by two “routes” of influence, the central route and the peripheral route, which differ in the amount of thoughtful information processing or “elaboration” required of people (see Figure 4.5). The central route requires a person to think about issue-related arguments in an informational message and carefully scrutinize the merits and relevance of those arguments, before forming an informed judgment about the target object. In the peripheral route, subjects rely on external “cues” such as number of prior users, endorsements from experts, or likeability of the endorser, rather than on the quality of arguments, in framing their attitude towards the target object. The latter route is less cognitively demanding, and the routes of attitude change are typically operationalized in the ELM using the argument quality and peripheral cues constructs respectively.
Whether people will be influenced by the central or peripheral routes depends upon their ability and motivation to elaborate the central merits of an argument. This ability and motivation to elaborate is called elaboration likelihood . People in a state of high elaboration likelihood (high ability and high motivation) are more likely to thoughtfully process the information presented and are therefore more influenced by argument quality, while those in the low elaboration likelihood state are more motivated by peripheral cues. Elaboration likelihood is a situational characteristic and not a personal trait. For instance, a doctor may employ the central route for diagnosing and treating a medical ailment (by virtue of his or her expertise of the subject), but may rely on peripheral cues from auto mechanics to understand the problems with his car. As such, the theory has widespread implications about how to enact attitude change toward new products or ideas and even social change.
General Deterrence Theory. Two utilitarian philosophers of the eighteenth century, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, formulated General Deterrence Theory (GDT) as both an explanation of crime and a method for reducing it. GDT examines why certain individuals engage in deviant, anti-social, or criminal behaviors. This theory holds that people are fundamentally rational (for both conforming and deviant behaviors), and that they freely choose deviant behaviors based on a rational cost-benefit calculation. Because people naturally choose utility-maximizing behaviors, deviant choices that engender personal gain or pleasure can be controlled by increasing the costs of such behaviors in the form of punishments (countermeasures) as well as increasing the probability of apprehension. Swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishments are the key constructs in GDT.
While classical positivist research in criminology seeks generalized causes of criminal behaviors, such as poverty, lack of education, psychological conditions, and recommends strategies to rehabilitate criminals, such as by providing them job training and medical treatment, GDT focuses on the criminal decision making process and situational factors that influence that process. Hence, a criminal’s personal situation (such as his personal values, his affluence, and his need for money) and the environmental context (such as how protected is the target, how efficient is the local police, how likely are criminals to be apprehended) play key roles in this decision making process. The focus of GDT is not how to rehabilitate criminals and avert future criminal behaviors, but how to make criminal activities less attractive and therefore prevent crimes. To that end, “target hardening” such as installing deadbolts and building self-defense skills, legal deterrents such as eliminating parole for certain crimes, “three strikes law” (mandatory incarceration for three offenses, even if the offenses are minor and not worth imprisonment), and the death penalty, increasing the chances of apprehension using means such as neighborhood watch programs, special task forces on drugs or gang -related crimes, and increased police patrols, and educational programs such as highly visible notices such as “Trespassers will be prosecuted” are effective in preventing crimes. This theory has interesting implications not only for traditional crimes, but also for contemporary white-collar crimes such as insider trading, software piracy, and illegal sharing of music. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.04%3A_Chapter_4_Theories_in_Scientific_Research.txt |
Research design is a comprehensive plan for data collection in an empirical research project. It is a “blueprint” for empirical research aimed at answering specific research questions or testing specific hypotheses, and must specify at least three processes: (1) the data collection process, (2) the instrument development process, and (3) the sampling process. The instrument development and sampling processes are described in next two chapters, and the data collection process (which is often loosely called “research design”) is introduced in this chapter and is described in further detail in Chapters 9-12.
Broadly speaking, data collection methods can be broadly grouped into two categories: positivist and interpretive. Positivist methods , such as laboratory experiments and survey research, are aimed at theory (or hypotheses) testing, while interpretive methods, such as action research and ethnography, are aimed at theory building. Positivist methods employ a deductive approach to research, starting with a theory and testing theoretical postulates using empirical data. In contrast, interpretive methods employ an inductive approach that starts with data and tries to derive a theory about the phenomenon of interest from the observed data. Often times, these methods are incorrectly equated with quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative and qualitative methods refers to the type of data being collected (quantitative data involve numeric scores, metrics, and so on, while qualitative data includes interviews, observations, and so forth) and analyzed (i.e., using quantitative techniques such as regression or qualitative techniques such as coding). Positivist research uses predominantly quantitative data, but can also use qualitative data. Interpretive research relies heavily on qualitative data, but can sometimes benefit from including quantitative data as well. Sometimes, joint use of qualitative and quantitative data may help generate unique insight into a complex social phenomenon that are not available from either types of data alone, and hence, mixed-mode designs that combine qualitative and quantitative data are often highly desirable.
Key Attributes of a Research Design
The quality of research designs can be defined in terms of four key design attributes: internal validity, external validity, construct validity, and statistical conclusion validity.
Internal validity , also called causality, examines whether the observed change in a dependent variable is indeed caused by a corresponding change in hypothesized independent variable, and not by variables extraneous to the research context. Causality requires three conditions: (1) covariation of cause and effect (i.e., if cause happens, then effect also happens; and if cause does not happen, effect does not happen), (2) temporal precedence: cause must precede effect in time, (3) no plausible alternative explanation (or spurious correlation). Certain research designs, such as laboratory experiments, are strong in internal validity by virtue of their ability to manipulate the independent variable (cause) via a treatment and observe the effect (dependent variable) of that treatment after a certain point in time, while controlling for the effects of extraneous variables. Other designs, such as field surveys, are poor in internal validity because of their inability to manipulate the independent variable (cause), and because cause and effect are measured at the same point in time which defeats temporal precedence making it equally likely that the expected effect might have influenced the expected cause rather than the reverse. Although higher in internal validity compared to other methods, laboratory experiments are, by no means, immune to threats of internal validity, and are susceptible to history, testing, instrumentation, regression, and other threats that are discussed later in the chapter on experimental designs. Nonetheless, different research designs vary considerably in their respective level of internal validity.
External validity or generalizability refers to whether the observed associations can be generalized from the sample to the population (population validity), or to other people, organizations, contexts, or time (ecological validity). For instance, can results drawn from a sample of financial firms in the United States be generalized to the population of financial firms (population validity) or to other firms within the United States (ecological validity)? Survey research, where data is sourced from a wide variety of individuals, firms, or other units of analysis, tends to have broader generalizability than laboratory experiments where artificially contrived treatments and strong control over extraneous variables render the findings less generalizable to real-life settings where treatments and extraneous variables cannot be controlled. The variation in internal and external validity for a wide range of research designs are shown in Figure 5.1.
Single
Multiple
Cone of Validity
case study case study
Field
experiment
Ethnography
Longitudinal
External
Cross-sectional field survey
validity
field survey
Multiple lab
Simulation
experiment
Validity
Math
frontier
Single lab
proofs
experiment
Internal validity
Some researchers claim that there is a tradeoff between internal and external validity: higher external validity can come only at the cost of internal validity and vice-versa. But this is not always the case. Research designs such as field experiments, longitudinal field surveys, and multiple case studies have higher degrees of both internal and external validities. Personally, I prefer research designs that have reasonable degrees of both internal and external validities, i.e., those that fall within the cone of validity shown in Figure 5.1. But this should not suggest that designs outside this cone are any less useful or valuable. Researchers’ choice of designs is ultimately a matter of their personal preference and competence, and the level of internal and external validity they desire.
Construct validity examines how well a given measurement scale is measuring the theoretical construct that it is expected to measure. Many constructs used in social science research such as empathy, resistance to change, and organizational learning are difficult to define, much less measure. For instance, construct validity must assure that a measure of empathy is indeed measuring empathy and not compassion, which may be difficult since these constructs are somewhat similar in meaning. Construct validity is assessed in positivist research based on correlational or factor analysis of pilot test data, as described in the next chapter.
Statistical conclusion validity examines the extent to which conclusions derived using a statistical procedure is valid. For example, it examines whether the right statistical method was used for hypotheses testing, whether the variables used meet the assumptions of that statistical test (such as sample size or distributional requirements), and so forth. Because interpretive research designs do not employ statistical test, statistical conclusion validity is not applicable for such analysis. The different kinds of validity and where they exist at the theoretical/empirical levels are illustrated in Figure 5.2.
Improving Internal and External Validity
The best research designs are those that can assure high levels of internal and external validity. Such designs would guard against spurious correlations, inspire greater faith in the hypotheses testing, and ensure that the results drawn from a small sample are generalizable to the population at large. Controls are required to assure internal validity (causality) of research designs, and can be accomplished in four ways: (1) manipulation, (2) elimination, (3) inclusion, and (4) statistical control, and (5) randomization.
In manipulation , the researcher manipulates the independent variables in one or more levels (called “treatments”), and compares the effects of the treatments against a control group where subjects do not receive the treatment. Treatments may include a new drug or different dosage of drug (for treating a medical condition), a, a teaching style (for students), and so forth. This type of control is achieved in experimental or quasi-experimental designs but not in non-experimental designs such as surveys. Note that if subjects cannot distinguish adequately between different levels of treatment manipulations, their responses across treatments may not be different, and manipulation would fail.
The elimination technique relies on eliminating extraneous variables by holding them constant across treatments, such as by restricting the study to a single gender or a single socio-economic status. In the inclusion technique, the role of extraneous variables is considered by including them in the research design and separately estimating their effects on the dependent variable, such as via factorial designs where one factor is gender (male versus female). Such technique allows for greater generalizability but also requires substantially larger samples. In statistical control , extraneous variables are measured and used as covariates during the statistical testing process.
Finally, the randomization technique is aimed at canceling out the effects of extraneous variables through a process of random sampling, if it can be assured that these effects are of a random (non-systematic) nature. Two types of randomization are: (1) random selection , where a sample is selected randomly from a population, and (2) random assignment , where subjects selected in a non-random manner are randomly assigned to treatment groups.
Randomization also assures external validity, allowing inferences drawn from the sample to be generalized to the population from which the sample is drawn. Note that random assignment is mandatory when random selection is not possible because of resource or access constraints. However, generalizability across populations is harder to ascertain since populations may differ on multiple dimensions and you can only control for few of those dimensions.
Popular Research Designs
As noted earlier, research designs can be classified into two categories – positivist and interpretive – depending how their goal in scientific research. Positivist designs are meant for theory testing, while interpretive designs are meant for theory building. Positivist designs seek generalized patterns based on an objective view of reality, while interpretive designs seek subjective interpretations of social phenomena from the perspectives of the subjects involved. Some popular examples of positivist designs include laboratory experiments, field experiments, field surveys, secondary data analysis, and case research while examples of interpretive designs include case research, phenomenology, and ethnography. Note that case research can be used for theory building or theory testing, though not at the same time. Not all techniques are suited for all kinds of scientific research. Some techniques such as focus groups are best suited for exploratory research, others such as ethnography are best for descriptive research, and still others such as laboratory experiments are ideal for explanatory research. Following are brief descriptions of some of these designs. Additional details are provided in Chapters 9-12.
Experimental studies are those that are intended to test cause-effect relationships (hypotheses) in a tightly controlled setting by separating the cause from the effect in time, administering the cause to one group of subjects (the “treatment group”) but not to another group (“control group”), and observing how the mean effects vary between subjects in these two groups. For instance, if we design a laboratory experiment to test the efficacy of a new drug in treating a certain ailment, we can get a random sample of people afflicted with that ailment, randomly assign them to one of two groups (treatment and control groups), administer the drug to subjects in the treatment group, but only give a placebo (e.g., a sugar pill with no medicinal value). More complex designs may include multiple treatment groups, such as low versus high dosage of the drug, multiple treatments, such as combining drug administration with dietary interventions. In a true experimental design , subjects must be randomly assigned between each group. If random assignment is not followed, then the design becomes quasi-experimental . Experiments can be conducted in an artificial or laboratory setting such as at a university (laboratory experiments) or in field settings such as in an organization where the phenomenon of interest is actually occurring (field experiments). Laboratory experiments allow the researcher to isolate the variables of interest and control for extraneous variables, which may not be possible in field experiments. Hence, inferences drawn from laboratory experiments tend to be stronger in internal validity, but those from field experiments tend to be stronger in external validity. Experimental data is analyzed using quantitative statistical techniques. The primary strength of the experimental design is its strong internal validity due to its ability to isolate, control, and intensively examine a small number of variables, while its primary weakness is limited external generalizability since real life is often more complex (i.e., involve more extraneous variables) than contrived lab settings. Furthermore, if the research does not identify ex ante relevant extraneous variables and control for such variables, such lack of controls may hurt internal validity and may lead to spurious correlations.
Field surveys are non-experimental designs that do not control for or manipulate independent variables or treatments, but measure these variables and test their effects using statistical methods. Field surveys capture snapshots of practices, beliefs, or situations from a random sample of subjects in field settings through a survey questionnaire or less frequently, through a structured interview. In cross-sectional field surveys , independent and dependent variables are measured at the same point in time (e.g., using a single questionnaire), while in longitudinal field surveys , dependent variables are measured at a later point in time than the independent variables. The strengths of field surveys are their external validity (since data is collected in field settings), their ability to capture and control for a large number of variables, and their ability to study a problem from multiple perspectives or using multiple theories. However, because of their non-temporal nature, internal validity (cause-effect relationships) are difficult to infer, and surveys may be subject to respondent biases (e.g., subjects may provide a “socially desirable” response rather than their true response) which further hurts internal validity.
Secondary data analysis is an analysis of data that has previously been collected and tabulated by other sources. Such data may include data from government agencies such as employment statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Services or development statistics by country from the United Nations Development Program, data collected by other researchers (often used in meta-analytic studies), or publicly available third-party data, such as financial data from stock markets or real-time auction data from eBay. This is in contrast to most other research designs where collecting primary data for research is part of the researcher’s job.
Secondary data analysis may be an effective means of research where primary data collection is too costly or infeasible, and secondary data is available at a level of analysis suitable for answering the researcher’s questions. The limitations of this design are that the data might not have been collected in a systematic or scientific manner and hence unsuitable for scientific research, since the data was collected for a presumably different purpose, they may not adequately address the research questions of interest to the researcher, and interval validity is problematic if the temporal precedence between cause and effect is unclear.
Case research is an in-depth investigation of a problem in one or more real-life settings (case sites) over an extended period of time. Data may be collected using a combination of interviews, personal observations, and internal or external documents. Case studies can be positivist in nature (for hypotheses testing) or interpretive (for theory building). The strength of this research method is its ability to discover a wide variety of social, cultural, and political factors potentially related to the phenomenon of interest that may not be known in advance. Analysis tends to be qualitative in nature, but heavily contextualized and nuanced. However, interpretation of findings may depend on the observational and integrative ability of the researcher, lack of control may make it difficult to establish causality, and findings from a single case site may not be readily generalized to other case sites. Generalizability can be improved by replicating and comparing the analysis in other case sites in a multiple case design .
Focus group research is a type of research that involves bringing in a small group of subjects (typically 6 to 10 people) at one location, and having them discuss a phenomenon of interest for a period of 1.5 to 2 hours. The discussion is moderated and led by a trained facilitator, who sets the agenda and poses an initial set of questions for participants, makes sure that ideas and experiences of all participants are represented, and attempts to build a holistic understanding of the problem situation based on participants’ comments and experiences.
Internal validity cannot be established due to lack of controls and the findings may not be generalized to other settings because of small sample size. Hence, focus groups are not generally used for explanatory or descriptive research, but are more suited for exploratory research.
Action research assumes that complex social phenomena are best understood by introducing interventions or “actions” into those phenomena and observing the effects of those actions. In this method, the researcher is usually a consultant or an organizational member embedded within a social context such as an organization, who initiates an action such as new organizational procedures or new technologies, in response to a real problem such as declining profitability or operational bottlenecks. The researcher’s choice of actions must be based on theory, which should explain why and how such actions may cause the desired change. The researcher then observes the results of that action, modifying it as necessary, while simultaneously learning from the action and generating theoretical insights about the target problem and interventions. The initial theory is validated by the extent to which the chosen action successfully solves the target problem. Simultaneous problem solving and insight generation is the central feature that distinguishes action research from all other research methods, and hence, action research is an excellent method for bridging research and practice. This method is also suited for studying unique social problems that cannot be replicated outside that context, but it is also subject to researcher bias and subjectivity, and the generalizability of findings is often restricted to the context where the study was conducted.
Ethnography is an interpretive research design inspired by anthropology that emphasizes that research phenomenon must be studied within the context of its culture. The researcher is deeply immersed in a certain culture over an extended period of time (8 months to 2 years), and during that period, engages, observes, and records the daily life of the studied culture, and theorizes about the evolution and behaviors in that culture. Data is collected primarily via observational techniques, formal and informal interaction with participants in that culture, and personal field notes, while data analysis involves “sense-making”. The researcher must narrate her experience in great detail so that readers may experience that same culture without necessarily being there. The advantages of this approach are its sensitiveness to the context, the rich and nuanced understanding it generates, and minimal respondent bias. However, this is also an extremely time and resource-intensive approach, and findings are specific to a given culture and less generalizable to other cultures.
Selecting Research Designs
Given the above multitude of research designs, which design should researchers choose for their research? Generally speaking, researchers tend to select those research designs that they are most comfortable with and feel most competent to handle, but ideally, the choice should depend on the nature of the research phenomenon being studied. In the preliminary phases of research, when the research problem is unclear and the researcher wants to scope out the nature and extent of a certain research problem, a focus group (for individual unit of analysis) or a case study (for organizational unit of analysis) is an ideal strategy for exploratory research. As one delves further into the research domain, but finds that there are no good theories to explain the phenomenon of interest and wants to build a theory to fill in the unmet gap in that area, interpretive designs such as case research or ethnography may be useful designs. If competing theories exist and the researcher wishes to test these different theories or integrate them into a larger theory, positivist designs such as experimental design, survey research, or secondary data analysis are more appropriate.
Regardless of the specific research design chosen, the researcher should strive to collect quantitative and qualitative data using a combination of techniques such as questionnaires, interviews, observations, documents, or secondary data. For instance, even in a highly structured survey questionnaire, intended to collect quantitative data, the researcher may leave some room for a few open-ended questions to collect qualitative data that may generate unexpected insights not otherwise available from structured quantitative data alone. Likewise, while case research employ mostly face-to-face interviews to collect most qualitative data, the potential and value of collecting quantitative data should not be ignored. As an example, in a study of organizational decision making processes, the case interviewer can record numeric quantities such as how many months it took to make certain organizational decisions, how many people were involved in that decision process, and how many decision alternatives were considered, which can provide valuable insights not otherwise available from interviewees’ narrative responses. Irrespective of the specific research design employed, the goal of the researcher should be to collect as much and as diverse data as possible that can help generate the best possible insights about the phenomenon of interest. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.05%3A_Chapter_5_Research_Design.txt |
Theoretical propositions consist of relationships between abstract constructs. Testing theories (i.e., theoretical propositions) require measuring these constructs accurately, correctly, and in a scientific manner, before the strength of their relationships can be tested. Measurement refers to careful, deliberate observations of the real world and is the essence of empirical research. While some constructs in social science research, such as a person’s age, weight, or a firm’s size, may be easy to measure, other constructs, such as creativity, prejudice, or alienation, may be considerably harder to measure. In this chapter, we will examine the related processes of conceptualization and operationalization for creating measures of such constructs.
Conceptualization
Conceptualization is the mental process by which fuzzy and imprecise constructs (concepts) and their constituent components are defined in concrete and precise terms. For instance, we often use the word “prejudice” and the word conjures a certain image in our mind; however, we may struggle if we were asked to define exactly what the term meant. If someone says bad things about other racial groups, is that racial prejudice? If women earn less than men for the same job, is that gender prejudice? If churchgoers believe that non -believers will burn in hell, is that religious prejudice? Are there different kinds of prejudice, and if so, what are they? Are there different levels of prejudice, such as high or low? Answering all of these questions is the key to measuring the prejudice construct correctly. The process of understanding what is included and what is excluded in the concept of prejudice is the conceptualization process.
The conceptualization process is all the more important because of the imprecision, vagueness, and ambiguity of many social science constructs. For instance, is “compassion” the same thing as “empathy” or “sentimentality”? If you have a proposition stating that “compassion is positively related to empathy”, you cannot test that proposition unless you can conceptually separate empathy from compassion and then empirically measure these two very similar constructs correctly. If deeply religious people believe that some members of their society, such as nonbelievers, gays, and abortion doctors, will burn in hell for their sins, and forcefully try to change the “sinners” behaviors to prevent them from going to hell, are they acting in a prejudicial manner or a compassionate manner? Our definition of such constructs is not based on any objective criterion, but rather on a shared (“inter-subjective”) agreement between our mental images (conceptions) of these constructs.
While defining constructs such as prejudice or compassion, we must understand that sometimes, these constructs are not real or can exist independently, but are simply imaginary creations in our mind. For instance, there may be certain tribes in the world who lack prejudice and who cannot even imagine what this concept entails. But in real life, we tend to treat this concept as real. The process of regarding mental constructs as real is called reification , which is central to defining constructs and identifying measurable variables for measuring them.
One important decision in conceptualizing constructs is specifying whether they are unidimensional and multidimensional. Unidimensional constructs are those that are expected to have a single underlying dimension. These constructs can be measured using a single measure or test. Examples include simple constructs such as a person’s weight, wind speed, and probably even complex constructs like self-esteem (if we conceptualize self-esteem as consisting of a single dimension, which of course, may be a unrealistic assumption). Multidimensional constructs consist of two or more underlying dimensions. For instance, if we conceptualize a person’s academic aptitude as consisting of two dimensions – mathematical and verbal ability – then academic aptitude is a multidimensional construct. Each of the underlying dimensions in this case must be measured separately, say, using different tests for mathematical and verbal ability, and the two scores can be combined, possibly in a weighted manner, to create an overall value for the academic aptitude construct.
Operationalization
Once a theoretical construct is defined, exactly how do we measure it? Operationalization refers to the process of developing indicators or items for measuring these constructs. For instance, if an unobservable theoretical construct such as socioeconomic status is defined as the level of family income, it can be operationalized using an indicator that asks respondents the question: what is your annual family income? Given the high level of subjectivity and imprecision inherent in social science constructs, we tend to measure most of those constructs (except a few demographic constructs such as age, gender, education, and income) using multiple indicators. This process allows us to examine the closeness amongst these indicators as an assessment of their accuracy (reliability).
Indicators operate at the empirical level, in contrast to constructs, which are conceptualized at the theoretical level. The combination of indicators at the empirical level representing a given construct is called a variable . As noted in a previous chapter, variables may be independent, dependent, mediating, or moderating, depending on how they are employed in a research study. Also each indicator may have several attributes (or levels) and each attribute represent a value . For instance, a “gender” variable may have two attributes: male or female. Likewise, a customer satisfaction scale may be constructed to represent five attributes: “strongly dissatisfied”, “somewhat dissatisfied”, “neutral”, “somewhat satisfied” and “strongly satisfied”. Values of attributes may be quantitative (numeric) or qualitative (non-numeric). Quantitative data can be analyzed using quantitative data analysis techniques, such as regression or structural equation modeling, while qualitative data require qualitative data analysis techniques, such as coding. Note that many variables in social science research are qualitative, even when represented in a quantitative manner. For instance, we can create a customer satisfaction indicator with five attributes: strongly dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neutral, somewhat satisfied, and strongly satisfied, and assign numbers 1 through 5 respectively for these five attributes, so that we can use sophisticated statistical tools for quantitative data analysis. However, note that the numbers are only labels associated with respondents’ personal evaluation of their own satisfaction, and the underlying variable (satisfaction) is still qualitative even though we represented it in a quantitative manner.
Indicators may be reflective or formative. A reflective indicator is a measure that “reflects” an underlying construct. For example, if religiosity is defined as a construct that measures how religious a person is, then attending religious services may be a reflective indicator of religiosity. A formative indicator is a measure that “forms” or contributes to an underlying construct. Such indicators may represent different dimensions of the construct of interest. For instance, if religiosity is defined as composing of a belief dimension, a devotional dimension, and a ritual dimension, then indicators chosen to measure each of these different dimensions will be considered formative indicators. Unidimensional constructs are measured using reflective indicators (even though multiple reflective indicators may be used for measuring abstruse constructs such as self-esteem), while multidimensional constructs are measured as a formative combination of the multiple dimensions, even though each of the underlying dimensions may be measured using one or more reflective indicators.
Levels of Measurement
The first decision to be made in operationalizing a construct is to decide on what is the intended level of measurement. Levels of measurement , also called rating scales , refer to the values that an indicator can take (but says nothing about the indicator itself). For example, male and female (or M and F, or 1 and 2) are two levels of the indicator “gender.” In his seminal article titled “On the theory of scales of measurement” published in Science in 1946, psychologist Stanley Smith Stevens (1946) defined four generic types of rating scales for scientific measurements: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales. The statistical properties of these scales are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Statistical properties of rating scales
Scale Central Tendency Statistics Transformations
Nominal Mode Chi-square One-to-one (equality)
Ordinal Median Percentile, nonparametric statistics Monotonic increasing (order)
Interval Arithmetic mean, range, standard deviation Correlation, regression, analysis of variance Positive linear (affine)
Ratio Geometric mean, harmonic mean Coefficient of variation Positive similarities(multiplicative, logarithmic)
Note: All higher-order scales can use any of the statistics for lower order scales.
Nominal scales , also called categorical scales, measure categorical data. These scales are used for variables or indicators that have mutually exclusive attributes. Examples include gender (two values: male or female), industry type (manufacturing, financial, agriculture, etc.), and religious affiliation (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.). Even if we assign unique numbers to each value, for instance 1 for male and 2 for female, the numbers don’t really mean anything (i.e., 1 is not less than or half of 2) and could have been easily been represented non-numerically, such as M for male and F for female. Nominal scales merely offer names or labels for different attribute values. The appropriate measure of central tendency of a nominal scale is mode, and neither the mean nor the median can be defined. Permissible statistics are chi-square and frequency distribution, and only a one-to-one (equality) transformation is allowed (e.g., 1=Male, 2=Female).
Ordinal scales are those that measure rank-ordered data, such as the ranking of students in a class as first, second, third, and so forth, based on their grade point average or test scores. However, the actual or relative values of attributes or difference in attribute values cannot be assessed. For instance, ranking of students in class says nothing about the actual GPA or test scores of the students, or how they well performed relative to one another. A classic example in the natural sciences is Moh’s scale of mineral hardness, which characterizes the hardness of various minerals by their ability to scratch other minerals. For instance, diamonds can scratch all other naturally occurring minerals on earth, and hence diamond is the “hardest” mineral. However, the scale does not indicate the actual hardness of these minerals or even provides a relative assessment of their hardness. Ordinal scales can also use attribute labels (anchors) such as “bad”, “medium”, and “good”, or “strongly dissatisfied”, “somewhat dissatisfied”, “neutral”, or “somewhat satisfied”, and “strongly satisfied”. In the latter case, we can say that respondents who are “somewhat satisfied” are less satisfied than those who are “strongly satisfied”, but we cannot quantify their satisfaction levels. The central tendency measure of an ordinal scale can be its median or mode, and means are uninterpretable. Hence, statistical analyses may involve percentiles and non-parametric analysis, but more sophisticated techniques such as correlation, regression, and analysis of variance, are not appropriate. Monotonically increasing transformation (which retains the ranking) is allowed.
Interval scales are those where the values measured are not only rank-ordered, but are also equidistant from adjacent attributes. For example, the temperature scale (in Fahrenheit or Celsius), where the difference between 30 and 40 degree Fahrenheit is the same as that between 80 and 90 degree Fahrenheit. Likewise, if you have a scale that asks respondents’ annual income using the following attributes (ranges): \$0 to 10,000, \$10,000 to 20,000, \$20,000 to 30,000, and so forth, this is also an interval scale, because the mid-point of each range (i.e., \$5,000, \$15,000, \$25,000, etc.) are equidistant from each other. The intelligence quotient (IQ) scale is also an interval scale, because the scale is designed such that the difference between IQ scores 100 and 110 is supposed to be the same as between 110 and 120 (although we do not really know whether that is truly the case). Interval scale allows us to examine “how much more” is one attribute when compared to another, which is not possible with nominal or ordinal scales. Allowed central tendency measures include mean, median, or mode, as are measures of dispersion, such as range and standard deviation. Permissible statistical analyses include all of those allowed for nominal and ordinal scales, plus correlation, regression, analysis of variance, and so on. Allowed scale transformation are positive linear. Note that the satisfaction scale discussed earlier is not strictly an interval scale, because we cannot say whether the difference between “strongly satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” is the same as that between “neutral” and “somewhat satisfied” or between “somewhat dissatisfied” and “strongly dissatisfied”. However, social science researchers often “pretend” (incorrectly) that these differences are equal so that we can use statistical techniques for analyzing ordinal scaled data.
Ratio scales are those that have all the qualities of nominal, ordinal, and interval scales, and in addition, also have a “true zero” point (where the value zero implies lack or non-availability of the underlying construct). Most measurement in the natural sciences and engineering, such as mass, incline of a plane, and electric charge, employ ratio scales, as are some social science variables such as age, tenure in an organization, and firm size (measured as employee count or gross revenues). For example, a firm of size zero means that it has no employees or revenues. The Kelvin temperature scale is also a ratio scale, in contrast to the Fahrenheit or Celsius scales, because the zero point on this scale (equaling -273.15 degree Celsius) is not an arbitrary value but represents a state where the particles of matter at this temperature have zero kinetic energy. These scales are called “ratio” scales because the ratios of two points on these measures are meaningful and interpretable. For example, a firm of size 10 employees is double that of a firm of size 5, and the same can be said for a firm of 10,000 employees relative to a different firm of 5,000 employees. All measures of central tendencies, including geometric and harmonic means, are allowed for ratio scales, as are ratio measures, such as studentized range or coefficient of variation. All statistical methods are allowed. Sophisticated transformation such as positive similar (e.g., multiplicative or logarithmic) are also allowed.
Based on the four generic types of scales discussed above, we can create specific rating scales for social science research. Common rating scales include binary, Likert, semantic differential, or Guttman scales. Other less common scales are not discussed here.
Binary scales. Binary scales are nominal scales consisting of binary items that assume one of two possible values, such as yes or no, true or false, and so on. For example, a typical binary scale for the “political activism” construct may consist of the six binary items shown in Table 6.2. Each item in this scale is a binary item, and the total number of “yes” indicated by a respondent (a value from 0 to 6) can be used as an overall measure of that person’s political activism. To understand how these items were derived, refer to the “Scaling” section later on in this chapter. Binary scales can also employ other values, such as male or female for gender, full-time or part-time for employment status, and so forth. If an employment status item is modified to allow for more than two possible values (e.g., unemployed, full-time, part-time, and retired), it is no longer binary, but still remains a nominal scaled item.
Table 6.2. A six-item binary scale for measuring political activism
Have you ever written a letter to a public official Yes No
Have you ever signed a political petition Yes No
Have you ever donated money to a political cause Yes No
Have you ever donated money to a candidate running for public office Yes No
Have you ever written a political letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine Yes No
Have you ever persuaded someone to change his/her voting plans Yes No
Likert scale. Designed by Rensis Likert, this is a very popular rating scale for measuring ordinal data in social science research. This scale includes Likert items that are simply-worded statements to which respondents can indicate their extent of agreement or disagreement on a five or seven-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. A typical example of a six-item Likert scale for the “employment self-esteem” construct is shown in Table 6.3. Likert scales are summated scales, that is, the overall scale score may be a summation of the attribute values of each item as selected by a respondent.
Table 6.3. A six-item Likert scale for measuring employment self-esteem
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
I feel good about my job 1 2 3 4 5
I get along well with others at work 1 2 3 4 5
I’m proud of my relationship with my supervisor at work 1 2 3 4 5
I can tell that other people at work are glad to have me there 1 2 3 4 5
I can tell that my coworkers respect me 1 2 3 4 5
I feel like I make a useful contribution at work 1 2 3 4 5
Likert items allow for more granularity (more finely tuned response) than binary items, including whether respondents are neutral to the statement. Three or nine values (often called “anchors”) may also be used, but it is important to use an odd number of values to allow for a “neutral” (or “neither agree nor disagree”) anchor. Some studies have used a “forced choice approach” to force respondents to agree or disagree with the LIkert statement by dropping the neutral mid-point and using even number of values and, but this is not a good strategy because some people may indeed be neutral to a given statement and the forced choice approach does not provide them the opportunity to record their neutral stance. A key characteristic of a Likert scale is that even though the statements vary in different items or indicators, the anchors (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) remain the same. Likert scales are ordinal scales because the anchors are not necessarily equidistant, even though sometimes we treat them like interval scales.
How would you rate your opinions on national health insurance?
Table 6.4. A semantic differential scale for measuring attitude toward national health insurance
Very much Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very much
Good Bad
Useful Useless
Caring Uncaring
Interesting Boring
Semantic differential scale. This is a composite (multi-item) scale where respondents are asked to indicate their opinions or feelings toward a single statement using different pairs of adjectives framed as polar opposites. For instance, the construct “attitude toward national health insurance” can be measured using four items shown in Table 6.4. As in the Likert scale, the overall scale score may be a summation of individual item scores. Notice that in Likert scales, the statement changes but the anchors remain the same across items. However, in semantic differential scales, the statement remains constant, while the anchors (adjective pairs) change across items. Semantic differential is believed to be an excellent technique for measuring people’s attitude or feelings toward objects, events, or behaviors.
Guttman scale. Designed by Louis Guttman, this composite scale uses a series of items arranged in increasing order of intensity of the construct of interest, from least intense to most intense. As an example, the construct “attitude toward immigrants” can be measured using five items shown in Table 6.5. Each item in the above Guttman scale has a weight (not indicated above) which varies with the intensity of that item, and the weighted combination of each response is used as aggregate measure of an observation.
How will you rate your opinions on the following statements about immigrants?
Table 6.5. A five-item Guttman scale for measuring attitude toward immigrants
Do you mind immigrants being citizens of your country Yes No
Do you mind immigrants living in your own neighborhood Yes No
Would you mind living next door to an immigrant Yes No
Would you mind having an immigrant as your close friend Yes No
Would you mind if someone in your family married an immigrant Yes No
Scaling
The previous section discussed how to measure respondents’ responses to predesigned items or indicators belonging to an underlying construct. But how do we create the indicators themselves? The process of creating the indicators is called scaling. More formally, scaling is a branch of measurement that involves the construction of measures by associating qualitative judgments about unobservable constructs with quantitative, measurable metric units. Stevens (1946) said, “Scaling is the assignment of objects to numbers according to a rule.” This process of measuring abstract concepts in concrete terms remains one of the most difficult tasks in empirical social science research.
The outcome of a scaling process is a scale , which is an empirical structure for measuring items or indicators of a given construct. Understand that “scales”, as discussed in this section, are a little different from “rating scales” discussed in the previous section. A rating scale is used to capture the respondents’ reactions to a given item, for instance, such as a nominal scaled item captures a yes/no reaction and an interval scaled item captures a value between “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Attaching a rating scale to a statement or instrument is not scaling. Rather, scaling is the formal process of developing scale items, before rating scales can be attached to those items.
Scales can be unidimensional or multidimensional, based on whether the underlying construct is unidimensional (e.g., weight, wind speed, firm size) or multidimensional (e.g., academic aptitude, intelligence). Unidimensional scale measures constructs along a single scale, ranging from high to low. Note that some of these scales may include multiple items, but all of these items attempt to measure the same underlying dimension. This is particularly the case with many social science constructs such as self-esteem, which are assumed to have a single dimension going from low to high. Multi-dimensional scales, on the other hand, employ different items or tests to measure each dimension of the construct separately, and then combine the scores on each dimension to create an overall measure of the multidimensional construct. For instance, academic aptitude can be measured using two separate tests of students’ mathematical and verbal ability, and then combining these scores to create an overall measure for academic aptitude. Since most scales employed in social science research are unidimensional, we will next three examine approaches for creating unidimensional scales.
Unidimensional scaling methods were developed during the first half of the twentieth century and were named after their creators. The three most popular unidimensional scaling methods are: (1) Thurstone’s equal-appearing scaling, (2) Likert’s summative scaling, and (3) Guttman’s cumulative scaling. The three approaches are similar in many respects, with the key differences being the rating of the scale items by judges and the statistical methods used to select the final items. Each of these methods are discussed next.
Thurstone’s equal-appearing scaling method. Louis Thurstone. one of the earliest and most famous scaling theorists, published a method of equal-appearing intervals in 1925. This method starts with a clear conceptual definition of the construct of interest. Based on this definition, potential scale items are generated to measure this construct. These items are generated by experts who know something about the construct being measured. The initial pool of candidate items (ideally 80 to 100 items) should be worded in a similar manner, for instance, by framing them as statements to which respondents may agree or disagree (and not as questions or other things). Next, a panel of judges is recruited to select specific items from this candidate pool to represent the construct of interest. Judges may include academics trained in the process of instrument construction or a random sample of respondents of interest (i.e., people who are familiar with the phenomenon). The selection process is done by having each judge independently rate each item on a scale from 1 to 11 based on how closely, in their opinion, that item reflects the intended construct (1 represents extremely unfavorable and 11 represents extremely favorable). For each item, compute the median and inter-quartile range (the difference between the 75 th and the 25 th percentile – a measure of dispersion), which are plotted on a histogram, as shown in Figure 6.1. The final scale items are selected as statements that are at equal intervals across a range of medians. This can be done by grouping items with a common median, and then selecting the item with the smallest inter-quartile range within each median group. However, instead of relying entirely on statistical analysis for item selection, a better strategy may be to examine the candidate items at each level and selecting the statement that is the most clear and makes the most sense. The median value of each scale item represents the weight to be used for aggregating the items into a composite scale score representing the construct of interest. We now have a scale which looks like a ruler, with one item or statement at each of the 11 points on the ruler (and weighted as such). Because items appear equally throughout the entire 11-pointrange of the scale, this technique is called an equal-appearing scale.
Thurstone also created two additional methods of building unidimensional scales – the method of successive intervals and the method of paired comparisons – which are both very similar to the method of equal-appearing intervals, except for how judges are asked to rate the data. For instance, the method of paired comparison requires each judge to make a judgment between each pair of statements (rather than rate each statement independently on a 1 to 11 scale). Hence, the name paired comparison method. With a lot of statements, this approach can be enormously time consuming and unwieldy compared to the method of equal-appearing intervals.
Likert’s summative scaling method . The Likert method, a unidimensional scaling method developed by Murphy and Likert (1938), is quite possibly the most popular of the three scaling approaches described in this chapter. As with Thurstone’s method, the Likert method also starts with a clear definition of the construct of interest, and using a set of experts to generate about 80 to 100 potential scale items. These items are then rated by judges on a 1 to 5 (or 1 to 7) rating scale as follows: 1 for strongly disagree with the concept, 2 for somewhat disagree with the concept, 3 for undecided, 4 for somewhat agree with the concept, and 5 for strongly agree with the concept. Following this rating, specific items can be selected for the final scale can be selected in one of several ways: (1) by computing bivariate correlations between judges rating of each item and the total item (created by summing all individual items for each respondent), and throwing out items with low (e.g., less than 0.60) item-to-total correlations, or (2) by averaging the rating for each item for the top quartile and the bottom quartile of judges, doing a t-test for the difference in means, and selecting items that have high t-values (i.e., those that discriminates best between the top and bottom quartile responses). In the end, researcher’s judgment may be used to obtain a relatively small (say 10 to 15) set of items that have high item-to-total correlations and high discrimination (i.e., high t-values). The
Likert method assumes equal weights for all items, and hence, respondent’s responses to each item can be summed to create a composite score for that respondent. Hence, this method is called a summated scale. Note that any item with reversed meaning from the original direction of the construct must be reverse coded (i.e., 1 becomes a 5, 2 becomes a 4, and so forth) before summating.
Guttman’s cumulative scaling method . Designed by Guttman (1950), the cumulative scaling method is based on Emory Bogardus’ social distance technique, which assumes that people’s willingness to participate in social relations with other people vary in degrees of intensity, and measures that intensity using a list of items arranged from “least intense” to “most intense”. The idea is that people who agree with one item on this list also agree with all previous items. In practice, we seldom find a set of items that matches this cumulative pattern perfectly. A scalogram analysis is used to examine how closely a set of items corresponds to the idea of cumulativeness.
Like previous scaling methods, the Guttman method also starts with a clear definition of the construct of interest, and then using experts to develop a large set of candidate items. A group of judges then rate each candidate item as “yes” if they view the item as being favorable to the construct and “no” if they see the item as unfavorable. Next, a matrix or table is created showing the judges’ responses to all candidate items. This matrix is sorted in decreasing order from judges with more “yes” at the top to those with fewer “yes” at the bottom. Judges with the same number of “yes”, the statements can be sorted from left to right based on most number of agreements to least. The resulting matrix will resemble Table 6.6. Notice that the scale is now almost cumulative when read from left to right (across the items). However, there may be a few exceptions, as shown in Table 6.6, and hence the scale is not entirely cumulative. To determine a set of items that best approximates the cumulativeness property, a data analysis technique called scalogram analysis can be used (or this can be done visually if the number of items is small). The statistical technique also estimates a score for each item that can be used to compute a respondent’s overall score on the entire set of items. Y indicates exceptions that prevents this matrix from being perfectly cumulative.
Table 6.6. Sorted rating matrix for a Guttman scale
Respondent Item 12 Item 5 Item 3 Item 22 Item 8 Item 7
29 Y Y Y Y Y Y
7 Y Y Y Y
15 Y Y Y Y
3 Y Y Y Y
32 Y Y Y
4 Y Y Y
5 Y Y
23 Y Y
11 Y Y
Indexes
An index is a composite score derived from aggregating measures of multiple constructs (called components) using a set of rules and formulas. It is different from scales in that scales also aggregate measures, but these measures measure different dimensions or the same dimension of a single construct . A well-known example of an index is the consumer price index (CPI), which is computed every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The CPI is a measure of how much consumers have to pay for goods and services in general, and is divided into eight major categories (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, healthcare, recreation, education and communication, and “other goods and services”), which are further subdivided into more than 200 smaller items. Each month, government employees call all over the country to get the current prices of more than 80,000 items. Using a complicated weighting scheme that takes into account the location and probability of purchase of each item, these prices are combined by analysts, which are then combined into an overall index score using a series of formulas and rules.
Another example of index is socio-economic status (SES), also called the Duncan socioeconomic index (SEI). This index is a combination of three constructs: income, education, and occupation. Income is measured in dollars, education in years or degrees achieved, and occupation is classified into categories or levels by status. These very different measures are combined to create an overall SES index score, using a weighted combination of “occupational education” (percentage of people in that occupation who had one or more year of college education) and “occupational income” (percentage of people in that occupation who earned more than a specific annual income). However, SES index measurement has generated a lot of controversy and disagreement among researchers.
The process of creating an index is similar to that of a scale. First, conceptualize (define) the index and its constituent components. Though this appears simple, there may be a lot of disagreement among judges on what components (constructs) should be included or excluded from an index. For instance, in the SES index, isn’t income correlated with education and occupation, and if so, should we include one component only or all three components? Reviewing the literature, using theories, and/or interviewing experts or key stakeholders may help resolve this issue. Second, operationalize and measure each component. For instance, how will you categorize occupations, particularly since some occupations may have changed with time (e.g., there were no Web developers before the Internet). Third, create a rule or formula for calculating the index score. Again, this process may involve a lot of subjectivity. Lastly, validate the index score using existing or new data.
Though indexes and scales yield a single numerical score or value representing a construct of interest, they are different in many ways. First, indexes often comprise of components that are very different from each other (e.g., income, education, and occupation in the SES index) and are measured in different ways. However, scales typically involve a set of similar items that use the same rating scale (such as a five-point Likert scale). Second, indexes often combine objectively measurable values such as prices or income, while scales are designed to assess subjective or judgmental constructs such as attitude, prejudice, or self-esteem. Some argue that the sophistication of the scaling methodology makes scales different from indexes, while others suggest that indexing methodology can be equally sophisticated. Nevertheless, indexes and scales are both essential tools in social science research.
Typologies
Scales and indexes generate ordinal measures of unidimensional constructs. However, researchers sometimes wish to summarize measures of two or more constructs to create a set of categories or types called a typology . Unlike scales or indexes, typologies are multi-dimensional but include only nominal variables. For instance, one can create a political typology of newspapers based on their orientation toward domestic and foreign policy, as expressed in their editorial columns, as shown in Figure 6.2. This typology can be used to categorize newspapers into one of four “ideal types” (A through D), identify the distribution of newspapers across these ideal types, and perhaps even create a classificatory model to classifying newspapers into one of these four ideal types depending on other attributes.
Summary
In closing, scale (or index) construction in social science research is a complex process involving several key decisions. Some of these decisions are:
• Should you use a scale, index, or typology?
• How do you plan to analyze the data?
• What is your desired level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) or rating scale?
• How many scale attributes should you use (e.g., 1 to 10; 1 to 7; −3 to +3)?
• Should you use an odd or even number of attributes (i.e., do you wish to have neutral or mid-point value)?
• How do you wish to label the scale attributes (especially for semantic differential scales)?
• Finally, what procedure would you use to generate the scale items (e.g., Thurstone, Likert, or Guttman method) or index components?
This chapter examined the process and outcomes of scale development. The next chapter will examine how to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scales developed using the above approaches. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.06%3A_Chapter_6_Measurement_of_Constructs.txt |
The previous chapter examined some of the difficulties with measuring constructs in social science research. For instance, how do we know whether we are measuring
“compassion” and not the “empathy”, since both constructs are somewhat similar in meaning? Or is compassion the same thing as empathy? What makes it more complex is that sometimes these constructs are imaginary concepts (i.e., they don’t exist in reality), and multi-dimensional (in which case, we have the added problem of identifying their constituent dimensions). Hence, it is not adequate just to measure social science constructs using any scale that we prefer. We also must test these scales to ensure that: (1) these scales indeed measure the unobservable construct that we wanted to measure (i.e., the scales are “valid”), and (2) they measure the intended construct consistently and precisely (i.e., the scales are “reliable”). Reliability and validity, jointly called the “psychometric properties” of measurement scales, are the yardsticks against which the adequacy and accuracy of our measurement procedures are evaluated in scientific research.
A measure can be reliable but not valid, if it is measuring something very consistently but is consistently measuring the wrong construct. Likewise, a measure can be valid but not reliable if it is measuring the right construct, but not doing so in a consistent manner. Using the analogy of a shooting target, as shown in Figure 7.1, a multiple-item measure of a construct that is both reliable and valid consists of shots that clustered within a narrow range near the center of the target. A measure that is valid but not reliable will consist of shots centered on the target but not clustered within a narrow range, but rather scattered around the target. Finally, a measure that is reliable but not valid will consist of shots clustered within a narrow range but off from the target. Hence, reliability and validity are both needed to assure adequate measurement of the constructs of interest.
Reliability
Reliability is the degree to which the measure of a construct is consistent or dependable. In other words, if we use this scale to measure the same construct multiple times, do we get pretty much the same result every time, assuming the underlying phenomenon is not changing? An example of an unreliable measurement is people guessing your weight. Quite likely, people will guess differently, the different measures will be inconsistent, and therefore, the “guessing” technique of measurement is unreliable. A more reliable measurement may be to use a weight scale, where you are likely to get the same value every time you step on the scale, unless your weight has actually changed between measurements.
Note that reliability implies consistency but not accuracy. In the previous example of the weight scale, if the weight scale is calibrated incorrectly (say, to shave off ten pounds from your true weight, just to make you feel better!), it will not measure your true weight and is therefore not a valid measure. Nevertheless, the miscalibrated weight scale will still give you the same weight every time (which is ten pounds less than your true weight), and hence the scale is reliable.
What are the sources of unreliable observations in social science measurements? One of the primary sources is the observer’s (or researcher’s) subjectivity. If employee morale in a firm is measured by watching whether the employees smile at each other, whether they make jokes, and so forth, then different observers may infer different measures of morale if they are watching the employees on a very busy day (when they have no time to joke or chat) or a light day (when they are more jovial or chatty). Two observers may also infer different levels of morale on the same day, depending on what they view as a joke and what is not. “Observation” is a qualitative measurement technique. Sometimes, reliability may be improved by using quantitative measures, for instance, by counting the number of grievances filed over one month as a measure of (the inverse of) morale. Of course, grievances may or may not be a valid measure of morale, but it is less subject to human subjectivity, and therefore more reliable. A second source of unreliable observation is asking imprecise or ambiguous questions. For instance, if you ask people what their salary is, different respondents may interpret this question differently as monthly salary, annual salary, or per hour wage, and hence, the resulting observations will likely be highly divergent and unreliable. A third source of unreliability is asking questions about issues that respondents are not very familiar about or care about, such as asking an American college graduate whether he/she is satisfied with Canada’s relationship with Slovenia, or asking a Chief Executive Officer to rate the effectiveness of his company’s technology strategy – something that he has likely delegated to a technology executive.
So how can you create reliable measures? If your measurement involves soliciting information from others, as is the case with much of social science research, then you can start by replacing data collection techniques that depends more on researcher subjectivity (such as observations) with those that are less dependent on subjectivity (such as questionnaire), by asking only those questions that respondents may know the answer to or issues that they care about, by avoiding ambiguous items in your measures (e.g., by clearly stating whether you are looking for annual salary), and by simplifying the wording in your indicators so that they not misinterpreted by some respondents (e.g., by avoiding difficult words whose meanings they may not know). These strategies can improve the reliability of our measures, even though they will not necessarily make the measurements completely reliable. Measurement instruments must still be tested for reliability. There are many ways of estimating reliability, which are discussed next.
Inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability, also called inter-observer reliability, is a measure of consistency between two or more independent raters (observers) of the same construct. Usually, this is assessed in a pilot study, and can be done in two ways, depending on the level of measurement of the construct. If the measure is categorical, a set of all categories is defined, raters check off which category each observation falls in, and the percentage of agreement between the raters is an estimate of inter-rater reliability. For instance, if there are two raters rating 100 observations into one of three possible categories, and their ratings match for 75% of the observations, then inter-rater reliability is 0.75. If the measure is interval or ratio scaled (e.g., classroom activity is being measured once every 5 minutes by two raters on 1 to 7 response scale), then a simple correlation between measures from the two raters can also serve as an estimate of inter-rater reliability.
Test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability is a measure of consistency between two measurements (tests) of the same construct administered to the same sample at two different points in time. If the observations have not changed substantially between the two tests, then the measure is reliable. The correlation in observations between the two tests is an estimate of test-retest reliability. Note here that the time interval between the two tests is critical. Generally, the longer is the time gap, the greater is the chance that the two observations may change during this time (due to random error), and the lower will be the test-retest reliability.
Split-half reliability. Split-half reliability is a measure of consistency between two halves of a construct measure. For instance, if you have a ten-item measure of a given construct, randomly split those ten items into two sets of five (unequal halves are allowed if the total number of items is odd), and administer the entire instrument to a sample of respondents. Then, calculate the total score for each half for each respondent, and the correlation between the total scores in each half is a measure of split-half reliability. The longer is the instrument, the more likely it is that the two halves of the measure will be similar (since random errors are minimized as more items are added), and hence, this technique tends to systematically overestimate the reliability of longer instruments.
Internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency reliability is a measure of consistency between different items of the same construct. If a multiple-item construct measure is administered to respondents, the extent to which respondents rate those items in a similar manner is a reflection of internal consistency. This reliability can be estimated in terms of average inter-item correlation, average item-to-total correlation, or more commonly,
Cronbach’s alpha. As an example, if you have a scale with six items, you will have fifteen different item pairings, and fifteen correlations between these six items. Average inter-item correlation is the average of these fifteen correlations. To calculate average item-to-total correlation, you have to first create a “total” item by adding the values of all six items, compute the correlations between this total item and each of the six individual items, and finally, average the six correlations. Neither of the two above measures takes into account the number of items in the measure (six items in this example). Cronbach’s alpha, a reliability measure designed by Lee Cronbach in 1951, factors in scale size in reliability estimation, calculated using the following formula:
$\alpha=\frac{K}{K-1}\left(1-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{K} \bar{r}}{\sigma_{X}^{2}}\right)$
where $K$ is the number of items in the measure, $\sigma_{X}^{2}$ is the variance (square of standard deviation) of the observed total scores, and $\bar{r}$ is the observed variance for item $i$. The standardized Cronbach’s alpha can be computed using a simpler formula:
$\alpha_{\text {standardized }}=\frac{K \bar{r}}{(1+(K-1) \bar{r})}$
where $K$ is the number of items, $\bar{r}$ is the average inter-item correlation, i.e., the mean of $K ( K -1)/2$ coefficients in the upper triangular (or lower triangular) correlation matrix.
Validity
Validity, often called construct validity, refers to the extent to which a measure adequately represents the underlying construct that it is supposed to measure. For instance, is a measure of compassion really measuring compassion, and not measuring a different construct such as empathy? Validity can be assessed using theoretical or empirical approaches, and should ideally be measured using both approaches. Theoretical assessment of validity focuses on how well the idea of a theoretical construct is translated into or represented in an operational measure. This type of validity is called translational validity (or representational validity), and consists of two subtypes: face and content validity. Translational validity is typically assessed using a panel of expert judges, who rate each item (indicator) on how well they fit the conceptual definition of that construct, and a qualitative technique called Q-sort.
Empirical assessment of validity examines how well a given measure relates to one or more external criterion, based on empirical observations. This type of validity is called criterion-related validity, which includes four sub-types: convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive validity. While translation validity examines whether a measure is a good reflection of its underlying construct, criterion -related validity examines whether a given measure behaves the way it should, given the theory of that construct. This assessment is based on quantitative analysis of observed data using statistical techniques such as correlational analysis, factor analysis, and so forth. The distinction between theoretical and empirical assessment of validity is illustrated in Figure 7.2. However, both approaches are needed to adequately ensure the validity of measures in social science research.
Note that the different types of validity discussed here refer to the validity of the measurement procedures, which is distinct from the validity of hypotheses testing procedures, such as internal validity (causality), external validity (generalizability), or statistical conclusion validity. The latter types of validity are discussed in a later chapter.
Face validity. Face validity refers to whether an indicator seems to be a reasonable measure of its underlying construct “on its face”. For instance, the frequency of one’s attendance at religious services seems to make sense as an indication of a person’s religiosity without a lot of explanation. Hence this indicator has face validity. However, if we were to suggest how many books were checked out of an office library as a measure of employee morale, then such a measure would probably lack face validity because it does not seem to make much sense. Interestingly, some of the popular measures used in organizational research appears to lack face validity. For instance, absorptive capacity of an organization (how much new knowledge can it assimilate for improving organizational processes) has often been measured as research and development intensity (i.e., R&D expenses divided by gross revenues)! If your research includes constructs that are highly abstract or constructs that are hard to conceptually separate from each other (e.g., compassion and empathy), it may be worthwhile to consider using a panel of experts to evaluate the face validity of your construct measures.
Content validity. Content validity is an assessment of how well a set of scale items matches with the relevant content domain of the construct that it is trying to measure. For instance, if you want to measure the construct “satisfaction with restaurant service,” and you define the content domain of restaurant service as including the quality of food, courtesy of wait staff, duration of wait, and the overall ambience of the restaurant (i.e., whether it is noisy, smoky, etc.), then for adequate content validity, this construct should be measured using indicators that examine the extent to which a restaurant patron is satisfied with the quality of food, courtesy of wait staff, the length of wait, and the restaurant’s ambience. Of course, this approach requires a detailed description of the entire content domain of a construct, which may be difficult for complex constructs such as self-esteem or intelligence. Hence, it may not be always possible to adequately assess content validity. As with face validity, an expert panel of judges may be employed to examine content validity of constructs.
Convergent validity refers to the closeness with which a measure relates to (or converges on) the construct that it is purported to measure, and discriminant validity refers to the degree to which a measure does not measure (or discriminates from) other constructs that it is not supposed to measure. Usually, convergent validity and discriminant validity are assessed jointly for a set of related constructs. For instance, if you expect that an organization’s knowledge is related to its performance, how can you assure that your measure of organizational knowledge is indeed measuring organizational knowledge (for convergent validity) and not organizational performance (for discriminant validity)? Convergent validity can be established by comparing the observed values of one indicator of one construct with that of other indicators of the same construct and demonstrating similarity (or high correlation) between values of these indicators. Discriminant validity is established by demonstrating that indicators of one construct are dissimilar from (i.e., have low correlation with) other constructs. In the above example, if we have a three-item measure of organizational knowledge and three more items for organizational performance, based on observed sample data, we can compute bivariate correlations between each pair of knowledge and performance items. If this correlation matrix shows high correlations within items of the organizational knowledge and organizational performance constructs, but low correlations between items of these constructs, then we have simultaneously demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity (see Table 7.1).
An alternative and more common statistical method used to demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity is exploratory factor analysis. This is a data reduction technique which aggregates a given set of items to a smaller set of factors based on the bivariate correlation structure discussed above using a statistical technique called principal components analysis. These factors should ideally correspond to the underling theoretical constructs that we are trying to measure. The general norm for factor extraction is that each extracted factor should have an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. The extracted factors can then be rotated using orthogonal or oblique rotation techniques, depending on whether the underlying constructs are expected to be relatively uncorrelated or correlated, to generate factor weights that can be used to aggregate the individual items of each construct into a composite measure. For adequate convergent validity, it is expected that items belonging to a common construct should exhibit factor loadings of 0.60 or higher on a single factor (called same-factor loadings), while for discriminant validity, these items should have factor loadings of 0.30 or less on all other factors (cross-factor loadings), as shown in rotated factor matrix example in Table 7.2. A more sophisticated technique for evaluating convergent and discriminant validity is the multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) approach. This technique requires measuring each construct (trait) using two or more different methods (e.g., survey and personal observation, or perhaps survey of two different respondent groups such as teachers and parents for evaluating academic quality). This is an onerous and relatively less popular approach, and is therefore not discussed here.
Criterion-related validity can also be assessed based on whether a given measure relate well with a current or future criterion, which are respectively called concurrent and predictive validity. Predictive validity is the degree to which a measure successfully predicts a future outcome that it is theoretically expected to predict. For instance, can standardized test scores (e.g., Scholastic Aptitude Test scores) correctly predict the academic success in college (e.g., as measured by college grade point average)? Assessing such validity requires creation of a “nomological network” showing how constructs are theoretically related to each other.
Concurrent validity examines how well one measure relates to other concrete criterion that is presumed to occur simultaneously. For instance, do students’ scores in a calculus class correlate well with their scores in a linear algebra class? These scores should be related concurrently because they are both tests of mathematics. Unlike convergent and discriminant validity, concurrent and predictive validity is frequently ignored in empirical social science research.
Theory of Measurement
Now that we know the different kinds of reliability and validity, let us try to synthesize our understanding of reliability and validity in a mathematical manner using classical test theory, also called true score theory. This is a psychometric theory that examines how measurement works, what it measures, and what it does not measure. This theory postulates that every observation has a true score $T$ that can be observed accurately if there were no errors in measurement. However, the presence of measurement errors $E$ results in a deviation of the observed score X from the true score as follows:
$X = T + E$
where $X$ is the observed score, $T$ is the true score and $E$ is the error.
Across a set of observed scores, the variance of observed and true scores can be related using a similar equation:
$\text{var}(X) = \text{var}(T) + \text{var}(E)$
The goal of psychometric analysis is to estimate and minimize if possible the error variance $\text{var}(E)$, so that the observed score $X$ is a good measure of the true score $T$.
Measurement errors can be of two types: random error and systematic error. Random error is the error that can be attributed to a set of unknown and uncontrollable external factors that randomly influence some observations but not others. As an example, during the time of measurement, some respondents may be in a nicer mood than others, which may influence how they respond to the measurement items. For instance, respondents in a nicer mood may respond more positively to constructs like self-esteem, satisfaction, and happiness than those who are in a poor mood. However, it is not possible to anticipate which subject is in what type of mood or control for the effect of mood in research studies. Likewise, at an organizational level, if we are measuring firm performance, regulatory or environmental changes may affect the performance of some firms in an observed sample but not others. Hence, random error is considered to be “noise” in measurement and generally ignored.
Systematic error is an error that is introduced by factors that systematically affect all observations of a construct across an entire sample in a systematic manner. In our previous example of firm performance, since the recent financial crisis impacted the performance of financial firms disproportionately more than any other type of firms such as manufacturing or service firms, if our sample consisted only of financial firms, we may expect a systematic reduction in performance of all firms in our sample due to the financial crisis. Unlike random error, which may be positive negative, or zero, across observation in a sample, systematic errors tends to be consistently positive or negative across the entire sample. Hence, systematic error is sometimes considered to be “bias” in measurement and should be corrected.
Since an observed score may include both random and systematic errors, our true score equation can be modified as:
$X = T + E_r + E_s$
where $E_r$ and $E_s$ represent random and systematic errors respectively. The statistical impact of these errors is that random error adds variability (e.g., standard deviation) to the distribution of an observed measure, but does not affect its central tendency (e.g., mean), while systematic error affects the central tendency but not the variability, as shown in Figure 7.3.
What does random and systematic error imply for measurement procedures? By increasing variability in observations, random error reduces the reliability of measurement. In contrast, by shifting the central tendency measure, systematic error reduces the validity of measurement. Validity concerns are far more serious problems in measurement than reliability concerns, because an invalid measure is probably measuring a different construct than what we intended, and hence validity problems cast serious doubts on findings derived from statistical analysis.
Note that reliability is a ratio or a fraction that captures how close the true score is relative to the observed score. Hence, reliability can be expressed as:
$\dfrac{var(T)}{var(X)} = \dfrac{var(T)}{var(T) + var(E)}$
If $var(T) = var(X)$, then the true score has the same variability as the observed score, and the reliability is 1.0.
An Integrated Approach to Measurement Validation
A complete and adequate assessment of validity must include both theoretical and empirical approaches. As shown in Figure 7.4, this is an elaborate multi-step process that must take into account the different types of scale reliability and validity.
The integrated approach starts in the theoretical realm. The first step is conceptualizing the constructs of interest. This includes defining each construct and identifying their constituent domains and/or dimensions. Next, we select (or create) items or indicators for each construct based on our conceptualization of these construct, as described in the scaling procedure in Chapter 5. A literature review may also be helpful in indicator selection. Each item is reworded in a uniform manner using simple and easy-to-understand text. Following this step, a panel of expert judges (academics experienced in research methods and/or a representative set of target respondents) can be employed to examine each indicator and conduct a Q-sort analysis. In this analysis, each judge is given a list of all constructs with their conceptual definitions and a stack of index cards listing each indicator for each of the construct measures (one indicator per index card). Judges are then asked to independently read each index card, examine the clarity, readability, and semantic meaning of that item, and sort it with the construct where it seems to make the most sense, based on the construct definitions provided. Inter-rater reliability is assessed to examine the extent to which judges agreed with their classifications. Ambiguous items that were consistently missed by many judges may be reexamined, reworded, or dropped. The best items (say 10-15) for each construct are selected for further analysis. Each of the selected items is reexamined by judges for face validity and content validity. If an adequate set of items is not achieved at this stage, new items may have to be created based on the conceptual definition of the intended construct. Two or three rounds of Q-sort may be needed to arrive at reasonable agreement between judges on a set of items that best represents the constructs of interest.
Next, the validation procedure moves to the empirical realm. A research instrument is created comprising all of the refined construct items, and is administered to a pilot test group of representative respondents from the target population. Data collected is tabulated and subjected to correlational analysis or exploratory factor analysis using a software program such as SAS or SPSS for assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. Items that do not meet the expected norms of factor loading (same-factor loadings higher than 0.60, and cross-factor loadings less than 0.30) should be dropped at this stage. The remaining scales are evaluated for reliability using a measure of internal consistency such as Cronbach alpha. Scale dimensionality may also be verified at this stage, depending on whether the targeted constructs were conceptualized as being unidimensional or multi-dimensional. Next, evaluate the predictive ability of each construct within a theoretically specified nomological network of construct using regression analysis or structural equation modeling. If the construct measures satisfy most or all of the requirements of reliability and validity described in this chapter, we can be assured that our operationalized measures are reasonably adequate and accurate.
The integrated approach to measurement validation discussed here is quite demanding of researcher time and effort. Nonetheless, this elaborate multi-stage process is needed to ensure that measurement scales used in our research meets the expected norms of scientific research. Because inferences drawn using flawed or compromised scales are meaningless, scale validation and measurement remains one of the most important and involved phase of empirical research. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.07%3A_Chapter_7_Scale_Reliability_and_Validity.txt |
Sampling is the statistical process of selecting a subset (called a “sample”) of a population of interest for purposes of making observations and statistical inferences about that population. Social science research is generally about inferring patterns of behaviors within specific populations. We cannot study entire populations because of feasibility and cost constraints, and hence, we must select a representative sample from the population of interest for observation and analysis. It is extremely important to choose a sample that is truly representative of the population so that the inferences derived from the sample can be generalized back to the population of interest. Improper and biased sampling is the primary reason for often divergent and erroneous inferences reported in opinion polls and exit polls conducted by different polling groups such as CNN/Gallup Poll, ABC, and CBS, prior to every U.S. Presidential elections.
The Sampling Process
The sampling process comprises of several stage. The first stage is defining the target population. A population can be defined as all people or items ( unit of analysis ) with the characteristics that one wishes to study. The unit of analysis may be a person, group, organization, country, object, or any other entity that you wish to draw scientific inferences about. Sometimes the population is obvious. For example, if a manufacturer wants to determine whether finished goods manufactured at a production line meets certain quality requirements or must be scrapped and reworked, then the population consists of the entire set of finished goods manufactured at that production facility. At other times, the target population may be a little harder to understand. If you wish to identify the primary drivers of academic learning among high school students, then what is your target population: high school students, their teachers, school principals, or parents? The right answer in this case is high school students, because you are interested in their performance, not the performance of their teachers, parents, or schools. Likewise, if you wish to analyze the behavior of roulette wheels to identify biased wheels, your population of interest is not different observations from a single roulette wheel, but different roulette wheels (i.e., their behavior over an infinite set of wheels).
The second step in the sampling process is to choose a sampling frame. This is an accessible section of the target population (usually a list with contact information) from where a sample can be drawn. If your target population is professional employees at work, because you cannot access all professional employees around the world, a more realistic sampling frame will be employee lists of one or two local companies that are willing to participate in your study. If your target population is organizations, then the Fortune 500 list of firms or the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) list of firms registered with the New York Stock exchange may be acceptable sampling frames.
Note that sampling frames may not entirely be representative of the population at large, and if so, inferences derived by such a sample may not be generalizable to the population. For instance, if your target population is organizational employees at large (e.g., you wish to study employee self-esteem in this population) and your sampling frame is employees at automotive companies in the American Midwest, findings from such groups may not even be generalizable to the American workforce at large, let alone the global workplace. This is because the American auto industry has been under severe competitive pressures for the last 50 years and has seen numerous episodes of reorganization and downsizing, possibly resulting in low employee morale and self-esteem. Furthermore, the majority of the American workforce is employed in service industries or in small businesses, and not in automotive industry. Hence, a sample of American auto industry employees is not particularly representative of the American workforce. Likewise, the Fortune 500 list includes the 500 largest American enterprises, which is not representative of all American firms in general, most of which are medium and small-sized firms rather than large firms, and is therefore, a biased sampling frame. In contrast, the S&P list will allow you to select large, medium, and/or small companies, depending on whether you use the S&P large-cap, mid-cap, or small-cap lists, but includes publicly traded firms (and not private firms) and hence still biased. Also note that the population from which a sample is drawn may not necessarily be the same as the population about which we actually want information. For example, if a researcher wants to the success rate of a new “quit smoking” program, then the target population is the universe of smokers who had access to this program, which may be an unknown population. Hence, the researcher may sample patients arriving at a local medical facility for smoking cessation treatment, some of whom may not have had exposure to this particular “quit smoking” program, in which case, the sampling frame does not correspond to the population of interest.
The last step in sampling is choosing a sample from the sampling frame using a well-defined sampling technique. Sampling techniques can be grouped into two broad categories: probability (random) sampling and non-probability sampling. Probability sampling is ideal if generalizability of results is important for your study, but there may be unique circumstances where non-probability sampling can also be justified. These techniques are discussed in the next two sections.
Probability Sampling
Probability sampling is a technique in which every unit in the population has a chance (non-zero probability) of being selected in the sample, and this chance can be accurately determined. Sample statistics thus produced, such as sample mean or standard deviation, are unbiased estimates of population parameters, as long as the sampled units are weighted according to their probability of selection. All probability sampling have two attributes in common: (1) every unit in the population has a known non-zero probability of being sampled, and (2) the sampling procedure involves random selection at some point. The different types of probability sampling techniques include:
Simple random sampling. In this technique, all possible subsets of a population (more accurately, of a sampling frame) are given an equal probability of being selected. The probability of selecting any set of n units out of a total of N units in a sampling frame is N C n. Hence, sample statistics are unbiased estimates of population parameters, without any weighting. Simple random sampling involves randomly selecting respondents from a sampling frame, but with large sampling frames, usually a table of random numbers or a computerized random number generator is used. For instance, if you wish to select 200 firms to survey from a list of 1000 firms, if this list is entered into a spreadsheet like Excel, you can use Excel’s RAND() function to generate random numbers for each of the 1000 clients on that list. Next, you sort the list in increasing order of their corresponding random number, and select the first 200 clients on that sorted list. This is the simplest of all probability sampling techniques; however, the simplicity is also the strength of this technique. Because the sampling frame is not subdivided or partitioned, the sample is unbiased and the inferences are most generalizable amongst all probability sampling techniques.
Systematic sampling. In this technique, the sampling frame is ordered according to some criteria and elements are selected at regular intervals through that ordered list. Systematic sampling involves a random start and then proceeds with the selection of every k th element from that point onwards, where k = N / n, where k is the ratio of sampling frame size N and the desired sample size n, and is formally called the sampling ratio. It is important that the starting point is not automatically the first in the list, but is instead randomly chosen from within the first k elements on the list. In our previous example of selecting 200 firms from a list of 1000 firms, you can sort the 1000 firms in increasing (or decreasing) order of their size (i.e., employee count or annual revenues), randomly select one of the first five firms on the sorted list, and then select every fifth firm on the list. This process will ensure that there is no overrepresentation of large or small firms in your sample, but rather that firms of all sizes are generally uniformly represented, as it is in your sampling frame. In other words, the sample is representative of the population, at least on the basis of the sorting criterion.
Stratified sampling. In stratified sampling, the sampling frame is divided into homogeneous and non-overlapping subgroups (called “strata”), and a simple random sample is drawn within each subgroup. In the previous example of selecting 200 firms from a list of 1000 firms, you can start by categorizing the firms based on their size as large (more than 500 employees), medium (between 50 and 500 employees), and small (less than 50 employees). You can then randomly select 67 firms from each subgroup to make up your sample of 200 firms. However, since there are many more small firms in a sampling frame than large firms, having an equal number of small, medium, and large firms will make the sample less representative of the population (i.e., biased in favor of large firms that are fewer in number in the target population). This is called non-proportional stratified sampling because the proportion of sample within each subgroup does not reflect the proportions in the sampling frame (or the population of interest), and the smaller subgroup (large-sized firms) is over-sampled. An alternative technique will be to select subgroup samples in proportion to their size in the population. For instance, if there are 100 large firms, 300 mid-sized firms, and 600 small firms, you can sample 20 firms from the “large” group, 60 from the “medium” group and 120 from the “small” group. In this case, the proportional distribution of firms in the population is retained in the sample, and hence this technique is called proportional stratified sampling. Note that the non-proportional approach is particularly effective in representing small subgroups, such as large-sized firms, and is not necessarily less representative of the population compared to the proportional approach, as long as the findings of the non-proportional approach is weighted in accordance to a subgroup’s proportion in the overall population.
