The Art and Science of Social Research

Chapter 4 conceptualization, is the process of precisely defining ideas and turning them into variables; the second, operationalization, is the process of linking the conceptualized variables to a set of procedures for measuring them. unit of analysis The level of social life about which we want to generalize Chapter 2 theory is a sequential argument consisting of a series of logically related statements put forward to illuminate some element of social life. For example, status characteristics theory (a subset of the broader expectation states theory) argues that in group settings, external markers of status—such as one’s race, gender, social class, or physical attractiveness—are used to sort people by calling on ideas about worth and esteem that set per- formance expectations. These expectations then shape who takes the lead and who is marginalized (Berger, Wagner, & Webster, 2014). Arriving at the final theory—that status characteristics stratify groups through the assignment of power and prestige within the group—first requires that all these different pieces of the theory hold. In social research, theory is explanation, developing a logical story for social phe- nomena. Empiricism refers to the idea that the world can be subjected to observation, or the use of the senses to gather data about social phenomena. Theory and empiricism are the key ingredients of the scientific method, which is the systematic process of asking and answering questions in a rigorous and unbiased way. It has five basic steps: 1. Identify an important question that needs an answer. 2. Construct expectations about the answer to this question. 3. Gather data that allow researchers to assess the accuracy of these expectations. 4. Analyze the data to determine whether the expectations are accurate. 5. Draw and report conclusions. The first two steps fall into the general category of theory, and the third and fourth steps fall into the general category of empiricism. The fifth step represents the integration of the two. Theory without empirical evidence is just speculation in search of proof. At the same time, empiricism unguided by theory—often called dust- bowl empiricism—is just a fishing expedition. In general, scientists use theory for three pur- poses: to describe, to explain, and to explore. Looking glass theory - look into during free time. Also Social comparison is a micro- level theory;. For example, children of high academic ability often have less positive academic self-concepts if they are in classrooms with high-achieving and competitive peers than if they are in lower-performing classrooms. Levels of Abstraction macro level - The broadest way of thinking about social life, focusing on the structure, composition, and processes of society. micro level - The most intimate way of thinking about social life, focusing on face-to-face interaction and small-group processes. meso level - The middle ground way of thinking about social life, focusing on the physical settings and organizations that link individuals to the larger society. As another example, the family process model posits that the effects of macro-level economic upheavals such as the Great Depression on children’s well-being are filtered through disruptions in family and community networks (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010; Elder et al., 2015). In other words, the effects of the macro on the micro are very often channeled through the meso. Commonalities among all types of theory Most theories are testable (that is, they can be qualitatively or quantitatively exam- ined) and falsifiable (that is, they can be proved wrong). Most theories are also generalizable, meaning they can be applied to general classes of events rather than to only one event. Their goal is to explain and make predictions about recurring phenomena. For example, theories for why the American Revolution happened (one specific event) are less common than theories about the political and economic conditions that make some countries riper for revolution than others (see Skocpol, 1979, for a famous example). A theory will not explain why Mary suffers depression, but it will attempt to explain why certain groups, such as women, are more likely to suffer depression than others. Finally, theories should be probabilistic. They describe, predict, or point to what is likely to happen rather than what will certainly happen. inductive approach The process by which scientists draw a general understanding of some social phenomenon through specific empirical observations. A deductive approach refers to the translation of general theory into specific empirical analysis. Working from a deductive perspective, researchers take what is already known about a social phenomenon and integrate it into a coherent argument that attempts to explain or make a prediction about that phenomenon in a way that can be tested empirically. The goal of a deductive approach is to eventually organize and guide empirical activities. Paradigm - A broad set of taken-for-granted and often unacknowledged assumptions about how social reality is to be defined. In science, paradigms can point to how issues should be studied and what ques- tions should be asked. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1962) introduced the ideas of paradigms and paradigm shifts, both of which have entered the popular lexicon. He argued that scientists internalize paradigms to such a degree that they often do not think about them, question them, or understand how strongly paradigms guide scien- tific inquiry. As a result, paradigms are hard to change without some powerful event or discovery. Positivism - The paradigm holding that all knowledge can be confirmed or refuted through empirical observation. Postmodernism—a paradigm characterized by significant skepticism of claims about general truths, facts, or principles—and other non-positivist paradigms therefore try to explain how humans arrive at subjective truths, including how the investigator’s background and ideology factor into his or her study of these subjective truths. Positivism and postmodernism represent opposite poles of social research. In gen- eral, most frameworks lean toward one side or the other but do not represent an ideal form of either. . A concept is an idea that can be named, defined, and eventually measured in some way. mediation - The expected relation between two concepts is channeled through a third concept that links them to each other. moderation - The strength of the association between two variables is made weaker or stronger by a third variable. spuriousness - When an apparent relation between two concepts is actually the result of some third concept (confound) influencing both of them. confound - A third variable that is linked to two concepts in a way that makes them appear to be related even when they are not. hypothesis A testable statement of a relationship between two concepts. null hypothesis A hypothesis that no relationship between concepts exists or no difference in the dependent variable between groups exists. hypothesis of difference A testable statement about group differences in some concept. hypothesis of association A statement that two variables will increase or decrease together, without an explicit specification of cause and effect. causal hypothesis A statement that the relationship between two concepts is the result of cause and