"Discovering knowledge"

There are many ways to "learn" or "know" something. Most of us rely very heavily on our personal experiences as to "what really is." We decide that since it happened to us, it must be part of the human condition, and therefore "truth." Many of these personal experiences of individuals have been written down or orally transmitted as platitudes (ex: "early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"). Some people hold these sayings as truth---but not the scientist doing research.

Other means by which people might seek truth include star gazing (your Zodiac sign) or magic or intuition--but not the scientist doing research. Some might turn to religion or philosophy for truth---but not the scientist doing research.

Does this mean that these "non-scientific ways" of "knowing" are invalid? No, every day you use some of these means to discover enough of the world around you to successfully deal in it. But the scientist doing research has a sytematic method for searching for answers. If he cannot apply that method to a given pnenominon, it does not rule that pnenominon out of existance; it only means that our current methodology does not have a means yet of dealing with it.

One example is the debate about "science vs religion." Some feel that science has disproven religion. But actually many aspects of religion are outside of the current measurement capacity of science, so science is simply silent on those subjects. In some aspects of magic and intuition science currently is maintaining silence. How do you measure a premonition? How can you set the stage to have a premonition when you want to study it? These and many other things are still outside of our methodology.

Even in areas that scientist do research, there are differences of opinion on what scientific methodology to use. Positivism was a popular methodology a century ago. This was the "scientific" method of the day. With positivism, the scientist tried to prove his hypothises as correct. An example was Karl Marx who proposed "dialectic materialism" and constantly tried to prove it as the underlying truth of society.

But more recent science claims "empiricism" coupled with Popper's propositions as science. This is the methodology supported by your text book. Empiricism demands objective measurements that are replicatable. In the debate over "Cold Fusion" the replicatability question is constantly surfacing. If Pon's experiments are not replicatable, then it is not "good science." The Popper's proposition is strongly held. This concept suggests that, to reduce researcher bias, the scientist should try to prove himself WRONG. The idea is to try to blow holes in the findings to sink them; if the ship does not go under, the findings "currently stand." This does not give the findings the validity of absolute truth, but simply allows their continued existance as our "current state of knowledge." Your textbooks are simply based upon these type of findings, and, when and if these findings are proven wrong, they will quickly be disgarded.

Current scientific research, therefore, is constantly testing and retesting our current body of knowledge to try to knock it out for a better set of conclusions. This is taking small, careful steps towards "truth."

But even today's accepted scientific methodology is not accepted by all who call themselves scientists. One school of thought, as found with the ethnomethodologists, feel that bias is inherent in the current way of doing research, and they want to change the program. As a partial evolution from this group, the relatively new "Ecological Paradigm" has been born. It seems to somewhat combine the empiricists with the ethnomethodologists and add some new ideas. We will hold further discussion of this change until later. Suffice it to say that "doing science" has changed and most likely will continue to change. What we will cover in this course is the most prevalent methodology of our day.

Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning

When doing science, the choice of using inductive or deductive reasoning on a given project is basic to the planning of the research. Inductive reasoning, which often is called "qualitative or discriptive research," is used when science embarks on a pnenomenon that is new or one that has had little or no previous work done on it. Simply put, there is not enough in the literature to begin doing deductive research; there is not enough knowledge to begin to ask the pertinent questions the researcher wants to ask.

A major methodology in inductive research is field work or observation research (which may be participant observation or non-participant observation and overt observation or cover observation). The idea is to get into the field and find out what is going on, without taking in pre-conceived notions of what will be found. This method has been used often in anthropology and, by trial and error, many streghths and weaknesses have been uncovered. Because most textbooks on social research cover this methodology only lightly, this guide will emphasize it through both readings and a project. It can be a valuable tool in your future.

Deductive logic is the most often used in sociology research projects. To better understand this metholodolgy, the following funnel is presented:

General Sociological Immagination or Curiousity

Over-all Paradigm (ex:nature or nurture)

Choosen theoretical perspective

Hypotheses which follow

Defined Questions

Instrument

Findings

At the top of the funnel is your immagination or curiousity. C Wright Mills talks about this concept. A scientist needs to brainstorm an idea to see it in the panorama of other pnenomenon and to tease out the real area of interest.