Cluster sampling. If you have a population dispersed over a wide geographic region, it may not be feasible to conduct a simple random sampling of the entire population. In such case, it may be reasonable to divide the population into “clusters” (usually along geographic boundaries), randomly sample a few clusters, and measure all units within that cluster. For instance, if you wish to sample city governments in the state of New York, rather than travel all over the state to interview key city officials (as you may have to do with a simple random sample), you can cluster these governments based on their counties, randomly select a set of three counties, and then interview officials from every official in those counties. However, depending on between- cluster differences, the variability of sample estimates in a cluster sample will generally be higher than that of a simple random sample, and hence the results are less generalizable to the population than those obtained from simple random samples.
Matched-pairs sampling. Sometimes, researchers may want to compare two subgroups within one population based on a specific criterion. For instance, why are some firms consistently more profitable than other firms? To conduct such a study, you would have to categorize a sampling frame of firms into “high profitable” firms and “low profitable firms” based on gross margins, earnings per share, or some other measure of profitability. You would then select a simple random sample of firms in one subgroup, and match each firm in this group with a firm in the second subgroup, based on its size, industry segment, and/or other matching criteria. Now, you have two matched samples of high-profitability and low-profitability firms that you can study in greater detail. Such matched-pairs sampling technique is often an ideal way of understanding bipolar differences between different subgroups within a given population.
Multi-stage sampling. The probability sampling techniques described previously are all examples of single-stage sampling techniques. Depending on your sampling needs, you may combine these single-stage techniques to conduct multi-stage sampling. For instance, you can stratify a list of businesses based on firm size, and then conduct systematic sampling within each stratum. This is a two-stage combination of stratified and systematic sampling. Likewise, you can start with a cluster of school districts in the state of New York, and within each cluster, select a simple random sample of schools; within each school, select a simple random sample of grade levels; and within each grade level, select a simple random sample of students for study. In this case, you have a four-stage sampling process consisting of cluster and simple random sampling.
Non-Probability Sampling
Nonprobability sampling is a sampling technique in which some units of the population have zero chance of selection or where the probability of selection cannot be accurately determined. Typically, units are selected based on certain non-random criteria, such as quota or convenience. Because selection is non-random, nonprobability sampling does not allow the estimation of sampling errors, and may be subjected to a sampling bias. Therefore, information from a sample cannot be generalized back to the population. Types of non-probability sampling techniques include:
Convenience sampling. Also called accidental or opportunity sampling, this is a technique in which a sample is drawn from that part of the population that is close to hand, readily available, or convenient. For instance, if you stand outside a shopping center and hand out questionnaire surveys to people or interview them as they walk in, the sample of respondents you will obtain will be a convenience sample. This is a non-probability sample because you are systematically excluding all people who shop at other shopping centers. The opinions that you would get from your chosen sample may reflect the unique characteristics of this shopping center such as the nature of its stores (e.g., high end-stores will attract a more affluent demographic), the demographic profile of its patrons, or its location (e.g., a shopping center close to a university will attract primarily university students with unique purchase habits), and therefore may not be representative of the opinions of the shopper population at large. Hence, the scientific generalizability of such observations will be very limited. Other examples of convenience sampling are sampling students registered in a certain class or sampling patients arriving at a certain medical clinic. This type of sampling is most useful for pilot testing, where the goal is instrument testing or measurement validation rather than obtaining generalizable inferences.
Quota sampling. In this technique, the population is segmented into mutually-exclusive subgroups (just as in stratified sampling), and then a non-random set of observations is chosen from each subgroup to meet a predefined quota. In proportional quota sampling, the proportion of respondents in each subgroup should match that of the population. For instance, if the American population consists of 70% Caucasians, 15% Hispanic-Americans, and 13% African-Americans, and you wish to understand their voting preferences in an sample of 98 people, you can stand outside a shopping center and ask people their voting preferences. But you will have to stop asking Hispanic-looking people when you have 15 responses from that subgroup (or African-Americans when you have 13 responses) even as you continue sampling other ethnic groups, so that the ethnic composition of your sample matches that of the general American population. Non-proportional quota sampling is less restrictive in that you don’t have to achieve a proportional representation, but perhaps meet a minimum size in each subgroup. In this case, you may decide to have 50 respondents from each of the three ethnic subgroups (Caucasians, Hispanic-Americans, and African- Americans), and stop when your quota for each subgroup is reached. Neither type of quota sampling will be representative of the American population, since depending on whether your study was conducted in a shopping center in New York or Kansas, your results may be entirely different. The non-proportional technique is even less representative of the population but may be useful in that it allows capturing the opinions of small and underrepresented groups through oversampling.
Expert sampling. This is a technique where respondents are chosen in a non-random manner based on their expertise on the phenomenon being studied. For instance, in order to understand the impacts of a new governmental policy such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, you can sample an group of corporate accountants who are familiar with this act. The advantage of this approach is that since experts tend to be more familiar with the subject matter than non-experts, opinions from a sample of experts are more credible than a sample that includes both experts and non-experts, although the findings are still not generalizable to the overall population at large.
Snowball sampling. In snowball sampling, you start by identifying a few respondents that match the criteria for inclusion in your study, and then ask them to recommend others they know who also meet your selection criteria. For instance, if you wish to survey computer network administrators and you know of only one or two such people, you can start with them and ask them to recommend others who also do network administration. Although this method hardly leads to representative samples, it may sometimes be the only way to reach hard-to-reach populations or when no sampling frame is available.
Statistics of Sampling
In the preceding sections, we introduced terms such as population parameter, sample statistic, and sampling bias. In this section, we will try to understand what these terms mean and how they are related to each other.
When you measure a certain observation from a given unit, such as a person’s response to a Likert-scaled item, that observation is called a response (see Figure 8.2). In other words, a response is a measurement value provided by a sampled unit. Each respondent will give you different responses to different items in an instrument. Responses from different respondents to the same item or observation can be graphed into a frequency distribution based on their frequency of occurrences. For a large number of responses in a sample, this frequency distribution tends to resemble a bell-shaped curve called a normal distribution, which can be used to estimate overall characteristics of the entire sample, such as sample mean (average of all observations in a sample) or standard deviation (variability or spread of observations in a sample). These sample estimates are called sample statistics (a “statistic” is a value that is estimated from observed data). Populations also have means and standard deviations that could be obtained if we could sample the entire population. However, since the entire population can never be sampled, population characteristics are always unknown, and are called population parameters (and not “statistic” because they are not statistically estimated from data). Sample statistics may differ from population parameters if the sample is not perfectly representative of the population; the difference between the two is called sampling error. Theoretically, if we could gradually increase the sample size so that the sample approaches closer and closer to the population, then sampling error will decrease and a sample statistic will increasingly approximate the corresponding population parameter.
If a sample is truly representative of the population, then the estimated sample statistics should be identical to corresponding theoretical population parameters. How do we know if the sample statistics are at least reasonably close to the population parameters? Here, we need to understand the concept of a sampling distribution. Imagine that you took three different random samples from a given population, as shown in Figure 8.3, and for each sample, you derived sample statistics such as sample mean and standard deviation. If each random sample was truly representative of the population, then your three sample means from the three random samples will be identical (and equal to the population parameter), and the variability in sample means will be zero. But this is extremely unlikely, given that each random sample will likely constitute a different subset of the population, and hence, their means may be slightly different from each other. However, you can take these three sample means and plot a frequency histogram of sample means. If the number of such samples increases from three to 10 to 100, the frequency histogram becomes a sampling distribution. Hence, a sampling distribution is a frequency distribution of a sample statistic (like sample mean) from a set of samples, while the commonly referenced frequency distribution is the distribution of a response (observation) from a single sample. Just like a frequency distribution, the sampling distribution will also tend to have more sample statistics clustered around the mean (which presumably is an estimate of a population parameter), with fewer values scattered around the mean. With an infinitely large number of samples, this distribution will approach a normal distribution. The variability or spread of a sample statistic in a sampling distribution (i.e., the standard deviation of a sampling statistic) is called its standard error. In contrast, the term standard deviation is reserved for variability of an observed response from a single sample.
The mean value of a sample statistic in a sampling distribution is presumed to be an estimate of the unknown population parameter. Based on the spread of this sampling distribution (i.e., based on standard error), it is also possible to estimate confidence intervals for that prediction population parameter. Confidence interval is the estimated probability that a population parameter lies within a specific interval of sample statistic values. All normal distributions tend to follow a 68-95-99 percent rule (see Figure 8.4), which says that over 68% of the cases in the distribution lie within one standard deviation of the mean value (µ + 1σ), over 95% of the cases in the distribution lie within two standard deviations of the mean (µ + 2σ), and over 99% of the cases in the distribution lie within three standard deviations of the mean value (µ + 3σ). Since a sampling distribution with an infinite number of samples will approach a normal distribution, the same 68-95-99 rule applies, and it can be said that:
• (Sample statistic + one standard error) represents a 68% confidence interval for the population parameter.
• (Sample statistic + two standard errors) represents a 95% confidence interval for the population parameter.
• (Sample statistic + three standard errors) represents a 99% confidence interval for the population parameter.
A sample is “biased” (i.e., not representative of the population) if its sampling distribution cannot be estimated or if the sampling distribution violates the 68-95-99 percent rule. As an aside, note that in most regression analysis where we examine the significance of regression coefficients with p<0.05, we are attempting to see if the sampling statistic (regression coefficient) predicts the corresponding population parameter (true effect size) with a 95% confidence interval. Interestingly, the “six sigma” standard attempts to identify manufacturing defects outside the 99% confidence interval or six standard deviations (standard deviation is represented using the Greek letter sigma), representing significance testing at p<0.01. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.08%3A_Chapter_8_Sampling.txt |
Survey research a research method involving the use of standardized questionnaires or interviews to collect data about people and their preferences, thoughts, and behaviors in a systematic manner. Although census surveys were conducted as early as Ancient Egypt, survey as a formal research method was pioneered in the 1930-40s by sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld to examine the effects of the radio on political opinion formation of the United States. This method has since become a very popular method for quantitative research in the social sciences.
The survey method can be used for descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory research. This method is best suited for studies that have individual people as the unit of analysis. Although other units of analysis, such as groups, organizations or dyads (pairs of organizations, such as buyers and sellers), are also studied using surveys, such studies often use a specific person from each unit as a “key informant” or a “proxy” for that unit, and such surveys may be subject to respondent bias if the informant chosen does not have adequate knowledge or has a biased opinion about the phenomenon of interest. For instance, Chief Executive Officers may not adequately know employee’s perceptions or teamwork in their own companies, and may therefore be the wrong informant for studies of team dynamics or employee self-esteem.
Survey research has several inherent strengths compared to other research methods. First, surveys are an excellent vehicle for measuring a wide variety of unobservable data, such as people’s preferences (e.g., political orientation), traits (e.g., self-esteem), attitudes (e.g., toward immigrants), beliefs (e.g., about a new law), behaviors (e.g., smoking or drinking behavior), or factual information (e.g., income). Second, survey research is also ideally suited for remotely collecting data about a population that is too large to observe directly. A large area, such as an entire country, can be covered using mail-in, electronic mail, or telephone surveys using meticulous sampling to ensure that the population is adequately represented in a small sample. Third, due to their unobtrusive nature and the ability to respond at one’s convenience, questionnaire surveys are preferred by some respondents. Fourth, interviews may be the only way of reaching certain population groups such as the homeless or illegal immigrants for which there is no sampling frame available. Fifth, large sample surveys may allow detection of small effects even while analyzing multiple variables, and depending on the survey design, may also allow comparative analysis of population subgroups (i.e., within-group and between-group analysis). Sixth, survey research is economical in terms of researcher time, effort and cost than most other methods such as experimental research and case research. At the same time, survey research also has some unique disadvantages. It is subject to a large number of biases such as non-response bias, sampling bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias, as discussed in the last section of this chapter.
Depending on how the data is collected, survey research can be divided into two broad categories: questionnaire surveys (which may be mail-in, group-administered, or online surveys), and interview surveys (which may be personal, telephone, or focus group interviews). Questionnaires are instruments that are completed in writing by respondents, while interviews are completed by the interviewer based on verbal responses provided by respondents. As discussed below, each type has its own strengths and weaknesses, in terms of their costs, coverage of the target population, and researcher’s flexibility in asking questions.
Questionnaire Surveys
Invented by Sir Francis Galton, a questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a set of questions (items) intended to capture responses from respondents in a standardized manner. Questions may be unstructured or structured. Unstructured questions ask respondents to provide a response in their own words, while structured questions ask respondents to select an answer from a given set of choices. Subjects’ responses to individual questions (items) on a structured questionnaire may be aggregated into a composite scale or index for statistical analysis. Questions should be designed such that respondents are able to read, understand, and respond to them in a meaningful way, and hence the survey method may not be appropriate or practical for certain demographic groups such as children or the illiterate.
Most questionnaire surveys tend to be self-administered mail surveys , where the same questionnaire is mailed to a large number of people, and willing respondents can complete the survey at their convenience and return it in postage-prepaid envelopes. Mail surveys are advantageous in that they are unobtrusive, and they are inexpensive to administer, since bulk postage is cheap in most countries. However, response rates from mail surveys tend to be quite low since most people tend to ignore survey requests. There may also be long delays (several months) in respondents’ completing and returning the survey (or they may simply lose it). Hence, the researcher must continuously monitor responses as they are being returned, track and send reminders to non-respondents repeated reminders (two or three reminders at intervals of one to 1.5 months is ideal). Questionnaire surveys are also not well-suited for issues that require clarification on the part of the respondent or those that require detailed written responses. Longitudinal designs can be used to survey the same set of respondents at different times, but response rates tend to fall precipitously from one survey to the next.
A second type of survey is group-administered questionnaire . A sample of respondents is brought together at a common place and time, and each respondent is asked to complete the survey questionnaire while in that room. Respondents enter their responses independently without interacting with each other. This format is convenient for the researcher, and high response rate is assured. If respondents do not understand any specific question, they can ask for clarification. In many organizations, it is relatively easy to assemble a group of employees in a conference room or lunch room, especially if the survey is approved by corporate executives.
A more recent type of questionnaire survey is an online or web survey. These surveys are administered over the Internet using interactive forms. Respondents may receive an electronic mail request for participation in the survey with a link to an online website where the survey may be completed. Alternatively, the survey may be embedded into an e-mail, and can be completed and returned via e-mail. These surveys are very inexpensive to administer, results are instantly recorded in an online database, and the survey can be easily modified if needed. However, if the survey website is not password-protected or designed to prevent multiple submissions, the responses can be easily compromised. Furthermore, sampling bias may be a significant issue since the survey cannot reach people that do not have computer or Internet access, such as many of the poor, senior, and minority groups, and the respondent sample is skewed toward an younger demographic who are online much of the time and have the time and ability to complete such surveys. Computing the response rate may be problematic, if the survey link is posted on listservs or bulletin boards instead of being e-mailed directly to targeted respondents. For these reasons, many researchers prefer dual-media surveys (e.g., mail survey and online survey), allowing respondents to select their preferred method of response.
Constructing a survey questionnaire is an art. Numerous decisions must be made about the content of questions, their wording, format, and sequencing, all of which can have important consequences for the survey responses.
Response formats. Survey questions may be structured or unstructured. Responses to structured questions are captured using one of the following response formats:
• Dichotomous response , where respondents are asked to select one of two possible choices, such as true/false, yes/no, or agree/disagree. An example of such a question is: Do you think that the death penalty is justified under some circumstances (circle one): yes / no.
• Nominal response , where respondents are presented with more than two unordered options, such as: What is your industry of employment: manufacturing / consumer services / retail / education / healthcare / tourism & hospitality / other.
• Ordinal response , where respondents have more than two ordered options, such as: what is your highest level of education: high school / college degree / graduate studies.
• Interval-level response , where respondents are presented with a 5-point or 7-point Likert scale, semantic differential scale, or Guttman scale. Each of these scale types were discussed in a previous chapter.
• Continuous response , where respondents enter a continuous (ratio-scaled) value with a meaningful zero point, such as their age or tenure in a firm. These responses generally tend to be of the fill-in-the blanks type.
Question content and wording. Responses obtained in survey research are very sensitive to the types of questions asked. Poorly framed or ambiguous questions will likely result in meaningless responses with very little value. Dillman (1978) recommends several rules for creating good survey questions. Every single question in a survey should be carefully scrutinized for the following issues:
• Is the question clear and understandable: Survey questions should be stated in a very simple language, preferably in active voice, and without complicated words or jargon that may not be understood by a typical respondent. All questions in the questionnaire should be worded in a similar manner to make it easy for respondents to read and understand them. The only exception is if your survey is targeted at a specialized group of respondents, such as doctors, lawyers and researchers, who use such jargon in their everyday environment.
• Is the question worded in a negative manner: Negatively worded questions, such as should your local government not raise taxes, tend to confuse many responses and lead to inaccurate responses. Such questions should be avoided, and in all cases, avoid double-negatives.
• Is the question ambiguous: Survey questions should not words or expressions that may be interpreted differently by different respondents (e.g., words like “any” or “just”). For instance, if you ask a respondent, what is your annual income, it is unclear whether you referring to salary/wages, or also dividend, rental, and other income, whether you referring to personal income, family income (including spouse’s wages), or personal and business income? Different interpretation by different respondents will lead to incomparable responses that cannot be interpreted correctly.
• Does the question have biased or value-laden words: Bias refers to any property of a question that encourages subjects to answer in a certain way. Kenneth Rasinky (1989) examined several studies on people’s attitude toward government spending, and observed that respondents tend to indicate stronger support for “assistance to the poor” and less for “welfare”, even though both terms had the same meaning. In this study, more support was also observed for “halting rising crime rate” (and less for “law enforcement”), “solving problems of big cities” (and less for “assistance to big cities”), and “dealing with drug addiction” (and less for “drug rehabilitation”). A biased language or tone tends to skew observed responses. It is often difficult to anticipate in advance the biasing wording, but to the greatest extent possible, survey questions should be carefully scrutinized to avoid biased language.
• Is the question double-barreled: Double-barreled questions are those that can have multiple answers. For example, are you satisfied with the hardware and software provided for your work? In this example, how should a respondent answer if he/she is satisfied with the hardware but not with the software or vice versa? It is always advisable to separate double-barreled questions into separate questions: (1) are you satisfied with the hardware provided for your work, and (2) are you satisfied with the software provided for your work. Another example: does your family favor public television? Some people may favor public TV for themselves, but favor certain cable TV programs such as Sesame Street for their children.
• Is the question too general: Sometimes, questions that are too general may not accurately convey respondents’ perceptions. If you asked someone how they liked a certain book and provide a response scale ranging from “not at all” to “extremely well”, if that person selected “extremely well”, what does he/she mean? Instead, ask more specific behavioral questions, such as will you recommend this book to others, or do you plan to read other books by the same author? Likewise, instead of asking how big is your firm (which may be interpreted differently by respondents), ask how many people work for your firm, and/or what is the annual revenues of your firm, which are both measures of firm size.
• Is the question too detailed: Avoid unnecessarily detailed questions that serve no specific research purpose. For instance, do you need the age of each child in a household or is just the number of children in the household acceptable? However, if unsure, it is better to err on the side of details than generality.
• Is the question presumptuous: If you ask, what do you see are the benefits of a tax cut, you are presuming that the respondent sees the tax cut as beneficial. But many people may not view tax cuts as being beneficial, because tax cuts generally lead to lesser funding for public schools, larger class sizes, and fewer public services such as police, ambulance, and fire service. Avoid questions with built-in presumptions.
• Is the question imaginary: A popular question in many television game shows is “if you won a million dollars on this show, how will you plan to spend it?” Most respondents have never been faced with such an amount of money and have never thought about it (most don’t even know that after taxes, they will get only about \$640,000 or so in the United States, and in many cases, that amount is spread over a 20-year period, so that their net present value is even less), and so their answers tend to be quite random, such as take a tour around the world, buy a restaurant or bar, spend on education, save for retirement, help parents or children, or have a lavish wedding. Imaginary questions have imaginary answers, which cannot be used for making scientific inferences.
• Do respondents have the information needed to correctly answer the question: Often times, we assume that subjects have the necessary information to answer a question, when in reality, they do not. Even if a response is obtained, in such case, the responses tend to be inaccurate, given their lack of knowledge about the question being asked. For instance, we should not ask the CEO of a company about day-to-day operational details that they may not be aware of, or asking teachers about how much their students are learning, or asking high-schoolers “Do you think the US Government acted appropriately in the Bay of Pigs crisis?”
Question sequencing. In general, questions should flow logically from one to the next. To achieve the best response rates, questions should flow from the least sensitive to the most sensitive, from the factual and behavioral to the attitudinal, and from the more general to the more specific. Some general rules for question sequencing:
• Start with easy non-threatening questions that can be easily recalled. Good options are demographics (age, gender, education level) for individual-level surveys and firmographics (employee count, annual revenues, industry) for firm-level surveys.
• Never start with an open ended question.
• If following an historical sequence of events, follow a chronological order from earliest to latest.
• Ask about one topic at a time. When switching topics, use a transition, such as “The next section examines your opinions about …”
• Use filter or contingency questions as needed, such as: “If you answered “yes” to question 5, please proceed to Section 2. If you answered “no” go to Section 3.”
Other golden rules . Do unto your respondents what you would have them do unto you. Be attentive and appreciative of respondents’ time, attention, trust, and confidentiality of personal information. Always practice the following strategies for all survey research:
• People’s time is valuable. Be respectful of their time. Keep your survey as short as possible and limit it to what is absolutely necessary. Respondents do not like spending more than 10-15 minutes on any survey, no matter how important it is. Longer surveys tend to dramatically lower response rates.
• Always assure respondents about the confidentiality of their responses, and how you will use their data (e.g., for academic research) and how the results will be reported (usually, in the aggregate).
• For organizational surveys, assure respondents that you will send them a copy of the final results, and make sure that you follow up with your promise.
• Thank your respondents for their participation in your study.
• Finally, always pretest your questionnaire, at least using a convenience sample, before administering it to respondents in a field setting. Such pretesting may uncover ambiguity, lack of clarity, or biases in question wording, which should be eliminated before administering to the intended sample.
Interview Survey
Interviews are a more personalized form of data collection method than questionnaires, and are conducted by trained interviewers using the same research protocol as questionnaire surveys (i.e., a standardized set of questions). However, unlike a questionnaire, the interview script may contain special instructions for the interviewer that is not seen by respondents, and may include space for the interviewer to record personal observations and comments. In addition, unlike mail surveys, the interviewer has the opportunity to clarify any issues raised by the respondent or ask probing or follow-up questions. However, interviews are time-consuming and resource-intensive. Special interviewing skills are needed on part of the interviewer. The interviewer is also considered to be part of the measurement instrument, and must proactively strive not to artificially bias the observed responses.
The most typical form of interview is personal or face-to-face interview , where the interviewer works directly with the respondent to ask questions and record their responses.
Personal interviews may be conducted at the respondent’s home or office location. This approach may even be favored by some respondents, while others may feel uncomfortable in allowing a stranger in their homes. However, skilled interviewers can persuade respondents to cooperate, dramatically improving response rates.
A variation of the personal interview is a group interview, also called focus group . In this technique, a small group of respondents (usually 6-10 respondents) are interviewed together in a common location. The interviewer is essentially a facilitator whose job is to lead the discussion, and ensure that every person has an opportunity to respond. Focus groups allow deeper examination of complex issues than other forms of survey research, because when people hear others talk, it often triggers responses or ideas that they did not think about before. However, focus group discussion may be dominated by a dominant personality, and some individuals may be reluctant to voice their opinions in front of their peers or superiors, especially while dealing with a sensitive issue such as employee underperformance or office politics. Because of their small sample size, focus groups are usually used for exploratory research rather than descriptive or explanatory research.
A third type of interview survey is telephone interviews . In this technique, interviewers contact potential respondents over the phone, typically based on a random selection of people from a telephone directory, to ask a standard set of survey questions. A more recent and technologically advanced approach is computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), increasing being used by academic, government, and commercial survey researchers, where the interviewer is a telephone operator, who is guided through the interview process by a computer program displaying instructions and questions to be asked on a computer screen. The system also selects respondents randomly using a random digit dialing technique, and records responses using voice capture technology. Once respondents are on the phone, higher response rates can be obtained. This technique is not ideal for rural areas where telephone density is low, and also cannot be used for communicating non-audio information such as graphics or product demonstrations.
Role of interviewer. The interviewer has a complex and multi-faceted role in the interview process, which includes the following tasks:
• Prepare for the interview: Since the interviewer is in the forefront of the data collection effort, the quality of data collected depends heavily on how well the interviewer is trained to do the job. The interviewer must be trained in the interview process and the survey method, and also be familiar with the purpose of the study, how responses will be stored and used, and sources of interviewer bias. He/she should also rehearse and time the interview prior to the formal study.
• Locate and enlist the cooperation of respondents: Particularly in personal, in-home surveys, the interviewer must locate specific addresses, and work around respondents’ schedule sometimes at undesirable times such as during weekends. They should also be like a salesperson, selling the idea of participating in the study.
• Motivate respondents: Respondents often feed off the motivation of the interviewer. If the interviewer is disinterested or inattentive, respondents won’t be motivated to provide useful or informative responses either. The interviewer must demonstrate enthusiasm about the study, communicate the importance of the research to respondents, and be attentive to respondents’ needs throughout the interview.
• Clarify any confusion or concerns: Interviewers must be able to think on their feet and address unanticipated concerns or objections raised by respondents to the respondents’ satisfaction. Additionally, they should ask probing questions as necessary even if such questions are not in the script.
• Observe quality of response: The interviewer is in the best position to judge the quality of information collected, and may supplement responses obtained using personal observations of gestures or body language as appropriate.
Conducting the interview. Before the interview, the interviewer should prepare a kit to carry to the interview session, consisting of a cover letter from the principal investigator or sponsor, adequate copies of the survey instrument, photo identification, and a telephone number for respondents to call to verify the interviewer’s authenticity. The interviewer should also try to call respondents ahead of time to set up an appointment if possible. To start the interview, he/she should speak in an imperative and confident tone, such as “I’d like to take a few minutes of your time to interview you for a very important study,” instead of “May I come in to do an interview?” He/she should introduce himself/herself, present personal credentials, explain the purpose of the study in 1-2 sentences, and assure confidentiality of respondents’ comments and voluntariness of their participation, all in less than a minute. No big words or jargon should be used, and no details should be provided unless specifically requested. If the interviewer wishes to tape-record the interview, he/she should ask for respondent’s explicit permission before doing so. Even if the interview is recorded, the interview must take notes on key issues, probes, or verbatim phrases.
During the interview, the interviewer should follow the questionnaire script and ask questions exactly as written, and not change the words to make the question sound friendlier. They should also not change the order of questions or skip any question that may have been answered earlier. Any issues with the questions should be discussed during rehearsal prior to the actual interview sessions. The interviewer should not finish the respondent’s sentences. If the respondent gives a brief cursory answer, the interviewer should probe the respondent to elicit a more thoughtful, thorough response. Some useful probing techniques are:
• The silent probe: Just pausing and waiting (without going into the next question) may suggest to respondents that the interviewer is waiting for more detailed response.
• Overt encouragement: Occasional “uh-huh” or “okay” may encourage the respondent to go into greater details. However, the interviewer must not express approval or disapproval of what was said by the respondent.
• Ask for elaboration: Such as “can you elaborate on that?” or “A minute ago, you were talking about an experience you had in high school. Can you tell me more about that?”
• Reflection: The interviewer can try the psychotherapist’s trick of repeating what the respondent said. For instance, “What I’m hearing is that you found that experience very traumatic” and then pause and wait for the respondent to elaborate.
After the interview in completed, the interviewer should thank respondents for their time, tell them when to expect the results, and not leave hastily. Immediately after leaving, they should write down any notes or key observations that may help interpret the respondent’s comments better.
Biases in Survey Research
Despite all of its strengths and advantages, survey research is often tainted with systematic biases that may invalidate some of the inferences derived from such surveys. Five such biases are the non-response bias, sampling bias, social desirability bias, recall bias, and common method bias.
Non-response bias. Survey research is generally notorious for its low response rates. A response rate of 15-20% is typical in a mail survey, even after two or three reminders. If the majority of the targeted respondents fail to respond to a survey, then a legitimate concern is whether non-respondents are not responding due to a systematic reason, which may raise questions about the validity of the study’s results. For instance, dissatisfied customers tend to be more vocal about their experience than satisfied customers, and are therefore more likely to respond to questionnaire surveys or interview requests than satisfied customers. Hence, any respondent sample is likely to have a higher proportion of dissatisfied customers than the underlying population from which it is drawn. In this instance, not only will the results lack generalizability, but the observed outcomes may also be an artifact of the biased sample. Several strategies may be employed to improve response rates:
• Advance notification: A short letter sent in advance to the targeted respondents soliciting their participation in an upcoming survey can prepare them in advance and improve their propensity to respond. The letter should state the purpose and importance of the study, mode of data collection (e.g., via a phone call, a survey form in the mail, etc.), and appreciation for their cooperation. A variation of this technique may request the respondent to return a postage-paid postcard indicating whether or not they are willing to participate in the study.
• Relevance of content: If a survey examines issues of relevance or importance to respondents, then they are more likely to respond than to surveys that don’t matter to them.
• Respondent-friendly questionnaire: Shorter survey questionnaires tend to elicit higher response rates than longer questionnaires. Furthermore, questions that are clear, non-offensive, and easy to respond tend to attract higher response rates.
• Endorsement: For organizational surveys, it helps to gain endorsement from a senior executive attesting to the importance of the study to the organization. Such endorsement can be in the form of a cover letter or a letter of introduction, which can improve the researcher’s credibility in the eyes of the respondents.
• Follow-up requests: Multiple follow-up requests may coax some non-respondents to respond, even if their responses are late.
• Interviewer training: Response rates for interviews can be improved with skilled interviewers trained on how to request interviews, use computerized dialing techniques to identify potential respondents, and schedule callbacks for respondents who could not be reached.
• Incentives : Response rates, at least with certain populations, may increase with the use of incentives in the form of cash or gift cards, giveaways such as pens or stress balls, entry into a lottery, draw or contest, discount coupons, promise of contribution to charity, and so forth.
• Non-monetary incentives: Businesses, in particular, are more prone to respond to non-monetary incentives than financial incentives. An example of such a non-monetary incentive is a benchmarking report comparing the business’s individual response against the aggregate of all responses to a survey.
• Confidentiality and privacy: Finally, assurances that respondents’ private data or responses will not fall into the hands of any third party, may help improve response rates.
Sampling bias. Telephone surveys conducted by calling a random sample of publicly available telephone numbers will systematically exclude people with unlisted telephone numbers, mobile phone numbers, and people who are unable to answer the phone (for instance, they are at work) when the survey is being conducted, and will include a disproportionate number of respondents who have land-line telephone service with listed phone numbers and people who stay home during much of the day, such as the unemployed, the disabled, and the elderly. Likewise, online surveys tend to include a disproportionate number of students and younger people who are constantly on the Internet, and systematically exclude people with limited or no access to computers or the Internet, such as the poor and the elderly. Similarly, questionnaire surveys tend to exclude children and the illiterate, who are unable to read, understand, or meaningfully respond to the questionnaire. A different kind of sampling bias relate to sampling the wrong population, such as asking teachers (or parents) about academic learning of their students (or children), or asking CEOs about operational details in their company. Such biases make the respondent sample unrepresentative of the intended population and hurt generalizability claims about inferences drawn from the biased sample.
Social desirability bias . Many respondents tend to avoid negative opinions or embarrassing comments about themselves, their employers, family, or friends. With negative questions such as do you think that your project team is dysfunctional, is there a lot of office politics in your workplace, or have you ever illegally downloaded music files from the Internet, the researcher may not get truthful responses. This tendency among respondents to “spin the truth” in order to portray themselves in a socially desirable manner is called the “social desirability bias”, which hurts the validity of response obtained from survey research. There is practically no way of overcoming the social desirability bias in a questionnaire survey, but in an interview setting, an astute interviewer may be able to spot inconsistent answers and ask probing questions or use personal observations to supplement respondents’ comments.
Recall bias. Responses to survey questions often depend on subjects’ motivation, memory, and ability to respond. Particularly when dealing with events that happened in the distant past, respondents may not adequately remember their own motivations or behaviors or perhaps their memory of such events may have evolved with time and no longer retrievable. For instance, if a respondent to asked to describe his/her utilization of computer technology one year ago or even memorable childhood events like birthdays, their response may not be accurate due to difficulties with recall. One possible way of overcoming the recall bias is by anchoring respondent’s memory in specific events as they happened, rather than asking them to recall their perceptions and motivations from memory.
Common method bias. Common method bias refers to the amount of spurious covariance shared between independent and dependent variables that are measured at the same point in time, such as in a cross-sectional survey, using the same instrument, such as a questionnaire. In such cases, the phenomenon under investigation may not be adequately separated from measurement artifacts. Standard statistical tests are available to test for common method bias, such as Harmon’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003), Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) market variable technique, and so forth. This bias can be potentially avoided if the independent and dependent variables are measured at different points in time, using a longitudinal survey design, of if these variables are measured using different methods, such as computerized recording of dependent variable versus questionnaire-based self-rating of independent variables. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.09%3A_Chapter_9_Survey_Research.txt |
Experimental research, often considered to be the “gold standard” in research designs, is one of the most rigorous of all research designs. In this design, one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels (random assignment), and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed. The unique strength of experimental research is its internal validity (causality) due to its ability to link cause and effect through treatment manipulation, while controlling for the spurious effect of extraneous variable.
Experimental research is best suited for explanatory research (rather than for descriptive or exploratory research), where the goal of the study is to examine cause-effect relationships. It also works well for research that involves a relatively limited and well-defined set of independent variables that can either be manipulated or controlled. Experimental research can be conducted in laboratory or field settings. Laboratory experiments , conducted in laboratory (artificial) settings, tend to be high in internal validity, but this comes at the cost of low external validity (generalizability), because the artificial (laboratory) setting in which the study is conducted may not reflect the real world. Field experiments , conducted in field settings such as in a real organization, and high in both internal and external validity. But such experiments are relatively rare, because of the difficulties associated with manipulating treatments and controlling for extraneous effects in a field setting.
Experimental research can be grouped into two broad categories: true experimental designs and quasi-experimental designs. Both designs require treatment manipulation, but while true experiments also require random assignment, quasi-experiments do not. Sometimes, we also refer to non-experimental research, which is not really a research design, but an all-inclusive term that includes all types of research that do not employ treatment manipulation or random assignment, such as survey research, observational research, and correlational studies.
Basic Concepts
Treatment and control groups. In experimental research, some subjects are administered one or more experimental stimulus called a treatment (the treatment group ) while other subjects are not given such a stimulus (the control group ). The treatment may be considered successful if subjects in the treatment group rate more favorably on outcome variables than control group subjects. Multiple levels of experimental stimulus may be administered, in which case, there may be more than one treatment group. For example, in order to test the effects of a new drug intended to treat a certain medical condition like dementia, if a sample of dementia patients is randomly divided into three groups, with the first group receiving a high dosage of the drug, the second group receiving a low dosage, and the third group receives a placebo such as a sugar pill (control group), then the first two groups are experimental groups and the third group is a control group. After administering the drug for a period of time, if the condition of the experimental group subjects improved significantly more than the control group subjects, we can say that the drug is effective. We can also compare the conditions of the high and low dosage experimental groups to determine if the high dose is more effective than the low dose.
Treatment manipulation. Treatments are the unique feature of experimental research that sets this design apart from all other research methods. Treatment manipulation helps control for the “cause” in cause-effect relationships. Naturally, the validity of experimental research depends on how well the treatment was manipulated. Treatment manipulation must be checked using pretests and pilot tests prior to the experimental study. Any measurements conducted before the treatment is administered are called pretest measures , while those conducted after the treatment are posttest measures.
Random selection and assignment. Random selection is the process of randomly drawing a sample from a population or a sampling frame. This approach is typically employed in survey research, and assures that each unit in the population has a positive chance of being selected into the sample. Random assignment is however a process of randomly assigning subjects to experimental or control groups. This is a standard practice in true experimental research to ensure that treatment groups are similar (equivalent) to each other and to the control group, prior to treatment administration. Random selection is related to sampling, and is therefore, more closely related to the external validity (generalizability) of findings. However, random assignment is related to design, and is therefore most related to internal validity. It is possible to have both random selection and random assignment in well-designed experimental research, but quasi-experimental research involves neither random selection nor random assignment.
Threats to internal validity. Although experimental designs are considered more rigorous than other research methods in terms of the internal validity of their inferences (by virtue of their ability to control causes through treatment manipulation), they are not immune to internal validity threats. Some of these threats to internal validity are described below, within the context of a study of the impact of a special remedial math tutoring program for improving the math abilities of high school students.
• History threat is the possibility that the observed effects (dependent variables) are caused by extraneous or historical events rather than by the experimental treatment. For instance, students’ post-remedial math score improvement may have been caused by their preparation for a math exam at their school, rather than the remedial math program.
• Maturation threat refers to the possibility that observed effects are caused by natural maturation of subjects (e.g., a general improvement in their intellectual ability to understand complex concepts) rather than the experimental treatment.
• Testing threat is a threat in pre-post designs where subjects’ posttest responses are conditioned by their pretest responses. For instance, if students remember their answers from the pretest evaluation, they may tend to repeat them in the posttest exam. Not conducting a pretest can help avoid this threat.
• Instrumentation threat , which also occurs in pre-post designs, refers to the possibility that the difference between pretest and posttest scores is not due to the remedial math program, but due to changes in the administered test, such as the posttest having a higher or lower degree of difficulty than the pretest.
• Mortality threat refers to the possibility that subjects may be dropping out of the study at differential rates between the treatment and control groups due to a systematic reason, such that the dropouts were mostly students who scored low on the pretest. If the low-performing students drop out, the results of the posttest will be artificially inflated by the preponderance of high-performing students.
• Regression threat , also called a regression to the mean, refers to the statistical tendency of a group’s overall performance on a measure during a posttest to regress toward the mean of that measure rather than in the anticipated direction. For instance, if subjects scored high on a pretest, they will have a tendency to score lower on the posttest (closer to the mean) because their high scores (away from the mean) during the pretest was possibly a statistical aberration. This problem tends to be more prevalent in non-random samples and when the two measures are imperfectly correlated.
Two-Group Experimental Designs
The simplest true experimental designs are two group designs involving one treatment group and one control group, and are ideally suited for testing the effects of a single independent variable that can be manipulated as a treatment. The two basic two-group designs are the pretest-posttest control group design and the posttest-only control group design, while variations may include covariance designs. These designs are often depicted using a standardized design notation, where R represents random assignment of subjects to groups, X represents the treatment administered to the treatment group, and O represents pretest or posttest observations of the dependent variable (with different subscripts to distinguish between pretest and posttest observations of treatment and control groups).
Pretest-posttest control group design. In this design, subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, subjected to an initial (pretest) measurement of the dependent variables of interest, the treatment group is administered a treatment (representing the independent variable of interest), and the dependent variables measured again (posttest). The notation of this design is shown in Figure 10.1.
The effect E of the experimental treatment in the pretest posttest design is measured as the difference in the posttest and pretest scores between the treatment and control groups:
E = (O 2 – O 1 ) – (O 4 – O 3 )
Statistical analysis of this design involves a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the treatment and control groups. The pretest posttest design handles several threats to internal validity, such as maturation, testing, and regression, since these threats can be expected to influence both treatment and control groups in a similar (random) manner. The selection threat is controlled via random assignment. However, additional threats to internal validity may exist. For instance, mortality can be a problem if there are differential dropout rates between the two groups, and the pretest measurement may bias the posttest measurement (especially if the pretest introduces unusual topics or content).
Posttest-only control group design. This design is a simpler version of the pretest-posttest design where pretest measurements are omitted. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.2.
The treatment effect is measured simply as the difference in the posttest scores between the two groups:
\[E = O_1 – O_2\]
The appropriate statistical analysis of this design is also a two-group analysis of variance (ANOVA). The simplicity of this design makes it more attractive than the pretest-posttest design in terms of internal validity. This design controls for maturation, testing, regression, selection, and pretest-posttest interaction, though the mortality threat may continue to exist.
Covariance designs. Sometimes, measures of dependent variables may be influenced by extraneous variables called covariates. Covariates are those variables that are not of central interest to an experimental study, but should nevertheless be controlled in an experimental design in order to eliminate their potential effect on the dependent variable and therefore allow for a more accurate detection of the effects of the independent variables of interest. The experimental designs discussed earlier did not control for such covariates. A covariance design (also called a concomitant variable design) is a special type of pretest posttest control group design where the pretest measure is essentially a measurement of the covariates of interest rather than that of the dependent variables. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.3, where C represents the covariates:
Because the pretest measure is not a measurement of the dependent variable, but rather a covariate, the treatment effect is measured as the difference in the posttest scores between the treatment and control groups as:
\[E = O_ 1 – O_2 \]
Due to the presence of covariates, the right statistical analysis of this design is a two-group analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). This design has all the advantages of post-test only design, but with internal validity due to the controlling of covariates. Covariance designs can also be extended to pretest-posttest control group design.
Factorial Designs
Two-group designs are inadequate if your research requires manipulation of two or more independent variables (treatments). In such cases, you would need four or higher-group designs. Such designs, quite popular in experimental research, are commonly called factorial designs. Each independent variable in this design is called a factor , and each sub-division of a factor is called a level. Factorial designs enable the researcher to examine not only the individual effect of each treatment on the dependent variables (called main effects), but also their joint effect (called interaction effects).
The most basic factorial design is a 2 x 2 factorial design, which consists of two treatments, each with two levels (such as high/low or present/absent). For instance, let’s say that you want to compare the learning outcomes of two different types of instructional techniques (in-class and online instruction), and you also want to examine whether these effects vary with the time of instruction (1.5 or 3 hours per week). In this case, you have two factors: instructional type and instructional time; each with two levels (in-class and online for instructional type, and 1.5 and 3 hours/week for instructional time), as shown in Figure 8.1. If you wish to add a third level of instructional time (say 6 hours/week), then the second factor will consist of three levels and you will have a 2 x 3 factorial design. On the other hand, if you wish to add a third factor such as group work (present versus absent), you will have a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. In this notation, each number represents a factor, and the value of each factor represents the number of levels in that factor.
Factorial designs can also be depicted using a design notation, such as that shown on the right panel of Figure 10.4. R represents random assignment of subjects to treatment groups, X represents the treatment groups themselves (the subscripts of X represents the level of each factor), and O represent observations of the dependent variable. Notice that the 2 x 2 factorial design will have four treatment groups, corresponding to the four combinations of the two levels of each factor. Correspondingly, the 2 x 3 design will have six treatment groups, and the 2 x 2 x 2 design will have eight treatment groups. As a rule of thumb, each cell in a factorial design should have a minimum sample size of 20 (this estimate is derived from Cohen’s power calculations based on medium effect sizes). So a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design requires a minimum total sample size of 160 subjects, with at least 20 subjects in each cell. As you can see, the cost of data collection can increase substantially with more levels or factors in your factorial design. Sometimes, due to resource constraints, some cells in such factorial designs may not receive any treatment at all, which are called incomplete factorial designs. Such incomplete designs hurt our ability to draw inferences about the incomplete factors.
In a factorial design, a main effect is said to exist if the dependent variable shows a significant difference between multiple levels of one factor, at all levels of other factors. No change in the dependent variable across factor levels is the null case (baseline), from which main effects are evaluated. In the above example, you may see a main effect of instructional type, instructional time, or both on learning outcomes. An interaction effect exists when the effect of differences in one factor depends upon the level of a second factor. In our example, if the effect of instructional type on learning outcomes is greater for 3 hours/week of instructional time than for 1.5 hours/week, then we can say that there is an interaction effect between instructional type and instructional time on learning outcomes. Note that the presence of interaction effects dominate and make main effects irrelevant, and it is not meaningful to interpret main effects if interaction effects are significant.
Hybrid Experimental Designs
Hybrid designs are those that are formed by combining features of more established designs. Three such hybrid designs are randomized bocks design, Solomon four-group design, and switched replications design.
Randomized block design. This is a variation of the posttest-only or pretest-posttest control group design where the subject population can be grouped into relatively homogeneous subgroups (called blocks ) within which the experiment is replicated. For instance, if you want to replicate the same posttest-only design among university students and full -time working professionals (two homogeneous blocks), subjects in both blocks are randomly split between treatment group (receiving the same treatment) or control group (see Figure 10.5). The purpose of this design is to reduce the “noise” or variance in data that may be attributable to differences between the blocks so that the actual effect of interest can be detected more accurately.
Solomon four-group design. In this design, the sample is divided into two treatment groups and two control groups. One treatment group and one control group receive the pretest, and the other two groups do not. This design represents a combination of posttest-only and pretest-posttest control group design, and is intended to test for the potential biasing effect of pretest measurement on posttest measures that tends to occur in pretest-posttest designs but not in posttest only designs. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.6.
Switched replication design. This is a two-group design implemented in two phases with three waves of measurement. The treatment group in the first phase serves as the control group in the second phase, and the control group in the first phase becomes the treatment group in the second phase, as illustrated in Figure 10.7. In other words, the original design is repeated or replicated temporally with treatment/control roles switched between the two groups. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the treatment either during the first or the second phase. This design is most feasible in organizational contexts where organizational programs (e.g., employee training) are implemented in a phased manner or are repeated at regular intervals.
Quasi-Experimental Designs
Quasi-experimental designs are almost identical to true experimental designs, but lacking one key ingredient: random assignment. For instance, one entire class section or one organization is used as the treatment group, while another section of the same class or a different organization in the same industry is used as the control group. This lack of random assignment potentially results in groups that are non-equivalent, such as one group possessing greater mastery of a certain content than the other group, say by virtue of having a better teacher in a previous semester, which introduces the possibility of selection bias. Quasi-experimental designs are therefore inferior to true experimental designs in interval validity due to the presence of a variety of selection related threats such as selection-maturation threat (the treatment and control groups maturing at different rates), selection-history threat (the treatment and control groups being differentially impact by extraneous or historical events), selection-regression threat (the treatment and control groups regressing toward the mean between pretest and posttest at different rates), selection-instrumentation threat (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the measurement), selection-testing (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the pretest), and selection-mortality (the treatment and control groups demonstrating differential dropout rates). Given these selection threats, it is generally preferable to avoid quasi-experimental designs to the greatest extent possible.
Many true experimental designs can be converted to quasi-experimental designs by omitting random assignment. For instance, the quasi-equivalent version of pretest-posttest control group design is called nonequivalent groups design (NEGD), as shown in Figure 10.8, with random assignment R replaced by non-equivalent (non-random) assignment N. Likewise, the quasi -experimental version of switched replication design is called non-equivalent switched replication design (see Figure 10.9).
In addition, there are quite a few unique non -equivalent designs without corresponding true experimental design cousins. Some of the more useful of these designs are discussed next.
Regression-discontinuity (RD) design. This is a non-equivalent pretest-posttest design where subjects are assigned to treatment or control group based on a cutoff score on a preprogram measure. For instance, patients who are severely ill may be assigned to a treatment group to test the efficacy of a new drug or treatment protocol and those who are mildly ill are assigned to the control group. In another example, students who are lagging behind on standardized test scores may be selected for a remedial curriculum program intended to improve their performance, while those who score high on such tests are not selected from the remedial program. The design notation can be represented as follows, where C represents the cutoff score:
Because of the use of a cutoff score, it is possible that the observed results may be a function of the cutoff score rather than the treatment, which introduces a new threat to internal validity. However, using the cutoff score also ensures that limited or costly resources are distributed to people who need them the most rather than randomly across a population, while simultaneously allowing a quasi-experimental treatment. The control group scores in the RD design does not serve as a benchmark for comparing treatment group scores, given the systematic non-equivalence between the two groups. Rather, if there is no discontinuity between pretest and posttest scores in the control group, but such a discontinuity persists in the treatment group, then this discontinuity is viewed as evidence of the treatment effect.
Proxy pretest design. This design, shown in Figure 10.11, looks very similar to the standard NEGD (pretest-posttest) design, with one critical difference: the pretest score is collected after the treatment is administered. A typical application of this design is when a researcher is brought in to test the efficacy of a program (e.g., an educational program) after the program has already started and pretest data is not available. Under such circumstances, the best option for the researcher is often to use a different prerecorded measure, such as students’ grade point average before the start of the program, as a proxy for pretest data. A variation of the proxy pretest design is to use subjects’ posttest recollection of pretest data, which may be subject to recall bias, but nevertheless may provide a measure of perceived gain or change in the dependent variable.
Separate pretest-posttest samples design. This design is useful if it is not possible to collect pretest and posttest data from the same subjects for some reason. As shown in Figure 10.12, there are four groups in this design, but two groups come from a single non-equivalent group, while the other two groups come from a different non-equivalent group. For instance, you want to test customer satisfaction with a new online service that is implemented in one city but not in another. In this case, customers in the first city serve as the treatment group and those in the second city constitute the control group. If it is not possible to obtain pretest and posttest measures from the same customers, you can measure customer satisfaction at one point in time, implement the new service program, and measure customer satisfaction (with a different set of customers) after the program is implemented. Customer satisfaction is also measured in the control group at the same times as in the treatment group, but without the new program implementation. The design is not particularly strong, because you cannot examine the changes in any specific customer’s satisfaction score before and after the implementation, but you can only examine average customer satisfaction scores. Despite the lower internal validity, this design may still be a useful way of collecting quasi-experimental data when pretest and posttest data are not available from the same subjects.
Nonequivalent dependent variable (NEDV) design. This is a single-group pre-post quasi-experimental design with two outcome measures, where one measure is theoretically expected to be influenced by the treatment and the other measure is not. For instance, if you are designing a new calculus curriculum for high school students, this curriculum is likely to influence students’ posttest calculus scores but not algebra scores. However, the posttest algebra scores may still vary due to extraneous factors such as history or maturation. Hence, the pre-post algebra scores can be used as a control measure, while that of pre-post calculus can be treated as the treatment measure. The design notation, shown in Figure 10.13, indicates the single group by a single N , followed by pretest O 1 and posttest O 2 for calculus and algebra for the same group of students. This design is weak in internal validity, but its advantage lies in not having to use a separate control group.
An interesting variation of the NEDV design is a pattern matching NEDV design , which employs multiple outcome variables and a theory that explains how much each variable will be affected by the treatment. The researcher can then examine if the theoretical prediction is matched in actual observations. This pattern-matching technique, based on the degree of correspondence between theoretical and observed patterns is a powerful way of alleviating internal validity concerns in the original NEDV design.
Perils of Experimental Research
Experimental research is one of the most difficult of research designs, and should not be taken lightly. This type of research is often best with a multitude of methodological problems. First, though experimental research requires theories for framing hypotheses for testing, much of current experimental research is atheoretical. Without theories, the hypotheses being tested tend to be ad hoc, possibly illogical, and meaningless. Second, many of the measurement instruments used in experimental research are not tested for reliability and validity, and are incomparable across studies. Consequently, results generated using such instruments are also incomparable. Third, many experimental research use inappropriate research designs, such as irrelevant dependent variables, no interaction effects, no experimental controls, and non-equivalent stimulus across treatment groups. Findings from such studies tend to lack internal validity and are highly suspect. Fourth, the treatments (tasks) used in experimental research may be diverse, incomparable, and inconsistent across studies and sometimes inappropriate for the subject population. For instance, undergraduate student subjects are often asked to pretend that they are marketing managers and asked to perform a complex budget allocation task in which they have no experience or expertise. The use of such inappropriate tasks, introduces new threats to internal validity (i.e., subject’s performance may be an artifact of the content or difficulty of the task setting), generates findings that are non-interpretable and meaningless, and makes integration of findings across studies impossible.
The design of proper experimental treatments is a very important task in experimental design, because the treatment is the raison d’etre of the experimental method, and must never be rushed or neglected. To design an adequate and appropriate task, researchers should use prevalidated tasks if available, conduct treatment manipulation checks to check for the adequacy of such tasks (by debriefing subjects after performing the assigned task), conduct pilot tests (repeatedly, if necessary), and if doubt, using tasks that are simpler and familiar for the respondent sample than tasks that are complex or unfamiliar.
In summary, this chapter introduced key concepts in the experimental design research method and introduced a variety of true experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Although these designs vary widely in internal validity, designs with less internal validity should not be overlooked and may sometimes be useful under specific circumstances and empirical contingencies. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.10%3A_Chapter_10_Experimental_Research.txt |
Case research, also called case study, is a method of intensively studying a phenomenon over time within its natural setting in one or a few sites. Multiple methods of data collection, such as interviews, observations, prerecorded documents, and secondary data, may be employed and inferences about the phenomenon of interest tend to be rich, detailed, and contextualized. Case research can be employed in a positivist manner for the purpose of theory testing or in an interpretive manner for theory building. This method is more popular in business research than in other social science disciplines.
Case research has several unique strengths over competing research methods such as experiments and survey research. First, case research can be used for either theory building or theory testing, while positivist methods can be used for theory testing only. In interpretive case research, the constructs of interest need not be known in advance, but may emerge from the data as the research progresses. Second, the research questions can be modified during the research process if the original questions are found to be less relevant or salient. This is not possible in any positivist method after the data is collected. Third, case research can help derive richer, more contextualized, and more authentic interpretation of the phenomenon of interest than most other research methods by virtue of its ability to capture a rich array of contextual data. Fourth, the phenomenon of interest can be studied from the perspectives of multiple participants and using multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual and organizational).
At the same time, case research also has some inherent weaknesses. Because it involves no experimental control, internal validity of inferences remain weak. Of course, this is a common problem for all research methods except experiments. However, as described later, the problem of controls may be addressed in case research using “natural controls”. Second, the quality of inferences derived from case research depends heavily on the integrative powers of the researcher. An experienced researcher may see concepts and patterns in case data that a novice researcher may miss. Hence, the findings are sometimes criticized as being subjective. Finally, because the inferences are heavily contextualized, it may be difficult to generalize inferences from case research to other contexts or other organizations.
It is important to recognize that case research is different from case descriptions such as Harvard case studies discussed in business classes. While case descriptions typically describe an organizational problem in rich detail with the goal of stimulating classroom discussion and critical thinking among students, or analyzing how well an organization handled a specific problem, case research is a formal research technique that involves a scientific method to derive explanations of organizational phenomena.
Case research is a difficult research method that requires advanced research skills on the part of the researcher, and is therefore, often prone to error. Benbasat et al. (1987) [8] describe five problems frequently encountered in case research studies. First, many case research studies start without specific research questions, and therefore end up without having any specific answers or insightful inferences. Second, case sites are often chosen based on access and convenience, rather than based on the fit with the research questions, and are therefore cannot adequately address the research questions of interest. Third, researchers often do not validate or triangulate data collected using multiple means, which may lead to biased interpretation based on responses from biased interviewees. Fourth, many studies provide very little details on how data was collected (e.g., what interview questions were used, which documents were examined, what are the organizational positions of each interviewee, etc.) or analyzed, which may raise doubts about the reliability of the inferences. Finally, despite its strength as a longitudinal research method, many case research studies do not follow through a phenomenon in a longitudinal manner, and hence present only a cross-sectional and limited view of organizational processes and phenomena that are temporal in nature.
Key Decisions in Case Research
Several key decisions must be made by a researcher when considering a case research method. First, is this the right method for the research questions being studied? The case research method is particularly appropriate for exploratory studies for discovering relevant constructs in areas where theory building at the formative stages, for studies where the experiences of participants and context of actions are critical, and for studies aimed at understanding complex, temporal processes (why and how of a phenomenon) rather than factors or causes (what). This method is well-suited for studying complex organizational processes that involve multiple participants and interacting sequences of events, such as organizational change and large-scale technology implementation projects.
Second, what is the appropriate unit of analysis for a case research study? Since case research can simultaneously examine multiple units of analyses, the researcher must decide whether she wishes to study a phenomenon at the individual, group, and organizational level or at multiple levels. For instance, a study of group decision making or group work may combine individual-level constructs such as individual participation in group activities with group-level constructs, such as group cohesion and group leadership, to derive richer understanding than that can be achieved from a single level of analysis.
Third, should the researcher employ a single-case or multiple-case design? The single case design is more appropriate at the outset of theory generation, if the situation is unique or extreme, if it is revelatory (i.e., the situation was previously inaccessible for scientific investigation), or if it represents a critical or contrary case for testing a well-formulated theory. The multiple case design is more appropriate for theory testing, for establishing generalizability of inferences, and for developing richer and more nuanced interpretations of a phenomenon. Yin (1984) [9] recommends the use of multiple case sites with replication logic, viewing each case site as similar to one experimental study, and following rules of scientific rigor similar to that used in positivist research.
Fourth, what sites should be chosen for case research? Given the contextualized nature of inferences derived from case research, site selection is a particularly critical issue because selecting the wrong site may lead to the wrong inferences. If the goal of the research is to test theories or examine generalizability of inferences, then dissimilar case sites should be selected to increase variance in observations. For instance, if the goal of the research is to understand the process of technology implementation in firms, a mix of large, mid-sized, and small firms should be selected to examine whether the technology implementation process differs with firm size. Site selection should not be opportunistic or based on convenience, but rather based on the fit with research questions through a process called “theoretical sampling.”
Fifth, what techniques of data collection should be used in case research? Although interview (either open-ended/unstructured or focused/structured) is by far the most popular data collection technique for case research, interview data can be supplemented or corroborated with other techniques such as direct observation (e.g., attending executive meetings, briefings, and planning sessions), documentation (e.g., internal reports, presentations, and memoranda, as well as external accounts such as newspaper reports), archival records (e.g., organization charts, financial records, etc.), and physical artifacts (e.g., devices, outputs, tools). Furthermore, the researcher should triangulate or validate observed data by comparing responses between interviewees.
Conducting Case Research
Most case research studies tend to be interpretive in nature. Interpretive case research is an inductive technique where evidence collected from one or more case sites is systematically analyzed and synthesized to allow concepts and patterns to emerge for the purpose of building new theories or expanding existing ones. Eisenhardt (1989) [10] propose a “roadmap” for building theories from case research, a slightly modified version of which is described below. For positivist case research, some of the following stages may need to be rearranged or modified; however sampling, data collection, and data analytic techniques should generally remain the same.
Define research questions. Like any other scientific research, case research must also start with defining research questions that are theoretically and practically interesting, and identifying some intuitive expectations about possible answers to those research questions or preliminary constructs to guide initial case design. In positivist case research, the preliminary constructs are based on theory, while no such theory or hypotheses should be considered ex ante in interpretive research. These research questions and constructs may be changed in interpretive case research later on, if needed, but not in positivist case research.
Select case sites. The researcher should use a process of “theoretical sampling” (not random sampling) to identify case sites. In this approach, case sites are chosen based on theoretical, rather than statistical, considerations, for instance, to replicate previous cases, to extend preliminary theories, or to fill theoretical categories or polar types. Care should be taken to ensure that the selected sites fit the nature of research questions, minimize extraneous variance or noise due to firm size, industry effects, and so forth, and maximize variance in the dependent variables of interest. For instance, if the goal of the research is to examine how some firms innovate better than others, the researcher should select firms of similar size within the same industry to reduce industry or size effects, and select some more innovative and some less innovative firms to increase variation in firm innovation. Instead of cold-calling or writing to a potential site, it is better to contact someone at executive level inside each firm who has the authority to approve the project or someone who can identify a person of authority. During initial conversations, the researcher should describe the nature and purpose of the project, any potential benefits to the case site, how the collected data will be used, the people involved in data collection (other researchers, research assistants, etc.), desired interviewees, and the amount of time, effort, and expense required of the sponsoring organization. The researcher must also assure confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity of both the firm and the individual respondents.
Create instruments and protocols. Since the primary mode of data collection in case research is interviews, an interview protocol should be designed to guide the interview process. This is essentially a list of questions to be asked. Questions may be open-ended (unstructured) or closed-ended (structured) or a combination of both. The interview protocol must be strictly followed, and the interviewer must not change the order of questions or skip any question during the interview process, although some deviations are allowed to probe further into respondent’s comments that are ambiguous or interesting. The interviewer must maintain a neutral tone, not lead respondents in any specific direction, say by agreeing or disagreeing with any response. More detailed interviewing techniques are discussed in the chapter on surveys. In addition, additional sources of data, such as internal documents and memorandums, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, and direct observations should be sought to supplement and validate interview data.
Select respondents. Select interview respondents at different organizational levels, departments, and positions to obtain divergent perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. A random sampling of interviewees is most preferable; however a snowball sample is acceptable, as long as a diversity of perspectives is represented in the sample. Interviewees must be selected based on their personal involvement with the phenomenon under investigation and their ability and willingness to answer the researcher’s questions accurately and adequately, and not based on convenience or access.
Start data collection. It is usually a good idea to electronically record interviews for future reference. However, such recording must only be done with the interviewee’s consent. Even when interviews are being recorded, the interviewer should take notes to capture important comments or critical observations, behavioral responses (e.g., respondent’s body language), and the researcher’s personal impressions about the respondent and his/her comments. After each interview is completed, the entire interview should be transcribed verbatim into a text document for analysis.
Conduct within-case data analysis. Data analysis may follow or overlap with data collection. Overlapping data collection and analysis has the advantage of adjusting the data collection process based on themes emerging from data analysis, or to further probe into these themes. Data analysis is done in two stages. In the first stage (within-case analysis), the researcher should examine emergent concepts separately at each case site and patterns between these concepts to generate an initial theory of the problem of interest. The researcher can interview data subjectively to “make sense” of the research problem in conjunction with using her personal observations or experience at the case site. Alternatively, a coding strategy such as Glasser and Strauss’ (1967) grounded theory approach, using techniques such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, may be used to derive a chain of evidence and inferences. These techniques are discussed in detail in a later chapter. Homegrown techniques, such as graphical representation of data (e.g., network diagram) or sequence analysis (for longitudinal data) may also be used. Note that there is no predefined way of analyzing the various types of case data, and the data analytic techniques can be modified to fit the nature of the research project.
Conduct cross-case analysis. Multi-site case research requires cross-case analysis as the second stage of data analysis. In such analysis, the researcher should look for similar concepts and patterns between different case sites, ignoring contextual differences that may lead to idiosyncratic conclusions. Such patterns may be used for validating the initial theory, or for refining it (by adding or dropping concepts and relationships) to develop a more inclusive and generalizable theory. This analysis may take several forms. For instance, the researcher may select categories (e.g., firm size, industry, etc.) and look for within-group similarities and between-group differences (e.g., high versus low performers, innovators versus laggards). Alternatively, she can compare firms in a pair-wise manner listing similarities and differences across pairs of firms.
Build and test hypotheses. Based on emergent concepts and themes that are generalizable across case sites, tentative hypotheses are constructed. These hypotheses should be compared iteratively with observed evidence to see if they fit the observed data, and if not, the constructs or relationships should be refined. Also the researcher should compare the emergent constructs and hypotheses with those reported in the prior literature to make a case for their internal validity and generalizability. Conflicting findings must not be rejected, but rather reconciled using creative thinking to generate greater insight into the emergent theory. When further iterations between theory and data yield no new insights or changes in the existing theory, “theoretical saturation” is reached and the theory building process is complete.
Write case research report. In writing the report, the researcher should describe very clearly the detailed process used for sampling, data collection, data analysis, and hypotheses development, so that readers can independently assess the reasonableness, strength, and consistency of the reported inferences. A high level of clarity in research methods is needed to ensure that the findings are not biased by the researcher’s preconceptions.
Interpretive Case Research Exemplar
Perhaps the best way to learn about interpretive case research is to examine an illustrative example. One such example is Eisenhardt’s (1989) [11] study of how executives make decisions in high-velocity environments (HVE). Readers are advised to read the original paper published in Academy of Management Journal before reading the synopsis in this chapter. In this study, Eisenhardt examined how executive teams in some HVE firms make fast decisions, while those in other firms cannot, and whether faster decisions improve or worsen firm performance in such environments. HVE was defined as one where demand, competition, and technology changes so rapidly and discontinuously that the information available is often inaccurate, unavailable or obsolete. The implicit assumptions were that (1) it is hard to make fast decisions with inadequate information in HVE, and (2) fast decisions may not be efficient and may result in poor firm performance.
Reviewing the prior literature on executive decision -making, Eisenhardt found several patterns, although none of these patterns were specific to high-velocity environments. The literature suggested that in the interest of expediency, firms that make faster decisions obtain input from fewer sources, consider fewer alternatives, make limited analysis, restrict user participation in decision-making, centralize decision-making authority, and has limited internal conflicts. However, Eisenhardt contended that these views may not necessarily explain how decision makers make decisions in high-velocity environments, where decisions must be made quickly and with incomplete information, while maintaining high decision quality.
To examine this phenomenon, Eisenhardt conducted an inductive study of eight firms in the personal computing industry. The personal computing industry was undergoing dramatic changes in technology with the introduction of the UNIX operating system, RISC architecture, and 64KB random access memory in the 1980’s, increased competition with the entry of IBM into the personal computing business, and growing customer demand with double-digit demand growth, and therefore fit the profile of the high-velocity environment. This was a multiple case design with replication logic, where each case was expected to confirm or disconfirm inferences from other cases. Case sites were selected based on their access and proximity to the researcher; however, all of these firms operated in the high-velocity personal computing industry in California’s Silicon Valley area. The collocation of firms in the same industry and the same area ruled out any “noise” or variance in dependent variables (decision speed or performance) attributable to industry or geographic differences.
The study employed an embedded design with multiple levels of analysis: decision (comparing multiple strategic decisions within each firm), executive teams (comparing different teams responsible for strategic decisions), and the firm (overall firm performance). Data was collected from five sources:
• Initial interviews with Chief Executive Officers: CEOs were asked questions about their firm’s competitive strategy, distinctive competencies, major competitors, performance, and recent/ongoing major strategic decisions. Based on these interviews, several strategic decisions were selected in each firm for further investigation. Four criteria were used to select decisions: (1) the decisions involved the firm’s strategic positioning, (2) the decisions had high stakes, (3) the decisions involved multiple functions, and (4) the decisions were representative of strategic decision-making process in that firm.
• Interviews with divisional heads: Each divisional head was asked sixteen open-ended questions, ranging from their firm’s competitive strategy, functional strategy, top management team members, frequency and nature of interaction with team, typical decision making processes, how each of the previously identified decision was made, and how long it took them to make those decisions. Interviews lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours, and sometimes extended to 4 hours. To focus on facts and actual events rather than respondents’ perceptions or interpretations, a “courtroom” style questioning was employed, such as when did this happen, what did you do, etc. Interviews were conducted by two people, and the data was validated by cross-checking facts and impressions made by the interviewer and note-taker. All interview data was recorded, however notes were also taken during each interview, which ended with the interviewer’s overall impressions. Using a “24-hour rule”, detailed field notes were completed within 24 hours of the interview, so that some data or impressions were not lost to recall.
• Questionnaires: Executive team members at each firm were completed a survey questionnaire that captured quantitative data on the extent of conflict and power distribution in their firm.
• Secondary data: Industry reports and internal documents such as demographics of the executive teams (responsible for strategic decisions), financial performance of firms, and so forth, were examined.
• Personal observation: Lastly, the researcher attended a 1-day strategy session and a weekly executive meeting at two firms in her sample.
Data analysis involved a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Quantitative data on conflict and power were analyzed for patterns across firms/decisions. Qualitative interview data was combined into decision climate profiles, using profile traits (e.g., impatience) mentioned by more than one executive. For within-case analysis, decision stories were created for each strategic decision by combining executive accounts of the key decision events into a timeline. For cross-case analysis, pairs of firms were compared for similarities and differences, categorized along variables of interest such as decision speed and firm performance. Based on these analyses, tentative constructs and propositions were derived inductively from each decision story within firm categories. Each decision case was revisited to confirm the proposed relationships. The inferred propositions were compared with findings from the existing literature to reconcile examine differences with the extant literature and to generate new insights from the case findings. Finally, the validated propositions were synthesized into an inductive theory of strategic decision-making by firms in high-velocity environments.
Inferences derived from this multiple case research contradicted several decision-making patterns expected from the existing literature. First, fast decision makers in high-velocity environments used more information, and not less information as suggested by the previous literature. However, these decision makers used more real-time information (an insight not available from prior research), which helped them identify and respond to problems, opportunities, and changing circumstances faster. Second, fast decision makers examined more (not fewer) alternatives. However, they considered these multiple alternatives in a simultaneous manner, while slower decision makers examined fewer alternatives in a sequential manner. Third, fast decision makers did not centralize decision making or restrict inputs from others, as the literature suggested. Rather, these firms used a two-tiered decision process in which experienced counselors were asked for inputs in the first stage, following by a rapid comparison and decision selection in the second stage. Fourth, fast decision makers did not have less conflict, as expected from the literature, but employed better conflict resolution techniques to reduce conflict and improve decision-making speed. Finally, fast decision makers exhibited superior firm performance by virtue of their built-in cognitive, emotional, and political processes that led to rapid closure of major decisions.
Positivist Case Research Exemplar
Case research can also be used in a positivist manner to test theories or hypotheses. Such studies are rare, but Markus (1983) [12] provides an exemplary illustration in her study of technology implementation at the Golden Triangle Company (a pseudonym). The goal of this study was to understand why a newly implemented financial information system (FIS), intended to improve the productivity and performance of accountants at GTC was supported by accountants at GTC’s corporate headquarters but resisted by divisional accountants at GTC branches. Given the uniqueness of the phenomenon of interest, this was a single-case research study.
To explore the reasons behind user resistance of FIS, Markus posited three alternative explanations: (1) system-determined theory: resistance was caused by factors related to an inadequate system, such as its technical deficiencies, poor ergonomic design, or lack of user friendliness, (2) people-determined theory: resistance was caused by factors internal to users, such as the accountants’ cognitive styles or personality traits that were incompatible with using the system, and (3) interaction theory: resistance was not caused not by factors intrinsic to the system or the people, but by the interaction between the two set of factors. Specifically, interaction theory suggested that the FIS engendered a redistribution of intra-organizational power, and accountants who lost organizational status, relevance, or power as a result of FIS implementation resisted the system while those gaining power favored it.
In order to test the three theories, Markus predicted alternative outcomes expected from each theoretical explanation and analyzed the extent to which those predictions matched with her observations at GTC. For instance, the system-determined theory suggested that since user resistance was caused by an inadequate system, fixing the technical problems of the system would eliminate resistance. The computer running the FIS system was subsequently upgraded with a more powerful operating system, online processing (from initial batch processing, which delayed immediate processing of accounting information), and a simplified software for new account creation by managers. One year after these changes were made, the resistant users were still resisting the system and felt that it should be replaced. Hence, the system-determined theory was rejected.
The people-determined theory predicted that replacing individual resistors or co-opting them with less resistant users would reduce their resistance toward the FIS. Subsequently, GTC started a job rotation and mobility policy, moving accountants in and out of the resistant divisions, but resistance not only persisted, but in some cases increased! In one specific instance, one accountant, who was one of the system’s designers and advocates when he worked for corporate accounting, started resisting the system after he was moved to the divisional controller’s office. Failure to realize the predictions of the people-determined theory led to the rejection of this theory.
Finally, the interaction theory predicted that neither changing the system or the people (i.e., user education or job rotation policies) will reduce resistance as long as the power imbalance and redistribution from the pre-implementation phase were not addressed. Before FIS implementation, divisional accountants at GTC felt that they owned all accounting data related to their divisional operations. They maintained this data in thick, manual ledger books, controlled others’ access to the data, and could reconcile unusual accounting events before releasing those reports. Corporate accountants relied heavily on divisional accountants for access to the divisional data for corporate reporting and consolidation. Because the FIS system automatically collected all data at source and consolidated them into a single corporate database, it obviated the need for divisional accountants, loosened their control and autonomy over their division’s accounting data, and making their job somewhat irrelevant. Corporate accountants could now query the database and access divisional data directly without going through the divisional accountants, analyze and compare the performance of individual divisions, and report unusual patterns and activities to the executive committee, resulting in further erosion of the divisions’ power. Though Markus did not empirically test this theory, her observations about the redistribution of organizational power, coupled with the rejection of the two alternative theories, led to the justification of interaction theory.
