types of sociological research methods

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Recall the six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Differentiate between six kinds of research methods: surveys, interviews, field research, participant observations, ethnographies, and secondary data analysis.
• Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study and ultimately collect data. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary sourced data collection such as surveys, interviews, field research, participant observations, ethnographies, and secondary data analysis. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study and the theoretical paradigm a sociologist uses to think about society, strongly influences which method (or sometimes methods) are put into use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain data about your topic. Think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your research methods.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times when a sociologist will remain anonymous and times when their presence as a researcher is known to participants. There are times when sociologists will conduct interviews or times when they will simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any people engaging in criminal activity around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their research topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, surveys collect data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used sociological research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

Figure 2.3 Questionnaires are a common research method. (Credit: CDC Global/flickr)

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, the United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to collect demographic data about its residents. Today, the Census consists of 12 questions and is received by residents in the United States and five territories.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however.  Many surveys we commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. For example, the Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol, or Squid Games: The Challenge, cannot be generalized, because they are administered to a population that does not represent all television consumption, only to a specific show’s audience. You might receive similar polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide incentives for completing their surveys.

Figure 2.4 Real-time surveys are common in classrooms, live-audience events, and even popular media. Twitter polls have often replaced physical devices such as the one pictured. (Credit: Sam Howzit/flickr)

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or report individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and educational levels.

A survey targets a specific population–people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample– a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey upfront (i.e., informed consen t). If they agree to participate, researchers thank the subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire . Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or experiences. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal processes, such as feelings of sadness, are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is another commonly used research method. Unlike surveys, during interviews, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Interviewers collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sexuality, and gender–that can be analyzed statistically. In doing so, in addition to the rich data derived from interviews, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. This is then analyzed alongside the qualitative data the researcher collects from incarcerated people, such as what ages of incarcerated people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentences and other explanatory information to understand the differences and why.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In fieldwork, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, an airport, a mall, or a beach resort.

Figure 2.5 Sociological researchers travel across countries and cultures to interact with and observe subjects in their natural environments. (Credit: IMLS Digital Collections and Content/flickr)

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors and practices in a given setting. Fieldwork is optimal for observing how people behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. While field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology does not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and Lady Gaga as Sociological Subjects

Figure 2.6 Researchers have used surveys and participant observations to accumulate data on Lady Gaga and Beyonce as multifaceted performers. (Credit a: John Robert Chartlon/flickr, b: Kristopher Harris/flickr.)

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. Researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and fingers bent and curled to resemble monster claws” (Click, Lee & Holiday 2013).

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some story details and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman conducted a form of study called participant observation , a research method where researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities to observe them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience houselessness for several weeks, or hang out and ride along with firefighters during their shifts. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

Figure 2.7 Is she a working waitress or a sociologist conducting a study using participant observation? A field researcher may take a job or take other steps to get firsthand knowledge of their subjects. (Credit: Gareth Williams/flickr.)

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question, such as, “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?”  Or, “What is it like to be houseless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open-minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.  This is the power of the interpretive framework, which in turn shaped the outcome of their published results, Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture  (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. However, some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role-playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) conducted for her book, Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea: “How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by?” She wondered if someone should do a study. To her surprise, her editor responded, “Why don’t you do it?”

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who did not have, for the most part, higher educational degrees and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working-class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, is widely read and used in many college classrooms today.

Figure 2.8 Field research happens in real locations. What type of environment do work spaces foster? What would a sociologist discover after blending in? (Credit: Lyncconf Games/flickr)

Ethnography.

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a socio-cultural group.  As such, ethnography is the primary method used by anthropologists but is equally used by qualitative sociologists.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, a Native reservation, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male-dominated societies, social institutions, and power structures. Smith’s work even challenged sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography today (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources but rather from the completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but also adds depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention.  Secondary data analysis is not to be confused with a literature review, however.  As learned in the previous section (2.1), a literature review is a step in the scientific method where the researcher attempts to best understand how other researchers have studied a research topic or the conclusions they have drawn in already completed research studies on the same topic.  Secondary data analysis is how researchers analyze data that already exists in unique ways.  Take, for example, the Census. While data from the Census already exists, sociologists can analyze it secondarily by asking sociological questions about the data.  The Census alone allows us to understand the racial demographics of the United States but coupled with other social factors, we can ask what percentages of racial demographics are more likely to obtain a college degree to help us understand resources that are accessible by different groups.  Or, sociologists could even study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, by systematically analyzing movies, television shows, magazines, and situation comedies from that period. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or Census data is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data and other secondary sources of data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school are publicly accessible. However, these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

Introduction to Sociology Copyright © by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Describe the function and importance of an interpretive framework.
• Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of six prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scientific scholarship.

Sociological research does not reduce knowledge to right or wrong facts. Results of studies tend to provide people with insights they did not have before—explanations of human behaviors and social practices and access to knowledge of other cultures, rituals and beliefs, or trends and attitudes.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This does not mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in collecting and analyzing data in research studies.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963). Typically, the scientific method has 6 steps which are described below.

Step 1: Ask a Question or Find a Research Topic

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?”

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study crime, a researcher might also sort through existing data from the court system, police database, prison information, interviews with criminals, guards, wardens, etc. It’s important to examine this information in addition to existing research to determine how these resources might be used to fill holes in existing knowledge. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variables (IV) , which are the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV) , which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

In a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Taking an example from Table 12.1, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying related two topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Design and Conduct a Study

Researchers design studies to maximize reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group or what will happen in one situation will happen in another. Cooking is a science. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same results is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool. The measuring cup introduces accuracy into the process. If a person uses a less accurate tool, such as their hand, to measure ingredients rather than a cup, the same result may not be replicated. Accurate tools and methods increase reliability.

Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. To produce reliable and valid results, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define each concept, or variable, in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. Moreover, researchers can determine whether the experiment or method validly represent the phenomenon they intended to study.

A study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, might define “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” However, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” For the results to be replicated and gain acceptance within the broader scientific community, researchers would have to use a standard operational definition. These definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

We will explore research methods in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 5: Draw Conclusions

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, tabulate or categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss the implications of the results for the theory or policy solution that they were addressing. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, researchers may consider repeating the experiment or think of ways to improve their procedure.

