Sociology Studies

History

Sociology is a relatively new academic discipline. It emerged in the early 19th century in

response to the challenges of modernity. Increasing mobility and technological advances

resulted in the increasing exposure of people to cultures and societies different from their own.

The impact of this exposure was varied, but for some people included the breakdown of

traditional norms and customs and warranted a revised understanding of how the world works.

Sociologists responded to these changes by trying to understand what holds social groups

together and also explore possible solutions to the breakdown of social solidarity.

Auguste Comte and Other Founders

Auguste Comte, who coined the term sociology

The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in 1838 from the Latin term

9

socius (companion, associate) and the Greek term logia (study of, speech). Comte hoped to

unify all the sciences under sociology; he believed sociology held the potential to improve

society and direct human activity, including the other sciences.

While it is no longer a theory employed in Sociology, Comte argued for an understanding of

society he labeled The Law of Three Stages. Comte, not unlike other enlightenment thinkers,

believed society developed in stages.

· The first was the theological stage where people took a religious view of society.

· The second was the metaphysical stage where people understood society as natural (not

supernatural).

Comte's final stage was the scientific or positivist stage, which he believed to be the pinnacle

of social development. In the scientific stage, society would be governed by reliable knowledge

and would be understood in light of the knowledge produced by science, primarily sociology.

While vague connections between Comte's Law and human history can be seen, it is generally

understood in Sociology today that Comte's approach is a highly simplified and ill-founded

approach to understand social development (see instead demographic transition theory and

Ecological-Evolutionary Theory).

Other classical theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Karl

Marx, Ferdinand Toennies, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, and Max Weber. As pioneers in

Sociology, most of the early sociological thinkers were trained in other academic disciplines,

including history, philosophy, and economics. The diversity of their trainings is reflected in the

topics they researched, including religion, education, economics, psychology, ethics,

philosophy, and theology. Perhaps with the exception of Marx, their most enduring influence

has been on sociology, and it is in this field that their theories are still considered most

applicable.

10

The Development of the Discipline

Max Weber

The first book with the term sociology in its title was written in the mid-19th century by the

English philosopher Herbert Spencer. In the United States, the first Sociology course was

taught at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 under the title Elements of Sociology (the

oldest continuing sociology course in America). The first full fledged university department of

sociology in the United States was established in 1892 at the University of Chicago by Albion

W. Small, who in 1895 founded the American Journal of Sociology. The first European

department of sociology was founded in 1895 at the University of Bordeaux by Emile

Durkheim, founder of L'AnnÃ(c)e Sociologique (1896). In 1919 a sociology department was

established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber and

in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki. The first sociology departments in the United

Kingdom were founded after the Second World War.

International cooperation in sociology began in 1893 when Rene Worms founded the small

Institut International de Sociologie that was eclipsed by the much larger International

Sociologist Association starting in 1949. In 1905 the American Sociological Association, the

world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded.

11

Karl Marx

Early Sociological Studies

Early sociological studies considered the field to be similar to the natural sciences like physics

or biology. As a result, many researchers argued that the methodology used in the natural

sciences were perfectly suited for use in the social sciences, including Sociology. The effect of

employing the scientific method and stressing empiricism was the distinction of sociology from

theology, philosophy, and metaphysics. This also resulted in sociology being recognized as an

empirical science. This early sociological approach, supported by August Comte, led to

positivism, a methodological approach based on sociological naturalism.

However, as early as the 19th century, positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social

life were questioned by scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert, who argued that

the natural world differs from the social world, as human society has culture, unlike the

societies of other animals (e.g., ants, dolphins, etc. operate from nature or ecology as opposed

to that of civilisation). This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced the

concept of verstehen. Verstehen is a research approach in which outside observers of a culture

relate to an indigenous people on the observer's own terms.

The positivist and verstehen approaches have modern counterparts in sociological

methodologies: quantitative and qualitative sociology. Quantitative sociology focuses on

measuring social phenomena using numbers and quantities while qualitative sociology focuses

on understanding social phenomena. It is disingenuous to claim these two approaches must be

or are generally distinct; many sociologists employ both methods in trying to understand the

social world.

