The best social science research combines elements from both the Linnaean and Buffonian models.

Two key approaches that have greatly influenced social science research: the Linnaean and the Buffonian models. Picture the Linnaean model as a large filing cabinet with pre-labeled drawers. In this approach, researchers first develop a classification system and then place their findings into the corresponding categories. This method is all about creating a well-organized body of knowledge by gathering evidence that fits neatly within the pre-established framework. It's a great fit for quantitative research, where hypotheses are tested using large amounts of data and statistical analysis. On the other hand, the Buffonian model is more like a treasure hunt. Researchers start with a rough map or some guiding ideas but remain open to discovering new phenomena that don't fit into any existing categories. As they uncover unexpected complexities, they adapt their classification system accordingly. This flexible, inductive approach is often seen in qualitative research, which relies heavily on in-depth fieldwork and interviews. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. The Linnaean model offers a clear structure for gathering knowledge, but it can sometimes squeeze findings into categories where they don't quite fit. The Buffonian model, while more adaptable, can make it difficult to systematically accumulate knowledge. The best social science research borrows elements from both models, gathering unexpected data to spark new ideas while also statistically testing these ideas on large samples when possible. But remember, the ultimate goal isn't just to predict outcomes. It's about opening up the "black boxes" of social processes to understand the intricate web of events and conditions that lead to certain results. To fully grasp the complexities of social life, we need both qualitative and quantitative methods. So, when it comes to choosing a research methodology, it's not about picking sides. It's about being pragmatic and embracing a variety of approaches. This kind of open-mindedness, or epistemological pluralism, is what will truly help us improve our understanding of society.

The debate over qualitative versus quantitative research methods in sociology originated from differing viewpoints of Herbert Blumer and Samuel Stouffer.

The long-standing argument in sociology over the use of qualitative versus quantitative research methods can be traced back to the differing viewpoints of Herbert Blumer and Samuel Stouffer in the 1940s and 1950s. Blumer was a critic of public opinion polling and quantitative research methods. He believed that these methods were based on flawed understandings of "public opinion" and were incapable of accurately measuring it. On the other hand, Stouffer was a strong advocate for quantitative methods and large-scale surveys. He was of the opinion that these could transform sociology into a "real science." To prove his point, he conducted survey research on soldiers during World War II, which was later published as The American Soldier. The conflict between these two perspectives was further fueled when polls failed to predict Truman's victory over Dewey in the 1948 election. Despite this setback, Stouffer remained hopeful that his work on The American Soldier would help to restore faith in quantitative research. In the years following the war, leaders in the field of quantitative sociology, including Stouffer, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Robert Merton, sought to establish survey research and statistical analysis as the primary approach in sociology. However, the field remained divided across departments and subfields, with no single approach gaining dominance. This ongoing debate eventually led to a division within sociology, with researchers identifying themselves as either "qualitative" or "quantitative." While some early research successfully combined both methods, over time, researchers began to align themselves more strictly with one approach or the other. There have been periodic attempts by quantitative researchers to establish a "proper division of labor," suggesting that qualitative work should be limited to generating hypotheses. However, this ongoing debate tends to overshadow the fact that both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. The best research utilizes the methods that are most suitable for the issue being studied. The goal is to produce data that can provide solid evidence for the ideas being explored, whether that requires a quantitative or qualitative approach.

Social scientists should adopt rigorous methods from natural sciences to improve the accuracy and reliability of their findings.

Have you ever wondered how natural scientists conduct their research compared to social scientists? It's a common misconception among many social scientists that theoretical physics is the epitome of "hard science," and they often attempt to mimic it. However, the phenomena that physics deals with are vastly different from those in social science. Instead, social scientists should turn their attention to fields like physiology and geology, which study complex systems that are more akin to human society. Take the example of physicist Sebastien Balibar, who embarked on a journey to study materials at super low temperatures. He meticulously crafted a laboratory setup to control all possible variables. Despite his efforts, he found himself grappling with minuscule amounts of light, vibrations, and radio waves that interfered with his measurements. To overcome these obstacles, he had to take drastic measures to block these out. This example illustrates that even physics, often seen as a purely theoretical field, relies heavily on meticulous empirical work. Let's consider another example. Bruno Latour, a sociologist, observed a team of French soil scientists working in the Brazilian jungle. Their mission was to determine whether the jungle was encroaching on the savanna or if it was the other way around. These scientists methodically mapped, sampled, and analyzed the soil. They took painstaking measures to control variables and accurately record each measurement. This rigorous approach transformed their initial, vague field observations into solid scientific evidence. Social scientists, however, face even more hurdles than natural scientists when it comes to controlling variables. They can't manipulate human subjects like materials in a lab. But that doesn't mean they can't adopt the same rigorous approach to their work. They can still learn from the emphasis on verifying each step of reasoning with empirical evidence. Moreover, social science needs to incorporate lessons learned from past mistakes into standard practice. Yes, the world is always more complex than our models. But by adopting careful methods to check the accuracy of data, social science can become more rigorous. This approach can help social scientists navigate the complexities of human behavior and society, making their findings more reliable and valuable.