Comparisons with Traditional Research
Positivist case research, aimed at hypotheses testing, is often criticized by natural science researchers as lacking in controlled observations, controlled deductions, replicability, and generalizability of findings – the traditional principles of positivist research. However, these criticisms can be overcome through appropriate case research designs. For instance, the problem of controlled observations refers to the difficulty of obtaining experimental or statistical control in case research. However, case researchers can compensate for such lack of controls by employing “natural controls.” This natural control in Markus’ (1983) study was the corporate accountant who was one of the system advocates initially, but started resisting it once he moved to controlling division. In this instance, the change in his behavior may be attributed to his new divisional position. However, such natural controls cannot be anticipated in advance, and case researchers may overlook then unless they are proactively looking for such controls. Incidentally, natural controls are also used in natural science disciplines such as astronomy, geology, and human biology, such as wait for comets to pass close enough to the earth in order to make inferences about comets and their composition.
The problem of controlled deduction refers to the lack of adequate quantitative evidence to support inferences, given the mostly qualitative nature of case research data. Despite the lack of quantitative data for hypotheses testing (e.g., t-tests), controlled deductions can still be obtained in case research by generating behavioral predictions based on theoretical considerations and testing those predictions over time. Markus employed this strategy in her study by generating three alternative theoretical hypotheses for user resistance, and rejecting two of those predictions when they did not match with actual observed behavior. In this case, the hypotheses were tested using logical propositions rather than using mathematical tests, which are just as valid as statistical inferences since mathematics is a subset of logic.
Third, the problem of replicability refers to the difficulty of observing the same phenomenon given the uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of a given case site. However, using Markus’ three theories as an illustration, a different researcher can test the same theories at a different case site, where three different predictions may emerge based on the idiosyncratic nature of the new case site, and the three resulting predictions may be tested accordingly. In other words, it is possible to replicate the inferences of case research, even if the case research site or context may not be replicable.
Fourth, case research tends to examine unique and non-replicable phenomena that may not be generalized to other settings. Generalizability in natural sciences is established through additional studies. Likewise, additional case studies conducted in different contexts with different predictions can establish generalizability of findings if such findings are observed to be consistent across studies.
Lastly, British philosopher Karl Popper described four requirements of scientific theories: (1) theories should be falsifiable, (2) they should be logically consistent, (3) they should have adequate predictive ability, and (4) they should provide better explanation than rival theories. In case research, the first three requirements can be increased by increasing the degrees of freedom of observed findings, such as by increasing the number of case sites, the number of alternative predictions, and the number of levels of analysis examined. This was accomplished in Markus’ study by examining the behavior of multiple groups (divisional accountants and corporate accountants) and providing multiple (three) rival explanations.
Popper’s fourth condition was accomplished in this study when one hypothesis was found to match observed evidence better than the two rival hypotheses. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.11%3A_Chapter_11_Case_Research.txt |
The last chapter introduced interpretive research, or more specifically, interpretive case research. This chapter will explore other kinds of interpretive research. Recall that positivist or deductive methods, such as laboratory experiments and survey research, are those that are specifically intended for theory (or hypotheses) testing, while interpretive or inductive methods, such as action research and ethnography, are intended for theory building. Unlike a positivist method, where the researcher starts with a theory and tests theoretical postulates using empirical data, in interpretive methods, the researcher starts with data and tries to derive a theory about the phenomenon of interest from the observed data.
The term “interpretive research” is often used loosely and synonymously with “qualitative research”, although the two concepts are quite different. Interpretive research is a research paradigm (see Chapter 3) that is based on the assumption that social reality is not singular or objective, but is rather shaped by human experiences and social contexts (ontology), and is therefore best studied within its socio-historic context by reconciling the subjective interpretations of its various participants (epistemology). Because interpretive researchers view social reality as being embedded within and impossible to abstract from their social settings, they “interpret” the reality though a “sense-making” process rather than a hypothesis testing process. This is in contrast to the positivist or functionalist paradigm that assumes that the reality is relatively independent of the context, can be abstracted from their contexts, and studied in a decomposable functional manner using objective techniques such as standardized measures. Whether a researcher should pursue interpretive or positivist research depends on paradigmatic considerations about the nature of the phenomenon under consideration and the best way to study it.
However, qualitative versus quantitative research refers to empirical or data -oriented considerations about the type of data to collect and how to analyze them. Qualitative research relies mostly on non-numeric data, such as interviews and observations, in contrast to quantitative research which employs numeric data such as scores and metrics. Hence, qualitative research is not amenable to statistical procedures such as regression analysis, but is coded using techniques like content analysis. Sometimes, coded qualitative data is tabulated quantitatively as frequencies of codes, but this data is not statistically analyzed. Many puritan interpretive researchers reject this coding approach as a futile effort to seek consensus or objectivity in a social phenomenon which is essentially subjective.
Although interpretive research tends to rely heavily on qualitative data, quantitative data may add more precision and clearer understanding of the phenomenon of interest than qualitative data. For example, Eisenhardt (1989), in her interpretive study of decision making n high-velocity firms (discussed in the previous chapter on case research), collected numeric data on how long it took each firm to make certain strategic decisions (which ranged from 1.5 months to 18 months), how many decision alternatives were considered for each decision, and surveyed her respondents to capture their perceptions of organizational conflict. Such numeric data helped her clearly distinguish the high-speed decision making firms from the low-speed decision makers, without relying on respondents’ subjective perceptions, which then allowed her to examine the number of decision alternatives considered by and the extent of conflict in high-speed versus low-speed firms. Interpretive research should attempt to collect both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to their phenomenon of interest, and so should positivist research as well. Joint use of qualitative and quantitative data, often called “mixed-mode designs”, may lead to unique insights and are highly prized in the scientific community.
Interpretive research has its roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been available since the early 19 th century, long before positivist techniques were developed. Many positivist researchers view interpretive research as erroneous and biased, given the subjective nature of the qualitative data collection and interpretation process employed in such research. However, the failure of many positivist techniques to generate interesting insights or new knowledge have resulted in a resurgence of interest in interpretive research since the 1970’s, albeit with exacting methods and stringent criteria to ensure the reliability and validity of interpretive inferences.
Distinctions from Positivist Research
In addition to fundamental paradigmatic differences in ontological and epistemological assumptions discussed above, interpretive and positivist research differ in several other ways. First, interpretive research employs a theoretical sampling strategy, where study sites, respondents, or cases are selected based on theoretical considerations such as whether they fit the phenomenon being studied (e.g., sustainable practices can only be studied in organizations that have implemented sustainable practices), whether they possess certain characteristics that make them uniquely suited for the study (e.g., a study of the drivers of firm innovations should include some firms that are high innovators and some that are low innovators, in order to draw contrast between these firms), and so forth. In contrast, positivist research employs random sampling (or a variation of this technique), where cases are chosen randomly from a population, for purposes of generalizability. Hence, convenience samples and small samples are considered acceptable in interpretive research as long as they fit the nature and purpose of the study, but not in positivist research.
Second, the role of the researcher receives critical attention in interpretive research. In some methods such as ethnography, action research, and participant observation, the researcher is considered part of the social phenomenon, and her specific role and involvement in the research process must be made clear during data analysis. In other methods, such as case research, the researcher must take a “neutral” or unbiased stance during the data collection and analysis processes, and ensure that her personal biases or preconceptions does not taint the nature of subjective inferences derived from interpretive research. In positivist research, however, the researcher is considered to be external to and independent of the research context and is not presumed to bias the data collection and analytic procedures.
Third, interpretive analysis is holistic and contextual, rather than being reductionist and isolationist. Interpretive interpretations tend to focus on language, signs, and meanings from the perspective of the participants involved in the social phenomenon, in contrast to statistical techniques that are employed heavily in positivist research. Rigor in interpretive research is viewed in terms of systematic and transparent approaches for data collection and analysis rather than statistical benchmarks for construct validity or significance testing.
Lastly, data collection and analysis can proceed simultaneously and iteratively in interpretive research. For instance, the researcher may conduct an interview and code it before proceeding to the next interview. Simultaneous analysis helps the researcher correct potential flaws in the interview protocol or adjust it to capture the phenomenon of interest better. The researcher may even change her original research question if she realizes that her original research questions are unlikely to generate new or useful insights. This is a valuable but often understated benefit of interpretive research, and is not available in positivist research, where the research project cannot be modified or changed once the data collection has started without redoing the entire project from the start.
Benefits and Challenges of Interpretive Research
Interpretive research has several unique advantages. First, they are well-suited for exploring hidden reasons behind complex, interrelated, or multifaceted social processes, such as inter-firm relationships or inter-office politics, where quantitative evidence may be biased, inaccurate, or otherwise difficult to obtain. Second, they are often helpful for theory construction in areas with no or insufficient a priori theory. Third, they are also appropriate for studying context-specific, unique, or idiosyncratic events or processes. Fourth, interpretive research can also help uncover interesting and relevant research questions and issues for follow-up research.
At the same time, interpretive research also has its own set of challenges. First, this type of research tends to be more time and resource intensive than positivist research in data collection and analytic efforts. Too little data can lead to false or premature assumptions, while too much data may not be effectively processed by the researcher. Second, interpretive research requires well-trained researchers who are capable of seeing and interpreting complex social phenomenon from the perspectives of the embedded participants and reconciling the diverse perspectives of these participants, without injecting their personal biases or preconceptions into their inferences. Third, all participants or data sources may not be equally credible, unbiased, or knowledgeable about the phenomenon of interest, or may have undisclosed political agendas, which may lead to misleading or false impressions. Inadequate trust between participants and researcher may hinder full and honest self-representation by participants, and such trust building takes time. It is the job of the interpretive researcher to
“see through the smoke” (hidden or biased agendas) and understand the true nature of the problem. Fourth, given the heavily contextualized nature of inferences drawn from interpretive research, such inferences do not lend themselves well to replicability or generalizability. Finally, interpretive research may sometimes fail to answer the research questions of interest or predict future behaviors.
Characteristics of Interpretive Research
All interpretive research must adhere to a common set of principles, as described below.
Naturalistic inquiry: Social phenomena must be studied within their natural setting. Because interpretive research assumes that social phenomena are situated within and cannot be isolated from their social context, interpretations of such phenomena must be grounded within their socio-historical context. This implies that contextual variables should be observed and considered in seeking explanations of a phenomenon of interest, even though context sensitivity may limit the generalizability of inferences.
Researcher as instrument: Researchers are often embedded within the social context that they are studying, and are considered part of the data collection instrument in that they must use their observational skills, their trust with the participants, and their ability to extract the correct information. Further, their personal insights, knowledge, and experiences of the social context is critical to accurately interpreting the phenomenon of interest. At the same time, researchers must be fully aware of their personal biases and preconceptions, and not let such biases interfere with their ability to present a fair and accurate portrayal of the phenomenon.
Interpretive analysis: Observations must be interpreted through the eyes of the participants embedded in the social context. Interpretation must occur at two levels. The first level involves viewing or experiencing the phenomenon from the subjective perspectives of the social participants. The second level is to understand the meaning of the participants’ experiences in order to provide a “thick description” or a rich narrative story of the phenomenon of interest that can communicate why participants acted the way they did.
Use of expressive language: Documenting the verbal and non-verbal language of participants and the analysis of such language are integral components of interpretive analysis. The study must ensure that the story is viewed through the eyes of a person, and not a machine, and must depict the emotions and experiences of that person, so that readers can understand and relate to that person. Use of imageries, metaphors, sarcasm, and other figures of speech is very common in interpretive analysis.
Temporal nature: Interpretive research is often not concerned with searching for specific answers, but with understanding or “making sense of” a dynamic social process as it unfolds over time. Hence, such research requires an immersive involvement of the researcher at the study site for an extended period of time in order to capture the entire evolution of the phenomenon of interest.
Hermeneutic circle: Interpretive interpretation is an iterative process of moving back and forth from pieces of observations (text) to the entirety of the social phenomenon (context) to reconcile their apparent discord and to construct a theory that is consistent with the diverse subjective viewpoints and experiences of the embedded participants. Such iterations between the understanding/meaning of a phenomenon and observations must continue until “theoretical saturation” is reached, whereby any additional iteration does not yield any more insight into the phenomenon of interest.
Interpretive Data Collection
Data is collected in interpretive research using a variety of techniques. The most frequently used technique is interviews (face-to-face, telephone, or focus groups). Interview types and strategies are discussed in detail in a previous chapter on survey research. A second technique is observation. Observational techniques include direct observation, where the researcher is a neutral and passive external observer and is not involved in the phenomenon of interest (as in case research), and participant observation, where the researcher is an active participant in the phenomenon and her inputs or mere presence influence the phenomenon being studied (as in action research). A third technique is documentation, where external and internal documents, such as memos, electronic mails, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, websites, may be used to cast further insight into the phenomenon of interest or to corroborate other forms of evidence.
Interpretive Research Designs
Case research. As discussed in the previous chapter, case research is an intensive longitudinal study of a phenomenon at one or more research sites for the purpose of deriving detailed, contextualized inferences and understanding the dynamic process underlying a phenomenon of interest. Case research is a unique research design in that it can be used in an interpretive manner to build theories or in a positivist manner to test theories. The previous chapter on case research discusses both techniques in depth and provides illustrative exemplars. Furthermore, the case researcher is a neutral observer (direct observation) in the social setting rather than an active participant (participant observation). As with any other interpretive approach, drawing meaningful inferences from case research depends heavily on the observational skills and integrative abilities of the researcher.
Action research. Action research is a qualitative but positivist research design aimed at theory testing rather than theory building (discussed in this chapter due to lack of a proper space). This is an interactive design that assumes that complex social phenomena are best understood by introducing changes, interventions, or “actions” into those phenomena and observing the outcomes of such actions on the phenomena of interest. In this method, the researcher is usually a consultant or an organizational member embedded into a social context (such as an organization), who initiates an action in response to a social problem, and examines how her action influences the phenomenon while also learning and generating insights about the relationship between the action and the phenomenon. Examples of actions may include organizational change programs, such as the introduction of new organizational processes, procedures, people, or technology or replacement of old ones, initiated with the goal of improving an organization’s performance or profitability in its business environment. The researcher’s choice of actions must be based on theory, which should explain why and how such actions may bring forth the desired social change. The theory is validated by the extent to which the chosen action is successful in remedying the targeted problem. Simultaneous problem solving and insight generation is the central feature that distinguishes action research from other research methods (which may not involve problem solving) and from consulting (which may not involve insight generation). Hence, action research is an excellent method for bridging research and practice.
There are several variations of the action research method. The most popular of these method is the participatory action research, designed by Susman and Evered (1978) [13]. This method follows an action research cycle consisting of five phases: (1) diagnosing, (2) action planning, (3) action taking, (4) evaluating, and (5) learning (see Figure 10.1). Diagnosing involves identifying and defining a problem in its social context. Action planning involves identifying and evaluating alternative solutions to the problem, and deciding on a future course of action (based on theoretical rationale). Action taking is the implementation of the planned course of action. The evaluation stage examines the extent to which the initiated action is successful in resolving the original problem, i.e., whether theorized effects are indeed realized in practice. In the learning phase, the experiences and feedback from action evaluation are used to generate insights about the problem and suggest future modifications or improvements to the action. Based on action evaluation and learning, the action may be modified or adjusted to address the problem better, and the action research cycle is repeated with the modified action sequence. It is suggested that the entire action research cycle be traversed at least twice so that learning from the first cycle can be implemented in the second cycle. The primary mode of data collection is participant observation, although other techniques such as interviews and documentary evidence may be used to corroborate the researcher’s observations.
Ethnography. The ethnographic research method, derived largely from the field of anthropology, emphasizes studying a phenomenon within the context of its culture. The researcher must be deeply immersed in the social culture over an extended period of time (usually 8 months to 2 years) and should engage, observe, and record the daily life of the studied culture and its social participants within their natural setting. The primary mode of data collection is participant observation, and data analysis involves a “sense-making” approach. In addition, the researcher must take extensive field notes, and narrate her experience in descriptive detail so that readers may experience the same culture as the researcher. In this method, the researcher has two roles: rely on her unique knowledge and engagement to generate insights (theory), and convince the scientific community of the trans-situational nature of the studied phenomenon.
The classic example of ethnographic research is Jane Goodall’s study of primate behaviors, where she lived with chimpanzees in their natural habitat at Gombe National Park in Tanzania, observed their behaviors, interacted with them, and shared their lives. During that process, she learnt and chronicled how chimpanzees seek food and shelter, how they socialize with each other, their communication patterns, their mating behaviors, and so forth. A more contemporary example of ethnographic research is Myra Bluebond-Langer’s (1996) [14] study of decision making in families with children suffering from life-threatening illnesses, and the physical, psychological, environmental, ethical, legal, and cultural issues that influence such decision-making. The researcher followed the experiences of approximately 80 children with incurable illnesses and their families for a period of over two years. Data collection involved participant observation and formal/informal conversations with children, their parents and relatives, and health care providers to document their lived experience.
Phenomenology. Phenomenology is a research method that emphasizes the study of conscious experiences as a way of understanding the reality around us. It is based on the ideas of German philosopher Edmund Husserl in the early 20 th century who believed that human experience is the source of all knowledge. Phenomenology is concerned with the systematic reflection and analysis of phenomena associated with conscious experiences, such as human judgment, perceptions, and actions, with the goal of (1) appreciating and describing social reality from the diverse subjective perspectives of the participants involved, and (2) understanding the symbolic meanings (“deep structure”) underlying these subjective experiences. Phenomenological inquiry requires that researchers eliminate any prior assumptions and personal biases, empathize with the participant’s situation, and tune into existential dimensions of that situation, so that they can fully understand the deep structures that drives the conscious thinking, feeling, and behavior of the studied participants.
Some researchers view phenomenology as a philosophy rather than as a research method. In response to this criticism, Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) [15] developed an existential phenomenological research method to guide studies in this area. This method, illustrated in Figure 10.2, can be grouped into data collection and data analysis phases. In the data collection phase, participants embedded in a social phenomenon are interviewed to capture their subjective experiences and perspectives regarding the phenomenon under investigation.
Examples of questions that may be asked include “can you describe a typical day” or “can you describe that particular incident in more detail?” These interviews are recorded and transcribed for further analysis. During data analysis, the researcher reads the transcripts to: (1) get a sense of the whole, and (2) establish “units of significance” that can faithfully represent participants’ subjective experiences. Examples of such units of significance are concepts such as “felt space” and “felt time,” which are then used to document participants’ psychological experiences. For instance, did participants feel safe, free, trapped, or joyous when experiencing a phenomenon (“felt-space”)? Did they feel that their experience was pressured, slow, or discontinuous (“felt-time”)? Phenomenological analysis should take into account the participants’ temporal landscape (i.e., their sense of past, present, and future), and the researcher must transpose herself in an imaginary sense in the participant’s situati on (i.e., temporarily live the participant’s life). The participants’ lived experience is described in form of a narrative or using emergent themes. The analysis then delves into these themes to identify multiple layers of meaning while retaining the fragility and ambiguity of subjects’ lived experiences.
Rigor in Interpretive Research
While positivist research employs a “reductionist” approach by simplifying social reality into parsimonious theories and laws, interpretive research attempts to interpret social reality through the subjective viewpoints of the embedded participants within the context where the reality is situated. These interpretations are heavily contextualized, and are naturally less generalizable to other contexts. However, because interpretive analysis is subjective and sensitive to the experiences and insight of the embedded researcher, it is often considered less rigorous by many positivist (functionalist) researchers. Because interpretive research is based on different set of ontological and epistemological assumptions about social phenomenon than positivist research, the positivist notions of rigor, such as reliability, internal validity, and generalizability, do not apply in a similar manner. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) [16] provide an alternative set of criteria that can be used to judge the rigor of interpretive research.
Dependability. Interpretive research can be viewed as dependable or authentic if two researchers assessing the same phenomenon using the same set of evidence independently arrive at the same conclusions or the same researcher observing the same or a similar phenomenon at different times arrives at similar conclusions. This concept is similar to that of reliability in positivist research, with agreement between two independent researchers being similar to the notion of inter-rater reliability, and agreement between two observations of the same phenomenon by the same researcher akin to test -retest reliability. To ensure dependability, interpretive researchers must provide adequate details about their phenomenon of interest and the social context in which it is embedded so as to allow readers to independently authenticate their interpretive inferences.
Credibility. Interpretive research can be considered credible if readers find its inferences to be believable. This concept is akin to that of internal validity in functionalistic research. The credibility of interpretive research can be improved by providing evidence of the researcher’s extended engagement in the field, by demonstrating data triangulation across subjects or data collection techniques, and by maintaining meticulous data management and analytic procedures, such as verbatim transcription of interviews, accurate records of contacts and interviews, and clear notes on theoretical and methodological decisions, that can allow an independent audit of data collection and analysis if needed.
Confirmability. Confirmability refers to the extent to which the findings reported in interpretive research can be independently confirmed by others (typically, participants). This is similar to the notion of objectivity in functionalistic research. Since interpretive research rejects the notion of an objective reality, confirmability is demonstrated in terms of “inter-subjectivity”, i.e., if the study’s participants agree with the inferences derived by the researcher. For instance, if a study’s participants generally agree with the inferences drawn by a researcher about a phenomenon of interest (based on a review of the research paper or report), then the findings can be viewed as confirmable.
Transferability. Transferability in interpretive research refers to the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other settings. This idea is similar to that of external validity in functionalistic research. The researcher must provide rich, detailed descriptions of the research context (“thick description”) and thoroughly describe the structures, assumptions, and processes revealed from the data so that readers can independently assess whether and to what extent are the reported findings transferable to other settings. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.12%3A_Chapter_12_Interpretive_Research.txt |
Qualitative analysis is the analysis of qualitative data such as text data from interview transcripts. Unlike quantitative analysis, which is statistics driven and largely independent of the researcher, qualitative analysis is heavily dependent on the researcher’s analytic and integrative skills and personal knowledge of the social context where the data is collected. The emphasis in qualitative analysis is “sense making” or understanding a phenomenon, rather than predicting or explaining. A creative and investigative mindset is needed for qualitative analysis, based on an ethically enlightened and participant-in-context attitude, and a set of analytic strategies. This chapter provides a brief overview of some of these qualitative analysis strategies. Interested readers are referred to more authoritative and detailed references such as Miles and Huberman’s (1984) [17] seminal book on this topic.
Grounded Theory
How can you analyze a vast set qualitative data acquired through participant observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups, narratives of audio/video recordings, or secondary documents? One of these techniques for analyzing text data is grounded theory – an inductive technique of interpreting recorded data about a social phenomenon to build theories about that phenomenon. The technique was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) [18] in their method of constant comparative analysis of grounded theory research, and further refined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) [19] to further illustrate specific coding techniques – a process of classifying and categorizing text data segments into a set of codes (concepts), categories (constructs), and relationships. The interpretations are “grounded in” (or based on) observed empirical data, hence the name. To ensure that the theory is based solely on observed evidence, the grounded theory approach requires that researchers suspend any preexisting theoretical expectations or biases before data analysis, and let the data dictate the formulation of the theory.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe three coding techniques for analyzing text data: open, axial, and selective. Open coding is a process aimed at identifying concepts or key ideas that are hidden within textual data, which are potentially related to the phenomenon of interest. The researcher examines the raw textual data line by line to identify discrete events, incidents, ideas, actions, perceptions, and interactions of relevance that are coded as concepts (hence called in vivo codes ). Each concept is linked to specific portions of the text (coding unit) for later validation. Some concepts may be simple, clear, and unambiguous while others may be complex, ambiguous, and viewed differently by different participants. The coding unit may vary with the concepts being extracted. Simple concepts such as “organizational size” may include just a few words of text, while complex ones such as “organizational mission” may span several pages. Concepts can be named using the researcher’s own naming convention or standardized labels taken from the research literature. Once a basic set of concepts are identified, these concepts can then be used to code the remainder of the data, while simultaneously looking for new concepts and refining old concepts. While coding, it is important to identify the recognizable characteristics of each concept, such as its size, color, or level (e.g., high or low), so that similar concepts can be grouped together later . This coding technique is called “open” because the researcher is open to and actively seeking new concepts relevant to the phenomenon of interest.
Next, similar concepts are grouped into higher order categories . While concepts may be context-specific, categories tend to be broad and generalizable, and ultimately evolve into constructs in a grounded theory. Categories are needed to reduce the amount of concepts the researcher must work with and to build a “big picture” of the issues salient to understanding a social phenomenon. Categorization can be done is phases, by combining concepts into subcategories, and then subcategories into higher order categories. Constructs from the existing literature can be used to name these categories, particularly if the goal of the research is to extend current theories. However, caution must be taken while using existing constructs, as such constructs may bring with them commonly held beliefs and biases. For each category, its characteristics (or properties) and dimensions of each characteristic should be identified. The dimension represents a value of a characteristic along a continuum. For example, a “communication media” category may have a characteristic called “speed”, which can be dimensionalized as fast, medium, or slow . Such categorization helps differentiate between different kinds of communication media and enables researchers identify patterns in the data, such as which communication media is used for which types of tasks.
The second phase of grounded theory is axial coding , where the categories and subcategories are assembled into causal relationships or hypotheses that can tentatively explain the phenomenon of interest. Although distinct from open coding, axial coding can be performed simultaneously with open coding. The relationships between categories may be clearly evident in the data or may be more subtle and implicit. In the latter instance, researchers may use a coding scheme (often called a “coding paradigm”, but different from the paradigms discussed in Chapter 3) to understand which categories represent conditions (the circumstances in which the phenomenon is embedded), actions/interactions (the responses of individuals to events under these conditions), and consequences (the outcomes of actions/ interactions). As conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences are identified, theoretical propositions start to emerge, and researchers can start explaining why a phenomenon occurs, under what conditions, and with what consequences.
The third and final phase of grounded theory is selective coding , which involves identifying a central category or a core variable and systematically and logically relating this central category to other categories. The central category can evolve from existing categories or can be a higher order category that subsumes previously coded categories. New data is selectively sampled to validate the central category and its relationships to other categories (i.e., the tentative theory). Selective coding limits the range of analysis, and makes it move fast. At the same time, the coder must watch out for other categories that may emerge from the new data that may be related to the phenomenon of interest (open coding), which may lead to further refinement of the initial theory. Hence, open, axial, and selective coding may proceed simultaneously. Coding of new data and theory refinement continues until theoretical saturation is reached, i.e., when additional data does not yield any marginal change in the core categories or the relationships.
The “constant comparison” process implies continuous rearrangement, aggregation, and refinement of categories, relationships, and interpretations based on increasing depth of understanding, and an iterative interplay of four stages of activities: (1) comparing incidents/texts assigned to each category (to validate the category), (2) integrating categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory (focusing on the core concepts and ignoring less relevant concepts), and (4) writing theory (using techniques like memoing, storylining, and diagramming that are discussed in the next chapter). Having a central category does not necessarily mean that all other categories can be integrated nicely around it. In order to identify key categories that are conditions, action/interactions, and consequences of the core category, Strauss and Corbin (1990) recommend several integration techniques, such as storylining, memoing, or concept mapping. In storylining , categories and relationships are used to explicate and/or refine a story of the observed phenomenon. Memos are theorized write-ups of ideas about substantive concepts and their theoretically coded relationships as they evolve during ground theory analysis, and are important tools to keep track of and refine ideas that develop during the analysis. Memoing is the process of using these memos to discover patterns and relationships between categories using two-by-two tables, diagrams, or figures, or other illustrative displays. Concept mapping is a graphical representation of concepts and relationships between those concepts (e.g., using boxes and arrows). The major concepts are typically laid out on one or more sheets of paper, blackboards, or using graphical software programs, linked to each other using arrows, and readjusted to best fit the observed data.
After a grounded theory is generated, it must be refined for internal consistency and logic. Researchers must ensure that the central construct has the stated characteristics and dimensions, and if not, the data analysis may be repeated. Researcher must then ensure that the characteristics and dimensions of all categories show variation. For example, if behavior frequency is one such category, then the data must provide evidence of both frequent performers and infrequent performers of the focal behavior. Finally, the theory must be validated by comparing it with raw data. If the theory contradicts with observed evidence, the coding process may be repeated to reconcile such contradictions or unexplained variations.
Content Analysis
Content analysis is the systematic analysis of the content of a text (e.g., who says what, to whom, why, and to what extent and with what effect) in a quantitative or qualitative manner. Content analysis typically conducted as follows. First, when there are many texts to analyze (e.g., newspaper stories, financial reports, blog postings, online reviews, etc.), the researcher begins by sampling a selected set of texts from the population of texts for analysis. This process is not random, but instead, texts that have more pertinent content should be chosen selectively. Second, the researcher identifies and applies rules to divide each text into segments or “chunks” that can be treated as separate units of analysis. This process is called unitizing . For example, a ssumptions, effects, enablers, and barriers in texts may constitute such units. Third, the researcher constructs and applies one or more concepts to each unitized text segment in a process called coding . For coding purposes, a coding scheme is used based on the themes the researcher is searching for or uncovers as she classifies the text. Finally, the coded data is analyzed, often both quantitatively and qualitatively, to determine which themes occur most frequently, in what contexts, and how they are related to each other.
A simple type of content analysis is sentiment analysis – a technique used to capture people’s opinion or attitude toward an object, person, or phenomenon. Reading online messages about a political candidate posted on an online forum and classifying each message as positive, negative, or neutral is an example of such an analysis. In this case, each message represents one unit of analysis. This analysis will help identify whether the sample as a whole is positively or negatively disposed or neutral towards that candidate. Examining the content of online reviews in a similar manner is another example. Though this analysis can be done manually, for very large data sets (millions of text records), natural language processing and text analytics based software programs are available to automate the coding process, and maintain a record of how people sentiments fluctuate with time.
A frequent criticism of content analysis is that it lacks a set of systematic procedures that would allow the analysis to be replicated by other researchers. Schilling (2006) [20] addressed this criticism by organizing different content analytic procedures into a spiral model. This model consists of five levels or phases in interpreting text: (1) convert recorded tapes into raw text data or transcripts for content analysis, (2) convert raw data into condensed protocols, (3) convert condensed protocols into a preliminary category system, (4) use the preliminary category system to generate coded protocols, and (5) analyze coded protocols to generate interpretations about the phenomenon of interest.
Content analysis has several limitations. First, the coding process is restricted to the information available in text form. For instance, if a researcher is interested in studying people’s views on capital punishment, but no such archive of text documents is available, then the analysis cannot be done. Second, sampling must be done carefully to avoid sampling bias. For instance, if your population is the published research literature on a given topic, then you have systematically omitted unpublished research or the most recent work that is yet to be published.
Hermeneutic Analysis
Hermeneutic analysis is a special type of content analysis where the researcher tries to “interpret” the subjective meaning of a given text within its socio-historic context. Unlike grounded theory or content analysis, which ignores the context and meaning of text documents during the coding process, hermeneutic analysis is a truly interpretive technique for analyzing qualitative data. This method assumes that written texts narrate an author’s experience within a socio-historic context, and should be interpreted as such within that context. Therefore, the researcher continually iterates between singular interpretation of the text (the part) and a holistic understanding of the context (the whole) to develop a fuller understanding of the phenomenon in its situated context, which German philosopher Martin Heidegger called the hermeneutic circle. The word hermeneutic (singular) refers to one particular method or strand of interpretation.
More generally, hermeneutics is the study of interpretation and the theory and practice of interpretation. Derived from religious studies and linguistics, traditional hermeneutics, such as biblical hermeneutics , refers to the interpretation of written texts, especially in the areas of literature, religion and law (such as the Bible). In the 20th century, Heidegger suggested that a more direct, non-mediated, and authentic way of understanding social reality is to experience it, rather than simply observe it, and proposed philosophical hermeneutics , where the focus shifted from interpretation to existential understanding. Heidegger argued that texts are the means by which readers can not only read about an author’s experience, but also relive the author’s experiences. Contemporary or modern hermeneutics, developed by Heidegger’s students such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, further examined the limits of written texts for communicating social experiences, and went on to propose a framework of the interpretive process, encompassing all forms of communication, including written, verbal, and non-verbal, and exploring issues that restrict the communicative ability of written texts, such as presuppositions, language structures (e.g., grammar, syntax, etc.), and semiotics (the study of written signs such as symbolism, metaphor, analogy, and sarcasm). The term hermeneutics is sometimes used interchangeably and inaccurately with exegesis , which refers to the interpretation or critical explanation of written text only and especially religious texts.
Conclusions
Finally, standard software programs, such as ATLAS.ti.5, NVivo, and QDA Miner, can be used to automate coding processes in qualitative research methods. These programs can quickly and efficiently organize, search, sort, and process large volumes of text data using user-defined rules. To guide such automated analysis, a coding schema should be created, specifying the keywords or codes to search for in the text, based on an initial manual examination of sample text data. The schema can be organized in a hierarchical manner to organize codes into higher-order codes or constructs. The coding schema should be validated using a different sample of texts for accuracy and adequacy. However, if the coding schema is biased or incorrect, the resulting analysis of the entire population of text may be flawed and non-interpretable. However, software programs cannot decipher the meaning behind the certain words or phrases or the context within which these words or phrases are used (such as those in sarcasms or metaphors), which may lead to significant misinterpretation in large scale qualitative analysis.
[17] Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
[18] Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , Chicago: Aldine.
[19] Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques , Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
[20] Schilling, J. (2006). “On the Pragmatics of Qualitative Assessment: Designing the Process for Content Analysis,” European Journal of Psychological Assessment (22:1), 28-37.
Contributors and Attributions
CC licensed content, Shared previously | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.13%3A_Chapter_13_Qualitative_Analysis.txt |
Numeric data collected in a research project can be analyzed quantitatively using statistical tools in two different ways. Descriptive analysis refers to statistically describing, aggregating, and presenting the constructs of interest or associations between these constructs. Inferential analysis refers to the statistical testing of hypotheses (theory testing). In this chapter, we will examine statistical techniques used for descriptive analysis, and the next chapter will examine statistical techniques for inferential analysis. Much of today’s quantitative data analysis is conducted using software programs such as SPSS or SAS. Readers are advised to familiarize themselves with one of these programs for understanding the concepts described in this chapter.
Data Preparation
In research projects, data may be collected from a variety of sources: mail-in surveys, interviews, pretest or posttest experimental data, observational data, and so forth. This data must be converted into a machine -readable, numeric format, such as in a spreadsheet or a text file, so that they can be analyzed by computer programs like SPSS or SAS. Data preparation usually follows the following steps.
Data coding. Coding is the process of converting data into numeric format. A codebook should be created to guide the coding process. A codebook is a comprehensive document containing detailed description of each variable in a research study, items or measures for that variable, the format of each item (numeric, text, etc.), the response scale for each item (i.e., whether it is measured on a nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio scale; whether such scale is a five-point, seven-point, or some other type of scale), and how to code each value into a numeric format. For instance, if we have a measurement item on a seven-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, we may code that item as 1 for strongly disagree, 4 for neutral, and 7 for strongly agree, with the intermediate anchors in between. Nominal data such as industry type can be coded in numeric form using a coding scheme such as: 1 for manufacturing, 2 for retailing, 3 for financial, 4 for healthcare, and so forth (of course, nominal data cannot be analyzed statistically). Ratio scale data such as age, income, or test scores can be coded as entered by the respondent. Sometimes, data may need to be aggregated into a different form than the format used for data collection. For instance, for measuring a construct such as “benefits of computers,” if a survey provided respondents with a checklist of b enefits that they could select from (i.e., they could choose as many of those benefits as they wanted), then the total number of checked items can be used as an aggregate measure of benefits. Note that many other forms of data, such as interview transcripts, cannot be converted into a numeric format for statistical analysis. Coding is especially important for large complex studies involving many variables and measurement items, where the coding process is conducted by different people, to help the coding team code data in a consistent manner, and also to help others understand and interpret the coded data.
Data entry. Coded data can be entered into a spreadsheet, database, text file, or directly into a statistical program like SPSS. Most statistical programs provide a data editor for entering data. However, these programs store data in their own native format (e.g., SPSS stores data as .sav files), which makes it difficult to share that data with other statistical programs. Hence, it is often better to enter data into a spreadsheet or database, where they can be reorganized as needed, shared across programs, and subsets of data can be extracted for analysis. Smaller data sets with less than 65,000 observations and 256 items can be stored in a spreadsheet such as Microsoft Excel, while larger dataset with millions of observations will require a database. Each observation can be entered as one row in the spreadsheet and each measurement item can be represented as one column. The entered data should be frequently checked for accuracy, via occasional spot checks on a set of items or observations, during and after entry. Furthermore, while entering data, the coder should watch out for obvious evidence of bad data, such as the respondent selecting the “strongly agree” response to all items irrespective of content, including reverse-coded items. If so, such data can be entered but should be excluded from subsequent analysis.
Missing values. Missing data is an inevitable part of any empirical data set. Respondents may not answer certain questions if they are ambiguously worded or too sensitive. Such problems should be detected earlier during pretests and corrected before the main data collection process begins. During data entry, some statistical programs automatically treat blank entries as missing values, while others require a specific numeric value such as -1 or 999 to be entered to denote a missing value. During data analysis, the default mode of handling missing values in most software programs is to simply drop the entire observation containing even a single missing value, in a technique called listwise deletion . Such deletion can significantly shrink the sample size and make it extremely difficult to detect small effects. Hence, some software programs allow the option of replacing missing values with an estimated value via a process called imputation . For instance, if the missing value is one item in a multi-item scale, the imputed value may be the average of the respondent’s responses to remaining items on that scale. If the missing value belongs to a single-item scale, many researchers use the average of other respondent’s responses to that item as the imputed value. Such imputation may be biased if the missing value is of a systematic nature rather than a random nature. Two methods that can produce relatively unbiased estimates for imputation are the maximum likelihood procedures and multiple imputation methods, both of which are supported in popular software programs such as SPSS and SAS.
Data transformation. Sometimes, it is necessary to transform data values before they can be meaningfully interpreted. For instance, reverse coded items, where items convey the opposite meaning of that of their underlying construct, should be reversed (e.g., in a 1-7 interval scale, 8 minus the observed value will reverse the value) before they can be compared or combined with items that are not reverse coded. Other kinds of transformations may include creating scale measures by adding individual scale items, creating a weighted index from a set of observed measures, and collapsing multiple values into fewer categories (e.g., collapsing incomes into income ranges).
Univariate Analysis
Univariate analysis, or analysis of a single variable, refers to a set of statistical techniques that can describe the general properties of one variable. Univariate statistics include: (1) frequency distribution, (2) central tendency, and (3) dispersion. The frequency distribution of a variable is a summary of the frequency (or percentages) of individual values or ranges of values for that variable. For instance, we can measure how many times a sample of respondents attend religious services (as a measure of their “religiosity”) using a categorical scale: never, once per year, several times per year, about once a month, several times per month, several times per week, and an optional category for “did not answer.” If we count the number (or percentage) of observations within each category (except “did not answer” which is really a missing value rather than a category), and display it in the form of a table as shown in Figure 14.1, what we have is a frequency distribution. This distribution can also be depicted in the form of a bar chart, as shown on the right panel of Figure 14.1, with the horizontal axis representing each category of that variable and the vertical axis representing the frequency or percentage of observations within each category.
With very large samples where observations are independent and random, the frequency distribution tends to follow a plot that looked like a bell-shaped curve (a smoothed bar chart of the frequency distribution) similar to that shown in Figure 14.2, where most observations are clustered toward the center of the range of values, and fewer and fewer observations toward the extreme ends of the range. Such a curve is called a normal distribution .
Central tendency is an estimate of the center of a distribution of values. There are three major estimates of central tendency: mean, median, and mode. The arithmetic mean (often simply called the “mean”) is the simple average of all values in a given distribution. Consider a set of eight test scores: 15, 22, 21, 18, 36, 15, 25, 15. The arithmetic mean of these values is (15 + 20 + 21 + 20 + 36 + 15 + 25 + 15)/8 = 20.875. Other types of means include geometric mean (n th root of the product of n numbers in a distribution) and harmonic mean (the reciprocal of the arithmetic means of the reciprocal of each value in a distribution), but these means are not very popular for statistical analysis of social research data.
The second measure of central tendency, the median , is the middle value within a range of values in a distribution. This is computed by sorting all values in a distribution in increasing order and selecting the middle value. In case there are two middle values (if there is an even number of values in a distribution), the average of the two middle values represent the median. In the above example, the sorted values are: 15, 15, 15, 18, 22, 21, 25, 36. The two middle values are 18 and 22, and hence the median is (18 + 22)/2 = 20.
Lastly, the mode is the most frequently occurring value in a distribution of values. In the previous example, the most frequently occurring value is 15, which is the mode of the above set of test scores. Note that any value that is estimated from a sample, such as mean, median, mode, or any of the later estimates are called a statistic .
Dispersion refers to the way values are spread around the central tendency, for example, how tightly or how widely are the values clustered around the mean. Two common measures of dispersion are the range and standard deviation. The range is the difference between the highest and lowest values in a distribution. The range in our previous example is 36-15 = 21.
The range is particularly sensitive to the presence of outliers. For instance, if the highest value in the above distribution was 85 and the other vales remained the same, the range would be 85-15 = 70. Standard deviation , the second measure of dispersion, corrects for such outliers by using a formula that takes into account how close or how far each value from the distribution mean:
Bivariate Analysis
Bivariate analysis examines how two variables are related to each other. The most common bivariate statistic is the bivariate correlation (often, simply called “correlation”), which is a number between -1 and +1 denoting the strength of the relationship between two variables. Let’s say that we wish to study how age is related to self-esteem in a sample of 20 respondents, i.e., as age increases, does self-esteem increase, decrease, or remains unchanged. If self-esteem increases, then we have a positive correlation between the two variables, if self-esteem decreases, we have a negative correlation, and if it remains the same, we have a zero correlation. To calculate the value of this correlation, consider the hypothetical dataset shown in Table 14.1.
Table 14.1. Hypothetical data on age and self-esteem
The two variables in this dataset are age (x) and self-esteem (y). Age is a ratio-scale variable, while self-esteem is an average score computed from a multi-item self-esteem scale measured using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The histogram of each variable is shown on the left side of Figure 14.3. The formula for calculating bivariate correlation is:
After computing bivariate correlation, researchers are often interested in knowing whether the correlation is significant (i.e., a real one) or caused by mere chance. Answering such a question would require testing the following hypothesis:
H 0 : r = 0
H 1 : r ≠ 0
H 0 is called the null hypotheses , and H 1 is called the alternative hypothesis (sometimes, also represented as H a ). Although they may seem like two hypotheses, H 0 and H 1 actually represent a single hypothesis since they are direct opposites of each other. We are interested in testing H 1 rather than H 0 . Also note that H 1 is a non-directional hypotheses since it does not specify whether r is greater than or less than zero. Directional hypotheses will be specified as H 0 : r ≤ 0; H 1 : r > 0 (if we are testing for a positive correlation). Significance testing of directional hypothesis is done using a one-tailed t-test, while that for non-directional hypothesis is done using a two-tailed t-test.
In statistical testing, the alternative hypothesis cannot be tested directly. Rather, it is tested indirectly by rejecting the null hypotheses with a certain level of probability. Statistical testing is always probabilistic, because we are never sure if our inferences, based on sample data, apply to the population, since our sample never equals the population. The probability that a statistical inference is caused pure chance is called the p-value . The p-value is compared with the significance level (α), which represents the maximum level of risk that we are willing to take that our inference is incorrect. For most statistical analysis, α is set to 0.05. A p-value less than α=0.05 indicates that we have enough statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis, and thereby, indirectly accept the alternative hypothesis. If p>0.05, then we do not have adequate statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis or accept the alternative hypothesis.
The easiest way to test for the above hypothesis is to look up critical values of r from statistical tables available in any standard text book on statistics or on the Internet (most software programs also perform significance testing). The critical value of r depends on our desired significance level (α = 0.05), the degrees of freedom (df), and whether the desired test is a one-tailed or two-tailed test. The degree of freedom is the number of values that can vary freely in any calculation of a statistic. In case of correlation, the df simply equals n – 2, or for the data in Table 14.1, df is 20 – 2 = 18. There are two different statistical tables for one-tailed and two -tailed test. In the two -tailed table, the critical value of r for α = 0.05 and df = 18 is 0.44. For our computed correlation of 0.79 to be significant, it must be larger than the critical value of 0.44 or less than -0.44. Since our computed value of 0.79 is greater than 0.44, we conclude that there is a significant correlation between age and self-esteem in our data set, or in other words, the odds are less than 5% that this correlation is a chance occurrence. Therefore, we can reject the null hypotheses that r ≤ 0, which is an indirect way of saying that the alternative hypothesis r > 0 is probably correct.
Most research studies involve more than two variables. If there are n variables, then we will have a total of n*(n-1)/2 possible correlations between these n variables. Such correlations are easily computed using a software program like SPSS, rather than manually using the formula for correlation (as we did in Table 14.1), and represented using a correlation matrix, as shown in Table 14.2. A correlation matrix is a matrix that lists the variable names along the first row and the first column, and depicts bivariate correlations between pairs of variables in the appropriate cell in the matrix. The values along the principal diagonal (from the top left to the bottom right corner) of this matrix are always 1, because any variable is always perfectly correlated with itself. Further, since correlations are non-directional, the correlation between variables V1 and V2 is the same as that between V2 and V1. Hence, the lower triangular matrix (values below the principal diagonal) is a mirror reflection of the upper triangular matrix (values above the principal diagonal), and therefore, we often list only the lower triangular matrix for simplicity. If the correlations involve variables measured using interval scales, then this specific type of correlations are called Pearson product moment correlations .
Another useful way of presenting bivariate data is cross-tabulation (often abbreviated to cross-tab, and sometimes called more formally as a contingency table). A cross-tab is a table that describes the frequency (or percentage) of all combinations of two or more nominal or categorical variables. As an example, let us assume that we have the following observations of gender and grade for a sample of 20 students, as shown in Figure 14.3. Gender is a nominal variable (male/female or M/F), and grade is a categorical variable with three levels (A, B, and C). A simple cross-tabulation of the data may display the joint distribution of gender and grades (i.e., how many students of each gender are in each grade category, as a raw frequency count or as a percentage) in a 2 x 3 matrix. This matrix will help us see if A, B, and C grades are equally distributed across male and female students. The cross-tab data in Table 14.3 shows that the distribution of A grades is biased heavily toward female students: in a sample of 10 male and 10 female students, five female students received the A grade compared to only one male students. In contrast, the distribution of C grades is biased toward male students: three male students received a C grade, compared to only one female student. However, the distribution of B grades was somewhat uniform, with six male students and five female students. The last row and the last column of this table are called marginal totals because they indicate the totals across each category and displayed along the margins of the table.
Table 14.2. A hypothetical correlation matrix for eight variables
Table 14.3. Example of cross-tab analysis
Although we can see a distinct pattern of grade distribution between male and female students in Table 14.3, is this pattern real or “statistically significant”? In other words, do the above frequency counts differ from that that may be expected from pure chance? To answer this question, we should compute the expected count of observation in each cell of the 2 x 3 cross-tab matrix. This is done by multiplying the marginal column total and the marginal row total for each cell and dividing it by the total number of observations. For example, for the male/A grade cell, expected count = 5 * 10 / 20 = 2.5. In other words, we were expecting 2.5 male students to receive an A grade, but in reality, only one student received the A grade. Whether this difference between expected and actual count is significant can be tested using a chi-square test . The chi-square statistic can be computed as the average difference between observed and expected counts across all cells. We can then compare this number to the critical value associated with a desired probability level (p < 0.05) and the degrees of freedom, which is simply (m-1)*(n-1), where m and n are the number of rows and columns respectively. In this example, df = (2 – 1) * (3 – 1) = 2. From standard chi-square tables in any statistics book, the critical chi-square value for p=0.05 and df=2 is 5.99. The computed chi -square value, based on our observed data, is 1.00, which is less than the critical value. Hence, we must conclude that the observed grade pattern is not statistically different from the pattern that can be expected by pure chance.
Contributors and Attributions
CC licensed content, Shared previously | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.14%3A_Chapter_14_Quantitative_Analysis_Descriptive_Statistics.txt |
Inferential statistics are the statistical procedures that are used to reach conclusions about associations between variables. They differ from descriptive statistics in that they are explicitly designed to test hypotheses. Numerous statistical procedures fall in this category, most of which are supported by modern statistical software such as SPSS and SAS. This chapter provides a short primer on only the most basic and frequent procedures; readers are advised to consult a formal text on statistics or take a course on statistics for more advanced procedures.
Basic Concepts
British philosopher Karl Popper said that theories can never be proven, only disproven. As an example, how can we prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? Popper said that just because the sun has risen every single day that we can remember does not necessarily mean that it will rise tomorrow, because inductively derived theories are only conjectures that may or may not be predictive of future phenomenon. Instead, he suggested that we may assume a theory that the sun will rise every day without necessarily proving it, and if the sun does not rise on a certain day, the theory is falsified and rejected. Likewise, we can only reject hypotheses based on contrary evidence but can never truly accept them because presence of evidence does not mean that we may not observe contrary evidence later. Because we cannot truly accept a hypothesis of interest (alternative hypothesis), we formulate a null hypothesis as the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, and then use empirical evidence to reject the null hypothesis to demonstrate indirect, probabilistic support for our alternative hypothesis.
A second problem with testing hypothesized relationships in social science research is that the dependent variable may be influenced by an infinite number of extraneous variables and it is not plausible to measure and control for all of these extraneous effects. Hence, even if two variables may seem to be related in an observed sample, they may not be truly related in the population, and therefore inferential statistics are never certain or deterministic, but always probabilistic.
How do we know whether a relationship between two variables in an observed sample is significant, and not a matter of chance? Sir Ronald A. Fisher, one of the most prominent statisticians in history, established the basic guidelines for significance testing. He said that a statistical result may be considered significant if it can be shown that the probability of it being rejected due to chance is 5% or less. In inferential statistics, this probability is called the p-value , 5% is called the significance level (α), and the desired relationship between the p-value and α is denoted as: p≤0.05. The significance level is the maximum level of risk that we are willing to accept as the price of our inference from the sample to the population. If the p-value is less than 0.05 or 5%, it means that we have a 5% chance of being incorrect in rejecting the null hypothesis or having a Type I error. If p>0.05, we do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or accept the alternative hypothesis.
We must also understand three related statistical concepts: sampling distribution, standard error, and confidence interval. A sampling distribution is the theoretical distribution of an infinite number of samples from the population of interest in your study. However, because a sample is never identical to the population, every sample always has some inherent level of error, called the standard error . If this standard error is small, then statistical estimates derived from the sample (such as sample mean) are reasonably good estimates of the population. The precision of our sample estimates is defined in terms of a confidence interval (CI). A 95% CI is defined as a range of plus or minus two standard deviations of the mean estimate, as derived from different samples in a sampling distribution. Hence, when we say that our observed sample estimate has a CI of 95%, what we mean is that we are confident that 95% of the time, the population parameter is within two standard deviations of our observed sample estimate. Jointly, the p-value and the CI give us a good idea of the probability of our result and how close it is from the corresponding population parameter.
General Linear Model
Most inferential statistical procedures in social science research are derived from a general family of statistical models called the general linear model (GLM). A model is an estimated mathematical equation that can be used to represent a set of data, and linear refers to a straight line. Hence, a GLM is a system of equations that can be used to represent linear patterns of relationships in observed data.
The simplest type of GLM is a two-variable linear model that examines the relationship between one independent variable (the cause or predictor) and one dependent variable (the effect or outcome). Let us assume that these two variables are age and self-esteem respectively. The bivariate scatterplot for this relationship is shown in Figure 15.1, with age (predictor) along the horizontal or x-axis and self-esteem (outcome) along the vertical or y-axis. From the scatterplot, it appears that individual observations representing combinations of age and self-esteem generally seem to be scattered around an imaginary upward sloping straight line. We can estimate parameters of this line, such as its slope and intercept from the GLM. From high-school algebra, recall that straight lines can be represented using the mathematical equation y = mx + c, where m is the slope of the straight line (how much does y change for unit change in x) and c is the intercept term (what is the value of y when x is zero). In GLM, this equation is represented formally as:
y = β 0 + β 1 x + ε
where β 0 is the slope, β 1 is the intercept term, and ε is the error term . ε represents the deviation of actual observations from their estimated values, since most observations are close to the line but do not fall exactly on the line (i.e., the GLM is not perfect). Note that a linear model can have more than two predictors. To visualize a linear model with two predictors, imagine a three-dimensional cube, with the outcome (y) along the vertical axis, and the two predictors (say, x 1 and x 2 ) along the two horizontal axes along the base of the cube. A line that describes the relationship between two or more variables is called a regression line, β 0 and β 1 (and other beta values) are called regression coefficients , and the process of estimating regression coefficients is called regression analysis . The GLM for regression analysis with n predictor variables is:
y = β 0 + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + β 3 x 3 + … + β n x n + ε
In the above equation, predictor variables x i may represent independent variables or covariates (control variables). Covariates are variables that are not of theoretical interest but may have some impact on the dependent variable y and should be controlled, so that the residual effects of the independent variables of interest are detected more precisely. Covariates capture systematic errors in a regression equation while the error term (ε) captures random errors. Though most variables in the GLM tend to be interval or ratio-scaled, this does not have to be the case. Some predictor variables may even be nominal variables (e.g., gender: male or female), which are coded as dummy variables . These are variables that can assume one of only two possible values: 0 or 1 (in the gender example, “male” may be designated as 0 and “female” as 1 or vice versa). A set of n nominal variables is represented using n–1 dummy variables. For instance, industry sector, consisting of the agriculture, manufacturing, and service sectors, may be represented using a combination of two dummy variables (x 1 , x 2 ), with (0, 0) for agriculture, (0, 1) for manufacturing, and (1, 1) for service. It does not matter which level of a nominal variable is coded as 0 and which level as 1, because 0 and 1 values are treated as two distinct groups (such as treatment and control groups in an experimental design), rather than as numeric quantities, and the statistical parameters of each group are estimated separately.
The GLM is a very powerful statistical tool because it is not one single statistical method, but rather a family of methods that can be used to conduct sophisticated analysis with different types and quantities of predictor and outcome variables. If we have a dummy predictor variable, and we are comparing the effects of the two levels (0 and 1) of this dummy variable on the outcome variable, we are doing an analysis of variance (ANOVA). If we are doing ANOVA while controlling for the effects of one or more covariate, we have an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). We can also have multiple outcome variables (e.g., y 1 , y 1 , … y n ), which are represented using a “system of equations” consisting of a different equation for each outcome variable (each with its own unique set of regression coefficients). If multiple outcome variables are modeled as being predicted by the same set of predictor variables, the resulting analysis is called multivariate regression . If we are doing ANOVA or ANCOVA analysis with multiple outcome variables, the resulting analysis is a multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) or multivariate ANCOVA (MANCOVA) respectively. If we model the outcome in one regression equation as a predictor in another equation in an interrelated system of regression equations, then we have a very sophisticated type of analysis called structural equation modeling . The most important problem in GLM is model specification , i.e., how to specify a regression equation (or a system of equations) to best represent the phenomenon of interest. Model specification should be based on theoretical considerations about the phenomenon being studied, rather than what fits the observed data best. The role of data is in validating the model, and not in its specification.
Two-Group Comparison
One of the simplest inferential analyses is comparing the post-test outcomes of treatment and control group subjects in a randomized post-test only control group design, such as whether students enrolled to a special program in mathematics perform better than those in a traditional math curriculum. In this case, the predictor variable is a dummy variable (1=treatment group, 0=control group), and the outcome variable, performance, is ratio scaled (e.g., score of a math test following the special program). The analytic technique for this simple design is a one-way ANOVA (one-way because it involves only one predictor variable), and the statistical test used is called a Student’s t-test (or t-test, in short).
The t-test was introduced in 1908 by William Sealy Gosset, a chemist working for the Guiness Brewery in Dublin, Ireland to monitor the quality of stout – a dark beer popular with 19 th century porters in London. Because his employer did not want to reveal the fact that it was using statistics for quality control, Gosset published the test in Biometrika using his pen name “Student” (he was a student of Sir Ronald Fisher), and the test involved calculating the value of t, which was a letter used frequently by Fisher to denote the difference between two groups. Hence, the name Student’s t-test, although Student’s identity was known to fellow statisticians.
The t-test examines whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other (non-directional or two-tailed test), or whether one group has a statistically larger (or smaller) mean than the other (directional or one-tailed test). In our example, if we wish to examine whether students in the special math curriculum perform better than those in traditional curriculum, we have a one-tailed test. This hypothesis can be stated as:
H 0 : μ 1 ≤ μ 2
(null hypothesis)
H 1 : μ 1 > μ 2
(alternative hypothesis)
where μ 1 represents the mean population performance of students exposed to the special curriculum (treatment group) and μ 2 is the mean population performance of students with traditional curriculum (control group). Note that the null hypothesis is always the one with the “equal” sign, and the goal of all statistical significance tests is to reject the null hypothesis.
How can we infer about the difference in population means using data from samples drawn from each population? From the hypothetical frequency distributions of the treatment and control group scores in Figure 15.2, the control group appears to have a bell-shaped (normal) distribution with a mean score of 45 (on a 0-100 scale), while the treatment group appear to have a mean score of 65. These means look different, but they are really sample means ( ) , which may differ from their corresponding population means (μ) due to sampling error. Sample means are probabilistic estimates of population means within a certain confidence interval (95% CI is sample mean + two standard errors, where standard error is the standard deviation of the distribution in sample means as taken from infinite samples of the population. Hence, statistical significance of population means depends not only on sample mean scores, but also on the standard error or the degree of spread in the frequency distribution of the sample means. If the spread is large (i.e., the two bell-shaped curves have a lot of overlap), then the 95% CI of the two means may also be overlapping, and we cannot conclude with high probability (p<0.05) that that their corresponding population means are significantly different. However, if the curves have narrower spreads (i.e., they are less overlapping), then the CI of each mean may not overlap, and we reject the null hypothesis and say that the population means of the two groups are significantly different at p<0.05.
To conduct the t-test, we must first compute a t-statistic of the difference is sample means between the two groups. This statistic is the ratio of the difference in sample means relative to the difference in their variability of scores (standard error):
where the numerator is the difference in sample means between the treatment group (Group 1) and the control group (Group 2) and the denominator is the standard error of the difference between the two groups, which in turn, can be estimated as:
s 2 is the variance and n is the sample size of each group. The t-statistic will be positive if the treatment mean is greater than the control mean. To examine if this t-statistic is large enough than that possible by chance, we must look up the probability or p-value associated with our computed t-statistic in statistical tables available in standard statistics text books or on the Internet or as computed by statistical software programs such as SAS and SPSS. This value is a function of the t-statistic, whether the t-test is one-tailed or two -tailed, and the degrees of freedom (df) or the number of values that can vary freely in the calculation of the statistic (usually a function of the sample size and the type of test being performed). The degree of freedom of the t-statistic is computed as:
which often approximates to (n 1 +n 2 –2). If this p-value is smaller than a desired significance level (say α=0.05) or the highest level of risk (probability) we are willing to take to conclude that there is a treatment effect when in fact there is none (Type I error), then we can reject the null hypotheses.
After demonstrating whether the treatment group has a significantly higher mean than the control group, the next question usually is what is the effect size (ES) or the magnitude of the treatment effect relative to the control group? We can estimate the ES by conducting regression analysis with performance scores as the outcome variable (y) and a dummy coded treatment variable as the predictor variable (x) in a two-variable GLM. The regression coefficient of the treatment variable (β 1 ), which is also the slope of the regression line (β 1 = y/ x), is an estimate of the effect size. In the above example, since x is a dummy variable with two values (0 and 1), x = 1–0 = 1, and hence the effect size or β 1 is simply the difference between treatment and control means ( y = y 1 – y 2 ).
Factorial Designs
Extending from the previous example, let us say that the effect of the special curriculum (treatment) relative to traditional curriculum (control) depends on the amount of instructional time (3 or 6 hours/week). Now, we have a 2 x 2 factorial design, with the two factors being curriculum type (special versus traditional) and instructional type (3 or 6 hours/week). Such a design not only helps us estimate the independent effect of each factor, called main effects , but also the joint effect of both factors, called the interaction effect . The generalized linear model for this two-way factorial design is designated as follows:
y = β 0 + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + β 3 x 1 x 2 + ε
where y represents students’ post-treatment performance scores, x 1 is the treatment (special versus traditional curriculum), x 2 is instructional time (3 or 6 hours/week). Note that both x 1 and x 2 are dummy variables, and although x 2 looks like a ratio-scale variable (3 or 6), it actually represents two categories in the factorial design. Regression coefficients β 1 and β 2 provide effect size estimates for the main effects and β 3 for the interaction effect. Alternatively, the same factorial model can be analyzed using a two-way ANOVA analysis. Regression analysis involving multiple predictor variables is sometimes called multiple regression, which is different from multivariate regression that uses multiple outcome variables.
A note on interpreting interaction effects. If β 3 is significant, it implies that the effect of the treatment (curriculum type) on student performance depends on instructional time. In this case, we cannot meaningfully interpret the independent effect of the treatment (β 1 ) or of instructional time (β 2 ), because the two effects cannot be isolated from each other. Main effects are interpretable only when the interaction effect is non-significant.
Covariates can be included in factorial designs as new variables, with new regression coefficients (e.g., β 4 ). Covariates can be measured using interval or ratio scaled measures, even when the predictors of interest are designated as dummy variables. Interpretation of covariates also follows the same rules as that of any other predictor variable.
Other Quantitative Analysis
There are many other useful inferential statistical techniques, based on variations in the GLM, that are briefly mentioned here. Interested readers are referred to advanced text books or statistics courses for more information on these techniques:
• Factor analysis is a data reduction technique that is used to statistically aggregate a large number of observed measures (items) into a smaller set of unobserved (latent) variables called factors based on their underlying bivariate correlation patterns. This technique is widely used for assessment of convergent and discriminant validity in multi-item measurement scales in social science research.
• Discriminant analysis is a classificatory technique that aims to place a given observation in one of several nominal categories based on a linear combination of predictor variables. The technique is similar to multiple regression, except that the dependent variable is nominal. It is popular in marketing applications, such as for classifying customers or products into categories based on salient attributes as identified from large-scale surveys.
• Logistic regression (or logit model) is a GLM in which the outcome variable is binary (0 or 1) and is presumed to follow a logistic distribution, and the goal of the regression analysis is to predict the probability of the successful outcome by fitting data into a logistic curve. An example is predicting the probability of heart attack within a specific period, based on predictors such as age, body mass index, exercise regimen, and so forth. Logistic regression is extremely popular in the medical sciences. Effect size estimation is based on an “odds ratio,” representing the odds of an event occurring in one group versus the other.
• Probit regression (or probit model) is a GLM in which the outcome variable can vary between 0 and 1 (or can assume discrete values 0 and 1) and is presumed to follow a standard normal distribution, and the goal of the regression is to predict the probability of each outcome. This is a popular technique for predictive analysis in the actuarial science, financial services, insurance, and other industries for applications such as credit scoring based on a person’s credit rating, salary, debt and other information from her loan application. Probit and logit regression tend to demonstrate similar regression coefficients in comparable applications (binary outcomes); however the logit model is easier to compute and interpret.
• Path analysis is a multivariate GLM technique for analyzing directional relationships among a set of variables. It allows for examination of complex nomological models where the dependent variable in one equation is the independent variable in another equation, and is widely used in contemporary social science research.
• Time series analysis is a technique for analyzing time series data, or variables that continually changes with time. Examples of applications include forecasting stock market fluctuations and urban crime rates. This technique is popular in econometrics, mathematical finance, and signal processing. Special techniques are used to correct for auto-correlation, or correlation within values of the same variable across time.
Contributors and Attributions
CC licensed content, Shared previously | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.15%3A_Chapter_15_Quantitative_Analysis_Inferential_Statistics.txt |
Ethics is defined by Webster’s dictionary as conformance to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group. Such standards are often defined at a disciplinary level though a professional code of conduct, and sometimes enforced by university committees called even Institutional Review Board. Even if not explicitly specified, scientists are still expected to be aware of and abide by general agreements shared by the scientific community on what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors in the professional conduct of science. For instance, scientists should not manipulate their data collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures in a way that contradicts the principles of science or the scientific method or advances their personal agenda.
Why is research ethics important? Because, science has often been manipulated in unethical ways by people and organizations to advance their private agenda and engaging in activities that are contrary to the norms of scientific conduct. A classic example is pharmaceutical giant Merck’s drug trials of Vioxx, where the company hid the fatal side -effects of the drug from the scientific community, resulting in 3468 deaths of Vioxx recipients, mostly from cardiac arrest. In 2010, the company agreed to a \$4.85 billion settlement and appointed two independent committees and a chief medical officer to monitor the safety of its drug development process. Merck’s conduct was unethical and violation the scientific principles of data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Ethics is the moral distinction between right and wrong, and what is unethical may not necessarily be illegal. If a scientist’s conduct falls within the gray zone between ethics and law, she may not be culpable in the eyes of the law, but may still be ostracized in her professional community, face severe damage to professional reputation, and may even lose her job on grounds of professional misconduct. These ethical norms may vary from one society to another, and here, we refer to ethical standards as applied to scientific research in Western countries.
Ethical Principles in Scientific Research
Some of the expected tenets of ethical behavior that are widely accepted within the scientific community are as follows.
Voluntary participation and harmlessness. Subjects in a research project must be aware that their participation in the study is voluntary, that they have the freedom to withdraw from the study at any time without any unfavorable consequences, and they are not harmed as a result of their participation or non-participation in the project. The most flagrant violations of the voluntary participation principle are probably forced medical experiments conducted by Nazi researchers on prisoners of war during World War II, as documented in the post-War Nuremberg Trials (these experiments also originated the term “crimes against humanity”). Less known violations include the Tuskegee syphilis experiments conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service during 1932 -1972, in which nearly 400 impoverished African-American men suffering from syphilis were denied treatment even after penicillin was accepted as an effective treatment of syphilis, and subjects were presented with false treatments such as spinal taps as cures for syphilis. Even if subjects face no mortal threat, they should not be subjected to personal agony as a result of their participation. In 1971, psychologist Philip Zambardo created the Stanford Prison Experiment, where Stanford students recruited as subjects were randomly assigned to roles such as prisoners or guards. When it became evident that student prisoners were suffering psychological damage as a result of their mock incarceration and student guards were exhibiting sadism that would later challenge their own self-image, the experiment was terminated.
Today, if an instructor asks her students to fill out a questionnaire and informs them that their participation is voluntary, students must not fear that their non-participation may hurt their grade in class in any way. For instance, it in unethical to provide bonus points for participation and no bonus points for non-participations, because it places non-participants at a distinct disadvantage. To avoid such circumstances, the instructor may possibly provide an alternate task for non-participants so that they can recoup the bonus points without participating in the research study, or by providing bonus points to everyone irrespective of their participation or non- participation. Furthermore, all participants must receive and sign an Informed Consent form that clearly describes their right to not participate and right to withdraw, before their responses in the study can be recorded. In a medical study, this form must also specify any possible risks to subjects from their participation. For subjects under the age of 18, this form must be signed by their parent or legal guardian. Researchers must retain these informed consent forms for a period of time (often three years) after the completion of the data collection process in order comply with the norms of scientific conduct in their discipline or workplace.
Anonymity and confidentiality. To protect subjects’ interests and future well-being, their identity must be protected in a scientific study. This is done using the dual principles of anonymity and confidentiality. Anonymity implies that the researcher or readers of the final research report or paper cannot identify a given response with a specific respondent. An example of anonymity in scientific research is a mail survey in which no identification numbers are used to track who is responding to the survey and who is not. In studies of deviant or undesirable behaviors, such as drug use or illegal music downloading by students, truthful responses may not be obtained if subjects are not assured of anonymity. Further, anonymity assures that subjects are insulated from law enforcement or other authorities who may have an interest in identifying and tracking such subjects in the future.
In some research designs such as face-to-face interviews, anonymity is not possible. In other designs, such as a longitudinal field survey, anonymity is not desirable because it prevents the researcher from matching responses from the same subject at different points in time for longitudinal analysis. Under such circumstances, subjects should be guaranteed confidentiality , in which the researcher can identify a person’s responses, but promises not to divulge that person’s identify in any report, paper, or public forum. Confidentiality is a weaker form of protection than anonymity, because social research data do not enjoy the “privileged communication” status in United State courts as do communication with priests or lawyers. For instance, two years after the Exxon Valdez supertanker spilled ten million barrels of crude oil near the port of Valdez in Alaska, the communities suffering economic and environmental damage commissioned a San Diego research firm to survey the affected households about personal and embarrassing details about increased psychological problems in their family. Because the cultural norms of many Native Americans made such public revelations particularly painful and difficult, respondents were assured confidentiality of their responses. When this evidence was presented to court, Exxon petitioned the court to subpoena the original survey questionnaires (with identifying information) in order to cross-examine respondents regarding their answers that they had given to interviewers under the protection of confidentiality, and was granted that request. Luckily, the Exxon Valdez case was settled before the victims were forced to testify in open court, but the potential for similar violations of confidentiality still remains.
In one extreme case, Rick Scarce, a graduate student at Washington State University, conducted participant observation studies of animal rights activists, and chronicled his findings in a 1990 book called Ecowarriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement . In 1993, Scarce was called before a grand jury to identify the activists he studied. The researcher refused to answer grand jury questions, in keeping with his ethical obligations as a member of the American Sociological Association, and was forced to spend 159 days at Spokane County Jail. To protect themselves from travails similar to Rik Scarce, researchers should remove any identifying information from documents and data files as soon as they are no longer necessary.
In 2002, the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a “Certificate of Confidentiality” to protect participants in research project from police and other authorities.
Not all research projects qualify for this protection, but this can provide an important support for protecting participant confidentiality in many cases.
Disclosure. Usually, researchers have an obligation to provide some information about their study to potential subjects before data collection to help them decide whether or not they wish to participate in the study. For instance, who is conducting the study, for what purpose, what outcomes are expected, and who will benefit from the results. However, in some cases, disclosing such information may potentially bias subjects’ responses. For instance, if the purpose of a study is to examine to what extent subjects will abandon their own views to conform with “groupthink” and they participate in an experiment where they listen to others’ opinions on a topic before voicing their own, then disclosing the study’s purpose before the experiment will likely sensitize subjects to the treatment. Under such circumstances, even if the study’s purpose cannot be revealed before the study, it should be revealed in a debriefing session immediately following the data collection process, with a list of potential riska or harm borne by the participant during the experiment.
Analysis and reporting. Researchers also have ethical obligations to the scientific community on how data is analyzed and reported in their study. Unexpected or negative findings should be fully disclosed, even if they cast some doubt on the research design or the findings. Similarly, many interesting relationships are discovered after a study is completed, by chance or data mining. It is unethical to present such findings as the product of deliberate design. In other words, hypotheses should not be designed in positivist research after the fact based on the results of data analysis, because the role of data in such research is to test hypotheses, and not build them. It is also unethical to “carve” their data into different segments to prove or disprove their hypotheses of interest, or to generate multiple papers claiming different data sets. Misrepresenting questionable claims as valid based on partial, incomplete, or improper data analysis is also dishonest. Science progresses through openness and honesty, and researchers can best serve science and the scientific community by fully disclosing the problems with their research, so that they can save other researchers from similar problems.
Institutional Review Boards
Research ethics in studies involving human subjects is governed in the United States by federal law. Any agency, such as a university or a hospital, that wants to apply for federal funding to support its research projects must establish that it is in compliance with federal laws governing the rights and protection of human subjects. This process is overseen by a panel of experts in that agency called an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB reviews all research proposal involving human subjects to ensure that the principles of voluntary participation, harmlessness, anonymity, confidentiality, and so forth are preserved, and that the risks posed to human subjects are minimal. Even though the federal laws apply specifically for federally funded projects, the same standards and procedures are also applied to non-funded or even student projects.
The IRB approval process require completing a structured application providing complete information about the research project, the researchers (principal investigators), and details on how the subjects’ rights will be protected. Additional documentation such as the Informed Consent form, research questionnaire or interview protocol may be needed. The researchers must also demonstrate that they are familiar with the principles of ethical research by providing certification of their participation in an research ethics course. Data collection can commence only after the project is cleared by the IRB review committee.