Sociology and Other Social Sciences

The social sciences comprise the application of scientific methods to the study of the human

aspects of the world. Psychology studies the human mind and micro-level (or individual)

behavior; sociology examines human society; political science studies the governing of groups

and countries; communication studies the flow of discourse via various media; economics

concerns itself with the production and allocation of wealth in society; and social work is the

12

application of social scientific knowledge in society. Social sciences diverge from the

humanities in that many in the social sciences emphasize the scientific method or other rigorous

standards of evidence in the study of humanity.

The Development of Social Science

In ancient philosophy, there was no difference between the liberal arts of mathematics and the

study of history, poetry or politics - only with the development of mathematical proof did there

gradually arise a perceived difference between scientific disciplines and the humanities or

liberal arts. Thus, Aristotle studied planetary motion and poetry with the same methods, and

Plato mixed geometrical proofs with his demonstration on the state of intrinsic knowledge.

This unity of science as descriptive remained, for example, in the time of Thomas Hobbes who

argued that deductive reasoning from axioms created a scientific framework; his book,

Leviathan, was a scientific description of a political commonwealth. Within decades of Hobbes'

work a revolution took place in what constituted science, particularly with the work of Isaac

Newton in physics. Newton, by revolutionizing what was then called natural philosophy,

changed the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific.

While Newton was merely the archetype of an accelerating trend, the important distinction is

that for Newton the mathematical flowed from a presumed reality independent of the observer

and it worked by its own rules. For philosophers of the same period, mathematical expression

of philosophical ideals were taken to be symbolic of natural human relationships as well: the

same laws moved physical and spiritual reality. For examples see Blaise Pascal, Gottfried

Leibniz and Johannes Kepler, each of whom took mathematical examples as models for human

behavior directly. In Pascal's case, the famous wager; for Leibniz, the invention of binary

computation; and for Kepler, the intervention of angels to guide the planets.

In the realm of other disciplines, this created a pressure to express ideas in the form of

mathematical relationships. Such relationships, called Laws after the usage of the time (see

philosophy of science) became the model that other disciplines would emulate. In the late 19th

century, attempts to apply equations to statements about human behavior became increasingly

common. Among the first were the Laws of philology, which attempted to map the change

overtime of sounds in a language. In the early 20th century, a wave of change came to science

that saw statistical study sufficiently mathematical to be science.

The first thinkers to attempt to combine scientific inquiry with the exploration of human

relationships were Sigmund Freud in Austria and William James in the United States. Freud's

theory of the functioning of the mind and James' work on experimental psychology had an

enormous impact on those who followed.

One of the most persuasive advocates for the view of scientific treatment of philosophy is John

Dewey (1859-1952). He began, as Marx did, in an attempt to weld Hegelian idealism and logic

to experimental science, for example in his Psychology of 1887. However, it is when he

abandoned Hegelian constructs and joined the movement in America called Pragmatism that he

began to formulate his basic doctrine on the three phases of the process of inquiry:

13

1. problematic Situation, where the typical response is inadequate

2. isolation of Data or subject matter

3. reflective, which is tested empirically

With the rise of the idea of quantitative measurement in the physical sciences (see, for example

Lord Rutherford's famous maxim that any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is

a poor sort of knowledge"),

Sociology Today

Although sociology emerged in Comte's vision of sociology eventually subsuming all other

areas of scientific inquiry, sociology did not replace the other sciences. Instead, sociology has

developed a particular niche in the study of social life.

In the past, sociological research focused on the organization of complex, industrial societies

and their influence on individuals. Today, sociologists study a broad range of topics. For

instance, some sociologists research macro-structures that organize society, such as race or

ethnicity, social class, gender roles, and institutions such as the family. Other sociologists study

social processes that represent the breakdown of macro-structures, including deviance, crime,

and divorce. Additionally, some sociologists study micro-processes such as interpersonal

interactions and the socialization of individuals. It should also be noted that recent sociologists,

taking cues from anthropologists, have realized the Western emphasis of the discipline. In

response, many sociology departments around the world are now encouraging multi-cultural

research.