However, even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, these results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Sociologists carefully keep in mind how operational definitions and research designs impact the results as they draw conclusions. Consider the concept of “increase of crime,” which might be defined as the percent increase in crime from last week to this week, as in the study of Swedish crime discussed above. Yet the data used to evaluate “increase of crime” might be limited by many factors: who commits the crime, where the crimes are committed, or what type of crime is committed. If the data is gathered for “crimes committed in Houston, Texas in zip code 77021,” then it may not be generalizable to crimes committed in rural areas outside of major cities like Houston. If data is collected about vandalism, it may not be generalizable to assault.

Step 6: Report Results

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develops as the relationships between social phenomenon are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective , seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. Informed by the work of Karl Marx, scholars known collectively as the Frankfurt School proposed that social science, as much as any academic pursuit, is embedded in the system of power constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. Consequently, it cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimate and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. Deconstruction can involve data collection, but the analysis of this data is not empirical or positivist.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

© Aug 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Learning Objectives

• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis
• Understand why different topics are better suited to different research approaches

Sociologists examine the world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study—perhaps a detailed, systematic, scientific method for conducting research and obtaining data, or perhaps an ethnographic study utilizing an interpretive framework. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?” And if a researcher walked into a coffee shop and told the employees they would be observed as part of a study on work efficiency, the self-conscious, intimidated baristas might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —where people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research. In many cases, sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors. In situations like these, other methods are needed. All studies shape the research design, while research design simultaneously shapes the study. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

In planning studies’ designs, sociologists generally choose from four widely used methods of social investigation: survey, field research, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. Often, polls on television do not reflect a general population, but are merely answers from a specific show’s audience. Polls conducted by programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance represent the opinions of fans but are not particularly scientific. A good contrast to these are the Nielsen Ratings, which determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel and think—or at least how they say they feel and think. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or factual information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample : that is, a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. According to the laws of probability, random samples represent the population as a whole. For instance, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the study up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information. A common instrument is a questionnaire, in which subjects answer a series of questions. For some topics, the researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of quantitative data —research collected in numerical form that can be counted—are easy to tabulate. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or the option next to a checkbox. In those cases, the answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do plan to use your college education? Why do you follow Jimmy Buffett around the country and attend every concert? Those types of questions require short essay responses, and participants willing to take the time to write those answers will convey personal information about religious beliefs, political views, and morals. Some topics that reflect internal thought are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of information is qualitative data —results that are subjective and often based on what is seen in a natural setting. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. Interviews are similar to the short-answer questions on surveys in that the researcher asks subjects a series of questions. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as, “How did society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. And, obviously, a sociological interview is not an interrogation. The researcher will benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Sociologists seldom study subjects in their own offices or laboratories. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey. It is a research method suited to an interpretive framework rather than to the scientific method. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes a person or people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people behave. It is less useful, however, for understanding why they behave that way. You can’t really narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment.

Much of the data gathered in field research are based not on cause and effect but on correlation . And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables.

Some sociologists study small groups of people who share an identity in one aspect of their lives. Almost everyone belongs to a group of like-minded people who share an interest or hobby. Scientologists, folk dancers, or members of Mensa (an organization for people with exceptionally high IQs) express a specific part of their identity through their affiliation with a group. Those groups are often of great interest to sociologists.

Jimmy Buffett, an American musician who built a career from his single top-10 song “Margaritaville,” has a following of devoted groupies called Parrotheads. Some of them have taken fandom to the extreme, making Parrothead culture a lifestyle. In 2005, Parrotheads and their subculture caught the attention of researchers John Mihelich and John Papineau. The two saw the way Jimmy Buffett fans collectively created an artificial reality. They wanted to know how fan groups shape culture.

What Mihelich and Papineau found was that Parrotheads, for the most part, do not seek to challenge or even change society, as many sub-groups do. In fact, most Parrotheads live successfully within society, holding upper-level jobs in the corporate world. What they seek is escape from the stress of daily life.

At Jimmy Buffett concerts, Parrotheads engage in a form of role play. They paint their faces and dress for the tropics in grass skirts, Hawaiian leis, and Parrot hats. These fans don’t generally play the part of Parrotheads outside of these concerts; you are not likely to see a lone Parrothead in a bank or library. In that sense, Parrothead culture is less about individualism and more about conformity. Being a Parrothead means sharing a specific identity. Parrotheads feel connected to each other: it’s a group identity, not an individual one.

In their study, Mihelich and Papineau quote from a recent book by sociologist Richard Butsch, who writes, “un-self-conscious acts, if done by many people together, can produce change, even though the change may be unintended” (2000). Many Parrothead fan groups have performed good works in the name of Jimmy Buffett culture, donating to charities and volunteering their services.

However, the authors suggest that what really drives Parrothead culture is commercialism. Jimmy Buffett’s popularity was dying out in the 1980s until being reinvigorated after he signed a sponsorship deal with a beer company. These days, his concert tours alone generate nearly $30 million a year. Buffett made a lucrative career for himself by partnering with product companies and marketing Margaritaville in the form of T-shirts, restaurants, casinos, and an expansive line of products. Some fans accuse Buffett of selling out, while others admire his financial success. Buffett makes no secret of his commercial exploitations; from the stage, he’s been known to tell his fans, “Just remember, I am spending your money foolishly.”

Mihelich and Papineau gathered much of their information online. Referring to their study as a “Web ethnography,” they collected extensive narrative material from fans who joined Parrothead clubs and posted their experiences on websites. “We do not claim to have conducted a complete ethnography of Parrothead fans, or even of the Parrothead Web activity,” state the authors, “but we focused on particular aspects of Parrothead practice as revealed through Web research” (2005). Fan narratives gave them insight into how individuals identify with Buffett’s world and how fans used popular music to cultivate personal and collective meaning.

In conducting studies about pockets of culture, most sociologists seek to discover a universal appeal. Mihelich and Papineau stated, “Although Parrotheads are a relative minority of the contemporary US population, an in-depth look at their practice and conditions illuminate [sic] cultural practices and conditions many of us experience and participate in” (2005).

Here, we will look at three types of field research: participant observation, ethnography, and the case study.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a sociologist will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. Researchers temporarily put themselves into roles and record their observations. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, live as a homeless person for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in shaping data into results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised their purpose. This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd and Lynd 1959).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, as the story goes, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study. To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America , the book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

• Ethnography

Ethnography is the extended observation of the social perspective and cultural values of an entire social setting. Ethnographies involve objective observation of an entire community.

The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a community. An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith, institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male-dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” (1990; cited in Fensternmaker, n.d.) and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000), as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minority or outsider—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds did not sugarcoat or idealize U.S. life (PBS). They objectively stated what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. From that discovery, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business class and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material new reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six sections: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities. Each chapter included subsections such as “The Long Arm of the Job” and “Why Do They Work So Hard?” in the “Getting a Living” chapter.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (PBS).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times . Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of, for example, a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that a developed study of a single case, while offering depth on a topic, does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can add tremendous knowledge to a certain discipline. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” child development. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be collectable by any other method.