Professional Code of Ethics
Most professional associations of researchers have established and published formal codes of conduct describing what constitute acceptable and unacceptable professional behavior of their member researchers. As an example, the summarized code of conduct for the Association of Information Systems (AIS), the global professional association of researchers in the information systems discipline, is summarized in Table 16.1 (the complete code of conduct is available online at http://home.aisnet.org/ displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=15 ). Similar codes of ethics are also available for other disciplines.
The AIS code of conduct groups ethical violations in two categories. Category I includes serious transgressions such as plagiarism and falsification of data, research procedures, or data analysis, which may lead to expulsion from the association, dismissal from employment, legal action, and fatal damage to professional reputation. Category 2 includes less serious transgression such as not respecting the rights of research subjects, misrepresenting the originality of research projects, and using data published by others without acknowledgement, which may lead to damage to professional reputation, sanctions from journals, and so forth. The code also provides guidance on good research behaviors, what to do when ethical transgressions are detected (for both the transgressor and the victim), and the process to be followed by AIS in dealing with ethical violation cases. Though codes of ethics such as this have not completely eliminated unethical behavior, they have certainly helped clarify the boundaries of ethical behavior in the scientific community and reduced instances of ethical transgressions.
CATEGORY ONE: Codes in this category must ALWAYS be adhered to and disregard for them constitutes a serious ethical breach. Serious breaches can result in your expulsion from academic associations, dismissal from your employment, legal action against you, and potentially fatal damage to your academic reputation.
1. CATEGORY TWO: Codes in this category are recommended ethical behavior. Flagrant disregard of these or other kinds of professional etiquette, while less serious, can result in damage to your reputation, editorial sanctions, professional embarrassment, legal action, and the ill will of your colleagues.
1. ADVICE: Some suggestions on how to protect yourself from authorship disputes, mis-steps, mistakes, and even legal action.
1. Table 16.1. Code of ethics for the Association of Information Systems
An Ethical Controversy
Robert Allen “Laud” Humphreys is an American sociologist and author, who is best known for his Ph.D. dissertation, Tearoom Trade , published in 1970. This book is an ethnographic account of anonymous male homosexual encounters in public toilets in parks – a practice known as “tea-rooming” in U.S. gay slang. Humphreys was intrigued by the fact that the majority of participants in tearoom activities were outwardly heterosexual men, who lived otherwise conventional family lives in their communities. However, it was important to them to preserve their anonymity during tearoom visits.
Typically, tearoom encounters involved three people – the two males engaging in a sexual act and a lookout person called a “watchqueen.” The job of the watchqueen was to alert the two participating males for police or other people, while deriving pleasure from watching the action as a voyeur. Because it was not otherwise possible to reach these subjects, Humphreys showed up at public toilets, masquerading as a watchqueen. As a participant observer, Humphreys was able to conduct field observations for his dissertation, as he normally would in a study of political protests or any other sociological phenomenon.
Humphreys needed more information on the participants. But because participants were unwilling to be interviewed in the field or disclose personal identities, Humphreys wrote down the license plate numbers of the participants’ cars, wherever possible, and tracked down their names and addresses from public databases. Then he visited these men at their homes, disguising himself to avoid recognition and announcing that he was conducting a survey, and collected personal data that was not otherwise available.
Humphreys’ research generated considerable controversy within the scientific community. Many critics said that he should not have invaded others’ right to privacy in the name of science, others were worried about his deceitful behavior in leading participants to believe that he was only a watchqueen, when he clearly had ulterior motives. Even those who considered observing tearoom activity to be acceptable because the participants used public facilities, thought that the follow-up interview survey in participants’ homes under false pretenses was unethical, because of the way he obtained their home addresses and because he did not seek informed consent. A few researchers justified Humphrey’s approach saying that this was an important sociological phenomenon worth investigating, that there was no other way to collect this data, and that the deceit was harmless, since Humphreys did not disclose his subjects’ identities to anyone. This controversy was never resolved, and it is still hotly debated in classes and forums on research ethics.
Contributors and Attributions
CC licensed content, Shared previously
2.01: Instructions for completing the Research Portfolio assignment
• Research Portfolio: There are 5 research designs you are required to address for this assignment. There is a discussion forum devoted to each design:
• Survey
• Correlational
• Quasiexperimental
• Experimental
• Qualitative
• You must submit a research article (or the link to a research article) which exemplifies each research design. In addition to facilitating the discussion of the articles you submit, you must participate in the discussions led by the other students.
Your initial post in each discussion forum must contain:
• a working link to the research article, OR
• the article as an attachment, OR
• paste in a copy of the article
As soon as you submit your initial post, reply to it with the following information (not all articles will contain all of this information):
1. Identify the research as Basic or Applied – and justify your conclusion
2. Identify the population of interest
3. Identify the sampling procedure and the sample
4. Identify the independent and dependent variables
5. Identify the hypothesis
6. Discuss any ethical issues
7. Identify the research conclusion
8. Discuss any theoretical implications
You are to facilitate the ensuing discussion of your research article. Make sure all of the salient issues are fully discussed.
In addition to facilitating the discussion of the article you submit, you must be an active participant in the discussion of the other articles submitted.
Contributors and Attributions
CC licensed content, Original
• Instructions for completing the Research Portfolio assignment. Authored by: William Pelz. Provided by: Herkimer College. Project: AtD - Research Methods for Social Science course. License: CC BY: Attribution | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Research_Methods_for_the_Social_Sciences_(Pelz)/1.16%3A_Chapter_16_Research_Methods.txt |
KARL MARX (1818-1883)
“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” – Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (1845)
NOTE ON SOURCES: The first selection is a short biography written by Marx’s close friend and lifetime-collaborator, Frederick Engels. The biography was written for a German newspaper but was not published at the time. The complete original can be found on the Marxist Archives site.[1] The second selection was written by Marx’s daughter, Eleanor, and originally published in a German newspaper in 1897 and can also be found on the Marxist Archives site.[2] The third selection describes the Marx household, and was written by a close friend and colleague, Wilhelm Liebknecht.[3] The final selection was taken from Engels’ much reprinted speech at Marx’s funeral in 1883. The complete speech can be found on line.[4]
Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in Trier, where he received an education in the classics. He studied law at Bonn and later in Berlin, where, however, his preoccupation with philosophy soon turned him away from law. In 1841, after spending five years in the “metropolis of intellectuals,” he returned to Bonn to earn his PhD. Instead, he became involve in a radical newspaper venture, which ran afoul of Prussian censorship. He resigned in protest in 1843.
During his criticism of the deliberations of the local government, Marx began focusing on questions of material interest. He found himself confronted with points of view which neither jurisprudence nor philosophy had taken account of. Proceeding from the Hegelian philosophy of law, Marx concluded that it was not the state, which Hegel had described as the “top of the edifice,” but “civil society,” which Hegel had regarded with disdain, that was the sphere in which a key to the understanding of the process of the historical development of mankind should be looked for.
In the summer of 1843, after marrying Jenny Von Westphalen, the daughter of a government official, Marx moved to Paris, where he devoted himself primarily to studying political economy and the history of the great French Revolution. There he became involved in another radical newspaper and was expelled from France for this in 1845. He moved to Brussels where he continued his political work, writing what would become the Communist Manifesto on behest of workers organized as “The League of the Just.”
Expelled once again, this time by the Belgian government under the influence of the panic caused by the 1848 revolution, Marx returned to Paris at the invitation of the French provisional government. The tidal wave of the revolution pushed all scientific pursuits into the background; what mattered now was to become involved in the movement. Marx resurrected his radical newspaper and moved to Cologne, but this was again shut down by the government forcing him to flee to Paris, first, then, London, where he remained the rest of his life.
In London at that time was assembled the entire fine fleur of the refugees from all the nations of the continent. Revolutionary committees of every kind were formed. For a while, Marx continued to produce his newspaper in the form of a monthly review but eventually he withdrew into the British Museum and worked through the immense and as yet for the most part unexamined library there for all that it contained on political economy. At the same time, he was a regular contributor to the New York Tribune, acting, until the outbreak of the American Civil War, so to speak, as the editor for European politics of this, the leading Anglo-American newspaper.
At last, in 1867, he published the first volume of his masterpiece, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. It is the political economy of the working class, reduced to its scientific formulation. This work is concerned not with rabble-rousing phrase-mongering, but with strictly scientific deductions. Whatever one’s attitude to socialism, one will at any rate have to acknowledge that in this work it is presented for the first time in a scientific manner. Anyone still wishing to do battle with socialism, will have to deal with Marx.
But there is another point of view from which Marx’s book is of interest. It is the first work in which the actual relations existing between capital and labor, in their classical form such as they have reached in England, are described in their entirety and in a clear and graphic fashion. Then there is the history of factory legislation in England which, from its modest beginnings with the first acts of 1802, has now reached the point of limiting working hours in nearly all manufacturing or cottage industries to 60 hours per week for women and young people under the age of 18, and to 39 hours per week for children under 13. From this point of view the book is of the greatest interest for every industrialist.
As one would expect, in addition to his studies Marx is busy with the workers’ movement; he is one of the founders of the International Working Men’s Association, which has been the center of so much attention recently and has already shown in more than one place in Europe that it is a force to be reckoned with.
On the Relationship between Karl and Jenny
Karl was a young man of seventeen when he became engaged to Jenny. For them, too, the path of true love was not a smooth one. It is easy to understand that Karl’s parents opposed the engagement of a young man of his age … The earnestness with which Karl assures his father of his love in spite of certain contradictions is explained by the rather stormy scenes his engagement had caused in the home. My father used to say that at that time he had been a really ferocious Roland. But the question was soon settled and shortly before or after his eighteenth birthday the betrothal was formally recognized. Seven years Karl waited for his beautiful Jenny, but “they seemed but so many days to him, because he loved her so much”.
On June 19, 1843 they were wedded. Having played together as children and become engaged as a young man and girl, the couple went hand in hand through the battle of life.
And what a battle! Years of bitter pressing need and, still worse, years of brutal suspicion, infamous calumny and icy indifference. But through all that, in unhappiness and happiness, the two lifelong friends and lovers never faltered, never doubted: they were faithful unto death. And death has not separated them.
His whole life long Marx not only loved his wife, he was in love with her.
The Marx Household
While Jenny gave birth seven times, only three of their children survived to adulthood (daughters Jenny, Eleanor (nicknamed “Tussy”), and Laura). A fourth child, a son named Edgar, made it almost to adolescence.
Several children died; among them Marx’s two boys, one, born in London, very early, the other, born in Paris, after a protracted illness. Well I remember the sad weeks of sickness without hope. The death of this boy was a fearful blow to Marx. The boy, named Moosh (mouche, fly), really Edgar after an uncle, was very gifted, but ailing from the day of his birth, a genuine, true child of sorrow this boy with the magnificent eyes and the promising head that was, however, much too heavy for the weak body. If poor Moosh could have obtained quiet, enduring nursing and a sojourn in the country or near the sea, then, perhaps, his life might have been saved. But in the life of the exile, in the chase from place to place, in the misery of London, it was impossible, even with the most tender love of the parents and care of a mother, to make the tender little plant strong enough for the struggle of existence. Moosh died; I shall never forget the scene; the mother, silently weeping, bent over the dead child, Lenchen[5] sobbing beside her, Marx in a terrible excitement vehemently, almost angrily, rejecting all consolation, the two girls clinging to their mother crying quietly, the mother clasping them convulsively as if to hold them and defend them against death that had robbed her of her boy.
And two days later the burial, Lessner, Pfaender, Lochner, Conrad Schramm, the red Wolff and myself went along, I in the carriage with Marx. He sat there dumb, holding his head in his hands. I stroked his forehead: “Mohr,[6] you still have your wife, your girls and us, and we all love you so well!”
“You cannot give me back my boy!” he groaned, and silently we rode on to the graveyard in Tottenham Court Road. When the coffin, singularly large, for during the sickness the formerly very backward child had grown surprisingly, when the coffin was about to be lowered into the grave, Marx was so excited that I stepped to his side fearing he might jump after the coffin.
Thirty years later, when his faithful mate was buried out on Highgate Cemetery, and with her half of his own being, his own life, he would have fallen into the grave had not Engels, who later told me about it, quickly grasped his arm.
Fifteen months later he followed her.
The Lifetime Achievements of Marx
On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep — but forever.
An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man.
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.
And, consequently, Marx was the best hated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers — from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America — and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy.
His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.
Questions
1. What is the “materialist theory of history?” According to Marx, what sets historical forces in motion? Where do ideas come from?
2. How did Marx spend his life? What was his occupation?
3. What are the “two important facts” uncovered by Marx, according to Engels? How are these relevant to people who advocate for socialism?
4. Engels says that Marx was “the most hated man” of his time, but also that he died “beloved, revered, and mourned.” Explain this paradox.
Concepts
Historical Materialism (also known as the Materialist theory of history)
Class Struggle
Exploitation
Surplus Value
Labor Power
1. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...x/eng-1869.htm
2. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...rx/eleanor.htm
3. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lie.../karl-marx.htm
4. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ath/burial.htm
5. Lenchen was Jenny’s friend and household maidservant. She was with the family her entire life. ↵
6. Mohr was a nickname for Marx; it is the German word for “Moor,” used to describe Marx because if his general swarthiness. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.01%3A_Biography_of_Marx_by_F._Engels_%281868%29.txt |
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth she produces.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: Years after Marx’s death, a series of notebooks were finally transcribed and published, first in the Soviet Union in 1927 and in the US in 1959 (just in time for the turbulent ‘60’s). It is here where Marx discusses most fully the well-known concept of alienation. The selections below are taken from the translation freely available on the Marxist Archives website, with minor modifications and condensation.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In the 1844 manuscripts, written when still a young man, Marx struggled to articulate what was so problematic about the current system of capitalism. These early passages of Marx demonstrate the fundamental problems of social relations under class rule. Rather than focus on the concept of exploitation, or what was economically unfair about the social relationship between capitalist and worker, Marx critiqued the historical development of hired labor and the ways in which this kind of work dehumanizes those who take part in it. We are fully ourselves when we work, but we have socially arranged our work so that it is alien to us, a hostile power at another’s command. Marx uses the word alienation (or estrangement) to describe this dehumanization. Take note of the various aspects of alienation discussed by Marx.
We have proceeded from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws. We have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; that the necessary result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, and that, eventually, the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes – property owners and property-less workers.
Political economy starts with the fact of private property; it does not explain it to us. Now, therefore, we have to grasp the intrinsic connection between private property, greed, the separation of labor, capital and landed property; the connection of exchange and competition, of value and the devaluation of man, of monopoly and competition, etc. – the connection between this whole estrangement and the money system.
We proceed from an actual economic fact.
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever-cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers’ objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation
Political economy conceals the estrangement inherent in the nature of labor by not considering the direct relationship between the worker(labor) and production. It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things, but for the worker it produces poverty. It produces mansions, but for the worker, shacks. It produces beauty, but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence, but for the worker, stupidity, ignorance.
Until now we have been considering the alienation of the worker only in one of its aspects – her relationship to the products of her labor. But the alienation (also known as estrangement) is manifested not only in the result but in the act of production, within the producing activity, itself.
What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker. In other words, it does not belong to her intrinsic nature. In her work she does not affirm himself but denies herself. She does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely her physical and mental energy but instead mortifies her body and ruins her mind. The worker only feels herself outside her work, and in her work feels outside herself. She feels at home when she is not working, and when she is working, she does not feel at home. Her labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Finally, it is not her own work, but someone else’s. It doesn’t really belong to her but to another.
As a result, therefore, a human being (the worker) only feels herself freely active in her animal functions – eating, drinking, reproducing, or at most in her dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in her human functions she no longer feels herself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.
We have now covered the first two aspects of alienation: first, alienation from the product, and second, alienation from the process. We now have to consider two more.
Humans are a species-being. The life of the species, both in humans and in non-human animals, consists physically in the fact that humans (like other animals) lives on organic nature. Like all animals, humans live on nature –nature is our body, and we must remain in continuous interchange with it to stay alive. That our physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for we are a part of nature. In estranging from us (1) nature, and (2) ourselves,
Our own active functions, our life activity, estranged labor estranges the species from us. It changes for us the life of the species into a means of individual life.
For labor, life activity, productive life itself, appears to us merely as a means of satisfying a need – the need to maintain physical existence. Yet the productive life is the life of the species. It is life-engendering life. The whole character of a species, its species-character, is contained in the character of its life activity; and free, conscious activity is our species-character. Life itself appears only as a means to life. This, too, is an aspect of alienation.
The non-human animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. We, however, make our life activity itself the object of our will and consciousness. Conscious life activity distinguishes us immediately from all other animal life activity. It is just because of this that we are the human species (that is our “species-being”). Estranged labor reverses the relationship, what makes us human is something that is a mere means to existence rather than our very existence itself.
In creating a world of objects by our personal activity, we prove ourselves a conscious species-being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst we produce universally. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, while this is not true for us.
The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of our species-life: for we see ourselves in the world we create. In tearing away from us the object of our production, therefore, estranged labor tears from us our species-life, transforms our advantage over other animals into the disadvantage that our inorganic body, nature, is taken from us.
We thus have two more aspects of alienation. The third is alienation from our species-being, that which makes us human. Following from this is the fourth, our alienation from other human beings. The proposition that man’s species-nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature.
Our alienation is realized and expressed only in the relationship in which we stand to other humans. Hence within the relationship of alienated labor each person views the other in accordance with the standard and the relationship in which she finds herself as a worker.
Let us now see, further, how the concept of estranged, alienated labor must express and present itself in real life. If the product of labor is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong? To a being other than myself. Who is this being? To god(s)? Perhaps back in the day, but not now. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over us. Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If he treats his own activity as an unfree activity, then he treats it as an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man.
Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labor of a man alien to labor and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labor creates the relationship to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labor). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself. Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labor, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged man.
Wages are a direct consequence of estranged labor, and estranged labor is the direct cause of private property. The downfall of the one must, therefore, involve the downfall of the other. From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation.
Questions
1. Think about jobs you have had. Did you feel fully yourself on the job or out of it? Did working satisfy a need, or was it merely a way to get paid? Now think about activities in which you work but this is self-directed (playing music in a band, performing a sport, making dinner for a friend). Do you see the difference Marx was drawing here?
2. What makes humans different from other animals? Do you agree? How does alienation undercut our species-being?
3. Would it ever be possible to arrange our social relations in a way that labor is not alienated? What would this look like? Try to imagine such an arrangement (this is a helpful exercise as we move forward to reading the Communist Manifesto).
4. Marx began this essay by saying that he wanted to uncover the connections between the division of labor, private property, and wealth/poverty. Has he succeeded? Explain.
5. Why is the “emancipation of workers” so important?
Concepts
Alienation (all four aspects)
Species-being
Private Property | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.02%3A_Economic_and_Philosophic_Manuscripts_of_1844.txt |
“Wages are the price of labor-power, not labor.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection was from a book published in 1900 entitled The People’s Marx. This book has an interesting history and has never been republished. You may be one of a handful of people on the planet who are reading this. Soon after the publication of Capital in 1867, many followers of Marx felt it would be helpful to have an abridged version specifically for workers to read. After his death, his son-in-law, Dr. Aveling, attempted to put together such a work. It was first published in 1883 in French by Gabriel Deville, a French Marxist. The work consisted of about 250 pages of the original 800-page Capital. It was then translated into English by Robert Rives La Monte and published in New York in 1900. It is from this source that the selection on Wages comes.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In the preface to The People’s Marx, the translator (La Monte) refers to the first volume of Capital as “the Bible of the working class.” That appellation is particularly apt for the selection you have here, on wages. According to Marx, thinking about wages as payment like any other commodity fundamentally obscures the social relation between employer and employee. The argument is put forth here quite clearly, and can be read in conjunction with, or as a supplement to, the more complete selections from Capital.
Chapter 19. The Transformation of the Value or Price of Labor Power into Wages
If we look only on the surface of bourgeois society, the wages of the laborer seem to be the remuneration of labor – so much money paid for so much labor. Labor is then treated as a commodity, the market-price of which rises and falls above or below its value.
But what is this value? Value represents the social labor expended in the production of a commodity. And how is the magnitude of value of a commodity measured? By the quantity of labor that it contains. How then do we determine, for example, the value of twelve hours’ labor? By the twelve hours’ labor that it contains, which is evidently absurd.
In order to be taken to market, and sold as a commodity, the labor must, at all events, have been in existence beforehand. But if the laborer could endow it with a material existence, separate from and independent of herself, she would sell a commodity and not labor.
That which directly confronts the capitalist on the market is not labor, but the laborer. What she sells is her labor-power. As soon as she begins to exert her labor-power, to labor, as soon as her labor exists, this labor has already ceased to belong to her, and can no longer be sold by her. Labor is the substance and measure of value, but itself has no value. The expression, value of labor, is an inaccurate expression which has its source in the apparent forms of the relations of production.
Having made this error, classical political economy proceeded to inquire how the price of labor was determined. It recognized that in the case of labor, as in the case of every other commodity, the relation between supply and demand explained only the oscillations of the market price above or below a certain mean. As soon as supply and demand balance each other, the changes in the price which they had occasioned cease, but the whole effect of supply and demand also ceases at the same point. If, when they are in equilibrium, the price of labor no longer depends upon their influence, upon what then does it depend? The price of labor, like the price of every other commodity, can only be its value expressed in money, and this value, political economy determined in the last analysis, by the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the support and reproduction of the laborer. Without suspecting it, political economy thus substituted for the ostensible subject of its researches, the value of labor, the value of labor-power, a power which exists only in the person of the laborer, and is distinct from its function, labor, just as a machine is the distance from its operations. But classical political economy remained unconscious of this confusion.
The Wage-Form Conceals the Real Relation between Capital and Labor’
According to all the appearances, indeed, what the capitalist pays is the value of the utility that the laborer gives him, the value of labor. Moreover, the laborer is not paid until she has delivered her labor. Now, in its function as means of payment money only realized subsequently the value or price of the article delivered – in this case, the value or price of the labor performed. Nothing but the experience of practical life brings to light the twofold utility of labor – the property of satisfying a need, which it has in common with all commodities, and the property of creating value which differentiates it from all other commodities and makes it impossible for it, as the value-creating element, to have any value of its own.
Take a day of 8 hours producing a value of \$160, half of which is equal to the daily value of labor-power. By confounding the value of the power with the value of its function, with the labor that it performs, we get this formula: 8 hours’ labor has a value of \$80; and we thus reach the absurd result that labor which creates a value of \$160 is worth only \$80. But in a capitalist society this is not apparent. There, the value of \$80 for the production of which only four hours are requisite, appears as the value of a full day’s labor. By receiving a wage of \$80 a day, the laborer appears to receive all the value to which her labor entitles her, and it is precisely on this account that the excess of the value of her product over the value of her wage takes the form of a surplus value of \$80 created by capital and not by labor.
The wage-form, or direct payment of labor, therefore, extinguishes every trace of the division of the working day into necessary labor and surplus labor – into paid labor and unpaid labor – so that all the labor of the free laborer is deemed to be paid labor. In the corvée,[1] the labor of the serve for himself and his compulsory labor for his lord are clearly distinct from each other, being performed in different places. In the system of slavery, even that part of the day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of subsistence, in which, therefore, he really works for himself, seems to be labor for the owner. All his labor wears the appearance of unpaid labor. In slavery, the property relation conceals the labor of the slave for himself. In the wage-system, the money relation conceals the gratuitous labor of the wage-worker for the capitalist.
It is now possible to understand the immense practical importance of this change of form which makes the remuneration of labor-power appear as the wages of labor – the price of labor-power as the price of its function. The apparent form renders the real relation between capital and labor invisible. From it flow all the juridical notions of the wage-laborer and the capitalist, all the mystifications of capitalist production, all the illusions regarding liberty, all the justifications rhetoric of ordinary political economy.
Questions
1. What does it mean to say that wages are the price of labor-power, not labor?
2. Why is it necessary to point out that political economy has confused labor-power with labor? How is Marx’s insight here a sociological one? How does the system of “wages” work to conceal the social relationship between capital and labor?
3. Have you ever wondered why, when you go to work, you get paid after the completion of the work (sometimes by weeks or even a month)? Can you think of situations where the laborer is paid in advance? What are the social differences between these types of labor? What does this say about social relations and power in capitalist society?
Concepts
Wages
Wage-Form
Labor Power
1. In feudal times, serfs were often expected to work one day a week or one day out of three for the lord. This day was called the corvée. Marx is making a case that things haven’t changed much for “free” laborers, just harder to see. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.03%3A_Marx_on_Wages.txt |
“Like a master, at once distinguished and barbarous, Capital drags with it into its grave the corpses of its slaves, whole hecatombs of workers, who perish in its economic crises.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection was written by Marx in 1847 as a series of lectures for British workers. It was first published in English in 1891. Much of what is included here would eventually find its way into Capital years later, in a much more polished form. The original document can be found on-line in the Marxist Archives.[1]
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
As with the previous selection (1c), this piece was written by Marx to workers themselves as an explanation of how wages were determined and valued. He would eventually have much more to say on the matter in his multi-volume masterpiece, Capital. When reading, think about your own experiences with work and wages. Does this explanation help you understand the social relationship between the worker and the employer?
Wage Labor and Capital
What are Wages? How are they Determined?
If several workmen were to be asked: “How much wages do you get?”, one would reply, “I get \$9 an hour,” “\$50 a day,” and so on. They would all agree upon one point: that wages are the amount of money which the capitalist pays for a certain period of work or for a certain amount of work.
Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labor with money, and that for money they sell her their labor. But this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is their labor-power. This labor-power the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after she has bought it, she uses it up by letting the workers work during the stipulated time.
Wages are only a special name for the price of labor-power and are usually called the price of labor; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood.
Consequently, labor-power is a commodity which its possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he sell it? It is in order to live.
But the putting of labor-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the laborer’s own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive.
Labor-power was not always a commodity (merchandise). Labor was not always wage-labor, i.e., free labor. The slave did not sell her labor-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labor to the farmer. The slave, together with her labor-power, was sold to her owner once for all. She is a commodity that can pass from the hand of one owner to that of another. She herself is a commodity, but her labor-power is not her commodity. The serf sells only a portion of his labor-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he brings its fruit. The free laborer, on the other hand, sells her very self, and that by fractions. She auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of her life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life – i.e., to the capitalist. The laborer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of her daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom she has sold herself, as often as she chooses, and the capitalist discharges her as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of her. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of her labor-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless she gives up her own existence. She does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for her to find her own employer – i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class.
By what are wages determined?
Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power.
What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power?
It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.
Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages. In those branches of industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary, and the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence.
The Nature and Growth of Capital.
In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.
These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.
The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind.
Capital also is a social relation of production. Capital is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships – the body of capital – have the same exchange value, the same price, as the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied. The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while capital does not suffer the least alteration.
The existence of a class which possesses nothing but the ability to work is a necessary presupposition of capital. It is only the dominion of past, accumulated, materialized labor over immediate living labor that stamps the accumulated labor with the character of capital. Capital does not consist in the fact that accumulated labor serves living labor as a means for new production. It consists in the fact that living labor serves accumulated labor as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value.
Relation of Wage-Labor to Capital.
What is it that takes place in the exchange between the capitalist and the wage-laborer? The laborer receives means of subsistence in exchange for his labor-power; the capitalist receives, in exchange for his means of subsistence, labor, the productive activity of the laborer, the creative force by which the worker not only replaces what he consumes, but also gives to the accumulated labor a greater value than it previously possessed. The laborer gets from the capitalist a portion of the existing means of subsistence.
Does a worker in a cotton factory produce only cotton? No. She produces capital. She produces values which serve anew to command her work and to create by means of its new values. Capital can multiply itself only by exchanging itself for labor-power, by calling wage-labor into life. The labor-power of the wage-laborer can exchange itself for capital only by increasing capital, by strengthening that very power whose slave it is. Increase of capital, therefore, is increase of the proletariat, i.e., of the working class.
And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the interest of the capitalist and of the laborer is the same. And in fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labor-power, which, in order to exploit, it must buy.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power of accumulated labor over living labor; growth of the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labor produces the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital, there flow back to it its means of employment – i.e., its means of subsistence, under the condition that it again become a part of capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is to be forced into an accelerated expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-labor are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other.
As long as the wage-laborer remains a wage-laborer, his lot is dependent upon capital.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain, the profit, of the capitalist. In other words, wages are a proportionate, relative quantity.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labor grows, the number of wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends over a greater mass of individuals.
What, then, is the general law that determines the rise and fall of wages and profit in their reciprocal relation? They stand in inverse proportion to each other. The share of (profit) increases in the same proportion in which the share of labor (wages) falls, and vice versa. Profit rises in the same degree in which wages fall; it falls in the same degree in which wages rise.
We thus see that the interests of capitals and the interests of wage-labor are diametrically opposed to each other.
If the income of the worker increased with the rapid growth of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power of capital over labor, a greater dependence of labor upon capital. To say that “the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital”, means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him, the greater will be the number of workers than can be called into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased.
The more productive capital grows, the more it extends the division of labor and the application of machinery; the more the division of labor and the application of machinery extend, the more does competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink together. Capitalists are forced to compete with each other in order to stay in business. They replace workers with machinery wherever possible. They replace skilled workers with unskilled workers, which are less costly. Capitalists who cannot compete (especially small business owners) become proletarians themselves.
Machinery supplants skilled laborers by unskilled, men by women, adults by children; where newly introduced, it throws workers upon the streets in great masses; and as it becomes more highly developed and more productive it discards them in additional though smaller numbers. The laborer seeks to maintain the total of his wages for a given time by performing more labor, either by working a great number of hours, or by accomplishing more in the same number of hours. Thus, urged on by want, he himself multiplies the disastrous effects of division of labor. The result is: the more he works, the less wages he receives. And for this simple reason: the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him, and to offer themselves on the same wretched conditions as he does; so that, in the last analysis, he competes against himself as a member of the working class.
Capital not only lives upon labor. Like a master, at once distinguished and barbarous, it drags with it into its grave the corpses of its slaves, whole hecatombs of workers, who perish in the crises.
We thus see that if capital grows rapidly, competition among the workers grows with even greater rapidity – i.e., the means of employment and subsistence for the working class decrease in proportion even more rapidly; but, this notwithstanding, the rapid growth of capital is the most favorable condition for wage-labor.
Questions
1. Give examples of both (a) means of production and (b) mode of production. Be sure you know the difference between these two concepts.
2. Why does Marx spend so much time focusing on production?
3. Explain what Marx means by saying that “the rapid growth of capital is the most favorable condition for wage labor.” How would he respond to hearing someone say that business owners are job creators?
4. What is social relationship between capitalists and workers? Is the economic relationship mutually productive, or is it a zero-sum relationship (one’s gain is the other’s loss?) Evaluate this position.
5. If you were a worker hearing these lectures in 1847, how would you respond?
6. Over time, what happens to small business owners?
7. Over time, what happens to the relative power of capitalist and worker?
Concepts
Polarization
Concentration of Capital
Surplus Value
Mode of Production
Means of Production
Free Wage Labor
Labor Power
Commodity | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.04%3A_Marx_on_Wage_Labor_and_Capital.txt |
“Abolition of the wages system!”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection was from a speech Marx gave in 1865 to the General International Congress and translated and published by his daughter, Eleanor Aveling, in 1908, from which the following passage has been taken. The entire work is composed a series of short explanatory essays on various aspects of the workings of capitalism. It has never been republished in its entirety.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In the preface to the 1908 publication, Edward Aveling, Marx’s son-in-law, recommends the work as “an epitome of the first volume of Capital,” written more accessibly for the general reader. He states, “Among many other characteristics of Marx, this paper shows two especially. These are his patient willingness to make the meaning of his ideas plain to the humblest student, and the extraordinary clearness of those ideas” (page 3). You may want to compare the presentation of the discussion of profit, surplus value, and class struggle here, with the presentation in Capital.
Value and Labor
The first question we have to put is: What is the value of a commodity? How is it determined?
At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each other regulated?
A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallization of social labor. The greatness of its value, or its relative value, depends upon the greater or less amount of that social substance contained in it; that is to say, on the relative mass of labor necessary for its production. The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labor, worked up, realized, fixed in them. The correlative qualities of commodities which can be produced in the same time of labor are equal. Or the value of one commodity is to the value of another commodity as the quantity of labor fixed in the one is to the quantity of labor fixed in another.
It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor bestowed upon its production, the lazier the man, or the clumsier a man, the more valuable his commodity, because the greater the time of labor required for finishing the commodity. This, however, would be a sad mistake. You will recollect that I used the word, “Social labor,” and many points are involved in this qualification of “Social.” In saying that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor worked up or crystallized in it, we mean the quantity of labor necessary for its production in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions of production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of labor employed.
The Different Parts into which Surplus Value is Decomposed
The surplus value, or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labor or unpaid labor of the working man is realized, I call Profit. The whole of that profit is not pocketed by the employing capitalist. The monopoly of land enables the landlord to take one part of that surplus value, under the name of rent, whether the land is used for agriculture, buildings or railways, or for any other productive purpose. On the other hand, the very fact that the possession of the instruments of labor enables the employing capitalist to produce a surplus value, or, what comes to the same, to appropriate to himself a certain amount of unpaid labor, enables the owner of the means of labor, which he lends wholly or partly to the employing capitalist – enables, in one word, the money-lending capitalist to claim for himself under the name of interest another part of that surplus value, so that there remains to the employing capitalist as such only what is called industrial or commercial profit.
By what laws this division of the total amount of surplus value amongst the three categories of people is regulated is a question quite foreign to our subject. This much, however, results from what has been stated. Rent, Interest, and Industrial Profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity or the unpaid labor enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source, and from this source alone.
It is the employing capitalist who immediately extracts from the laborer this surplus value, whatever part of it he may ultimately be able to keep for himself. Upon this relation, therefore, between the employing capitalist and the wages laborer the whole wages system and the whole present system of production hinge.
Attempts at Raising Wages
In workers’ attempts at reducing the working day to its former rational dimensions, or, where they cannot enforce a legal fixation of a normal working day, at checking overwork by a rise of wages, a rise not only in proportion to the surplus time extracted, but in a greater proportion, workers fulfill only a duty to themselves. They only set limits to the tyrannical usurpations of capital. Time is the root of human development. A worker who has no free time to dispose of, whose whole lifetime, apart from the mere physical interruptions by sleep, meals, and so forth, is absorbed by work for the capitalist, is less than a beast of burden. She is a mere machine for producing Foreign Wealth, broken in body and brutalized in mind. Yet the whole history of modern industry shows that capital, if not checked, will recklessly and ruthlessly work to cast down the whole working class to this utmost state of degradation.
The Struggle between Capital and Labor and Its Results
As to profits, there exists no law which determines their minimum. We cannot say what is the ultimate limit of their decrease. And why cannot we fix that limit? Because, although we can fix the minimum of wages, we cannot fix their maximum. We can only say that, the limits of the working day being given, the maximum of profit corresponds to the physical minimum of wages; and that wages being given, the maximum of profit corresponds to such a prolongation of the working day as is compatible with the physical forces of the laborer. The maximum of profit is therefore limited by the physical minimum of wages and the physical maximum of the working day. It is evident that between the two limits of this maximum rate of profit an immense scale of variations is possible. The fixation of its actual degree is only settled by the continuous struggle between capital and labor, the capitalist constantly tending to reduce wages to their physical minimum, and to extend the working day to its physical maximum, while the worker constantly presses in the opposite direction.
The matter resolves itself into a question of the respective powers of the combatants.
As to the limitation of the working day, it has never been settled except by legislative interference. Without the workers’ continuous pressure from without that interference would never have taken place. But at all events, the result was not to be attained by private settlement between the workers and the capitalists. This very necessity or general political action affords the proof that in its merely economic action capital is the stronger side.
These few hints will suffice to show that the very development of modern industry must progressively turn the scale in favor of the capitalist against the worker, and that consequently the general tendency of capitalistic production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages, or to push the value of labor more or less to its minimum limit. Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation. I think I have shown that their struggles for the standard of wages are incidents inseparable from the whole wages system, than in 99 cases out of 100 their efforts at raising wages are only efforts at maintaining the given value of labor, and that the necessity of debating their price with the capitalist is inherent to their condition of having to sell themselves as commodities. By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would eventually disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement.
At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these every-day struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed by these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the ever-ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economic reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, “A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work! “they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, “Abolition of the wages system!”
After this very long and, I fear, tedious exposition which I was obliged to enter into to do some justice to the subject-matter, I shall conclude by proposing the following resolutions: –
Firstly, A general rise in the rate of wages would result in a fall of the general rate of profit, but, broadly speaking not affect the prices of commodities
Secondly, the general tendency of capitalist production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages.
Thirdly, Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system.
Questions
1. Marx explains the importance of the social relation between employing capitalist and wage laborer. Why is this relationship fundamental to understanding our current society?
2. Why is it necessary for the working class to fight for a living wage? What would Marx say about the idea, taken up in several advanced countries today, that the work week should be limited to four days a week?
3. Why does Marx see general political action as necessary? What kinds of actions does he mean? Give contemporary examples.
4. Some people today believe that taking government out of business will produce higher wages and better jobs for all. Why does Marx disagree? Is he persuasive?
5. What is the difference between fighting for a living wage and fighting to abolish the wage system? What does Marx advise the working class to do? Where should it direct is efforts, and why?
Commodity
Surplus Value
Rent
Rate of Profit
Class Struggle | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.05%3A_Value_Price_and_Profit.txt |
Commodity – Money – Commodity.
C–––––– M ––––––C.
NOTE ON SOURCE: The source of the following passages is the first volume of Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, published in Germany in 1867 by Verlag. Although Marx would write two more volumes before his death, neither was published in his lifetime. The first translated publications were in Russia and France (both in 1872), largely under Marx’s direction. The first English translation was translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (the partner of Marx’s youngest daughter) and overseen by Engels and published in 1887, four years after Marx’s death. It has since been translated into every major language and is even available in Manga form. A recommended translation of the entire works is that by Ben Fowkes, available through Penguin Classics.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Capitalism somewhat confusingly divided into books (or volumes), parts, and chapters (with both sections and sub-sections). Because so many people read Capital around the globe, in so many different languages and forms, it is important to keep the headings consistent across all translations. Book 1 is composed of eight parts and thirty-three chapters and takes as its subject “the Process and Production of Capital.” Included here are passages from parts 1 and 3. It is in these books that Marx tries to explain the inner workings of capitalism. Try to connect the description of commodity production with Marx’s definition of capital.
Part 1. Commodities
The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities.” Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
That which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor time socially necessary for its production. As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labor time. A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labor (as in the case of air – we definitely use it, but it doesn’t have a value as a commodity). A thing can also be useful, and be the product of human labor, and still not be a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labor, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities.
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very odd thing. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent.
The equality of all sorts of human labor is expressed objectively by their products all being equally valued; the measure of the expenditure of labor power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labor; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labor affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.
In this way, we can equate a \$35 stuffed animal with a \$35 pair of sneakers with a \$35 bottle of tequila, all of which are quite different and yet have the same apparent value.
A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of labor appears to people as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor. A definite social relation between men appears in the fantastic form of a relation between things.
We forget that Hilda sewed the stuffed animal, for which she got paid \$7/hour, or that Geraldo bottled the tequila, and instead see only the things themselves, as if they came about magically
This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of commodities has its origin in the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them.
As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labor of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labor of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labor of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labor of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labor of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labor of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relation
Part 2. Transformation of Money into Capital
The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus serves as a universal measure of value. Price is the money-name of the labor realized in a commodity.
Marx proceeds to give some 19th century examples to show the relationship between money and commodities but I am going to update these for you…
Let us now accompany the owner of some commodity, let’s follow Geraldo who has bottled his family’s recipe for tequila. He sells his bottle for \$35 and then he buys his daughter a stuffed animal. He never meets Hilda. He has exchanged his commodity for money, and then exchanged this money for a commodity. We can describe the circulation like this:
Commodity – Money – Commodity.
C–––––– M ––––––C.
The result of the whole process is, so far as concerns the objects themselves, C – C, the exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation of materialized social labor. When this result is attained, the process is at an end.
So what is capital?
The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation called commerce, these form the historical ground-work from which it rises. The modern history of capital dates from the creation in the 16th century of a world-embracing commerce and a world-embracing market. (see CAPITAL)
The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another specifically different form: M-C-M, the transformation of money into commodities, and the change of commodities back again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, becomes capital, and is already potentially capital.
Here’s an updated example: Mr. Knight buys a ton of sneakers made by workers in Malaysia for \$1.2 million. He then sells all those sneakers for \$3 million. He has now converted his original money into a commodity for the purpose of acquiring more money. We can see this as M-C-M, and it is the heart of capitalism.
Capitalism requires commodities.
The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes the capitalist’s subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist. Use-values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist; neither must the profit on any single transaction. The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at. This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser.
How is it that one can buy a commodity and sell it for more than what one paid for it? What kind of commodity allows that? The change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realize the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying. Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labor, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labor or labor-power. (see LABOR POWER)
By labor-power or capacity for labor is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description
But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labor-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. FIRST, labor-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labor-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. The owner of the labor-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity.
SECOND, the laborer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labor is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labor-power, which exists only in his living self.
Hilda cannot make stuffed animals and sell them herself because she doesn’t own the tools (or means of production)
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free laborer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labor-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realization of his labor-power.
How is it that one person has the means to buy the labor power of another? Why is Mr. Knight the one who hires workers and Hilda is a person who sells her labor power?
This relation has no natural basis, neither is its social basis one that is common to all historical periods. It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older forms of social production.
So, too, the economic categories, already discussed by us, bear the stamp of history. Definite historical conditions are necessary that a product (including labor power) may become a commodity.
How is the value of the commodity labor-power determined? Labor-power exists only as a capacity, or power of the living individual. The value of labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the laborer. If the owner of labor-power works to-day, to-morrow she must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength. Her means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain her in her normal state as a laboring individual. Her natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of her country. The value must also include reproduction (enough to raise the next generation of workers) and education and training.
Like that of every other commodity, labor-power’s value is already fixed before it goes into circulation, since a definite quantity of social labor has been spent upon it; but its use-value consists in the subsequent exercise of its force. The alienation of labor-power and its actual appropriation by the buyer, its employment as a use-value, are separated by an interval of time.
Mr. Knight hires Hilda for \$50 per day, regardless of the value of what her labor power produces in that day. Even more, Hilda only gets paid after her working day (or month) is completed.
In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labor-power is advanced to the capitalist: the laborer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist. The labor-power is sold, although it is only paid for at a later period.
All this happens out in the open, and we are used to seeing the transaction as “free” – Hilda, after all, doesn’t have to work for Mr. Knight. But what happens once she agrees to do so?
Mr. Knight, who before was the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist; Hilda follows as his laborer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing her own hide to market and has nothing to expect but – a hiding.
Part 3. The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value
The capitalist buys labor-power in order to use it. The purchaser of labor-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. What the capitalist sets the laborer to produce, is a particular use-value, a specified article.
Let us now return to our would-be capitalist, Mr. Knight. We left him just after he had purchased, in the open market, all the necessary factors of the labor process; its objective factors, the means of production, as well as its subjective factor, labor-power. With the keen eye of an expert, he has selected the means of production and the kind of labor-power best adapted to his particular trade, in this case, the making of stuffed animals. He then proceeds to consume the commodity, the labor-power that he has just bought, by causing the laborer, the impersonation of that labor-power, to consume the means of production by his labor (that is, Hilda works the raw materials Mr. Knight has also bought, and uses the machines provided by him). Hilda, the worker, works under the control of the capitalist (Mr. Knight) to whom her labor belongs; the capitalist taking good care that the work is done in a proper manner, and that the means of production are used with intelligence, so that there is no unnecessary waste of raw material, and no wear and tear of the implements beyond what is necessarily caused by the work.
Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the laborer, its immediate producer.
If Mr. Knight pays Hilda \$50 a day but she produces commodities worth ten times that amount, only Mr. Knight owns that extra value. Hilda might not ever be able to afford to buy the things she has produced.
By turning his money into commodities that serve as the material elements of a new product, and as factors in the labor-process, by incorporating living labor with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., past, materialized, and dead labor into capital, into value big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies (see Capital)
The surplus-value generated in the process of production presents itself as a surplus, as the amount by which the value of the product exceeds the value of its constituent elements.
Try to follow the math here, but remember the crucial point: the capitalist appropriates the difference between the value produced by the worker and the exchange value of what is produced:
The capital C is made up of two components, one, the sum of money c laid out upon the means of production, and the other, the sum of money v expended upon the labor-power; c represents the portion that has become constant capital, and v the portion that has become variable capital. At first then, C = c + v: for example, if \$500 is the capital advanced, its components may be such that the \$500 = \$410 for the cost of the sewing machine + \$90 payment of wages to workers. When the process of production is finished, we get a commodity whose value = (c + v) + s, where s is the surplus-value; or taking our former figures, the value of this commodity may be (\$400 + \$90.) + \$90 surplus value. The original capital has now changed from C to C’, from \$500 to \$590. The difference is a surplus-value of \$90.
This sum of \$90 or s expresses the absolute quantity of surplus-value produced. The relative quantity produced, or the increase percent of the variable capital, is determined by the ratio of the surplus-value to the variable capital, or is expressed by s/v. In our example this ratio is 90/90, which gives an increase of 100%. This relative increase in the value of the variable capital, or the relative magnitude of the surplus-value, I call, “The rate of surplus-value.”
During one part of the work day Hilda works to produce the value of her own subsistence (what she will be paid). This might be four hours. In four hours, she has made enough stuffed animals to cover the cost of her wages. But remember she hired herself out for the entire workday. If she worked four more hours, whatever value she produces during that time is what provides surplus value to the capitalist. That is how capital grows.
During the second period of the labor-process, that in which his labor is no longer necessary labor, the workman, it is true, labors, expends labor-power; but his labor, being no longer necessary labor, he creates no value for himself. He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing. This portion of the working day, I name surplus labor-time, and to the labor expended during that time, I give the name of surplus labor. The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labor, and one based on wage-labor, lies only in the mode in which this surplus labor is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the worker.
The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labor-power by capital, or of the laborer by the capitalist.
Capital is dead labor, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks. The time during which the laborer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labor-power he has purchased of him.
Questions
1. Have you heard of “wage theft” or experienced it in a job yourself? Explain why Marx’s explanation of how capital grows is merely a larger phenomenon of this practice.
2. How is the capitalist mode of production SIMILAR to and DIFFERENT from previous modes of production (slavery, feudalism) in terms of workers and the appropriation of the value they produce?
3. What separates the capitalist from the worker?
4. What differentiates money from capital?
5. In the past, the working day was set at 12 hours. Workers organized to get the day set at 8 hours a day (by law, if you work more than 8 hours, you get paid overtime). Should we set the working day at 6 hours? What would be the consequences?
Concepts
Commodity Fetishism
Capital
Labor Power
Surplus Value (and rate of)
Exploitation | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.06%3A_Capital_part_1.txt |
“Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!”
NOTE ON SOURCE: The source of the following passages is the first volume of Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, published in Germany in 1867 by Verlag. Although Marx would write two more volumes before his death, neither was published in his lifetime. The first translated publications were in Russia and France (both in 1872), largely under Marx’s direction. The first English translation was translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (the partner of Marx’s youngest daughter) and overseen by Engels and published in 1887, four years after Marx’s death. It has since been translated into every major language and is even available in Manga form. A recommended translation of the entire works is that by Ben Fowkes, available through Penguin Classics.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Included here are passages from parts 7 and 8 of the first book of Capital. In these chapters Marx explains why capitalists must push production ever further and how, historically speaking, the initial funds for capital development were amassed. Rather than merely describing the elements that constitute capitalism and the social relationships that result through its operation, Marx here makes a case for why reform of capitalism is not really an option. See if you can figure out why.
Part 7. The Accumulation of Capital
The conversion of a sum of money into means of production and labor-power, is the first step taken by the quantum of value that is going to function as capital. This conversion takes place in the market, within the sphere of circulation. The second step, the process of production, is complete so soon as the means of production have been converted into commodities whose value exceeds that of their component parts, and, therefore, contains the capital originally advanced, plus a surplus-value. These commodities must then be thrown into circulation. They must be sold, their value realized in money, this money afresh converted into capital, and so over and over again. This circular movement, in which the same phases are continually gone through in succession, forms the circulation of capital
The capitalist who produces surplus-value – i.e., who extracts unpaid labor directly from the laborers, and fixes it in commodities, is, indeed, the first appropriator, but by no means the ultimate owner, of this surplus-value. She has to share it with capitalists, with landowners, etc., who fulfill other functions in the complex of social production. Surplus-value, therefore, splits up into various parts. Its fragments fall to various categories of persons, and take various forms, independent the one of the other, such as profit, interest, rent, &c.
Whatever the form of the process of production in a society, it must be a continuous process, must continue to go periodically through the same phases. A society can no more cease to produce than it can cease to consume. When viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and as flowing on with incessant renewal, every social process of production is, at the same time, a process of reproduction.
If we look at capitalists as a class, and workers as a class, we see that the capitalist profits, not only by what he receives from, but by what she gives to, the laborer. The capital given in exchange for labor-power is converted into necessaries, by the consumption of which the muscles, nerves, bones, and brains of existing workers is maintained. The maintenance and reproduction of the working class is, and must ever be, a necessary condition to the reproduction of capital. But the capitalist may safely leave its fulfillment to the laborer’s instincts of self-preservation and of propagation.
The worker consumes (buys) that which is necessary to maintain herself and her family, thereby contributing to the realization of the capitalist’s surplus value. When Hilda buys a bottle of tequila, or a pair of sneakers, she is using her wages to keep alive the circulation of capital. The capitalist cannot realize any surplus value if no one buys his commodities.
The Roman slave was held by fetters: the wage laborer is bound to his owner by invisible threads. The appearance of independence is kept up by means of a constant change of employers, and by the legal fiction of an employment contract.
Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value. Employing surplus-value as capital, reconverting it into capital, is called accumulation of capital
Here’s an example. An original capital of \$10,000 buys materials and hires workers and brings in a surplus-value of \$2,000, which is capitalized, or rolled back into production to hire more workers. The new capital of \$2,000 brings in a surplus-value of \$400, and this, too, is capitalized, converted into a second additional capital, which, in its turn, produces a further surplus-value of \$80. And so, the ball rolls on.
The original capital was formed by the advance of \$10,000. How did the owner become possessed of it?
Perhaps his grandmother gave him it as a gift? We will return to this a little later on. If you were to set yourself up as a capitalist today, where would you get your original pot of capital?
How the \$2,000 originated we know perfectly well. There is not one single atom of its value that does not owe its existence to unpaid labor. The means of production, with which the additional labor-power is incorporated, as well as the necessaries with which the laborers are sustained, are nothing but component parts of the surplus-product, of the tribute annually exacted from the working class by the capitalist class. Though the latter with a portion of that tribute purchases the additional labor-power even at its full price, so that equivalent is exchanged for equivalent, yet the transaction is for all that only the old dodge of every conqueror who buys commodities from the conquered with the money he has robbed them of.
In every case the working class creates by the surplus labor of one year the capital destined to employ additional labor in the following year. And this is what is called: creating capital out of capital. The more the capitalist has accumulated, the more is he able to accumulate.
There are two parts of surplus value, what the capitalist consumes [perhaps he buys himself a personal jet] and what he capitalizes or puts back into production. Given the mass of surplus-value, then, the larger the one of these parts, the smaller is the other. The ratio of these parts determines the magnitude of the accumulation. The capitalist alone gets to decide. It is his deliberate act. That part of the tribute exacted by him which he accumulates, is said to be saved by him, because he does not eat it, i.e., because he performs the function of a capitalist, and enriches himself.
To accumulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth, to increase the mass of human beings exploited by him, and thus to extend both the direct and the indirect sway of the capitalist.
The capitalist gets rich, not like the miser, in proportion to his personal labor and restricted consumption, but at the same rate as he squeezes out the labor-power of others and enforces on the laborer abstinence from all life’s enjoyments.
Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!
[Next, Marx looks at how this accumulation process exemplifies and affects social relations]
The rate of surplus-value depends, in the first place, on the degree of exploitation of labor-power. But if the laborers could live on air they could not be bought at any price. The zero of their cost is therefore a limit in a mathematical sense, always beyond reach, although we can always approximate more and more nearly to it. The constant tendency of capital is to force the cost of labor back towards this zero.
As capital accumulates, more and more of it is invested in dead labor, machinery and tools, and less of it in living labor (v, variable capital). Workers produce, along with the accumulation of capital, the means by which they are made relatively superfluous, and are turned into a relative surplus population. This is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production. It forms a disposable industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. The whole form of the movement of modern industry depends, therefore, upon the constant transformation of a part of the laboring population into unemployed or half-employed hands.
The number of laborers commanded by capital may remain the same, or even fall, while the variable capital increases. This is the case if the individual laborer yields more labor, and therefore his wages increase, and this although the price of labor remains the same or even falls, only more slowly than the mass of labor rises. Increase of variable capital, in this case, becomes an index of more labor, but not of more laborers employed. It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labor out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of laborers, if the cost is about the same. In the latter case, the outlay of constant capital increases in proportion to the mass of labor set in action; in the former that increase is much smaller. The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital.
One category of the relative surplus population, the “stagnant,” forms a part of the active labor army, but with extremely irregular employment. Hence it furnishes to capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labor power. Its conditions of life sink below the average normal level of the working class; this makes it at once the broad basis of special branches of capitalist exploitation. It is characterized by maximum of working-time, and minimum of wages. Another category of the relative surplus population is the unemployed poor.
The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labor, the greater is the industrial reserve army. The more extensive the industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Part 8. Primitive Accumulation[1]
We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labor power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle.
[Here is the story people like to tell:] In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defense of property.
In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation itself can only take place under certain circumstances.
The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the laborers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labor. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the laborer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage laborers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the prehistoric stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it [see MEANS OF PRODUCTION; PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION; MODE OF PRODUCTION]
The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former [see FEUDALISM]
The immediate producer, the laborer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondsman of another. The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage laborer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the laborer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation.
Great masses of people are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and “unattached” proletarians on the labor-market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. [We saw it happen in England in the 15th-16th centuries. It was a violent and bloody process.]
If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre.
First Spain, then Portugal, then Holland, then France, then England rose to the forefront of global trade (and brutal colonialism). Marx did not live to see it, but he might say the US was England’s successor. Is there a successor to the US? Or will capitalism cede to the next mode of production, as Marx suggested?
As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then a next phase begins. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many.
Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.
Questions
1. What is “saving”? How does this serve to further enrich the capitalist?
2. If there were a magical creature (like the SHMOO), that could provide all the necessities of life for free (food, clothing, building materials, etc.), that reproduced like rabbits easily and quickly on demand, how would the social relations between worker and capitalist be altered? Why might capitalists want to get rid of this magical creature?
3. A powerful weapon of capitalists today is the “capital strike,” basically removing capital from production. Use Marx’s comments on employment and unemployment to explain this. Consider the term “job-creators).
4. What is the relationship of wealth and poverty, according to Marx?
5. Why will capitalism inevitably fall, according to the highlighted paragraph? (that is, explain “The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production”)
Concepts
Circulation of Capital
Capital Accumulation
Variable Capital
Industrial Reserve Army
Law of Capitalist Accumulation
Means of Production
Mode of Production
Primitive Accumulation
Feudalism
Centralization of Capital
Surplus Value
Exploitation
1. Here, read primitive as in “prime,” or first. Here Marx revisits the question of the origin of the initial \$10,000 used as capital. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.07%3A_Capital_part_2.txt |
“People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection is from an essay by Marx, originally published in a German magazine in New York City in 1852. It was republished and retranslated widely, first in English in 1869 as The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Engels undertook a later translation into English in 1885, which translation was published by Progress Publishers of Moscow in 1937. In addition to selections from the essay, this section begins with a short historical description of the social context about which Marx was writing. It is important to note that this essay was a very timely one, written almost simultaneously with a fast-changing political landscape.
Introduction to the selection – historical overview
On December 2, 1851, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, the democratically elected president of France since the 1848 revolution and nephew to Napoleon Bonaparte, instituted a coup against his own increasingly oppositional government. This government had passed a law prohibiting Bonaparte from running for reelection at the end of his term in office in 1852. As Louis-Napoleon was very popular, the legislature had restricted universal male suffrage in an attempt to see him lose. On December 2nd, Louis-Napoleon’s forces arrested the opposition leaders, dissolved the National Assembly, and restored universal male suffrage. Parliamentarians resisted this internal coup. Victor Hugo, the novelist, was one of the liberal leaders of this resistance. The resistance was no match for Louis-Napoleon, who had the military on his side. After much fighting and hundreds of deaths, a new Bonapartist regime was proclaimed. Instead of a Republic, Louis-Napoleon, now calling himself Napoleon III, would rule as Emperor. This period of rule would be known as the “Second Empire” and would last until 1870, when the republic was restored. In the first years after his ascension, the new Napoleon imposed censorship and harsh repressive measures against his opponents, sending many to death or the penal colonies. Others, like Victor Hugo, went into voluntary exile. Over time, the French empire under Napoleon III’s rule would become more liberal, even as it remained fiercely nationalistic and extended its colonial rule into Asia, Africa, and even Mexico.
Marx wrote about these events between December 1851 and March 1852, as the coup was happening and being resisted. The title refers to the similarities between this taking of power by Napoleon III and the earlier seizure of power by his uncle, Napoleon I, which occurred on November 9, 1799, knowns as the 18th day of the month of Brumaire in Year VII of the French Republic. Napoleon I’s 1799 seizure of power had ushered in the “First Empire.” In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx satirizes the pretensions of the nephew, giving us the famous phrase, that history repeats itself, “first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Important dates to remember as you read the passage:
February 1848: “February Revolution”; overthrow of King Louis-Philippe in France in favor of democratically elected government of the Second Republic
June 1848: “June Days Uprising”: rebellion in Paris by workers against increasingly conservative government (bloody but unsuccessful attempt at ending class rule)
December 10, 1848: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte elected President of Republic, largely with support of rural voters
December 2, 1851: internal coup by Bonaparte, creating Second Empire
The Eighteenth Brumaireopening passages
Hegel once remarked that all events and personalities of great importance in world history occur twice, but he forgot to add that the first time they occur as tragedies, and the second as farce.
People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such times of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus, Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
From 1848 to 1851, only the ghost of the old revolution circulated. A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch, and to remove any doubt about the relapse, the old dates arise again – the old chronology, the old names. The French, so long as they were engaged in revolution, could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December 10, 1848 was proved. They longed to return from the perils of revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt and December 2, 1851, was the answer. Now they have not only a caricature of the old Napoleon, but the old Napoleon himself, caricatured as he would have to be in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The social revolution of the 19th century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition with regard to the past. Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to drug themselves against their own content. In order to arrive at its own content, the revolution of the 19th century must let the dead bury their dead. Then the words went beyond the content; now the content goes beyond the words.
The February Revolution was a surprise attack, a seizing of the old society unaware, and the people proclaimed this unexpected stroke a deed of world importance, ushering in a new epoch. On December 2nd the February Revolution is conjured away as a trick of a con artist, and what seems overthrown is no longer the monarchy but the liberal concessions that had been wrung from it through centuries of struggle. Instead of society having conquered a new content for itself, it seems that the state has only returned to its oldest form, to a shamelessly simple rule by the sword and the monk’s cowl. Easy come, easy go. Meantime, the interval did not pass unused. During 1848-51 French society, by an abbreviated revolutionary method, caught up with the studies and experiences which in a regular, so to speak, textbook course of development would have preceded the February Revolution, if the latter were to be more than a mere ruffling of the surface. Society seems now to have retreated to behind its starting point; in truth, it has first to create for itself the revolutionary point of departure – the situation, the relations, the conditions under which alone modern revolution becomes serious.
Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds– but they are short-lived. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossal-ness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
It is not enough to say, as the French do, that their nation was taken unawares. Nations and women are not forgiven the unguarded hour in which the first adventurer who came along could violate them. Such turns of speech do not solve the riddle but only formulate it differently. It remains to be explained how a nation of thirty-six million people can be surprised and delivered without resistance into captivity by three captains of industry.
Let us recapitulate in general outline the phases that the French Revolution went through from February 24, 1848, to December 1851. The first period –from February 24, the overthrow of Louis Philippe, to May 4, 1848, the meeting of the Constituent Assembly – the February period proper, may be designated as the prologue of the revolution. Nobody and nothing ventured to lay any claim to the right of existence and of real action. The second period, from May 4, 1848, to the end of May 1849, is the period of the constitution, the foundation, of the bourgeois republic. The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic; that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put. To this declaration of the Constituent National Assembly the Paris proletariat replied with the June insurrection, the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpenproletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself. More than three thousand insurgents were butchered after the victory, and fifteen thousand were deported without trial. With this defeat the proletariat passes into the background on the revolutionary stage.
The proletariat attempts to press forward again on every occasion, as soon as the movement appears to make a fresh start, but with ever decreased expenditure of strength and always slighter results. As soon as one of the social strata above it gets into revolutionary ferment, the proletariat enters into an alliance with it and so shares all the defeats that the different parties suffer, one after another. But these subsequent blows become the weaker, the greater the surface of society over which they are distributed. The more important leaders of the proletariat in the Assembly and in the press successively fall victim to the courts, and ever more equivocal figures come to head it. In part it throws itself into doctrinaire experiments, exchange banks and workers’ associations, hence into a movement in which it renounces the revolutionizing of the old world by means of the latter’s own great, combined resources, and seeks, rather, to achieve its salvation behind society’s back, in private fashion, within its limited conditions of existence, and hence necessarily suffers shipwreck. It seems to be unable either to rediscover revolutionary greatness in itself or to win new energy from the connections newly entered into, until all classes with which it contended in June themselves lie prostrate beside it. But at least it succumbs with the honors of the great, world-historic struggle; not only France, but all Europe trembles at the June earthquake, while the ensuing defeats of the upper classes are so cheaply bought that they require barefaced exaggeration by the victorious party to be able to pass for events at all, and become the more ignominious the further the defeated party is removed from the proletarian party.
The defeat of the June insurgents had now prepared, had leveled the ground on which the bourgeois republic could be founded and built, but it had shown at the same time that in Europe the bourgeois republic signifies the unlimited despotism of one class over other classes. During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism. These forces of Order had saved society from the enemies of society. They had given out the watchwords of the old society – Property! Family! Religion! Order! to their army as passwords. Society is saved just as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the shallowest democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an ATTEMPT ON SOCIETY and stigmatized as SOCIALISM!
Part Two
The history of the elected government since the June days is the history of the domination and the disintegration of the republican faction of the bourgeoisie. The exclusive rule of the bourgeois republicans lasted only from June 24 to December 10, 1848. The election of December 10th was a reaction of the peasants, who had to pay the costs of the February Revolution, against the remaining classes of the nation; a reaction of the country against the town. It met with great approval in the army and among the big bourgeoisie, which hailed Bonaparte as a bridge to monarchy. The period from December 20, 1848, until May 1849, comprises the history of the downfall of the bourgeois republicans. After having founded a republic for the bourgeoisie, driven the revolutionary proletariat out of the field, and reduced the democratic petty bourgeoisie to silence for the time being, they are themselves thrust aside by the mass of the bourgeoisie, which justly impounds this republic as its property.
Part Three
On May 28, 1849, the Legislative National Assembly met. On December 2, 1851, it was dispersed. This period covers the span of life of the republic.
During the first French Revolution, each group pushed the next further ahead. It is the reverse with the Revolution of 1848. The proletarian party first appears as an appendage of the petty-bourgeois-democratic party. It is betrayed and dropped by the latter in the June days. The democratic party, in its turn, leans on the shoulders of the bourgeois-republican party. The bourgeois republicans no sooner believe themselves well established than they shake off the troublesome comrade and support themselves on the shoulders of the party of Order. The party of Order hunches its shoulders, lets the bourgeois republicans tumble, and throws itself on the shoulders of armed force. It fancies it is still sitting on those shoulders when one fine morning it perceives that the shoulders have transformed themselves into bayonets. Each party kicks from behind at the one driving forward and leans over in front toward the party which presses backward. No wonder that in this ridiculous posture it loses its balance and, having made the inevitable grimaces, collapses with curious gyrations. The revolution thus moves in a descending line.
Legitimists and Orleanists formed the two great factions of the party of Order.[1] Was what held these factions fast to their pretenders and kept them apart from each other nothing but the House of Bourbon and House of Orleans, different shades of royalism? Under the Bourbons, big landed property had governed, with its priests and lackeys; under Orleans, high finance, large-scale industry, large-scale trade, that is, capital, with its retinue of lawyers, professors, and smooth-tongued orators. The Legitimate Monarchy was merely the political expression of the hereditary rule of the lords of the soil, as the July Monarchy was only the political expression of the usurped rule of the bourgeois parvenus. What kept the two factions apart, therefore, was not any so-called principles, it was their material conditions of existence, two different kinds of property; it was the old contrast between town and country, the rivalry between capital and landed property. That at the same time old memories, personal enmities, fears and hopes, prejudices and illusions, sympathies and antipathies, convictions, articles of faith and principles bound them to one or the other royal house, who denies this? Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations. The single individual, who derives them through tradition and upbringing, may imagine that they form the real motives and the starting point of his activity. While each faction, Orleanists and Legitimists, sought to make itself and the other believe that it was loyalty to the two royal houses which separated them, facts later proved that it was rather their divided interests which forbade the uniting of the two royal houses. And as in private life one differentiates between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, so in historical struggles one must distinguish still more the phrases and fancies of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality. Orleanists and Legitimists found themselves side by side in the republic, with equal claims. If each side wished to restore its own royal house against the other, that merely signified that each of the two great interests into which the bourgeoisie is split – landed property and capital – sought to restore its own supremacy and the subordination of the other. We speak of two interests of the bourgeoisie, for large landed property has been rendered thoroughly bourgeois by the development of modern society. Thus, the Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church, and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent.
As against the bourgeoisie, a coalition between petty bourgeois and workers had been formed, the so-called Social-Democratic party. The petty bourgeois saw that they were badly rewarded after the June days of 1848, that their material interests were imperiled, and that the democratic guarantees which were to insure the effectuation of these interests were called in question by the counter-revolution. Accordingly, they came closer to the workers. A joint program was drafted, joint election committees were set up and joint candidates put forward. The revolutionary point was broken off and a democratic turn given to the social demands of the proletariat; the purely political form was stripped off the democratic claims of the petty bourgeoisie and their socialist point thrust forward. Thus, arose social-democracy. The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony. However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie. Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided.
Part Four
The law of May 31, 1850 was the coup d’etat of the bourgeoisie. All its conquests over the revolution hitherto had only a provisional character. They depended on the hazards of a new general election, and the history of elections since 1848 irrefutably proved that the bourgeoisie’s moral sway over the mass of the people was lost in the same measure as its actual domination developed. The bourgeoisie answered by outlawing universal suffrage. The law of May 31st was therefore one of the necessities of the class struggle.
Part Five
As soon as the revolutionary crisis had been weathered and universal suffrage abolished, the struggle between the National Assembly and Bonaparte broke out again.
Part Six
With May 28 1851, the last year of the life of the National Assembly began.
Part Seven
The social republic appeared as a phrase, as a prophecy, on the threshold of the February Revolution. In the June days of 1848, it was drowned in the blood of the Paris proletariat, but it haunts the subsequent acts of the drama like a ghost. The democratic republic announces its appearance. It is dissipated on June 13, 1849, together with its deserting petty bourgeois, but in its flight it redoubles its boastfulness. The parliamentary republic together with the bourgeoisie takes possession of the entire state; it enjoys its existence to the full, but December 2, 1851, buries it to the accompaniment of the anguished cry of the coalesced royalists: ―Long live the Republic!
The bourgeoisie apotheosized the sword; the sword rules it. It destroyed the revolutionary press; its own press is destroyed. It placed popular meetings under police surveillance; its salons are placed under police supervision. It imposed a state of siege; a state of siege is imposed upon it. It supplanted the juries by military commissions; its juries are supplanted by military commissions. It subjected public education to the sway of the priests; the priests subject it to their own education. It jailed people without trial, it is being jailed without trial. It suppressed every stirring in society by means of state power; every stirring in its society is suppressed by means of state power. Out of enthusiasm for its money bags it rebelled against its own politicians and literary men; its politicians and literary men are swept aside, but its money bag is being plundered now that its mouth has been gagged and its pen broken.
The first French Revolution, with its task of breaking all separate powers in order to create the civil unity of the nation, was bound to develop what the monarchy had begun, centralization, but at the same time the limits, the attributes, and the agents of the governmental power. Napoleon completed this state machinery. The Legitimate Monarchy and the July Monarchy added nothing to it but a greater division of labor, increasing at the same rate as the division of labor inside the bourgeois society created new groups of interests, and therefore new material for the state administration. Every common interest was immediately severed from the society, countered by a higher, general interest, snatched from the activities of society’s members themselves and made an object of government activity – from a bridge, a schoolhouse, and the communal property of a village community, to the railroads, the national wealth, and the national University of France. Finally the parliamentary republic, in its struggle against the revolution, found itself compelled to strengthen the means and the centralization of governmental power with repressive measures. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it. The parties, which alternately contended for domination, regarded the possession of this huge state structure as the chief spoils of the victor.
But under the absolute monarchy, during the first Revolution, and under Napoleon the bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of its own. Only under the second Bonaparte does the state seem to have made itself completely independent. The state machinery has so strengthened itself vis-à-vis civil society that the Chief of the Society of December 10 suffices for its head – an adventurer dropped in from abroad, raised on the shoulders of a drunken soldiery which he bought with whisky and sausages and to which he has to keep throwing more sausages. Hence the low-spirited despair, the feeling of monstrous humiliation and degradation that oppresses the breast of France and makes her gasp. She feels dishonored.
And yet the state power is not suspended in the air. Bonaparte represented a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that, the small-holding peasants. Just as the Bourbons were the dynasty of the big landed property and the Orleans the dynasty of money, so the Bonapartes are the dynasty of the peasants, that is, the French masses.
The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. Thus, the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.
But let us not misunderstand. The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant; not the peasant who strikes out beyond the condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather one who wants to consolidate his holding; not the country folk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies, but on the contrary those who, in solid seclusion within this old order, want to see themselves and their small holdings saved and favored by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgment but his prejudice; not his future but his past… The bourgeoisie itself has violently strengthened the imperialism of the peasant class; it has preserved the conditions that form the birthplaces of this species of peasant religion. The bourgeoisie, in truth, is bound to fear the stupidity of the masses so long as they remain conservative, and the insight of the masses as soon as they become revolutionary.
Bonaparte would like to appear as the patriarchal benefactor of all classes. But he cannot give to one without taking from another.
Questions
1. The Eighteenth Brumaire is one of the only places in all of Marx’s writings where he scrutinized and evaluated the class forces at play in real historical social movements. This is a surprising statement, but most of what Marx wrote was as an analysis and explanation of capitalism. It is only in this passage that he comes close to defining class and describing how classes work with or against each other in particular circumstances. When describing the June days revolution, which classes were allied with each other? Which class stood alone? What might explain these class alliances? Continue reading the remainder of this paragraph. What are the pitfalls that Marx names awaiting would-be communist revolutionaries?
2. Is Marx saying that the “party of Order” – all those groups that rally around the flag of order, family, property, and religion – is a con job by elites? How would you answer him? Do you see similar “rallying around the flag” calls to order today? Where is the proletariat in these fights?
3. When explaining the real reason behind the two factions within the Party of Order (Legitimists and Orleanists), Marx demonstrate the power of historical materialist analysis. He makes an argument that the principles motivating these factions are mere fig leaves for underlying material (class) interests. What interests does each faction represent? Can you employ this type of materialist analysis to help explain other political factions?
4. In part seven, Marx claims that the power under Napoleon III is greater even than the power that the original (first) French Revolution sought to undo. He makes the statement that all revolutions have perfected this state machinery, rather than bringing it to heel. What do you make of these statements? Does this passage give you a clue as to what Marx would have thought of the Soviet Union, as an experiment in communism?