The next two chapters in this book will introduce the reader to more extensive discussions of

the methods and theory employed in sociology. The remaining chapters are examinations of

current areas of research in the discipline

Technology and the Social Sciences

The Social Sciences are also known pejoratively as the soft sciences (in contrast to the hard

sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology). However, there is a recent move to integrate and

include considerations from the social sciences to the development of technology derived from

the hard sciences. On the other hand, a sub-topic of organisational behaviour, business process,

may now be patented in some countries.

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.

Sociology vs. Common Sense

Common sense, in everyday language, is understood as "the unreflective opinions of ordinary

people" or "sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment" (Merriam-Webster).

Sociology and other social sciences have been accused of being nothing more than the sciences

of common sense. While there is certainly some basis for the accusation - some of the findings

of sociology do confirm common sense understandings of how society seems to work -

sociology goes well beyond common sense in its pursuit of knowledge. Sociology does this by

applying scientific methodology and empiricism to social phenomena. It is also interesting to

note that common sense understandings can develop from sociological investigations. Past

findings in sociological studies can make their way into everyday culture, resulting in a

common sense understanding that is actually the result of sociological investigation. Examples

of sociological investigation refuting and serving as the foundation for common sense are

provided below.

The workings behind common sense is that people usually do not have a word for their

thoughts about society that can be summed into one word. Sociology helps provide the words

to alter multiple thoughts into a defined word.

In the 1970s and early 1980s a New Religious Movement was gaining notoriety for its rapid

expansion. This movement, The Unification Church or The Moonies, was heavily criticized

because it encouraged members to give up all of their ties to non-members of the religion and

to move in to movement centers to realize the movement's vision of a better world. Accusations

of brainwashing were common; it was believed The Moonies were forcing people to join the

movement and give up their previous lives against their will. In order to determine if the

common sense accusations were accurate, Eileen Barker (1984) undertook a lengthy

sociological investigation to explore how people came to affiliate with The Moonies. She found

that converts to The Unification Church were not being forced into the religion against their

will but instead were making a reasoned decision to join the movement. While there was

pressure for people to join the movement, the pressure was not such that it attracted more than a

small fraction of the people who were introduced to the movement. In other words, the

movement did not brainwash its followers; it provided a new and alternative worldview, but

did not force anyone to adopt it. Of course, the social ties people developed once they joined

the movement made it difficult for members to leave. But this isn't anything particularly new:

members of many religions and denominations that have been around much longer than The

16

Moonies find it difficult to leave because of their social attachments. What Barker's research

uncovers is that The Moonies were only being accused of brainwashing because (1) they were

a New Religious Movement and (2) they encouraged a distinct separation from the outside

world. This is a common accusation leveled at New Religious Movements, especially those that

demand significant commitments from their members. This example illustrates how sociology

can test common sense understandings of social processes.

An example of sociology providing a basis for common sense is the research of William

Chambliss (1973) on social status and deviance. Chambliss observed two groups of young men

to see how their presented selves matched their actual behaviors. The two groups were dubbed

The Saints and The Roughnecks. The Saints came from the middle-class and, in the eyes of

their parents, teachers, and even law enforcement, were like saints - they could do no wrong.

The Roughnecks, on the other hand, came from lower-class families and were consistently

accused of wrong-doing. What Chambliss found in observing the two groups was that The

Saints were actually far more deviant than The Roughnecks, but they got away with it because

they were able to commit their deviant acts outside of their home town and compellingly

portray themselves as upstanding young citizens. The Roughnecks, because of their lack of

mobility and funds, were more likely to commit their deviant acts in public and in their

hometown, leading local people to see them as extreme deviants. Chambliss's findings, while

not pervasively seen as common sense, are increasingly so. People are coming to realize that

the public portrayal of one's self may not actually represent one's private activities. This is often

the case with serial killers and was even portrayed in the movie Murder by Numbers.

