text:
Introduction to Sociology/Sociological Methods

Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to introduce the methods employed by sociologists in their study of social life. This is not a chapter on statistics nor does it detail specific methods in sociological investigation. The primary aim is to illustrate how sociologists go beyond common sense understandings in trying to explain or understand social phenomena. Sociologists do not see the world as many people normally do; they question and analyze why things happen and if there is a way to stop a problem before it happens.

At issue in this chapter are the methods used by sociologists to claim to speak authoritatively about social life. There are dozens of different ways that human beings claim to acquire knowledge. A few common examples are:

Authority : Choosing to trust a source for information makes that source an authority in your life. Parents, friends, the media, religious leaders, your professor, books, or web pages are all examples of secondary sources of information that some people trust for information.

Experience : People often claim to have learned something through an experience, such as a car accident or using some type of drug. Some physical skills, such as water skiing or playing basketball, are acquired primarily through experience. On the other hand, some experiences are subjective and are not generalizable to all.

Logic : Simple deduction is often used to discern truth from falsity and is the primary way of knowing used in philosophy. Someone might suggest that if Person A falls into a swimming pool full of water, Person A will get wet. If that premise is true and Person A falls into a swimming pool, we can deduce that Person A got wet.

Tradition : Many people who live in societies that have not experienced industrialization decide what to do in the future by repeating what was done in the past. Even in modern societies, many people get satisfaction out of celebrating holidays the same way year after year. Fast-paced change in modern societies, however, makes traditional knowledge less and less helpful in making good choices.

Revelation : Some people claim to acquire knowledge believed to be valid by consulting religious texts and believing what is written in them, such as the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon. Others claim to receive revelations from a higher power in the form of voices or a general intuitive sense of what one should do.

Science : The scientific method combines the use of logic with controlled experience, creating a novel way of discovery that marries sensory input with careful thinking. By adopting a model of cause and effect, scientists produce knowledge that can explain certain phenomena and even predict various outcomes before they occur.

These methods of claiming to know certain things are referred to as epistemologies. An epistemology is simply a way of knowing. In Sociology, information gathered through science is privileged over all others. That is, information gleaned using other epistemologies will be rejected if it is not supported by evidence gathered using the scientific method.

The Scientific Method
A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon verifiable evidence. In addition to employing the scientific method in research, sociologists explore the social world with several different purposes in mind. Like the natural sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, etc.), sociologists can be and often are interested in predicting outcomes given knowledge of the variables and relationships involved. This approach to doing science is often termed positivism (though perhaps more accurately should be called empiricism). The positivist approach to social science seeks to explain and predict social phenomena, often employing a quantitative approach where aspects of social life are assigned numerical codes and subjected to in-depth analyses to uncover trends often missed by a casual observer. This approach most often makes use of deductive reasoning, which initially forms a theory and hypothesis, that are then subjected to empirical testing.

Unlike the physical sciences, sociology (and other social sciences, like anthropology) also often seek simply to understand social phenomena. Max Weber labeled this approach Verstehen, which is German for understanding. This approach, called qualitative sociology, aims to understand a culture or phenomenon on its own terms rather than trying to develop a theory that allows for prediction. Qualitative sociologists more frequently use inductive reasoning where an investigator will take time to make repeated observations of the phenomena under study, with the hope of coming to a thorough and grounded understanding of what is really going on.

Both approaches employ a scientific method as they make observations and gather data, propose hypotheses, and test or refine their hypotheses in the formulation of theories. These steps are outlined in more detail below.

Sociologists use observations, hypotheses, deductions, and inductions to understand and ultimately develop explanations for social phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. If not, the theory is modified or discarded. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. Science is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural and social worlds.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

 * 1) Characterization (operationalization or quantification, observation and / or measurement)
 * 2) Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and / or measurements)
 * 3) Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis or logical induction from the data)
 * 4) Testing (informing the validity of the hypothesis by comparing it against carefully gathered, meaningful sensory input)

Characterization
Scientific methods depend upon a careful characterization of the subject of the investigation. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subject, this careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations. The observation often demands careful categorization, measurement and/or counting.

The systematic, careful collection of measurements, counts or categorical distinctions of relevant quantities or qualities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry. Scientific measurements are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them. The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or non-manipulable objects such as human populations. The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and development. In the social sciences, these often take the form of scales or other measures (e.g., HDI, GDP, etc.) that can then be used by other scholars. In a similar fashion, categorical distinctions are often outlined, graphed and / or arranged in relation to the variation of qualities found within and between natural settings (mostly) free of manipulation. These categorical distinctions generally require specialized coding or sorting protocols that allow differential qualities to be sorted into distinct categories, which may be compared and contrasted over time, and the progress of scientific fields in this vein are generally tied to the accumulation of systematic categories and observations across multiple natural sites. In both cases, scientific progress relies upon ongoing intermingling between measurement and categorical approaches to data analysis.