Experiments

You’ve probably tested personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that perhaps more data can be recorded in a certain amount of time. In a natural or field-based experiment, the generation of data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens, then another particular thing will result. To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might expose the experimental group of students to tutoring but not the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record, for example.

A real-life example will help illustrate the experiment process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory she conducted an experiment. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: black, white, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who’d had perfect driving records for longer than a year. Those were her independent variables—students, good driving records, same commute route.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support of the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The experiment was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data doesn’t result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or Facebook.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization, publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of the 2008 recession; a racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not include direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data doesn’t require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

But, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not include the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But the separate figures don’t necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research for their book Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture in the 1920s. Attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal the truth about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s’ attitudes and values.

Sociological research is a fairly complex process. As you can see, a lot goes into even a simple research design. There are many steps and much to consider when collecting data on human behavior, as well as in interpreting and analyzing data in order to form conclusive results. Sociologists use scientific methods for good reason. The scientific method provides a system of organization that helps researchers plan and conduct the study while ensuring that data and results are reliable, valid, and objective.

The many methods available to researchers—including experiments, surveys, field studies, and secondary data analysis—all come with advantages and disadvantages. The strength of a study can depend on the choice and implementation of the appropriate method of gathering research. Depending on the topic, a study might use a single method or a combination of methods. It is important to plan a research design before undertaking a study. The information gathered may in itself be surprising, and the study design should provide a solid framework in which to analyze predicted and unpredicted data.

Section Quiz

Which materials are considered secondary data?

• Photos and letters given to you by another person
• Books and articles written by other authors about their studies
• Information that you have gathered and now have included in your results
• Responses from participants whom you both surveyed and interviewed

What method did researchers John Mihelich and John Papineau use to study Parrotheads?

• Web Ethnography

Why is choosing a random sample an effective way to select participants?

• Participants do not know they are part of a study
• The researcher has no control over who is in the study
• It is larger than an ordinary sample
• Everyone has the same chance of being part of the study

What research method did John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd mainly use in their Middletown study?

• Secondary data
• Participant observation

Which research approach is best suited to the scientific method?

• Questionnaire
• Secondary data analysis

The main difference between ethnography and other types of participant observation is:

• ethnography isn’t based on hypothesis testing
• ethnography subjects are unaware they’re being studied
• ethnographic studies always involve minority ethnic groups
• ethnography focuses on how subjects view themselves in relationship to the community

Which best describes the results of a case study?

• It produces more reliable results than other methods because of its depth
• Its results are not generally applicable
• It relies solely on secondary data analysis
• All of the above

Using secondary data is considered an unobtrusive or ________ research method.

• nonreactive
• nonparticipatory
• nonrestrictive
• nonconfrontive

Short Answer

What type of data do surveys gather? For what topics would surveys be the best research method? What drawbacks might you expect to encounter when using a survey? To explore further, ask a research question and write a hypothesis. Then create a survey of about six questions relevant to the topic. Provide a rationale for each question. Now define your population and create a plan for recruiting a random sample and administering the survey.

Imagine you are about to do field research in a specific place for a set time. Instead of thinking about the topic of study itself, consider how you, as the researcher, will have to prepare for the study. What personal, social, and physical sacrifices will you have to make? How will you manage your personal effects? What organizational equipment and systems will you need to collect the data?

Create a brief research design about a topic in which you are passionately interested. Now write a letter to a philanthropic or grant organization requesting funding for your study. How can you describe the project in a convincing yet realistic and objective way? Explain how the results of your study will be a relevant contribution to the body of sociological work already in existence.

Further Research

For information on current real-world sociology experiments, visit: http://openstax.org/l/Sociology-Experiments

Butsch, Richard. 2000. The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to Television, 1750–1990 . Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben Wattenberg. 2000. “The First Measured Century: Middletown.” The First Measured Century . PBS. Retrieved February 23, 2012 ( http://www.pbs.org/fmc/index.htm ).

Durkheim, Émile. 1966 [1897]. Suicide . New York: Free Press.

Fenstermaker, Sarah. n.d. “Dorothy E. Smith Award Statement” American Sociological Association . Retrieved October 19, 2014 ( http://www.asanet.org/about/awards/duboiscareer/smith.cfm ).

Franke, Richard, and James Kaul. 1978. “The Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpretation.” American Sociological Review 43(5):632–643.

Grice, Elizabeth. “Cry of an Enfant Sauvage.” The Telegraph . Retrieved July 20, 2011 ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3653890/Cry-of-an-enfant-sauvage.html ).

Heussenstamm, Frances K. 1971. “Bumper Stickers and Cops” Trans-action: Social Science and Modern Society 4:32–33.

Igo, Sarah E. 2008. The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen Merrell Lynd. 1959. Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture . San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Lynd, Staughton. 2005. “Making Middleton.” Indiana Magazine of History 101(3):226–238.

Mihelich, John, and John Papineau. Aug 2005. “Parrotheads in Margaritaville: Fan Practice, Oppositional Culture, and Embedded Cultural Resistance in Buffett Fandom.” Journal of Popular Music Studies 17(2):175–202.

Pew Research Center. 2014. “Ebola Worries Rise, But Most Are ‘Fairly’ Confident in Government, Hospitals to Deal with Disease: Broad Support for U.S. Efforts to Deal with Ebola in West Africa.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, October 21. Retrieved October 25, 2014 ( http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/21/ebola-worries-rise-but-most-are-fairly-confident-in-government-hospitals-to-deal-with-disease/ ).

Rothman, Rodney. 2000. “My Fake Job.” Pp. 120 in The New Yorker , November 27.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. n.d. “Institutional Ethnography.” Retrieved October 19, 2014 ( http://web.uvic.ca/~mariecam/kgSite/institutionalEthnography.html ).

Sonnenfeld, Jeffery A. 1985. “Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies.” Journal of Occupational Behavior 6:125.

Introduction to Sociology Copyright © 2012 by OSCRiceUniversity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Module 2: Sociological Research

Introduction to research methods, what you’ll learn to do: identify and differentiate between types of research methods, discussing the benefits and limitations of each.