The Development of Social Science

In ancient philosophy, there was no difference between the liberal arts of mathematics and the

study of history, poetry or politics - only with the development of mathematical proof did there

gradually arise a perceived difference between scientific disciplines and the humanities or

liberal arts. Thus, Aristotle studied planetary motion and poetry with the same methods, and

Plato mixed geometrical proofs with his demonstration on the state of intrinsic knowledge.

This unity of science as descriptive remained, for example, in the time of Thomas Hobbes who

argued that deductive reasoning from axioms created a scientific framework; his book,

Leviathan, was a scientific description of a political commonwealth. Within decades of Hobbes'

work a revolution took place in what constituted science, particularly with the work of Isaac

Newton in physics. Newton, by revolutionizing what was then called natural philosophy,

changed the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific.

While Newton was merely the archetype of an accelerating trend, the important distinction is

that for Newton the mathematical flowed from a presumed reality independent of the observer

and it worked by its own rules. For philosophers of the same period, mathematical expression

of philosophical ideals were taken to be symbolic of natural human relationships as well: the

same laws moved physical and spiritual reality. For examples see Blaise Pascal, Gottfried

Leibniz and Johannes Kepler, each of whom took mathematical examples as models for human

behavior directly. In Pascal's case, the famous wager; for Leibniz, the invention of binary

computation; and for Kepler, the intervention of angels to guide the planets.

17

In the realm of other disciplines, this created a pressure to express ideas in the form of

mathematical relationships. Such relationships, called Laws after the usage of the time (see

philosophy of science) became the model that other disciplines would emulate. In the late 19th

century, attempts to apply equations to statements about human behavior became increasingly

common. Among the first were the Laws of philology, which attempted to map the change over

time of sounds in a language. In the early 20th century, a wave of change came to science that

saw statistical study sufficiently mathematical to be science.

The first thinkers to attempt to combine scientific inquiry with the exploration of human

relationships were Sigmund Freud in Austria and William James in the United States. Freud's

theory of the functioning of the mind and James' work on experimental psychology had an

enormous impact on those who followed.

With the rise of the idea of quantitative measurement in the physical sciences (see, for example

Lord Rutherford's famous maxim that any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is

a poor sort of knowledge"), the stage was set for the conception of the humanities as being

precursors to social science.

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 their research, sociologists explore the social world with several different

purposes in mind. Like the physical 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. The positivist

approach to social science seeks to explain and predict social phenomena, often employing a

quantitative approach. But unlike the physical sciences, sociology (and other social sciences,

specifically anthropology) also often seek for understanding social phenomena. Max Weber

labeled this approach Verstehen, which is German for understanding. In this approach, which is

similar to ethnography, the goal is to understand a culture or phenemon on its own terms rather

than trying to predict it. Both approaches employ a scientific method as they make observations

and gather data, propose hypotheses, and test their hypotheses in the formulation of theories.

These steps are outlined in more detail below.

Sociologists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose 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. The method is commonly taken as the underlying

logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of

building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural world.

18

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

steps:

1. Characterization (operationalization or quantification, observation and measurement)

2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and

measurements)

3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)

4. Experiment (test of all of the above; in the social sciences, true experiments are often

replaced with a different form of data analysis that will be discussed in more detail below)

Characterization

A scientific method depends 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 measurement and/or

counting.

The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the

critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry.

Scientific measurements taken 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 unmanipulatable 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.

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities (a.k.a.

operationalization). That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured,

as opposed to some more vague, inexact or idealized definition. The operational definition of a

thing often relies on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of mass ultimately

relies on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum kept in a laboratory in

France.

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 physical units when

communicating the work.

Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their

uncertainty. 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

19

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.

Hypothesis Development

A hypothesis includes a suggested explanation of the subject. It will generally provide a causal

explanation or propose some correlation between two variables. If the hypothesis is a causal

explanation, it will involve at least one dependent variable and one independent variable.