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities (a.k.a. operationalization). That is, a scientific concept is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or idealized definition. To operationalize a variable means creating a working definition for a concept someone intends to measure. The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, sex and gender are often used interchangeably in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in sociology. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional units when communicating the work while scientific categorizations are generally characterized by their shared qualities which can later be described in terms of conventional linguistic patterns of communication.

Measurements and categorizations in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty or disclaimers concerning the scope of initial observations. The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used. Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of the method used. Counts may only represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken (see the central limit theorem).

Hypothesis Development
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of some phenomenon of interest, typically in a way that is testable. In quantitative work, it will generally provide a causal explanation or propose some association between two variables. If the hypothesis is a causal explanation, it will involve at least one dependent variable and one independent variable. In qualitative work, hypotheses generally involve potential assumptions built into existing causal statements.

Variables are measurable phenomena whose values or qualities can change (e.g., class status can range from lower- to upper-class). A dependent variable is a variable whose values or qualities are presumed to change as a result of the independent variable. In other words, the value or quality of a dependent variable depends on the value of the independent variable. Of course, this assumes that there is an actual relationship between the two variables. If there is no relationship, then the value or quality of the dependent variable does not depend on the value of the independent variable. An independent variable is a variable whose value or quality is manipulated by the experimenter (or, in the case of non-experimental analysis, changes in the society and is measured or observed systematically). An example may help clarify. In a study of the influence of gender (as a value) on promotion, the independent variable would be gender. Promotion would be the dependent variable. Change in promotion is hypothesized to be dependent on gender. Similarly, in a study of gender's relation to promotion, the independent variables are gender and promotion, and the dependent variable is the way people use, discuss, and / or make sense of both gender and promotion in their ongoing activities or narratives.

Scientists use whatever they can — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, deduction, systematic guessing, etc. — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a flash of inspiration, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support, refute, or refine their idea or develop an entirely new framework.

Prediction
A useful quantitative hypothesis will enable predictions, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under examination is incorrect or incomplete and requires either revision or abandonment. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing. Predictions refer to experimental designs with a currently unknown outcome. A prediction (of an unknown) differs from a consequence (which can already be known). On the other hand, a useful qualitative hypothesis will enable question or critique, by inductive reasoning, of existing and / or taken-for-granted beliefs, assumptions, and theories developed within or beyond scientific settings.

Testing
Once a prediction is made, a method is designed to test or critique it. The investigator may seek either confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis, and refinement or understanding of the data. Though a variety of methods are used by both natural and social scientists, laboratory experiments remain one of the most respected methods by which to test hypotheses.

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results.

The experiment's integrity should be ascertained by the introduction of a control or by observation of existing controls in natural settings. In experiments where controls are observed rather than introduced, researchers take into account potential variables (e.g., the demographics of the sample and researchers as well as the behaviors of both groups) that could influence the findings without intention. On the other hand, in experiments where a control is introduced, two virtually identical experiments are run, in only one of which the factor being tested is varied. This serves to further isolate any causal phenomena. For example in testing a drug it is important to carefully test that the supposed effect of the drug is produced only by the drug. Doctors may do this with a double-blind study: two virtually identical groups of patients are compared, one of which receives the drug and one of which receives a placebo. Neither the patients nor the doctor know who is getting the real drug, isolating its effects. This type of experiment is often referred to as a true experiment because of its design. It is contrasted with alternative forms below.

Once an experiment is complete, a researcher determines whether the results (or data) gathered are what was predicted or assumed in the literature beforehand. If the experimental conclusions fail to match the predictions/hypothesis and / or existing scientific arguments, then one returns to the failed hypothesis and re-iterates the process - modifying one's theory or developing a new one - or attempts to publish the results as a suggestion for gaps in existing theories or findings. If the experiment appears successful (i.e. fits the hypothesis and existing scientific arguments) the experimenter often will attempt to publish the results so that others may reproduce the same experimental results, verifying the findings.

Of course, experiments are just one method. In observation-based fields of science, actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences. Sociologists are more likely to employ quasi-experimental designs where data are collected from people by surveys or interviews, but statistical means are used to create groups that can be compared. For instance, in examining the effects of gender on promotions, sociologists may control for the effects of social class as this variable will likely influence the relationship. Unlike a true experiment where these variables are held constant in a laboratory setting, quantitative sociologists use statistical methods to hold constant social class (or, better stated, partial out the variance accounted for by social class) so they can see the relationship between gender and promotions without the interference of social class.

The four components of research described above are integrated into the following steps of the research process.