Figure 1 . Surveys gather different types of information from people. The U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. (Photo courtesy of US Census Bureau/flickr)

As Laud Humphreys’ study illustrated, conducting research can be quite complex, especially when it comes to informed consent. Humphreys’ research design included surveys (when he went do-to-door) and field research (when he served as a “watch queen”). His role in the tea room as participant observer allowed him to observe (listen to) behavior that was naturally occurring with or without his presence. When we discuss experiments, we will see that the “setting” is often manipulated in some way by the research team in order to examine an independent variable. Secondary data is another research methodology that involves reviewing materials that already exist, such as previous studies (i.e., a literature review could lead to use of other peoples’ data and/or existing records such as arrests on sodomy charges).

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation:  primary source data collection  such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and  secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.  In this section, you’ll examine how researchers use each of these research methods. 

• Introduction to Research Methods. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Research Methods. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:5y6RWnGd@12/Research-Methods . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• US Census Worker (2010). Provided by : US Census Bureau. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/uscensusbureau/7024455607/ . License : CC BY-ND: Attribution-NoDerivatives

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.3 Research Design in Sociology

Learning objective.

• List the major advantages and disadvantages of surveys, experiments, and observational studies.

We now turn to the major methods that sociologists use to gather the information they analyze in their research. Table 2.2 “Major Sociological Research Methods” summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Table 2.2 Major Sociological Research Methods

Types of Sociological Research

The survey is the most common method by which sociologists gather their data. The Gallup Poll is perhaps the best-known example of a survey and, like all surveys, gathers its data with the help of a questionnaire that is given to a group of respondents. The Gallup Poll is an example of a survey conducted by a private organization, but it typically includes only a small range of variables. It thus provides a good starting point for research but usually does not include enough variables for a full-fledged sociological study. Sociologists often do their own surveys, as does the government and many organizations in addition to Gallup.

The survey is the most common research design in sociological research. Respondents either fill out questionnaires themselves or provide verbal answers to interviewers asking them the questions.

The Bees – Surveys to compile – CC BY-NC 2.0.

The General Social Survey, described earlier, is an example of a face-to-face survey, in which interviewers meet with respondents to ask them questions. This type of survey can yield a lot of information, because interviewers typically will spend at least an hour asking their questions, and a high response rate (the percentage of all people in the sample who agree to be interviewed), which is important to be able to generalize the survey’s results to the entire population. On the downside, this type of survey can be very expensive and time-consuming to conduct.

Because of these drawbacks, sociologists and other researchers have turned to telephone surveys. Most Gallup Polls are conducted over the telephone. Computers do random-digit dialing, which results in a random sample of all telephone numbers being selected. Although the response rate and the number of questions asked are both lower than in face-to-face surveys (people can just hang up the phone at the outset or let their answering machine take the call), the ease and low expense of telephone surveys are making them increasingly popular.

Mailed surveys, done by mailing questionnaires to respondents, are still used, but not as often as before. Compared with face-to-face surveys, mailed questionnaires are less expensive and time consuming but have lower response rates, because many people simply throw out the questionnaire along with other junk mail.

Whereas mailed surveys are becoming less popular, surveys done over the Internet are becoming more popular, as they can reach many people at very low expense. A major problem with Web surveys is that their results cannot necessarily be generalized to the entire population, because not everyone has access to the Internet.

Experiments

Experiments are the primary form of research in the natural and physical sciences, but in the social sciences they are for the most part found only in psychology. Some sociologists still use experiments, however, and they remain a powerful tool of social research.

The major advantage of experiments is that the researcher can be fairly sure of a cause-and-effect relationship because of the way the experiment is set up. Although many different experimental designs exist, the typical experiment consists of an experimental group and a control group , with subjects randomly assigned to either group. The researcher makes a change to the experimental group that is not made to the control group. If the two groups differ later in some variable, then it is safe to say that the condition to which the experimental group was subjected was responsible for the difference that resulted.

Experiments are very common in the natural and physical sciences and in sociology. A major advantage of experiments is that they are very useful for establishing cause-and-effect-relationships.

biologycorner – Science Experiment – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Most experiments take place in the laboratory, which for psychologists may be a room with a one-way mirror, but some experiments occur in “the field,” or in a natural setting. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the early 1980s, sociologists were involved in a much-discussed field experiment sponsored by the federal government. The researchers wanted to see whether arresting men for domestic violence made it less likely that they would commit such violence again. To test this hypothesis, the researchers had police do one of the following after arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute: they either arrested the suspect, separated him from his wife or partner for several hours, or warned him to stop but did not arrest or separate him. The researchers then determined the percentage of men in each group who committed repeated domestic violence during the next 6 months and found that those who were arrested had the lowest rate of recidivism, or repeat offending (Sherman & Berk, 1984). This finding led many jurisdictions across the United States to adopt a policy of mandatory arrest for domestic violence suspects. However, replications of the Minneapolis experiment in other cities found that arrest sometimes reduced recidivism for domestic violence but also sometimes increased it, depending on which city was being studied and on certain characteristics of the suspects, including whether they were employed at the time of their arrest (Sherman, 1992).

As the Minneapolis study suggests, perhaps the most important problem with experiments is that their results are not generalizable beyond the specific subjects studied. The subjects in most psychology experiments, for example, are college students, who are not typical of average Americans: they are younger, more educated, and more likely to be middle class. Despite this problem, experiments in psychology and other social sciences have given us very valuable insights into the sources of attitudes and behavior.

Observational Studies and Intensive Interviewing

Observational research, also called field research, is a staple of sociology. Sociologists have long gone into the field to observe people and social settings, and the result has been many rich descriptions and analyses of behavior in juvenile gangs, bars, urban street corners, and even whole communities.

Observational studies consist of both participant observation and nonparticipant observation . Their names describe how they differ. In participant observation, the researcher is part of the group that she or he is studying. The researcher thus spends time with the group and might even live with them for a while. Several classical sociological studies of this type exist, many of them involving people in urban neighborhoods (Liebow, 1967, 1993; Whyte, 1943). Participant researchers must try not to let their presence influence the attitudes or behavior of the people they are observing. In nonparticipant observation, the researcher observes a group of people but does not otherwise interact with them. If you went to your local shopping mall to observe, say, whether people walking with children looked happier than people without children, you would be engaging in nonparticipant observation.

A related type of research design is intensive interviewing . Here a researcher does not necessarily observe a group of people in their natural setting but rather sits down with them individually and interviews them at great length, often for one or two hours or even longer. The researcher typically records the interview and later transcribes it for analysis. The advantages and disadvantages of intensive interviewing are similar to those for observational studies: intensive interviewing provides much information about the subjects being interviewed, but the results of such interviewing cannot necessarily be generalized beyond the subjects.