effect. conceptualization The process of precisely defining ideas and turning them into variables. operationalization The process of linking the conceptualized variables to a set of procedures for measuring them. variables Representations that capture the different dimensions, categories, or levels of a concept. Chapter 1 Sociology is the scientific study of the social lives of individuals, groups, and societies. It is a farranging, diverse, and exciting field of study, encompassing a seemingly endless number of topics. Sociologists explore both macro- and micro-level issues. Macrosociology focuses on large-scale social systems such as the political system or the economy, whereas microsociology focuses on personal concerns and interpersonal interactions such as doctor-patient relationships, how spouses negotiate housework and child-care arrangements, and the ways that one’s peers might encourage law-abiding versus delinquent behavior. Yet macrosocial and microsocial phenomena are inextricably linked, where systems of economic and social inequalities affect even our most private decisions and feelings. One of the most important themes is the sociological imagination, a distinctive viewpoint recognizing that our personal experiences are powerfully shaped by macrosocial and historical forces (Mills, 1959). Using the sociological imagination helps us to step back from our taken-forgranted assumptions about everyday life, especially the common assumption that our lives are shaped by our personal choices alone and that we are the masters of our own destinies. Social Perspectives First, sociology emphasizes the importance of both agency and structure in shaping human behavior. Second, adopting a sociological imagination helps us understand that many seemingly “personal troubles” are actually symptoms of more sweeping “public issues” (Mills, 1959). Third, sociologists recognize that personal characteristics, such as race, social class, and gender, expose us to different structural opportunities as well as constraints. We describe how and why these three orienting themes are such an integral part of sociology relative to other social science disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, and history. Agency is our capacity to make our own choices and act independently. Yet sociologists recognize that these personal choices are influenced by social structures, the patterned social arrange ments that may constrain (or facilitate) our choices and opportunities (McIntyre, 2013). That means we cannot understand human behavior merely by viewing indi vidual actors as free agents who are disconnected from larger sociohistorical contexts. Rather, our biographies are a product of personal experiences and historical forces. Viewing the world through the lens of the sociological imagination can be challenging because people in Western societies like the United States are socialized to view the world in terms of individual achievement and failure. Other scholars work in a tradition called intersectionality, which emphasizes that our overlap ping identities and group memberships, such as being a middleclass black woman or workingclass white man, are critical to our life experiences (Crenshaw, 1991). anthropologists have been character ized as emphasizing the influence of culture on social behavior, whereas sociologists tend to emphasize structure, although that boundary also has blurred in recent years. Some scholars have noted that sociologists tend to take more of a problemfocused approach and seek to remedy those things they deem problematic, whereas anthropo logists tend to uphold the principle of cultural relativism and therefore refrain from making judgments about what they observe and instead try to adopt the viewpoint of the communities they are studying (Boas, 1887). n general, psychologists tend to be less interested in social structures than sociologists are. As such, they pay less attention to the role of social class or race differences in the phenomena they study and instead focus on what they call individual differences, such as personality, intelligence, or motivation, as influences on social behaviors. For psy chologists, the individual is almost always the focus, although some specialize in the interactions of very small groups. Sociologists, by contrast, are interested in groups and societies as well as individuals. Types of research basic research A form of research that seeks to answer theoretically informed questions or to resolve a fundamental intellectual puzzle about social behavior. does not necessarily have an applied or immediate goal, Applied research, by contrast, seeks to answer a question in the real world or to address a concrete problem. Whereas the goals of basic research may be theoretical development and testing, the goals of applied research are entirely practical, such as evaluating the effectiveness of a particular program, policy, or intervention. mixed-methods approach A general research approach that uses more than one method in a single study. triangulation The use of multiple research methods to study the same general research question and determine if different types of evidence and approaches lead to consistent findings. We can collect or use data obtained at one point in time, an approach referred to as a crosssectional study design (Figure 1.3). This approach provides a snapshot of a particular population at a particular historical moment. For instance, a crosssectional survey might tell us that in the year 2017, 62% of adults in the United States approved of samesex marriage (Masci, Brown, & Kiley, 2017) However, that singlepointintime observation would not be sufÏciently informa tive if we wanted to understand social and historical change. Researchers can track social change by using a second approach, called a repeated cross-sectional study design, or trend design; by definition, this involves conducting a crosssectional study at multiple points in time, where each snapshot captures a different cross section of people in, say, 1980, 2000, and 2020. T Studying withinperson change would require a third approach, called a panel design. These designs observe the same individuals at multiple points, such as interviewing a group of high school seniors in 2000 and then recontacting them in 2005, 2010, 2015, and so on. Both repeated crosssectional designs and panel designs are examples of longitudinal study designs, in which data are collected at multiple points in time. A panel design tracks the same individuals at multiple points in time, whereas a repeated crosssectional design typically captures different individuals at multiple points in time. Each of these approaches can be used to address different kinds of questions, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses Establishing causality requires that the purported cause precede the purported effect. In this case, if we want to make claims that drinking causes poor academic performance, we would need to ascertain that the drinking problem preceded rather than followed a student’s poor academic performance. To avoid making this mistake, called the ecological fallacy, researchers should follow a simple rule: Data or observations from one level of analysis should be used to draw conclusions about that level of analysis only. ecological fallacy A mistake that researchers make by drawing conclusions about the micro level based on some macro-level analysis