 * 1) Define the topic/problem : Identify your topic of interest and develop a research question in the form of a cause-and-effect or correlational association.
 * 2) Conduct a review of the literature : Access studies that have already been performed by other researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals. You'll find out what is already known about the topic and where more research is needed.
 * 3) Formulate a hypothesis : Refine your research question in a way that will add new information to the existing research literature, expressing it in the form of a testable research hypothesis. This includes identifying two or more variables and articulating how one variable is thought to influence the other.
 * 4) Design the research : Decide on a way to approach data collection that will provide a meaningful test of the hypothesis. Some designs include data collection at only one point in time, but more complex questions require data gathering over time and with different groups of people.
 * 5) Select a research method : Once a design has been established, one or more actual data gathering strategies will need to be identified. Each method comes with its own strengths and weaknesses, so sociologists are increasingly incorporating mixed-methods approaches in their research designs to enrich their knowledge of the topic. Some of the more popular research methods used by sociologists are:  surveys or interviews, experiments, unobtrusive measures, and participant observation or field research
 * 6) Operationalize variables : Operationalizing means deciding exactly how each variable of interest will be measured. In survey research, this means deciding on the exact wording of the question or questions used to measure each variable, a listing of all possible responses to closed-ended questions, and a decision as to how to compute variables using multiple indicators.
 * 7) Identify the population and draw a sample : A population is the group a researcher is interested in learning about. Is it all students at one particular University? All residents of the United States? All nonprofit organizations in a particular city?  Because it is frequently too expensive to try to collect data from all units in a population, a sample of those units is often selected. Samples that use principles of random selection, where every unit in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, have the best chance of reflecting the views and behaviors of the entire population of focus.
 * 8) Collect the data : Data collection must be systematic and rigorous so that procedural mistakes do not create artificial results.
 * 9) Analyze the results : Powerful statistical packages today make data analysis easier than it has ever been. Still, great care needs to be taken to accurately code the data (i.e. transpose responses into numbers), enter it into the computer, and to choose the appropriate statistics to be calculated for analysis.
 * 10) Reporting the Results : Research results are shared with the larger community through presentations, reports, and publications in peer-reviewed journals.  This allows others to consider the findings, the methods used, and any limitations of the study.

Qualitative sociologists generally employ observational and analytic techniques that allow them to contextualize observed patterns in relation to existing hierarchies or assumptions within natural settings. Using an earlier example, qualitative sociologists examining the experience of gender and promotion may ascertain the existing beliefs about gender and about promotion by the people being studied, official documentation outlining the rules of promotion, or policies concerning gender within the setting, and variations in the ways people occupying different racial, classed, gendered, sexual, religious, or aged social locations interpret and make sense of both gender and promotion. Since variables (such as social class) cannot be "held constant" or "controlled for" in natural settings, qualitative sociologists explore the potential influence of these factors on actual behaviors in order to refine existing mathematical or experimental theories containing assumptions and controls unavailable beyond the laboratory or mathematical software. While the true experiment is ideally suited for the performance of quantitative science, especially because it is the best quantitative method for deriving causal relationships, other methods of hypothesis testing are commonly employed in the social sciences, and qualitative methods of critique and analysis are utilized to fact check the assumptions and theories created upon the basis of "controlled" (rather than natural) circumstances.

Evaluation and Iteration
The scientific process is iterative. At any stage it is possible that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process. For instance, failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject. Similarly, advances in qualitative research generally lead to reformulation of quantitative and experimental techniques and assumptions (this relationship also occurs regularly in the other direction where findings from quantitative studies direct qualitative attention to new areas and / or potential relationships).

It is also important to note that science is a social enterprise, and scientific work will become accepted by the community only if it can be verified and it "makes sense" within existing scientific beliefs and assumptions about the world. When new findings complicate these assumptions and beliefs, we generally witness paradigm shifts in science. Crucially, experimental and quantitative results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community while qualitative studies are designed to complicate, advance, or call into question these results. All scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, for at any time new evidence could be presented that contradicts a long-held hypothesis, and new perspectives (e.g., the entrance of minority communities into the academy in the past 50 years) may emerge that call existing scientific techniques, assumptions, and beliefs into question. For this reason, scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise improves the quality and consistency of the scientific literature, but may also lead to the silencing or delay of new or controversial scientific findings. Work announced in the popular press before going through this process is generally frowned upon. Sometimes peer review inhibits the circulation of unorthodox work, and at other times may be too permissive. The peer review process is not always successful, but has been very widely adopted by the scientific community.

The reproducibility or replication of quantitative scientific observations, while usually described as being very important in a scientific method, is actually seldom reported, and is in reality often not done. Referees and editors often reject papers purporting only to reproduce some observations as being unoriginal and not containing anything new. Occasionally reports of a failure to reproduce results are published - mostly in cases where controversy exists or a suspicion of fraud develops. The threat of failure to replicate by others (as well as the ongoing qualitative enterprise designed to explore the veracity of quantitative findings in non-controlled settings), however, serves as a very effective deterrent for most quantitative scientists, who will usually replicate their own data several times before attempting to publish.

Sometimes useful observations or phenomena themselves cannot be reproduced (in fact, this is almost always the case in qualitative science spanning physical and social science disciplines). They may be rare, or even unique events. Reproducibility of quantitative observations and replication of experiments is not a guarantee that they are correct or properly understood. Errors can all too often creep into more than one laboratory or pattern of interpretation (mathematical or qualitative) utilized by scientists. As a result, science itself is an ongoing dialogue and debate wherein each finding (new or old) is continuously subject to new testing and / or critique.