A classic example of field research is Kai T. Erikson’s Everything in Its Path (1976), a study of the loss of community bonds in the aftermath of a flood in a West Virginia mining community, Buffalo Creek. The flood occurred when an artificial dam composed of mine waste gave way after days of torrential rain. The local mining company had allowed the dam to build up in violation of federal law. When it broke, 132 million gallons of water broke through and destroyed several thousand homes in seconds while killing 125 people. Some 2,500 other people were rendered instantly homeless. Erikson was called in by the lawyers representing the survivors to document the sociological effects of their loss of community, and the book he wrote remains a moving account of how the destruction of the Buffalo Creek way of life profoundly affected the daily lives of its residents.

Intensive interviewing can yield in-depth information about the subjects who are interviewed, but the results of this research design cannot necessarily be generalized beyond these subjects.

Fellowship of the Rich – Interview – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Similar to experiments, observational studies cannot automatically be generalized to other settings or members of the population. But in many ways they provide a richer account of people’s lives than surveys do, and they remain an important method of sociological research.

Existing Data

Sometimes sociologists do not gather their own data but instead analyze existing data that someone else has gathered. The U.S. Census Bureau, for example, gathers data on all kinds of areas relevant to the lives of Americans, and many sociologists analyze census data on such topics as poverty, employment, and illness. Sociologists interested in crime and the legal system may analyze data from court records, while medical sociologists often analyze data from patient records at hospitals. Analysis of existing data such as these is called secondary data analysis . Its advantage to sociologists is that someone else has already spent the time and money to gather the data. A disadvantage is that the data set being analyzed may not contain data on all the variables in which a sociologist may be interested or may contain data on variables that are not measured in ways the sociologist might prefer.

Nonprofit organizations often analyze existing data, usually gathered by government agencies, to get a better understanding of the social issue with which an organization is most concerned. They then use their analysis to help devise effective social policies and strategies for dealing with the issue. The “Learning From Other Societies” box discusses a nonprofit organization in Canada that analyzes existing data for this purpose.

Learning From Other Societies

Social Research and Social Policy in Canada

In several nations beyond the United States, nonprofit organizations often use social science research, including sociological research, to develop and evaluate various social reform strategies and social policies. Canada is one of these nations. Information on Canadian social research organizations can be found at http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/index.htm .

The Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy (CRISP) at the University of New Brunswick is one of these organizations. According to its Web site ( http://www.unb.ca/crisp/index.php ), CRISP is “dedicated to conducting policy research aimed at improving the education and care of Canadian children and youth…and supporting low-income countries in their efforts to build research capacity in child development.” To do this, CRISP analyzes data from large data sets, such as the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, and it also evaluates policy efforts at the local, national, and international levels.

A major concern of CRISP has been developmental problems in low-income children and teens. These problems are the focus of a CRISP project called Raising and Leveling the Bar: A Collaborative Research Initiative on Children’s Learning, Behavioral, and Health Outcomes. This project at the time of this writing involved a team of five senior researchers and almost two dozen younger scholars. CRISP notes that Canada may have the most complete data on child development in the world but that much more research with these data needs to be performed to help inform public policy in the area of child development. CRISP’s project aims to use these data to help achieve the following goals, as listed on its Web site: (a) safeguard the healthy development of infants, (b) strengthen early childhood education, (c) improve schools and local communities, (d) reduce socioeconomic segregation and the effects of poverty, and (e) create a family enabling society ( http://www.unb.ca/crisp/rlb.html ). This project has written many policy briefs, journal articles, and popular press articles to educate varied audiences about what the data on children’s development suggest for child policy in Canada.

Key Takeaways

• The major types of sociological research include surveys, experiments, observational studies, and the use of existing data.
• Surveys are very common and allow for the gathering of much information on respondents that is relatively superficial. The results of surveys that use random samples can be generalized to the population that the sample represents.
• Observational studies are also very common and enable in-depth knowledge of a small group of people. Because the samples of these studies are not random, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to a population.
• Experiments are much less common in sociology than in psychology. When field experiments are conducted in sociology, they can yield valuable information because of their experimental design.

For Your Review

• Write a brief essay in which you outline the various kinds of surveys and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each type.
• Suppose you wanted to study whether gender affects happiness. Write a brief essay that describes how you would do this either with a survey or with an observational study.

Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek flood . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner . Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Liebow, E. (1993). Tell them who I am: The lives of homeless women . New York, NY: Free Press.

Sherman, L W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas . New York, NY: Free Press.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 , 261–272.

Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Principles of Sociological Inquiry – Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

(28 reviews)

Amy Blackstone, University of Maine

Copyright Year: 2012

ISBN 13: 9781453328897

Publisher: Saylor Foundation

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Sosanya Jones, Associate Professor, Howard University on 1/31/22

The book does a fairly good job of covering a lot of topics in the research design process for both qualitative and quantitative research. I think it could have been more expansive in the coverage and discussion about the role of paradigm,... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book does a fairly good job of covering a lot of topics in the research design process for both qualitative and quantitative research. I think it could have been more expansive in the coverage and discussion about the role of paradigm, reflexivity, and positionality for qualitative research. I also think that its division between qualitative and quantitative research was a bit antiquated with little nuance and complexity for those who want to conduct mixed methods research.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I think the coverage of paradigms was limited and there was a lack of complexity when it discussed some topics such as approaches. But overall, most of it was fairly accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

I think that it needs to be updated to be more relevant, but overall there are still concepts of importance that are well covered in this text.

Clarity rating: 4

It's fairly simple and easy to read for the most part.

Consistency rating: 4

Some topics are covered more in-depth than others.

Modularity rating: 3

It's a bit dense and strangely formatted. In terms of presentation, I don't think it's very appealing for students, but instructors may enjoy the exercises offered.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I think the order and organization could have been more cohesive.

Interface rating: 5

Good interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Good grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I think it could have featured more diverse examples.

Overall, this is a good textbook for beginning researchers, but it may need some supplemental articles for areas that are not covered.

Reviewed by Christina Pratt, Professor, Pace University on 7/25/21

Good basic coverage of interpretive and qualitative methods; explanatory and quantitative methods; mixed methods; scant content on innovative approacheds to online surveys, big data; understanding behavior through smartphones; technology and... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Good basic coverage of interpretive and qualitative methods; explanatory and quantitative methods; mixed methods; scant content on innovative approacheds to online surveys, big data; understanding behavior through smartphones; technology and visual analysis; historical data.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Methods content is accurate.

