ADVERTISEMENTS:
The following points highlight the top eight approaches of sociological methods. The approaches are: 1. Historical or Evolutionary Approach 2. The Comparative Approach 3. Structural-Functionalist Approach 4. Social Fact Approach 5. Social Action Approach 6. Verstehen Approach 7. Statistical or Mathematical Approach.
Sociological Method # 1. Historical or Evolutionary Approach:
Early sociologists were concerned with a description of the main trends in the evolution of humanity as a whole. Their thinking was dominated by a conception of man and society progressing through definite steps of evolution, marking successive stages of greater and still greater complexity to some final stage of perfection. This kind of thinking on evolutionary lines is represented by a number of theories.
All these theories are based on the assumption that man’s social development requires that at every stage social forces play their roles according to ‘natural law’ to be succeeded by a different stage and the process goes on till the stage of perfection is reached. Biological theory of evolution is often invoked in support of this line of thinking.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Examples are Comte’s law of the three stages, the Marxist theory of a movement from a classless society through various forms of class differentiation to a classless society again, Hobhouse’s effort at correlating social development with mental development as well as many other theories of social evolution, Durkheim’s theory of a historical trend, or evolution, from a low to a high degree of specialisation giving rise to the distinction between two main types of society — one marked by what he called mechanical solidarity’ and the other by ‘organic solidarity’.
Ferdinand Tonnies also harped on the evolutionary theme when he distinguished between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, the community type of society gradually evolving into a corporate or associational type of society. It is interesting to note that some social scientists have used the evolutionary concept of society in support of their respective social or political philosophies.
For example, William Graham Sumner, who is known as a ‘Social Darwinist’, argued against social reform and all attempts at social change on the ground that such efforts were against the law of nature and that social evolution must be allowed to run its natural course. “That is why”, he said, “it is the greatest folly of which a man can be capable, to sit down with a slate and pencil to plan out a new social world.”
Such pre-occupations with social evolution do no longer concern the sociologists q£ this century. There are various reasons for this. A mass of evidence has been collected to show that human societies do not pass through a fixed and limited number of stages in a given sequence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Moreover, the conditions in the twentieth century do not inspire the confidence that the contemporary society is the highest stage of man’s social life. Nor is there any indication that man’s social life is progressively improving to reach a still higher or better stage.
Though the evolutionary model has been, for all practical purposes, abandoned, by present-day sociologists, we should not ignore the achievements of thinkers who belonged to this school. To begin with, the early evolutionists “classified in illuminating ways a mass of ethnographic and historical materials, and outlined possible typologies of human society”.
Secondly, they “made important contributions to our knowledge of social changes”.
In the light of their discussions, we are able to identify the factors which bring about changes in social structure and lay down, instead of a general theory of social evolution, conditions which tend to produce changes in particular areas of social life.
The works of Max Weber are examples of this type of formulation. He did not formulate a grand theory of the whole course of social evolution like many evolutionary thinkers. His study of the origins of capitalism relating religion to economic pursuits and that of the development of modern bureaucracies are typical examples of his distinctive historical approach.
Sociological Method # 2. The Comparative Approach:
The point of view of those who are in favour of pursuing the comparative approach has been very succinctly expressed by Durkheim. It is argued that in natural sciences checking and cross-checking of data are possible through various kinds of experiments. In social sciences, however, such experiments cannot be undertaken in order to establish causal relationships with regard to social phenomena.
We are, therefore, obliged, says Durkheim, “to use the method of indirect experiment” which is another name for comparative method.
“In essentials this method is an application of a general rule of inductive logic: to vary the circumstances of a phenomenon with the object of eliminating variable and inessential factors, and so arriving at what is essential and constant. What is peculiar to the method is the use of data derived from different regions or different times.”
Doubts may be raised as to whether precise causal connections may at all be established in social sciences. Even then, it is doubtless true that illuminating light may be shed through the method of comparison which enables us to explain the nature of social phenomena.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Some examples will be in order. By comparing the differences in the rates of suicide committed by people in different groups within the same society, Durkheim tried to find out the social factor which was mainly responsible for the differential rates.
Thus, he presented statistical evidence to show that there is a higher suicide rate among married people without children then among those who are married and have children.
He also concluded on the basis of statistical evidence that suicide rate generally rose in times of severe economic depression as compared to that in times of economic stability. Cross- cultural studies are also undertaken in order to get new insights into social phenomena.
Max Weber, for example, studied the religion of India and China in the light of the teachings of Calvinism, which, in his view, instilled among the faithful the virtues of work ethics and ‘worldly-asceticism’, and tried to seek an explanation as to why the ‘East remained an enchanted garden’.
With an improvement in the means of communication and transportation, first-hand cross-cultural sociological studies have increased in number in recent years, resulting in wealth of information which augurs well for broadening the base of sociological researches in future.
Commenting on the importance of comparative studies in respect of complex social formations or institutions, Ginsberg observes that “as soon as sociology passes from the descriptive to the analytic level, the comparative method is essential alike for genetic conations and for establishing any other mode of causal relationship.”
By way of illustrating how genetic connections are established by comparative studies, Ginsberg says that “if we wish to know the conditions under which slavery, or serfdom, or any other forms of economic organization arises, it is necessary to study their history in different societies.”
Again, by way of illustrating how comparative studies are helpful in establishing various kinds of causal relationships, Ginsberg observes :
“The problem of the extent to which a phenomenon like the rise of nationalism is conditioned by the need for economic or political unification, by the growth of the middle classes, or by war, or the problem of the limits set to national assimilation by racial heterogeneity or differences in religion, obviously requires wide comparative study for its solution”.
There are, however, some difficulties in pursuing the comparative method. To begin with, Radcliffe Brown pointed out that “the comparative method alone gives you nothing. Nothing will grow out of the ground unless you put seeds into it. The comparative method is one way of testing hypothesis.”