5. What class does Napoleon III represent?
6. Part seven includes the only known definition of “class” in all of Marx’s writings. What is this definition? What class does he use to illustrate this definition?
7. Explain the import of the final sentence.
Concepts
Class (and class factions)
Superstructure
Petty Bourgeoisie
Proletariat
Bourgeoisie
Social Democracy
1. Both Legitimists and Orleanists were believers in monarchy, although they disagreed on which monarch was the legitimate heir (legitimists favored the Bourbon dynasty while Orleanists favored the Orleans dynasty). Marx goes further than most of his contemporary by looking behind these labels and analyzing what class interests were operating there. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.08%3A_Eighteenth_Brumaire.txt |
“Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This is a short description of the principles of communism written by Engels in 1847 (probably for the workers involved with the League of the Just) and first widely published in 1914 for the German Social Democratic Party.[1]
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
It is recommended that you read this passage before tackling the Communist Manifesto. Engels wrote this short piece as an explanation and description of the aims and goals of communism. To do this well, he also had to describe and explain capitalism, and why it was important to do away with it. Pay attention to the role (and definition) of private property. You might also compare this vision of communism with contemporary expectations of the role of the state in a democracy.
Principles of Communism
What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
What is the Proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
Proletarians, then, have not always existed? No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.
How did the proletariat originate? The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world. It has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:
(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistence and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie
(ii) The class of the wholly property less, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat
What working classes were there before the industrial revolution? The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes. In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.[2] In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty-bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves? The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly… The slave frees himself when he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
In what way do proletarians differ from serfs? The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor. The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product. The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it. The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates herself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.
What will communism (“this new social order”) be like? Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. The abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution
Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time? No, private property has not always existed.
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible? It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. The main measures called for, in order to prevent/abolish private property include:
• Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes
• Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates
• Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state
• An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished
• Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
• Education of all children in national establishments at national cost
• Destruction of all unhealthy and poorly-built dwellings in urban districts
• Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property? Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. There will be no more crises. The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will then become unnecessary. Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but intolerable in the new social order. The existence of classes originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it has been known up to the present, will completely disappear. Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.
Questions
1. What is the difference Engels is making between “proletariat” and “working class”? Which one is unique to our times? What is the source of this uniqueness?
2. How does Engels’ depiction of Communism and the Communist Revolution differ from what you have heard about communism elsewhere (including the history of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China)? Did anything in the program surprise you?
3. What is the relationship between classes, private property, and the division of labor?
4. Try to imagine a world in which each person could “pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations.” How could this work (not a rhetorical question – try to come up with a plan!)?
Concepts
Private Property
Revolution
Communism
Proletarian
Means of Production
Class Struggle
Division of Labor
1. The entire document can be found here, https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1/prin-com.htm. ↵
2. Note that this passage was written before the Civil War in the United States and the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.09%3A_Principles_of_Communism.txt |
“Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait”[1]– Balzac
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection was written by Marx in 1853 and published in The People’s Paper(no.45, March 12th).
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Marx partially survived on newspaper articles he published on issues ranging from British imperialism to American slavery. This is an example of his biting satire and moral outrage over the hypocrisy of the British aristocracy. It has been included here verbatim from the original publication. Harriet Elizabeth Georgiana Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland (1806-1868) was a semi-official politician in the British government during this period, and a friend of Queen Victoria. She used her power and social position for various charitable work and led a protest against American slavery. In his article, Marx points out the role the Duchess’ family had in the forced emigration of many from Scotland during the “enclosure” period. He thus forces recognition of the nefarious beginning of all great fortunes. The article is also a useful read for historical background on the period of the clan system and its breakup under the advent of private property. It demonstrates how Marx marshalled historical facts to explain the development of capitalism as a social system, and how at odds was this new system with preexisting communities based on kinship and affective ties.
The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery
During the present momentary slackness in political affairs, the address of the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies to their sisters in America upon the subject of Negro-Slavery, and the “affectionate and Christian address of many thousands of the women of the United States of America to their sisters, the women of England,’ upon white slavery, have proved a god-send to the press. Not one of the British papers was ever struck by the circumstance that the Stafford House Assembly took place at the palace under the Presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, and yet the names of Stafford and Sutherland should have been sufficient to class the philanthropy of the British Aristocracy — a philanthropy which chooses its objects as far distant from home as possible, and rather on that than on this side of the ocean.
The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of the ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population from its native soil. As far back as the 10th century, the Danes had landed in Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven back the aborigines into the mountains. Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh, as he was called in Gaelic, or the “Great Man of Sutherland”, had always found his companions-in-arms ready to defend him at risk of their lives against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or natives. After the revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds among the petty chieftains of Scotland became less and less frequent, and the British Kings, in order to keep up at least a semblance of dominion in these remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among the chieftains, a system by which these lairds were enabled to combine modern military establishments with the ancient clan system in such a manner as to support one by the other.
Now, in order to distinctly appreciate the usurpation subsequently carried out, we must first properly understand what the clan meant. The clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state; viz., the patriarchal state of society. “Klaen”, in Gaelic, means children. Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels reposes upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one and the same family. The “great man”, the chieftain of the clan, is on the one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his power, by consanguinity, &c., as every father of a family. To the clan, to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself, exactly as in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community. Thus, the district was the common property of the family. There could be no more question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sense of the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the members of the clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our modern society. The division and subdivision of the land corresponded to the military functions of the single members of the clan. According to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several allotments, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures of the individual officers, and these officers again distributed to their vassals and under-vassals every separate plot of land. But the district at large always remained the property of the clan, and, however the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor were the contributions for the common defense, or the tribute for the Laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace, ever increased. Upon the whole, every plot of land was cultivated by the same family, from generation to generation, under fixed imposts. These imposts were insignificant, more a tribute by which the supremacy of the “great man” and of his officers was acknowledged, than a rent of land in a modern sense, or a source of revenue. The officers directly subordinate to the “great man” were called “Taksmen”, and the district entrusted to their care, “Tak”. Under then were placed inferior officers, at the head of every hamlet, and under these stood the peasantry.
Thus, you see, the clan is nothing but a family organized in a military manner, quite as little defined by laws, just as closely hemmed in by traditions, as any family. But the land is the property of the family, in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family communities.
The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by the establishment of the family Regiments. From that moment, pay became the principal source of revenue of the Great Man, the Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh. Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his officers, and they applied the same system of their inferiors. The ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts. In one respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, inasmuch as the “great man” now took the position of landlord toward the “taksmen” who again took toward the peasantry that of farmers. And as the “great men” now required money no less than the “taksmen”, a production not only for direct consumption but for export and exchange also became necessary; the system of national production had to be changed, the hands superseded by this change had to be got rid of. Population, therefore, decreased. But that it has yet was kept up in a certain manner, and that man, in the 18th century, was not yet openly sacrificed to net-revenue, we see from a passage in Steuart, a Scotch political economist, whose work was published 10 years before Adam Smith’s, where it says (Vol.1, Chap.16):
“The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent but compared to the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it will perhaps be found that a plot of land in the highlands of Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same extent in the richest provinces.”
That even in the beginnings of the 19th century the rental imposts were very small, is shown by the work of Mr. Loch (1820), the steward of the Countess of Sutherland, who directed the improvements on her estates. He gives for instance the rental of the Kintradawell estate for 1811, from which it appears that up to then, every family was obliged to pay a yearly impost of a few shillings in money, a few fowls, and some days’ work, at the highest.
It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was enacted, the forcible transformation of clan-property into the private property, in the modern sense, of the Chief. The person who stood at the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet Ali, who had well digested her Malthus — the Countess of Sutherland, alias Marchioness of Stafford.
Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford were the “great men” of the most northern part of Scotland, of very near three-quarters of Sutherlandshire. This country is more extensive than many French Departments or small German Principalities. when the Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, which she afterward brought to her husband, the Marquis of Stafford, afterward Duke of Sutherland, the population of them was already reduced to 15,000. My lady Countess resolved upon a radical economic reform, and determined upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks. From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically expelled and exterminated. All their villages were demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into pasturage. British soldiers were commanded for this execution and came to blows with the natives. An old woman refusing to quit her hut was burned in the flames of it. Thus, my lady Countess appropriated to herself 794,000 acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged to the clan. In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the expelled natives about 6,000 acres — two acres per family. These 6,000 acres had been lying waste until then and brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at two shillings six pence on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their blood for her family. The whole of the un-rightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the 15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep.
A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the sea-shore and attempted to live by fishing. They became amphibious, and, as an English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and after all did not live upon both.
Sismondi, in his Etudes Sociales, observes with regard to this expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire — an example, which, by-the-by, was imitated by other “great men” of Scotland:
“The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance peculiar to Britain. In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the whole Occident, entire provinces were usurped by the warlike chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions-in-arms. During the 9th and 10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou were for the Counts of these provinces rather three large estates than principalities. Switzerland, which in so many respects resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number of Seigneurs. If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg, of Gruyeres had been protected by British laws, they would have been in the same position as the Earls of Sutherland; some of them would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as the Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one republic might have disappeared from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of sheep. Not the most despotic monarch in Germany would be allowed to attempt anything of the sort.”
Mr. Loch, in his defense of the Countess of Sutherland (1820), replies to the above as follows:
“Why should there be made an exception to the rule adopted in every other case, just for this particular case? Why should the absolute authority of the landlord over his land be sacrificed to the public interest and to motives which concern the public only?”
And why, then, should the slave-holders in the Southern States of North America sacrifice their private interest to the philanthropic grimaces of her Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland?
The British aristocracy, who have everywhere superseded man by bullocks and sheep, will, in a future not very distant, be superseded, in turn, by these useful animals.
The process of clearing estates, which, in Scotland, we have just now described, was carried out in England in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Thomas Morus already complains of it in the beginning of the 16th century. It was performed in Scotland in the beginning of the 19th, and in Ireland it is now in full progress. The noble Viscount Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of men his property in Ireland, exactly in the manner described above.
If of any property it ever was true that it was robbery, it is literally true of the property of the British aristocracy. Robbery of Church property, robbery of commons, fraudulent transformation, accompanied by murder, of feudal and patriarchal property into private property — these are the titles of British aristocrats to their possessions. And what services in this latter process were performed by a servile class of lawyers, you may see from an English lawyer of the last century, Dalrymple, who, in his History of Feudal Property, very naively proves that every law or deed concerning property was interpreted by the lawyers, in England, when the middle class rose in wealth in favor of the middle class— in Scotland, where the nobility enriched themselves, in favor of the nobility— in either case it was interpreted in a sense hostile to the people.
The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was justifiable, at least, from a Malthusian point of view. Other Scottish noblemen went further. Having superseded human beings by sheep, they superseded sheep by game, and the pasture grounds by forests. At the head of these was the Duke of Atholl.
“After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of the soil of England, in much the same way as the landlords here are now doing with the Highlands. (R. Somers, Letters on the Highlands, 1848)
As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home?
In the United States of America.
The enemy of British Wage-Slavery has a right to condemn Negro-Slavery; a Duchess of Sutherland, a Duke of Atholl, a Manchester Cotton-lord — never!
Questions
1. Explain the clan system as a social system. How does it compare with capitalism? With feudalism?
2. How did land in Scotland (and elsewhere) become “private property”? What role did lawyers play here? What is Marx’s opinions on lawyers?
3. What happened to the peasantry who were pushed off the Sutherland property?
4. In the last line, Marx claims that “the enemy of British Wage-Slavery” has a right to condemn slavery, but not the Duchess of Sutherland. What does he mean by this? Who is the enemy of British Wage-Slavery to which he refers?
5. If you were the Duchess of Sutherland, how would you respond to Marx’s attack?
Concepts
Private Property
1. “The secret of all great fortunes that appear from nowhere is a crime, never found out because so well executed.” This quote from Balzac was a favorite of Marx’s. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.10%3A_The_Duchess_of_Sutherland_and_Slavery.txt |
“History is the judge -its executioner, the proletarian.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection was published in The People’s Paper in 1856. It is a speech Marx gave at a banquet on the paper’s anniversary. Here is how the speech was introduced in the paper, “On Monday last at the Bell Hotel, Strand, Ernest Jones entertained the compositors of The People’s Paper and the other gentlemen connected with its office, at a supper, which was joined by a large number of the leading Democrats of England, France and Germany now in London. The banquet commenced at seven, and at nine o’clock the cloth was cleared, when a series of sentiments was given from the chair. The Chairman then proposed the toast: ‘The proletarians of Europe’, which was responded to by Dr. Marx as follows…”
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This speech is included here for two reasons. One, it shows Marx in a candid moment. He did not intend his impromptu speech to be published. This is the Marx that his colleagues and the many workers that he came in contact with during his life work knew and loved. Two, it demonstrates Marx’s hope and prediction that the inequalities attendant upon capitalism would come to an end, sooner rather than later, and that the agent of these changes would be the working class.
Marx’s speech on the toast to the proletarians of Europe
The so-called revolutions of 1848 were but poor incidents — small fractures and fissures in the dry crust of European society. However, they denounced the abyss. Beneath the apparently solid surface, they betrayed oceans of liquid matter, only needing expansion to rend into fragments continents of hard rock. Noisily and confusedly they proclaimed the emancipation of the Proletarian, i.e. the secret of the 19th century, and of the revolution of that century.
That social revolution, it is true, was no novelty invented in 1848. Steam, electricity, and the self-acting mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbés, Raspail and Blanqui. But, although the atmosphere in which we live, weighs upon everyone with a 20,000 lb. force, do you feel it? No more than European society before 1848 felt the revolutionary atmosphere enveloping and pressing it from all sides. There is one great fact, characteristic of this our 19th century, a fact which no party dares deny.
On the one hand, there have started into life industrial and scientific forces, which no epoch of the former human history had ever suspected. On the other hand, there exist symptoms of decay, far surpassing the horrors recorded of the latter times of the Roman Empire. In our days, everything seems pregnant with its contrary: Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and fructifying human labor, we behold starving and overworking it; The newfangled sources of wealth, by some strange weird spell, are turned into sources of want; The victories of art seem bought by the loss of character.
At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force.
This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand, modern misery and dissolution on the other hand; this antagonism between the productive powers and the social relations of our epoch is a fact, palpable, overwhelming, and not to be controverted. Some parties may wail over it; others may wish to get rid of modern arts, in order to get rid of modern conflicts. Or they may imagine that so signal a progress in industry wants to be completed by as signal a regress in politics. On our part, we do not mistake the shape of the shrewd spirit that continues to mark all these contradictions. We know that to work well the newfangled forces of society, they only want to be mastered by newfangled men — and such are the working men. They are as much the invention of modern time as machinery itself.
In the signs that bewilder the middle class, the aristocracy and the poor prophets of regression, we do recognize our brave friend, Robin Goodfellow (Puck), the old mole that can work in the earth so fast, that worthy pioneer — the Revolution. The English working men are the firstborn sons of modern industry. They will then, certainly, not be the last in aiding the social revolution produced by that industry, a revolution, which means the emancipation of their own class all over the world, which is as universal as capital-rule and wages-slavery. I know the heroic struggles the English working class have gone through since the middle of the last century — struggles less glorious, because they are shrouded in obscurity, and burked [murdered by suffocation] by the middle-class historian. To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.” All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.
History is the judge — its executioner, the proletarian.
Questions
1. Marx often writes of the contradictions of capitalism. We see this here. What has capitalism done well? What negative consequences have arisen?
2. Why does Marx say that workers “are as much the invention of modern time as machinery itself”?
3. This ends rather ominously. Is Marx advocating violence against the bourgeoisie?
Class struggle | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.11%3A_Revolution_is_Coming.txt |
“Workers of All Countries Unite!”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This selection is from the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels on the eve of the 1848 revolutions, on commission from the Communist League. It was published in February of that year, in German, but published in London. Originally, it was published in pamphlet form, with a dark green cover. Throughout 1848 translations were made and published all over Europe. The first English translation was made in 1850, by Helen Macfarlane, and published in a political magazine, The Red Republican. This was the first time that the authors were named. Engels kept up with subsequent publications and translations. The text you have here is from the 1888 translation by Samuel Moore, edited by Engels.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
There is a good argument to be made that if you are to read one thing by Marx, it would be the Communist Manifesto. Almost all of Marx’s ideas about capitalism, revolution, and how history happens can be found here. And it is relatively short and easily accessible. On the other hand, this was written as a polemic, a political call to action, and is missing some of the more sophisticated analyses found in the later volumes of Capital. It also spends a great deal of time, in the third section (which is not included here) describing and criticizing various strands within the movement (e.g., reactionary socialism, utopian socialism). Read the selections below with a special interest on (a) the theory of class struggle; and (b) communist social policies.
Introduction
A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
1. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
2. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
Bourgeois and Proletarians
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the simplest, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the pettier, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low-level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, the lumpenproletariat, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Part 2: Proletarians and Communists
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.
Let us now take wage-labor.
The average price of wage-labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage-laborer appropriates by means of his labor, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer any capital.
All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so-called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
Questions
1. What is the specter haunting all of Europe? What do Marx and Engels mean by this? How do they respond to attacks on Communism and Communists?
2. What do Communists want? Draw a diagram comparing Capitalist and Communist society. How would education differ between the two? The family? Work?
3. What is the role of the State envisioned here? [hint: there are two answers, depending on the stage of communism]
4. If you were a worker in 1848, what would you have made of this document? If you were a capitalist? A liberal-minded professional?
5. It has now been more than 150 years since The Communist Manifesto was written. The world has witnessed a few topplings of capitalism in favor of communism, but many people find these less successful than what was envisioned here. Furthermore, capitalism is still going strong in the US, France, Germany, and the UK – all places where the Communist revolution was expected to take place. What, if anything, did Marx and Engels get wrong?
Concepts
Bourgeoisie
Proletariat
Lumpenproletariat
Class Struggle
Means of Production
Mode of Production
Capitalism
Communism
Revolution
1.13: Concepts Dictionary
Concepts from Marx
Use the following pages to create your own mini-dictionary, with page/line numbers for easy reference. You may want to save this as a separate document for more detailed note-taking and commentary.
Concept Page/Line Numbers Definition/Notes
Alienation (all four aspects)
Bourgeoisie
Capital
Capital Accumulation
Capitalism
Centralization of Capital
Circulation of Capital
Expanded Notes
Use the following space to organize your notes on the concepts (what connections?). Try creating a diagram! | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/01%3A_Marx_and_Engels/1.12%3A_The_Communist_Manifesto.txt |
EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917)
“Si vous voulex mûrir votre pensée, attachez-vous àl’étude scrupuleuse d’un grand maître; démontez un système dans ses rouages les plus secrets”[1]– Emile Durkheim
“Patience, Effort, Confidence” – Durkheim’s motto[2]
NOTE ON SOURCES: The most comprehensive biography of Durkheim, by Marcel Fournier, was published as recently as 2012. Until this publication, there were many books on Durkheim’s contributions to sociology, but comparatively little was known about his personal and family life. In addition to Fournier, the following recommended sources were used for compiling this biography, listed in order from oldest to most recent: Gehlke, Emile Durkheim’s Contributions to Sociological Theory (1915), Alpert, Emile Durkheim and His Sociology(1939); Nisbet, Emile Durkheim(1965); Bierstedt, Emile Durkheim(1966); Lukes, Emile Durkheim, His Life and Work(1972); Giddens, Durkheim(1978), Parkin, Durkheim(1992); Jones, The Development of Durkheim’s Social Realism(1999); Stedman Jones, Durkheim Reconsidered(2001); Allen, Durkheim: A Critical Introduction(2017).
Overview
David Emile Durkheim was born in Epinal, France on April 15, 1858. Unlike Marx, whose youth was spent during the tumultuous first half of the nineteenth century, by the time Durkheim was a young man France was experiencing one of its longest governments, the Third Republic (1870-1940). He would spend his entire life living and working in France. Intelligent and productive, Durkheim would do much to create and institutionalize the new discipline of sociology in France.
Social Background/Family
Durkheim’s mother, Melanie, was the daughter of a horse merchant.[3] His father Moise, was a regional Chief Rabbi. Moise’s father and grandfather before him had been rabbis as well. As a young boy, it was assumed that Emile would also one day be a rabbi, but it was not to be. After going to college, Durkheim broke with religion altogether. Nevertheless, he always remained part of the Jewish community. In 1887, he married a young embroiderer named Louise Julie Dreyfus, the daughter of a director of a foundry, and together they had two children, Marie Bella (born 1888) and Andre-Armand (born 1892). It is said that Louise was well-educated and helped Emile with his work. Where Emile was austere, Louise was light-hearted. By all accounts, they had a happy marriage. Andre would die in 1915, from an injury sustained in battle in Bulgaria. When waiting to hear news of his son, on the battlefront, he wrote to a close friend, “The image of this exhausted child, alone at the side of a road in the midst of night and fog … that seizes me by the throat.”[4] It is said that the death of his son precipitated Emile Durkheim’s decline and early death, following a stroke (at age 59).
Ten Things We Know about Durkheim as a Person
1. He was an outstanding student.
2. He was very close to his family and community. He worried about his family’s finances when his father became ill while he was in college.
3. He was a good debater.
4. He was very well-known by all kinds of intelligent people, especially in circles of philosophy and psychology.
5. He strongly supported the republican cause (against resumption of the monarchy) and admired the reforms of the Third Republic.
6. He was a very good administrator and organizer and provided assistance to friends and supporters.
7. He was a mesmerizing lecturer and was even accused of having too much control over the minds of his young students.
8. He often worked too hard, sometimes even into illness.
9. He stood up for the underdog.
10. He was devoted to the science of sociology.
Durkheim’s Career
Durkheim earned degrees from his local college in 1874 and 1875 (when he was only 17). At that age, he wanted to be a college professor, and the only way to do this was to attend the École Normale Superieure, in Paris. By all accounts, life in Paris was very difficult for him, as he did not have a lot of money and he did not feel at home. It took him two years before he passed entrance exams necessary to attend the prestigious institution. Once there, he considered much of what he was forced to study “sheer poppycock.’[5] Although never perhaps shaking the feeling of being an impostor, he was admitted to the highest intellectual circles. He participated in debates. He became friends with philosophers, historians, and psychologists (a new and exciting field at the time). After graduating in 1883 he took a teaching post in Bourdeaux, where he lived, with his growing family, until 1902. In 1892 he briefly returned to Paris where he earned his PhD (for The Division of Labor). In 1902, he moved to Paris permanently to teach at the Sorbonne, where he continued until his death in 1917. He did much to create the field of sociology in France, largely by overseeing the sociology journal, L’Année Sociologique, and by helping advance the career of young sociologists. He was also an advisory editor on the first US sociology journal, The American Journal of Sociology.
Durkheim’s Politics
Durkheim lived and worked during the Third Republic, a relatively stable period in France that was, in theory, committed to parliamentary democracy (as opposed to constitutional monarchy or socialism). We could say the Third Republic was a compromise government, and that its stability could perhaps be attributed to its moderation. Durkheim was actively involved with supporting the Third Republic and saw sociology as the science that could lead to better policy-making. He was also an outspoken critic of antisemitism[6] and much in sympathy with socialism. Durkheim once told a close friend “with a moving simplicity how, at a certain moment of his spiritual life, he had had to admit to himself that he was a socialist.[7] “ During World War I, he was active in supporting France and even wrote a series of short articles decrying the “German mind” for its tendency to militarism and overreach.
Durkheim’s Mission
“Our science came into being only yesterday. It must not be forgotten, especially in view of the favorable reception that sociology is given now, that, properly speaking, Europe did not have as many as ten sociologists fifteen years ago” – Durkheim (1900)
Durkheim wanted sociology recognized as an important discipline, distinct from political economy, psychology, history, or philosophy. He devoted his career to making this happen. He saw sociology as a science that could have practical effects (e.g., better policies).[8] It was not armchair philosophizing. It was also a moral science, whose results could advance society, taking the role that religion and other dying traditions had played in the past. “It would be no distortion to view Durkheim’s entire sociological career as an intransigent and relentless battle fought on two major fronts: against the dark, unfathomable forces of mysticism and despair, on the one hand, and against the unsubstantial ethereal forces of the dilettantic cult of superficiality on the other” (Alpert 1939: 18).
Reports by Friends and Colleagues
Durkheim was “deeply opposed to all war whether of classes or of nations; he desired change only for the benefit of society as a whole and not that of any one of its parts, even if that latter had numbers and force. He regarded political revolutions and parliamentary developments as superficial, costly and more theatrical than serious. He therefore always resisted the idea of submitting himself to a party” – Marcel Mauss (1928)[9]
“His adversaries, his enemies, not taking sufficient account of his personal disinteredness, considered him, and sometimes treated him, as ambitious and as an intriguer. What an error of judgement! His ends were noble and went beyond personal rewards, and I believe that all the steps he took, when they related to getting people jobs – advancing some, and thwarting and excluding others – had the single objective of the interest of science and the community” – Bourgin (1938)[10]
First-Hand Character Descriptions[11]
“Durkheim has a very serious and somewhat cold appearance. He is conscientious, hard-working, well-informed and very clever…M. Durkheim is, in short, one of the most serious of our young professors of philosophy” (1885)
“M. Durkheim, tall, thin and fair, is already bald…His voice at the start was feeble and subdued, but gradually, under the pressure of the ideas he was expressing, it rose and grew animated and warm, until it seemed capable of filling a vast vessel” (1892)
“He received me in his study, which was vast and simple, lacking any adornment or evidence of artistic preoccupations. His long, thin body was enveloped by a large dressing-gown, a cassock of flannel, which concealed his bony and muscular frame, the fragile support for this thought. The face emerged, pale and ascetic, with its high forehead bare, a short beard, a thick moustache…One felt oneself before the judgment and already under the authority of a man who was devoted, entirely devoted, to his task, to his mission, and who, by admitting you to his side, along with his colleagues, delegated to you a part of the responsibilities he had assumed” –(approx. 1903)
Questions
1. Although admittedly partial to socialism, Durkheim’s contribution to politics were very different from Marx’s. Where Marx sought to educate the working class so that it might revolt, Durkheim turned to sociology for policy recommendations for the existing state. What might explain these different approaches? How might the historical context have affected the choices and strategies made by these two great thinkers?
1. “If you would like to educate your mind, attach yourself to the scrupulous study of a great master; take a system apart and uncover its secret mechanisms.” According to Alpert, Durkheim said this to a friend, explaining that this was how he himself had learned to be a good thinker (Alpert 1939: 26). ↵
2. This motto was developed for a series of pamphlets for the French during World War I, but we could also see it as a motto that guided his own work and life. ↵
3. Interestingly, Melanie’s great-grandmother was a woman named Francoise Marx, born in 1758 in Lixheim, Lorraine, France less than 100 miles from Trier, where Karl Marx was born a half-century later. It may be that the two families (Durkheim and Marx) share a common ancestor. ↵
4. Letter to Davy, reprinted in Lukes 1972: 555. ↵
5. He was eager to learn useful things and did not appreciate heaving to learn Latin. He was also said to be “disgusted by the sophisticated and shallow sarcasm” of many of his fellow students; “he hated all affectations. Profoundly serious, he hated flightiness” (Albert 1939: 21-22). ↵
6. See the Dreyfus Affair, a national scandal in which a Jewish captain in the French army was falsely accused and convicted of passing military secrets to the Germans. Many intellectuals at the time, led by the writer Zola, accused the government of antisemitism. Whether one supported the government or Dreyfus said a great deal about one’s political position and beliefs during the years the controversy raged (roughly 1894 to 1906). ↵
7. The friend was Bourgin, the quote was reprinted from Lukes 1972: 321. Durkheim’s socialism was “abstract, intellectual, evolutionary, reformist, optimistic, inspired by large ideals of cooperation and organization with an overriding respect for social science” (Lukes 1972: 329). ↵
8. “There was a hardly a social problem of the day for which Durkheim did not offer constructive suggestions.” These included the reorganization of the educational system, the training of politicians, the separation of church and state, divorce and marriage, suicide, the regulation of economic life, social equality, political reform, and pacifism. (Albert 1939: 58) ↵
9. In Lukes 1972: 322. ↵
10. In Lukes 1972: 377. ↵
11. Each of the following can be found in the biography by Lukes (1972). Appended to each account is the year of its observation. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.01%3A_Biography_of_Durkheim.txt |
“Social facts are something more than the actions of individuals.” – Durkheim
NOTE ON SOURCE: These passages are from Durkheim’s Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique, published in 1895 in Paris by Alcan Press. This book was first translated as The Rules of Sociological Method in 1938 by Solovay and Mueller (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), republished in 1950 by the Free Press (Glencoe, Illinois). The preferred translation today is by Lukes/Halls, published in 1982 by the Free Press (Glencoe, Illinois). The first section here is a synthesis of the Introduction and Chapter 1: What is a Social Fact? The second section covers points raised in the second and third chapters.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In this book, Durkheim sets out to establish sociology as a research discipline. In the section you have before you, he introduces readers to sociology and its methods. In particular, he describes the proper subject matter of sociology as “social facts,” The method presented here, analyzing social facts, is what distinguishes sociology from other pre-existing disciplines such as history and philosophy and sets it apart from other newly emerging disciplines of the day, such as psychology.
Part 1: The Rules of Sociological Method (introduction)
Introduction
Until recently, sociologists have little cared to explain and define the method they use to study social facts. This shouldn’t surprise us. So far, sociologists such as Spencer, Mill, and Comte, don’t go much farther than talking about societies very generally. We still don’t have a method for doing sociology. I have been fortunate to have the time to think about this subject and to come up with a method that I think will prove useful. Some of these were used and discussed in my previous book, The Division of Social Labor, but here I make them a bit more explicit. In this way, you, the reader, can see the way we are going in this new field of sociology.
What is a Social Fact?
Before getting to the method, we need to know what facts are “social.” This is an important question, because we need to know what is unique about the subject matter of sociology. We all drink, sleep, eat, and think, and perhaps society has an interest in making sure we do these things in a regular manner. But are these really social facts? Or are they simply things individuals do? How is sociology different from, say, biology and psychology, both of which are also interested in these things?
In reality, there is in every society a certain group of things which are different from what the natural sciences study.
When I do my duty as a brother, as a wife, or as a citizen, when I fulfill my obligations, pay my debts, take the actions expected of me by law and custom, I am acting in ways outside of my own creation. I might want to take care of my children, but this isn’t all up to me. I have specific duties that I in no way created all by myself. In a way, I inherited them, through being a member of society. You could say I was socialized into them.
The system of signs and words that I use to communicate my thoughts to others, the form of currency I use to pay my debts, the credit card or bank check I use, the practices I follow in my chosen profession – all these things and many more function independently of my use of them.
Here we have the actions, the thoughts and the beliefs which uniquely exist outside each individual’s own consciousness, and so provide a worthy subject for the study of sociology. Not only are these types of conduct outside the thoughts of the individual person, but they have a certain coercive power. If I try to resist it, I notice this quite readily.
Here then are an order of facts which present a special character: They consist in ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that are external to the individual person, and endowed with a power of coercion.
These social facts are the proper subject matter for sociologists.
To confirm these, let’s take a look at the way we raise our children. It is quite obvious that all education has consisted of a continual effort to impose on the child manners of seeing, sensing, and acting that they would not otherwise have acquired. From the very first hours of her birth, we force her to eat, drink and sleep at regular times, and we train her to be neat, calm, and obedient. Later, we socialize her to be considerate of others, teach her to respect our customs, and prepare her for work. The goal of education is thus all about socializing each member of society to be proper members of that society.
So, we should not define a social fact as something that is universal – while everyone eats and drinks those things are still not social facts. What makes something a social fact is the collective aspect of the beliefs, tendencies and practices of a group.
Collective habits don’t exist only in the actions of individuals, but rather express themselves over and over in a form passed on by word of mouth from person to person, by education, or by the written word. Such is the origin and nature of laws, morals, aphorisms and popular sayings…all of these are still social facts and true even when someone is not following them!
Social facts are something more than the actions of individuals.
Let’s take the examples of marriage or suicide. These are things that are done by individuals and they can appear quite private in nature. But we also know that certain groups get married at different rates, and that the suicide rate is higher at one point in history than other, and that it varies by age of person as well. Statistical measures allow us a way to isolate the collective aspect from the individual case, by comparing rates across groups and times. If we look at the averages, we get a certain state of the collective soul.
Sociology is the study of social facts. A social fact can be recognized by the coercive power it exercises (or is capable of exercising) on individuals. We can recognize this coercive power by the existence of sanctions – what happens when someone doesn’t follow the rule, practice, or custom? Note that this includes whole ways of being, not just ways of acting. Everything we do and are that is not biologically determined can be considered a social fact.
A social fact is every way of being and acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising an external constraint on the individual; in other words, it is that which is general in the whole society, independent from individual manifestations.
Part 2
Chapter 2: Rules for the Observation of Social Facts
Section 1. Treat Social Facts as Things
The first rule, and the most fundamental, is to consider social facts as things.
People inevitably think about what is going on in their environment. They form concepts about such things as marriage, the state, the relationships between parents and children. The problem is that we can mistake these concepts for the things themselves. Thus, two people can argue about the definition of marriage without actually examining marriage in reality. Sociologists have to do better than talk about the concepts – they have to study the actual existing social facts. This is what it means to treat social facts as things, with their own reality, and not as concepts in our minds only.
Such it is that reflection occurs before science, while science makes use of this reflection in a methodical manner.
The goal of the rest of this book is to describe what that methodical manner is. Up until now, sociology has really only dealt with concepts, not with the things themselves. Anyone who looks at society teleologically, for example, trying to discover how progress evolves, takes things quite backwardly. This is what Comte tried to do. How can one look at a perfect future society when it doesn’t yet exist? How can one be scientific about that? Or consider those concerned with ethics. Here, one is discussing ideas (what is good? What is just?) but not things in reality.
Putting all that aside, I have to reiterate that social phenomena are actual things and they should be treated as things when we study them. Social facts as things are the unique subject matter of sociological study. They are our data.
To treat phenomena as things, as data, is the point of departure for the science of sociology.
We can’t study the idea people have of what is valuable, but we can study the values they establish. We can’t grasp the concept of goodness or rightness in the abstract, but we can examine the rules put in place for governing good or right behavior. We can’t study the concept of wealth itself, but we can look at the details of how our economy is organized.
We must consider social phenomena in themselves, not the ideas people have of them; we must study them objectively, from the outside, for it is that quality that presents itself to us as sociologists.
How do we do this? If we want to study law, we can look at the codes. If we want to understand daily life, we can look at all the recorded facts and figures about our attitudes and behaviors. We can see and evaluate fashion through costume, “taste” in works of art. Compared to psychology, the data we study as sociologists might be more difficult to analyze because of their complexity, but they are much easier to get hold of.
Section 2. Guidelines for Sociologists
The fundamental rule for sociologists is to treat social things as things, but there are several corollary rules and guidelines for how to do that.
First, systematically rid yourself of all preconceived ideas.
You are a human being yourself and hold ideas and prejudices about the world. When you are a sociologist, however, you have to be objective, neutral about the facts you are studying. Really, that is the essence of the scientific method.
Second, operationalize your data in advance and then examine all cases that fit your definition.
For example, we group together all those acts which produce a certain social reaction, punishment, and call them crimes. We don’t pick and choose what is or is not a crime based on what we personally think should be one. By doing this we assure ourselves that we are grounded in reality.
Third, consider social facts from a point distinct from their individual manifestations.
Section 3. Rules on the distinction between Normal and Pathological
We must be careful to distinguish between observing things that are as they ought to be and observing things that are not as they ought to be – what I am calling “normal” and “pathological” phenomena. Some people say that it is not the place of science to say whether something is as it ought to be or otherwise. There is no “good and evil” in science. But if science cannot help us in selecting the best goals to pursue, how it can it help us arrive at the goal?
Here is my solution to the problem. Just as with individual people, societies can be healthy, or they can be sick. Sociology can help us distinguish the two. We can’t say what is healthy for any one individual, of course, but we can find out what is healthy for society as a whole. Health, we can say, is that which is most adaptive to the particular environment and sickness is that which upsets that adaptation. Or, health is that state in which our chances of survival (as a society) are greatest. We do not mean the health of any one particular individual.
Two examples: old age is not a sickness, because it is a normal stage of the species. Menstruation is not a sickness, because it is a normal activity of women. The absence of either of these two normal phenomena would not mark “health,” but rather sickness!
How are we to recognize sickness then? We should look for some notable external sign (again, treating social facts as things). Those facts which appear common among a society (or a group thereof, such as women), we shall call normal, and the rest we can call pathological. Just as the physiologist looks at the average organism, so too does the sociologist. Furthermore, a social fact is normal in a given group in relation to particular context (temporal and spatial).
Why is the normal considered healthy? It would be surprising if the most widespread phenomena were not beneficial, at least at the aggregate level. Why else would they exist and persist for so long? The greater frequency of normal phenomena can be taken as proof of their health. During times of transition, however, what is normal is often hard to pin down. So, it is also important to take the following steps: (1) find a widespread social fact; (2) trace back the conditions of the past, the environmental context, which gave birth to this fact; and (3) investigate whether the environmental context has shifted. If the conditions that gave rise to it are still the same, and it is general, we can consider it normal. If not, it may be maladapted to the present circumstances and in need of change.
The Example of Crime. It would seem that crime would be pathological. Who would doubt that? But let us use our method and examine the question more closely. Crime is observed everywhere, in every society. It would indeed be hard to find a social fact that is more general. It is thus normal, and must be doing something for society, else it would not be normal for so long and in so many different places. It is normal because it is absolutely impossible for a society to exist without it. Crime offends our individual and collective notions about what is right. To have no crime means that every single person would agree what those notions are (which seems impossible, given that we are individuals). It would also mean that nothing would ever change, because no one would be doing anything against the collective will. To have no crime means we would have no originality, no thinking against the herd, and we must have some of this because nothing is good at all times without limits. Sometimes, too, crimes of today prepare the way for moralities of the future.
Looked at this way, the criminal must be seen a playing a normal role in society. We can follow the crime rate and be alarmed if it gets too high, or even if it gets too low – because something is out of balance then, and we may be stifling individuals too much. It may be that we are viewing punishment all wrong. If crime is not a sickness, then we can’t “cure” it through punishment. We have to look elsewhere.
No longer should we desperately pursue an end which we might never grasp, but rather should we work diligently to keep things going and to recalibrate when necessary, and to recover our health when things change. The leader should not push us violently toward an ideal only she might hold, but be more like a doctor, who checks in on our health, and seeks to cure our illnesses when they are discovered.
Questions
1. How is sociology different from philosophy? From history? From psychology?
2. What are the three rules for doing sociology Durkheim presents in part 2? Do we still employ these rules? Why might they be helpful rules for conducting research today?
3. How do Durkheim’s guidelines help us when studying a contested topic such as “marriage” today? Why might defining marriage for purposes of study be a helpful first step for the researcher?
4. What does Durkheim mean when he says that crime is “normal”?Does this help you understand what “normality” means for Durkheim? Is the distinction between normality and pathology a helpful one?
Definitional Concepts
Social Fact
Normal vs. Pathological
Sociology | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.02%3A_Rules_of_Method_%281895%29.txt |
“Every society is a moral society.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This and the following two passages come from Durkheim’s dissertation, completed in 1893, and first published in 1902 as De la Division du Travaile Sociale. The first English translation was done by George Simpson in 1933, but this version was found to have several shortcomings. A more approved translation was made in 1984 by W. D. Halls, edited by Lewis A. Coser. This translation was republished with some improvement by Steven Lukes in 1997. This is the recommended version if you would like to read more of the text than what is included here.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
The Division of Labor in Society was Durkheim’s first major work, completed in fulfillment of the requirements for earning his doctorate. It is therefore young Durkheim. There are some antiquated ideas here, and some out of date or inaccurate empirical observations. Yet it remains a masterpiece and is probably the best example of Durkheim’s methodical and clear style of writing and presentation. The work itself is divided into three “books,” of equal length. In the original, a lengthy preface is included along with a detailed table of contents (as in Suicide). As the preface is not included in the more recent editions, it is included here, along with the extended table of contents and a summary of Book 1. If you get lost in the three books, return here, to this introduction, to help orient you to the point and design of the work.
Preface
This book is above all an effort to treat the facts of moral life according to the methods of positive science. To clarify, however, we do not agree with those moralists who deduce their doctrines from propositions of the natural sciences (e.g., Social Darwinism from biology). They may call their ethics scientific but that is not what we mean by the term. We are not trying to derive ethics from science, but rather to establish a science of ethics – something quite different. Moral facts are phenomena like any other. They consist of rules of action which we recognize by certain distinct characteristics. So, it must then be possible to observe them, describe them, classify them, and look for laws that explain them.
But as we set out to study reality, it does not follow that we must renounce attempts to make it better. We would estimate our research hardly worthy of its time if it were only of speculative interest. If we separate out the philosophical issues from the practical issues it is not to ignore the former but to be better able to resolve them, after our investigation is complete. We will see that science can help us adjust ourselves to attain the ideals to which we aspire.
Some might object that a method of observation lacks rules with which to judge or evaluate what is observed. But such rules emerge from the facts themselves. Thus, we argue that there is a state of moral health which science alone can determine with competence. As we never quite attain this state of moral health, it is an ideal we seek. Furthermore, the conditions of that state of moral health are themselves always changing, as societies are always changing. Science allows us to determine the moral health in relation to these changes. We can foresee changes; we can compare normal types with those that are abnormal; and we can seek to correct contradictions.
If science foresees, it does not command, so much is true. However, as science tells us alone what is necessary for living, then assuming we want to live, the laws science establishes are in reality imperative rules of conduct. Even on such a question as to whether we ought to wish to live, we think science is not mute.
This work originated in questions about the relationship between individuals and social solidarity. Why is it that the individual, while become more freely autonomous, depends more and more on society? How can we be at one time more individualized and more socialized? Indeed, these two movements, while they appear in contradiction, develop in parallel. This is the problem that we are posing here. It seemed to us that what resolves this apparent contradiction is a transformation of social solidarity as a result of the constant development of an increasing division of labor. This is how we have come to study the division of labor in society.
Table of Contents
Book One. The Function of the Division of Labor
Chapter One. The Method for Determining this Function.
1. the meaning of the word function
2. the function of the division of labor is not to produce civilization; cases where the function is to bring forth groups which would not exist without it; from which we derive the hypothesis that the division of labor is the principal source of the cohesion of later civilizations
3. to verify this initial hypothesis, we must compare the social solidarity based on the division of labor with other types of solidarity and classify these types; we can do this by comparing legal systems and rules; there are as many types of legal systems and rules as there are forms of solidarity; distinguish between repressive sanction systems and restitutive sanction systems
Chapter Two. Mechanical Solidarity through Likeness.
1. The link of social solidarity to which repressive law corresponds is the one whose break constitutes a crime. The essential characteristics of crime, those found wherever crime occurs, are the following: (1) a crime offends sentiments found among all normal individuals in any given society; (2) those sentiments are strong; (3) those sentiments are defined. A crime is thus an act which offends strong and defined states of the collective conscience.
2. Verification of this definition (if it is correct, it should account for all the characteristics of punishment). What are those characteristics of punishment? (1) punishment is a passionate reaction, of graduated intensity; (2) this passion reaction comes from society; (3) this reaction is enforced through the intermediary of a constituted body
3. These characteristics can now be deduced from our definition of crime: (1) every strongly offended sentiment mechanically determines a passionate reaction (which reaction helps to maintain the sentiment); (2) the collective character of these sentiments explains the social character of the reaction (why it is useful for it to be social); (3) the intensity and defined nature of these sentiments explain the formation of the organization which enforces this reaction
4. The rules sanctioned by penal law express the most essential social similarities; in consequence, they correspond to the social solidarity which comes from resemblance and varies with it. We can measure the part this (mechanical) solidarity plays in general social integration according to the fraction of the complete legal system and rules which penal law represents
Chapter 3. Organic Solidarity due to the Division of Labor
1. The nature of the restitutive sanction implies (1) that the corresponding rules are foreign to the collective conscience; (2) that the relations they determine only link the individual to society indirectly
2. Negative relations, linking things to persons and not persons to persons, are typical here. Since the solidarity that the legal system and rules express is negative, it has no independent existence but is merely a prolongation or residue of positive forms of social solidarity
3. Positive or cooperative relations come from the division of labor, which are governed by a defined legal system and set of rules which we can call cooperative law (analogous here to the nervous system)
4. Thus, we find in conclusion two kinds of positive solidarity: one which comes from similarity (mechanical solidarity) and the other which comes from the division of labor (organic solidarity). The first varies in inverse ratio and the second in direct ratio with individualized personalities
Chapter 4. Further Proof of the Preceding
If we are right, we ought to see more repressive law than cooperative law when there is more social similarity and less division of labor and we ought to see more cooperative law than repressive law when there is a greater division of labor and less social similarity. This is actually what we do see!
1. The more primitive societies are, the more resemblance there is among individuals, both physically and mentally. The division of labor, originally non-existent, begins to develop
2. Originally, all law has a repressive character (examples of Hebrew law, Hindu Law, the development of cooperative law in Rome). Today, the primitive relationship is reversed. Note that this has nothing to do with a low state of morals in primitive societies (all societies are equally moral)
Chapter 5. Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity: Its Consequences
1. The actual preponderance of cooperative law over repressive law demonstrates that the social links which come from the division of labor are more numerous than those which come from social similarities. As this preponderance grows as we approach more complex societies, it is not accidental but dependent upon the nature of these societies. These links are both more numerous and stronger
2. The links that come from similarities loosen as social evolution advances. Mechanical solidarity relies on three conditions: (1) the relative extent of the collective conscience and of the individual conscience: (2) intensity; and (3) the degree of determination of the states composing the collective conscience
3. [Extension]
4. [Example from Criminology]
5. Further Proof: the particularly strong states of the collective conscience have a religious character, but religion disappears along with social evolution, as do proverbs and other such common sayings. Organic solidarity becomes preponderant
Chapter 6. Progressive Preponderance continued
1. Social structures correspond to these two types of solidarity. Segmental types correspond to mechanical solidarity
2. Organized types correspond to organic solidarity. There is antagonism between these two types as the second develops proportionally at the cost of the first (which, though it shrinks, never quite vanishes)
3. [Analogy with animal kingdom]
4. [Do not confuse this with Spencer’s Social Darwinism[1]]
Chapter 7. Organic Solidarity and Contractual Solidarity
1. Social harmony depends upon cooperation and the division of labor in industrial societies; Contractual relations may grow but this does not mean, as Spencer suggests, that contractual exchange can be the only existing link between people
2. Contractual relations, almost absent in simple societies, multiply greatly in advanced societies but still, Spencer fails to see that non-contractual relations also greatly multiply; numerous examples
3. Administrative law takes on greater importance in advanced societies
4. Summary of Book 1:
The following propositions summarize the first part of our work:
Social life comes from a double source, the similarity of consciences and the division of social labor. The individual is socialized in the first case because, without having her own individuality, she becomes part of the same collective group as that she resembles. The individual is socialized in the second case because, while having a separate personality and specific personal activity which distinguishes her from others, she depends on them to the same extent she differs from them.
The similarities of consciences produces a legal system and set of rules which imposes uniform beliefs and practices through the threat of repressive measures.
The division of labor produces a legal system and set of rules which determine the nature and the social relations of divided functions, violation of which brings in only restitutive measures.
Each legal system (repressive and restitutive) is accompanied by a body of purely moral rules. Where penal law predominates, common morality is quite extensive (that is to say, public opinion is quite strong in many areas). Where restitutive law predominates, there is instead an occupational morality for each job or profession. There are usages and customs that are localized to particular jobs and job sites but these are rarely repressive or harshly enforced.
Nonetheless, the rules of occupational morality are just as imperative as any other. They force individuals to act in view of ends not strictly their own, to make concessions, to consent to compromises, to take into account interests higher than their own. In contrast to what Spencer suggested, even where society relies most completely on the division of labor the members are united by ties which extend deeper and far beyond the short moments they come into contact with each other through exchange. Each of the jobs they do is fixed and dependent upon others, thus forming a solidaristic system. Because we fill some particular function we are involved in a web of obligations from which we have no right to free ourselves. And above all is the State. Our contacts with the State multiply as do the occasions when it is entrusted with the duty of reminding us of the sentiment of common solidarity.
Thus, we see that altruism is not destined to become a mere ornament to social life, as Spencer wishes, but will instead always be its fundamental basis. How could we do without it? We cannot live together without making mutual sacrifices, without tying ourselves to one another with strong and lasting bonds. Every society is a moral society. In a way, this is even more rather than less true in organized societies. Because the individual is not sufficient unto herself, it is from society that she receives what she needs, and it is for society that she works. Thus, is formed a strong attachment to the society to which she belongs. She comes accustomed to regarding herself as party of a whole. On the other side of the equation, society begins to regards its members not as things to control but as cooperators whom it cannot neglect and whom it owes duties. It is thus not only societies that share a collective conscience that are moral. In reality, cooperation also has its intrinsic morality.
But this intrinsic morality is not the same in nature as the collective conscience. That is strong only if the individual is not. Made up of rules which are practiced by all, it receives from this uniform practice and obedience an authority almost super-human, which puts it beyond discussion. In contrast, the cooperative society is stronger as the individual is stronger. There is always room for personal initiative. It is we ourselves who choose our professions. We may have to follow rules once we do so, but it is an initial act of the will that sets us down our individual paths.
There are, then, two great currents of social life to which two types of structure correspond. The one has its origin in social similarities. Little by little, the second type grows up within this type and eventually overtakes its, covers it over, without every completely eliminating it.
We shall find the causes of this relation of inverse variation in the following book.
Book 2. Causes and Conditions
Chapter 1. The Progress of the Division of Labor and of Happiness
1. According to many, the individual’s desire for happiness pushes him to specialize. But if this were the case, we would long ago have stopped specializing, as the moderate existence is much more favorable to happiness than one of constant striving. Other problems with this supposition
2. Our striving has actually produced more suffering and unhappiness than commonly known to exist in more simple societies held together by the collective conscience. Note, for example, the increase in suicide in modern societies
3. Nor can it be that the desire to escape boredom pushes us forward. It is impossible for humanity to have imposed upon itself so much trouble only to be able to vary its pleasures a little
Chapter 2. The Causes
1. We must look for the causes elsewhere, by studying the variations between the two types. We find that the progress of the division of labor is in direct ration to the moral or dynamic density of society. This so because intra-social relations are multiplied
2. Our view contrasts with Spencer, who argues that the increase of social volume merely accelerates the division of labor but does not cause it
3. The growth of volume and density mechanically determines the progress of the division of labor by intensifying the struggle for existence
4. The division of labor is produced only in organized societies. It is an error to find the division of labor and social cooperation fundamental facts of human life
Chapter 3. Secondary Factors – Progressive Indeterminacy of the Common Conscience and Its Causes
The division of labor can progress only if individual variation increases and this can happen only if the collective conscience recedes. What are the causes of this recession?
1. As the social environment extends, the collective conscience must also extend and thus becomes increasingly abstract (e.g., transcendence of the idea of God; more rational law). This abstract indeterminacy leaves a larger space for individual variation
2. The authority of the tradition is weakened when individuals are detached from the environment of their birth and the influence of their elders
3. As the segmented type of society loses hold over the individual, it also loses control of divergent tendencies
4. From this perspective, social organs can no longer play the role of a unindividuated segment
Chapter 4. Secondary Factors – Heredity
Heredity poses an obstacle to the progress of the division of labor but it has become a lesser factor over time
1. Heredity loses its power because modes of activity that do not rely on hereditary transmission become much more important than any that do
2. Heredity also grows more indeterminate, as instinct grows weaker and individual differences develop
Chapter 5. Consequences of the Preceding
1. As function becomes more independent from the person doing the function, the division of labor has a supple and flexible character. This suppleness is a great strength
2. A more mechanistic theory of the division of labor (e.g., Spencer’s), implies that civilization is the product of necessary causes, and not an end which itself influences activity
3. The growth of volume and of density in changing societies changes individuals; we become freer from our bodies and thus our mental lives develop. Individual personalities emerge from the collective personality. Society explains the individual
Book 3. Abnormal Forms
Chapter 1. The Anomic Division of Labor
Abnormal forms exist when the division of labor does not produce solidarity. Why we need to study these forms:
1. Abnormal cases in economic life; industrial crises and the antagonism between labor and capital
2. Should the state step in to regulate the details of economic life to prevent such antagonisms?
3. Necessity of regulation and why the division of labor sometimes fails to produce solidarity in its absence
Anomie arises when the organs are not in sufficient contact or sufficiently prolonged contact of the normal state. When the division of labor is normal, it does not confine any person to a task without giving her a glimpse of anything outside the task.
Chapter 2. The Forced Division of Labor
1. Class War comes from individuals not being in harmony with their functions, as the functions have been imposed on them by force. Meaning of force here includes any type of inequality in the external conditions of life
2. Reasons why progress towards equality is necessary
True individual liberty does not consist in suppressing regulation but rather is a result of good regulation, as equality is not ours by nature. Achieving justice is a task for organized societies, as it is only in this condition that they can be maintained.
Chapter 3. Another Abnormal Form
There is another case in which the division of labor fails to produce solidarity because the functional activity of the worker is insufficient.
Conclusion
1. The rule that orders us to be like each other (to follow the collective conscience) aims to assure social solidarity (integration and cohesion), but so to does the rule that orders us to specialize. Both are moral rules. Morality is but the totality of conditions of social solidarity.
2. The division of labor does not weaken the individual personality; in fact, individualization progresses under the influence of the same causes which produce the division of labor. The only way for us to realize human brotherhood and sisterhood is through the progression of the division of labor.
3. However, the division of labor gives rise to solidarity only if it is just. Economists are mistaken. We need more justice, not less.
Questions
1. What does it mean to say that science can predict but science does not command? Does Durkheim agree with this statement? What is the role of sociology?
2. What is the question underlying this book? Why did Durkheim write a book about the division of labor?
3. What does the tripartite division of the book tell you about Durkheim’s approach? Compare this to the division of Suicide. What useful direction for conducting sociological research is provided by these divisions?
Concepts
Anomic Division of Labor
Collective Conscience
Division of Labor
Forced Division of Labor
Mechanical Solidarity (and MS Societies)
Morality
Organic Solidarity (and OS Societies)
Solidarity
1. Herbert Spencer was a well-known and influential philosopher and social theorist of the nineteenth century. He essentially took Darwin’s idea of biological evolution and natural selection and sought to apply them to social groups. According to Spencer, history proceeded along lines of “survival of the fittest.” For these reasons, any attempts at social reform or amelioration were misguided, as they prevented the natural and optimal path of development. Durkheim often spoke against this idea, as he thought it muddled two very distinct strands (the biological and the social) in a problematic way. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.03%3A_Division_of_Labor_Introduction.txt |
“History shows that as one type progresses, the other type fades away.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage comes from Durkheim’s dissertation, completed in 1893, and first published in 1902 as De la Division du Travaile Sociale. The first English translation was done by George Simpson in 1933, but this version was found to have several shortcomings. A more approved translation was made in 1984 by W. D. Halls, edited by Lewis A. Coser. This translation was republished with some improvement by Steven Lukes in 1997. This is the recommended version if you would like to read more of the text than what is included here.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
The Division of Labor in Society was divided into three books, as the previous selection demonstrated. The first book examines the function of the division of labor and introduces the distinction between societies held together by Mechanical Solidarity and those held together by Organic Solidarity. The passages below describe those differences. Pay close attention to all the ways in which these two types of society differ.
Chapter 3. Organic Solidarity due to the Division of Labor
Part 4. Conclusion
We recognize two kinds of positive solidarity, solidarity which produces integration. The first kind directly binds the individual to society while the second binds the individual indirectly, through reliance on the other people who collectively make up society.
Society is not seen in the same aspect in the two cases. In the first, what we call society is more or less composed of the beliefs and values held in common by all people. In contrast, the second case is composed of a system of different and unique functions which are united through interdependence.
In the first case, society is strong if the ideas and common tendencies are greater quantitatively and qualitatively than those ideas and habits held by individuals. This kind of solidarity can grow only at the expense of individual personality. In each of us there are two consciences, one common to our group and the other which is personal to us and distinct and that makes us an individual. Solidarity through likeness is at its greatest when the collective conscience takes over our entire consciousness, [when what we think is what society thinks]. But at that moment we have no personality. Our personalities can only emerge if the community to which we belong has less control of us. These are two opposing forces. If we want to think and act for ourselves, we cannot also be strongly inclined to think and act as everyone else. So, when this form of solidarity acts on us forcefully, our personality vanishes; we are no longer ourselves but the collective life.
The social molecules which cohere together in this way can act together only if they have no actions of their own; they are molecules of inorganic bodies. For that reason we propose to call this type of solidarity mechanical. This doesn’t mean it is produced by mechanical or artificial means, but only as an analogy to the cohesion uniting an inanimate body, as opposed to elements of a living body. The individual conscience is dependent upon the collective conscience and follows all its movements, without a life of its own, so to speak. In societies where this type of solidarity is strong, the individual does not really appear. Personal rights are generally not recognized.
It is utterly different when we consider the solidarity which is produced by the division of labor. While the first type implied that individuals resemble each other, this type presumes they are differentiated. While the first type is possible only so much as the individual personality is subsumed by the collective personality, the second type is possible only if each individual person has a sphere of action unique to him or her, and so an individual personality. It is necessary for the collective conscience to recede to allow the individual conscience to operate freely. The more it does so, the stronger the cohesion which results [as each becomes reliant on every other member fulfilling his or her unique sphere of action]. Each one depends more on society as labor is divided, and each person’s activity becomes more specialized.
Chapter 4. Further Proof the Preceding
Part 1. [Likeness in Mechanical Solidarity Societies]
The more societies are primitive, the more alike are its members.
Chapter 5. Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity; Its Consequences
Part 2. [Three Conditions of Mechanical Solidarity]
Not only does mechanical solidarity bind people together less strongly over time, but we find it slackens as we progress socially.
Indeed, the strength of social links through likeness vary with respect to the following three conditions:
First, the relative proportion of collective and individual conscience. The links are stronger the more the first overshadows the second.
Second, the average intensity of the states of the collective conscience.
Third, The distinctiveness of these states. That is, the more specifically defined are the collective beliefs and practices, the less room there is for individualization. The more general and abstract are the rules, however, the more individual reflection plays a role. Centrifugal tendencies multiply at the cost of social cohesion.
Strong and defined states of the common conscious are the roots of penal law. However, the number of such laws is less today than before, and diminish progressively as societies approach our modern type.
[Durkheim discusses the relative proportion of what he calls “repressive” laws, violation of which offends the collective conscience, and “restitutive” laws, violation of which is less shocking and more personally related to the parties at hand (think broken contracts). He argues that, as societies advance, the proportional amount of repressive law diminishes as that of restitutive law increases. This is, indeed, a key part of Book 1, and is used to support his argument about changes from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity over time. As anthropologists of law have criticized the empirical facts Durkheim used, limited as they were to what was available to him in the 19th century, you will not find more of this discussion in this reader, but you should know that Durkheim is using evidence, albeit imperfect, to build this theory, rather than engaging in “armchair philosophizing.”]
Chapter 6. Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity, continued
Part 1. Segmental Type
So we can say it is a historical law that mechanical solidarity, which at first stood alone, progressively loses ground and that, over time, little by little, organic solidarity predominates.
If we were to try to imagine an ideal type of society held together exclusively by likeness, we would have to conceive it as one wholly homogeneous, one in which none of its human members are distinguishable from one another; there would be no real organization to speak of. It would be a social protoplasm, a blob, a horde, if you will.
It is true we have yet to find any society that operates completely in this way. [We do find some glimmers of it, among some Native American tribes, for example. We can designate hordes which form elements in more extensive groups as clans.]
We can call these societies segmented as they are formed by the repetition of like aggregations in them, like the rings of an earthworm. The term clan expresses the mixed nature of these segmented groups. The clan is a family because its members are kin to one another. These familial affinities are for the most part what keeps the group united. But these are not families the way we understand families, because kinship need not be by blood. The clan in fact contains a great many strangers. It can comprise several thousand persons. And it is the basic political unity as well, with the clan-heads the only social authorities.
The main point, however, is that the clan, just as the horde, of which it is but an extension, has no other solidarity than that derived from likeness. For segmented organization to be possible, the segments must resemble one another; otherwise, they would not be united.
In these societies, religion pervades all of social life. This is so because social life itself is almost exclusively composed of common beliefs and practices. Where the collective personality is the only one in existence, property also must be collective, so we find an early form of communism operating in these societies.
There is, then, a social structure of a specific kind which corresponds with mechanical solidarity. What characterizes it is a system of segments homogeneous and similar to each other.
Part 2. Organized Type
Quite another thing is the structure of societies where organic solidarity is preponderant.
They are constituted by a system of different organs, each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Social elements are not heaped together linearly as the rings of an earthworm, nor are they entwined with one another, but rather they are coordinated and subordinated to one another around a central organ which regulates the rest of the organism. Others may depend on this central organ, but the central organ depends on the others as well. [It is thus unlike a head of a clan, who embodies the collective conscience and to whom all others owe absolute obedience]. There is nothing superhuman or timeless about this central organ. There are only differences in degree between this organ and the others.
This social type rests on such different principles as that of the segmented type that it can develop only so much as it erases the segmented type. In organized societies, individuals are not grouped based on lineage or bloodline, but according to the particular nature of the social activity they engage in. Their natural context is not that of birth [blood, race, etc.] but of occupation. It is no longer real or fictitious kinship which marks the place of each, but the function which he or she fulfills.
No doubt, when this new organization began to appear, it tried to use the existing organization and to assimilate it. So, functions were often allocated based on original divisions of birth. In a way, classes (and castes in particular) probably have their origin thusly. But this mixed arrangement cannot last for long, because there is a fundamental contradiction between the two. It is only a very basic division of labor which can adapt to preexisting social divisions in this way. The division of labor can only grow by freeing itself from this confining framework. As soon as it passes a certain stage of development, there is no longer any relation between the hereditarily fixed properties of segments and the new skills and aptitudes called forth by the growth of functions needed in society. The social material must combine in new ways to organize itself upon these different foundations. The old structure, so far as it persists, is opposed to these new combinations. Which is why it must disappear.
Thus the history shows that as one type progresses, the other type fades away.
Just as we could not say there was any known wholly segmented society, we also observe that there is as yet no wholly organized society. We do see, however, that organic solidarity is progressing, and becoming more preponderant.
Our future investigations will show that our current occupational organization is not everything it should be, as abnormal causes have prevented it from attaining the degree of development which our social order now demands. [More on that in Book 3]
Questions
1. If thinking for ourselves and thinking for the community are mutually opposed, as Durkheim suggests, where do YOU lie on this continuum? If you had been born in, say, 1300CE, do you think your answer would have been different? What about 1300BCE? Why?
2. Durkheim has been claimed as an early anthropologist, and much of his theory developed in The Division of Laboris based on observational and historical data about “primitive” peoples, including Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and early Jewish peoples. Much of this is inaccurate and/or biased by Eurocentric thinking. In Chapter 6, Durkheim draws copiously from early anthropological thinking to describe how “segmented” societies (the horde, the clan) operate. Given the problems with the data used, is his theory still valid? Explain your answer. For those of you who are familiar with the world of Star Trek, it might be helpful for you to think of the “horde” as The Borg.
3. When Durkheim talks about “the central organ” that “regulates” the other members, to what is he referring? If you are asked to describe Durkheim’s theory of the state in modern society, would this passage help?
4. It may be hard for us, who develop in what Durkheim would call organized societies, to recognize the pull of “birth” to which he refers in part 2 of Chapter 6. You may want to consider what it might be like to live in a society in which all that mattered was who your ancestors were. Can you think of historical examples when this might have been the case? Compare Durkheim’s “birth vs. occupation” to Weber’s “status vs. class.”
Concepts
Segmented Society
Collective Conscience
Organized Society
Mechanical Solidarity (and MS Societies)
Organic Solidarity (and OS Societies) | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.04%3A_Division_of_Labor_Book_1.txt |
“Animals and plants thrive when they differ. People are the same.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage comes from Durkheim’s dissertation, completed in 1893, and first published in 1902 as De la Division du Travaile Sociale. The first English translation was done by George Simpson in 1933, but this version was found to have several shortcomings. A more approved translation was made in 1984 by W. D. Halls, edited by Lewis A. Coser. This translation was republished with some improvement by Steven Lukes in 1997. This is the recommended version if you would like to read more of the text than what is included here.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
The Division of Labor in Society was divided into three books. The second book examines the causes and conditions of the division of labor in society. As you read, think about the implications of Durkheim’s explanation for the shift from societies held together by a collective conscience and societies held together by the division of labor. What is the future likely to hold? Should we worry about a decline in shared values and beliefs? What would Durkheim think about the value of and commitment to diversity?
Chapter 2. The Causes
What causes the progress of the division of labor? [It is not a quest for happiness (see Chapter 1, not included here)]
Part 1. Moral/Dynamic Density
It is in certain variation of the social context that we must search for that which explains the progress of the division of labor. The results of Book 1 allows us to immediately see what those variations are.
We have already seen how the organized structure and the division of labor developed as the segmented structure faded away. So, it is either that this fading away is the cause of the development of the division of labor, or that the development of the division of labor is the cause of the fading away. We know that the latter option won’t work because segmentation is an obstacle to the division of labor, and it must have weakened at least partially in order for the division of labor to arise. Once the division of labor appears, it can contribute to the fading away of the segmental structure, but we only see it once the fading away has already begun.
But the fading of the segmented structure can have this consequence for only one reason. Its waning allows individuals who were previously separated to come into more contact with others. Social life, instead of being concentrated in like pods, becomes generalized. Social relations multiply. The division of labor develops when there are more individual people sufficiently in contact with each other to act and react upon one another. We can call this relation and the active exchange resulting from it dynamic or moral density. Thus, the progress of the division of labor is in direct ratio to the moral or dynamic density of society.
This relationship can only produce this effect if the real distance between individuals is itself diminished in some way. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the same time. We can use material density as a measure of moral density.
The progressive condensation of societies in the course of historical development is produced in three ways:
1. Where early groups of people were spread out over large areas relative to their small population, population is concentrated among advanced peoples. Dispersion over a large area was necessary for the work of nomads, hunters, and shepherds. In contrast, agriculture requires a settled life, and presupposes a certain restriction of society in spatial terms, although there remain stretches of land between families. As cities developed, condensation was even greater. From their origins, European societies have seen a continuous growth in their density.
2. Thus, the formation and development of cities is key. Cities always result from the need of individuals to be in close contact with others. It is here that the social mass can contract more strongly than anywhere else. New recruits arrive by immigration. As long as social organization is segmented, cities cannot truly exist. There are no cities in early-stage societies.[1]
3. Finally, communication and transportation are made easier and faster. By decreasing the gaps separating segments of society, new forms of communication and transportation increase the density of society.
If condensation of society produces more division of labor, it is because it multiplies intra-social relations. These relations will be even more frequent if the number of population rises. In other words, if there are both more individuals who are at the same time more intimately in contact with each other, the effect is stronger. Both social volume (the number of people) and social density (the concentration of people) increase the division of labor.
We offer the following proposition: The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of societies; if the division of labor progresses in a continuous way in the course of social development, it is because societies generally get denser and more populous.
Part 3. Intensification of the struggle for existence
If labor becomes every more divided as societies become denser and more populous, it is not because there are more varied external circumstances, but because the struggle for existence is more ardent.
Darwin rightly observed that the struggle between two creatures is as active as they are similar. Having the same needs and the same objects, they are rivals. So long as there are enough resources for both, they can live side by side, but when resources become insufficient for them both, war breaks out. It is very different if the two creatures are of different species or variations. Since they do not eat the same things or live the same kind of life, they do not disturb each other. The chances of conflict diminish. Animals and plants thrive when they differ.
People are the same. In the same town, different jobs can co-exist. They each pursue different objects: the soldier seeks glory, the priest moral authority, the politician power, the person of business wealth, the scholar academic fame. Each can attain her end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. The optometrist does not struggle with the psychiatrist, nor the shoemaker with the hatter, nor the bricklayer with the cabinetmaker, nor the physicist with the chemist. Since they each perform different services, they can all perform then in parallel.
The closer the functions, however, the more contact and the more exposed to conflict. Just as with animals that seek the same food, they inevitably seek to limit each other’s development. The judge may never be in competition with the person of business, but the brewer and the vintner, the poet and the musician, do try to supplant each other. And for those with exactly the same function? They can succeed only to the detriment of others.
That said, it is easy now to understand how all concentration of the social mass, especially when accompanied by an increase in population, necessarily advances the division of labor.
[Specialization occurs as a cure of side-by-side conflicts]
The division of labor is a result of the struggle for existence, but it is a relaxed end to it. Because of the division of labor, would-be opponents are not forced to fight to death, but can instead exist beside each other. In addition, as it develops it provides the means of maintenance and survival to a greater number of people who, in more homogeneous societies, would be condemned to extinction. [So, it is that in modern societies those that may be weak physically can still find a good position using their brain. Everyone has talents unique to them that can be put to use. No one need to be condemned as wholly useless]
Economists regard the division of labor differently than what we have discussed here. For them, it is essentially about increasing production. But we have seen that greater productivity is only a necessary consequence of the underlying phenomenon. If we specialize it is not in order to produce more but to allow us to live under new conditions of existence [denser and more populous societies].
Chapter 5. Consequences
Part 1. Suppleness of the Division of Labor
Our previous discussion now permits us to better understand the way in which the division of labor functions in society.
The division of social labor is different from the division of physiological labor in one key way. In the organism, each cell has its defined role, and it cannot change it. In societies, however, even where the forms of organization are most rigid, individuals can move about with a certain freedom. As work is divided more, this suppleness and freedom become greater. A person can raise himself from the humblest beginning to the most important occupations. Even more frequently, a worker leaves his job for another one close by. Today a scholar can pass from one discipline to another, from chemistry to biology, or from psychology to sociology. [Things move even faster in business, where new tastes displace old ones, and workers must constantly be ready to serve different employments.]
Now contrast the biological organism. If the function of each cell is fixed, it is because it is imposed by birth. Each cell is imprisoned, if you will, in a system of hereditary customs which cannot be overcome. The structure predetermines the cell’s life. It is not the same in society. Origins do not determine the outcomes of individuals; her innate characteristics do not predestine her to one role only, making her incapable of any other. From heredity she receives only a general disposition, one quite supple and able to take on many different forms.
Part 2. The Development of Civilization
In determining the principal cause of the progress of the division of labor, we have at the same stroke determined the essential factor of what we call civilization.
Civilization is itself the necessary consequences of the changes which are produced in the volume and density of societies. If science, art, and economic activity develop, it is out of necessity, because there is no other way to live in the new conditions people find themselves in. From the time that the number of individuals begins to increase, people can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, working harder, and increasing the intensity of their abilities. From all this general stimulation there naturally results a much higher degree of culture. From this point of view, civilization is not an end to which people strive, not something foreseen and desired in advance, but merely the effect of a cause, the result of a given state of population concentration. It is not the pole to which historic development is moving us in order to seek happiness or improvement. We move towards it because we must move towards it, and what determines the speed of our march is the amount of pressure we exercise upon each other, according to our number.
This does not mean that civilization is useless, but only that it is not its uses that make it progress. It develops because it cannot help but develop. We see even more clearly now how wrong it is to make civilization the function of the division of labor when in fact it is only the consequence of it. Civilization cannot explain the existence or the progress of the division of labor since it has no intrinsic value in itself, but only has a reason for existing insofar as the division of labor is itself found necessary.
Still, while being a mere effect of necessary causes, civilization can become an end, an object of desire, even an ideal. A mechanistic conception of society [as advanced here] does not preclude ideals. … There is and there will always be, between the extreme points at which we find ourselves and the end towards which we are tending, a free field open to our efforts.
Part 3. The Development of Individual Personality
At the same time that societies are transformed, individuals are transformed by changes in population concentration.
Above all, they are more free of the control of the physiological organism. Where a non-human animal is almost completely under the influence of its physical environment, people are dependent on social causes.