The heteronormativity of examples render the text unfriendly.

The text is written in clear accessible language. The examples neglect attention to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Consistency rating: 3

The text is consistently biased toward examples representing dominant cultural heteronormativity.

Modularity rating: 4

The modules proceed in a logical progression. Good content on research ethics.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Fine level of organization and navigation.

Interface rating: 3

The pdf is easily navigated; the hyperlinks to New Yorker cartoons do not visualize the cartoon captioned in the text. All research questions, case examples, illustrations of concepts carry a dominant cultural heteronormative bias.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

No errors detected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Heteronormativity in case examples, illustrations, questions, inquiry dominate the text. As such, it is outdated as relevant to structural sources of intersectionality in investigator positionality.

Reviewed by Florencia Gabriele, Adjunct Professor, Massachusetts Bay Community College on 6/29/21

The book would benefit from an index and glossary. The material is easy to find despite lacking an index and the book follows a logical order and the material becomes more complex as the book progress. read more

The book would benefit from an index and glossary. The material is easy to find despite lacking an index and the book follows a logical order and the material becomes more complex as the book progress.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found no errors in the book

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The book can be used in any humanities/social science class, not only in sociology

Clarity rating: 5

The book is an excellent source for any principles of research class for high school, community college, or college classes. the book si clear to understand and follow

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent and provides a complete overview of what it takes to do research and write a research project/paper for students.

Modularity rating: 5

the book is divided into chapters that are easy to follow and understand and could be divided into smaller sections if needed.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The book is organized in a logical manner.

I had not issues using the interface and neither did my students.

I found no grammatical errors

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The book is inclusive and provides excellent examples

I used the textbook to introduce college methods to a pre-college class of outstanding students who wanted to write a good sample paper to be used in their application essays for college. The book was clear, well organized, and provided great examples. also, it did not overwhelm my students. while it might not be appropriate for a college-upper level class, it is a great introduction on how to do research, how to ask a proper question, how to organize the work and the data, what type of study to do, and how to write a paper.

Reviewed by Kay Flewelling, Adjunct Faculty, University of San Diego on 5/3/21

This is an easy-to-read description and introduction to principles of sociological inquiry. Blackstone is adept at explaining critical social science research terminology as she places these in context with other disciplines. The introduction to... read more

This is an easy-to-read description and introduction to principles of sociological inquiry. Blackstone is adept at explaining critical social science research terminology as she places these in context with other disciplines. The introduction to concepts is comprehensive, though not overwhelming with details. There is no glossary provided, though the Table of Contents provides some help with navigating through the different chapters.

I found the overall tone to be well managed, and found no errors in her descriptions of sociological concepts and research terminology.

The content was relevant, and timely. As the focus is on research principles, these topics were well-placed within context of seminal theories. If topics become outdated, these could be easily updated.

The strength of this text is the clarity of the prose. The author speaks directly to the reader, and makes research and methodology seem accessible and relevant. Terms are carefully defined and placed in easy-to-access contexts.

The text has a direct tone throughout. Each aspect of the research process is described in a similar, conversational tone.

This text is somewhat modular, but there are numerous points of self-reference that might make it less able to be easily assigned as distinct chapters.

The structure and flow was strong, especially in the early chapters. I found some of the later chapters to be a bit tacked on. For example, there is a chapter on how to consume research that I personally would assign with the chapter on reading literature.

I had no issues with navigation.

The book is clearly written. There were no grammatical errors that I noticed.

The text felt clear and culturally sensitive. If anything, it could have been more explicit to address cultural issues.

Reviewed by Yang Cheng, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University on 4/2/21

I reviewed the topics such as quantitative methods and qualitative methods, Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory, research ethics... The author did contain different topics in this book. If the author could provide more examples of quantitative... read more

I reviewed the topics such as quantitative methods and qualitative methods, Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory, research ethics... The author did contain different topics in this book. If the author could provide more examples of quantitative methods in social science, public relations, and communication, it would become more comprehensive.

Yes, it did accurately described each type of method and its applications in the real world.

It is relevant to the book introduction and title.

It accurately described qualitative and quantitative methods in sociology and provide concrete examples as well. The book could elaborate more on each type of research method. For example, when they introduce the survey method, more content could be illustrated such as how to design a research question for what type of survey method...

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology such as quantitative methods, measurement, and research design, etc.

The text is easily divisible into smaller reading sections.

The book follows a logical way to present different topics: It introduces why we need research methods, research methods, and then illustrates each type of method, and finally discusses the application in real practice.

The text is free of significant interface issues and I did not observe one.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

Yes, the book is inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Reviewed by Antwan Jones, Associate Professor, The George Washington University on 12/16/20

The textbook covers a large amount of material that introduces the reader to research methods. One of the weak points of the book is a lack of discussion on how to conduct a literature review. This information can obviously be supplemented, but it... read more

The textbook covers a large amount of material that introduces the reader to research methods. One of the weak points of the book is a lack of discussion on how to conduct a literature review. This information can obviously be supplemented, but it is odd that a research textbook glosses over this essential part of doing research.

The material is accurate with no presence of bias – which is great because you can normally tell whether the author of a methods textbook has a partiality for quantitative or qualitative methods. In this book, the author presents the material for all types of methods objectively.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Some of the examples provided are dated, but that is simply an artifact of when the book was written. Professors who decide to use this text should supplement examples included in the book with more contemporary examples that could be used to reinforce the material.

The language is very clear and user-friendly for an undergraduate student with limited exposure to research.

The book is well-structured with similar headings across all chapters.

If an instructor wanted to shuffle some of the content around, the structure of the book would allow for that to occur with ease.

This textbook is organized like other textbooks that I have used for Methods courses. One of the issues that I find with this “standard” organization is that that the reading and understanding research is one of the final chapters, when it really should be one of the first chapters of the book.

Interface rating: 4

I usually do not rely on external content from textbooks in my courses, but I decided to click on a random selection of external links within some of the chapters. Overwhelmingly, the links work and some of the content was highly relevant, but there were links that were broken as well. I mentioned in another section of my review that instructors should supplement this textbook with newer examples. By doing so, it would also remedy this potential textbook flaw.

Very few, minor grammatical errors are present in the book, but none are so egregious that it takes away from the quality (or the readability) of the work.

The examples and content are relevant to national (i.e., American) and international audiences, but more global examples would make the textbook even more culturally sensitive to a demographically changing world.

Research methods is a “bread-and-butter” course for the social sciences, so the context rarely changes. If you are looking for a quality textbook that gives students a solid foundation of the basic tenets of social research, this book will meet your needs.