The difficulty of using the comparative method arises out of the absence of a well-formulated hypothesis. In its absence the entire exercise may be futile. Secondly, difficulty may also arise in connection with definition of the unit of comparison. Thus, it is a formidable task to compare whole societies with one another.
As a way out of this difficulty, the procedure which is often used is to compare specific social institutions in two or more societies. It is argued that the conclusions arrived at on the basis of such comparative studies of specific institutions are of little significance.
An institution, it is pointed out, is an integral part of the whole society and, as such, one cannot understand or appreciate the value or usefulness of the institution when it is detached from the context of the whole society.
Such studies, thus, become much too mechanical. These are real difficulties of which one should be aware at the time of undertaking cross-cultural studies. Such awareness coupled with taking of abundant precaution, as the circumstances require, would considerably minimise the extent of distortions which might creep into cross-cultural studies of institutions.
Sociological Method # 3. Structural-Functionalist Approach:
Social thinkers of aft ages have dwelt on analogies between society and living organisms. The unity of a living organism prompted them to look for factors which kept the society together.
They asked themselves two basic questions:
(i) How is social life maintained over time in spite of the fact that membership of society changes completely from generation to generation?
(ii) How is the unity of social life maintained ?
Answers to these two basic questions were sought in the linked concepts of “structure” and “function” which appeared in the writings of Spencer and Durkheim and figured prominently in those of social anthropologists, Malinowski and Radcliffe- Brown.
The analysis of society in terms of the concepts of “structure” and function also appears quite prominently in the writings of Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. As a matter of fact, for the past few decades functional analysis has been a major approach to understand and explain the nature and organisation of society.
The term “functional analysis” or “structural-functionalism” has, however, been applied to a great variety of approaches which share one common element or feature, namely, relating one part of a society or social system to another part or to some aspect of the whole. Now-a-days the functionalist approach is generally known as the structural-functional school of sociology.
To the basic question as to how the social life is maintained despite a complete turnover in its membership in every generation, they answer that each society develops structures which are found appropriate for meeting the demands of social life.
A change in the membership of society does not necessarily or automatically bring about a change in the social structures which are either preconditions or consequences of organised social life.
To the second basic question as to how is the unity of social life maintained, the structural-functionalist writers offer the explanation that the different structures of society are integrated and co-ordinated so as to preserve the unity of society as a complete system like that of a living organism.
In other words, the structural-functionalist theory takes a total view of society and does not take up for analysis any institution or structure in isolation from other institutions or structures. The explanations offered to these two basic questions bring out the essence of structural-functionalist approach.
Alex Inkeles has analysed very precisely and pointedly the differences in approach between the evolutionary and functionalist writers:
“The evolutionary and functional views are not opposed to each other, but their interests and emphases are different. The evolutionary perspective is similar to Comte’s idea of “social dynamics”, whereas the structural-functional approach is a contemporary relative of his “social statics”. The evolutionist is concerned with the classification of societies according to an established evolutionary scale. Time, stages of development, and change are, therefore, central to his interest. The structural-functional approach involves a more limited time perspective. It stops the motions of the system at a fixed point of time in order to understand how, at that moment, it works as a system. When considering a particular institution, those guided by the evolutionary perspective try to understand how the evolutionary stage of the society as a whole shapes the form of the institution. The structural-functionalists will emphasize more how the institution contributed to keeping the society in operation.”
The structural-functionalist approach has been criticised on the ground that it is a static theory and ignores the forces and processes of social change, and that it is essentially conservative in nature. The theory is also criticised on the ground that it does not take into account social tensions and conflict situations which occur not infrequently in social life.
Sociological Method # 4. Social Fact Approach:
This approach was advocated by Durkheim with an eye to the scientific study-of society. He was convinced that as long as the subjective world, i.e., the world of ideas, beliefs and values, remained outside the objective world, its scientific investigation would be impossible.
But how could this is achieved? This was to be achieved through, what he regarded as the most fundamental of his Rules of Sociological Method, the principle that all social phenomena were to be considered as ‘things’, distributed along a continuum running from the spatial structure of society at one end to its rules, beliefs and emotions at the other end.
His intention was thus to indicate that these various phenomena “are not merely plastic creations of the will of the ‘ observer, but share the properties of physical objects in the sense that they exist independently of his observation of them. He cannot, therefore, discover their characteristics by a priori reasoning or by introspective examinations of his own consciousness”.
This did not mean, however, a denial of any meaning they might have for individuals. An individual may cherish a particular faith and seek solace in that faith. But its scientific investigation required that it be regarded as external to man and treated objectively like any other social phenomena.
These various social phenomena, including beliefs, values, attitudes, etc., were characterised by him as ‘social facts” to which he attributed two characteristics:
(i) The attribute of exteriority in the sense that ‘social facts” were to be regarded as external to man;
(ii) The attribute of constraint in the sense that these stood over the individual in some compelling way — such as, law, customs, and the whole range of moral obligations which exercise constraint upon him.
In short, Durkheim”s conception of sociology as an autonomous science of society required him:
(i) To’ bring the ideal into the sphere of nature’, in the methodological sense of adopting the same attitude towards both social and natural phenomena which, he believed, would guarantee sociology’s status as a science;
(ii) To ‘remove nature from the sphere of the ideal’, in the theoretical sense of explaining society in purely social terms which, he believed, would guarantee the autonomy of sociology.'”
Durkheim emphasised the close kinship among all the highly diverse social facts. He felt that each social fact must be related to a particular social milieu, to a definite type of society”. To do otherwise, he cautioned, is to leave social facts — the facts of religion, law, moral ideas and economics — “suspended in the void”.