Correlation and Causation

In the scientific pursuit of quantitative prediction and explanation, two relationships between variables are often confused: correlation and causation. While these terms are rarely used in qualitative science, they lie at the heart of quantitative methods, and thus constitute a cornerstone of scientific practice. Correlation refers to a linear association between two (or more) variables in which they change together. A correlation can be positive/direct or negative/inverse. A positive correlation means that as one variable increases (e.g., ice cream consumption) the other variable also increases (e.g., crime). A negative correlation is just the opposite; as one variable increases (e.g., socioeconomic status), the other variable decreases (e.g., infant mortality rates).

Causation refers to a relationship between two (or more) variables where one variable causes the other. In order for a variable to cause another, it must meet the following three criteria:
 * the variables must be correlated
 * change in the independent variable must precede change in the dependent variable in time
 * it must be shown that a different (third) variable is not causing the change in the two variables of interest (a.k.a., spurious correlation)

An example may help explain the difference. Ice cream consumption is positively correlated with incidents of crime.

Employing the quantitative method outlined above, the reader should immediately question this relationship and attempt to discover an explanation. It is at this point that a simple yet noteworthy phrase should be introduced: correlation is not causation. If you look back at the three criteria of causation above, you will notice that the relationship between ice cream consumption and crime meets only one of the three criteria (they change together). The real explanation of this relationship is the introduction of a third variable: temperature. Ice cream consumption and crime increase during the summer months. Thus, while these two variables are correlated, ice cream consumption does not cause crime or vice versa. Both variables increase due to the increasing temperatures during the summer months.

It is important to not confound a correlation with a cause/effect relationship. It is often the case that correlations between variables are found but the relationship turns out to be spurious. Clearly understanding the relationship between variables is an important element of the quantitative scientific process.

Quantitative and Qualitative
Like the distinction drawn between positivist sociology and Verstehen sociology, there is - as noted above in the elaboration of general scientific methods - often a distinction drawn between two types of sociological investigation: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative methods of sociological research approach social phenomena from the perspective that they can be measured and/or quantified. For instance, social class, following the quantitative approach, can be divided into different groups - upper-, middle-, and lower-class - and can be measured using any of a number of variables or a combination thereof: income, educational attainment, prestige, power, etc. Quantitative sociologists also utilize mathematical models capable of organizing social experiences into a rational order that may provide a necessary foundation for more in depth analyses of the natural world. Quantitative sociologists tend to use specific methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: experimental designs, surveys, secondary data analysis, and statistical analysis. Further, quantitative sociologists typically believe in the possibility of scientifically demonstrating causation, and typically utilize analytic deduction (e.g., explore existing findings and deduce potential hypotheses that may be tested in new data). Finally, quantitative sociologists generally attempt to utilize mathematical realities (i.e., assumptions embedded within statistical practices) to make sense of natural (i.e., the experiences of people) realities.

Qualitative methods of sociological research tend to approach social phenomena from the Verstehen perspective. Rather than attempting to measure or quantify reality via mathematical rules, qualitative sociologists explore variation in the natural world people may see, touch, and experience during their lives. These methods are primarily used to (a) develop a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon, (b) explore the accuracy or inaccuracy of mathematical models in the world people experience, (c) critique and question the existing assumptions and beliefs of both scientists and other social beings, and (d) refine measurements and controls used by quantitative scientists via insights gleaned from the experiences of people. While qualitative methods may be used to propose or explore relationships between variables, these studies typically focus on explicating the realities people experience that lie at the heart or foundation of such relationships rather than focusing on the relationships themselves. Qualitatively oriented sociologists tend to employ different methods of data collection and analysis, including: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, content analysis, visual sociology, and historical comparison. Some qualitative sociologists reject measurement or quantities and the notion of causality. Finally, qualitative sociologists generally attempt to utilize the perspectives of people to make sense of the social world.

While there are sociologists who employ and encourage the use of only one or the other method, many sociologists see benefits in combining the approaches. They view quantitative and qualitative approaches as complementary. Results from one approach can fill gaps in the other approach. For example, quantitative methods could describe large or general patterns in society while qualitative approaches could help to explain how individuals understand those patterns. Similarly, qualitative patterns in society can reveal missing pieces in the mathematical models of quantitative research while quantitative patterns in society can guide more in-depth analysis of actual patterns in natural settings. In fact, it is useful to note that many of the major advancements in social science have emerged in response to the combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques that collectively created a more systematic picture of probable and actual social conditions and experiences.