Reviewed by Linda McCarthy, Professor, Greenfield Community College on 6/29/20

I have not reviewed or used other methods books, but this book includes what I would expect. I imagine most students would need more guidance on how to analyze data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. I appreciate that Blackstone includes... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

I have not reviewed or used other methods books, but this book includes what I would expect. I imagine most students would need more guidance on how to analyze data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. I appreciate that Blackstone includes the reasoning or the whys and whens of each method, as most students I encounter all are drawn to surveys, even when their research question would not warrant a survey. I liked the inclusion of how to review existing sociological research. I wonder if that would be interesting as part of the opening of the book? At least, the media module? Great to end the book with where we see sociological research being used in the "real world". And, excellent idea- to include a list of "transferable skills"! Students will feel that reading this book is time well spent! I did not see a glossary or an index.

Each chapter provides examples from research and gives citations for all these cited. I did not detect bias.

Research studies referred to are relevant, though some are highlighted more than others, and I was curious about some of those choices. I believe it will not be difficult to update the examples. Some of the examples (such as videos to check out) are pretty dated. For example, a clip from The View from 2011 will seem like ancient history to these students. I wonder if there are ways to better incorporate examples from social media (e.g Tic Tok instead of email)? That may be challenging as it changes so quickly. I like that students are introduced to a variety of sociological resources throughout this book.

I like the tone of the writing; it's easy to follow and friendly. The "technical" terms are explained well and contextualized as to why they are important. Blackstone's tone is personable; I like that she refers to her own experiences in a variety of ways.

Each module has the same Learning Objectives, Key Takeaways, and Exercises. Some of the Exercises are not as strong as others. The author wraps up the book by referring back to the beginning Intro chapter.

I like the modules format. Works for the short attention we all have these days. I would assign a chapter or two from this book to my Intro course.

I liked the order of topics very much. Starting with an intro, then theory, and ethics, before moving into how to start a research project makes sense. I liked how the student is encouraged to "start where they are". Being led through the possibilities of qualitative vs. quantitative, including the different types of field research was helpful and interesting. The order of the chapters made sense to me.

Interface rating: 2

On the PDF version, some tables carried over between pages, as did some of the Key Takeaways sections. Some of the visuals were not visible. Also, I got some 404 messages (the "hilarious video" on page 5, for example), which was disappointing. Also, every time I opened a link, it brought me back to the first page again, and that was frustrating. In fact, it taught me not to open any more links. The New Yorker cartoon links just takes you to a whole lot of them, not the one listed. Why list the Endnotes BIG (2) if they aren't hyperlinked? I don't like the different fonts. I checked out the online version and it is much easier to look at. Can the hyperlinks be set into the text, rather than the whole addresses listed out?

A couple minor grammar issues here and there, including no space between sentences.

In the research ethics section, I would suggest addressing the idea that vulnerable populations have included GLBTQ populations and therefore, sexuality research has been hindered to a certain extent (See Janice Irvine's work). A good variety/diversity of studies is referenced, allowing everyone to "see" themselves" in the book. I love the variety of examples in the "starting where you are" section.

I enjoyed it! I would feel comfortable assigning this book to second year community college students.

Reviewed by Walter Carroll, Professor of Sociology, Bridgewater State University on 6/10/20

This book appears reasonably comprehensive although the absence of coverage on network analysis is a weakness. Some recent textbooks have begun to cover this important approach. I would also have liked to see more coverage on data archives. For... read more

This book appears reasonably comprehensive although the absence of coverage on network analysis is a weakness. Some recent textbooks have begun to cover this important approach. I would also have liked to see more coverage on data archives. For example, although the texts refers to materials like Addhealth and the GSS, I did not see mention of the Inter-university Consortium on Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Although I emphasize both quantitative and qualitative aspects in teaching research methods there are topics covered that I would leave out, such as ethnomethodology. I would also liked to have seen information on carrying out Literature Reviews. I may have missed some of these things because of the lack of an index and a glossary. Other reviewers have pointed this out. For me this is a serious problem. As others have also pointed out, the 2012 publication date leads to some dated examples and no opportunity to include more recent examples. I used the pdf version for this review. I would like to see a deailed Table of Contents and an overall Chapter Outline at the beginning of each chapter.

The book seems to be accurate in discussing the material. The author presents the material accurately and in an unbiased way.

The contents were up-up-to date as of 2011-2012, but it needs revision to include more recent research examples and techniques. Although network analysis is not new, it is receiving renewed attention in methods texts. This book does not consider that approach. Although there are many basic underlying principles in research, there are also advances and many new examples of research that ought to be incorporated. Other reviewers have pointed out that instructors could add newer materials and resarch examples. This is true, but given the uneasiness with which undergraduate students approach research methods they often cling to the text as a life-saver and I'd prefer a more recent text.

The writing is accessible and clear. Occasionally there are grammatical errors and odd sentences, but overall Blackstone's writing is approachable.

Yes, the book is internally consistent in terminology and framework.

I differ somewhat from other reviewers on this. Yes, text is modular and sections and chapters can be moved around and reshuffled. However, I think that there is an order to thinking about research so a lot of modularity is not necessarily a big advantage to me. This is especially true in early sections fo the book when the author discusses general issues in methods, such as ethics, sampling, and research design. Actually, I prefer integrating discussions of some of those topics, such as ehtics, into coverage of each type of data gathering.

It is a well-organized text although a detailed table of comments, as I mentioned above, would make the organization more apparent to students early on in the class.

In the pdf version there are interface issues, but this may not be true of the online version.

There are a few, but not many.

The text is culturally senstivie and inclusive. A newer edition with more recent examples of studies in inequality, racial and ethnic issues, and gender would strengthen it.

This is a praiseworthy effort that arose from the author's own experiences and frustrations taking and -- presumably -- teaching research methods. It is accessible and has no major flaws, other than being a little old and lacking a few topics that I emphasize. I, and I think most faculty members, consider cost in adopting texts so it is appealing in that sense. However, there are other reasonably-priced methods texts. If it were updated to say 2017 or so, included more recent examples, and covered a few areas that I emphasize, such as network analysis, I would consider using it. As it stands however, although I like it, I would not use it.

Reviewed by Colleen Wynn, Assistant Professor, University of Indianapolis on 5/27/20

This text is quite comprehensive for an introductory methods course. It nicely covers both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. I appreciate the use of sociological examples both historical and contemporary. Of course, since this edition is... read more

This text is quite comprehensive for an introductory methods course. It nicely covers both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. I appreciate the use of sociological examples both historical and contemporary. Of course, since this edition is from 2012, the current examples are becoming a little outdated in 2020, but still serve as quality examples for students. As other reviewers have pointed out, there is not an index or glossary, though in the online version one can hover over key terms for definitions.