It is impossible, he contended, to understand the nature and significance of these social facts unless they are seen in their relations to each other and the collective milieu in the midst of which they develop and whose expression they are.
Durkheim’s most fundamental principle with regard to his approach to the study of society was, thus, “the objective reality of social facts”. Some criticisms have been raised against this approach. To begin with, by terming the existing factual order “objective” and “real”, those tendencies at work which tend to negate the existing order are obscured, and, even when perceived, are defined as unreal.
Secondly, doubts are raised as to whether objective and scientific analysis of social facts is at all possible. Facts do not speak for themselves nor do they present themselves before us for observation and experiment. Some theory or hypothesis (however tentative it might be) directs our attention and accordingly we observe ‘facts’ or ‘things’.
We tend to observe what we intend to observe and we fail to observe what we are not inclined to observe. Again, we tend to invest meaning in what we observe in terms of a theory or hypothesis. Interpretation ts never objective, as is claimed, with regard to matters relating to man and his social universe.
Subjective bias and prejudice imperceptivity and without our knowing it influence our interpretation. Thirdly, social facts are supposed to exercise external coercion upon individuals. But the fact that individuals are able to change social facts is not at all considered.
Zeitlin has, therefore, observed that:
“In place of ‘society’ as a concept referring to the interactions and interrelationships of individuals, we are given a reified conception of society as a real, living entity – a thing.”
The limitations of the approach to sociological study in terms of ‘social facts’ arise from the extreme position taken by Durkheim with regard to the nature and properties of social facts.
In the instant case, in his anxiety to exclude two potentially competing forms of explanation of social life — viz., naturalism and psychologism — and also in his eagerness to establish sociology on a scientific basis, Durkheim took up an extreme position that “society is ever already present’,” that social phenomena have to be explained only in terms of other social phenomena, and that this was the proper concern of the new science of Sociology — an object which belonged to sociology alone.
Sociological Method # 5. Social Action Approach:
The concept of social action has been claimed by some sociologists as a key concept in sociology. An individual has different statuses in society — a husband, a father, a neighbor, a teacher and many such statuses — and his roles or patterns of behaviour vary in terms of these different statuses.
Social interaction is, therefore, essentially status interaction. Analysis of social phenomena in terms of status and role becomes much too mechanical unless we take into account his state of mind, his perceptions, his emotions and his choices.
Social relationships, which constitute the essence of society, acquire a meaningful pattern when we try to seek an answer to the question: Why do people behave as they actually do in certain circumstances ? This is true of all branches of social science.
For example, analysis of the processes of democratic government becomes truly meaningful when we take into account the voting behaviour of the people — that is, when we seek an answer to the question as to why people vote in the manner as they actually do.
“The sociologist more than any other social scientist must necessarily give attention to the behaviour of the person, because he is interested in the nature of social action as such and hence he is interested in human motivation at its deepest level”. It is, therefore, worthwhile attempting to develop a general theory of social action.
Action takes place in a situation which has a number of components or aspects. It includes the actor (i.e. the person on-whose behaviour we are for the present focusing our attention) and an objective situation which may be social (other individual actors or groups) or non-social (physical environment). Analysis of action is an examination of how the actor reacts to the objective situation as he finds it.
An actor reacts to the situation with an eye to the attainment of some goal. All action is, therefore, goal-oriented or motivational. What are the motives which generally prompt a man to act? The views of Max Weber and Talcott Parsons may be considered in this connection.
Max Weber classifies types of action under four categories. First, rational action in relation to a goal. The actor conceives his goal clearly and adopts means with a view to attaining it. Thus, the action of the engineer who is engaged in building a bridge in terms of a clear-cut blue-print employing all his resources and technical skill comes under this category. Secondly, affective or emotional action.
This refers to the emotional reaction of an actor to his objective situation. The case of a mother who feels disturbed and slaps her child comes under this category. Thirdly, traditional action. Such action is dictated by customs or beliefs which have become habitual and second nature, as it were, of the actor.
Observance of folkways comes under this category. Fourthly, rational action in relational to a value. The action of the brave captain who goes down with his sinking ship comes under this category. The captain chooses to die simply because he considers it dishonorable not to do so.
According to Talcott Parsons, there are three aspects of this process of motivation: these are cognitive, cathectic and evaluative. These correspond respectively to knowledge about goal-attainment, sentiments and morals. An actor may cognize the situation when he strives to attain a goal. That is, he must have idea or information about the methods or ways which are relevant to goal-attainment.
An actor may be cathecting towards them. That is, he must have some feelings about the objective situation in relation to his needs. He may be evaluating the situation, considering it in the light of his value-judgment, such is his ideas of what he should do.
All these elements or aspects of motivation become or are made social through the process of interaction. Interaction takes place when any one actor (“ego”) considers the actions of another actor (“alter”). If the interaction between “ego” and “alter” is regular, then certain mutual expectations will arise.
Each party tries to predict what the other will do and each modifies his conduct somewhat in order to meet the expectations of the other. The pattern of mutual expectations which gradually emerges through regular interactions becomes a set of norms.
Both “ego” and “alter” accept these norms as binding upon themselves. These norms define their mutual rights and obligations. What the “ego” does in relation to the “alter” or what the “alter” does in relation to the “ego” broadly conform to the normative pattern.
Parsons goes further in linking the nature of social action to the characteristic features of different types of social systems. He does this by referring to the different types of action that are possible. These are known as pattern variables. He formulates four key variable properties of action patterns. Each such action pattern is presented as a binary choice that arises in every social relationship.
The first two choices, viz. (i) and (ii), relate to ego’s orientation to others — i.e. what ego expects from his relationships to others. The last two choices, viz. (iii) and (iv), relate to the way alters (individuals or status groups) are defined by the ego — i.e. the type or nature of relationships which the ego maintains with the alters.