Objective vs. Critical vs. Subjective
Sociologists, like all humans, have values, beliefs, and even pre-conceived notions of what they might find in doing their research. Because sociologists are not immune to the desire to change the world, two approaches to sociological investigation have emerged. By far the most common is the objective approach advocated by Max Weber. Weber recognized that social scientists have opinions, but argued against the expression of non-professional or non-scientific opinions in the classroom. Weber took this position for several reasons, but the primary one outlined in his discussion of Science as Vocation is that he believed it is not right for a person in a position of authority (a professor) to force their students to accept their opinions in order for them to pass the class. Weber did argue that it was acceptable for social scientists to express their opinions outside of the classroom and advocated for social scientists to be involved in politics and other social activism. The objective approach to social science remains popular in sociological research and refereed journals because it refuses to engage social issues at the level of opinions and instead focuses intently on data and theories.

The objective approach is contrasted with the critical approach, which has its roots in Karl Marx's work on economic structures. Marx argued that it is not enough to understand society; the goal is to change it. He disliked capitalism and his analysis of that economic system included a call for change. This approach to sociology is often referred to today as critical sociology (see also action research). Some sociological journals focus on critical sociology and some sociological approaches are inherently critical (e.g., feminist sociology).

Drawing on early feminist writings by social advocates like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Ida Wells Barnett, Betty Friedan, and sociological theorists such as Dorothy Smith, Joan Acker, and Patricia Yancey Martin, feminist sociologists critiqued "objective" traditions as unrealistic and unscientific in practice. Specifically, they - along with critical theorists like Michel Foucault, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins - argued that since all science was conducted and all data was interpreted by human beings and all human beings have beliefs, values, and biases that they are often unaware of and that shape their perception of reality (see The Social Construction of Reality), objectivity only existed within the beliefs and values of the people that claimed it. These theorists argued that the "personal is political" (e.g., our personal decisions - no matter how small - are ultimately influenced by the political context of our lives and will shape the personal and political realities of others whether or not we are aware of these consequences). As a result, every scientist - regardless of their intentions or awareness - may seek to follow Weber's advice concerning objective teaching and research, but must also remain aware that they will ultimately fail to achieve this ideal. Whether or not scientists explicitly invoke their personal opinions in their teaching and research, every decision scientists make will, at some level, rely upon their subjective realities.

Although the recognition of all science as ultimately subjective to varying degrees is fairly well established at this point, the question of whether or not scientists should embrace this subjectivity remains an open one (e.g., to be or not to be political in classrooms and research projects). Further, there are many scientists (in sociology and other sciences) who support the idea that scholars should attempt to be as objective as possible, and promote this ideal in their teaching, research, and peer review. As a result, the debate within the field continues without resolution, and will likely be an important part of scientific knowledge and scholarship for some time to come.

Ethics
Ethical considerations are of particular importance to sociologists because of the subject of investigation - people. Because ethical considerations are of so much importance, sociologists adhere to a rigorous set of ethical guidelines. The most important ethical consideration of sociological research is that participants in sociological investigation are not harmed. While exactly what this entails can vary from study to study, there are several universally recognized considerations. For instance, research on children and youth always requires parental consent. Research on adults also requires informed consent and participants are never forced to participate. Confidentiality and anonymity are two additional practices that ensure the safety of participants when sensitive information is provided (e.g., sexuality, income, etc.). To ensure the safety of participants, most universities maintain an institutional review board (IRB) that reviews studies that include human participants and ensures ethical rigor.

It has not always been the case that scientists interested in studying humans have followed ethical principles in their research. Several studies that, when brought to light, led to the introduction of ethical principles guiding human subjects research and Institutional Review Boards to ensure compliance with those principles, are worth noting, including the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which 399 impoverished black men with syphilis were left untreated to track the progress of the disease and Nazi experimentation on humans. A recent paper by Susan M. Reverby found that such unethical experiments were more widespread than just the widely known Tuskegee study and that the US Government funded a study in which thousands of Guatemalan prisoners were infected with syphilis to determine whether they could be cured with penicillin. Ethical oversight in science is designed to prevent such egregious violations of human rights today.

Sociologists also have professional ethical principles they follow. Honesty in research, analysis, and publication is important Sociologists who manipulate their data are ostracized and can have their memberships in professional organizations revoked. Conflicts of interest are also frowned upon. A conflict of interest can occur when a sociologist is given funding to conduct research on an issue that relates to the source of the funds. For example, if Microsoft were to fund a sociologist to investigate whether users of Microsoft's product users are happier than users of open source software (e.g., Linux, LibreOffice), the sociologist would need to disclose the source of the funding as it presents a significant conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this does not always happen, as several high profile cases illustrate (e.g., the Regnerus Affair). But the disclosure of conflicts of interest is recommended by most professional organizations and many academic journals. A comprehensive explanation of sociological guidelines is provided on the website of the American Sociological Association.

What Can Sociology Tell Us?
Having discussed the sociological approach to understanding society, it is worth noting the limitations of sociology. Because of the subject of investigation (society), sociology runs into a number of problems that have significant implications for this field of inquiry:
 * human behavior is complex, making prediction - especially at the individual level - difficult or even impossible
 * the presence of researchers can affect the phenomenon being studied (Hawthorne Effect)
 * society is constantly changing, making it difficult for sociologists to maintain current understandings; in fact, society might even change as a result of sociological investigation (for instance, sociologists testified in the Brown v. Board of Education decision to integrate schools)
 * it is difficult for sociologists to strive for objectivity and handle the subjective components of scientific practice - especially when the phenomena they study is also part of their social life

While it is important to recognize the limitations of sociology, sociology's contributions to our understanding of society have been significant and continue to provide useful theories and tools for understanding humans as social beings.