Questions
1. What does Durkheim us as a measure of moral density?
2. You should have learned by now that “correlation is not causation.” Does Durkheim make this error in Part 1 of Chapter 2?
3. Can you think of a situation where there might be more people but fewer contacts so that the segmented structure does not, in fact, break down and give way to the division of labor? What about a situation of fewer people but greater contacts?
4. Why does the division of labor generally advance in societies?
5. Do animals, plants, and people thrive through difference? Consider the implications here. How would Durkheim likely weigh in on current immigration debates?
6. How does increasing specialization bring more freedom? Is individual freedom something useful for modern society? Do you find it odd to discuss freedom in terms of usefulness?
7. What is the cause of civilization? How is this similar to the argument about freedom? [it may help to first define what exactly Durkheim means by the term civilization]
8. Although you may be interested in reading the entire “part 3” of the fifth chapter, see if you can fill in Durkheim’s argument without doing so! Why is it that personality develops as moral and dynamic density increases? What consequences follow from human animals’ greater influence of social, rather than physiological, forces?
Concepts
Moral/Dynamic Density
1. This is but one example of the outdated anthropology of the day. We now know that there were in fact extensive cities far earlier than was known by Durkheim. Whether the existence of these cities undercuts his theory is another question. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.05%3A_Division_of_Labor_Book_2.txt |
“Just as ancient people need a common faith to unite them, so we need justice.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage comes from Durkheim’s dissertation, completed in 1893, and first published in 1902 as De la Division du Travaile Sociale. The first English translation was done by George Simpson in 1933, but this version was found to have several shortcomings. A more approved translation was made in 1984 by W. D. Halls, edited by Lewis A. Coser. This translation was republished with some improvement by Steven Lukes in 1997. This is the recommended version if you would like to read more of the text than what is included here.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
The Division of Labor in Society was divided into three books. The third book looks at what happens when the division of labor is not functioning properly. As you read, think about how often the division of labor is unhealthy or “abnormal” and how often the division of labor is actually in its normal, solidarity-producing state. You might also want to compare what you read here with Marx’s critique of capitalism.
Chapter 1. The Anomic Division of Labor
Until now we have studied the division of labor as a normal phenomenon, but, like all social facts (and biological facts as well), there are pathological forms we must analyze. If, normally, the division of labor produces social solidarity, sometimes it does the opposite. We must find out what makes it deviate from its natural direction. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming the division of labor is the cause of these un-solidaristic conflicts. In addition, studying these deviating forms will allow us to determine the conditions of existence of the normal state a little better. When we understand the circumstances in which the division of labor ceases to produce solidarity, we may better know what is necessary for it do so. Here, as always, understanding pathology is a valuable aid of study.
We will explore three types of the exceptional pathological state, not because there are no others, but because these three are the most prevalent and the most serious.
Section 1. Examples of solidarity breaking down
[The first case happens during industrial or commercial crises, which we can see as breaks in organic solidarity. Certain social functions are not adjusted to one another. The second case has as its example the conflict between capital and labor. As organizations grow, it is more difficult for all the parts to be effectively encompassed. We will see in the next chapter that there are also other reasons for the breakdown of solidarity between capital and labor but certainly a lack of regulation and connections is a primary cause. We know this because small-scale industry still tends to more harmonious. We can see yet another example in academia. Where scholars used to be part of a whole enterprise, they are so specialized now that they are sometimes in conflict with each other.]
Section 2. Seriousness of the problem
What makes these facts serious is that they have at times been considered natural effects of increasing specialization. It is said that the individual becomes so isolated in her activity that she cannot appreciate the work of her fellows. As a result, increasing the division of labor will only lead to a breakdown of society.
If this were true, the division of labor would, by its very nature, work to dissolve rather than bind society.
Section 3. Examples of Lack of Regulation leading to Conflict; Explaining Anomie
We know that wherever organic solidarity is observed, we encounter at the same time an adequately developed regulatory system which determines the mutual relations of functions. For organic solidarity to exist, it is not sufficient that there is a system of organs dependent upon each other, but also that the way in which they come together be predetermined in some manner. Otherwise, new calibrations would constantly be necessary to create an equilibrium, as one part treats another part as adversary rather than supplementary assistance. One could hardly expect solidarity if mutual obligations had to be freshly fought over in each particular instance of specialization.
If the division of labor does not produce solidarity in such cases [examples omitted], it is because the relations of the organs are not regulated. Rather, they are in a state of anomie.
But where does this state of anomie come from?
We can begin by saying that the state of anomie is impossible wherever organs are sufficiently in contact or sufficiently prolonged such that a body of rules spontaneously emerges to establish relations between social functions.
A function can be shared between two or more parts of an organism only if these parts are more or less contiguous. Once labor is divided, thereby creating more interdependent functions, the distance separating organs lessens.
But a set of exceptional circumstances, as in the case we have been discussing, can work differently. Take the case of trade. As the organized type develops, markets merge, eventually embracing the whole of society. Borders break down. The result is that each industry produces for consumers over the whole surface of the planet. In this circumstance, mere contact is no longer sufficient to generate regulation. Production appears limitless, and it becomes wild and unregulated. From this come recurrent economic crises.
As the market extends beyond the vision of any one producer (or consumer), great industries appear and, with them, new relations between employers and employees. Machines replace people; manufacturing replaces craftsmanship. The worker is regimented, separated from her family during the day. Unlike the worker of the middle ages, which often roomed with or near their employer, workers now live very far from their employers. These are all relatively new conditions of industrial life and demand a new organization. The problem is, as these changes have occurred so rapidly, the potential conflicts of interest have yet to be equilibrated.
Looking at things this way permits us to rebut one of the great charges made against the division of labor. It has been said that the division of labor degrades the worker by making him a mere machine. Every day he repeats the same movements with monotonous regularity, without taking any personal interest in them, and without understanding them. He is no longer a living cell of a living organism but merely an inert piece of machinery, a mere set of hands put to work in the same direction and in the same way.
As a remedy for this state of things it has sometimes been proposed that workers be given a general education, above and beyond any technical training for work. But let us suppose that we can relieve some of these bad effects attributed to the division of labor in this way, that is not a means of preventing those bad effects. The division is not going to change simply because workers are better educated. Without a doubt it is good for the worker to be interested in art, literature, etc. but none of this is going to change the fact that she is being treated like a machine at work all day long! Such a remedy would merely make specialization intolerable and therefore impossible.
[What then is the solution?] In order for the division of labor to develop without having disastrous consequences on us, it is sufficient for it to be wholly itself, for nothing external to temper it. Normally, the role of each special function does not hem us in our individual siloes, but rather keeps us in constant relations with all the neighboring functions, keeping us aware to other needs and changes. The division of labor presumes that we do not lose sight of our collaborators, and that we act upon them and react upon them. We are not mere machines that repeat movements without knowing their meaning, but rather are we conscious that our movements tend, in some way, towards some ultimate goal, which we may or may not have a clear picture of in our minds. We feel that we are serving something. As special and uniform (or monotonous or tedious) as our activity may be, it is that of an intelligent being, for it has a direction and we know that.
Chapter 2. The Forced[1] Division of Labor
Section 1. Class War follows from pathological state
However, it is not enough that there be rules, for sometimes the rules themselves cause trouble. This is what happens in the struggle between classes. While the institution of classes and castes are themselves strictly regulated organizations within the division of labor, this strict regulation itself is a source of disharmony. The lower classes are no longer satisfied with the role given to them by custom or law and they wish for positions that are closed to them. Further, they seek to throw over or dispossess those exercising those functions! In such a way do internal civil wars arise as a result of the way in which labor is distributed.
We see nothing like this in the biological organism. No cell or organ seeks to take on a role different from the one it is filling. The reasons for this is that each anatomic element mechanically does its job. Its constitution and its place in the organism determines what that job is; its function results from its essential nature. It is very different in societies. There is a great distance between the hereditary dispositions of the individual members and the jobs they fill. One’s birth does not imply one’s vocation. But on the other hand, this also means that there are many reasons individuals can end up in jobs to which they do not actually fit. Although we are not predestined to some particular position from birth, we do have tastes and abilities which limit our choice. For the division of labor to produce solidarity is not enough that each has her particular task but also that the task be appropriate to her tastes and abilities.
In this second pathological form, this condition is not met. If a system of class or caste sometimes produces sharp pains instead of solidarity it is because the distribution of jobs on which it rests does not accord with the distribution of natural talents. Constraint alone, more or less violent and more or less direct, links people to their functions. When this happens, only an imperfect and troubled solidarity is possible.
Class war is not a necessary consequence of the division of labor. Conflict between classes happens only under particular circumstances, when it is an effect of a social constraint upon the choice’s individuals make in their selection of jobs. It is very different when class systems arise spontaneously out of the freely chosen initiative of individuals. When this happens there is harmony between individual natures and social functions. Ideally, the only factor determining the manner in which work is divided is the diversity of capacities. Selection is made entirely through aptitude, since there is no other viable reason for selection.
The forced division of labor is thus our second pathological form. Force or social constraint in this case does not mean every kind of regulation, as we have already seen that the division of labor must be regulated in order for it to produce solidarity. Constraint only begins when regulation no longer corresponds to the true nature of things, when it is validated through force.
We could say, conversely, that the division of labor produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous. By that we mean the absence of everything that can even indirectly hinder the free development of the individual’s innate abilities. There can be no obstacle, of any kind, preventing a person from occupying a place in the social framework which is compatible with their abilities. In a word, labor is divided spontaneously only when society is constituted in such a way that social inequalities exactly express natural inequalities. For that to happen, natural inequalities must be neither enhanced nor lowered by some external influence. Perfect spontaneity is a consequence of absolute equality in the external conditions of the conflict. It consists not in a state of anarchy which would allow people to satisfy all their good or bad tendencies, but in an organization in which each social value would be judged by its true worth. Some might object that, even under these conditions, there are winners and losers, and that the latter will not accept defeat except when forced to do so. But this is not really the same thing at all. [Lack of constraint does not mean perfect equality of outcome]; constraint occurs when conflict itself is made impossible by refusing to admit the right of combat between the parties.]
It is also true that this perfect spontaneity exists in no society anywhere. Even in places where there remains little vestige of past castes and legal restrictions against mobility, hereditary transmission of wealth is enough to make the external conditions very unequal, for such gives advantages to some beyond their personal worth. Even today there are jobs and positions that are closed or very hard to enter for those who are without money.
[Nevertheless, we are tending towards a society in which birth plays less of a role in outcome.] Society is compelled to reduce these disparities as much as possible by assisting in various ways those who find themselves at an unnatural disadvantage, aiding them in overcoming those disadvantages. We feel obligated to leave free space for all merits and we regard as unjust any inferiority of position which is not personally merited. It is a widely held belief today that equality among citizens is increasing and that it is just that this is so.
Section 2. Reasons why progress towards equality is necessary
Equality is necessary not only to bring each person together with his or her function but also to link functions to one another.
Conclusion
Section 3. The necessity of justice
It is false to believe that all regulation is the product of constraint, because liberty itself is the product of regulation. Liberty is not antagonistic to social action but is itself a result of social action. It is not an inherent property of the state of nature. To the contrary, it is conquest of society over nature! Naturally, humans are unequal in physical force; naturally they are placed under external conditions that advantage some and disadvantage others. But liberty, liberty is the subordination of external forces to social forces, for it’s only in these conditions that social forces can freely develop. This is the reverse of the natural order. We can escape nature only by creating another world where we dominate nature. That world is society.
The task of the most advanced societies is a work of justice. Just as the ideal of less advanced societies was to create or maintain an intense common life, one in which the individual was completely absorbed, so our ideal is to make social relations always more equitable, so that we assure the free development of all our socially useful forces. Because the segmental type is disappearing as the organized type of society develops, because organic solidarity is slowly substituted for that which arises through mere likeness, it is absolutely necessary that external conditions become equal. The harmony of functions and of our very existence as a society is at stake. Just as ancient people need a common faith to unite them, so we need justice.
Chapter 3. Another Abnormal Form
[In this last section, Durkheim proposes a third abnormal form, but he fails to give it a name. He argues that for the division of labor to produce solidarity each task must be meaningful to the overall enterprise. Jobs that appear pointless, petty, or disconnected from the rest of life will not provide satisfaction to those doing them. We can read this abnormal form as a critique of both bureaucracy and deskilling, as jobs that are “beneath” one’s abilities do not produce solidarity. Interestingly, Durkheim quotes Marx here.]
Questions
1. Why is it valuable to study pathological forms of the division of labor? How does Durkheim’s approach differ from what Marx had to say about the division of labor?
2. Is education the answer for the anomic division of labor? Explain Durkheim’s argument here.
3. Think of a job you have had in the past. What didn’t you like about it? Would thinking about the overall goal/end of the larger enterprise provide more satisfaction to you? Consider military service here.
4. What does Durkheim mean when he argues that people should be in the jobs to which they are naturally fit? Can you think of any examples? What natural talents are unevenly distributed in the population? To what extent are even “natural” talents affected by social forces or social evaluation?
5. What are some ways that we currently attempt to ensure a spontaneous division of labor, one in which “social inequalities express natural inequalities”? Think of laws, policies, customs. What would be needed to ensure this were entirely true? Would it be possible to achieve this state?
6. Imagine Marx and Durkheim discussing the causes and solutions of class conflict. What would they say to each other? Where would they agree? Where would they disagree? Whose side would you take?
7. What does Durkheim mean when he says modern societies need justice in order to survive? Of what does this justice consist?
Concepts
Anomic Division of Labor
Forced Division of Labor
1. Durkheim uses the word “contrainte” here, which might be more productively translated as “constrained” rather than “forced.” However, generations of English-speaking students know this as the ‘forced division of labor” so we are retaining that usage here. If you get confused about what is meant by forced, however, think about substituting the word constrained, which is more about being socially compelled or restricted by custom than physical enforcement. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.06%3A_Division_of_Labor_Book_3.txt |
“One can only explain what can be compared.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Durkheim’sLe Suicide: Etude de Sociologie, published in 1897 in Paris by Alcan Press. It was first translated as Suicide: A Study in Sociology in 1951 by Spaulding and Simpson and published by the Free Press. This is generally the translation used in most reprinted editions. A second translation was made in 2007 by Robin Buss for Penguin Publishing. This translation is recommended if you want to read the entire work.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
When reading an important but difficult work like Suicide, it is often useful to spend the most time reading the introduction. Here, Durkheim, always very organized, sets forth the problem and the methods he will use to address the problem. As always with Durkheim, he first sets out a definition of any key concepts – here, “suicide.” Before reading the Introduction passage, you may want to contemplate for yourself what a useful definition of this term would be. After the introduction, we move to some key passages in Book 2, where Durkheim sets forth both the method and results of his study of suicide. This book is crucial for understanding Durkheim’s overall theory on society and its collective problems.
Introduction
One hears the word suicide used many times in the course of conversation, so one could believe that everyone knows what it means and that defining it would be unnecessary. But in reality, the usual words used, like the concepts they express, are always ambiguous and the researcher who uses the everyday language without further elaboration exposes herself to grave confusion. Not only is the understanding of the term so vaguely defined that it changes from one circumstance to another, but it also results in categories of very different things being called the same thing or else things that are quite the same being called by different names. One can only explain what can be compared. A scientific investigation can only be successful if it deals with comparable facts. The more comparable facts, the likelier the success of analysis. The scientist cannot use the groups of facts as categorized in everyday speech, however. She must construct the groups that she wishes to study, in order to ensure the homogeneity and specificity of what she is comparing.
Our first task then is to determine the order of things we propose to study under the name of ‘Suicide.” …
We arrive at our first formula: “Suicide is any death which results directly or indirectly from an act (negative or positive) of the victim himself.”
But this definition is incomplete. [What about the confused man who jumps out of a window, thinking it is level with the ground?] Should we say that suicide is only an act resulting in death when the victim has that result in mind? [But how can we ever get into another’s mind this way and know if he or she intended to die?] Intention is a thing too intimate to be grasped by an outsider…how many times have we ourselves mistaken the motives of our own acts! For example, when we explain what we do in terms of generous intentions or elevated considerations when we are really inspirited by petty jealousies or blind habit.
[After much more back and forth, we are led to the following:]
Suicide is any death which results directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act by the victim and which the victim should know will produce such a result.
But is the thing we have so defined of interest to the sociologist? Because suicide is an act of the individual that affects the individual as such, it appears to depend exclusively on individual factors and to be more psychological than sociological.
We can, in fact, look at this from a different perspective. Instead of seeing particular events, isolated from one another, each suicide the result of its own individual factors, we can consider all the suicides committed in a given society over a given period of time. By doing so, we actually arrive at something that constitutes a new fact – not simply a sum of many parts, but a wholly new social fact to be observed and analyzed.
Each society, at each moment of its history, has a particular aptitude towards suicide. We can measure the relative intensity of this aptitude by figuring the total number of voluntary deaths in the population of every age and sex. We call the resulting figure the rate of mortality-suicide for that particular society.
Our intention is not to provide a complete inventory of all the possible conditions that can give rise to particular suicides, but to investigate what lies behind the social rate of suicide. There are surely many individual conditions that are not general enough to affect the social rate. These individual conditions may lead this or that isolated individual to commit suicide regardless of whether the society has a strong or weak tendency towards suicide. Those conditions concern the psychologist, not the sociologist. What the sociologist investigates are those causes which work not on isolated individuals, but on the group. Of all possible causes of suicide, only those which have an effect on the whole of society are of interest to us. The suicide rate is the product of these factors, which is why we must consider them.
That is the aim of the present work, which consists of three parts.
FIRST, the phenomenon we are trying to explain must result from extra-social causes, generally speaking, or specifically social ones. In the first section we ask what is the influence of the former, and see that it is almost nothing, or very little.
SECOND, we determine the nature of the social causes, the way they produce their effects, and the relationship with the individual states that accompany the different kinds of suicide.
THIRD, we will be able to state with more clarity of what consists the social element of suicide, that is to say, the collective tendency of which we have spoken, how it is connected to other social facts and the means by which it is possible to act upon it.
Book TWO: Social Causes and Social Types
Chapter 1: Method of Determining Them
We have established that there exists for each social group a specific tendency towards suicide that is explained by neither the physiological makeup of individuals nor the physical environment.[1] After eliminating these extra-social factors, we see that the rate of suicide must depend upon social causes and itself exist as a collective phenomenon. This collective tendency toward suicide is what we now must study.
To this end, leaving aside the individual as individual, with her motives and her ideas, we will ask what it is about different social walks of life (religious, family, political, professional) that cause the rate of suicide to vary. It is only after doing this, coming back to individuals, that we can discover how these general causes are individualized to produce murderous results.
Chapter 2. Egotistical Suicide
Let us first observe in what way the different religious faiths affect suicide.
[Durkheim sets forth some statistics showing that the rate of suicide is relatively low in Catholic countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy) and high in Protestant countries (Prussia, Saxony, Denmark). The rate of suicide among Jewish communities is even lower – only half that of Protestant communities.]
Having established the facts, how are we to explain them?
[Although some might point out the prohibition against suicide as a reason for the lower suicide rate among Catholics, this does not really explain things. Why? Because Protestants also forbid suicide and the prohibition is the least important among Jews, who have the lowest rate]
If Protestantism favors the development of suicide, it is not because it views it more tolerably than Catholicism. If the two religions both prohibit suicide, then their unequal effect on suicide must lie somewhere else, in one of the more general characteristics that differentiate the two. The only essential difference between these two religions is that Protestantism admits much more free inquiry than Catholicism….We are now reaching our first conclusion, that the greater tendency towards suicide among Protestants must be related to the spirit of free inquiry that animates this religion. But free inquiry itself is the result of a previous cause.
[But why is this so? Why does Protestantism allow for free inquiry? For this we need to attend to the history of Protestantism. Free inquiry flows from the context of schisms – free inquiry is permitted in order to permit schisms to develop more freely. Protestantism gives a greater place to individual thought (free inquiry) because it involves fewer common beliefs and practices – that is the nature of Protestantism itself.]
The more ways there are to act and think that are marked as religious and thus removed from free inquiry, the more the very idea of God will be present in every aspect of life and thus make individual wills converge toward a single end. On the other hand, the greater the religious group abandons judgment on particulars, the more it will be absent in the lives of its members, and the less cohesion and vitality it will retain. We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the greater rate of suicide among Protestants is due to its being less strongly integrated than the Catholic church.
[In a similar fashion, because of anti-Semitism and long histories of hostility, Jewish communities have had to sustain unusually strong feelings of solidarity to survive. This has resulted in a lower than average rate of suicide. They are “protected” from suicide because they are obliged to live more firmly side by side]
Two important conclusions have emerged from this chapter.
ONE, we see why, generally speaking, suicide increases along with scientific knowledge. It is not that science is causing more suicide – it is in itself innocent and nothing is more unjust than this accusation. Rather, these two facts (more suicide and scientific progress) are the result of a single general state. People search for science and people kill themselves at greater rates because religion has lost its cohesion. It is not that science undermines religion but rather that, because religion is falling apart, our thirst for knowledge is awakened. Science is not sought as a way to destroy accepted ideas, but because those ideas are no longer accepted. Far from being the source of the problem, science is the only remedy we now have. Once established beliefs have been cleared away by time, they cannot be reestablished artificially. It is only reflection that can guide our lives. Once the social instinct is deadened, intelligence is the only guide we can depend upon to refashion our moral conscience. However perilous the enterprise, we cannot hesitate, because we have no other choice. Let those who look on the collapse of old beliefs with anxiety and sadness stop blaming science of an evil it has not caused, for it is science, on the contrary, which can provide our only cure! Do not treat science like the enemy! Science is the only weapon we have to permit us to struggle against the dissolution which itself has produced science. It is not by gagging science that one can restore authority to disappearing traditions: we will only render ourselves impotent to replace them.
TWO, we can see why, generally speaking, religion has a prophylactic effect on suicide. This is not, as sometimes said, because it prohibits suicide. Protestants believe in God and in the immortality of the soul no less than do Catholics. It is not the special nature of religions concepts that explains the beneficial influence of religion. If religion protects one against the desire to commit suicide, is it is not because it preaches respect for the person but because religion is a community. It is because the Protestant community does not have the same degree of consistency as the others that it cannot moderate suicide as well.
Chapter 3. Egotistical Suicide, continued
But if religion protects against suicide because and to the extent that it is a society, it is probable that other social groups produce the same effect. We can therefore examine the family and political groups from this point of view. [Omitted Examples: (1) suicide rate lower among married men than unmarried men; (2) suicide rate lower during times of political upheaval, when people unite against a common foe, for example.]
We have now established the three propositions:
Suicide varies with the degree of integration of religious society
Suicide varies with the degree of integration of domestic society
Suicide varies with the degree of integration of political society
This similarity in our three propositions shows that, while these different communities have a moderating effect on suicide, it is not because of characteristics peculiar to them but for some reason common to them all. There must be a single property shared by all these group, albeit in different degrees. And the only quality that satisfies this condition is that they are all strongly integrated social groups. So, we arrive at this general conclusion: Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups to which the individual belongs. The more the groups to which a person belong are weakened, the less the person depends upon them and the more she depends upon herself. She recognizes no other rules of conduct than those based on her own individual interests. If we call this state in which the individual affirms himself more than the social self and depends upon the former more than latter, “egoism,” then we might call the type of suicide that results from excessive individualization “egoistic suicide.”
Chapter 4. Altruistic Suicide
[In this chapter, Durkheim discusses a form of suicide not met with much in modern society. In this form, suicide occurs as a matter of strong social obligation, as the widow who throws herself on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. Durkheim uses this form primarily as a contrast to egoistic suicide.]
Chapter 5. Anomic Suicide
Society is not only an object that attracts to it the feelings and actions of people, but also a force that directs them. There is a relationship between the operation of this regulatory action and the social rate of suicide.
First, it is in that economic crises aggravate the suicide rate. [Interestingly, both increases in prosperity and economic crises that lead to poverty have the same result.] It is because they are critical, disturbances in the collective order, that we see more suicide. Whenever serious rearrangements take place in society, whether due to sudden growth or unanticipated disaster, people are more inclined to kill themselves. Why? A few preliminary considerations are necessary before we can properly address this question.
Nobody can be happy or alive, really, unless their needs are adjusted to their means. That is, if they demand more than they can be provided with, or desire something that is unavailable to them, they will be constantly frustrated and unable to function without suffering. Any action that cannot be done without suffering tends not to be repeated. Thus, unsatisfied aptitudes atrophy, including the general appetite for life.
In non-human animals, the balance between needs and means occurs somewhat spontaneously, because it depends on material conditions alone. Their reflective abilities are so low that they cannot imagine any ends except those dependent on physical nature. They do not want more than what they can achieve.
But the same is not true for non-human animals, most of whose needs are not dependent on the body alone. There seems never an end to the amount of well-being, comfort, and luxury that a human being can legitimately seek. There is nothing in our make-up that marks a limit to our desires. Our sensibility is a bottomless pit that nothing can fill.
If this is the case, that our desires can only be a source of torment for us. Unlimited desires, by definition, do not satisfy.
For things to be otherwise, it is necessary that passions should be limited. It is only in this way that they can be in line with our actual abilities and so satisfied. But since there is nothing in the individual person that can limit desires, this limitation must come from some other sources: a regulatory force for non-physical desires, a moral force. Only society can play this moderating role, because it is the only moral power above it accepted by the individual. Society alone has the necessary authority to state the law and to set the point beyond which the passions may not go.
So, at every historical moment, there is a vague feeling in the moral conscience of societies of the relative worth of each job, what is owed to each person for the work they do [e.g., financial analyst, ditch digger, politician, minister]. The different jobs are, in a way, hierarchized in public opinion and a certain level of well-being is attributed to each according to the place it occupies in this hierarchy. For example, in the common view there is a certain standard of living that is regarded as the upper limit of which a day laborer can reasonably aspire to, and also a lower limit below which it is considered he should not be allowed to fall, absent some serious failure in his duties.
Everyone has a vague idea, in their particular sphere, of the limit towards which their ambition may reach, and does not aspire beyond that limit. A goal and a limit are thus set for desires. There is nothing rigid or absolute about this, of course. There is a lot of wiggle room within those set limits. In general, each person is in harmony with her condition and wants only what she can legitimately wish for as the normal reward for her activity. The balance of her happiness is stable because it is defined.
However, if we did not consider the way jobs were allocated in the first place as fair, none of this would work. The worker is not in harmony with her social position if she is not convinced that this position is the one that she deserves! If she considers that she deserves another, then the one that she has cannot possibly satisfy her (even if the standard of living for that job is reasonably set).
There is no society that has ever existed that has not a set of rules settling the way in which different social conditions (e.g., laborer or owner? ditch-digger or financial analyst?) are open to individuals, although these rules have varied across time and place. In the past, birth was the almost exclusive principle of social classification, while today we accept inherited wealth and merit up to a point, but not “birth” alone.
Today, some have argued that we are approaching a situation where each person can enter life with the same resources, and the struggle between competitors happens on conditions of perfect equality, and thus no one can consider the results unfair. Everyone should feel spontaneously that things are as they should be. There is no doubt that as we approach such an ideal of equality, there will be less social constraint needed, but it is only a matter of degree because there will always be some things, such as natural gifts, that are inherited. So, we will always need a moral discipline to make those whom nature has least favored accept the more lowly position that they owe to the chance of their birth.
Yet even this regime can only work if it is considered fair by the people subjected to it. When it is no longer maintained except by custom and by force, peace and harmony cannot exist. A spirit of anxiety and discontent lurks beneath the surface, and appetites which cannot be satisfied break out. This is what happened in Rome and Ancient Greece and recently in our day when aristocratic prejudices started to lose their old ascendancy. But such states of disruption are exceptional and only take place when society is in crisis. Normally, the collective order seems fair by the great majority of its subjects.
When we say that authority is necessary, we do not mean violence is the only means it can be established. People should follow authority out of respect and not fear. It is not true that human activity can be freed from all restraints. There is nothing in the world that can enjoy such a state of things, since each creature on the planet exists in relation to all others. Its nature depends not only on itself but on other creatures. It is only a matter of degree the difference between a mineral and a thinking subject. What is peculiar to human creatures is that the restraint we find ourselves in is not physical but moral, which is to say, social. We receive our laws not from a material environment which is brutally imposed on us, but from a conscience which is greater than our own. Because the greater and best part of our life goes beyond the body, we escape from the yoke of the body, but bow beneath that of society.
[And now to our question…] However, when society is disturbed, either by a painful crisis or by a fortunate but too-sudden transformation, it cannot exercise this constraining function; as a result, we see a rise in the suicide rate.
If anomie [the state of unregulation] were to occur only in occasional bursts and in the form of acute crises, it might from time to time vary the social rate of suicide, but it would not be a regular constant factor. However, there is one area of social life in which we find a chronic state of anomie… the world of trade and industry.
For more than a century, economic progress has consisted primarily in deregulating industry. Until modern times, a whole system of moral powers was in place to discipline industrial relations (religion, custom, government power).
Now, the state of crisis and anomie is constant – the new normal, one could say. From top to bottom, desires and wants are aroused that cannot be satisfied. The real seems worthless beside what is seen as possible by fevered imaginations. One thirsts for novelty. These circumstances are so well established that society has got used to them. People constantly say that it is part of human nature to be constantly discontented, to keep wanting more, pressing forward, to some indeterminate goal. The doctrine of progress no matter what and as fast as possible has become our article of faith.
Industrial and commercial professions are among the most suicide-prone of all professions, much more so than agriculture, for example.
Anomie is therefore a regular and specific factor in suicide in our modern societies. This form of suicide depends not on the way in which people are attached to society but on the way in which it controls them (or fails to do so). Egotistical suicide happens when people no longer see any sense in living; altruistic suicide from the fact that this sense appears to them to be situated beyond life itself; and the third kind, anomic suicide, from their activity being disrupted and from their suffering as a result.
Anomic suicide is not unrelated to egotistical suicide. Both occur when society is not sufficiently present for individuals. But whereas in egotistical suicide society is lacking in collective activity, leaving it deprived of object and meaning, in anomic suicide society is absent as a brake to control individual passions. Though the two are related, they are interdependent. These two kinds of suicide do not recruit their victims from the same social contexts: the first recruits from the world of thinking people; the second from the industrial and commercial field.
Economic anomie is not the only kind of anomie that can produce suicide, however. A few other non-economic cases include: widowhood, divorce. Marriage appears to favor the wife in respect of suicide to the extent that divorce is more common (with fewer suicides when less common). We here reach a conclusion that is at odds with some commonly held beliefs about marriage. It is thought that marriage benefits the wife, protecting her from sexual attacks of men in general. Monogamy is often presented as a sacrifice that men make to their polygamous instincts in order to raise and improve the condition of woman through marriage. In reality, whatever the historical causes that made men decide to impose this restriction on himself, it is the man who most benefits from it. The freedom which he has given up could only be a source of torment for him. Women are a different matter. One can say that, by submitting herself to the same regime, she is the one who truly makes the sacrifice.
[In a footnote here, Durkheim proposes a fourth form of suicide that would result from “an excess of regulation” and gives as an example the historical case of slaves and the modern example of married women without children. Otherwise, he notes, we do not see many cases of it and gives it the name, “fatalistic suicide.”]
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Why is it important to define your concepts before engaging in research? How would you have defined suicide before reading this passage? Do you agree with Durkheim’s definition? What, if anything, is not included in the definition?
2. To critics who say that suicide is a psychological problem, rather than a sociological phenomenon, how does Durkheim respond? Why is the suicide rate of importance to the sociologist?
3. What is Durkheim’s explanation for the lower suicide rates among Catholics and Jews than Protestants? Is his answer related to religious aspects of these communities, or something else (or can we separate the two)?
4. What does Durkheim think of science? What is its relationship to the rate of suicide? What role does it/ should it play in modern society? Ask some friends and colleagues what they think the “upper limit” and “lower limit” of a day laborer’s standard of living should be. How much agreement did you find in their answers? What about a CEO?
5. Under what historical circumstances do we expect to find instances of egotistical suicide? How does this connect to Durkheim’s theory of modern society? What is the relationship with the division of labor?
6. In the 1970s, the average CEO earned 35 times more than the average worker at his or her company. Now, the CEO: worker pay ratio in the US has ballooned to 333 to 1. Does this seem a fair allocation of reward? What might be the consequences of this change, according to Durkheim?
7. What is the key to happiness?
8. What does it mean to say that social positions were open or closed by “birth” as a social classifier? Can you provide examples? How does this compare with what Weber had to say about Stände?
9. Durkheim’s lengthy digression on marriage has been much abbreviated here, leaving but his main point, and an observation which flies in the face of much of what was written at the time about marriage’s protective function for women. What is his observation and how does it undercut 19thcentury views on marriage? What implications for the social policy of divorce follow?
Concepts
Suicide (and three (or 4) forms)
Social suicide rate
Anomie
1. Read the original text if you would like to see how this was established. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.07%3A_Le_Suicide_%281897%29_-_Introduction_Book_2.txt |
“Liberty is the daughter of Authority.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Durkheim’s ducation et Sociologie, published posthumously in 1922 in Paris by Alcan Press. It was first translated as Education and Sociology in 1956 by Sherwood T. Fox and published by the Free Press, with a foreword by Talcott Parsons. There have been no other translations since then. The passages you have here are all taken from the first essay in the work. There are four essays in the original.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This work, originally pulled from a series of lectures Durkheim gave in the early twentieth century, is not widely known today, although it certainly made a major impact on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, an important contemporary theorist whose work you will encounter time and again. Pay attention to the socializing role of education, and its overall role in creating and maintaining solidarity across generations.
The Nature and Role of Education
Part 1: Different Definitions of Education (a critical examination)
[Durkheim begins this work by examining various definitions of education. He criticizes all of these for assuming a perfect ideal “education” when each society has its own system of education which accords with its particular needs and understandings.]
Every society, considered at a particular moment in its development, has an educational system which it imposes upon its people with an irresistible general force. It is in vain to believe that we can raise our children exactly how we want. There are customs to which we must conform; if we deviate too much from these, they will avenge themselves on our children. Once adults, they will not be able to live in harmony with their peers. It doesn’t matter whether they were raised with ideas too old-fashioned or ahead of their times; in either case, they are not part of their times and therefore they are outside the norm.
It is not we, as individuals, who have created the customs and ideas of the education of our times. They are the product of our common life and they express its needs. In large part, they are the work of preceding generations. All of our human past has contributed to making the ensemble of maxims which guide our education today; all our history has left traces of the history of the people which have preceded us. It is as the most evolved organisms carry within them the echo of their biological evolution. When one studies the history of the manner in which educational systems were formed, one realizes they depend upon the development of religion, political organization, scientific progress, and the state of the industrial arts, etc. If we look at education without examining these historic causes, we do not really understand what is going on. How can one single person pretend to know and reconstruct what is not the result of individual thought? He is not faced with a blank slate but with existing realities which he cannot change or destroy by his individual will. He can act only to the extent that he understands; that he knows the nature and conditions on which systems such as education depend. He can only arrive at this knowledge by study, through observation, like a physicist who observes inanimate matter or the biologist who observes living matter.
Part 2. Defining Education
To define education, we must first consider all the educational systems that have ever existed and see what they have in common. These common characteristics will then form the definition we seek.
We have already seen two elements. For there to be an educational system, there must be a generation of adults and a generation of young people, and an action of the former on the latter. We now have to define that action.
In one sense, one could say that there are as many different educational systems as there are different social groups in society. Even today, do we not see education vary by social class or place? The education in the city is not the same as education in the country; that of the wealthy not the same as that of the worker. Is this destined to disappear, though? It is evident that the education of our children should not depend upon the chance of where they were born, or to which parents. But even if we think this is the case, and all children should have an equal education, occupational specialization would still produce different kinds of education. Each profession constitutes its own milieu and requires particular skills and special knowledge, in which certain customs and certain ways of seeing the world prevail. Because each child must be prepared for a job, at a certain age education cannot be the same for everyone. That is why we see in all advanced societies today, which tend to become more diverse, more specialization, and this specialization becomes more advanced every day. This diversity may not rest on inequality of birth as before, but it remains nevertheless. To find an absolutely homogenous and egalitarian education one must go back to prehistoric times when there was no differentiation between people.
But, whatever may be the importance of these specialized educations, they are not the entire education. One could say that all such systems everywhere rest on a common base. There is not a people anywhere that doesn’t share a certain number of ideas and practical sentiments which they must impart to their children, regardless of class or place or social group.
Each society sets up a certain ideal of being human, of what its people should be, from an intellectual and physical and moral point of view. This idea is, to some degree, the same for all people. It is this ideal which is the central point of its educational system. Thus, education’s function is to stir up among its children (1) a certain number of physical and mental states which the society considers should not be absent in any of its members; and, at the same time, (2) certain physical and mental states which the particular social group to which the child belongs (class, family, profession) considers necessary to find among its members. So, it is society, both as a whole and each social group within it, that determines the ideal to be realized by education. Society can exist only if there is a sufficient amount of homogeneity amongst its members: education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the character of the child the essential similarities which the collective life demands. But, on the other hand, full cooperation would not be possible without a certain amount of diversity; education assures the persistence of this diversity by itself being diverse and specialized. Education is thus the means by which society prepares for its existence through its children.
We have arrived at the following definition: Education is the influence exercised by its adult generations on those not yet ripe for social life. It has as its object the awakening and development among each child certain number of physical, intellectual, and moral states which are demanded of her by the political society in which she finds herself and the special groups for which she is particularly destined.
Part 3. Consequences of the preceding definition: the social character of education
Following from our definition, education consists in a methodical socialization of the young. Among each of us, one can say, there exists two beings which are inseparable but distinct. One is made up of all the mental states which apply only to ourselves and the events of our personal life; this is our individual being. The other is a system of ideas, sentiments, and habits which express not our own personality, but that of the group or groups of which we form a part; these are religious beliefs, moral beliefs and practices, national traditions, professional traditions, collective opinions of all kinds. Together they form the social being. To create this being in each of us is the goal of education.
Putting aside the vague and uncertain tendencies attributable to heredity, the infant, when she enters life, brings only her individual being. Society finds in each new generation a blank slate upon which it must build itself anew. Society creates a new social being from each individual person.
This recreating force is the special privilege of human education. Anything else is what animals receive when trained by their parents. This training may develop certain instincts, but it does not initiate an entirely new life. Among human beings, the sort of aptitudes necessary for social life cannot be transmitted through heredity. It is only though education that these aptitudes are transmitted across generations.
[Let us take the case of science.] People do not have an instinctive appetite for science. They only desire science to the extent that their experience has shown them its importance. We never would have discovered the ways of science if we stuck to our individual lives, because we would not have needed it. As Rousseau has said, sensation, experience and instinct alone would be necessary to satisfy the basic wants and needs of human animals. If people have come to have other needs than these very simple ones, they are not rooted in their individual lives, but their social ones, or else they would not have searched for science through arduous and laborious efforts. We have the thirst for science because society has awakened it in us, and it has done so out of a real need. We have come to need science because social life has become much too complex and complicated to operate without the cooperation of reflective thought, without, indeed “science.” But, at our beginnings, when social organization was quite simple and not at all diverse, when everything was pretty much the same, simple traditions sufficed, working in a way similar to the instincts of animals. In those times, thoughts and free inquiry are not only useless but actually dangerous, for they threaten tradition. That is why they are forbidden.
We are now able to answer a question raised by the preceding discussion. As we have shown society fashioning us, individually, according to its own needs, it could seem that we are submitting to a tyrant! But in reality, we are ourselves desirous of this submission, for the new social being built up in each of us collectively through education represents the best of us. We are who we are only because we live in society.
Morality itself results from collective life. It is society that draws us out of ourselves, that makes us consider interests other than our own, that teaches us to control our passions and our instincts, to make law, to keep ourselves in check, to go without, to make sacrifices, to subordinate our personal goals to higher ends. This is how we have gained the power to control ourselves and our inclinations, which is one of the things that make us distinctly human, and which is developed more and more as we become more fully human, rather than merely animal.
Science is the product of collective life as well. It rests upon a vast cooperation of all scientists, not just at the same time, but across time as well, stretching back generations. Before the establishment of the sciences we had religion doing the same job. Both science and religion are social institutions.
Or a final example – language. When we learn a language we also learn an entire system of ideas, neatly classified, and we inherit from all previous generations this system with its classifications. Even more. Without language we could not have general ideas at all. Language has allowed us to raise ourselves above pure sensations. And it is obvious that language is a social thing.
So, we can see from these examples what we would be reduced to if society did not exist. We would be mere animals. If we are more than that it is not through our personal efforts but because we regularly cooperate with each other, and the products of this cooperation are available to us across generations. What an animal learns during his or her lifetime ends there. But for us, the results of our experiences are preserved almost entirely and in great detail, thanks to books, monuments, tools, and all the other instruments with which one generation transmits its culture to the next generation. The soil of nature is covered with a rich topsoil that continues to grow. Instead of dying with each generation, human wisdom accumulates without limit. This accumulation is possible only with and through society. For, in order for the work of one generation to be preserved and passed down to the next, there must be a moral personality which lasts beyond the passing generations and binds them together; this moral personality is society!
Part 4. The role of the state in the matter of education
The rights of the family are opposed to the rights of the state with respect to education. It is said that the child belongs first of all to her parents, and it is their responsibility to oversee her moral and intellectual development. In this sense, education is essentially private. If one looks at it this way, then one tends to reduce to a minimum any state intervention. The state should, in this view, serve as a supplement to, or substitute for, families. If they are unable to oversee things, the state can then and only then intervene. In this view, we can also make a case for the state stepping into help parents, by providing schools of various sorts that parents can choose to send their children to. Any action beyond this is out-of-bounds.
But if education has a collective function, if its object is to adapt the child to the social context in which she is to live, this view of the disinterested bystander state makes little sense. How could society not play a part here? It is then up to the state to remind teachers of the ideas and beliefs that must be instilled in the child to adjust her to the social context in which she must live. If the state were not always there to guarantee that education be exercised in a social way, education would break down into an incoherent babble of conflicting fragments. One could not contradict more completely the basic end of all education. Education must ensure a sufficient community of ideas and beliefs, without which any society is impossible. To do that, it is necessary that education not be abandoned to the arbitrariness of private individuals.
Since education is an essentially social function, the state cannot be disinterested in it. Everything that pertains to education must be submitted to the state’s influence. That is not to say that the state should monopolize all instruction. A certain margin should be left for individual initiative, because individuals innovate more readily than the state. But from the fact that it is in the public interest for the state to allow private schools to exist alongside public schools, it does not follow that the state must remain aloof from what is going on in them. The education given in those private schools must remain under state control. Only teachers certified by the state should be able to teach, in any school. There is no school which can claim the right to give an antisocial education.
We are not all in agreement on every point. The state cannot and should not establish the community of ideas and beliefs, but rather should maintain and consecrate those that exist. In spite of all of our differences of opinion, there are presently, at the basis of our civilization, a certain number of principles we all share (or at least that no one defies openly). These are: respect for reason, science, and ideas and beliefs supporting democratic morality. The role of the state is to outline these essential principles, to have them taught in schools, to make sure that no child is ignorant of them, and that everywhere they should be spoken of with respect.
Part 5. The power of education and the means of its influence
We have determined the goal of education, and we must now determine how and to what extent it is possible to achieve this end. This question has always been controversial. The solution often depends on how much one ascribes to nature or nurture. Education does not make a person out of nothing but rather is applied to predispositions that it finds already made. These predispositions are very strong and very difficult to destroy or transform. But, fortunately one of the characteristics of human beings is that our innate predispositions are very general and very vague. To say that innate characteristics are for the most part very general is to say that they are very malleable, very flexible, and they can take on quite different forms. There is a considerable distance between the vague potentialities which constitute us at our birth and the well-defined character that we must become in order to play a useful role in society. It is this distance that education has to make us travel. A vast field is thus open to its influence.
But by what means can education exert this influence? [the sense of duty towards the moral authority of the teacher]
Liberty and authority have sometimes been opposed, as if these two factors contradicted and limited each other. But this is a false opposition. In reality these two terms imply each other, rather than exclude each other. Liberty is the daughter of authority. For to be free is not to do as one pleases but rather to be master of oneself, to know how to act reasonably and to do one’s duty. It is exactly to endow the child with this self-mastery that the teacher’s authority should be employed. The authority of the teacher is only one aspect of the authority of duty and reason. The child should be trained to recognize it in the speech of the educator and to submit to it; it is only on this condition that she will later know how to find it again in her own conscience and to defer to it herself.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Durkheim begins this book on education and sociology by defining education. Why is this an important first step? What is Durkheim’s definition of education?
2. Explain the individual and plural function of education.
3. What is the “ideal human” of your society? Did your education inculcate physical, intellectual and moral states which prepared you to embody this ideal?
4. What are some particular physical, intellectual and moral states that your college education is inculcating in you to prepare you for your chosen career?
5. What does Durkheim think about the opposition between the individual and society? Does society tyrannize the individual? Is it possible to live “free” outside of society?
6. When Durkheim claims that society is a “moral personality,” what does he mean?
7. What would Durkheim say about the movement to provide vouchers to parents to send their children to the schools of their choice? What if the effect was to diminish public education in favor of a multitude of private schools (some teaching the theory of evolution while others teach against the theory of evolution, for example)?
8. Where does Durkheim come down on the nature/nurture debate? What role does education play here?
9. Do you agree that “liberty is the daughter of authority”? Explain and defend Durkheim’s argument, and then counter it.
Education
Society | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.08%3A_Education_and_Sociology_%281922%29.txt |
“Religious representation of the world are collective representat ions that express collective realities.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Durkheim’s Les Formes Elementaires de la Vie Religieuse: le systeme totemique en Australia, published in 1912 in Paris by Alcan Press. It was first translated as The Elementary Forms of Religious Life in 1915 by Joseph War Swain and published by the Free Press. It was retranslated in 1995 by Fields. The section here is a short form of the introductory chapter, entitled “The Object of the Research.” It corresponds with pages 3-21 in the Carol Cosman translation published by Oxford in 2008 (recommended version).
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Although Durkheim’s 1912 book may appear to be about religion, it is actually much more than that. As the introduction to the book makes clear, Durkheim is interested in the very deepest elements of human mentality and society. When reading this introduction, pay attention to the claims Durkheim makes about the origins of human thought and the connections to his conception of people as inherently social beings. Durkheim is really seeking to present an entire new (sociological!) theory of knowledge, one that is rooted in people as social beings. He asks us to explore why we developed the categories of thought we did – e.g., what value was there in designating a “left” side versus a “right” side? or, in designating an eight-hour work session once every rotation of the sun, but only in five out of seven rotations? The Elementary Forms is an attempt to contribute to what Durkheim saw as a new science, understanding society itself.
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Introduction)
Part 1: The Sociological Study of Religion
In this book, we propose to study, the most primitive and the most simple religion known to us, to analyze and explain it. What makes a religious system simple? In the first place, it is found in societies whose social organization is simple. In the second place, we can study it without having to refer to anything borrowed from an earlier religion.
We shall try to describe all the elements of this system with the exactitude and fidelity of an anthropologist or a historian. But that is not all. Sociology sets for itself problems other than those faced by the anthropologist or historian. Like all positive science, our real object is us, us as we live now. We don’t study old religions to discover its bizarre attributes, but because we think studying it will allow us to say something, to reveal something important, about the enduring aspects of our religious nature.
That proposition, that we study old religions to discover something about who we are today, will likely raise objections among some of you, for various reasons. Some might say we are using these older religions as a weapon against religion itself. One could argue that current religions, such as Christianity, rest on the same kinds of superstitions that these earlier religions appear to do. But that is not what we are saying here. To the sociologist, any human institution cannot survive for long if it is based on error or lies. The most barbarous or bizarre rituals, the strangest myths, respond to some human need, some aspect of life, individual or social. The reasons given by the believer to justify these myths and practices may be erroneous, but there are reasons for their existence. It is the job of science to discover these reasons.
After all, there are no false religions. All are true in their own fashion. All are responses, in different manners, to the human condition.
[Durkheim next discusses his choice of studying religion by studying the simplest religion possible. In this case, this will be the totemic religion followed by the aboriginal peoples of Australia. In Durkheim’s time, several anthropologists had been doing fieldwork in Australia and had published rich descriptions of the practices and beliefs of these people. Although we now know that some of these descriptions were biased and deeply flawed, Durkheim takes great care to sift through the evidence to find reliable data. In the introduction, he defends his choice of object of study,]
There are several reasons to study religion in its simplest form. First, we can understand religions today only by following how religions developed over time. Whenever we wish to understand a human thing at a period in time, such as a religious belief, a moral regulation, a legal precepts, an aesthetic technique, an economic regime – we must start at the beginning, when it was most simple. It is very difficult to figure out what is fundamental in complex systems. There are simply too many variables! When studying religion, it is hard to see what is in common to them all when we take as our object of study modern religions, because they are so different, so complex, and often include elements that were historically contingent.
It is very different when we look at inferior[1] societies. Because these societies show less individualization and more overall homogeneity, there are fewer variations to contend with. The group exhibits a level of intellectual and moral uniformity rare in modern society. Everything is common to everyone. People do the same things, in a particular manner, over and over again. Thus, “primitive” civilizations are our best cases for finding what is common to all, because they are simple. Not only do primitive religions allow us to separate out the constituent elements of religion, but they also help us explain it. Because the facts are simpler, the connections between the facts are more obvious. Like the physicist, who simplifies the laws of phenomena she studies by getting rid of secondary phenomena, we take as our object of study early simple religions.
Part 2. Theories of Knowledge
But our study is not only of interest as a study of religion. All religions convey ideas and phenomena that are more than merely religious. These ideas can furnish us with ways of understanding problems that we have so far only debated philosophically.
For a long time, we have known that the first systems people devised to represent the world and themselves arose from their religion. There is no religion which is not at the same time both a cosmology and a speculation about divinity. If philosophy and science in general developed out of religious thinking, it is because religion itself began as a way of knowing and thinking about the world.
[Durkheim goes on to argue that religion has contributed to the formation of the way we think and the very categories we use to think about the world. What Aristotle called our “categories of understanding” – concepts of time, space, number, cause – all had their origins in early religion: This, indeed, is why Durkheim is interested in religion and why he wrote this book.]
The general conclusion of this book which you are reading is that religion is a thing eminently social. Religious representations of the world are collective representations that express collective realities.
For example, we can only think of time by thinking of the ways we measure it and each of those measurements – minutes, hours, weeks, years – correspond to social arrangements. They are borrowed from social life. A calendar expresses the rhythm of collective activity at the same time that it functions to ensure its regularity. A similar thing is true of space. In order to arrange things spatially, we have to set some above, some below, some beneath, some above, some on the left, some on the right, etc. – all of these divisions arise out of social divisions. [In Durkheim’s words, these distinctions (up, down, left, right) come from different emotional values that people attribute to various spatial regions. In other words, the category of space is relational, and arises out of the relations within society. Different societies attribute different values to the arrangements and relations.]
Thus, social organization has been the model of spatial organization, which is like a tracing of the former. There is no distinction between left and right in human nature – the distinction is in reality the product of religious (collective) representations.
[Here Durkheim is weighing in on an area of philosophical debate. Some have held that “categories of understanding” such as time and space are logically prior to our own experiences. They come ready-made to us, from who knows where. They are a priori. Others hold that there are no such categories of understanding that exist outside of our experience. Individuals experience the world and come up with ways of describing it, and this is where our notions of time and space come from. Durkheim thinks both sides are missing something. Durkheim agrees with the latter group that categories of understanding emerge from experience, but he disagrees that they are the result of the experience of individuals. Categories originate in the social world. We would not have a sense of time or space if we were not social beings.]
If, as we believe, these categories are essentially collective representations, they translate relations of the collective. They depend on the way this collective is constituted and organized, on its morphology, and its religious, moral, and economic institutions. Between these two types of representations is all the distance that separates the individual from the social, and you can no more derive the second from the first than society from the individual, the whole from a part, or the complex from the simple. Society is in reality its own thing. It has its own characteristics which are not found, or not found in the same form, in the entire rest of the universe.
Collective representations are the product of an immense cooperation that extends across time and space – an accumulation of generations of experience and knowledge. Each of us is an individual, yes, with our own private sensations and thoughts. But each of us is also part of society. Because we participate in society, we naturally go beyond our individual selves when we think and when we act. Categories (of time, space, etc.) allow us to do this. In order to work, society needs some minimal level of logical conformity. We cannot easily slip out of these ways of understanding the world. They exert a pressure on us, a kind of moral necessity.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Do you agree with Durkheim’s suggestion that it is easier to study something in its simplest form? Is there such a thing as a “simple” religion? What does Durkheim mean by this?
2. What can we say about Durkheim’s method for sociology?
3. Do you see a connection between our (human) social organization and our (individual) categories of thought? What is this connection, according to Durkheim?
1. Durkheim uses the word inférieure, which can mean “inferior” but also “lower,” in the sense of simpler, less complicated, and having come before. One can take issue with how Durkheim and others of his era characterized the non-European world, but one should also acknowledge how this characterization fits with his overall theory of the increasing division of labor (see Passages 2c-f). ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.09%3A_Elementary_Forms_of_Religious_Life_%281912%29.txt |
NOTE ON SOURCE: This is taken from a review of one of the very first articles Durkheim published in his new sociology journal, L’Ann é e Sociologique . This anonymous review was published in English in the journal Folklore (volume 9, issues 3), in September of 1898.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In the academic journal, L’Année Sociologique, Durkheim helped build the discipline of sociology by bringing together articles from different areas and disciplines that all in some way embraced a sociological perspective. This review is included here as a bonus reading because (1) it shows the early influence of Durkheim outside of France; (2) it covers a topic that was of interest to anthropologists, thereby demonstrating the disciplinary reach of Durkheim; and (3) it deals with a subject, the incest taboo, that is of interest to sociological examinations of the family, another institution that Durkheim spent much time analyzing.
REVIEW of
L’ANNÉE SOCIOLOGIQUE, published under the direction of DURKHEIM, Professor of Sociology, University of Bourdieu. 1898.
DURKHEIM, with the collaboration of a number of scientific colleagues, has commenced the publication of an annual, of which this is the pioneer, with the object not merely of presenting from year to year a picture of the condition of literature properly called sociological, but of supplying a periodical account of the researches made in the special sciences in which sociology finds its materials, such as historical jurisprudence, various branches of folklore (including the history of religions), moral statistics, criminal anthropology, economics. Each department is supervised by a specialist; and the articles comprised in the volume are of two kinds. The larger part of the volume in critical analyses of books and scientific papers publish Midsummer, 1896, to Midsummer, I897. These are preceded by original matter, in the case of the volume before us by two articles, one by M. Durkheim himself on the prohibition of incest and its origin.
Durkheim’s paper is of the greatest interest for students of folklore, especially at this moment, when the universal distribution of totemism is so strongly contested, when the origins of exogamy are under discussion, and the early forms of the family and the meaning of the clan-system are being so keenly examined. He derives the prohibition of sexual relations between near kindred from the clan-system, and finds its basis in totemism, which he assumes to be universal. Defining the clan as a group of individuals who consider themselves all akin one to another, but who recognize that kinship solely from the fact that they are the bearers of the same totem, he lays it down that we know of no clan which does not answer to this definition, and is not exogamous, and that all societies have themselves passed through this organization, or are sprung from others which have. Since incest consists in a sexual union between relatives of a prohibited degree it follows that exogamy is a prohibition of incest. But exogamy alone will not prevent the union of persons who are in fact near akin. In Australia this is effected by the combination of the class-system with the clan-system. Contrary to Morgan, M. Durkheim argues that the rise of the class-system is subsequent to the development of the clan. He assumes that each clan had its territory, and contends that the class name really indicates in word the clan of the person and the territory where he was born, that is to say, his paternity. It is difficult to explain the details without occupying more space than is at our disposal. It must suffice to say that the theory is an ingenious one, and if correct it solves a formidable difficulty. At the same time, it seems to raise others which require careful consideration. The author declares that the clan is uterine, but that there is no evidence (if we understand him aright) of any other family arrangement than that which subsists generally at present, namely, that the wife and children dwell with the husband (not he with them) and under his power. But if so, then there could be no clan-territory; and, in fact, M. Durkheim’s hypothesis as to the rise of class-system is hardly conceivable, or at all events hardly probable, except as the concomitant of a change from a condition where the husband visited, or dwelt with, his wife among her to the present arrangement, whereby he takes her to dwell with him.
So far, however, we are not brought face to face with any explanation of exogamy as a rule, nor of the horror which the idea of incest inspires in all communities. But the way has been cleared. After an excellent criticism of rival theories, the author points out that exogamy is simply a particular instance of a religious institution found at the base of all primitive religions (and, indeed, in a sense, of all religions), the taboo. He points out that women are, in savage opinion, invested with a special religious character which holds the masculine population at a distance, not merely in what concerns sexual matters, but in all the details of life. This interdiction is, of course, emphasized at certain periods; and M. Durkheim connects it with the horror with which blood, and especially the blood of the totem and totem-clan, is regarded. He contends that this horror was at first confined, so far as women were concerned, to those of clan, and resulted in exogamy, and that in course of time, when, as the consequence of exogamy, women of various clans became intermixed in residence, the horror and the taboo were extended to them all; but, because this was only a secondary effect, it was not complete, and the total separation of the sexes only extended to those of the same clan.
The importance of this theory will be seen at a glance. It offers a simple explanation of the recoil which all nations have experienced from what they regard as incest, while it is not open to the objections urged, and urged successfully, against the rival theories of Spencer, Maclennan, and Westermarck. At present, however, it is merely a theory; it depends upon the universality of totemism, and moreover demands careful examination in connection with rites of marriage and other customs. M. Durkheim does not concern himself with these. He goes on to argue that exogamy, thus originated, has evolved with the family. Beginning with the uterine clan, when paternity, having long been admitted as a fact, obtained legal recognition, and legal relationships were transferred from the mother’s side exclusively to the father’s, these sexual interdictions followed them. When totemism disappeared, and with it the clan-system, exogamy attached itself to the new types of the family which began to be constituted and which rested on other bases. It was accommodated to them, extending on the one hand to relations never contemplated by the unilateral clan-system, and on the other hand, becoming more circumscribed as the wider clan-relationships ceased to be recognized. Family life is dominated by the idea of duty. The domestic affections of parent and child, brother and sister, are tinged with respect incompatible with conjugal relationship. The very existence of the family rests on exogamy, understanding that term in a wide sense. Sexual relations, as we conceive them, are based upon pleasure, upon mutual attraction. They do not become permanent, the family, properly speaking, does not come into existence until the arrival of children. Sexual relations being thus founded in spontaneity, they are opposed radically to the ties of kinship. But this implies that they must first of all have been rejected from the moral atmosphere in which the family has its being. Not that there is anything in them which necessitated this broad separation: it must have been imposed upon them from without. In other words, the moral incompatibility, in the name of which we today prohibit incest, is itself a consequence of this prohibition, which therefore must be due to some other cause. This cause is the totality of beliefs and rites of which exogamy was the outcome — totemism. Once the prejudices relative to blood had led men to forbid all union between kindred, the sexual instinct obliged them to seek satisfaction outside the kindred group, and hence it speedily differentiated from the kin-sentiment. Two spheres were thus opened to human activity and sensibility. The one — the clan, the family — was and remained the theatre of duty, morality. The other, the external, was that of passion, which only took-on a moral character in the measure in which it affected domestic interests. In the meantime, and in consequence of its initial freedom from the idea of duty, it has enriched humanity with emotions and ideas that but for exogamy could never have existed. To it the imagination owes many of the developments of art and poetry, and many of the aspirations which we count among the most precious inheritances of civilization.
We have not presumed to criticize this very stimulating essay; considerations of time and space have limited us to a bare outline of its main thesis. It should be read and studied, together with the analysis and criticisms, by the same author later in the volume, of the recent works of Professor Kohler, Herr Grosse, and others. The criticisms of the former we can only accept with reserve, for we believe there is more to be said on behalf of an early prevalence of group-marriage than M. Durkheim admits. In any case, however, he has effected a masterly presentment of his view, and it deserves respectful consideration.
For anthropologists the whole volume is full of interest. We wish well to the new venture; and we gladly hail the rise of a French critical and constructive school of enquirers into savage custom.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. What do you understand of Durkheim’s reception by those outside of France? How is he characterized here? What is he known for?
2. What is sociological about Durkheim’s approach to understanding the incest taboo?
Taboo
Totemism | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.10%3A_EXTRA-_Review_of_Annee_Sociologique_%281898%29_article.txt |
NOTE ON SOURCE: This is taken from a contemporary review of Suicide , by the well-known and controversial sexuality studies scholar, Havelock Ellis. It was published in the journal Mind (volume 7, issue 26) in April of 1898.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Ellis’ review is worthwhile to read because it demonstrates how Durkheim’s sociological analysis was critically received by his contemporaries. Analyzing suicide as a social fact was quite a novel proposition, and Ellis is not wholly convinced of its value, as this review makes clear.
REVIEW
There is room for a new study of suicide. Morselli’s book, which must still be regarded as the most comprehensive and on the whole the most scientific manual on the subject, is now nearly twenty years old, and is not only out of date but disfigured by many hasty generalizations-which more recent writers have shown to be unfounded. It can scarcely be said, however, that Professor Durkheim has replaced Morselli’s manual. Although, with the assistance of the French Minister of Justice and old pupils of his own, he has prepared new maps and summarized the unpublished data of 26,000 suicides, the Bordeaux professor has for the most part been content to argue on old data, and has not brought his statistics up to date, even when the official publications of various countries would easily have enabled him to do so. Moreover, it can scarcely be said that the author takes any special interest in his subject except in so far as it expresses tendencies in the social organism, and consequently various aspects of suicide are passed over lightly or altogether ignored.
It is fairly clear, however, that Prof. Durkheim himself would not wish his book to be regarded as a complete manual of the subject. By calling it “a sociological study” he admits the bias which affects it throughout. The book is, indeed, not so much a study of suicide as a study of sociological method and, more especially, an illustration of the author’s philosophy of society.
In the Preface this special object of the book is frankly set forth, and it may be briefly recapitulated for those who are not acquainted with the author’s previous works. Sociology, he asserts, must be made something more than a mere form of literary philosophy; it must interrogate the auxiliary studies of history, ethnography and statistics; it must ascertain laws. The special value of the study of suicide is that it enables us easily to ascertain such laws, and so to demonstrate better than by mere argument the possibility of sociology. It enables us, he thinks, to establish a certain number of propositions concerning marriage, widowhood, the family, religion, etc., which teach what the ordinary theories of moralists are unable to teach; it even gives us some indications concerning “the causes of the general discomfort from which European societies are at present suffering, and concerning the remedies which may mitigate them.” Further, it is not only the value of sociology in general, but more especially the value of Professor Durkheim’s sociology, which this study is to affirm. And for Professor Durkheim society is strictly an organism; “the individual is dominated by a moral reality which goes beyond him: the collective reality.” Thus, he regards sociology as dealing with “realities as definite and as resistant as those the psychologist or the biologist deals with.” As he elsewhere (p. 350) states it, “individuals by uniting form a psychic being of a new species, and which consequently possesses its own manner of thinking and feeling.” That statement is the essence of Professor Durkheim’s sociological doctrine.
The volume consists of an introduction, in which suicide is defined and its relationship to sociology explained, and of three books. Book I deals critically with the alleged extra-social factors of suicide, i.e., with psychopathic conditions, heredity, cosmic influences and imitation. Chapter 2 deals with the question of race and heredity as a, factor of suicide. The author here subjects to severe criticism the arguments of Morselli, Wagner and Oettingen that every race has its own suicide-rate, and gives reasons in support of his own contention that if, for instance, the Germans commit suicide oftener than other peoples, the reason is to be found not in race but in civilization.
Having thus attempted to put aside, or minimize, the extra-social factors of suicide, in Book 2 Professor Durkheim proceeds to discuss the social causes and the sociological types of suicide. The three main sociological types of suicide he terms egoistic, altruistic and anomic.
By egoistic suicide is meant that particular type of suicide which is the result of extreme individualism, and the chapters devoted to it are mainly a discussion of the influence of religion, education, the family, etc., in which it is shown that all the facts indicate that every loosening of social or domestic bonds increases the tendency to suicide. On the whole the author concludes that suicide varies in inverse ratio with the degree of integration of religious, domestic and political society.
Altruistic suicide-a type chiefly prevalent in primitive societies, and of which the suttee may be taken as an example-is more briefly treated. It is the characteristic of altruistic suicide to be, regarded not as a right but as a duty, and its significance at the present day is small.
A more important form of suicide is that which the author terms anomic, by which he means the suicides produced by any sudden social shock or disturbance, such as that due to economic disasters. Men commit egoistic suicide because they see no further reason for living, altruistic suicide because the reason for living seems to them to lie outside life itself, anomic suicide because they are suffering from a disturbance of their activity.
Then the author turns to another form of suicide with which he had already dealt to some extent under the head of egoistic suicide (thus revealing a weakness in his classification)-domestic suicides. He here deals with the suicides due to divorce, and further develops in detail the remarkable and interesting point already brought out, that marriage is a greater protection to men than to women. Where divorce does not exist, or where it has only lately been established, women contribute in larger proportion to the suicides of the married than to those of the celibate; the more prevalent divorce becomes, the more favorable marriage is for women. The development of divorce involves an improvement in the moral situation of women, and it is the divorced man who is more exposed to suicide:
“We thus reach a conclusion far removed from the current idea regarding the part played by marriage. It is regarded as an institution established for the benefit of the wife, in order to protect her weakness against masculine caprices. In reality, whatever may have been the historic causes which led man to impose this restriction on himself, it is he who has profited by it. The liberty which he has thus renounced could only have been a source of torment to him. Woman had not the same reasons for abandoning it, and in this respect, we may say that, in submitting to the same rule, it is she who has made a sacrifice” (p. 311).
In Book 3, the author gathers together his arguments, further expounds his general conception of society as a group of collective tendencies with an existence of its own as real as the cosmic forces, discusses the relation of suicide to criminality, and presents the practical consequences of his study. Professor Durkheim has no important suggestion to make in aid of the prevention of suicide; he relies mainly on his favorite panacea of co-operative associations of workers, professional groups or corporations developed on a new basis and made a definite and recognized organ of daily life. On the whole this is a work which every subsequent writer on suicide must seriously reckon with, while at the same time it confirms Professor Durkheim’s position as an original and systematic investigator into social problems.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. According to Ellis, what is Durkheim’s conception of society?
2. In the final paragraph, Ellis claims that Durkheim doesn’t provide any “important suggestions” to aid in preventing suicide, other than his “favorite panacea.” What is this favorite panacea? How would this prevent suicide?
3. What can we learn about the reception of Durkheim’s ideas at the time of his writing?
2.12: Concepts Dictionary
Concepts from Durkheim
Use the following pages to create your own mini-dictionary, with page/line numbers for easy reference. You may want to save this as a separate document for more detailed note-taking and commentary.
Concept Page/Line Numbers Definition/Notes
Anomic Division of Labor
Anomic
Collective Conscience
Division of Labor
Education
Forced Division of Labor
Mechanical Solidarity (and MS Societies) | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/02%3A_Durkheim/2.11%3A_EXTRA-_Review_of_Suicide_by_Havelock_Ellis.txt |
MAX WEBER (1864-1920)
“Die bange Nacht is nun herum
wir reiten still, wir reiten stumm
wir reiten ins Verderben” – Herwegh, Reiterlied[1]
NOTE ON SOURCES: We are fortunate to have a comprehensive biography of Max Weber written by his wife, Marianne, first published six years after his death, in 1926. For decades, this was the primary source of information about Weber’s life. Recently, however, our knowledge in this area has been greatly supplemented by Joachim Radkau’s Max Weber: A Biography, published in English in 2009. Radkau’s sympathetic portrait nevertheless includes several less flattering details of Weber’s personality and character, not included in his wife’s biography. For more on Weber’s intellectual development, and less about his personal life, read Fritz Ringer’s Max Weber: An Intellectual Biography, published in 2004.
Overview
Max, full name Maximilian Karl Emil, Weber was born in Erfurt, a bustling commercial city in what is now central Germany, on April 21, 1864. Weber spent his life in a rapidly industrializing and increasing militaristic Germany, living through the devastations of the first World War, and witnessing the rise of fascism during the early years of the Weimar Republic. Like many writers and thinkers of his day, he was interested in how this new industrial society came to be. His most famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, was a partial answer to that question. Weber would also come to create a particular approach to sociological inquiry, more focused on interpretation and less focused on policy proposals than Durkheim’s.
Social Background/Family
Weber was the first of eight children, born to a wealthy statesman (Max Weber, Sr.) and his somewhat devout wife Helene (Fallenstein). The Webers had been a prosperous family for many generations, making their money in the linen trade. Max grew up in bourgeois comfort, in a home devoted to politics and intellectual pursuits. In fact, Weber’s younger brother, Alfred, would also become a sociologist.
Education and Training
In 1882, Max earned his high school diploma and, according to his wife’s biography, “also helped his friends to cheat their way through.” His teachers, she claimed expressed some doubts about his moral maturity, finding him a troublesome if intelligent student. At age 18, he enrolled at the University of Heidelberg, where he followed in his father’s footsteps by studying law. He also took up fencing at his father’s fraternity house. By all accounts he led an active social life in college, visiting other bourgeois families, drinking, fencing, and even dueling (from which he suffered a distinctive scar on his face for the rest of his life). Marianne tells us he had no talent for saving money and would often ask for increases to his allowance.
In his second year, he took time off to serve in the military, but found military life difficult. Despite becoming a squad leader, he complained in a letter home that “the military existence is gradually getting too stupid and loathsome, especially since in recent weeks it has left no room whatsoever for anything else.” He liked the military much more after entering into officer’s training, and he left the following year with admiration of the “machine” and a greater sense of patriotism.
He returned to university and eventually earned a law degree in 1889, with a dissertation on the history of trading companies in the Middle Ages. For seven years he lived in the family home, studying further and teaching classes when he could. He did not leave home until his marriage in 1893, to his cousin Marianne Schnitger. During this time, Marianne tells us, he felt oppressed by his father, who ran his house with strong authority, requiring obedience of his children and his wife, who suffered a great deal. Max, she says, “was reserved and never asked relieved himself by a frank discussion of the problems. He repressed everything.” He urgently wanted to leave.
When his cousin came to visit, moving from the country to the city, they quickly became attached. Here is how Marianne tells the story of their engagement:
The seriousness of their relationship was lightened by their sparkling humor and impish banter. The engagement was still supposed to be kept secret, but as Weber remarked, “Every jackass here gives me a meaningful look and asks me whether something has happened to me. I would never have thought I was beaming so.”
Career
In 1894, the newly married couple moved to Freiburg, where Weber was appointed Professor of Economics. In 1896, they moved to the Heidelberg, where Weber continued as an Economics Professor. He spent his time researching and writing on economics and legal history. Max and Marianne had no children. Instead, they maintained a vibrant social circle of intellectuals.
In 1897, Max’s father died. Max and his father had quarreled two months before, particularly about his father’s treatment of his mother, and every biographer points out that the death hit Max very hard. He became depressed and suffered insomnia. Eventually, he had to leave teaching altogether to spend some time in recovery. He made one brief foray back into teaching in 1902 but left again in 1903 and would not return to an official posting until 1919, one year before his death. During that time, he wrote much that would be published after his death, on matters sociological and political.
He spent much of 1904 touring the United States, notes and letters of which letters have recently been published.[2] Given the importance of Benjamin Franklin to his own understanding of the development of the spirit of capitalism, visiting the United States was an important chapter in his life. Weber took many notes on what he witnessed there. When visiting upstate New York, he observed,
My trip to Buffalo yesterday was very pleasant, even though all the walking around along lengthy streets was fairly strenuous. Despite the magnificent buildings, the shopping streets as a whole look no more inviting than those in New York: Everything is obscured with a black sooty haze, windows are sometimes dirty- in short, new and yet already falling into disrepair, somewhat like our own suburbs., By contrast, the residential district is the world of elegance, nothing but tree-lined green streets with charming wood-frame houses that look as if someone had just taken them out of the toy box and placed them on the velvety green lawn. They are the only completely new and original architecture that I’ve seen here so far, and aesthetically far more satisfying than the imposing stone palaces in New York (September 9th).