The quality and authenticity of collected data can be influenced by the motivations and interests of those collecting it.

Collecting data is a fundamental part of scientific research. It involves various individuals, each with their own unique motivations and interests, which can impact the quality and authenticity of the data collected. Let's consider the main investigator, the one who comes up with the research idea and manages the project. They have a strong interest in ensuring the data is of high quality. However, there can be instances where biases or dishonesty may lead to dubious results. Then there are graduate students who assist in the research. They do this to gain experience and earn academic credit, and hopefully, they maintain high standards throughout the process. There are also organizations that gather data for their own specific purposes. This data can later be analyzed by researchers. For example, government census data is generally very reliable because it's used for representation purposes. Other agencies collect data on health, crime, and education, which can be valuable for research. Commercial survey firms hire interviewers to carry out studies. The level of training and supervision these interviewers receive can vary, which means the quality of the data they collect can also vary. The individuals who collect the data can greatly influence its accuracy. However, it's important to remember that any issues that arise can also be studied and analyzed. By turning the process of administration into a science, we can improve our methods. If we approach diverse data sources with care and skepticism, we can build our knowledge base. The challenge lies in overcoming errors to transform data into solid evidence, much like natural scientists do. The social sciences should strive to follow this model to achieve high-quality results.

A census is a sincere attempt to gather accurate data, despite its inherent challenges and limitations.

A census is a process where every individual in a population is counted, and the same set of information is collected about each person. This process provides a wealth of data, but it's not without its challenges. Despite the best intentions and efforts, there are instances where people are undercounted or miscounted. The categories used in a census can also be ambiguous, as their social meanings can change over time. Moreover, technical issues often mirror the complex realities of social relationships and identities. However, it's important to remember that a census is a sincere attempt to gather accurate data. The issues that arise are more a reflection of the complexity of the task, rather than a lack of effort. Census officials are always striving to improve the process. They are aware of the limitations and are transparent about what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from the data. For social scientists, it's crucial to approach census data with caution. However, these limitations can also be seen as opportunities. What might initially appear as technical issues could actually be indicators of phenomena that warrant further study. Redefining concepts and measures can pave the way for new insights. By being open about the challenges, we can continue to make progress. Even with its imperfections, if handled with care and creativity, census data can contribute significantly to our knowledge. The key lies in using the evidence responsibly, neither exaggerating nor downplaying its implications. When used thoughtfully, census data can shed light on various aspects of society.

Government data, despite potential biases, can provide valuable sociological insights when critically analyzed.

Every day government workers collect a wealth of data as part of their jobs. This data can be a goldmine for researchers, but it's important to remember that it might be skewed by the objectives and pressures faced by those who gather it. Take medical examiners, for instance. They're tasked with determining the cause of death, which they then categorize for death certificates. However, their judgments are often more a reflection of their work environment than an objective reality. Similarly, homicide statistics can be influenced by examiners who are looking to protect the police. The same goes for police drug arrest statistics. These numbers often say more about an officer's need to prove their productivity than they do about actual crime rates. And it's not just crime data that can be skewed. Prosecutors have discretion over which charges to bring in white collar crime cases, which can distort the data. Schools also create records that categorize students as "gifted" or "retarded", but these labels often reflect biases. However, this doesn't mean that government data is useless. On the contrary, with a careful and critical eye, it can offer valuable sociological insights. Stanley Lieberson, for example, was able to identify fashion trends using the limited data available on birth certificates. The trick is to understand how the realities of data gathering can shape the numbers. Instead of blindly accepting statistics as objective truth, we need to think critically about what they represent. When used thoughtfully, even flawed government data can shed light on social processes. So while it's important to be aware of the potential biases and pressures that can influence data, we shouldn't dismiss it outright. Instead, we should strive to understand it, question it, and use it to gain a deeper understanding of the world around us.