The four pattern variables are:
(i) Affectivity vs. Neutrality:
Whether ego has emotional attachment to alter in the sense that he seeks or expects mental satisfaction from his relationship with the alter or whether ego is emotionally neutral towards alter in the sense that he neither seeks nor expects any gratification from his relationship with the alter.
For example, the relationship of ego with his friend belongs to the first category and his relationship with a stranger or with one who is only his acquaintance belongs to the second category.
(ii) Diffuseness vs. Specificity:
Whether ego seeks or expects a broad range of satisfying relationships with alter or whether ego seeks a narrower and much more specific satisfaction from his relationship with alter. Two cases might be cited to illustrate these two kinds of relationships. Relationship among friends belongs to the first category because friends do not seek a specific kind of satisfaction from their mutual relationship.
The pattern of obligation is not defined. A friend is expected to do whatever he can for his friend, if asked. The roles of husband in relation to his wife or of wife in relation to her husband, of mother or father in relation to their children come under this category.
On the contrary, the relationship of a patient to his doctor is based on the fulfillment of a very specific need. The role of landlord toward his tenant or the role of a teacher toward his pupils is examples of relatively specific roles.
(iii) Particularism vs. Universalism:
Whether ego defines alter in terms of a very special kind of relationship they have or in terms of alters’ membership of a broader class or status group. By way of illustration of the first category we may refer to the very special kind of relationship that exists among friends or among kins. The role of father or son is particularistic.
When, however, ego defines his relationship with alter in terms of the consideration that the latter is a male or a female or a fellow citizen, we have the example of the second category. “The role of a judge in court is universalistic. A judge is supposed to to take decisions, not on the basis of the social position of the persons before the bench, but on the basis of strictly impersonal criteria of justice”.
In other words, we manifest ‘particularism’ when we give special consideration to people because of their particular relationship to us. We manifest ‘universalism’ when we treat more or less alike all who come before us in a given status-position.
(iv) Ascription vs. Achievement (later generalized by Parsons to Qualities vs. Performance):
Whether ego defines alter in terms of criteria which have nothing to do with the latter’s achievements or performance or whether ego defines alter solely in terms of the latter’s performance or achievement. Relationship of ego to alter based on consideration of age, race, sex or caste group illustrates the former and relationship based on merit norms the latter.
“If my treatment of you is mainly on the basis of what you are in yourself, in contrast to what you have done, I stress quality over performance”.
The significance of this scheme of pattern variables lies in the fact that content analysis of both personal relationships and societal types can be made in terms of this scheme. The first terms in the four pattern variables — viz., affectivity, diffuseness, particularism and ascription — bring out the broad norms of relationships among friends.
By contrast, the second terms in the four variables — viz., neutrality, specificity, universalism and achievement (or performance) — bring out the broad norms of secondary relationships — say, between a doctor or a lawyer and his client. A doctor or a lawyer is expected to be neutral, specific, universalistic and performance oriented towards his clients.
In The Social System Parsons uses the pattern variables in order to bring’ out the characteristic features of two types of societies, viz., traditional and modern.
At one extreme, traditional societies exhibit “particularistic-ascriptive” characteristics where the emphasis is on kinship relations, and most important activities — such as, work, education, leisure pursuits, religious practices, etc. — are carried out by members of the family or by relatives.
The relations among kinsmen reflect not simply the dominant particularistic-ascriptive values of the society, ‘but are also likely to be “affective” and “diffuse”. In passing, we may note a very significant observation of Parsons.
Since “merit norms” or achievement values are superseded in traditional societies by more dominant values of ascription, particularism and affectivity, the possibilities for economic, political and other forms of socio- cultural development are very much restricted in such societies.
Modernisation of these societies can, therefore, begin only after appropriate values conducive to socio-economic development have developed as a dominant force. In contrast, value priorities are reversed in the more modernized societies. As rationalisation gradually pervades such a society, the universalistic-achievement values begin to dominate the entire social fabric.
Relationships among people tend to be impersonal and characterised by qualities of ‘neutrality’ and ‘specifity’. It is thus obvious that all the first terms in the four variables define the characteristic features of a traditional society while all the second terms those of a modem society.
Conceptually, pattern-variable scheme is one of the main innovations of Talcott Parsons. The idea underlying the scheme has been widely accepted and used. He redefined in terms of theories of action the contrasts between traditional and modern societies which were found in earlier theories of Comte (the law of the three stages).
Ferdinand Tonnies (transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft). Max Weber (transition from traditional to rational-legal basis of authority), and Durkheim (transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity).
Sociological Method # 6. Verstehen Approach:
Verstehen method refers to the study of social action “by interpreting the motivational processes of the actors in their situational, historic, or symbolic contexts. It means, essentially, putting oneself, in imagination, in the place of the other and, through intuition, coming to understand his action”.
Verstehen method was developed by scholars belonging to Historicist School in Germany. In order to bring out the significance of this method, the contrast between the Positivist School and the Historicist, School should be discussed. Positivism in Western Europe sought an approach to social life closely modelled on natural science.
Acting units were individuals since no physical links existed among groups of individuals after birth. All subjective properties, definable by their meanings to various actors or culture groups, were virtually excluded. In the extreme (radical positivism) this was a bio-social view of men as organisms adapting to environments like any animals.
This view was epitomized by Darwin, behaviourist psychology, and instinct theories. In contrast, idealist approaches stressed precisely the subjective, symbolic qualities of men that set them apart from other species. In contrast to the physical systems treated by Positivist Science, the Historicists called attention to the “ideal reality” of cultures whose comprehension required Verstehen method.
Historicists challenged the uncritical rationalism of positivism and stressed the unique integrity of each total cultural-system. It is suggested that some special method or approach, denied to students of the natural universe, has been conferred upon those who enquire into the social universe.