Variables are measurable phenomena whose values can change (e.g., class status can range

from lower- to upper-class). A dependent variable is a variable whose values are presumed to

change as a result of the independent variable. In other words, the value 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 of the

dependent variable does not depend on the value of the independent variable. An independent

variable is a variable whose value is manipulated by the experimenter (or, in the case of nonexperimental

analysis, changes in the society and is measured). Perhaps an example will help

clarify. In a study of the influence of gender on promotion, the independent variable would be

gender/sex. Promotion would be the dependent variable. Change in promotion is hypothesized

to be dependent on gender.

Scientists use whatever they can â€" their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction,

systematic guessing, etc. â€" 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 or refute their idea.

Prediction

A useful 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).

Experiment

Once a prediction is made, an experiment is designed to test it. The experiment may seek either

confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis.

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.

20

The experiment's integrity should be ascertained by the introduction of a control. 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. If the experimental conclusions fail to match the

predictions/hypothesis, then one returns to the failed hypothesis and re-iterates the process. If

the experiment appears successful - i.e. fits the hypothesis - the experimenter often will attempt

to publish the results so that others (in theory) may reproduce the same experimental results,

verifying the findings in the process.

An experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual

experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences. Due

to ethical concerns and the sheer cost of manipulating large segments of society, sociologists

often turn to other methods for testing hypotheses. In lieu of holding variables constant in

laboratory settings, sociologists employ statistical techniques (e.g., regression) that allow them

to control the variables in the analysis rather than in the data collection. 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, 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. Thus, while the true experiment is ideally suited for the

performance of science, especially because it is the best method for deriving causal

relationships, other methods of hypothesis testing are commonly employed in the social

sciences.

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.

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. Crucially, experimental and theoretical

results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. All scientific knowledge

is in a state of flux, for at any time new evidence could be presented that contradicts a longheld

hypothesis. 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)

21

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 of the

scientific literature. 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 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, however, serves as a very effective deterrent for most scientists, who will usually replicate their own data several times before attempting to publish. Sometimes useful observations or phenomena themselves cannot be reproduced. They may be rare, or even unique events. Reproducibility of 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.

Correlation and Causation

In the scientific pursuit of prediction and explanation, two relationships between variables are often confused: correlation and causation. Correlation refers to a relationship 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

· one variable must precede the other 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 (ICC) is positively correlated with incidents of crime.Employing the scientific 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 (ICC) and crime meets only one of the three criteria. The real explanation of this relationship is the introduction of a third variable: temperature. ICC and crime increase during the summer months. Thus, while these two variables are correlated, ICC 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 scientific process.

Quantitative and Qualitative

Like the distinction drawn between positivist sociology and Verstehen sociology, there is 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 tend to use specific methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: experimental designs, surveys, secondary data analysis, and statistical analysis.

Qualitative methods of sociological research tend to approach social phenomena from the Verstehen perspective. They are used to develop a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon. They also often deliberately give up on quantity - necessary for statistical analysis - in order to reach a depth in analysis of the phenomenon studied. Even so, qualitative methods can be used to propose relationships between variables. Qualitatively oriented sociologists tend to employ different methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, content analysis and historical comparison.

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 understand how individuals understand those patterns.

Objective vs. Critical

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 (1946:129-156). 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 his/her students to accept his/her opinions in order for them to pass the class. Weber did argue that it was okay 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. Anyone familiar with Marxist theory will recognize that Marx went beyond describing society to advocating for change. Marx disliked capitalism and his analysis of that economic system included the 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., feminism, black feminist thought).

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. A comprehensive explanation of sociological guidelines is provided on the website of the American Sociological Association. Some of the more common and important ethical guidelines of sociological investigation will be touched upon below. 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.

As regards professional ethics, several issues are noteworthy. Obviously honesty in research, analysis, and publication is important. Sociologists who manipulate their data are ostracized and will 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 products are happier than users of open source software, the sociologist would need to disclose the source of the funding as it presents a significant conflict of interest.

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 remain objective 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.

General sociological theory

Introduction

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship

between two or more concepts. To use the example from the previous chapter, one might

propose the following theory:

Ice cream consumption and crime rates are correlated, increasing and decreasing together (the

data). As a result, a theorist could propose that the consumption of ice cream results in

angered individuals who then commit crimes (the theory).