In contrast to this pleasant scene, Weber was struck by the dirty sootiness of Chicago, the fifth largest city in the world at the time,
Chicago is one of the most unbelievable cities. In the city among the skyscrapers, the condition of the streets is utterly hair-raising. Soft coal is burned there. When the hot dry wind off the wastelands to the southwest blows through the streets, and especially when the dark yellow sunsets, the city looks fantastic…. Everything is mist and think haze, and the whole lake is covered by a purple pall of smoke…It is an endless human desert….[In the stockyards], for as far as one can see from the Armour firm’s clock tower there is nothing but herds of cattle, lowing, bleating, endless filth. But on the horizon, all around – for the city continues for miles and miles until it melts into the multitude of the suburbs – there are churches and chapels, grain elevators, smoking chimneys, and houses of every size (September 19th).
In 1907, he received an inheritance that allowed him to put off paid employment. He and Marianne lived well and continued to host intellectual parties and discussions. They experimented (disastrously says Radkau) with an open marriage. In 1909 Weber helped found the German Sociological Association, serving as its first treasurer. In 1912, he tried to organize a leftist political party, but was ultimately unsuccessful. When World War I began, in 1914, Weber volunteered and was appointed as a reserve officer. Weber would eventually become a strong critic of Germany’s nationalist expansionism and called for the expansion of suffrage. He was one of the advisers to the committee that drafted the Weimar Constitution. He unsuccessfully ran for a seat in parliament. It was at this time that he returned to the university, where he gave a famous lecture criticizing opportunistic politicians. The lectures from his last year of life were written down and have circulated as important Weberian texts for years. At the time of his death, he was working on what he considered his masterwork, Economy and Society. Marianne would continue the work and publish it as Max’s own in 1922. Marianne continued to work his notes and half-finished manuscripts into books and publish them for the next several years.
His Work
In the early years, Weber wrote mostly on legal history and economics. He was very productive during this time and published his dissertation on trading companies in the middle ages in 1889, a book on Roman agrarian history in 1891, a book on farm labor in Eastern Germany in 1892, a book on the stock exchange in 1894, and a book on the state and economic policy in 1895. After his father’s death, it was several years before he could work again. He wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, first published as an essay in 1904. This work marks his turn to more sociological writing. Although he continued to write and lecture in these later years, almost everything was left unfinished at his death. Marianne Weber did much to compile and publish this later work, including his famous Economy and Society (1922) and General Economic History (1924). The English-speaking world knows Weber primarily through translation, and most of these translations were completed in the 1940s and 1950s, many by Talcott Parsons, the great mid-century American sociologist working out of Harvard University.
Questions
1. How does Weber’s background and career compare to that of Durkheim, his near contemporary? To Marx?
2. Weber was a keen observer. How is this evidence in the brief extracts from his 1904 visit to the United States?
1. This is a song Weber was known to sing near the end of his life, during the tumultuous Weimar years. It can be translated as, “The anxious night is over now; we are riding quietly, we are riding silently, we are riding to perdition.” (Marianne Weber, Max Weber, Wiley and Sons (1975 translation)). ↵
2. See Scaff’s Max Weber in America (2011). ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.01%3A_Biography_of_Weber.txt |
“To explain, we must first understand.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from the posthumous 1921 collection of essays, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, first translated into English by Talcott Parsons in 1947 as The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. It was later translated by Eric Mathews and published, along with other pieces on sociological method, as “The Nature of Social Action” in Runciman’s Weber: Selections in Translation(1978). The passage here is a loose translation of the original German, condensed for easier reading. A more exact and complete translation can be found in Runciman.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Weber belonged to the generation, along with Durkheim, that championed and defined the new discipline of sociology. It is thus useful to compare Weber’s definitions of sociology with Durkheim’s. Although they share a general interest in understanding and analyzing “society,”, the way they set up doing so is quite different. For Weber, an empathetic understanding of the meanings human actors bring to their interactions with one another was key, as the following passage explains.
Methodological Foundations of Sociology (in 11 Points)
Sociology, in the sense we adopt here, is a science that interprets the meaning of social action and through that interpretation clarifies the causal procedures and effects of those actions. Actions here are those acts, whether active, refraining from action, or allowing actions to take place, when and only when done with subjective intent. They are “social” actions when they involve the subjective intentions relative to another person’s actions and when that social relation orients the action.
Point 1. Meanings are Empirically Situated
The meaning may either refer to the meaning of a particular individual on a particular occasion or as an average meaning in a given set of cases or even a typical meaning attributed in the abstract (e.g., “capitalists replace workers with machinery with the intention of increasing profits”). It does not signify that the intended meaning is true or correct. Herein lies the difference between the empirical sciences of sociology (and history) and disciplines such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics that seek the “correct” rule or meaning from their objects of study.
Point 2. We cannot always find the intentions of the actors; the line between intentional and reactive behavior is blurred
There is not a sharp line between meaningful action and reactive action, actions for which actors do not intend a meaning. A great deal of interesting and important behavior for the sociologist to study, especially when we talk about traditional actions, lies between intentional and reactive action. In some cases, such as mystical experiences, we cannot hope to understand the meanings of the action because the actors do not understand the actions themselves. It is often necessary to separate out those aspects which can be understood from those elements which cannot.
Point 3. The goal of interpretation is to generate evidence about the world, and we can do this both rationally and empathetically
The goal of all our interpretations is to find evidence. This evidence can take a rational or an empathetic form. Rational evidence is obtained in the case of actions in which the intended meanings can be intellectually understood wholly and clearly. Empathetic evidence is obtained when actions and their attendant feelings and lived experience are completely relived in the sociological imagination. For the first, every interpretation of a rationally directed purposive action, is quite clearly evidence.
we can say with some assurance that introduction of machinery operates to increase the profits of capitalists.
But even of the second, we can learn almost as much about the world from this empathetic understanding. For example, we can try to relive empathetically actions of extreme religious devotion, even as they go against our own beliefs. We can gain some understanding of the intended meanings through empathy, allowing for the influence of various emotions (anxiety, anger, ambition, envy, jealousy, love, pride, lust, etc.) on the course of the action and the means used to perform the action. It is even possible to understand many irrational and emotional actions as deviations from pure types of action that would happen if everything proceeded in a rationally purposive way.
For example, capitalists in a panic when the stock market crashes may sell their machinery even though such may reduce their profits in the long run.
Point 4. Meaningless actions are still important insofar they impact social actions
Operations and actions which are meaningless must still be taken into account if they cause or are caused by, promote or place obstacles in the way of, social actions. Even inanimate objects, such as machines, can have meanings related to their use by humans in social interactions. The flooding of a river may be a natural occurrence, but the way humans respond (for example, by moving away from areas likely to flood) is an important object of sociological study. Or take the way we deal with death, and entire cycle of life, from infancy to old age. In all cases, the sociologists; task is to interpret the meanings humans give to their actions and by doing so to understand the actions themselves.
Point 5. Sociological understanding is explanatory
Understanding can mean two things. In the first, direct understanding, we comprehend the meaning an actor gives. For example, we understand an outburst of anger, seeing evidence of it in a red face or exclamation. We can directly understand the action of aiming a gun. But understanding can be more than direct; it can be explanatory. We understand something aiming a gun not merely directly but also more deeply in terms of motive, if we know other facts about why the person is aiming the gun. If he has been ordered to do so in battle, for example, that is a rational motive; on the other hand, if he is aiming at someone out of fear, this is an irrational motive. To understand sociologically means to grasp the complex of meanings surrounding the specific observed action.
Point 6. Sociological understanding is hypothetical
The goal of every interpretation is the creation of evident facts about the world.
For example, in times of panic, capitalists often take actions that harm their profitability in the long run; in normal times, however, they seek to increase profits, and one way they may do this is by replacing workers with machinery.
But all of our interpretations are hypotheses about the world. We cannot know for sure if our interpretation is correct. As with all hypotheses, it is crucial to have some way of checking our interpretation. The best way to do this would be by experiment, using the scientific method. Statistical methods can give some approximate results, but only in cases that are measurable in which numerical relationships are possible to establish. Apart from these methods, then, the best option is to compare as many events as possible, keeping as many things similar as possible and investigating one particular point, motive or cause.
Point 7. Motives of actions are crucial to sociological interpretation because they are related to causality
A motive is a set of meanings which prompts the actor to act in a certain way (either from her perspective, or the sociological observer’s perspective). To give a correct causal interpretation of a particular act is to see the action and the motive for the action as related to each other in a way whose meaning can be understood. Sociological laws only exist where statistical generalization fit our interpretation of the intended meaning of a social action. Sociology proceeds by constructing models of intelligible action which apply to real-world situations. Note the difference between meaningless and meaningful (hence, sociological) statistics. Death rates, or the output of machinery are examples of the former. Crime rates and occupational distributions are examples of the latter.
Point 8. Meaningless actions are not unimportant, but they are not sociological facts
Certain facts of life, such as birth and death or the flooding of a river, do not count as sociological because they lack the meaningfulness derived from motives described above. This does not mean they are less important, however. But they do operate in an area distinct from that of meaningful social action. They are conditions of action, or obstacles to action, or promoters of action, but not social actions themselves.
Point 9. Individuals, and individuals alone, are the intelligible performers of meaningful actions
Action for our purposes must refer only to the behavior of one or more individuals. Other disciplines may refer to states or whole societies as individual cases and actors, but from the standpoint of sociological understanding of the meaning of actions we must see these systems as the outcomes of interactions between individuals. For the sociologist, individual human beings are the only intelligible performers of meaningful actions. When a sociologist does speak of something like “the state” or “the family” or any other collectivity, she means a structured outcome of the social actions of individuals, either in actual reality or ideally constructed.
This way of proceeding is quite different from the “organic sociology” proposed by others. In this view, the sociologist is like a natural scientist who examines individuals as so many cells in the body of society. The methods of sociology we present here are quite different. The sociologist does not work like a biologist, who observes organisms at the cellular level. A biologist may observe cells and make inferences about the way they operate in functional terms (e.g. the spleen filters blood), but the biologist cannot interpret the action of the cells involved in the spleen. In contrast, the sociologist can understand the behavior of the individuals involved in a way that simply cannot be done by natural scientists. This interpretation comes with a cost, however. Our interpretations of the social actions of individuals are by nature more hypothetical and partial than those of direct observation of action/function. But this is exactly what sets sociology apart from the natural sciences.
Point 10. Sociology is distinct from psychology
Sociological laws are but theories generated by interpretative sociology. They are observationally verified statements of the likelihood of an expectation of a certain outcome from a particular social action. Sociological laws are most intelligible when the outcome results from a rational pursuit of a clear goal and when the means-end context is clear.
e.g., capitalists are constantly seeking to replace workers with machinery to enable higher profits.
Psychology would add nothing to our sociological interpretation here. When a capitalist deliberates in a rational way whether his profits would increase by replacing workers with machinery, thinking rationally in terms of likely consequences of this action, and comes to the conclusion that, yes, he thinks he will make more money this way, then there is nothing that ‘psychology’ will add to our understanding. Now, when the sociologist attempts to explain irrational elements in action (e.g., the panicked capitalist who sells off his machinery during an economic crisis), she can learn a thing or two from psychology, based on its keener understanding of such irrational elements.
Point 11. Sociology is distinct from the discipline of history
The sociologist seeks to formulate general statements about what happens. This is in contrast with historians, who seek to provide a causal analysis of a specific historic event.
We sociologists may study the rise of capitalism to learn more about how cultural beliefs affect the adoption of new practices, whereas a historian is interested in knowing about these particular early adopters of capitalism.
There are pros and cons to this approach. As with any generalizing science, the abstract nature of the concepts of sociology means that there is relatively less content here than in historical analyses. In return, sociology offers greater conceptual clarity. Sociology abstracts from reality. She does this often by creating “ideal types”, stripped of their historical particularities.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. How does Weber’s method for doing sociology (social action) differ from Durkheim’s emphasis on social facts?
2. In point six, how would you go about devising an experiment using the scientific method to test the interpretation that capitalists’ behavior becomes more irrational during times of stock market volatility? Why is it nearly impossible for sociologists to conduct such experiments? Given the difficulties of using experiments, how would you arrange a comparative case study of capitalist actions during panics?
3. In point seven, what makes crime rates sociological, where death rates are “meaningless statistics’?
4. In point nine, compare and contrast “organic sociology” with Weber’s interpretative sociology
5. Explain how sociology is distinct from psychology and history. Durkheim, too, compared sociology with these disciplines. How do the distinctions drawn by Weber and Durkheim compare?
Sociology
Social Action
Ideal Type
Verstehen | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.02%3A_Methodological_Foundations_of_Sociology_%281921%29.txt |
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Part 1
“Time is money.” – Benjamin Franklin
NOTE ON SOURCE: These passages are from Weber’s most known and influential work, first published in German in 1905 as Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. It was first translated into English by the sociologist Talcott Parsons and published in 1930 as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Allen and Unwin. Parsons‘ translation was reprinted in 1958 by Scribner’s. This translation is probably the one most English-speaking sociologists have read. In 2002, Penguin published a new translation by Baehr and Wells, a translation that offered a shell as hard as steel in place of Parsons‘ well-known Iron Cage. Although this translations is more literal, your selection below uses the more widely-known phrasing of Parsons. Otherwise, readers will find much that is different from Parsons translation, which tends to be somewhat creative at times.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In this book, Weber offers a culturalist (or idealist) interpretation of history, counter to the historical materialist approach taken by Marx. In an ingenious argument, he demonstrates how particular beliefs (in this case, beliefs associated with some strains of the Protestant religion) led to particular kinds of conduct (the “work ethic” and disposition to save and invest rather than spend) which eventually helped produce capitalism as we know it today. This is not a book about religion, but rather a book that uses religion and religious ideas as an example of how change happens, through a chain of unintended consequences. It is also a book about people as agents, bearing culture and ideas with them into new settings and circumstances. The entire book is less than 100 pages (not including footnotes). What you have here is a much-abridged form of the first of two parts.
Part 1: The Problem
Chapter 1. Religious Belief and Social Layering
A look at the occupational statistics quickly shows us that many business owners and capitalists are Protestant rather than Catholic. This is also true for more higher skilled workers in industry. While it is true that this may be for historical reasons, as more industries developed in regions in Europe that were Protestant, that merely begs the question. We could ask, why was it that areas that saw industrial development were also the same areas in which Protestantism took hold?
Once we look at details of the Protestant reformation movement, we also note that it was not every variant of Protestantism that seemed to have a connection to habits and practices conducive to industrial development. Calvinism, for example, seems to be more strongly correlated with these habits and practices.
Weber refers to these habits and practices as “the spirit of capitalism.” We could consider these the essential qualities that arose out of particular beliefs (more on this below) and that supported the growth of industry. In particular, in order to have a system dependent upon investment for future gain, you needed to have people willing to save and invest, rather than spend and consume. This is really what defines the spirit of capitalism, for Weber.
This spirit of hard work, of progress, or whatever else we want to call it, which we are linking to Protestantism and its particular beliefs, should not be understood as a joy of living or desire for progress. These early Calvinists had little interest in either. If we are going to trace back the cause, we have to look more deeply, at the religious beliefs themselves, and see what it was that induced these early industrialists to work hard and invest their capital.
Chapter 2. The “Spirit” of Capitalism
“Time is money.” That is the spirit of capitalism. We hear it in the aphorisms of Benjamin Franklin. It is very different from the case of Jacob Fugger, the early wealthy industrialist of Germany, who, when asked why he didn’t retire, as he had enough money and then some, replied that he could always make even more. In the case of Fugger, working to make more money was about enrichment; in the case of Franklin, it is a moral duty. This is what we mean by “spirit of capitalism.” Or, to be clear, modern capitalism, which exists in America and Europe. Capitalism has existed elsewhere, in China, India, Babylon, and at other times, in Rome and in the Middle Ages, but never with this moral maxim to work hard for the sake of working hard.
This has nothing at all do with enjoyment or wanting to be able to buy things with the money you make. The highest good of this Protestant work ethic is to earn more and more money. One works to make more money, not to enjoy it. Acquisition of money becomes the ultimate purpose of life.
How did this come to be? Where did this compulsion come from? Weber goes back to the example of Benjamin Franklin, whose strict Calvinist father drummed into him the idea that hard work was virtuous, not for the making of money, but for itself. Thus, the seeking of gain was, at least at the start, connected to certain religious ideas.
A way of life suited to the development of capitalism had to begin somewhere, not just for one person alone but for a community of people. This origin is what needs explaining. The fact that in America, New England developed more industry than the South even though the South was settled by would-be capitalists and New England by religious persons is the opposite of what materialist thinkers propose.
that ideas follow circumstances rather than circumstances following ideas.
The origin and history of ideas is much more complex than those who theorize that a “superstructure” is built on a pre-existing material base. In reality, the spirit of capitalism had to fight its way to acceptance against great hostility.
For years, in the places which would see the birth of Protestant ideas, greed and acquisitiveness were frowned upon. That a compulsion to make and amass money could be good, that it could be moral, was unheard of. So, what we need to understand is how activity that could scarcely be tolerated could turn into a “calling” or moral duty in the sense used by Benjamin Franklin. What was the background of ideas underlying activities directed toward making profit as an ethical obligation? Whence the notion that the entrepreneur is moral not in spite of his money-making but because of it? For that, we have to go deep into the Protestant mindset.
Chapter 3. Understanding Luther’s Conception of Beruf (Calling)
A note on the German word “Beruf.” Der Beruf means “job, profession, or occupation, but in a way that is difficult to translate into English. The verb from which it is derived, berufen, literally means to be summoned, appointed or called, which is why it so frequently translated as “calling” in English. In the German, however, it does not carry the same religious connotation as “calling” does in English. Perhaps a better translation would be “vocation” (which also carries with it a meaning of being called and can be read either with a religious or non-religious meaning, depending on context). The translation here will sometimes use any one of these terms, as appropriate.
In the German word beruf but even more in the English “calling” there can be a religious sense, a suggestion of a task set by God. In neither the Catholic nor Classical culture do we find a similar sense, a sense which is common to all Protestant peoples. Like the word itself the idea is new and comes out of the Protestant reformation, from German translations that were made during this period. The concept of the calling was what was used to differentiate Protestants from Catholics. Rather than monastic ascetism, the way to live acceptably to God was by fulfilling one’s worldly obligations. This was the notion of the calling or vocation. In contrast, Luther saw withdrawing from the world, in monastic isolation, as a selfish turning away from one’s obligations. God summons everyone to his or her appointed task. Every vocation has the same worth in the sight of God. This meant that as a consequence of the Protestant Reformation was, the moral emphasis on worldly labor and the religious approval of such increased.
Weber examines Paradise Lost, by Milton, and finds an accord between the tenor of the poem and the Puritan’s attention to work in the world. Weber disagrees that we can trace this to “national” character. More often than not, pinning something on national character is just another way of saying one doesn’t know why there are these differences. In any case, Puritans like Milton were vastly different from Royalist Catholics, so the difference can not lie in Milton’s Englishness
Religious influence played the largest part in creating the differences of which we are aware today. Since that is the case, we start our investigation of the relationship between the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism in those religious differences, in the works of Calvin, Calvinism, and the other Puritan denominations. For these groups, the soul’s salvation was the center of their life and work. Their ethics and practices were all based on that alone and were the consequences of purely religious motives. And so, we must also admit that the cultural consequences of the Protestant Reformation were actually unforeseen and unintended by those early Reformers.
This study is a contribution to the understanding of the way in which ideas become effective forces in history. We will try to clarify the part religious forces played in forming our specifically worldly modern culture. At the same time, we are not saying that the spirit of capitalism could only have arisen as a result of the Reformation. Instead, we want to know whether and to what extent religious forces have taken part in the growth and expansion of that spirit over the world. What concrete aspects of our current capitalistic culture can be traced back to these religious ideas? We will look for correlations between particular religious beliefs and the practical ethics that follow from these beliefs. We will try to clarify the means and direction in which religious movements and ideas have influenced the development of material culture.
Questions
1. What is the importance here of Ben Franklin’s aphorism, “time is money”? What does Ben Franklin represent for Max Weber?
2. Explain how Weber’s approach to explaining the development of capitalism differs from Marx and the materialist explanation?
3. Why do you think Puritans developed a strong work ethic? Do you think this work ethic is specific to Protestants? Why/why not?
4. What is the connection between the Protestant Work Ethic and “greed”? What does the example of Jakob Fugger tell us?
5. Diagram Weber’s argument for the development of today’s capitalism and its material culture.
Concepts
Protestant Ethic
Spirit of Capitalism
Beruf(Calling; Vocation) | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.03%3A_PESOC_part_1.txt |
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Part 2
“Am I one of the Elect?”
NOTE ON SOURCE: These passages are from Weber’s most known and influential work, first published in German in 1905 as Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. It was first translated into English by the sociologist Talcott Parsons and published in 1930 as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Allen and Unwin. Parsons‘ translation was reprinted in 1958 by Scribner’s. This translation is probably the one most English-speaking sociologists have read. In 2002, Penguin published a new translation by Baehr and Wells, a translation that offered a shell as hard as steel in place of Parsons‘ well-known Iron Cage. Although this translation is more literal, your selection below uses the more widely-known phrasing of Parsons. Otherwise, readers will find much that is different from Parsons translation, which tends to be somewhat creative at times.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
In part two of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber traces the particular religious ideas that he argued gave way to the practices and behaviors he called the spirit, or essence, of capitalism (hard work, saving rather than spending, sobriety). He then goes forward, tracing the often unintended and unwanted consequences of the spread of these beliefs and practices, especially once the underlying religious beliefs fell away. This leads him to one of the gloomiest forecasts for modern society by any of the classical theorists.
Part 2: The Vocational Ethic of the Ascetic Branches of Protestantism
Chapter 4. The Religious Foundations of Worldly Ascetism
A note on the word “ascetic” (asketischin German). The word has come to mean living rigorously in self-denial, without luxuries or comfort. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there were a fair number of priests and monks who practiced ascetism as a way of living righteously, so the term carries a religious connotation. We can trace the word back to its Greek origin, ἀσκειν, which meant to train or practice, and came to signify monks in training. It was really during the period of the English Civil War, when Protestants fought Catholics, that ascetism came to mean austerity and sobriety, notable in dress (the unruffled simple black of the Puritan) and behavior.
Weber begins this chapter by setting forth a short description of four principal strands of Protestantism that embraced an ascetic form, what can be considered “Puritan.”. These were (1) Calvinism; (2) Pietism; (3) Methodism; (4) those associated with various Baptist sects. The part of the chapter that focuses on Calvinism is included below. When discussing all those Protestants who followed the doctrine of predestination, Weber will refer to Puritans and Puritanism.
The greatest political and cultural struggles of the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries fought in the highly developed regions of Northern Europe (the Netherlands, England, France), were over Calvinism. Then, as now, its most characteristic belief was the doctrine of predestination. To understand this, let us turn to the Westminster Confession of 1647 (in which early Calvinists described their faith). Here are the relevant passages:
Chapter IX (of Free Will), Number 3: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Chapter III (of God’s Eternal Decree), Number 3; By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
Number 5: Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
Number 7: The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
Chapter X (of Effectual Calling), Number 1: All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
Chapter V (of Providence), Number 6: As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins doth blind and harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasions of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan: whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.
We can briefly tell the story of how the doctrine originated and how it fit into Calvinist theology. While for Luther the doctrine’s significance decreased over time, for Calvin, it increased. It derives from the logical necessity of his thought. The interest of it lies in God, not in human beings; God does not exist for people, but people for the sake of God. Everything other than God, including the meaning of our individual lives and destinies, is shrouded in a mystery that would be both impossible and presumptuous to discern. We only know that some are saved, most are damned. To think that human merit, deservingness or undeservingess, plays in part in determining our fate would be to think God’s decrees, which have been settled for eternity, are subject to change by human influence. This is an impossible belief.
In its emotional inhumanity this belief must have instilled a feeling of extreme loneliness in the individual who accepted it. No one could help her. No priest…No Church…No God, for even Jesus Christ had died only for the elect. This is what set Protestants apart from Catholics – the complete elimination of salvation through the Church and its sacraments. You were really all alone.
As all religions develop, they turn away from magic. Here we see this development coming to its logical conclusion. Puritans even rejected all signs of religious ceremony, burying their dead with neither song nor ritual, so that no superstitious belief should creep in. Not only was there no magical way of attaining God’s grace, making you one of the Elect, but there was no way at all. It was out of your hands entirely. This helps explain the totally negative view of anything that would give pleasure or solace, as such was of no use to salvation and could promote illusions or superstition.
The world exists to serve God, to promote God’s glory, and for nothing else. That means that the Elect were in the world only to increase God’s glory by fulfilling His commandments. Everything done by a good Christian was for God and God alone, including his or her vocation, another way of saying what he or she was called to do to increase God’s glory on earth.
Now, sooner or later, the question must arise to every person following this doctrine, “Am I one of the elect?” And more, “how can I find out?” Calvin apparently was never bothered by these questions, but he was an unusually confident man. For everyone else, the questions were important ones. Two different sets of pastoral advice arose to help parishioners. First, people were told it was an absolute duty to consider one’s self as one of the elect, and to regard any doubts or anxiety as tricks of the devil. In contrast to the first, and perhaps more helpful, it was recommended that people work hard in their calling as a way of boosting their assuredness of being one of the elect. Work and work alone dispels doubt and gives the certainty of grace.
We can now ask further by what fruits the Calvinist could identify having been saved, and the answer would be fruits of labor which serves to increase the glory of God. In practice this means that God helps those who help themselves. The Calvinist creates his own salvation, or at least, the conviction of his own salvation. The God of Calvinism demanded a lifetime of good works, rather than single good acts scattered here and there. This meant that Calvinists were subjected to a consistent and constant method of work/life. Only a life guided by constant thought, constant planning, constant adhesion to one’s vocation, could pull the Elect out of the state of nature into the state of grace. Active self-control was the most important practical ideal of Puritanism.
Like ascetics before him, the puritan tried to act rationally at all times, suppressing all emotions. The goal of this ascetism was to lead an alert, intelligent life and to reject all spontaneous, impulsive enjoyment. But the Puritan ascetic was different from the medieval ascetics in that the Puritan did not live outside of the world but very much within it. Medieval monks were driven farther away from everyday life through their ascetism. In contrast, by founding its ethic in the doctrine of predestination, the Puritans created their form of a spiritual aristocracy not outside the world but within it, as the predestined elected saints of God within the world. The consciousness of divine grace was often accompanied by an attitude of sin toward one’s neighbor, of hatred and contempt for her as an enemy of God bearing the signs of eternal damnation….
Chapter 5. Ascetism and the Spirit of Capitalism
Weber begins this chapter by referring to the work of Richard Baxter, a Puritan leader and renowned minister of the 17th century, whose books on Puritan ethics were widely read and followed. He uses Baxter’s writings on wealth to examine the Puritan relationship to wealth and the development of capitalism.
In Baxter, wealth is a great danger and temptation. But the real objection is to its enjoyment and the consequent temptation to idleness and pleasure. Above all, wealth can be a distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life. It is really only because having wealth can make us relax that it is objectionable. Remember, only activity that serves to increase the glory of God, through one’s called-to occupation, is sanctioned. Leisure and enjoyment are proscribed.
Wasting time is above all the deadliest of sins. Losing time through socializing, idle talk, even sleeping more than is necessary is worthy of moral condemnation. Life is too short to do anything other than making sure of one’s election. Every hour lost is lost to work for the glory of God. Sexual intercourse is permitted, within marriage, only as the means to “be fruitful and multiply.”
Unwillingness to work is a sign that one is damned. God has called each and every person to a particular task or profession. These are not equal tasks in terms of reward or skill. Classification into social positions and occupations is a direct result of God’s will. It is a religious duty to persevere in one’s assigned lot. The world must be accepted as it is. As an added benefit, the specialization of occupations, the increased division of labor, makes possible a quantitative and qualitative improvement in production, which thus magnifies God’s glory.
It isn’t enough just to work hard, however. God demands that one work methodically and purposely in his or her calling.
Wealth is ethically bad only as a temptation to idleness and enjoyment. Unlike earlier (medieval) ethicists, Puritans saw nothing wrong with wealth in itself. In fact, as a performance of duty in a calling amassing wealth is not only morally permissible, but morally desirable. To wish to be poor was the same as wishing to be unhealthy. Seeing profit-making as a sign of God’s providence had the effect of justifying the activities of businessmen, a relatively novel phenomenon in the world.
In many ways, then, the Puritan idea of vocation and the emphasis placed on worldly ascetism was bound to directly influence the development of a capitalist way of life. The Puritan’s ascetism was directed against the spontaneous enjoyment of life. For example, sport was accepted if it served a rational purpose (improving physical efficiency through recreation), but prohibited if conducted for enjoyment, pride, or gambling. Anything appearing to be superstitious – Christmas festivities, the May Pole, even some religious art – was banned. The theatre was morally suspect. So was idle talk, vain ostentation, personal decorations, especially in clothing. Interestingly, that tendency towards uniformity, which today aids in the capitalistic standardization of production, had its roots in this rejection of all idolatry of the body.
When we combine this limitation of consumption with the moral approbation of acquisitive profit-making behavior, the inevitable result should be obvious: capital accumulation through an ascetic compulsion to invest (save). The Puritan outlook favored the development of rational bourgeois economic life. It helped birth modern economic man.
Now, the Puritan’s ideals also tended to give way, over time, under extreme pressure from the temptations of wealth. They were not unaware of this tendency. Here is John Wesley, the founder of the great revival of Methodism,
I fear, wherever riches have increased, (exceeding few are the exceptions,) the essence of religion, the mind that was in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, do I not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches. How, then, is it possible that Methodism, that is, the religion of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay-tree, should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every place grow diligent and frugal; consequently, they increase in goods. Hence, they proportionably increase in pride, in anger, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away. Is there no way to prevent this? this continual declension of pure religion? We ought not to forbid people to be diligent and frugal: We must exhort all Christians to gain all they can, and to save all they can; that is, in effect, to grow rich!
Wesley here expresses what we have been trying to point out.
A specifically bourgeois economic ethic had grown up. The bourgeois businessman, so long as he remained within the law and conducted his life and business correctly, could amass as much money as possible and feel that he was but following his duty. The power of religious ascetism also provided him with sober, conscientious, and unusually hard-working employees, who also saw their vocation as a calling from God. Last but not least, he had the comforting assurance that the unequal distribution of goods in the world was God’s divine will.
Thus was born one of the fundamental elements of the spirit of modern capitalism – systematic rational conduct in one’s vocation. But with the withering away of the religious ideal we are left with the product, not the impetus. Where the Puritan wanted to work in a calling, we are forced to do so. By turning their ascetic impulses into the world, Puritans helped create the modern economic order, with its machine production which today determines all of our lives, even those who are not directly concerned with business. Perhaps it will continue to do so until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt. Baxter had though that care for external goods should lie lightly on our shoulders, like a cloak that could be cast aside at will. Today that cloak is wrapped around us like an iron cage.
We are far now from the world of the Puritans. In the US, which is the most highly developed capitalist region today, the pursuit of wealth is stripped of all religious or ethical meaning, and is practiced almost as a sport. No one knows what the future will bring – if new prophets will arise, or old ideas will have a resurgence, or if the machine will keep fast. But we can say of these, our “Last Humans,” that they are now “specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart.”
Well, that brings us to judgements and values that are perhaps not appropriate here. Here we have merely attempted to trace and describe the influence of the worldly ascetism of the Protestants. It is also necessary to see what in turn influenced this-worldly ascetism, to examine the totality of the social conditions of its birth, even the economic. It hasn’t been my aim to substitute simplistic one-sided materialist explanations for the development of capitalism with simplistic one-sided culturalist explanations, but only to show that each is equally possible.
Questions
1. What is the difference between Puritan ascetism (sometimes referred to as “worldly ascetism”) and the ascetism of medieval monks?
2. Weber makes an interesting and somewhat complicated case that the doctrine of predestination had some unintended consequences in terms of Puritan belief and behavior. Are you persuaded? How would you respond to the “inhumane” doctrine (that only a few are saved and there was no way to tell or change God’s mind)?
3. What is the same (and what is different) between the early bourgeois produced by ascetic Protestantism and today’s “businessman”?
4. What effect did Protestantism have on workers?
5. At the end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber says he has tried to show that either a materialist or a cultural explanation for the development of capitalist is possible. How could we combine the insights of Marx and Weber into a more complete story of capitalism’s development (or could we)?
6. Assess Weber’s evaluation capitalism, as it is currently operating.
Concepts
Worldly Ascetism
Doctrine of Predestination
Beruf (Calling; Vocation)
Iron Cage | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.04%3A_PESOC_part_2.txt |
“The prime mover in the separation of household and business accounting, and hence in the development of the early capitalistic institutions, was the need for credit.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Wirtschaftsgeschicte, a collection of Weber’s lecture notes, first published after his death in 1923. The first English translation (General Economic History) was made in 1927, by Frank Knight, an American professor of political economy. It is known as the source of Weber’s institutionalist theory of capitalism. The selection below is direct from the Knight translation.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This selection is from Part III of the General Economic History, “Commerce and Exchange in the Pre-Capitalist Age.” It is a good example of Weber’s institutionalist approach. Unlike Durkheim, who evaluated the causes and consequences of existing social institutions, Weber seeks to explain historical and institutional change as the product of several small advances which, taken collectively, provide the possibility of new institutions (such as capitalism). This section has been shortened considerably to focus on these several small advances, with much of the specific historical detail omitted.
Chapter 14: Points of Departure in the Development of Commerce
In the beginnings commerce is an affair between ethnic groups; it does not take place between members of the same tribe or of the same community but is in the oldest social communities an external phenomenon, being directed only toward foreign tribes. It may, however, begin as a consequence of specialization in production between groups. In this case there is either tribal trade of producers or peddling trade in products of a foreign tribe. In any case the oldest commerce is an exchange relation between alien tribes.
The trade of a tribe in its own products may appear in various forms. It usually develops to begin with as an auxiliary occupation of peasants and persons engaged in house industry, and in general as a seasonal occupation.
Here you might think of the example of the farmer who whittles dolls out of wood during the winter and then trades these dolls for extra rations from other farmers later in the year. The point for Weber is that these products are add-ons to the community’s main occupation (farming), not the principal enterprise.
Out of this stage grow peddling and huckstering as an independent occupation; tribal communities develop which soon engage in commerce exclusively.
Chapter 15. Technical Requisites for the Transportation of Goods
For the existence of commerce as an independent occupation, specific technological conditions are prerequisite. In the first place there must be regular and reasonably reliable transport opportunities. One must, to be sure, think of these in the most primitive possible terms through long ages. Not only in the Assyrian and Babylonian times were inflated goat skins use for the diagonal crossing of rivers, but even in the Mohammedan period, skin-bag boats long dominated the river traffic.
On land the trader had recourse far into the middle ages to primitive transport media. The first was his own back, on which he carried his goods down to the 13th century; then pack animals or a two-wheeled cart drawn by one or at the most two horses, the merchant being restricted to commercial routes as roads in our sense are not to be thought of. Only in the east and in the interior of Africa does caravan trade with slaves as porters appear to occur fairly early.
Traffic by sea had to make use of equally primitive means of transportation. In antiquity, and likewise in the early middle ages, the boat propelled by oars was the rule.
Chapter 16. Forms of Organization of Transportation and Commerce
The turnover of medieval commerce as measured by modern standards was extremely small. It was carried on by mere small dealers who worked with trifling quantities. The total trade between England and the Hanseatic League in the 14th century, at the time of its highest development, came to less than \$4,000 dollars.
On account of the danger from pirates, a single ship was not in a position to determine independently its time of sailing. Ships formed themselves into caravans and were either conveyed by armed vessels or were themselves armed. The average duration of a voyage of a marine caravan in the Mediterranean varied from a half-year to a year. In Genoa only one caravan a year went east to Asia, in Venice two. The voyage in caravans resulted in an extremely slow turnover of the capital.
In the middle ages feudal lords were interested in the maintenance of commercial routes in order to make money. They cared for the roads by putting their peasants to work to maintain them and collected tolls on their use. There was no agreement among the lords establishing a rational layout of the roads; each located the road in a way to make sure of recouping its cost in duties and tolls.
In consequence, the volume of land trade in the middle ages was much smaller even than that of trade by sea.
The second great requirement of commerce was legal protection. The merchant was an alien (foreigner) and would not have the same legal opportunities as a member of the nation or tribe, and therefore required special legal arrangements.
A great step in progress happened was the organization of a large number of merchants in a hanse. This was ordinarily a guild of foreign merchants carrying on trade in a distant city, who organized for mutual protection. It goes without saying that the organization presupposed a permit from the ruler of the city.
Finally, it became necessary to establish fixed times for trading: the buyer and seller must be able to find one another. This requirement was met by fixed markets and gave rise to the market concessions. Markets were everywhere established for the foreign traders by concession from the princes – in Egypt, India, and European antiquity, and in the middle ages. The object of such a concession was on the one hand the provision for the needs of the authority granting the concession, and on the other, the promotion of fiscal aims: the prince wished to profit by the trade in the market.
Out of this original relation between the merchants visiting the market and the authority granting the concession, evolved still other institutions. The merchants needed large quarters for having their goods tested, weighed and stored.
A professional trading class of the towns developed in the following way. The resident merchant is to begin with an itinerant trader. He travels periodically in order to market products at a distance or to secure products from a distance and is a peddler who has acquired a fixed residence. The next stage is that in which he has the traveling done for him, either by an employee or servant or by a partner. The third stage is formed by the system of factories.[1] Finally, the resident trader becomes completely fixed in his location and deals with distant regions by correspondence only. This condition did not become possible until the late middle ages because there was not sufficient inter-territorial legal security.
The resident traders as a class had to contend against other groups. One series of such struggles were external, such as the struggle to maintain the monopoly of the urban market. The resident trader also contended with the merchants settled in the country, on the land. The second great object of contention in the merchant class was in regard to internal equality of opportunity. One of the members protected by the group must not have better chances than another, and this applied especially to retailing. This purpose was served by the prohibition of pre-sale or ‘forestalling’ and the right of sharing. The first of these rules prohibited dealers from selling goods before they had been brought into the town. On the other hand, if one merchant had bought more goods than another, the right sharing became operative; it specified that any member of the association could demand that a part of the goods in question be given up to him on payment of their actual cost.
Finally, the resident merchant class was in conflict with the consumer’s interests and was divided internally according as it was interested in the local market or in distant trade. The consumers wished as far as possible to buy at first hand from the foreign traders, while the interest of the great majority of the local merchants was opposed. So began the splitting off of a wholesale trading interest and an opposition of interest within the mercantile group, while the interests of the retailer and the consumer began to draw together.
Chapter 17. Forms of Commercial Enterprise
Rational commerce is the field in which quantitative reckoning first appeared, to become dominant finally over the whole extent of economic life. The necessity of exact calculation first arose wherever business was done by companies. In the beginning commerce was concerned with a turnover so slow and a profit so large that exact computation was not necessary. Goods were bought at a price that was fixed traditionally, and the trader could confine his efforts to getting as much as he could in sale. When trade was carried on by groups it was necessary to proceed to exact bookkeeping in order to render and accounting.
The technical means of computation were crude, down almost to the beginning of the modern period. Our system of characters, with values depending on their position, was an invention of the Hindus, from whom the Arabs took it over and was perhaps brought to Europe by the Jews. But not until the time of the crusades was it really known generally enough to serve as a method of computation; yet without this system, rational planning was impossible. All peoples who used a literal system of notation like that of antiquity and of the Chinese, had to have in addition some mechanical aid to computation. In antiquity and down to the late middle ages, the counting frame or abacus served this purpose. As the column system made its way into Europe it was at first viewed as a disreputable means of securing an immoral advantage in competition, since it worked in favor of the competitors of the virtuous merchant who disdained its use. Consequently, it was first sought to exclude it by prohibition. Down to the 15th and 16th century, the position system of notation struggled for official recognition.
It is true that there was bookkeeping in antiquity, in the banking business. The entries, however, were documentary in character; they were not designed as an instrument of control in connection with income. Genuine bookkeeping first arose in medieval Italy, and as late as the 16th century, a German clerk traveled to Venice to secure instruction in the art.
Bookkeeping grew up on the basis of the trading company. The family is everywhere the oldest unit supporting a continuous trading activity, in China and Babylonia, in India, and in the early middle ages. The son of a trading family was the confidential clerk and later the partner of the father. So, through generations one and the same family functioned as capitalists and lenders, as did the house of Igibi in Babylonia in the 6th century B.C.
The first form of group organization was occasional in character, the commenda. The continual participation in such ventures might gradually lead to a permanent enterprise. Permanent industrial enterprise developed with the spread of the commenda organization. Accountability penetrated into the family circle due to business connections outside of the family. Indeed, the prime mover in the separation of household and business accounting, and hence in the development of the early capitalistic institutions, was the need for credit. As long as dealing were in cash only, business remained a family affair. But as soon as transactions were suspended over a long interval, the question of guaranteeing credit intruded. To provide this guarantee, various means were used. The first was to make all members of a trading family liable for losses. This joint responsibility grew out of traditional criminal liability: in the case of high treason the house of the guilty person was razed and his family destroyed as suspect. Eventually, however, the most effective means for securing credit, and the method that outlived all others, was separation of the property of the trading company from the private wealth of its associates. This separation is found at the beginning of the 14th century in Florence. The step was unavoidable because more and more non-family members belonged to trading units. Out of the property of the firm evolved the concept of capital.
Chapter 21. Interests in the Pre-Capitalistic Period
In the beginnings interest is a phenomenon either of international or feudal law. Within a tribal village, or clan community, there is neither interest nor lending, since transfers of value in consideration for a payment are unknown. Where outside resources are used in economic life it is done under the form of neighborly help, such as house building.
The prohibition in the Torah against taking interest or usury against a brother rests partly on military and partly on religious grounds. The prohibition of interest taking from a brother is also characteristic of early Islam and Brahminism. Interest everywhere arises in the field of lending to foreigners outside the tribe or that of loans between classes. In this connection the contrast between creditor and debtor was originally always a contrast between a town-dwelling patriciate and rural peasants; it was so in China, India, and Rome, and so it is in the Old Testament as well.
The occasion for breaking through the prohibition against interest was provided by the loan of concrete property. In northern Europe the prohibition against usury was broken up by Protestantism, although not immediately.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Look up the standard dictionary meaning of “commerce.” What is the etymological root of this word? How does Weber’s explanation for its historical origin accord with this original meaning?
2. This section can be read as a long list of requirements for trade, as we understand it, to be possible. Many of these prerequisites, such as roads, we take for granted now. Write down the complete list of items mentioned by Weber here. Do any surprise you? Can you think of any advances since the time of this writing(1923) that have helped advance commerce?
3. Weber’s historical description of the rise of trade demonstrates that there has not been much “free” about this activity. What legal and political institutions supported the rise of commerce?
4. Why would the consumer want to buy directly from foreign traders, rather than the local merchant? (Chapter 16) Do you see similar struggles today? Which faction of the trading class is served by current economic policies?
5. What is the position system of notation? Why was this at first prohibited? What was so revolutionary/threatening about this system? Note that Weber claims this as one of the primary perquisites for the development of capitalism in PESOC.
6. This section ends with a short description of the traditional prohibitions against charging interest and a statement that these prohibitions were relaxed under Protestantism. For much more on why this was so, read PESOC. Consider the viability of currently existing capitalism had the prohibition never been lifted.
Concepts
Rational Commerce
Bookkeeping
Interest
1. Be careful here! Factories were originally places in which factors, representatives of the seller, were located. Only later did the term come to be associated with places of manufacturing. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.05%3A_The_Development_of_Commerce.txt |
“The state in the sense of the rational state has existed only in the western world.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Wirtschaftsgeschicte, a collection of Weber’s lecture notes, first published after his death in 1923. The first English translation (General Economic History) was made in 1927, by Frank Knight, an American professor of political economy. It is known as the source of Weber’s institutionalist theory of capitalism. The selection below is direct from the Knight translation.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This selection is from Part 4, “The Origin of Modern Capitalism” and follows closely the 29th chapter, entitled “the Rational State.” It is here that Weber articulates the political foundations of modern capitalism. Read this in conjunction with the following section, “Evolution of the Capitalist Spirit,” which focuses on the cultural foundations of modern capitalism. This section is also a useful introduction to Weber’s theory of politics and the state.
The Rational State
A. The State Itself; Law and Officialdom
The state in the sense of the rational state has existed only in the western world. Under the old regime in China, a thin stratum of so-called officials, the mandarins, existed above the unbroken power of the clans and commercial and industrial guilds. The mandarin is primarily a humanistically educated scholar in the possession of an administrative position but not in the least trained for administration; he knows no jurisprudence but is a fine writer, can make verses, knows the age-old literature of the Chinese and can interpret it. In the way of political service, no importance is attached to him. Such an official performs no administrative work himself; administration lies rather in the hands of petty officials. A state with such officials is something different from the Western rational state.
In reality, everything is based on the magical theory that the virtue of the empress and the merits of the officials, meaning their perfection in literary culture, keeps things in order in normal times. In essence, things are left to take care of themselves. The officials do not rule but only interfere in the event of disturbances or untoward happenings.
Very different is the rational state in which alone modern capitalism can flourish. Its basis is an expert officialdom and rational law.
The rational law of the modern Western state, on the basis of which the trained official renders his decisions, arose on its formal side, though not as to its content, out of Roman law. The latter was to begin with a product of the Roman city-state, which never witnessed the dominion of democracy and its justice in the same form as the Greek city. Under Justinian, the Byzantine bureaucracy brought order and system into this rational law, in consequence of the natural interest of the official in a law which could be systematic and fixed and hence easier to learn.
With the fall of the Roman empire in the west, law came into the hands of the Italian notaries. These, and secondarily the universities, revived Roman law. The notaries adhered to the old contractual forms of the Roman empire and reinterpreted them according to the needs of the time. At the same time a systematic legal doctrine was developed in the universities. The essential feature in the development was the rationalization of procedure. The magnificent administrative organization of the church required fixed forms for its disciplinary ends in relation to the laity and for its own internal discipline. The businessman could not permit commercial claims to be decided by a competition in reciting formulas.[1] This two-fold rationalization of procedure from the profane and the spiritual sides spread over the western world.
Although some see the revival of the Roman law as the basis for the downfall of the peasant class and the development of capitalism, all the characteristic institutions of modern capitalism have other origins than Roman law. The stock certificate comes from medieval law. The bill of exchange comes from Arabic, Italian, German and English law. The commercial company is a medieval product. So also the mortgage, and the deed of trust, as well as the power of attorney. None of these go back to the Romans.
The reception of the Roman law was crucial only in the sense that it created formal juristic thinking. In its structure every legal system is based either on formal-legalistic or on substantive-material principles. By the latter are to be understood utilitarian and economic considerations. In every theocracy and every absolutism justice is materially directed as by contrast in every bureaucracy it is formal-legalistic.
Formalistic law is calculable. In China it may happen that a man who has sold a house to another may later come to him and ask to be taken in because in the meantime he has been impoverished. If the purchaser refused to heed the ancient Chinese command to help a brother, the spirits will be disturbed; hence the impoverished seller comes into the house as a renter who pays no rent. Capitalism cannot operate on the basis of a law so constituted. What it requires is law which can be counted upon, like a machine; ritualistic-religious and magical considerations must be excluded.
The creation of such a body of law was achieved through the alliance between the modern state and the jurists for the purpose of making good its claims to power. In contrast to other areas of the world, the west had at its disposal a formally organized legal system, the product of Roman culture, and officials trained in this law were superior to all others as technical administrators. From the standpoint of economic history this fact is significant in that the alliance between the state and formal jurisprudence was indirectly favorable to capitalism.
B. The Economic Policy of the Rational State
For the state to have an economic policy worthy of the name, one which is continuous and consistent, is an institution of exclusively modern origin. The first system which it brought forth is mercantilism.
C. Mercantilism
The essence of mercantilism consists in carrying the point of view of capitalistic industry into politics: the state is handled as if it consisted exclusively of capitalistic entrepreneurs. External economic policy rests on the principle of taking every advantage of the opponent, importing at the lowest price and selling much higher. The purpose is to strengthen the hand of the government in its external relations. Hence mercantilism signifies the development of the state as a political power, which is to be done directly by increasing the taxpaying power of the population.
England is distinctively the original home of Mercantilism. The first traces of the application of mercantilistic principles are to be found there in the year 1381. In England it finally disappeared when free trade was established, an achievement of Puritan dissenters in league with industrial interests.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. What does Weber mean when he denotes a state as “rational” or law as “rational”? Consider this rationality as an institutional element that arose over time and triggered new developments as well. What is the connection between rationality and capitalism?
2. Why do absolutists states depend upon substantive-material legal principles? Can you think of a modern example?
3. Who were the agents in the construction of our modern legal system? How does Weber explain the motivation for this development? What are the connections between the legal system, the state, and capitalism?
Concepts
Rational (Western) State
Rational-Formalistic Law
Mercantilism
1. A reference to the ancient German legal trial, in which the losing party was the person who mispronounced or misrecited a standard formula. This is similar to the medieval witch trials in which innocence was found by sinking when thrown in a river, or other “judgments by God” through trials of ordeal. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.06%3A_The_Rational_State.txt |
“The factors which produced capitalism is the rational permanent enterprise, rational accounting, rational technology, and rational law, but again not these alone. Necessary complementary factors were the rational spirit, the rationalization of the conduct of life, in general, and a rationalistic economic ethic.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Wirtschaftsgeschicte, a collection of Weber’s lecture notes, first published after his death in 1923. The first English translation (General Economic History) was made in 1927, by Frank Knight, an American professor of political economy. It is known as the source of Weber’s institutionalist theory of capitalism. The selection below is direct from the Knight translation.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This selection is the chapter following the previous “The Rational State” in the General Economic History. It discusses many of the same events and circumstances found in PESOC, but from a somewhat different angle. Pay close attention to the effects of the protestant ethic on the workforce and profitability, a topic little discussed in his more famous work.
The Evolution of the Capitalistic Spirit
It is a widespread error that the increase of population is to be included as a really crucial agent in the evolution of western capitalism.[1] In opposition to this view, Karl Marx made the assertion that every economic epoch has its own law of population, and although this proposition is untenable in so general a form, it is justified in the present case. The growth of population in the west made most rapid progress from the beginning of the 18th century to the end of the 19th. In the same period China experience da population growth of at least equal extent – from 60 or 70 million of 400 million; this corresponds approximately with the increase in the west. In spite of this fact, capitalism went backward in China and not forward. The growth of population in Europe did indeed favor the development of capitalism, to the extent that in a small population the system would have been unable to secure the necessary labor force, but in itself it never called forth that development;
Nor can the inflow of precious metals be regarded, as Sombart suggests, as the primary cause of the appearance of capitalism. Neither the growth of population nor the importation of precious metal called forth western capitalism. The external conditions for the development of capitalism are rather, first, geographical in character. In China and India, the enormous costs of transportation, connected with the decisively inland commerce of the regions, necessarily formed serious obstructions for the classes who were in a position to make profits through trade, while in the west the position of the Mediterranean as an island sea, and abundant interconnections through the rivers, favored the opposite development of international commerce. But this factor in its turn must not be overestimated.
Military requirements were also favorable, though not as such but because of the special nature of the particular needs of the western armies. Favorable also was the luxury demand, though again, not in itself. In the last resort the factors which produced capitalism is the rational permanent enterprise, rational accounting, rational technology, and rational law, but again not these alone. Necessary complementary factors were the rational spirit, the rationalization of the conduct of life, in general, and a rationalistic economic ethic.
Traditional obstructions are not overcome by the economic impulse alone. The notion that our rationalistic and capitalistic age is characterized by a stronger economic interest than other periods is childish; the moving spirits of modern capitalism are not possessed of a stronger economic impulse than, for example, an oriental trader. The unchaining of the economic interest merely as such has produced only irrational results; such men as Cortez and Pizarro, who were perhaps its strongest embodiment, were far from having an idea of a rationalistic economic life. If the economic impulse in itself is universal, it is an interesting question as to the relations under which it becomes rationalized and rationally tempered in such fashion as to produce rational institutions of the character of capitalistic enterprise.
Weber next discusses several of the issues raised in PESOC regarding ethical judgments on worldly success, ascetism, and the specific character of Protestant doctrine and how its allowance for worldly success differentiated it from previous religions. We come back to the text at the conclusion of this discussion
It is true that the acquisition of wealth, attributed to piety, led to a dilemma, in all respects similar to that into which the medieval monasteries constantly fell; the religious guild led to wealth, wealth to a fall from grace, and this again to the necessity of reconstitution. Calvinism sought to avoid this difficulty through the idea that man was only an administrator of what God had given him; it condemned enjoyment yet permitted no flight from the world but rather regarded working together, with its rational discipline, as the religious task of the individual. Out of this system of thought came our word ‘calling,’ which is known only to the languages influenced by the Protestant translations of the Bible. It expresses the value placed upon rational activity carried on according to the rational capitalistic principle, as the fulfillment of a God-given task.
This development of the concept of the calling quickly gave to the modern entrepreneur a fabulously clear conscience, – and also industrious workers; he gave to his employees as the wage of their ascetic devotion to the calling and of cooperation in his ruthless exploitation of them through capitalism the prospect of eternal salvation, which in an age when ecclesiastical discipline took control of the whole of life to an extent inconceivable to us now, represented a reality quite different from any it has today. The Catholic and Lutheran churches also recognized and practiced ecclesiastical discipline. But in the Protestant ascetic communities, admission to the Lord’s Supper was condition on ethical fitness, which again was identified with business honor, while into the content of one’s faith no one inquired. Such a powerful, unconsciously refined organization for the production of capitalistic individuals has never existed in any other church or religion, and in comparison, what the Renaissance did for capitalism shrinks into insignificance. Its practitioners occupied themselves with technical problems and were experimenters of the first rank. From art and mining experimentation was taken over into science.
The world-view of the Renaissance determined the policy of rulers in a large measure, but it did not transform the soul of man as did the innovations of the Reformation. Almost all the great scientific discoveries of the 16th and even the beginning of the 17th century were made against the background of Catholicism. Copernicus was a Catholic, for example. Scientific progress and Protestantism must not at all be unquestionably identified. The Catholic church has indeed occasionally obstructed scientific progress; but the ascetic sects of Protestantism have also been disposed to have nothing to do with science, except in a situation where material requirements of everyday life were involved. On the other hand, it is its specific contribution to have placed science in the service of technology and economics.
The religious root of modern economic humanity is dead; today the concept of the calling is a caput mortuum[2] in the world. Ascetic religiosity has been displaced by a pessimistic though by no means ascetic view of the world, such as that portrayed in Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, which teaches that private vices may under certain conditions be for the good of the public. With the complete disappearance of all the remains of the original enormous religious pathos of the sects, the optimism of the Enlightenment which believed in the harmony of interests, appeared as the heir of Protestant ascetism in the field of economic ideas; it guided the hands of the princes, statesmen, and writers of the later 18th and early 19th century. Economic ethics arose against the background of the ascetic idea, but now it has been stripped of its religious import. It was possible for the working class to accept its lot as long as the promise of eternal happiness could be held out to it. When this consolation fell away it was inevitable that those strains and stresses should appear in economic society which since then have grown so rapidly. This point had been reached at the end of the early period of capitalism, at the beginning of the age of iron, in the 19th century.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Identify ALL of the factors that Weber concedes played a role in the rise of western capitalism. How would you characterize or classify these many factors? Which is the most important, according to Weber, and why? Are any necessary and sufficient in and of themselves?
2. What were the consequences of adopting the concept of the calling? Were these consequences intended?
3. What are the “stresses and strains” to which Weber refers in the final paragraph? As Weber began this section with a reference to Karl Marx, it might be useful to consider the two together. What similarities can be found in their descriptions of capitalism? What are the significant differences (of focus, tone, evaluation, prognosis) between them?
Concepts
Spirit of Capitalism
Rational-Formalistic Law
1. Could Weber be referring to Durkheim’s thesis in The Division of Labor? ↵
2. Literally, Latin for “deadhead,” but had a meaning at the time Weber wrote of worthless leftovers. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.07%3A_The_Evolution_of_the_Capitalistic_Spirit.txt |
“Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from a 1918 lecture Weber gave at Munich University at the request of the student union, first published in 1919 as Politic als Beruf. It was included in a posthumous collection of political writings in 1921. The first English translation was made by Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills in 1946. The section you have here owes much to their translation, with some modifications for contemporary readers, and heavily abbreviated. The entire Gerth and Mills translation can be found in their collection, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, published by Oxford University Press.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Weber’s speech has mostly been recalled for its definition of the state and its reference to the three forms of legitimation of authority. This is worth paying attention to, but there is much more here as well, including some harsh words about American party politics and a plea not to lose hope in the face of increasingly reactionary and venal politics. It is important here to recognize the date of the lecture, coming at the end of World War I, the events of the Spartacist Rebellion in Germany, and the early days of fascism.
Lecture
This lecture, which I give at your request, will necessarily disappoint you in a number of ways. You will naturally expect me to take a position on actual problems of the day but instead, I will be addressing the more general question of what politics as a vocation means and what it can mean.
What do we understand by politics? The concept is extremely broad and comprises any kind of independent leadership in action. We wish to understand by politics only the leadership, or the influencing of the leadership, of a political association, of a state.
But what is a state? Sociologically, the state cannot be defined in terms of its ends. Ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force.
‘Every state is founded on force,’ said Trotsky. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of’ state would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as anarchy, in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state, but force is a means specific to the state. We have to say that today a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the right to use violence.
Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be. When and why do men obey? Upon what inner justifications and upon what external means does this domination rest?
To begin with, in principle, there are three inner justifications, hence basic legitimations of domination.
First, the authority of the past, ‘traditional’ domination exercised by the patriarch and the patrimonial prince.
Second, there is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace(charisma), the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is ‘charismatic’ domination, as exercised by the prophet or, in the field of politics, by the elected warlord, the great demagogue, or the political party leader.
Finally, there is domination by virtue of legality, by virtue of the belief in the validity of law and functional competence based on rationally created rules. In this case, obedience is expected in discharging statutory obligations. This is domination as exercised by the modern servant of the state.
In asking for the legitimation of this obedience, one meets with these three pure types– traditional, charismatic, and legal.
These conceptions of legitimacy and their inner justifications are of very great significance for the structure of domination. To be sure, the pure types are rarely found in reality. And we are not going to deal with all three here. Today we are interested in the second type – domination by virtue of the devotion of those who obey the purely personal charisma of the so-called leader.
Devotion to the charisma of the prophet, or the leader in battle, or to great demagogue, means that the leader is personally recognized as the innerly-called leader of men. Men do not obey him by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him. If he is more than a narrow and vain upstart of the moment, the leader lives for his cause. The devotion of his disciples and his followers is oriented to his person.
Charismatic leadership has emerged in all places and in all times. Political leadership in the form of the free ‘demagogue’ who grew from the soil of the city-state is of great concern to us; for like the city-state itself, the demagogue is peculiar to the West and especially to Mediterranean culture. Furthermore, political leadership in the form of the parliamentary ‘party leader’ has grown on the soil of the constitutional state, which is also indigenous only to the West.
How do the politically dominant powers manage to maintain their domination? The question pertains to any kind of domination, hence also to political domination in all its forms, traditional as well as legal and charismatic.
Organized domination, which calls for continuous administration, requires that people be conditioned to obey those who claim to be the bearers of legitimate power. Organized domination also requires the control of those material goods which in a given case are necessary for the use of physical violence. Thus, organized domination requires control of the personal executive staff and the material implements of administration.
First, the loyalty of the staff. The administrative staff is bound by obedience to the powerholder and not alone by the concept of legitimacy, of which we have just spoken. There are two other means, both of which appeal to personal interests: material reward and social honor. The salaries of modern civil servants and the honor of knights, to give but two examples, comprise their respective wages. The fear of losing them is the final and decisive basis for solidarity between the executive staff and the powerholder. There is honor and booty for the followers in war; for the demagogue’s following, there are ‘spoils’ (that is, exploitation of the dominated through the monopolization of office), and there are politically determined profits and premiums of vanity. All of these rewards are also derived from the domination exercised by a charismatic leader.
Second, the material implements of administration. To maintain a territory by force, certain material goods are required, just as with an economic organization. All states may be classified according to whether they rest on the principle that the staff of men themselves own the administrative means, or whether the staff is separated from these means of administration. This distinction holds in the same sense in which today we say that the salaried employee and the proletarian in the capitalistic enterprise are separated from the material means of production.
These political associations in which the material means of administration are autonomously controlled, wholly or partly, by the dependent administrative staff may be called associations organized in ‘estates.’ However, everywhere, reaching back to the earliest political formations, we also find the lord himself directing the administration. He seeks to take the administration into his own hands by having men personally dependent upon him: slaves, household officials, attendants, personal favorites. He seeks to create an army which is dependent upon him personally because it is equipped and provisioned out of his granaries and armories. In the association of estates, the lord rules with the aid of an autonomous aristocracy and hence shares his domination with it; the lord who personally administers is supported either by members of his household or by plebeians. These are completely chained to him and are not backed up by any competing power of their own. All forms of patriarchal and patrimonial domination, despotism, and bureaucratic states belong to this latter type. The bureaucratic state order is especially important; in its most rational development, it is precisely characteristic of the modern state.
Everywhere the development of the modern state is initiated through the action of a single monarch, who expropriates the power of those who in their own right possess the means of administration, warfare, and financial organization. The whole process is a complete parallel to the development of the capitalist enterprise through gradual expropriation of the independent producers. In the end, the modern state controls the total means of political organization, which actually come together under a single head.
During this process of political expropriation, which has occurred with varying success in all countries on earth, professional politicians in another sense have emerged. They arose first in the service of a prince. They have been men and women who, unlike the charismatic leader, have not wished to be in control themselves, but who have entered the service of political leaders. In the struggle of expropriation, they placed themselves at the leader’s disposal and by managing the leader’s politics they earned a living.
In politics as in business, politics may be one’s avocation or one’s vocation. One may engage in politics, and hence seek to influence the distribution of power within and between political structures, as an occasional politician. We are all occasional politicians when we vote, for example.
In contrast, there are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives for politics or one lives off politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. She who lives for politics makes politics her life, in an internal sense. Either she enjoys the naked possession of the power she exerts, or she nourishes her inner balance and self feeling by the consciousness that her life has meaning in the service of a cause. She who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives off politics as a vocation, whereas she who does not do this lives for politics. In a private property system, in order for a person to live for politics but not off politics, she must be economically independent of the income that politics would bring to her. She must be wealthy.
The leadership of a state or of a party by people who live exclusively for politics and not off politics means necessarily a plutocratic recruitment of the leading political strata. To be sure, this does not mean that such plutocratic leadership will not also seek to live off politics, and hence that the dominant stratum will not usually exploit their political nomination in their own economic interest. All that is unquestionable, naturally. There has never been such a stratum that has not somehow lived off politics. Only this is meant: that the professional politician need not seek remuneration directly for his political work, whereas every politician without means must absolutely claim this. On the other hand, we do not mean to say that the property-less politician will pursue private economic advantages through politics, exclusively, or even predominantly. A nonplutocratic recruitment of interested politicians, of leadership and following, is geared to the precondition that regular and reliable income will accrue to those who manage politics.
Either politics can be conducted honorifically and then, as one usually says, by independent, that is, by wealthy, people, especially those who live off investments only and do no other work or political leadership is made accessible to property-less people who must then be paid.
The development of politics into an organization which demanded training in the struggle for power, and in the methods of this struggle as developed by modern party policies, determined the separation of public officials into two categories, which, however, are by no means rigidly but nevertheless distinctly separated. These categories are “administrative” officials on the one hand, and “political” officials on the other. The “political” officials can be recognized by the fact that they can be transferred any time at will, that they can be dismissed, or at least temporarily withdrawn. The political element consists, above all, in maintaining the existing power relations. The second kind, the genuine administrative official, will not engage in politics. Sine ira et studio, ‘without scorn and bias,’ she shall administer her office. Hence, she shall not do precisely what the politician, the leader as well as his following, must always and necessarily do, namely, fight.
To take a stand, to be passionate –ira et stadium (with scorn and bias)-is the politician’s element, and above all the element of the political leader. His conduct is subject to quite a different, indeed, exactly the opposite, principle of responsibility from that of the civil servant. The honor of the civil servant is vested in her ability to execute conscientiously the order of the superior authorities, exactly as if the order agreed with her own conviction. This holds even if the order appears wrong to her and if, despite the civil servant’s remonstrances, the authority insists on the order. Without this moral discipline and self-denial, in the highest sense, the whole apparatus would fall to pieces. The honor of the political leader, of the leading statesman, however, lies precisely in an exclusive personal responsibility for what he does, a responsibility he cannot and must not reject or transfer. It is in the nature of officials of high moral standing to be poor politicians, and above all, in the political sense of the word, to be irresponsible politicians. In this sense, they are politicians of low moral standing, such as we unfortunately have had again and again in leading positions.
Since the time of the constitutional state, and definitely since democracy has been established, the demagogue has been the typical political leader in the West. Like Athenian demagogues of yesterday, from which we get the name, demagogues make use of oratory, to a tremendous extent, if one considers the election speeches a modern candidate has to deliver. Naturally every politician of consequence has needed influence over the press and hence has needed relations with the press.
Now, on to parties…
The most modern forms of party organizations are the children of democracy, of mass franchise, of the necessity to woo and organize the masses, and develop the utmost unity of direction and the strictest discipline. Professional politicians outside the parliaments take the organization in hand. They do so either as party entrepreneurs (the American “boss”), or as officials with a fixed salary. Formally, a far-going democratization takes place. The parliamentary party no longer creates the authoritative programs, and the local notables no longer decide the selection of candidates. Rather assemblies of the organized party members select the candidates and delegate members to the assemblies of a higher order. Possibly there are several such conventions leading up to the national convention of the party. Naturally power actually rests in the hands of those who, within the organization, handle the work continuously. Otherwise, power rests in the hands of those on whom the organization in its processes depends financially or personally. It is decisive that this whole apparatus of people, characteristically called a ‘machine’ in AngloSaxon countries or rather those who direct the machine, keep the members of the parliament in check. They are in a position to impose their will to a rather far reaching extent, and that is of special significance for the selection of the party leader. The person whom the machine follows now becomes the leader.
The party members, following above all the party official and party entrepreneur, naturally expect personal compensation from the victory of their leader – that is, offices or other advantages. They expect that the demagogic effect of the leader’s personality during the election will increase votes and mandates and thereby power, and, thereby, as far as possible, will extend opportunities to their followers to find the compensation for which they hope. Ideally, one of their mainsprings is the satisfaction of working with loyal personal devotion for a leader, and not merely for an abstract program of a party consisting of mediocrities. In this respect, the ‘charismatic’ element of all leadership is at work in the party system.
Such machinery requires a considerable personnel. In England there are about 2,000 persons who live directly off party politics. To be sure, those who are active in politics purely as job seekers or as interested persons are far more numerous, especially in local politics.
Now then, what has been the effect of this whole system? Nowadays the members of Parliament, with the exception of the few cabinet members (and a few insurgents), are normally nothing better than welldisciplined yes-men mobilized behind a strong leader. How does the selection of these strong leaders take place? At the present time, often purely emotional means are used. One may call the existing state of affairs a “dictatorship resting on the exploitation of mass emotionally.”
What does this spoils system, the turning over of federal offices to the following of the victorious candidate, mean for the party formations of today? It means that quite unprincipled parties oppose one another; they are purely organizations of job hunters drafting their changing platforms according to the chances of votegrabbing, changing their colors to a degree which, despite all analogies, is not yet to be found elsewhere. The parties are simply and absolutely fashioned for the election campaign that is most important for office patronage: the fight for the presidency and for the governorships of the separate states. Platforms and candidates are selected at the national conventions of the parties. In the primaries the delegates are already elected in the name of the candidate for the nation’s leadership.
In America, the spoils system, supported in this fashion, has been technically possible because American culture with its youth could afford purely dilettante management. With 300,000 to 400,000 such party men who have no qualifications to their credit other than the fact of having performed good services for their party, this state of affairs could not exist without enormous evils. A corruption and wastefulness second to none could be tolerated only by a country with as yet unlimited economic opportunities.
Now then, the boss is the figure who appears in the picture of this system of the plebiscitarian party machine. Who is the boss? He is a political capitalist entrepreneur who on his own account and at his own risk provides votes. He may have established his first relations as a lawyer or a saloonkeeper or as a proprietor of similar establishments, or perhaps as a creditor. From here he spins his threads out until he is able to control a certain number of votes.
The boss is indispensable to the organization of the party and the organization is centralized in his hands. He substantially provides the financial means. How does he get them? Well, partly by the contributions of the members, and especially by taxing the salaries of those officials who came into office through him and his party. Furthermore, there are bribes and tips. He who wishes to trespass with impunity one of the many laws needs the boss’s connivance and must pay for it; or else he will get into trouble. But this alone is not enough to accumulate the necessary capital for political enterprises. The boss is indispensable as the direct recipient of the money of great financial magnates, who would not entrust their money for election purposes to a paid party official, or to anyone else giving public account of his affairs. The boss, with his judicious discretion in financial matters, is the natural man for those capitalist circles who finance the election. The typical boss is an absolutely sober man. He does not seek social honor; He seeks power alone, power as a source of money, but also power for power’s sake. In contrast to the English leader, the American boss works in the dark. He is not heard speaking in public; he suggests to the speakers what they must say in expedient fashion. He himself, however, keeps silent.
The boss has no firm political principles; he is completely unprincipled in attitude and asks merely: What will capture votes? Frequently he is a rather poorly educated man. But as a rule, he leads an inoffensive and correct private life. In his political morals, however, he naturally adjusts to the average ethical standards of political conduct. Thus, there exists a strong capitalist party machine, strictly and thoroughly organized from top to bottom, and supported by political clubs of extraordinary stability. These clubs, such as Tammany Hall, are like Knight orders. They seek profits solely through political control, especially of the municipal government, which is the most important object of booty. This structure of party life was made possible by the high degree of democracy in the United States. As the US gets older, however, the basis for this system is gradually dying out. America can no longer be governed only by dilettantes. Scarcely fifteen years ago, when American workers were asked why they allowed themselves to be governed by politicians whom they admitted they despised, the answer was: “We prefer having people in office whom we can spit upon, rather than a caste of officials who spit upon us, as is the case with you.” This was the old point of view of so-called American democracy.
Today one cannot yet see in any way how the management of politics as a vocation, or profession, will shape itself. Even less can one see along what avenue opportunities are opening to which political talents can be put for satisfactory political tasks.
The career of politics grants a feeling of power. The knowledge of influencing people, of participating in power over them, and above all, the feeling of holding in one’s hands a nerve fiber of historically important events can elevate the professional politician above everyday routine even when he or she is placed in formally modest positions. But now the question for them is: Through what qualities can we hope to do justice to this power (however narrowly circumscribed it may be in the individual case)? How can we hope to do justice to the responsibility that power imposes upon us? With this we enter the field of ethical questions, for that is where the problem belongs: What kind of person must one be who is to be allowed to put their hand on the wheel of history?
One can say that three preeminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion.
Surely, politics is made with the head, but it is certainly not made with the head alone. In this the proponents of an ethic of ultimate ends are right. It is immensely moving when a person is aware of a responsibility for the consequences of her conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul. She then acts by following an ethic of responsibility and somewhere she reaches the point where she says: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” That is something genuinely human and moving. And every one of us who is not spiritually dead must realize the possibility of finding herself at some time in that position. In so far as this is true, an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements, which only in unison constitute a genuine person a person who can follow politics as a vocation, a calling, a noble profession.