Two characteristic features of the social universe are emphasised in this connection:
(i) That men have a special kind of knowledge about themselves, and
(ii) that we have a knowledge of human nature which is different from our knowledge of the nature of the physical world.
The advocates of Verstehen method argue that this method is particularly useful in acquiring an “insight” or “understanding” into matters relating to human relationships.
The advocates of Verstehen method, however, failed to specify in detail the operations to be performed in using the method. Theodore Abel tried to specify the operations involved with the help of illustrations.
For example, if statistical technique discloses a high correlation between crop yields and marriage rates, we say we ‘understand’ the relationship because we have a behaviour maxim or guiding principle which tells us that when people feel prosperous they are more willing to make commitments than when they do not. The ‘understanding’ is the process of connecting the observation with the maxim or general principle.
In other words, Verstehen brings to awareness and makes explicit the maxim that intervenes between our perceptions of stimulus and response. This is specially necessary when the observed behaviour is neither routine nor commonplace and when the connections are other than those we would expect.
The steps involved in following the Verstehen approach are, therefore, three:
(i) Internalizing the stimulus,
(ii) Internalizing the response, and
(iii) Applying behaviour maxims.
The techniques by which we do this are not, however, specified. These are matters of sympathetic imagination and of introducing our own personal experience into the situation. This happens generally in the imputation of motives. The source of behaviour maxims is not in science but in personal experience. Thus, the pursuit of Verstehen approach is the application of personal experience to observed behaviour.
Theodore Abel has referred to certain limitations of Verstehen as a method of enquiry.
In the first place, personal experience is variable and its quality depends upon the introspective capacity of the interpreter.
Secondly, this method simply suggests connections, but is unable to verify them.
Thirdly, the suggested connection is only a possibility. We need to utilise the more positivistic methods of experiment and comparison in order to determine the probability.
Having made these criticisms, Abel concludes that Verstehen cannot serve as a method of scientific analysis and cannot add to our store of knowledge. Nevertheless, he concedes that Verstehen is the chief source of hypothesis, and, as such, it has an important role “as an indispensable instrument in the study of social phenomena”.
Sociological Method # 7. Statistical or Mathematical Approach:
Sociological study is a study of human relations. The model for such a study is this. The investigator begins with a hypothesis. From this he draws various inferences and these, in turn, are subjected to empirical test which confirms or refutes the hypothesis. Generally, one arrives at a hypothesis on the basis of simple observation of the social phenomena, attempting to perceive with insight the casual relations between various aspects of the social phenomena.
According to Professor W. Waller, in the social sciences we may obtain insight in three distinct ways:
1. By direct study of human behaviour.
2. By studying certain symbols abstracted from reality — these symbols are usually numerical.
3. Through sympathetic penetration.
The first method is simple. In studying any set of social phenomena directly, we pass them before our eyes in an attempt to discover recurrent patterns. These recurrent patterns gradually crystallize into concepts. When sociologists study the customs or institutions of a community, they generally follow this method.
The second method is that of the study of symbols derived from social phenomena. The quantitative symbols furnished by statisticians and reports about a social phenomenon furnished by others come under this category. The statistical method remains immensely important in any method of social study.
This is due to a variety of reasons:
(i) The best use of statistics is for the study of various kinds of mass phenomena. In certain classes of phenomena, the important facts are numerical relations. Sometimes social facts are so widespread that they cannot be directly studied. But they must be converted into figures and studied in this symbolic form with a view to obtaining insight,
(ii) Statistics may give added objectivity to social investigations by substituting the study of quantitative symbols for the direct study of social phenomena. Social phenomena are sometimes so charged with emotion that even the most impartial observer may well doubt whether he has interpreted them without bias,
(iii) Another use of statistics is in determining the relative numerical importance of known causal factors. It is, for example, a generally accepted fact that people who have deep emotional attachments to their village do not generally develop into committed factory workers. If we want to know how many such people have developed this state of mind, we are required to take the help of statistics,
(iv) The role of statistics is often that of making more exact something that is already known.
The third method of obtaining insight is through introspection or sympathetic penetration. The behaviourist who tries to study human relations directly cannot dispense with sympathetic insight. The statistician must also draw more or less upon sympathetic insight for interpretation of his phenomena.
When we observe something directly or through language or mathematic symbols, there starts certain mental processes in ourselves. Waller has very well said that “the mind of man is a tiny pencil of light exploring the illimitable dark”.
While pointing out the limitations of statistics, W. F. Ogburn observed:
“The increasing usefulness of statistics has brought its devotees. But devotion is unreasoning, and loyalties are more appropriate to group action than to clear thinking. Schools of thought based on loyalty to authority or emotional attachments should be more frequent among scholars and artists than among scientists. For these reasons a discussion of some of the limitations of statistics seems appropriate”.
To begin with, the language of statistics is a very serious limitation. Figures do not necessarily convey meaning as clearly as does the language. The process of deriving knowledge from statistical figures and tables is one of explanation and interpretation in the same way as one gets the meaning of a political cartoon in a newspaper.
The second limitation of statistics arises from the fact that it does not guarantee a reliable composite picture. Statistical information is generally collected in respect of a single phenomenon or a series of them. These studies may be exact. But in order to get a composite picture of the whole, various statistical data have to be selected and given varying emphasis.
Bias in selecting data and emphasizing some data more than others may distort the composite picture, even when each element of the composite is scientifically accurate.
For instance, a conservative and a radical may visit Soviet Russia at the same time and collect the same or similar data and use the same for writing books so different that the time and place might not be recognizable as the same. Thirdly, statistics may prove to be a hindrance in studying certain social phenomena.