Next comes the paradigm or set of assumptions to be used. Yes, science has to start by assuming, and, yes, if those assumptions are wrong, the whole project is in trouble. This is, indeed, showing the bias of the researcher when he chooses the paradigm. One choice often made in social research is "nature or nuture?" The psychologist, sociobiologist, botanist, and medical doctor are more likely to choose "nature" as the paradigm to assume. In this, they are assuming that such physical charateristics as genetic make-up, out-side invasion of bacteria, brain structure and function or other such tangible attributes are promenent in out-comes.

Those who choose "nuture" are more likely sociologists, family clinitions, criminologists, philosophers and teachers. They assume that the conditions surrounding the pnenomenon had the greater influence on outcomes; change the environment and you change the outcomes.

Theories next flow from these paradigms. One theory flowing from the nurture paradigm involves crime. It suggests that the "relative deprivation" of lower SES people in striving for the American Dream helps create the conditions conducive to crime; they may even "compell" some to crime. It is obvisous that the theory choosen needs to conform to the paradigm assumptions. If a researcher chose nurture, but then used a nature theory, the research project is doomed to mess up.

Once a specific theorectical perspective is chosen, the hypotheses for this particular study can be decided. Not only should the hypotheses be in harmony with the theory, but it should also be stated as a "null hypotheses" in compliance with Pooper's propostions. The researcher may feel that there is a difference in the income potential between males and females (his hypothesis), but he must try to disprove himself, so he states the hypotheses as: "There is no difference between the income potential of college trained males and college trained females working at the same job."

Please note that the hypothesis needs to be quite specific. The one just given needs to be further specified to make a good study with reliable findings; the next step helps this to happen. The actual research questions need to harmonize with the hypothesis and be very specific (to help insure that we have reliability and validity). Doing a project only to find that you asked the wrong questions is poor science.

The instrument we use, say a survey questionaire, therefore must comply with our exacting research questions. The type of scales used need to reflect the type of data needed to really test the pnenomenon. Likert scales, for an example, have strengths and weaknesses; use this type of scale where it will best suit the specific question being asked. Carefully choose open-ended questions for some types of inquiry and closed-ended, forced response questions for other types.

The findings, or the "bottom line" is what all this effort expended has been about. But now the analysis of those findngs is as critical as any of the other steps. Many researchers fall short at this point, perhaps after the long trail feeling that this will take care of itself. But it will not. Ethical, pain-staking analysis is needed, not "lying with statistics." It is also a tenent of science that the research is not completed without the proper presentation of findings to others---for this is how science is done: "brick upon brick."

----------

One key to qualitative research should be obvious: you must go where and when the phenomenon occurs. The meaning of the behavior observed, within the context it is found, is the treasured data of this type of study. The general types of observation are as follows:

1) structured observation: the purpose is to document specific behaviors as they occur. The length, frequency, and conditions under which these behaviors occur are recorded for later analysis

2) participant observation: all behavior occurring is of interest as you surround yourself in the actual field experience. This is time consuming but very rich in detail--you may discover things that can not come out in any other research design.

This type of field work is usually overt (the research subjects know that you are there and have asked permission to do research on them). But it can use some types of covert methods. With covert research, you may be seen in person by the subjects, but your intent of doing research is unknown to them. Another method is to be around the subjects, but not be noticed by them. This might be in research done as an "ancillary person" (such as a waiter who presumably does not listen in on the dinner conversation).

At some point in participant observation, you probably will want to include ethnographic interviews in which you question "why?" as to the beliefs and behaviors of the subjects. This will allow you to ask what the subjects are feeling or thinking in addition to what they are doing. Don't be shocked if their behavior does not align with their beliefs!

Qualitative designs are rich with detail and strong in internal validity as long as the observer bias is under reasonable control. The main weakness is that you learn a lot about the particular setting and particular subjects, but they are not necessarily generalizable to other situations. Ecological fallacy can be fallen into easily in this design