In social science, data collection methods can influence accuracy, bias, and context of human behavior studies.

In the field of social science, researchers often depend on data collected by others to examine human behavior. This method, however, can lead to problems related to accuracy and bias. For instance, when volunteers provide information about themselves, they might not remember correctly or they might present things in a way that isn't entirely truthful. Similarly, interviewers who are hired to conduct surveys might take shortcuts to save time. Moreover, the way questionnaires are designed can also affect the responses. If the questions are poorly worded or arranged in a certain order, it can influence the answers given by the participants. On the other hand, there are also more direct ways of gathering data, such as observing physical traces. For example, looking at how much the floor tiles in a museum have worn out can give us a good idea of human behavior. Similarly, archives like birth records can provide data over a long period of time, and this data isn't influenced by whether or not people participate in the research. However, these methods also have their drawbacks. For instance, they often lack the detailed context needed to properly interpret the data. Therefore, the most effective data collection strikes a balance between unobtrusive measures and sufficient context for proper interpretation. When using data as evidence, social scientists need to carefully consider these limitations. Being transparent about the quality of the data can help strengthen the research methodology. Despite its imperfections, with careful handling, data can still reveal important insights into human society.

A chief investigator collects high-quality data through flexible research design to produce reliable research in social groups and organizations.

Imagine a detective, but instead of solving crimes, they're solving the mysteries of social groups and organizations. This is the role of a chief investigator. They're the ones who come up with the idea for a study and then carry it out, often with the help of a team. They use tools like participant observation, interviews, and systematic data collection to gather information. The goal of a chief investigator is to collect high-quality data that can be used to produce reliable research. This research can help them advance in their career. Unlike large survey projects that have to stick to a set plan, chief investigators can change their research design as they go along based on what they find. This flexibility allows them to use their personal connections and insider knowledge to gain access to information and come up with research questions. Sometimes, chief investigators will bring in student assistants, community members, or even study participants to help with data collection. These helpers can provide valuable labor and local expertise. However, it's important for the chief investigator to make sure these helpers get the credit they deserve for their contributions. Even though fieldwork studies are often associated with qualitative data, they can also involve quantitative data. Chief investigators might count and measure things in the settings they're observing. For example, they might gather statistical data through surveys, track productivity, or systematically observe behavior. This quantitative data can be used alongside qualitative data from interviews and observation to provide a more complete picture. In conclusion, the flexible nature of fieldwork allows chief investigators to continually improve their research design and provide reliable evidence for their conclusions. Their methods provide a balance of qualitative insights and targeted quantitative measurement that's tailored to the research context.

Qualitative research is a flexible, evolving process that requires awareness of potential pitfalls and personal biases.

Qualitative research is a journey that often starts with a broad idea or goal, which then sharpens and evolves as the researcher makes new discoveries in the field. It's like going on a treasure hunt without a map, where the researcher might have to revisit the same spot multiple times, each time with a new question or observation. This flexibility is the beauty of qualitative research, as it allows for unexpected discoveries. However, it also makes it challenging to compare findings across different groups. There are some common pitfalls in qualitative research that one should be aware of. One such mistake is to treat history as irrelevant and assume that social phenomena remain static. This is like saying a river never changes its course. But just as a river may change its path due to a landslide, social phenomena too can change over time due to various factors. Often, it's these unexpected changes that lead to new discoveries, revealing variables that were previously hidden. Another common mistake is to make sweeping statements about things that haven't been directly observed or studied. It's like claiming to know the taste of a fruit you've never eaten. It's important to stick to what has been directly observed during the research. A third pitfall is to generalize from a single case to an entire category. This is like saying all apples taste the same because you've tasted one. Each case is unique and has its own set of features. Instead of making broad claims, it's better to identify the underlying dimensions that may vary across different cases. A fourth mistake is to overlook the time-bound nature of research. Just as fashion trends change over time, the patterns observed during the research might also change. For instance, parenting practices have evolved significantly over the years. While intensive observation can provide deep insights, it might not always be able to predict future trends. Lastly, researchers need to be aware of their personal biases. Just as our personal experiences shape our worldview, they also shape our research perspective. However, these experiences are not objective facts and should not be treated as such. By paying careful attention to changes over time, being cautious about generalizing, and being aware of personal biases, researchers can conduct accurate qualitative research. This approach allows them to discover new insights through flexible, in-depth investigation, much like uncovering hidden treasures in a vast field.