If, for instance, we want to draw a well-balanced picture of family as an institution on the basis of quantitative or factual records, our study would inevitably be one-sided. This is because of the fact that we may not have adequate records on certain aspects of the family. Fourthly, too much reliance on statistical measurement is criticised on the ground that it often “becomes emptied of meaning”.
Sorokin, for instance, expressed concern about the loss of meaning which results when the sociologist relies more on “statistical manipulation of data” and does not directly experience the social situations under study. “Only through direct empathy can one grasp the essential nature and difference between a criminal gang and a fighting battalion, between a harmonious and a broken family”.
Sociological Method # 8. Composite Approach:
A contrast is made between the ‘holistic’ approach and the ‘competitive’ in the study of society. In the former, societies are supposed to be studied as wholes. In the latter, societies are studied in terms of parts or elements which constitute the society. It is obviously impossible for sociologists to study modern societies as ‘wholes’. Study of parts or elements of society is undertaken now-a-days in terms of a research design.
A research design is the logical and systematic planning of piece of study or research. The plan is initially vague and tentative. It undergoes gradual changes as the investigator gains new perspectives and insights in the course of his investigations.
In drawing up the study plan he is required to take certain decisions with regard to:
(i) What the study is about and the types of data that are needed;
(ii) Why the study is being made;
(iii) Where the required data can be found;
(iv) Where, or in what areas the study will be carried on;
(v) What periods of time will be covered by the study;
(vi) How much material or how many cases will be required for the study;
(vii) What would be the bases of selection of the data;
(viii) What techniques of gathering data will be adopted.
A Study or research design includes at least the following component parts which are interdependent and not mutually exclusive:
(i) Sources of Information to be Tapped:
The sources an investigator should tap vary with his interests and the type of his study. Sources are generally of two kinds:
Documentary sources and field sources. The documentary sources of information are those which are available from published and unpublished documents, letters, etc. The documentary sources may be classified further into two sources: primary and secondary. The Census Report, for instance, is a primary source of information.
The research papers or articles based on Census Report are examples of secondary sources of information. One has to be very careful in handling secondary sources. Sometimes secondary sources of information may have to be checked and verified with reference to primary sources.
The field sources of information are those which are collected directly from persons who are in a position to shed light or supply information on the subject or subjects under study by virtue of their intimate and long experience about men and affairs that are relevant to the study.
When field sources of information are tapped, care must be taken to check information supplied by a person with reference to what is supplied by another. This is a safeguard against the study being distorted by unreliable information.
(ii) Nature of Study:
Study of a social phenomenon may take the following forms: a statistical study, a case study, a comparative study or some combination of these and other types. The choice of the nature of study depends on the subject to be investigated.
The nature of study appropriate for investigating a small group may be unsuitable for investigating a phenomenon which demands consideration of a large number of cases spread over a wide area.
(iii) Objectives of Research Studies:
Objectives of research studies depend upon the goal to be attained. There may be various types of goals: to gather descriptive data, to seek explanatory data, to collect and analyse data which may be of use in deducing a theoretical construct, or to gather data for the purpose of enunciating a suitable social policy or evolving guidelines for social planning.
(iv) Socio-cultural Context of Study:
Study of a social phenomenon requires observation of the physical environment as well as the cultural milieu. No man or group of men lives in a vacuum. To understand as to why a group of men in a certain community broadly conform to the prevailing norms or deviate from these, one has to take into account the socio-cultural factors which mould the personality-patterns of these people.
(v) Dimensions of Study and Sampling Procedures:
Decision on how many cases are to be considered for a particular study depends on three factors:
(i) The requirements of study,
(ii) The availability of resources and
(iii) The availability of time to the investigator.
In certain cases the dimensions of study may be so large as to require sampling of data. In such cases precaution should be taken to ensure that the sample is unbiased and that the sample is large enough to produce reliable results.
(iv) Delimitation and Formulation of a Problem:
It has been well said that “a problem well-formulated is a problem half-solved”. Logical formulation of a problem is the first initial step. The next important step is to delimit the scope of enquiry so as to place the object of study in sharp focus and facilitate completion of the study within the limitations of time and resource.
The third important step is to follow systematic procedure and to be discriminatory in the use of data. One may have a vague idea of the object of study when he works out the preliminaries. The successive stages of research and accumulation of data tend to clarify it. Adherence to systematic procedure tends to validate it. Intensive study and painstaking pursuit of procedure are required throughout the scientific voyage.
Data Collection:
Data from primary sources may be collected by observation, personal interview, conference, correspondence, questionnaire and other devices. Of these, observation,, interview and questionnaire are very important methods for collecting data.
Field Observation:
For the purpose of studying social phenomena, observation means something more than “seeing”. It is purposive observation. The first step in the study of social phenomena is to formulate a hypothesis on the basis of stray information or experience gained from mere “seeing”.
The next step is for the investigator to look closely in the light of the formulated hypothesis at the phenomena under study and test the correctness or otherwise of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is found to be wrong, the investigator has to formulate another hypothesis and proceed to test the newly formulated hypothesis through intensive observation.
In order to avoid confusion and bring to bear upon the study a sharp focus, the investigator should avoid all peripheral issues which, he thinks, will not be meaningful in terms of testing the hypothesis. Field observation may be controlled and non-controlled in their participant and non-participant aspects.
It should, however, be noted that whenever controlled study of a social phenomenon is undertaken, it actually ceases to be observation as such and data collection and data processing become important tools of analysis in such cases.
Non-controlled and non-participant observation:
Non-controlled and non-participant observation is actually a study of a particular social phenomenon from “outside”. It may take the form of scattered and occasional visits, and casual observation of the object of study. In the nature of things, such investigations suffer from some inherent weaknesses.
The investigator should, therefore, take particular care to avoid distortions creeping into the study. To begin with, while describing the social situation under study, the investigator should scrupulously avoid making subjective generalizations which, on the face of it, are his ‘impressions’.