Now then, ladies and gentlemen, let us debate this matter once more ten years from now. Unfortunately, for a whole series of reasons, I fear that by then the period of reaction will have long since broken over us. It is very probable that little of what many of you, and (I candidly confess) I too, have wished and hoped for will be fulfilled; little, perhaps not exactly nothing, but what to us at least seems little. This will not crush me, but surely it is an inner burden to realize it. Then, I wish I could see what has become of those of you who now feel yourselves to be genuinely politicians of principle and who share in the intoxication signified by this revolution. It would be nice if matters turned out in such a way that Shakespeare’s Sonnet 102 should hold true:
Our love was new, and then but in the spring,
When I was wont to greet it with my lays;
As Philomel in summer’s front doth sing,
And stops her pipe in growth of riper days.
But such is not the case. Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now. Where there is nothing, not only the Kaiser but also the proletarian has lost his rights. When this night shall have slowly receded, who of those for whom spring apparently has bloomed so luxuriously will be alive? And what will have become of all of you by then? Will you be bitter? Utilitarian? Will you simply and dully accept world and occupation? In every case, I shall draw the conclusion that they have not measured up to their own doings. They have not measured up to the world as it really is in its everyday routine. Objectively and actually, they have not experienced the vocation for politics in its deepest meaning, which they thought they had. They would have done better in simply cultivating plain brotherliness in personal relations. And for the rest: they should have gone soberly about their daily work.
Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly, all historical experience confirms the truth that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a person must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else we will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only they have been called to politics who are sure that they shall not crumble when the world appears too stupid or too base for what they want to offer. Only they who in the face of all this can say ‘In spite of all!’ has the true calling for politics.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. What are the three forms of authority? On what do they differ?
2. In what way is power centralized in the modern state?
3. Should politicians be paid for their service?
4. What is the difference between political and administrative officials? What are their separate duties? Do you see examples of this in the current administration?
5. Weber paints a quite unflattering portrait of party politics and the spoils system. Is his description (still) accurate?
6. Weber provides a great number of details about the “party boss,” a common figure at the time of his writing, especially in American politics. We can understand this section as a portrait of an “ideal-typical” boss, in line with Weber’s sociological method. What institutions allowed for such a type of political entrepreneur to flourish?
7. What does it mean to engage in politics as a calling (vocation, profession)? How is this different from the kind of politics engaged in by the “boss”?
8. What does Weber mean by saying that politics is “a strong and slow boring of hard boards?” What is his advice to us in the final paragraph? Is this timely?
Concepts
Power
The State
Legitimation
Charisma
Bureaucracy
Parties and Party Politics | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.08%3A_Politics_as_a_Vocation.txt |
“Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies.” – Balzac
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, a collection of Weber’s writings on economy and society, first published after his death in 1921. Parts were translated into English and published as The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations in 1947 by Talcott Parsons. In 1968 a complete English translation was made by Roth and Wittich, under the title Economy and Society. This translation has been reprinted and is the primary source in English today. Parts of the work also found themselves into Runciman’s Weber: Selected Passages, published in 1978.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
This selection is a short piece, in outline form, defining and describing the characteristics of bureaucracy, one of the three legitimating forms of authority. For more on legitimation, read Politics as a Vocation. Think about the institutional connections between bureaucratic authority and rational-formal law, and how both work together to support rational Western capitalism.
Part 3, Chapter 6, Section 7. Bureaucracy
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
MODERN officialdom functions in the following manner:
I. Fixed and official jurisdictional areas generally ordered by rules (laws or administrative regulations).
1. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties.
2. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, physical, symbolic, or otherwise, which may be placed at the disposal of officials.
3. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfillment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed.
In public and lawful government these three elements constitute ‘bureaucratic authority.’ In private economic domination, they constitute bureaucratic ‘management.’ Bureaucracy, thus understood, is fully developed in political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modern state, and, in the private economy, only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public office authority, with fixed jurisdiction, is not the historical rule but rather the exception. This is so even in large political structures such as those of the ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires of conquest, or of many feudal structures of state. In all these cases, the ruler executes the most important measures through personal trustees, companions, or court-servants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into being for each case.
II. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers the governed the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in a definitely regulated manner. With the full development of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is monocratically organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in all bureaucratic structures: in state and ecclesiastical structures as well as in large party organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for the character of bureaucracy whether its authority is called ‘private’ or ‘public.’
When the principle of jurisdictional ‘competency’ is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination–at least in public office–does not mean that the ‘higher’ authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the ‘lower.’ Indeed, the opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task, an office tends to continue in existence and be held by another incumbent.
III. The management of the modern office is based upon written documents (‘files’ or ‘records’), which are preserved in their original or draft form. There is, therefore, a staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The body of officials actively engaged in a ‘public’ office, along with the respective apparatus of material implements and the files, make up a ‘bureau.’ In private enterprise, ‘the bureau’ is often called ‘the office.’
In principle, the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private residence of the official, and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of private life. Public money and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This condition is everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays, it is found in public as well as in private enterprises; in the latter, the principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur. In principle, the executive office is separated from the household, business from private correspondence, and business assets from private fortunes. The more consistently the modern type of business management has been carried through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be found as early as the Middle Ages.
It is the peculiarity of the modern entrepreneur that she conducts herself as the ‘first official’ of her enterprise, in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically modern bureaucratic state spoke of herself as ‘the first servant’ of the state. The idea that the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character from the management of private economic offices is a continental European notion and, by way of contrast, is totally foreign to the American way.
IV. Office management, at least all specialized office management– and such management is distinctly modern–usually presupposes thorough and expert training. This increasingly holds for the modern executive and employee of private enterprises, in the same manner as it holds for the state official.
V. When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited. In the normal case, this is only the product of a long development, in the public as well as in the private office. Formerly, in all cases, the normal state of affairs was reversed: official business was discharged as a secondary activity.
VI. The management of the office follows general rules, more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It involves jurisprudence, or administrative or business management.
The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of modern public administration, for instance, assumes that the authority to order certain matters by decree–which has been legally granted to public authorities–does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor, which is absolutely dominant in patrimonialism, at least in so far as such relationships are not fixed by sacred tradition.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Look up the etymology of bureaucracy. What are its roots? Synonyms? Make a short list of modern bureaucracies and compare their elements to those described by Weber.
2. Come up with a shorthand definition of the three elements that constitute bureaucratic authority. Try to do this creatively, as a three-word motto, for example.
3. What is the difference between bureaucratic authority and bureaucratic management? Having read about legitimating forms of authority in Politics as a Vocation, why do you think Weber makes this distinction here?
4. In point V, Weber makes the point that, historically, the official’s duties were “secondary” while now official activity demands the “full working capacity” of the official. What does he mean here? Who were officials in the time when their official work was secondary? Who are they now? (you might want to read along the discussion in Politics as a Vocation).
5. What is professional training for the modern official? How is this different from other officials (those found in traditional or charismatic authority structures, for example? Or private household enterprise during the Middle Ages?)
Bureaucracy | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.09%3A_Bureaucracy.txt |
The Distribution of Power: Classes, Status, Groups,[1] and Parties
“ Every order affects the distribution of power.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from the posthumous 1921 collection of essays, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, first translated into English by Talcott Parsons in 1947 as The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. It was later translated by Eric Mathews and published as “Classes, Status Groups, and Parties” in Runciman’s Weber: Selections in Translation(1978). It was completely retranslated by students under the direction of Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, and published in 2010 as “The Distribution of Power within the Community: Classes, Stände, Parties,” Journal of Classical Sociology10(2): 137-152. The passage here is a loose translation of the original German, condensed for easier reading. For a more exact and complete translation, also updated for today’s reader, see Waters and Waters (2010).
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Identifying the social divisions that operate in any given society is an essential task for the sociologist. Before we can do that, however, we must have an agreed-upon sense of the basis of those social divisions. This passage sets out Weber’s description of the various ways in which social groups set themselves against other social groups. Classes, status groups, and parties are various ways in which divisions between social groups can operate, at least in the sense of power over and power between. Unlike Marx, who saw class as the ultimate expression of social division and power, Weber saw class as but one possible manifestation, operating primarily in the economic sphere, while status groups operate in the social sphere, and parties operate in the political sphere. Weber’s tripartite understanding of basic social divisions has proven helpful to many social researchers who attempt to map and understand how people group themselves and with what consequences. Pay careful attention to the historic links he draws between class and capitalism, as well as the way in which status groups dominated power relations in pre-capitalist communities.
NOTE: Weber uses the terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as special terms to denote different kinds of historical communities. These terms were very popular at the time of this writing and every reader would have understood the reference. In many ways, Gemeinschaften are similar to Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity societies while Gesellschaften are similar to Durkheim’s organic solidarity societies.
Introduction on Power
Every order affects the distribution of power. In general, by power we mean the chance of a person or group of persons to enforce their will on others, even against resistance. Power need not be for money but may be desirable for its own sake. In some cases, it is desired for social recognition or honor. The legal order can guarantee power and honor, but it is not normally the primary source of either. It is an additional factor that enhances the opportunity to possess power or a good reputation. The distribution of power within a community we may call the social order. The social order is not the same thing as the economic order, although it is highly determined by the economic order and in turns effects it.
The Distribution of Power within a Gemeinschaft Community: Classes, Status Groups, and Parties
Classes
Classes, strictly speaking, are not common in Gemeinschaft communities. A class exists only when all three of the following conditions are met: (1) when a large number of people have a specific causal component of their life chances in common; (2) when this causal component is exclusively related to economic interests in the possession of goods and the opportunities of income; and (3) when this operates under the condition of a commodity or labor market. When specific life chances are created by the manner in which material property is distributed among a large enough group of people meeting competitively in the market for exchange, we can talk of classes. Property and lack of property are the basic categories of all class situations. We can refine this further into what kinds of property are used for generating income and exchange. Here are some examples:
• Ownership of residential houses, factories, stores, agriculturally productive land
• Ownership of mines, of domestic animals, of people (slaves)
• Disposition of the mobile tools of production or acquired capital goods
• Ownership of products of one’s own labor or “marketable” skills
Owners are differentiated from each other by the type of property owned (e.g., slave-owners are distinct from factory-owning capitalists or pensioners living off of stock dividends). Property-less workers are also starkly differentiated from each other, according to the kinds of services they offer and whether they are temporary wage workers or salaried employees. In all cases, though, the concept of class is organized around the chances in the market that determine the common conditions of an individual’s fate.
Stände (Status Groups)
The existence of Stände hinders the realization of the naked market principle that is the essence of class. The great shift from Stände to classes has been going on in the past up to the present (early 19th century). Stände, in contrast to classes are normally communally based Gemeinschaften. However, they are often of an amorphous sort. In contrast to ‘class situations,’ which are purely determined by the economy, Stände result from a typical integral part of life, in which a person’s fate depends on a specific positive or negative social assessment of honor. This assessment of honor is tied to the common characteristics of a stereotypical member of the particular Stand. To complicate things further, such honor may also be tied to a class situation, to the amount and kind of property held in the economy. It is common that the differences between classes and Stände can be combined in numerous ways (e.g., a slave-owning member of the aristocracy, a property-less citizen). However, property as such does not always generate prestige in terms of increased honor within the Stand.
In today’s modern democracy, an explicitly ordered privilege of single individuals according to their Stände does not exist, although it does happen that families who belong to the same income bracket dance with each other. It is possible for both people with property and people without property to belong to the same Stand, of course.
The honor of the Stand is predominantly expressed through a specific lifestyle and is imposed on anyone who wants to belong to that social circle. Linked with this lifestyle are restrictions on social intercourse with other Stände, unless those interactions deal with economic or commercial purposes. People marry within their Stand, strict endogamy operates in Stände.
When the most extreme consequences of stratification are reached, the Stand evolves into a closed caste. Rituals develop guaranteeing Stände-related distinctions. This is achieved by restricting any physical contact of members of higher castes with members of lower castes, thereby protecting the purity of the higher caste. As a result, the Stände-related stratifications can lead to the development of castes where the underlying differentiations are held to be ethnic or racial. The Jews are the most impressive historic example of this. The caste structure transforms the horizontal unconnected coexistence of ethnically segregated communities into a vertical system of hierarchical stratification. Where ethnic coexistence permits any ethnic group to value its personal honor as the highest, caste stratification acknowledges higher honor among privileged castes and Stände
From a practical point of view, stratification by Stände goes hand in hand with monopolization of both symbolic and material goods and opportunities. Besides the specific honor of Stand, which always bases itself upon distance and exclusiveness, there are all sorts of specific monopolies, such as the right to wear special costumes or east special dishes denied to others, or even the privilege of carrying arms.
Typically, the privileged Stände avoid common physical labor. This disqualification is even beginning in democratic America, despite older contrary traditions which esteemed physical labor highly. In addition, every rational economic pursuit, particularly “mercantile activity” is often considered to disqualify a person from being a member of the most privileged Stände. Even artistic work, if done for money, is considered degrading, and especially so when connected with hard physical exertion and effort, such as the case of a sculptor working in a dusty smock.
Stände are thus quite distinct from classes! The market knows no ‘’honor’ or ‘prestige’ but the reverse is true for the Stand. Stratification and privileges in terms of honor and of lifestyles are inherent to each Stand and as such are threatened by market forces. Mere economic acquisition and naked economic power bear a stigma from their origin for Stände. Why is this? All groups interested in the Stände orders react with fierceness against the pretentions of purely economic acquisitions because it undercuts the basis of honor and prestige. Otherwise, the wealthiest person would be the most honorable of them all! The privileged Stände groups never accept the newly arrived, the nouvueau riche, not unreservedly, even if he has adapted his lifestyle to theirs. The privileged Stände will only accept their descendants – those raised from birth in the proper conventions, and who have never compromised their honor by participating in economic labor.
Accordingly and predictably, the Stände stratification restrains the free development of the market. First, the development of the market is hindered by the goods which the privileged Stände monopolize, thereby taking them, if you will, out of free circulation. This can be done by law or convention, as with the case of inherited estates. There is thus no actual free market competition in a Stände stratification system. But secondly, is the conflictual relationship between Stände and the economic order. The notion of honor peculiar to the Stand abhors the commercial activity, the bargaining, which is essential to the market.
Thus, to summarize:
• Classes are stratified according to relations to production and acquisition of goods.
• Stände are stratified according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by specific lifestyles.
We might also say that each occupation is a Stand, where and when each has its own specific lifestyle, established by the occupation (e.g., knights, professors, priests). Classes and Stände are different but at the same time they blend and certainly often overlap.
So only a general statement can be made about when we are more likely to see Stände or Classes emerge as the predominant structuring force. A relatively stable base for the acquisition and distribution of goods is necessary for Stände stratification to be favored. Destabilization by technical and economic change and upheaval can threaten Stand stratification by pushing the class situation into the foreground. Eras and countries in which the naked class situation is of predominant significance are normally the periods of technological and economic transformations. In contrast, every slowing down of an economic shifting process in a short time leads to the awakening of the Stand culture, with the result that social ‘honor’ is reestablished.
Parties
The genuine home of classes is within the economic order and the genuine home of Stände is within the social order (the sphere of the distribution of prestige and honor). Parties, however, are primarily at home within the sphere of power.
Party actions are directed towards attaining social power, which means they are directed towards influencing collective action. Parties can only develop within communities organized along Gesellschaft principles, societies that some kind of rational order and an apparatus of persons available read to enforce that rational order. That is because parties direct collective action towards particular goals or ends. The goal of the party is to influence this apparatus of persons or become this apparatus of person.
Parties can represent interests determined by class situations or Stände situations and recruit followers accordingly, but they are conceptually distinct from those classes and Stände.
Parties can have brief or long-lasting structures. Their means of attaining power can be quite diverse, ranging from naked violence of any kind, to campaigning for votes, to elaborate tactics of obstruction within parliamentary bodies. In order to truly understand parties, we need to understand and discuss the structures of social domination.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Is Weber’s “similar life chances” definition of class very different from Marx’s notion of class? Explain your answer.
2. Can you think of a different term for STÄNDE (other than status group)?
3. Weber makes a claim that privileged Stände do not engage in physical labor. Read Veblen here and compare.
4. Do Stände or Classes predominate in today’s society? How do you know?
Concepts
Power
Social Order
Class and Class situation
Stände and Stände situation
Party
1. The word Weber uses here is STÄNDE and there are no exact English equivalents. It has most often been translated as “status,” but this is not quite right. As Waters and Waters (2010) note, the German word for status is, well, status. Weber did not use this word. Instead, he used a word that has an equivalent to way the French use “estate,” to mean a social group with hereditary ties, linked to rights and responsibilities in a given community. Here, we sometimes retain the German word and sometime use “status group” as the least bad approximation for the contemporary reader. Note that Stand is the singular form.
3.11: Concepts Dictionary
Concepts from Weber
Use the following pages to create your own mini-dictionary, with page/line numbers for easy reference. You may want to save this as a separate document for more detailed note-taking and commentary.
Concept Page/Line Numbers Definition/Notes
Authority
Beruf
Bookkeeping
Charisma
Class
Class Situation
Doctrine of Predestination
Rational Western State
Rational Commerce
Rational-Formalistic Law
Social Action
Social Order
Sociology
Spirit of Capitalism
Stände
Stände Situation
State
Verstehen
(Worldly) Ascetism | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/03%3A_Weber/3.10%3A_CSP.txt |
Thumbnail: W. E. B. Du Bois, with beard and mustache, around 50 years old. (Public Domain; Cornelius Marion Battey via Wikipedia)
04: Early American Sociology
NOTE ON SOURCES: The following sources were used for biographical information on the early American sociologists. All are recommended for further reading: Heinz Maus, A Short History of Sociology (1962); Charles Hunt Page, Class and American Sociology: From Ward to Ross (1969), Timothy Raison and Paul Barker, The Founding Fathers of Social Science (1963); Stephen Turner, American Sociology: From Pre-Disciplinary to Post-Normal (2014); Ronald Fernandez, Mappers of Society: The Lives, Times and Legacies of Great Sociologists (2003)
Although the United States did not produce classical theorists on the same level as Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, it would be wrong to think that there were no theoretical advances taking place there in this period. The early American sociologists were aware of what was going on in Europe. In fact, the first US sociology journal, the American Journal of Sociology, had Durkheim on its editorial board. In contrast to European sociology, however, it is true that American sociology tended to be less theoretical, more pragmatic, and more closely tied in with public policy research. The several Americans included in this section were known for developing ideas and concepts as well as “doing” sociology. There are a few things that stand out and should be noted. From the beginning, there was a tension between those who espoused a Spencerian Social Darwinist approach to the social world and those who would use sociology to formulate plans and solutions to social problems. This tension may be rooted in the newness of the United States, its unique history as a colony and destination of mass migration (voluntary and forced). Several writers noted the importance of understanding and ameliorating racial problems, for example. Others sought to explain and prevent the hardening of class lines in a nation that was by definition anti-aristocratic, and more generally the problems and promises of a democratic society. Finally, American sociologists were a diverse group, as the following biographies attest.
William Graham Sumner (1840-1910)
Sumner is known as one of the “four founders” of American sociology (along with Small, Giddings, and Ward). Sumner was born October 30, 1840 in Paterson, New Jersey. His father was not wealthy and was known to engage in prospecting during Sumner’s youth. Sumner himself worked as a clerk before graduating from Yale College in 1863. He dodged the draft for the American Civil War and instead traveled to Europe, where he studied at several universities, eventually hearing about sociology through Herbert Spencer while at Oxford University. Sumner had two careers: the first, begun in 1867, was an ordained minister. The second, was as first Professor of Sociology in the US, at Yale. In 1871 he married Jeannie Whittemore Elliott. They had three sons, two of whom survived to adulthood. As a sociologist, Sumner was greatly influenced by the social Darwinism of Spencer and was an outspoken advocate of laissez-faire policies. He served as the second president of the American Sociological Association (1908-1909), succeeding Ward, whose approach to sociology was diametrically opposed to that of Sumner. His major sociological publications include Social Static: The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness(1851), the multi-volume System of Synthetic Philosophy(1862-1892), and The Study of Sociology(1873).
Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913)
Ward is known as one of the “four founders” of American sociology (along with Giddings, Sumner, and Small). Ward was born June 18, 1841 in Joliet, Illinois. His father was a poor farmer and his mother the daughter of a clergyman. His father eventually owned and operated a sawmill outside Chicago. At age 17, Lester moved to Pennsylvania to work for his older brother, making wagon wheels. Eventually, he earned enough money to put himself through college. While there he met and married his wife, Lizzie Vought. Leaving college, he joined the Union Army and fought in the frontlines of the Civil War, where he suffered injuries. At the end of the war he moved to DC to edit a liberal-minded newspaper. Lizzie soon died in childbirth. A few years later, in 1869, he earned his college degree from George Washington University, followed quickly by a law degree (1871) and a master’s degree (1873), and a second marriage, to Rosamund Simons. For several years Ward worked for the US Government as a geologist and paleontologist, but his attention eventually turned toward society. In 1883 he published a massive 1,200-page book entitled Dynamic Sociology: Or, Applied Social Science Based on Statistical Sociology and the Less Complex Sciences. Here he articulated a vision of sociology that was reformist and geared towards benefiting human society. In contrast to his contemporaries, Spencer and Sumner, Ward criticized the laissez-faire policies of his day as pernicious and unjust. In contrast, he advocated a strong welfare state, equal rights for women, and the abolition of white supremacy. In 1906 he became chair of sociology at Brown University.
Albion Woodbury Small (1854-1926)
Small is known as one of the “four founders” of American sociology (along with Giddings, Sumner, and Ward). He was born May 11, 1854 in Buckfield, Maine. Trained first as a minister like his father before him, he later studied history, economics and politics in Germany (Universities of Leipzig and Berlin), where he met and married his wife, Valeria von Massow, daughter of a German general, in 1881. They had one daughter, Lina. Completing his studies in Germany, he returned stateside to study history at Johns Hopkins University. He earned his PhD in 1889 with a dissertation on The Beginnings of American Nationality. He taught and became the president of Colby College (Maine) before founding the first Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago in 1892. There are a lot of firsts about Small. He wrote the first textbook in sociology (in 1894) and founded the first sociology journal, American Journal of Sociology(in 1895). He was the fourth president of the American Sociological Association. His major works include his first textbook An Introduction to the Study of Society (1894), General Sociology(1905), The Meaning of the Social Sciences(1910), and Between Eras: From Capitalism to Democracy(1913).
Giddings, Franklin Henry (1855-1931)
Giddings is known as one of the “four founders” of American sociology (along with Small, Sumner, and Ward). The son of a prominent Connecticut minister, he studied civil engineering at Union College in 1873 but did not graduate. He became a newspaper editor and school teacher. In 1876 he married Elizabeth Patience Hawes. They would have three children. He went back to college and earned his degree in 1888, after which he took a position at Bryn Mawr, becoming a full professor of political economy in 1892. In 1894, he became a full professor of sociology at Columbia University – this was the first such position in the United States. A dedicated researcher, Giddings was instrumental in creating a research-oriented American sociology. He wrote two early sociology textbooks – Inductive Sociology (1901) and The Scientific Study of Human Society (1924). He served as the third president of the American Sociological Society (1910-1911). Other works by Giddings include: The Theory of Sociology (1894), The Theory of Socialization (1897), Elements of Sociology (1898), and Descriptive and Historical Sociology (1906).
Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929)
Veblen was born July 30, 1857 in Cato, Washington, to Norwegian immigrants. His father was a carpenter by trade but when the family moved to Milwaukee in 1847, they turned to farming. Prosperous, the Veblens were able to send their twelve children to college. His sister, Emily, was the first daughter of Norwegian-American parents who earned a college degree. His oldest brother, Andrew, became a professor of physics. Thorstein attended nearby Carleton College, where he studied both economics and philosophy and became involved with Ellen Rolfe, the niece of the college president. After graduating in 1880, he moved East, where he began taking advanced courses in philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. Lacking funds to continue there, he transferred to Yale University on a scholarship, and obtained a PhD in 1884, with a degree in philosophy and social studies. Unable to find employment, which may have had something to do with either being irreligious or Norwegian, he moved back to the family farm for several years, where he married Ellen Rolfe in 1888. In 1891 he took up economics at Cornell University and then moved to the University of Chicago, where he was offered a teaching position. He began writing and publishing in earnest soon after, publishing The Theory of the Leisure Class in 1899, The Theory of Business Enterprise in 1904, and The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts in 1914. In 1911 he divorced Ellen and in 1914 married Ann Bradley Bevans, a former student. He had no children. In 1917 he moved to DC to work with a group on the peace talks following World War I. In 1919 he helped form the New School for Social Research in New York City. He continued to publish books critical of capitalism (The Higher Learning in America(1918), The Vested Interests and the Common Man(1919), and Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise(1923)) until his retirement to California. He died in Menlo Park on August 3, 1929. He is known for many things – originating the term “conspicuous consumption,” developing institutional economics, and being a consistent and sharp critic of capitalism and capitalists.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins (1860-1935)
Gilman was born July 3, 1860 in Hartford, Connecticut. On her father’s side, she was related to the novelist Harriet Beecher Stowe and the suffragist Isabella Beecher Hooker. She attended the Rhode Island School of Design in 1878 and became a painter. In 1884, she married a fellow-artist, Charles Walter Stetson. Suffering from post-partum depression after the birth of her daughter the following year, she wrote the novel she is most remembered for, The Yellow Wallpaper. The marriage was not a happy one and Gillman divorced in 1894. She became very active in feminist and social reform organizations on the West Coast. She remarried, her cousin Houghton Gilman, in 1900. In 1932, Gilman was diagnosed with incurable breast cancer. She opted to commit suicide in 1935. Gilman is perhaps most known for her novels, particularly The Yellow Wallpaper, and poetry, but she was the author of numerous articles (two published in the American Journal of Sociology) and several non-fiction books, including Women and Economics(1898), Concerning Children(1900), The Man-Made World or, Our Androcentric Culture(1911), and Social Ethics(1914).
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
Addams was born on September 6, 1860 in Cedarville, Illinois, the youngest of eight children. Her father was a wealthy farmer and capitalist, owning several mills, farms, and factories, as well as serving as the local bank’s president. He was active in the Republican Party and a friend of Abraham Lincoln. Addams was afforded ample opportunities, unusual for women of her day but perhaps not so unusual for women of her class. She went to college close to home and, after the death of her father, moved to Pennsylvania to take up a medical education. Suffering from depression and a bad back, she decided to help the poor directly rather than continue her medical training. Eventually, after much traveling and reading, she founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889. Hull House was a settlement house, a sort of cross between social service agency and community arts center, and included a public kitchen, a music school, a library, an employment bureau, and a gym, among other things. Social reformers came from all over to observe its activities, and Addams was flooded with invitations to speak about the Settlement House movement. Addams never married but had at least two serious romantic relationships with women. The first of these, Ellen Starr, helped found Hull House. The second, Mary Rozel Smith, with whom she lived, helped support Hull House financially. They remained together until Mary’s death in 1934. Although never holding a sociology position, she was closely connected with the new sociology department at the University of Chicago, whose activities were aligned with methods developed by Addams (e.g., local ethnography in service of social reform). In the late 1980s, a resurgence of interest in Addams led to recognition that she was one of the “key founders” of the discipline in America. Her published works include descriptions of the Hull House project, The Subjective Value of a Social Settlement (1892) and Twenty Years at Hull-House(1910), polemics against harmful practices, Child Labor(1905), and more general sociological books such as Democracy and Social Ethics(1902).
Robert Ezra Park (1864-1944)
Park was born February 14, 1864 in Harveyville, Pennsylvania, but grew up in Red Wing, Minnesota. After graduating from the University of Michigan in 1887, he worked as a journalist, focusing on issues of social concern, particularly race and urban issues all over the US (Detroit, Denver, NYC, Chicago, and Minneapolis). He married Clara Cahill, the daughter of a wealthy Michigan family, in 1894[1]. They had four children. In 1899, he went back to school, to study philosophy under William James at Harvard. Park next studied philosophy and sociology in Berlin under Georg Simmel, writing a dissertation on Crowds and the Public. He followed his studies with a position as a professor of philosophy at Harvard but left the prestigious post to do field research with Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute. After completing this research, he took a position as a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, a natural fit for a man of his temperament and interests in race relations and urban sociology. After teaching in Chicago for several years, he ended his career at Fisk University, where he remained until his death in 1944. Park’s major publications during his life include The Man Farther Down (1912; with Booker T. Washington), Introduction to the Science of Sociology (1921; with fellow Chicago sociologist Ernest Burgess), The City: Suggestions for the Study of Human Nature in the Urban Environment (1925), The University and the Community of Races (1932),Race Relations and the Race Problem (1939). Several more publications followed his death, collections of articles and lecture during his lifetime.
Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929)
Cooley was born August 17, 1864 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. His father was a Michigan Supreme Court judge and dean of the University of Michigan Law School. Cooley was said to be a shy child, and suffered from his father’s overbearing nature. Although he began college (UM) at the young age of sixteen, it took him seven years to finish his studies, earning a degree in mechanical engineering. In 1890 he married Elsie Jones, an educated woman and daughter of a professor of medicine at UM. They had three children and lived a very close domestic life in Ann Arbor. He returned to UM for a master’s degree in political economics and a PhD in economics, which he earned in 1894. Interested in analyzing social problems, he began teaching sociology the following year. One of the first sociological books he published was entitled Nature versus Nurture in the Making of Social Careers(1896). His output was prodigious thereafter, and included The Process of Social Change (1902), Human Nature and the Social Order (1902), SocialOrganization (1909), Social Process (1918), Life and the Student (1927), and Sociological Theory and Research (1930). He is most famous for developing the concept of the “looking glass self,” and the idea that one’s self-identity is socially constructed. In this, he is the grandfather of symbolic interaction theory.
Edward Alsworth Ross (1866-1951)
Ross was born December 12, 1866 in Virden, Illinois, the son of a farmer. He graduated from Coe College and served as an instructor at a local business school for two years before undertaking graduate study in Germany. In 1891 he received a PhD from Johns Hopkins University in political economy. He served as professor at Indiana University from 1891-1892, Cornell from 1892-1892, and Stanford from 1893 to 1900. In 1892 he married Rosamund Simons, the niece of Lester Frank Ward. He was famously fired from Stanford because of his radical political views on the railroad industry, which bothered Stanford’s widow. This case became one of the first “academic freedom” controversies in the US. After his firing he taught at the University of Nebraska for a few years, before eventually settling in at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he served as Professor of Sociology until his retirement in 1937. Ross served as the fifth President of the American Sociological Society (1914-1915). From 1940 to 1950 he served as chairperson of the American Civil Liberties Union. His major publications include Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order (1901), Foundations of Sociology (1905), Changing America: Studies in Contemporary Society (1912), What is America? (1919), and The Russian Bolshevik Revolution (1921).
W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963)
William Edward Burghardt Du Bois was born February 23, 1868 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, a relatively integrated community for the time. His family had been part of the free African-American population for several generations, and his parents were small landowners. Du Bois attended the local integrated (mostly white) high school before attending the historically black Fisk University. It was here that he first discovered Southern racism and the Jim Crow system. After Fisk, Du Bois attended Harvard, studying under the famous American philosopher, William James. He gave a commencement oration on Jefferson Davis. After studying in Berlin and teaching a course at a small college in Ohio, he earned a PhD from Harvard in 1895, the first African-American to do so. He also married one of his students from Ohio, Nina Gomer. They had two children, a son who died young and a daughter, Yolande, who became a high school teacher and wife of the famous poet Countee Cullen. The following year he published his dissertation, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870, and was hired to conduct a sociological study of Philadelphia’s Black community by the University of Pennsylvania. In 1897 he was hired as professor of history and economics at Atlanta University. From here began Du Bois’ remarkable publication record, including The Philadelphia Negro (1897), The Souls of Black Folk (1903), Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil (1920), and Black reconstruction (1935). He also became deeply active in political movements, both in the US and abroad. He helped organize the first Pan-African Conference in Paris in 1919, edited the political journal The Crisis, and became active in the Communist Party. After the death of his first wife, he married Shirley Graham, an author and activist. Du Bois was a life-long proponent of peace and supporter of decolonization efforts around the world, eventually moving to and dying in the newly independent nation of Ghana.
Charles Abram Ellwood (1873-1946)
Ellwood may more properly be considered the “second generation” of American sociologists. He was largely seen as a successor to Ward in approach, fighting against “objectivism” in social sciences, bringing a more social psychological perspective to his work, and gearing his research toward the amelioration of social problems. We don’t actually know much about his beginnings or personal life. Ellwood was born on January 20, 1873 in New York. He graduated from Cornell University in 1896 (where he studied under Ross), but also studied at the University of Chicago (where he studied under Small) and Berlin. He first became a professor of sociology in 1900 at the University of Missouri and later moved to Duke University. He served as the fourteenth president of the American Sociological Association, where his presidential speech was a stirring rebuke to Intolerance (1924). His major works include Public Relief and Private Charity (1903), Sociology and Modern Social Problems (1910), Sociology in its Psychological Aspects (1912), and The Social Problem: A Constructive Analysis (1917), Cultural Evolution (1927), and Methods in Sociology (1933).
1. For more on “the curious marriage” between Park, a man who mocked wealthy philanthropic “club-women” and Clara Cahill, the epitome of such a club-woman, I recommended Mary Jo Deegan’s 2006 article, “The Human Drama Behind the Study of People as Potato Bugs” in The Journal of Classical Sociology. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/04%3A_Early_American_Sociology/4.01%3A_Biography_of_Early_American_Sociologists.txt |
“They start from the assumption that a collective rather than a purely individualistic struggle for existence has from the beginning of human history been indispensable for the survival and progress of society.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: These passages are from two articles published in 1919 by Harry Elmer Barnes. The articles were entitled, “Two Representative Contributions of Sociology to Political Theory: The Doctrines of William Graham Sumner and Lester Frank Ward” and were published in the American Journal of Sociology (volume 24, number 1) in July 1919.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Passages from the lengthy articles are included here as an introduction to the contrasting founders of American sociology. The writer, Barnes, was a professor of history at Columbia University, and, in his later years, lost credibility for his denial of the Holocaust. These passages will serve as an introduction to the reception of Sumner’s work, and its contrast to Ward. American sociology, and American social thought generally, was torn between a laissez-faire evolutionary approach (typified by Sumner) and a progressive social reform approach (typified by Ward). Although Ward’s approach (perhaps) won out historically, it is important to recognize just how much influence and respect Sumner’s approach had at the time.
Introduction: The Sociological View of the State
In this period of rapid social change, cataclysmic transformations of governments, and multiplicity of proposals for new and improved forms of political organization, it is particularly desirable that one should be able to secure orientation by getting back of superficial externals to the fundamental basis of the origin, nature, functions, and justification of political institutions. The complete futility of a purely metaphysical or legalistic interpretation of political institutions is generally agreed upon by all progressive students. Realizing that man in political life, as in other phases of human activity, is guided primarily by his mental mechanism, emotional and rational, enterprising writers and students have made promising beginnings in a psychological reconstruction of political theory. Others, holding that man’s material interests have greatly influenced his emotional and intellectual reactions and activities, have endeavored with no little success to show the relation of economic life to the nature and functioning of the state.
Then there is a school of writers, calling themselves, since the time of Comte, sociologists, who believe that the most significant fact about our life and conduct is that we do not act in isolation but in association with our fellows, in other words that in every phase of human activity our group life is the most fundamental element to be considered. They start from the assumption that a collective rather than a purely individualistic struggle for existence has from the beginning of human history been indispensable for the survival and progress of society, and they further assume the necessity and existence of the state as a most powerful and vital organ in this process of social development. From this point of view the state appears not as some metaphysical “ethical being” or as a purely legalistic entity emitting “commands of a determinate superior,” but as a purely natural product of social evolution, more or less distinctly correlated in its development with the stages of group progress with which its growth is associated. Viewed in this sense it must be agreed that political institutions cannot be properly understood or profitably studied except in their relation to their broader foundations in the social or group life of mankind, and the only sound criterion for estimating the value and relative excellence of the state is its adaptability to the function of promoting the progress and basic interests of the group at any given time. To mention but a few of the more notable examples, Spencer, Giddings, Durkheim, Cooley, Ellwood, Giddings, Sumner, and Ward.
The late Professor Sumner stands out as the great American exponent of the laissez-faire doctrine so inseparably associated with the name of Herbert Spencer. Professor Ward represents, on the other hand, the most advanced views yet taken by an avowed sociologist in the advocacy of a comprehensive program of social reform through the medium of legislation.
Part 1. Sumner; General Characteristics of His Sociological Thought
Among the sociologists of America there is little doubt that the late Professor William Graham Sumner, of Yale, was the most vigorous and striking personally. Probably the most inspiring and popular teacher that Yale University or American social science has produced, Sumner’s direct contact with thousands of students was, without doubt, more important for the development of sociology in the United States than his own published works upon the subject, or the published works of many another American sociologists. Consequently, in even a brief introduction to his contributions to sociology, an attempt to interpret his personality and methods, as revealed in his writings and in written and oral estimates from former students at Yale, is more essential than it would be in the case of any other American sociologist.
In spite of the fact that Sumner frequently emphasizes the necessity for an objective point of view in social science and decries any attempt upon the part of a sociologist to moralize, it is impossible for a reader to emerge from a protracted examination of Sumner’s economic, political, and sociological writings without becoming convinced that Sumner was primarily a preacher in the true sense of that term. Trained originally for the ministry and serving for a short time as an ordained curate of the Episcopal Church, Sumner tells his readers that he left the ministry because he wanted to be able to turn his attention to political, economic, and social questions rather than to the preparation of sermons on theological subjects. It is hard to escape the conviction that he employed his professorial career in these more fertile fields in developing an intellectual ministry which has been unexcelled for its success, influence, and inspiration by that of any other American teacher. Sumner was as subtle in his preaching as Jefferson was in his political epistolography, for he continually disclaimed any attempt to do more than set forth concrete facts in a candid manner. Yet his Social Classes is, above all, an exhortation to independent thought and action, self-reliance, and individual initiative, and the element of the preacher is not entirely absent even in Folkways. If one adds to this initial zeal the influence of a commanding personality, a wide learning, a splendid, of not entirely accurate dogmatism, and a mastery of incisive English which makes his essays models of terse 19th century critical prose, it is not difficult to understand Sumner’s reputation as a teacher or his dominating influence at Yale.
Sumner’s writings are intensely dogmatic, and he was an uncompromising foe of all the unscientific sentimentality which has permeated so many of the pseudosociological writings and movements of the last quarter of a century. His basic message to his students and readers in this respect has been concisely epitomized by one of his students as “Don’t be a damn fool!”‘ Sumner’s dogmatism, however, was not entirely logical or consistent. For example, he stated that he did not believe in either metaphysics or psychology and that he had always tried to prevent sociology from being infected by them. Nevertheless, he continually indulged in a rather crude type of metaphysics of his own, and his Folkways is unquestionably the most important objective treatment of a very essential portion of social psychology which has ever been written.
While it may be true that Sumner was always primarily a sociologist in method and point of view, there can be no doubt that he built up his academic and literary reputation in the fields of economics and political science as an exceedingly vigorous advocate of “hard money,” free trade, and laissez-faire. Again, while Sumner may claim a priority of practically a decade over any other American teacher in introducing a serious course in sociology into the university curriculum, he never published a systematic exposition of sociology, and his great monograph, Folkways, did not appear until three years before his death.
On the whole it was probably fortunate that Sumner specialized in the descriptive and ethnographic, rather than the theoretical, phase of sociology, as his power of that sustained and logical abstract thinking, such as has characterized Professor Giddings’ work, was very modest.
It seems that, tentatively at least, Sumner’s position in American sociology may be summarized as follows: He was the first teacher of sociology in the country from the standpoint both of time and ability; his Folkways is one of the richest treatments of a special branch of sociology that has yet appeared; his sociological writings were primarily concrete and descriptive rather than abstract and theoretical; his views regarding social initiative or “collective telesis” to adopt Ward’s terminology, were exceedingly biased and archaic, being almost a reductio ad absurdum of the laissez-faire individualistic position.
A primary conception in Sumner’s sociological theory was the assumption that social as well as organic evolution is almost entirely an automatic spontaneous process which cannot be extensively altered by social effort.
Part 2. Ward; General Characteristics of His Sociological System
Among all American writers there can be no doubt that Lester F. Ward has produced the most pretentious and comprehensive system of sociology. Mr. Ward was also the earliest important American sociologist. His Dynamic Sociology, which many critics consider his magnum opus, appeared in 1883, about midway between the publication of the first and last volumes of Spencer’s Principles of Sociology. In addition to many articles in periodicals, Ward’s sociological system was embodied in six considerable volumes. Whatever may be the estimate of the future regarding the place of Ward in the history of sociology, it is certain that no other writer has approached the subject with a body of scientific knowledge which at all approximated that possessed by Ward. Herbert Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy undoubtedly displays more profound reasoning powers and a greater talent for the logical marshaling of evidence, but his scientific knowledge was not at all comparable to that possessed by Ward. Ward’s formal scientific career was passed as a government expert in paleobotany, to which he made contributions only second in importance to his work in sociology. Ward’s predilection for introducing his botanical terminology into his sociology often gives the latter as strange, technical, and repulsive a tone as is to be found in the writings of the extreme “Organicists.” Some of his scientific terms, however, such as “sympodial development,” “synergy,” “creative synthesis,” “gynaecocracy,” and “social telesis,” are rather felicitous and have been quite generally absorbed into conventional sociological thought and expression.
As to the subject-matter of sociology, Ward says: “My thesis is that the subject-matter of sociology is human achievement. It is not what men are but what they do. It is not the structure but the function.” As nearly all of the earlier sociologists had been concerned almost wholly with an analysis of social structure, Ward’s point of approach was novel and epoch-making in its significance. The divisions of sociology are two-pure and applied. Pure sociology is theoretical and seeks to establish the principles of the science. Applied sociology is practical and points out the applications of the science. Specifically, it “deals with the artificial means of accelerating the spontaneous processes of nature.”
Ward divides the body of his sociological system accordingly into genesis and telesis. The former treats of the origin and spontaneous development of social structures and functions and the latter of the conscious improvement of society,
In conclusion, one may safely say that Ward’s outstanding contributions to sociology were his grasp of the relations between cosmic and social evolution, and his doctrine of the superiority of the conscious over the unconscious control of the social process. In neither of these respects has he been approached by any other sociologist. Of these two cardinal contributions the latter is by far the more important, for the obvious reason that the former is at best but picturesque and eloquent guesswork, and must always be so until the range of human knowledge is greatly extended. The latter, however, is perhaps the most important single contribution of sociology to human thought, and Ward’s significance must rest chiefly upon the fact that his presentation of this conception has been the most powerful that sociology has yet produced.
Professor Giddings has summed up this aspect of Ward’s system with characteristic clarity:
Throughout all Ward’s work there runs one dominating and organizing thought. Human society, as we who live now know it, is not the passive product of unconscious forces. It lies within the domain of cosmic law, but so does the mind of man: and this mind of man has knowingly, artfully, adapted and re-adapted its social environment, and with reflective intelligence has begun to shape it into an instrument wherewith to fulfill man’s will. With forecasting wisdom man will perfect it, until it shall be at once adequate and adaptable to all its uses. This he will do not by creative impulse evolving in a void, but by constructive intelligence shaping the substantial stuff of verified scientific knowledge. Wherefore, scientific knowledge must be made the possession of mankind. Education must not merely train the mind. It must also equip and store, with knowledge.
This great thought Dr. Ward apprehended, expressed, explained, illuminated, drove home to the mind of all who read his pages, as no other writer, ancient or modern, has ever done. It is his enduring and cogent contribution to sociology.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. What is the primary divergence between the sociological and public policy approaches of Sumner and Ward? How would you characterize the other American sociologists (e.g., Addams, Giddings, Cooley)? What about Weber and Durkheim (who were developing their ideas at the same time)?
2. What does Barnes mean when he says it was “probably fortunate” that Sumner stuck to description and ethnography?
3. What does it mean to say that evolution is “spontaneous”? What would Sumner have thought of Addams’ position on the activity of the labor movement?
4. Which brand of sociology is most attractive to you? Why? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/04%3A_Early_American_Sociology/4.02%3A_Comparison_of_Spencer_and_Ward_by_Barnes_%281919%29.txt |
“Early humans were members of a group which depended for its survival on the industrial efficiency of its members and on their singleness of purpose in making use of the material means at hand.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from an article entitled “The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labor,” published in the American Journal of Sociology in September 1898, pages 187-201. It has been abbreviated for publication here.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Veblen tries to understand how it is that we could have a collective aversion to work when, as a species, we have always had a very strong “instinct for workmanship.” He then contrasts sportsmanship (fighting) with workmanship, locating the denigration of work in the development of a “predatory culture.” As you read this passage and follow Veblen’s argument, think about how it compares with Marx’s description of the rise of capitalism and Weber’s explanation of the difference between class and status societies.
The Instinct of Workmanship[1] and the Irksomeness of Labor
It is one of the commonplaces of the revived economic theory that work is irksome. Many a discussion proceeds on this axiom that, so far as regards economic matters, people desire above all things to get the goods produced by labor and to avoid the labor by which the goods are produced. In a general way the common-sense opinion is well in accord with current theory on this head. According to the common-sense ideal, the economic beatitude lies in an unrestrained consumption of goods, without work; whereas the perfect economic affliction is unremunerated labor. We instinctively revolt at effort that goes to supply the means of life.
No one will accept the proposition when stated in this bald fashion, but even as it stands it is scarcely an overstatement of what is implied in the writings of eminent economists.
Yet, for all the apparent absurdity of the thing, there is the fact. With more or less sincerity, people currently avow an aversion to useful effort. The avowal does not cover all effort, but only such as is of some use; it is, more particularly, such effort as is vulgarly recognized to be useful labor. Less repugnance is expressed as regards effort which brings gain without giving a product that is of human use, as, for example, the effort that goes into war, politics, or other employments of a similar nature. And there is commonly no avowed aversion to sports or other similar employments that yield neither a pecuniary gain nor a useful product.
Like other animals, humans are agents that act in response to stimuli afforded by the environment in which they live. Like other species, we are creatures of habit and propensity. But in a higher degree than other species, we mentally digest the content of the habits under whose guidance we act and appreciate the trend of these habits and propensities. We are in an eminent sense an intelligent agent. By selective necessity we are endowed with a proclivity for purposeful action. We are possessed of a discriminating sense of purpose, by force of which all futility of life or of action is distasteful to us. This is a generic feature of human nature. It is not a trait that occurs sporadically in a few individuals.
Our great advantage over other species in the struggle for survival has been our superior facility in turning the forces of the environment to account. It is to our proclivity for turning the material means of life to account that we owe our positions as masters of creation. It is not a proclivity of effort, but to achievement – to the compassing of an end. Our primacy is in the last resort an industrial or economic primacy. In our economic life we are agents, not sponges; we are agents seeking in every act the accomplishment of some concrete, objective, impersonal end.
All this seems to contradict what has just been said of the conventional aversion to labor. But the contradiction is not so sheer in fact as it appears to be at first sight. Its solution lies in the fact that the aversion to labor is in great part a conventional aversion only. In the intervals of sober reflection, when not harassed by the strain of overwork, our common sense speaks unequivocally under the guidance of the instinct of workmanship. We like to see others spend their lives to some purpose, and we like to reflect that our own life is of some use. All of us have this quasi-aesthetic sense of economic or industrial merit, and to this sense of economic merit futility and inefficiency are distasteful. In its positive expression it is an impulse or instinct of workmanship; negatively it expresses itself in a deprecation of waste.
This instinct of workmanship apparently stands in sheer conflict with conventional antipathy to useful effort. The two are found together in full discord in the common run of people; but whenever a deliberate judgment is passed on conduct or one vents, the former asserts its primacy in a pervasive way which suggests that it is altogether the more generic, more abiding trait of human nature. There can scarcely be a serious question of precedence between the two. The former is a human trait necessary to the survival of the species; the latter is a habit of thought possible only in a species which has distanced all competitors, and then it prevails only by sufferance and within limits set by the former. The question between them is, Is the aversion to labor a derivative of the instinct of workmanship? And, how has it arisen and gained consistence in spite of its being at variance with that instinct?
Until recently there has been something of a consensus among those who have written on early culture, to the effect that, human beings, as they first emerged upon the properly human plane, were of a contentious disposition, inclined to isolate their own interests and purposes from those of their fellows, and with a penchant for feuds and brawls. Even today it is held that men are inclined to fight, not to work. This view would make the proclivity to purposeful action an impulse to sportsmanship rather than to workmanship.
There is much to be said for this view. If humans were by derivation a race not of workers but of sportsmen, then there is no need of explaining the conventional aversion to work. Work is unsportsmanlike and therefore distasteful, and perplexity then arises in explaining how we have in any degree become reconciled to any but a predatory life. The history of mankind, as conventionally written, has been a narrative of predatory exploits, and this history is not commonly felt to be one-sided or misinformed. And a sportsmanlike inclination to warfare is also to be found in nearly all modern communities. Similarly, the sense of honor, so-called, whether it is individual or national honor, is also an expression of sportsmanship. The prevalence of notions of honor may, therefore, be taken as evidence going in the same direction.
Yet there is a considerable body of evidence, both from cultural history and from the present-day phenomena of human life, which traverses this conventionally accepted view that makes man generically a sportsman. Obscurely but persistently, throughout the history of human culture, the great body of people have almost everywhere, in their everyday life, been at work to turn things to human use. The proximate aim of all industrial improvement has been the better performance of some workmanlike task. It will not do to say that the work accomplished is entirely due to compulsion under a predatory regime, for the most striking advances in this respect have been wrought where the coercive force of a sportsmanlike exploitation has been least.
The same view is borne out by the expressions of common sense. As has already been remarked, whenever they dispassionately take thought and pass a judgment on the value of human conduct, the common run of people approve workmanship rather than sportsmanship. At the best, they take an apologetic attitude toward the latter. Predatory exploit, simply as such, is not felt to carry its own legitimation. What meets unreserved approval is such conduct as furthers human life on the whole, rather than such as furthers the invidious or predatory interest of one as against another.
The archaic turn of mind that inclines people to commend workmanlike serviceability is the outcome of long and consistent habituation to a course of life of such a character as is reflected by this inclination.
Our life is activity; and as we act, so we think and feel. This is necessarily so, since it is we, the agent, that does the thinking and feeling. Like other species, we are a creature of habits and propensities. We are social animals and the selective process whereby we have acquired the spiritual makeup of a social animal has at the same time made us substantially a peaceful animal. We may have wandered far from the ancient position of peacefulness, but even now the traces of a peaceful trend in our everyday habits of thought and feeling are plain enough. The sight of blood and the presence of death, even of the blood or death of the lower animals, commonly strike inexperienced persons with a sickening revulsion. In the common run of cases, the habit of complacency with slaughter comes only as the result of discipline. In this respect we differ from the beasts of prey. In our unarmed frame and in the slight degree to which our muscular force is specialized for fighting, as well as in our instinctive aversion to hostile contact with ferocious beasts, we are to be classed with those animals that owe their survival to an aptitude for avoiding direct conflict with their competitors, rather than those which survive by virtue of overcoming and eating their rivals.
We are the weakest and most defenseless of all living things, and, according to the Law of the Jungle, it is our part to take advice and contrive to turn diverse things to account in ways that are incomprehensible to the rest. Without tools we are not a dangerous animal, as animals go. And we did not become a formidable animal until we had made some considerable advance in the contrivance of implements for combat. In the days before tools had been brought into effective use – that is to say, during by far the greater part of the period of human evolution – we could not be primarily agents of destruction or disturbers of the peace. We were of a peaceable and retiring disposition by force of circumstances. Tools and implements, in the early days, must have served chiefly to shape facts and objects for human use, rather than for inflicting damage and discomfort. Industry would have to develop far before it became possible for one group of men to live at the cost of another.
By selection and by training, our life, before a predatory life became possible, would act to develop and to conserve in us an instinct for workmanship. The adaptation to the environment which the situation enforced was of an industrial kind: it required us to acquire facility in shaping things and situations for human use. This does not mean the shaping of things by the individual to her own individual use simply; for archaic humans were necessarily members of a group, and during this early stage, when industrial efficiency was still inconsiderable, no group could have survived except on the basis of a sense of solidarity strong enough to throw self-interest into the background. Self-interest, as an accepted guide of action, is possible only as the concomitant of a predatory life, and a predatory life is possible only after the use of tools has developed so far as to leave a large surplus of product over what is required for the sustenance of the producers. Subsistence by predation implies something substantial to prey upon.
Early humans were members of a group which depended for its survival on the industrial efficiency of its members and on their singleness of purpose in making use of the material means at hand. Some competition between groups for the possession of the fruits of the earth and for advantageous locations there would be even at a relatively early stage, but much hostile contact between groups there could not be; not enough to shape the dominant habits of thought.
What we can do easily is what we do habitually, and this decides what we can think and know easily. We feel at home in the range of ideas which is familiar through our everyday line of action. A habitual line of action constitutes a habitual line of thought and gives the point of view from which facts and events are apprehended and reduced to a body of knowledge. A process or method of life, once understood, assimilated in thought, works into the scheme of life and becomes a norm of conduct, simply because the thinking, knowing agent is also the acting agent. What is apprehended with facility and is consistent with the process of life and knowledge is thereby apprehended as right and good.
Under the canon of conduct imposed by the instinct of workmanship, efficiency, serviceability, commends itself, and inefficiency or futility is odious. We contemplate our own conduct and that of our neighbors, and pass judgment of complacency or of dispraise. The degree of effectiveness with which we live up to the accepted standard of efficiency in great measure determines our contentment with ourselves and our situation.
Sensitiveness to rebuke or approval is a matter of selective necessity under the circumstances of associated life. Without it no group of persons could carry on a collective life in a material environment that requires shaping to our ends.
Under the guidance of this taste for good work, we are compared with one another and with the accepted ideas of efficiency and are rated and graded by the common sense of our fellows according to conventional schemes of merit and demerit. The visible achievement of one of us is, therefore, compared with that of another, and the award of esteem comes habitually to rest on an invidious comparison of persons instead of on the immediate bearing of the given line of conduct upon the approved end of action. The ground of esteem in this way shifts from a direct appreciation of the expediency of the conduct to a comparison of the abilities of different agents. Instead of a valuation of serviceability, there is a gauging of capability on the ground of visible success. It becomes the proximate end of effort to put forth evidence of power, rather than to achieve an impersonal end for its own sake, simply as an item of human use.
Over time, aggression and predatory behavior creep in, as a way of marking success…
With the increasing density of population that follows from a heightened industrial efficiency, the group passes, by force of circumstances, from the archaic condition of poverty-stricken peace to a stage of predatory life. When a group emerges into this predatory phase of its development, the employments which most occupy men’s attention are employments that involve exploit. The most serious concern of the group, and at the same time the direction in which the most spectacular effect may be achieved by the individual, is conflict with men and beasts. The assertion of a strong hand, successful aggression, usually of a destructive character, becomes the accepted basis of repute. The dominant life interest of the group throws its strong light upon this creditable employment of force and sagacity, and the other, obscurer ways of serving the group’s life fall into the background. The guiding animus of the group becomes a militant one, and men’s actions are judged from the standpoint of the fighting man.
As the predatory culture reaches a fuller development, there comes a distinction between employments. Prowess comes near being recognized as the sole virtue. Other employments, in which people are occupied with tamely shaping inert materials to human use, become unworthy and end with becoming debasing. The tame employments, those that involve no obvious destruction of life and no spectacular coercion of refractory antagonists, fall into disrepute and are relegated to those members of the community who are defective in predatory capacity; those who are lacking in massiveness, agility, or ferocity. Therefore, the able-bodied barbarian of the predatory culture, who is at all mindful of his good name, severely leaves all uneventful drudgery to the women and children of the group. He puts in his time in the manly arts of war and devotes his talents to devising ways and means of disturbing the peace. That way lies honor.
In the barbarian scheme of life, the peaceable, industrial employments are women’s work. They imply defective force, incapacity for aggression or devastation, and are therefore not of good report. In this way industrial occupations fall under a polite odium and are apprehended to be substantially ignoble. They are unsportsmanlike. Labor carries a taint, and all contamination from vulgar employments must be shunned by self-respecting men.
Where the predatory culture had developed in full consistence, the common-sense apprehension that labor is ignoble has developed into the further refinement that labor is wrong. In the further cultural development, when some wealth has been accumulated and the members of the community fall into a servile class on the one hand and a leisure class on the other, the tradition that labor is ignoble gains an added significance. It is not only a mark of inferior force, but it is also a perquisite of the poor. This is the situation today.
There is no remedy for this kind of irksomeness, short of a subversion of that cultural structure on which our canons of decency rest. Appeal may of course be made to taste and conscience to set aside the conventional aversion to labor; such an appeal is made from time to time by well-meaning persons, and some fitful results have been achieved in that way. But the commonplace, common-sense person is bound by the deliverances of common-sense decorum on this head – the heritage of an unbroken cultural line of descent that runs back to the beginning.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Is work irksome to us? Compare and contrast your answer with that provided by Veblen.
2. Many of the first sociological theorists made comparisons between human animals and non-human animals. What sets us apart as a species, according to Veblen? How does this compare to what Marx thought set humans apart? What other comparisons can be made here between Veblen and Marx? Do you think Veblen had read Marx? Explain.
3. What is the “instinct of workmanship”? Why has Veblen chosen the word “instinct” to define this phenomenon?
4. Veblen was known primarily as an economist, and economics is the only social science he mentions in this article. What makes him a sociologist? Find passages and assertions in support.
5. In this article, Veblen asserts a sociology of knowledge, of how we come to think as we do, about the things we do. According to him, what is the source of our knowledge? What is the relationship between our thoughts, beliefs, values and the context (social and environmental) in which we live? Further, what is the source of our ethical values and social norms?
6. Veblen also puts forth a theory about how the gendered division of labor emerged, and with what consequences for relations between the sexes. What does he say? How does this compare with Durkheim?
7. What are the social and cultural consequences of seeing manual labor as inferior to exploitation? Does Veblen offer any solutions here?
1. A note on gender-neutral language here. In most cases, where Veblen uses “man” to denote all humans, I have changed the text to reflect this (most of the time, adopting “we” and “us” instead of the generic “men”). However, in cases where it is obvious that women were not encompassed by the word, such as “sportsmanship”, the original term has been retained. In the case of workmanship, the original has sometimes been retained (as here, in the title), and at times changed to a more generic work, labor, or craft, as more appropriate to the intended meaning. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/04%3A_Early_American_Sociology/4.03%3A_Thorstein_Veblen_on_Labor%281898%29.txt |
“When the mother of the race is free, we shall have a better world.”
NOTE ON SOURCE: This passage is from Gilman’s book, Women and Economics: A Study of the Relation between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution, published in 1898 . Included here are excerpts from the first and last chapters.
Introduction – Why this is important and what to look for
Charlotte Perkins Gilman is known for her critical views on the economic dependence of women. Her position was an unusual one at the time, linked as it was to a conception of the influence of social forces on what seemed like individual situations (e.g., marriage). Rather than argue that women should have the vote, Gilman argued that the gendered division of labor produced warped human beings (male and female). It is impossible to read her without also recognizing that she wrote within a current of eugenicist thinking, common to the period. Late nineteenth-century Reform Darwinism sought racial improvements through improved social arrangements and, at its most pernicious, better breeding (e.g., mate selection). In the passages included here Gilman uses “race” to mean both “the human race” and, sometimes, to hint at racial distinctions among humans. When reading, it may be useful to keep this mind, and to consider the historical connections between sociology, progressive reform, and evolutionary theory. Gender pronoun uses and references to “man” or “woman” have been retained as Gilman wrote them, as we can expect they were consciously intended.
Preface
This book is written to offer a simple and natural explanation of one of the most common and most perplexing problems of human life – a problem which presents itself to almost every individual for practical solution, and which demands the most serious attention of the moralist, the physician, and the sociologist.
To show how some of the worst evils under which we suffer, evils long supposed to be inherent and ineradicable in our natures, are but the result of certain arbitrary conditions of our own adoption, and how, by removing those conditions, we may remove the evils resultant…. It is hoped that the theory advanced will prove sufficiently suggestive to give rise to such further study and discussion as shall prove its error or establish its truth.
Chapter I.
Since we have learned to study the development of human life as we study the evolution of species throughout the animal kingdom, some peculiar phenomena which have puzzled the philosopher and moralist for so long, begin to show themselves in a new light. We begin to see that, so far from being inscrutable problems, these sorrows and perplexities of our lives are but the natural results of natural causes, and, that, as soon as we ascertain the causes, we can do much to remove them.
In spite of the power of the individual will to struggle against conditions, to resist them for a while, and sometimes to overcome them, it remains true that the human creature is affected by his environment, as is every other living thing.
Without touching yet upon the influence of social factors, treating the human being merely as an individual animal, we see that we are modified most by our economic conditions, as is every other animal. The sheep, the cow, the deer, differ in their adaptation to the weather, their locomotive ability, their means of defense; but they agree in main characteristics, because of their common method of nutrition.
The human animal is no exception to this rule. Climate affects us, weather affects us, enemies affect us; but most of all we are affected, like every other living creature, by what we do for a living.
In view of these facts, attention is now called to a certain marked and peculiar economic condition affecting humans, and unparalleled in the organic world. We are the only animal species in which the female depends on the male for food, the only animal species in which the sex-relations is also an economic relation. With us an entire sex lives in a relation of economic dependence upon the other sex, and the economic relation is combined with the sex-relation. The economic status of the human female is relative to the sex-relation.
It is commonly assumed that this condition also obtains among other animals, but such is not the case.
In the human species the condition is permanent and general, though there are exceptions, and the present century is witnessing the beginnings of a great change in this respect.
In studying the economic position of the sexes collectively, the difference is most marked. As a social animal, the economic status of man rests on the combined and exchanged services of vast numbers of progressively specialized individuals. The economic progress of the race, its maintenance at any period, its continued advanced, involve the collective activities of all the trades, crafts, arts, manufactures, inventions, discoveries, and all the civil and military institutions that go to maintain them. The economic status of any race at any time, with its involved effect on all the constituent individuals, depends on their world-wide labors and their free exchange. Economic progress, however, is almost exclusively masculine. Such economic processes as women have been allowed to exercise are of the earliest and most primitive kind. Were men to perform no economic services save such as are still performed by women, our racial status in economics would be reduced to most painful limitations.
To take from any community its male workers would paralyze it economically to a far greater degree than to remove its female workers. Men can cook, clean, and sew as well as women; but the making and managing of the great engines of modern industry, the threading of earth and sea in our vast systems of transportation, the handling of our elaborate machinery of trade, commerce, government – these things could not be done so well by women in their present degree of economic development.
This is not owing to lack of the essential human faculties necessary to such achievements, nor to any inherent disability of sex, but to the present condition of women, forbidding the development of this degree of economic ability. The male human being is thousands of years in advance of the female in economic status. Speaking collectively, men produce and distribute wealth; and women receive it at their heads.
The economic status of the human race in any nation, at any time, is governed mainly by the activities of the male: the female obtains her share in the racial advances only through him.
Women consume economic good. What economic product do they give in exchange for what they consume? In what way does she earn from her husband the food, clothing, and shelter she receives at his hands? By house service, it will be instantly replied. Although not producers of wealth, women serve in the final processes of preparation and distribution. Their labor in the household has a genuine economic value.
For a certain percentage of persons to serve other persons, in order that the ones so served may produce more, is a contribution not to be overlooked. The labor of women in the house, certainly, enables men to produce more wealth than they otherwise could; and in this way women are economic factors in society. But so are horses. The labor of horses enables men to produce more wealth than they otherwise could. The horse is an economic factor in society. But the horse is not economically independent, nor is the woman.
The labor which the wife performs in the household is given as part of her functional duty, not as employment. To take this ground and hold it honestly, wives, as earners through domestic service, are entitled to the wages of cooks, housemaids, nursemaids, seamstresses, or housekeepers, and to no more. This would of course reduce the spending money of the wives of the rich, and put it out of the power of the poor man to ‘support’ a wife at all. Nowhere on earth would there be “a rich woman” by these means. Even the highest class of private housekeeper, useful as her services are, does not accumulate a fortune.
But the salient fact in this discussion is that, whatever the economic value of the domestic industry of women is, they do not get it. The women who do the most work get the least money, and the women who have the most money do the least work.
Without going into either the ethics or the necessities of the case, we have reached so much common ground: the female of the human species is supported by the male. Whereas, in other species of animals, male and female alike graze and browse, hunt and kill, climb, swim, dig, run, and fly for their livings, in our species the female does not seek her own living in the specific activities of our race, but is fed by the male.
Now to the alleged necessity. Because of her maternal duties, the human female is said to be unable to get her own living. As the maternal duties of other females do not unfit them for getting their own living and also the livings of their young, it would seem that the human maternal duties require the segregation of the entire energies of the mother to the service of the child during her entire adult life, or so large a proportion of them that not enough remains to devote to the individual interests of the mother.
Such a condition, did it exist, would of course excuse and justify the pitiful development of the human female, and her support by the male. Is this the condition of human motherhood? Does the human mother, by her motherhood, thereby lose control of brain and body, lose power and skill and desire for any other work? Do we see before us the human race, with all its females segregated entirely to the uses of motherhood, consecrated, set apart, specially developed, spending every power of their nature on the service of their children?
We do not. We see the human mother worked far harder than a mare, laboring her life long in the service, not of her children only, but of men: husbands, brothers, fathers, whatever male relative she has; for mother and sister also; for the church a little, if she is allowed; for society, if she is able; for charity and education and reform, – working in many ways that are not the ways of motherhood.
In spite of her supposed segregation to maternal duties, the human female, the world over, works at extra-maternal duties for hours enough to provide her with an independent living, and then is denied independence on the ground that motherhood prevents her working!
The working power of the mother has always been a prominent factor in human life. She is the worker par excellence, but her work is not such as to affect her economic status. Her living, all that she gets – food, clothing, ornaments, amusements, luxuries – these bear no relation to her power to produce wealth, to her services in the house, or to her motherhood. These things bear relation only to the man she marries, the man she depends on, – to how much he has and how much he is willing to give her. The female of the human species is economically dependent on the male. He is her food supply.
Chapter 15.
The relation of the sexes, in whatever form, has always been observed to affect strongly the moral nature of mankind.
What we call the moral sense is an intellectual recognition of the relative importance of certain acts and their consequences.
No human distinction is more absolutely and exclusively social than the moral sense. Ethics is a social science. There is no ethics for the individual. Taken by himself, man is but an animal; and his conduct bears relation only to the needs of the animal – self-preservation and reproduction. Every virtue, and the power to see and strive for it, is a social quality. The highest virtues are those wherein we serve the most people, and their development in us keeps pace with the development of society. It is the social relation which calls for our virtues, and which maintains them.
Every social relation has its ethics; and the general needs of society, as a whole, are the basis of ethics. In every age and race this may be studied, and a clear connection established always between the virtues and vices of a given people and their local conditions. The principal governing condition in the development of ethics is the economic environment.
In the hunting and fighting period the best hunter and fighter was the best man, praised and honored by his tribe. To be patient and self-controlled was an economic necessity to the hunter: to bear pain and arduous exertion easily was a necessity to the fighter. Therefore, the savage, by precept and example, cultivated these virtues.
In the long agricultural and military periods we see the same things. In the peasant the virtues of industry and patience were extolled: it takes industry and patience to raise corn. In the soldier the virtues of courage and obedience were extolled, and in every one the virtue of faith was the prime requisite of the existing religion. Slowly the industrial era dawned and grew. With this change in economic conditions has changed the scale of virtues.
Physical courage has sunk; obedience, patience, faith, and the rest do not stand as they did. We praise and value today, as always, the virtues whereby we live. Every animal develops the virtues of his conditions; our human distinction is that we add the power of conscious perception and personal volition to the action of natural force.
All our virtues can be traced and accounted for. The great main stem of them all, what we call “love,” is merely the first condition of social existence. It is cohesion, working among us as the constituent particles of society. Without some attraction to hold us together, we should not be able to hold together; and this attraction, as perceived by our consciousness, we call love. The virtue of obedience consists in the surrender of the individual will, so often necessary to the common good; and it stands highest in military organization, wherein great numbers of men must act together against their personal interests, even to the sacrifice of life, in the service of community.
As we have grown into fuller social life, we have slowly and experimentally, painfully and expensively, discovered what kind of man was the best social factor. The type of satisfactory member of society today is a man self-controlled, kind, gentle, strong, wise, brave, courteous, cheerful, true. In the Middle Ages, strong, brave, and true would have satisfied the demands of the time. We now require for our common good a larger rage of qualities, a more elaborate moral organization. All this is a simple, evolutionary process.
But the moral development of humanity is a most tempestuous and contradictory field of study. [Some virtues, like accuracy and punctuality, have been developed to suit our business activities while others remain to be developed.]
Our condition may be described as consisting of a tenacious survival of qualities which we ought, on every ground of social good, to have long since outgrown; and an incessant struggle between these rudimentary survivals and the normal growth. We have felt within ourselves the pull of diverse tendencies [and, needing an explanation for this, we made up “the devil”, or located the trouble in “woman-kind.”]
[Because of this, women were not allowed to develop the moral qualities to advance, confined instead to the “functional activities of her sex.”]
In keeping her on this primitive basis of economic life, we have kept half humanity tied to the starting-post, while the other half ran. We have trained and bred one kind of qualities into one-half the species, and another kind into the other half. And then we wonder at the contradictions of human nature! For instance, we have done all we could, in addition to natural forces, to make men brave. We have done all we could, in addition to natural forces, to make women cowards. And, since every human creature is born of two parents, it is not surprising that we are a little mixed.
We have trained in men the large qualities of social usefulness which the pressure of their economic conditions was also developing. We have trained in women, by the same means, the small qualities of personal usefulness which the pressure of their economic conditions was also developing.
By dividing the economic conditions of women and men, we have divided their psychic development, and built into the constitution of the race the irreconcilable elements of these diverse characters.
The largest and most radical effect of restoring women to economic independence will be in its result in clarifying and harmonizing the human soul.
It is not alone upon woman, and, through her, upon the race, that the ill-effects may be observed. Man, as master, has suffered from his position also. The lust for power and conquest, natural to the male of any species, has been fostered in him to an enormous degree by this cheap and easy lordship. His dominance is not that of one chosen as best fitted to rule or one of ruling by successful competition, but is a sovereignty based on the accident of sex, and holding over such helpless and inferior dependents as could not question or oppose. When man’s place was maintained by brute force, it made him more brutal; when his place was maintained by purchase, by the power of economic necessity, then he grew into the merciless use of such power as distinguishes him today.
Another giant evil engendered by this relation is what we call selfishness. Social life tends to reduce this feeling, but the sexual-economic relation fosters and develops it. To have a whole human creature consecrated to his direct personal service, to pleasing and satisfying him in every way possible – this has kept man selfish. Pride, cruelty, and selfishness are the vices of the master. No wonder that we are all somewhat slow to rise to the full powers of democracy, to feel full social honor and social duty, while every soul of us is reared in this stronghold of ancient and outgrown emotions – the economically related family.
When the mother of the race is free, we shall have a better world, by the easy right of birth and by the calm, slow, friendly forces of social evolution.
Questions for Contemplation and Discussion
1. Gilman declares that great changes regarding the economic subordination of women were taking place. How different are the state of things today? What explains these great changes? Do you think they are permanent?
2. What does Gilman mean when she says, “The male human being is thousands of years in advance of the female in economic status”? How is this different today?
3. Many later feminists have made the argument that women’s labor in the household is as productive as men’s, but that it has gone uncompensated (see Marilyn Waring’s If Women Counted, for an example). What would Gilman say to this argument?
4. Some have argued that economic inequality is fair since/when based on the amount and quality of work an individual engages in. How does Gilman’s argument about women’s work and women’s economic dependence undercut this argument? Explain how Gilman’s perspective here is a deeply sociological one.
5. Where do our morals come from, according to Gilman? How does she compare here with Marx and Engels? With Durkheim? With Veblen?
6. Gilman often writes in the evolutionary vernacular of the day. How is this evolutionary perspective linked to her argument against the economic dependence of women? Is the argument satisfactory? How would a person today respond? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Classical_Sociological_Theory_and_Foundations_of_American_Sociology_(Hurst)/04%3A_Early_American_Sociology/4.04%3A_Charlotte_Perkins_Gilman_Women_and_Economics_%281898%29.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.