Of course, this theory is not an accurate representation of reality. But, it illustrates the use of

theory - to elucidate the relationship between two concepts; in this case, ice cream consumption

and crime.

Sociological theory is developed at multiple levels, ranging from grand theory to highly

contextualized and specific micro-range theories. There are literally thousands of middle-range

and micro-range theories in sociology. Because such theories are dependent on context and

specific to certain situations, it is beyond the scope of this text to explore each of those theories.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the more well-known and most commonly

used grand and middle-range theories in sociology. For a brief explanation of the different

levels of sociological theorizing, see Sociological Abstraction.

Importance of Theory

In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two

components. The data, the correlation between ice cream consumption and crime rates, and the

proposed relationship. Data alone are not particularly informative. In fact, it is often said that

'data without theory is not sociology'. In order to understand the social world around us, it is

necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

Take, for instance, Emile Durkheim's class work Suicide. Durkheim was interested in

explaining a social phenomenon, suicide, and employed both data and theory to offer an

explanation. By aggregating data for large groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to

discern patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with another concept (or variable):

religious affiliation. Durkheim found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than

were Catholics. At this point, Durkheim's analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation of the relationship between religious affiliation and suicide rates. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas of anomie (or chaos) and social solidarity that he began to formulate a theory. Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker social cohesion and social solidarity and result in increased social anomie. The higher suicide rates were the result of weakening social bonds among Protestants, according to Durkheim.

While Durkheim's findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim's work also illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between concepts, we would not be able to understand cause and effect relationships in social life or otherwise gain better understandings of social activity (i.e., Verstehen).

The Multiplicity of Theories

As the dominant theories in sociology are discussed below, the reader might be inclined to ask, "Which of these theories is the best?" Rather than think of one theory being better than another, it is more useful and informative to view these theories as complementary. One theory may explain one element of a phenomenon (e.g., the role of religion in society structuralfunctionalism) while another might offer a different insight on the same phenomenon (e.g., the decline of religion in society - conflict theory).

It may be difficult, initially at least, to take this perspective on sociological theory, but as you read some of the later chapters you will see that each of these theories is particularly useful at explaining some phenomena yet less useful in explaining other phenomena. If you approach the theories objectively from the beginning, you will find that there really are many ways to understand social phenomena.

Structural-Functionalism

Structural-Functionalism is a sociological theory that originally attempted to explain social institutions as collective means to meet individual biological needs (originally just functionalism). Later it came to focus on the ways social institutions meet social needs (structural-functionalism).

Structural-functionalism draws its inspiration primarily from the ideas of Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He sought to explain social cohesion and stability through the concept of solidarity. In more "primitive" societies it was mechanical solidarity, everyone performing similar tasks, that held society together. Durkheim proposed that such societies tend to be segmentary, being composed of equivalent parts that are held together by shared values, common symbols, or systems of exchanges. In modern, complex societies members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence between individuals. Based on the metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that modern complex societies are held together by organic solidarity (think interdependent organs). The central concern of structural-functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion of societies that are necessary to ensure their continued existence over time. Many functionalists argue that social institutions are functionally integrated to form a stable system and that a change in one institution will precipitate a change in other institutions. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (social institutions) working together to maintain and reproduce them. The various parts of society are assumed to work in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion towards the maintenance of the overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as being functional in the sense of working together to achieve this state and are effectively deemed to have a life of their own. These components are then primarily analysed in terms of the function they play. In other words, to understand a component of society, one can ask the question, What is the function of this institution?" A function, in this sense, is the contribution made by a phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part (Hoult 1969:139). Durkheim's strongly sociological perspective of society was continued by Radcliffe-Brown. Following Auguste Comte, Radcliffe-Brown believed that the social constituted a separate level of reality distinct from both the biological and the inorganic (here non-living). Explanations of social phenomena therefore had to be constructed within this social level, with individuals merely being transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. Thus, in structuralfunctionalist thought, individuals are not significant in and of themselves but only in terms of their social status: their position in patterns of social relations. The social structure is therefore a network of statuses connected by associated roles (Layton 1997:37-38). Structural-functionalism was the dominant perspective of sociology between World War II and the Vietnam War.