Thus, while describing a slum situation, the investigator should not make a statement which runs as follows: “The slum has the appearance of a dull, drab and cheerless place.” Such impressionistic statements run the risk of being tinged by subjective bias.
To that extent the study is not without blemish. Secondly, ‘impressions’ gained from casual observation should be properly checked with all the relevant information the investigator has in his possession.
The perspective gained from one angle may differ from the perspective gained from another angle. Thirdly, there is a common tendency among us all to read the minds and attitudes of other people in terms of our own values. The investigator should be aware of this danger also.
Not with standing these limitations, non-controlled non-participant observation may throw light on the hitherto unknown aspects of the life of a people, paving the way for a more systematic and in-depth study.
Non-controlled participant observation:
According to this method, the investigator participates in the life of the community under study and observes first-hand the way the people live, move, think and act. The degree and period of participation may vary with the nature of study undertaken by the investigator. This method was followed by social anthropologists like Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Margaret Mead and others.
Non-controlled participant observation is advocated on the ground that one gets a spontaneous and un-posed picture of the life and activities of the people. It is easier to get answers to the question: Why ‘do people behave or act the way they do?
Aspects of behaviour which may appear puzzling to an outsider may become meaningful to those who get an opportunity to observe life at close range in all its completeness and naturalness. The success of this method, however, depends largely upon the “insight” of the observer.
It has been very well said:
“The mind of man is a tiny pencil of light exploring the illimitable dark”.
The advance of any branch of knowledge, including science, depends upon the insight of the inquirer. A participant observer has to look at events and social phenomena and think about them all the time until these become luminous and arrange themselves into causal configurations.
Participant observation may, however, be subject to serious error because of the bias and predilections of the observer creeping into the interpretations of the observed phenomena. This is a real danger. Bertrand Russell pointed out that even students of natural science are not immune to the influences of the personal factor.
He said: “The manner in which animals learn has been much studied in recent years, with a great deal of patient observation and experimentation One may say broadly that all the animals that have been carefully observed have behaved so as to confirm the philosophy in which the observer believed before his observations began. Nay, more, they have all displayed the national characteristics of the observer.”
If individual passions and prejudices influence so deeply studies of the animal world, how can we rule out completely the influence exercised by such personal factors of the investigator when he is engaged in the study of human behaviour ? This call for special training of the investigator in order that he may, as far as possible, keeps his investigations objective.
Margaret Mead spoke of the need for the training of social investigators so that they may “form an estimate of their own strengths and weaknesses as observers”. Such training, she claimed, would minimise errors of observation and would further sensitize the observer to the problems of others and create sympathetic insight.
The training would, therefore, facilitate, at least to some degree, the understanding of, people’s behaviour in a certain set of circumstances and in a certain cultural context: In fact, there is no substitute for disciplined imagination.
Personal Interview:
Interviewing, as the term implies, is an interactional process. When we say so, we do not confine ourselves simply to conversations between the interviewer and the informant.
The reaction of a respondent can be obtained not only from his verbal expressions, but also from the way he expresses himself — his intonation, modulation of his voice, expression of his face, his glances and gestures, his pauses in the course of his discussion, etc.
Verbal words of the informant may apparently convey one meaning, while the point that he wants to make may have to be gleaned from the way the words are uttered or the way the sentences are couched.
While listening, the interviewer has to consider two contents of a communication: meaning and point. Meaning is something abstract and depersonalized. When we know the language, we know only the meaning of a communication, but not the point. Point is something very personal. The following example will bring out the distinction between meaning and point.
The husband puts to his wife the suggestion that Mr.X may be invited to dinner. In reply, the wife says: Well (a pause), if you are so keen, you may do so. The words expressed by the wife give the meaning that she has no objection to Mr.X being invited. But what is the point she makes? The pause and the phrase “if you are so keen” indicate that she does not wholeheartedly approve of the proposal.
This is the point she makes. Besides, the behaviour of the informant — a blush, nervous laugh, sudden pallor, undue embarrassment — may provide very significant data for the interviewer.
Personal interview is not an independent and separate tool in social exploration. It is supplementary to other techniques. As a matter of fact, personal-interview, when combined with other techniques, yields the best results. There are certain advantages to be gained from personal interview technique. First, flexibility is a great strength of the interview method. If required, a question may be re-phrased.
If the answer is vague, it may be checked with reference to answers to other questions. In fact, a skilled interviewer may be able to gather more information than is possible to collect through other tools of investigation.
Secondly, personal interview affords an opportunity to probe the depths of feeling of the interviewees — their triumphs and disappointments, their hopes and fears, their joys and sorrows, their aspirations and uncertainties.
These constitute the elements of human personality. No other technique can compete with personal interview in entering the innermost recesses of the mind of an interviewee. The limitations of interview, even when it is used as a supplementary technique, should be kept in view.
Sometimes guesses, impressions and unwarranted interpretations may creep in to the analysis of the materials collected in the course of interview. Secondly, the informants are sometimes found to modify facts consciously and present them during interview.
Thirdly, the interviewees may suffer from faulty memory, faulty perception, lack of ability to articulate adequately. Given these limitations, they may fail, even with the best of intention, to give a fairly accurate account of the events they are asked to relate.
It is also found that they remember recent events much better than events which they experienced much earlier. Likewise, some events register themselves on their memories more strongly than other contemporary events.
Also painful and embarrassing experiences are either forgotten or consciously ignored. Mental retention being thus a highly selective process, the materials supplied by the informants may not always be reliable. Fourthly, not much research has yet been done in the field of interviewing technique.
As a result, interviewing is even now largely an art rather than a science. Specific guidelines for the interviewer have not been evolved on an exhaustive scale, so as to minimise the play of subjective factors.