Additional Reading
Blackstone, Amy. Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.

Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition, Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., ISBN 0-534-62029-9

Glenn Firebaugh, Seven Rules for Social Research, Princeton University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-691-13567-0

W. Lawrence Neuman, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th edition, Allyn & Bacon, 2006, ISBN 0-205-45793-2

Kleinman, Sherryl. 2007. Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: a Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Bruce Berg. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 7th edition.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

see also chapter on Sociological Practice additional reading

Discussion Questions

 * Why is human behavior hard to study?
 * Is sociology a science like the natural sciences (e.g., biology, physics, chemistry)? How?
 * What are the limitations of sociological inquiry?
 * How does sociological inquiry move beyond common sense?


text:
Sociological Theory/Conflict Theory

The basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups in society struggle to maximize their share of the limited resources that exist and are desired by humans. Given that there are limited resources, the struggle inevitably leads to conflict and competition. These struggles can lead to changes in institutions and societies as different groups come into power.

Theoretical Assumptions
Assumptions are taken for granted statements about reality that theories draw upon as their foundation. Following are some of assumptions of modern conflict theory:

 * Interactions: Human interaction results in conflict.
 * Change: Conflict and change are normal and inevitable in society.
 * Competition: Competition over scarce resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.) is part of all social groups. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships. If everyone had the resources they needed, conflict would not exist.
 * Structural Inequality: Inequalities in power and rewards are built into all social structures. Resources are scarce and groups will always compete over these resources.
 * Degree of Inequality: Inequality exists in varying degrees with people having different amounts of resources; hierarchies exist.
 * Revolution: Macro changes occur as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through adaptation. It is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

Key Terms
Below are some of the key terms employed in social conflict theories.

 * Class conflict: The struggle between groups occupying different socioeconomic positions in the same society. These groups compete for control of economic, political and social resources. Class conflict can manifest as physical violence, propaganda (e.g., the spread of ideologies, such as "homeless people are lazy"), economic threats (e.g., the middle class boycotting "Big Business"), or legal battles (e.g., class action lawsuits by consumers against large corporations).
 * Ideology: the collection of beliefs that justify a social arrangement
 * Social class: an aspect of social location that is determined by either your relationship to the means of production (Marx) or your power, prestige and wealth (Weber).
 * Deviance: going against prevailing social norms
 * Proletariat: in Marx’s economic conflict theory, the proletariat are the working class who did not own the resources, land or tools they use to produce goods for the bourgeoisie
 * Bourgeoisie: in Marx’s economic conflict theory, the bourgeoisie are the capitalist class who own the resources, land and tools. They exploit the proletariat by paying them less than their work is worth.
 * Capitalism: an economic system with private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

Propositions
Propositions are relationships proposed between the conceptual components of a theory. Various proponents of conflict theory have delineated propositions based on the above assumptions. Below are some of these propositions.

 * Marx (1818-1883): The proletariat and bourgeoisie compete for control over scant resources.
 * Gumplowicz (1838-1909): Societies evolve out of war and conquest resulting in the development of nation-states and unequal systems with master and slave relationships..
 * Weber (1864-1920): The Protestant Ethic promoted hard work, creating an environment in which a capitalistic struggle for resources would thrive.
 * Mills (1916-1962): Conflict exists between people of lower social statuses and the "Power Elite" (those at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy) resulting in a struggle for resources and unequal distribution of influence.
 * Feminine Conflict Theory: Historically oppressed, women struggle to gain equal access to power and resources from men.
 * Postcolonialism: In an effort to increase their wealth, more powerful countries spread around the world.
 * World Systems Theory: Countries compete with each other for status, wealth, and technology. Countries are divided into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and periphery countries, which are, respectively, arranged in a social hierarchy with the core countries at the top and the periphery countries at the bottom. Core countries extract resources from the semi-periphery and periphery countries and use their technology to turn those resources into consumer goods, which they can then sell back to people in the peripheral countries.

History of Conflict Theory
The ideas that make up the foundations of conflict theory can be traced back to early philosophy. Han Fei Tzu (280 - 233 BC) and other ancient Chinese philosophers taught that men are innately weak and lazy. This assumption leads to the obvious conclusion that the only way men can be controlled, then, is through punishment. Those who have the power to punish can control society, as the fear of the power of punishment keeps men in check.