Common blunders in social science research can be transformed into opportunities for learning and improving future studies.

When we explore the common blunders in social science research, we can glean some important lessons. The first one is to avoid repeating the same mistakes. It's crucial to remember and learn from past errors, whether they were in sampling, measurement, research design, or data analysis. By making changes within the organization, we can better align the incentives of those involved in the research, from the researchers themselves to the data collectors and implementers. Next, we see the value of field research. This hands-on approach allows for constant development and testing of new ideas. However, it's important to be cautious and not overgeneralize based on limited data. The third lesson is about transforming what we initially perceive as "technical problems" into research questions. What might seem like glitches at first could actually be revealing new social phenomena. For instance, questions about ethnicity in a census brought to light the complexities of identity. Similarly, the coding of causes of death uncovered the influence of organizations. In conclusion, rather than viewing mistakes as setbacks, we should see them as opportunities for learning and improving future research. This perspective shift can lead to more accurate and insightful studies in the future.

Home

Evidence - Book Summary (2024)

Howard S. Becker

The book "Evidence" by Howard S. Becker explores the process of scientific inquiry, focusing on how social scientists use data, evidence, and ideas to form theories and convince others of their validity. It discusses the methods of data collection, the transformation of data into evidence, and the role of ideas in interpreting evidence.

Key Ideas

Paul Wallin and Leslie Waldo, two sociologists from the 1960s, embarked on a study to understand the impact of social class on children's academic performance. They attempted to gauge social class by asking 2,002 eighth-grade students to detail their fathers' jobs. However, they encountered a problem when trying to sort these jobs into social classes. They found that 17% of the descriptions were too ambiguous to categorize, and 5.5% of the students didn't provide any information at all.

This situation underscored a significant obstacle in social science research, which is the process of converting raw data into substantial evidence that can back up theories and ideas. The process involves three key elements: data, evidence, and ideas. Data transforms into evidence when it's used to bolster an argument that promotes an idea. However, for data to evolve into compelling evidence, it needs to be accurate, reliable, and valid.

Wallin and Waldo came to understand that their data was too flawed to make any definitive statements about social class and its effects. This is a typical problem when relying on self-reported data without any independent verification. These known sources of error should be seen as constant threats that need to be mitigated through rigorous methods, rather than anomalies that occur once in a while.

The individuals who gather the data also play a crucial role. For instance, interviewers might skew responses to wrap up quicker. Similarly, record keepers might manipulate data to serve their organization's interests. Therefore, researchers need to take into account how each person involved in the data collection process can affect its validity as evidence.

Moreover, difficulties encountered in conducting research properly can shed light on new areas to explore. Instead of overlooking persistent errors in data collection, researchers should view them as valuable hints about the underlying social phenomena they're studying.

SUMMARY: "Evidence" by Howard S. Becker is a comprehensive guide on the importance of evidence in social science research. The book emphasizes the need for researchers to be meticulous in their data collection, interpretation, and presentation. Becker discusses the interdependencies of data, evidence, and ideas, and how they form a circle of validation in research. He also highlights the importance of avoiding errors and correcting mistakes in research. The book provides insights into the process of turning data into evidence and using it to support theories or ideas.

ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT LEARNINGS:

Be meticulous in data collection: Ensure that the data collected is accurate, relevant, and comprehensive. This will form the basis of your research.
Understand the interdependencies of data, evidence, and ideas: Recognize that these three components are interconnected and that the validity of your research depends on how well they are linked.
Avoid errors: Be vigilant in your research process to avoid errors. This includes being careful in data collection, interpretation, and presentation.
Correct mistakes: If errors do occur, it's important to correct them as soon as possible. This will ensure the integrity of your research.
Turn data into evidence: Understand the process of turning data into evidence. This involves interpreting the data and using it to support your theories or ideas.
Use evidence to support theories: Once you have turned your data into evidence, use it to support your theories or ideas. This will strengthen your research and make it more convincing.
Be aware of the importance of evidence: Recognize the crucial role that evidence plays in research. It is the foundation upon which your research is built.
Be open to criticism: Be prepared for criticism and be open to revising your research based on feedback. This will help improve the quality of your research.
Be transparent in your research: Ensure that your research process is transparent and that your data, evidence, and ideas are clearly presented. This will make your research more credible.
Continually learn and improve: Always strive to learn more and improve your research skills. This will help you become a better researcher and produce high-quality research.