Finally, the structured interview (i.e. when the interviewer meets the respondent with a set of questions seeking his response) does not yield reliable results. The content of response is severely restricted with the result that the full meaning of the response may not be revealed.
Thus, to a question as to whether the respondent visits art exhibitions or a place of worship more or less regularly, he may reply in the affirmative, stressing further that he rarely fails to do so. Will it be proper to conclude on the basis of this response that he is a great lover of art or an ardent devotee? The fact might be that he is prompted to visit these places the words are uttered or the way the sentences are couched.
While listening, the interviewer has to consider two contents of a communication: meaning and point. Meaning is something abstract and depersonalized. When we know the language, we know only the meaning of a communication, but not the point.
Point is something very personal. The following example will bring out the distinction between meaning and point. The husband puts to his wife the suggestion that Mr.X may be invited to dinner.
In reply, the wife says: Well (a pause), if you are so keen, you may do so. The words expressed by the wife give the meaning that she has no objection to Mr.X being invited. But what is the point she makes? The pause and the phrase “if you are so keen” indicate that she does not wholeheartedly approve of the proposal.
This is the point she makes. Besides, the behaviour of the informant — a blush, nervous laugh, sudden pallor, undue embarrassment — may provide very significant data for the interviewer.
Personal interview is not an independent and separate tool in social exploration. It is supplementary to other techniques. As a matter of fact, personal interview, when combined with other techniques, yields the best results. There are certain advantages to be gained from personal interview technique. First, flexibility is a great strength of the interview method. If required, a question may be re-phrased.
If the answer is vague, it may be checked with reference to answers to other questions. In fact, a skilled interviewer may be able to gather more information than is possible to collect through other tools of investigation.
Secondly, personal interview affords an opportunity to probe the depths of feeling of the interviewees — their triumphs and disappointments, their hopes and fears, their joys and sorrows, their aspirations and uncertainties.
These constitute the elements of human personality. No other technique can compete with personal interview in entering the innermost recesses of the mind of an interviewee. The limitations of interview, even when it is used as a supplementary technique, should be kept in view: To begin with, reference has already been made about the possibility of the findings being vitiated by the subjective bias of the interviewers.
Sometimes guesses, impressions and unwarranted interpretations may creep in to the analysis of the materials collected in the course of interview.
Secondly, the informants are sometimes found to modify facts consciously and present them during interview.
Thirdly, the interviewees may suffer from faulty memory, faulty perception, lack of ability to articulate adequately.
Given these limitations, they may fail, even with the best of intention, to give a fairly accurate account of the events they are asked to relate. It is also found that they remember recent events much better than events which they experienced much earlier. Likewise, some events register themselves on their memories more strongly than other contemporary events.
Also painful and embarrassing experiences are either forgotten or consciously ignored. Mental retention being thus a highly selective process, the materials supplied by the informants may not always be reliable. Fourthly, not much research has yet been done in the field of interviewing technique.
As a result, interviewing is even now largely an art rather than a science. Specific guidelines for the interviewer have not been evolved on an exhaustive scale, so as to minimise the play of subjective factors. Finally, the structured interview (i.e. when the interviewer meets the respondent with a set of questions seeking his response) does not yield reliable results.
The content of response is severely restricted with the result that the full meaning of the response may not be revealed. Thus, to a question as to whether the respondent visits art exhibitions or a place of worship more or less regularly, he may reply in the affirmative, stressing further that he rarely fails to do so.
Will it be proper to conclude on the basis of this response that he is a great lover of art or an ardent devotee? The fact might be that he is prompted to visit these places for reasons other than those which immediately appear to us to be plausible. There is hardly any scope in a structured interview to unfold the layers of inner mental processes.
Many of the aforesaid limitations may, however, be considerably overcome by a perceptive and imaginative investigator. The limitations relate basically to the limited ability of the investigator to be sufficiently sensitive and aware of the broader context in which the meanings of responses are to be sought, and not to the interview technique as such.
Questionnaires:
Questionnaires are now widely used in collecting data, particularly when data are to be collected from a large number of people who are scattered over a wide area. Questionnaires are generally mailed out to informants asking them to fill in the questionnaires in the light of instructions specified in a covering letter.
Questionnaires are used both as independent and separate method of collecting data and as supplementary device to check data gathered through observation and personal interview. This device is eminently suitable for quantitative measurement of a large mass of collected data.
Questionnaires may be of two types: the structured and the unstructured. Structured questionnaires are those which are prepared in advance, keeping in view the requirements of the study design.
The questions are very definite and precise and are so set as to check information supplied in response to one question with that supplied in response to one or more questions. Such cross-checking tends to make the answers more reliable.
Structured questionnaires may be of two types: open-end and closed-form questionnaires. Open-end questions give an opportunity to informants to express themselves spontaneously on certain issues. They are not inhibited in their responses in the sense that they are not required to keep themselves confined to a rigid framework.
Open-end questions are very useful for two purposes: first, to make intensive study of a limited number of cases; secondly, to make preliminary exploration of a field of enquiry which may be followed up on the basis of preliminary exploration.
The drawbacks of open-end questions arise out of the fact that many answers may be found to be irrelevant for purposes of enquiry and some answers may lack focus and hence may not be amenable to categorisation. The closed-form questions are generally used when categorized information is required for a particular study.
Un-structural questionnaires are generally known as interview guides. When an investigator interviews people, he is free to arrange the previously formulated questions according as the situation demands. If he feels that answer to a set question seems evasive or not sufficiently revealing, he may ask a fresh question in order to make the previous answer more meaningful.
It is obvious that unstructured questionnaire is highly flexible and may be profitably used to reveal the mind of the informant. The disadvantage of unstructured questionnaire is that a mass of non-comparable data may be collected which may defy all attempts at categorisation and scientific analysis.