Polybius, a Greek philosopher (205-125 BC), focused his studies on the Roman Republic. He believed that people were like herds of animals. Weaknesses lead man to form communities in which the strongest and bravest person became the leader. He believed societies change and transition into a monarchy and that monarchies are based on justice and legitimate authority. Monarchies have an obligation to keep peace in society. However, the same problems with men will be exhibited in their kings, leading to corrupt and unjust monarchies. The result: tyrants and tyranny. Tyranny is, however, self-limiting. Once it becomes unbearable, the elite in society will figure out ways to over throw the monarchy. Society will be in support of these new leaders because they give more liberty and equality. This cycle will repeat itself because the new leader will take some of the liberty and sense of equality away from the people. Polybius believed the only way to stop this cycle is to form a government that combines the best elements from monarchies, aristocracies, and democracy, like the Roman government during his time.

Many philosophers had similar ideas about conflict and society. They believed that conflict was a necessary part of society. Conflict, as a sociological theory, was formalized in the 19th and 20th Centuries, building upon the ideas of people like those mentioned above. Many sociologists have contributed to the development of conflict theory, including Max Gluckman, John Rex, Lewis A. Coser, Randall Collins, Ralf Dahrendorf, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, and Georg Simmel. However, Karl Marx is often credited as being the father of conflict theory.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818 – 1883) was a German philosopher, sociologist, historian, political economist, political theorist and revolutionary socialist, who developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. His ideas have since played a significant role in both the development of social science and also in the socialist political movement. He published various books during his lifetime, with the most notable being The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1867–1894), many of which were co-written with his friend, the fellow German revolutionary socialist Friedrich Engels. Marx’s dedication to social change led him to focus most of his work on revolutionary class conflicts in industrial societies. Karl Marx died a poor man but his work and ideas have influenced the modern world.

Marx saw conflict as primarily resulting from class conflicts within industry and the economic segment of society. Max Weber (1864-1920) proposed that power, prestige and property also added to social conflict and that such conflict was found in all aspects of society (e.g., politics, gender, and religion).

C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) also contributed to modern conflict theory. According to Mills, one of the results of conflict between people with competing interests and resources is the creation of a social structure. Social structure refers to the relatively fixed institutions and norms of society that heavily influence, consciously or not, peoples' everyday behavior (e.g., getting your license at a department of motor vehicles reflects the fact that social structure dictates who gets to grant licenses, how, when, and to whom). However, control over the social structure is largely in the hands of the elite (wealthy), who generally oppose the interests of the non-elite.

Social Stratification
As civilizations undergo change from agrarian, rural groups into industrialized, modern societies, a social hierarchy emerges that effectively creates distinct classes based on wealth, power and prestige. According to conflict theory, it is this structure of social stratification that pits those in the upper class (i.e., those with the most power, wealth and prestige) against the lower classes.

Conflict theory also asserts that modern society and the "...criminal justice system and criminal law...operates on the behalf of the rich and powerful social elites, with the resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor," thus perpetuating a system in which the upper class maintains power and all other classes remain economically disadvantaged, disenfranchised, and nearly powerless. Marx foresaw such conflicts, asserting that "...every society has been based... on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes," with modernization and industrialization significantly increasing this conflict and the oppression of the lower classes by the upper class

Modern society presents several examples of the main ideas and mechanisms of conflict theory in practice, showing the process by which the upper class power elites systematically work to disenfranchise and exploit the lower classes to maintain and increase their power. Interestingly, conflict theory does not apply only to one type of government or society; it can be applied to democracies, socialist nations and dictatorships alike.

Wealth and Power Inequality
While the United States is purportedly a nation that values principles of equality, egalitarianism, meritocracy, hard work, and the pursuit of the "American Dream," the U.S. also has a very high level of economic and social inequality. Domhoff (2011) provides striking evidence of this inequality, finding that "as of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%." He goes on to state that this means that the top 20% of Americans own 85% of the nation’s wealth as a whole, with the other 80% of Americans having only 15% of the wealth. This extreme inequality in the level of power and wealth that currently exist in the United States exemplifies the central themes of conflict theory, namely that there is a competition for power between classes. The implications of this large disparity in wealth between social classes in the United States includes many disadvantages for those in the lower classes, such as a lack of access to quality health care, increased risk of violent crime, fewer educational opportunities (especially post-secondary education), and the absence of a social network to provide opportunities for upward mobility.

Drug Abuse and Crime
Proponents of conflict theory argue that crime and criminal justice in the modern world is designed to benefit the upper, powerful classes, while subjugating and disenfranchising the lower classes. Greek (2005) provides an excellent explanation of this phenomenon:

 * "Thus, street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely, while large scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal business practices."

This example illustrates the manner in which conflict theory can be applied to deviance in society as the upper classes seek to maintain their position and power by ensuring that the lower classes remain poor and relatively powerless.

Conflict theory has also been applied to the current trends of drug abuse in the United States, finding that societal and social class position effect one's rate of drug abuse. More specifically, "Conflict theory holds that there are higher numbers of chronic drug abusers found in lower social classes, disorganized neighborhoods. lower income families, and relatively politically powerless places." Lo (2003) found that, in accordance with conflict theory, social environments negatively effect inequality "...widespread poverty and severe social disorganization, lacking legitimate opportunities as well as adequate education and training, have a [strong] association with opiate and cocaine use."