Limitations

Structural-functionalism has been criticized for being unable to account for social change because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. Another criticism of the structural-functionalism perspective involves the epistemological argument that functionalism attempts to describe social institutions solely through their effects and, as a result, does not explain the cause of those effects. Another philosophical problem with the structural-functional approach is the ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and even if society does have needs they need not be met. Another criticism often leveled at structural-functionalist theory is that it supports the status quo. According to some opponents, structural-functionalism paints conflict and challenge to the status quo as harmful to society, and therefore tends to be the prominent view among conservative thinkers.

Manifest and Latent Functions

Merton (1957) proposed a distinction between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are the intended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. Latent functions are the unintended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. An example of manifest and latent functions is public education. The manifest purpose of public education is to increase the knowledge and abilities of the citizenry. The latent function of the public education system is the development of a hierarchy of the learned. The latent function has a significant impact on society as it often translates into social class distinctions: people with higher educational attainment tend to make more money than those with lower educational attainment

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory argues that society is not about solidarity or social consensus but rather about competition. Society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social structures and organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources in their inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society.

An example of the application of conflict theory is in understanding the gender make-up of the legislative branch of the U.S. government. Prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in 1920, women did not have the right to vote.

Given women's inability to vote, it is not surprising men held all of the positions of power in the U.S. government. The men who held the positions of power in the U.S. government were also in a position to maintain their power because they controlled the legislative process that could enfranchise women. This scenario illustrates how conflict and inequality can be integrated in social structures - men were in a position of power and many of them were motivated to maintain that power by continuing to refuse the right to vote to women. The passage of the 19th Amendment can also be explained using conflict theory in that powerful forces joined together (Women's Suffrage) to effectuate change.

Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism.

The structural-functional approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium. The

structural-functional approach focuses on stability at the expense of social change. This is

contrasted with the conflict approach, which argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary contributions conflict theory presents over the structuralfunctional approach is that it is ideally suited for explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional approach. The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

· Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.

· Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.

· Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, allof whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel,and other founding fathers of European sociology.

Limitations

Somewhat ironically, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that itoverlooks the stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much ofthe change is minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time, indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit. Harking back to the introduction, the reader might remember the advanced notice given that sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of structuralfuncationalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more comprehensive view of society.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to being acted upon (Herman and Reynolds 1994).

The main principles of symbolic interactionism as outlined by Blumer (1986) are:

1. human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them

2. these meanings arise of out of social interaction

3. social action results from a fitting together of individual lines of action 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) because infrahumans 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. Additional information on Symbolic Interactionism can be found here

Limitations

The most significant limitation of the symbolic-interactionist perspective relates to its primary contribution: it overlooks macro social structures (e.g., norms, culture) as a result of focusing on micro-level interactions. Some symbolic interactionists, however, would counter that if role theory (see below) is incorporated into symbolic interactionism - which is now commonplace - this criticism is addressed.

Role Theory

Role Theory posits that human behavior is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other people. The expectations correspond to different roles individuals perform or enact in their daily lives, such as secretary, father, or friend. For instance, most people hold pre-conceived notions of the role expectations of a secretary, which might include: answering phones, making and managing appointments, filing paperwork, and typing memos. These role expectations would not be expected of a professional soccer player.

Individuals generally have and manage many roles. Roles consist of a set of rules or norms that function as plans or blueprints to guide behavior. Roles specify what goals should be pursued, what tasks must be accomplished, and what performances are required in a given scenario or situation. Role theory holds that a substantial proportion of observable, day-to-day social behavior is simply persons carrying out their roles, much as actors carry out their roles on the stage or ballplayers theirs on the field. Role theory is, in fact, predictive. It implies that if we have information about the role expectations for a specified position (e.g., sister, fireman, prostitute), a significant portion of the behavior of the persons occupying that position can be predicted. What's more, role theory also argues that in order to change behavior it is necessary to change roles; roles correspond to behaviors and vice versa. In addition to heavily influencing behavior, roles influence beliefs and attitudes; individuals will change their beliefs and attitudes to correspond with their roles. For instance, someone over-looked for a promotion to a managerial position in a company may change their beliefs about the benefits of management by convincing him/herself that they didn't want the additional responsibility that would have accompanied the position. Many role theorists see Role Theory as one of the most compelling theories bridging individual behavior and social structure. Roles, which are in part dictated by social structure and in part by social interactions, guide the behavior of the individual. The individual, in turn, influences the norms, expectations, and behaviors associated with roles. The understanding is reciprocal. Role Theory includes the following propositions:

1. people spend much of their lives participating as members of groups and organizations

2. within these groups, people occupy distinct positions

3. each of these positions entails a role, which is a set of functions performed by the person for the group

4. groups often formalize role expectations as norms or even codified rules, which include what rewards will result when roles are successfully performed and what punishments will result when roles are not successfully performed

5. individuals usually carry out their roles and perform in accordance with prevailing norms; in other words, role theory assumes that people are primarily conformists who try to live up to the norms that accompany their roles

6. group members check each individual's performance to determine whether it conforms with the norms; the anticipation that others will apply sanctions ensures role performance For additional information on Role Theory see here.

Limitations

Role theory has a hard time explaining social deviance when it does not correspond to a prespecified role. For instance, the behavior of someone who adopts the role of bank robber can be predicted - she will rob banks. But if a bank teller simply begins handing out cash to random people, role theory would be unable to explain why (though role conflict could be one possible answer; the secretary may also be a Marxist-Communist who believes the means of production should belong to the masses and not the bourgeoisie).

Another limitation of role theory is that it does not and cannot explain how role expectations came to be what they are. Role theory has no explanation for why it is expected of male soldiers to cut their hair short, but it could predict with a high degree of accuracy that if someone is a male soldier they will have short hair. Additionally, role theory does not explain when and how role expectations change.

Impression Management

An extension of role theory, impression management is both a theory and process. The theory argues that people are constantly engaged in controlling how others perceive them. The process refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious effort to influence the perceptions other people form of an individual, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. If a person tries to influence the perception of her or his own image, this activity is called self-presentation.

Erving Goffman (1959), the person most often credited with formally developing the impression management theory, cast the idea in a dramaturgical framework. The basic idea is that individuals in face-to-face situations are like actors on a stage performing roles (see role theory above). Aware of how they are being perceived by their audience, actors manage their behavior so as to create specific impressions in the minds of the audience. Strategic interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new idea. Plato spoke of the "great stage of human life" and Shakespeare noted that "All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players".

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a school of thought introduced into sociology by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann with their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality. Social constructionism aims to discover the ways that individuals and groups create their perceived reality. Social constructionism focuses on the description of institutions and actions and not on analyzing cause and effect. Socially constructed reality is seen as an on-going dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations of what they perceive to be the world external to them. Berger and Luckmann argue that social construction describes both subjective and objective reality - that is that no reality exists outside what is produced and reproduced in social interactions. A clear example of social constructionist thought is, following Sigmund Freud and Émile Durkheim, religion. Religion is seen as a socially constructed concept, the basis for which is rooted in either our psyche (Freud) or man's need to see some purpose in life or worship a higher presence. One of the key theorists of social constructionism, Peter Berger, explored this concept extensively in his book, The Sacred Canopy.

Social constructionism is often seen as a source of the postmodern movement, and has been influential in the field of cultural studies.

Integration Theory

Recently, some sociologists have been taking a different approach to sociological theory by employing an integrationist approach - combining micro- and macro-level theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior. Numerous models could be presented in this vein; I have chosen one that does a good job of combining the multiple levels into one model: Ritzer's Integration Model. Ritzer (Ritzer & Goodman 2004:357) proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macro-objective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a microobjective component (e.g., patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture, norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This model is of particular use in understanding society because it uses two axes: one ranging from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs). George Ritzer's macro/micro integration theory of social analysis.

The integration approach is particularly useful for explaining social phenomenon because it shows how the different components of social life work together to influence society and behavior.