Additional Readings

 * Akers, R.L. (1998) "Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance." Boston. MA: Northeastern University Press.
 * Changhwan, K., & Sakamoto, A. (2006). Does Inequality Increase Productivity? Revisiting the Debate Between Functionalism and Conflict Theory. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association.
 * Domhoff, G.W. (2011). “Power in America: Wealth, Income and Power.” URL: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 * Collins, R., (1974). "Conflict Sociology" New York: Academic Press.
 * Schlee, G. (2004). "Taking Sides and Constructing Identities: Reflections on Conflict Theory." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(1), 135-156. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00183.x
 * Mills, C.W. (1956). “The Power Elite.”

Illustrative Video
Social Conflict Theory

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sociological Theory/Conflict Theory


text:
Sociological Theory/Symbolic Interactionism

This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s), behaviorism and ethology, and also contrasts with structural-functionalism. According to Symbolic Interactionism, humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower animals)simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally, infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the time).

This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and phenomonology. According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form their society (Herman and Reynolds 1994).  Human society, therefore, is a social product.

It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because they see meaning as the fundamental component of human/society interaction, studying human/society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interactionists tend to employ more qualitative rather than quantitative methods in their research.

Society
In symbolic interactionist thought, there is a difference between infrahuman and human society. In infrahuman life, cooperation is physiologically determined. In other words, it is not a cognitive process; it results from instinct and biological programming rather than conscious thinking. In human society, cooperation is cognitive and conscious. Human cooperation can only be brought about by:
 * each acting individual ascertaining the intention of the acts of others
 * each acting individual deciding on his/her own response on the basis of that intention

Another distinction drawn between infrahumans and humans is in the types of communication employed. Infrahuman communication is gestural; it takes place immediately, without any interruption of the act for interpretation or assigning meaning. In contrast to infrahuman communication, human communication is meaningful in that gestures are symbolic and do not invoke immediate responses - humans must interpret gestures and assign them meaning. Because human communication involves interpretation and the assignment of meaning, it is only possible when there is consensus in meaning. Meanings for symbols must be shared.

Shared meaning necessarily takes place through role-taking; in order to complete an act, the actor must put himself in the position of the other person. Behavior is viewed as social not simply when it is a response to others, but rather when it has incorporated in it the behavior of others. Human beings respond to themselves as other persons respond to them, and in so doing they imaginatively share the conduct of others.

Self
The self refers to the conscious, reflective personality of an individual. It is the entity the person envisions when he/she thinks about who they are. In order to understand the concept of self, it is important to understand that the development of self is only possible through role-taking. In order to look upon your self, you have to be able to take the role of another, which, in turn, allows you to reflect upon your self. Because role-taking is a necessary part of self-development, it is concurrent with the development of self.

According to Mead (1967), the self develops in a series of three stages:
 * 1) preparatory stage - meaningless imitation by the infant
 * 2) play stage - actual playing of roles occurs; but no unified conception of self develops
 * 3) game stage - this is the completion stage of self-development; the child finds who he or she is; the child also must respond to simultaneous roles; the individual can act with a certain amount of consistency in a variety of situations because he/she acts in accordance with a generalized set of expectations and definitions he/she has internalized

The self consists of two parts, the I and the Me. The I is the impulsive tendency of the individual (similar to Freud's notion of the Id). The I is the spontaneous, unorganized aspect of human existence. The Me is the incorporated other (see generalized other) within the individual. The incorporated or generalized other supplies an organized set of attitudes and definitions, understandings and expectations (or meanings) that are common to the group to which the individual belongs (similar to Freud's concept of the superego).

According to Mead's presentation of the I and the Me, action begins in the form of the I and ends in the form of the Me; the I gives propulsion while the Me gives direction. Additionally, the I, being creative and spontaneous, provides for change in society. The Me, being regulatory, works to maintain society. Thus, in the concept of self is a powerful and comprehensive understanding of how humans function in society and, in turn, how society functions (by both changing and remaining constant). The concept also depicts the relationship between the individual and society (Meltzer 1978).

According to Meltzer (1978), there are three implications of selfhood:
 * 1) the possession of self makes of the individual a society in miniature; humans can engage themselves in interaction; they can view themselves in a new way
 * 2) the ability to act toward oneself makes possible an inner experience which need not reach overt expression; humans can have a mental life
 * 3) an individual with a self can direct and control his behavior

It is also important to recognize that the self and the mind are twin emergents in the social process...

Mind
The Mind or mental component of man emerges out of human communication. The mind is only present when significant symbols (as opposed to gestures that do not have meaning but simply evoke responses) are being used in communication. In this sense, mind is a process manifested whenever the individual is interacting with himself using significant symbols (symbols or gestures with interpretations or meanings).

The mind is also the component of the individual that interrupts responses to stimuli. It is the mind that attempts to pre-vision the future by exploring possible outcomes of actions before proceeding with actions. In minded behavior, the individual carries on an internal conversation.