The content appears to be accurate and free from bias. There are some links that are broken, so instructors would need to check these and perhaps provide the current link or a substitute, but as the reference information is provided, this seems possible to do. There are also some editing errors, but the content itself is accurate.

This text uses both more classic examples and ones current to the 2012 publication date. Instructors could easily layer on additional examples in lecture or supplemental reading. The core concepts of research methods do not change very often, and most instructors use a combination of classic and contemporary examples, as this text does. The discussion of experiments in Chapter 12 could use more sociological examples of audit-studies, etc. This would be something instructors would probably want to add and discuss since these studies are used quite frequently in sociological research and their omission is disappointing.

The book is written very clearly and would work well in an undergraduate class. Key terms are bolded and explained, and in the online version, you can hover over them for a brief definition. Each section begins with learning objectives and ends with key takeaways and exercises. This presentation allows students to understand what they should be getting from the section (learning objectives), review that information (key takeaways), and apply their new knowledge (exercises). Instructors can use these to guide their classes, student reading, activities, etc.

The book is very consistent, using the same format for each chapter and subsection. This allows students to reorient before each new topic by reviewing the learning objectives and summarize each section in the key takeaways. This consistency is key as students often perceive methods to be a dry, boring subject.

Individual chapters or even subsections could easily be pulled out and used for other courses. Additionally, it seems possible to reorder some of the chapters, if an instructor would prefer, or to skip one here or there if time or course design warranted. This modular ability is a real strength of the text.

The book is well-organized and follows the same convention of many methods texts. However, if instructors would like to reorganize, the modularity would allow for the reorganization of this content to fit their course. Personally, I would probably move Chapter 14 on reading research earlier in the semester (maybe after Chapter 2) as I like to have students read examples of research alongside the text, and having a foundation of how to read and understand these articles and reports would be useful. But, overall, I think the text is well organized.

The online interface is easy to use. However, the PDF version has tables breaking across pages, figures missing, and the text sometimes changes size and font, which is quite distracting. Additionally, in the PDF there is no table of contents or way to easily navigate within the document. For this reason, I would encourage students to use the online version but download the PDF as a backup.

There are several grammatical errors throughout, but these are relatively minor.

The text uses a variety of diverse examples. The author could include more global examples in future editions if they wanted to add a more global component.

I appreciate there is an open-access methods book for sociology and I look forward to using this book in my future courses. Methods books tend to be quite expensive and it is a class where having the book is crucial for success so I think this is a great option to ensure students have access!

Reviewed by Yvonne Braun, Professor, University of Oregon on 11/27/19

I generally really liked this methods book and can imagine using it in an undergraduate methods course. It covers the main sections that most of us would expect to see in a methods text. The text needs a table of contents with breakdowns by... read more

I generally really liked this methods book and can imagine using it in an undergraduate methods course. It covers the main sections that most of us would expect to see in a methods text. The text needs a table of contents with breakdowns by sections within chapters, and would benefit from a glossary, index, and table of figures.

The book generally seems accurate. I think some of the discussion at times could have more nuance, but I understand and appreciate that the author has kept this methods book concise and focused which may have come at the cost of nuance in some areas.

This is a very relevant text with updated materials and I can imagine using it for a methods course. I really appreciate the focus on mixed methods which tries to move beyond the quantitative and qualitative divide that too often is the focus. It seems it would be relatively easy to update in the future due to the way it is organized.

The author writes very clearly and directly which I imagine would work well for undergraduate students at the introductory level. At times, I can imagine definitions being made more distinct could be useful for students.

The author keeps the book very consistent throughout, and successfully builds on examples and references made in multiple chapters.

The book has multiple levels of modularity. I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class. Each chapter has multiple modules that seem to keep each section reasonably focused on a particular set of ideas and concepts. A table of contents would really help.

I generally like the organization of the book. It seems organized similarly to other methods books in the field. As noted above, I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class.

I reviewed the PDF version. In general, I found it easy to navigate. My biggest complaint is the font and spacing issues that I find very distracting and even overwhelming at times. Some of the text, like chapter titles when referenced in text, are larger and in a different font and the spacing feels crowded.

There are a few grammatical errors that another round of edits would easily fix. A few sentences end strangely, and take a second read to understand.

The author does a nice job of aiming to be inclusive in the text with diverse examples.

I look forward to using this book in a future course.

Reviewed by Fatima Sattar, Assistant Professor of Sociology , Augustana College on 7/30/19

The text does a great job covering a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. I did not see an index or glossary. The text would benefit from adding both and/or a list of terms students should be familiar with at the end of each chapter. It... read more

The text does a great job covering a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. I did not see an index or glossary. The text would benefit from adding both and/or a list of terms students should be familiar with at the end of each chapter. It is very helpful that key terms are in bold in the text. In a future edition, more recent sociological scholarship on experimental methods and comparative and historical methods would be helpful.

The text appears to be accurate and unbiased as the author discusses strengths and weaknesses of the methods. The only error I noticed was that there were a few links to sources that did not work. The full reference is given so this can be easily found.

There are many relevant and classic examples that undergraduate students will be able to relate to. The narrative/personal style makes the text very accessible.

The author's writing is very clear, making it easy for undergraduates to comprehend. For example, students struggle with abstract concepts, e.g. theory vs. paradigm. The examples given provide clarity for students. There could be some clarification in Chapter 2. In Figure 2.2 the three main sociological theories are mentioned but also listed as paradigms. An explanation of interchangeable terms/complexity could be discussed more. The examples are excellent for giving students a better understanding of theory. The discussion of methods and theory could be elaborated as well (e.g. more examples of macro-micro links, macro forces impinging on the micro-local, research not being about just one of these, micro, meso, or macro).

The book is very consistent. Each section begins with "Learning Objectives" and ends with "Key Takeaways" and "Exercises". Very easy to follow!

I think the sections can be read on their own and assigned when needed.

I would probably reorganize some of the sections in teaching the course, because, for example, I would teach qualitative methods before quantitative methods. Also, the chapter on "Reading and Understanding Social Research" could be linked with "Research Design" to offer students examples earlier in the term to help inspire a project or begin a literature review for a research methods proposal assignment.

Interface is clear.

I did not notice any significant grammar issues.

The text has diverse examples but could expand to include more global research examples.

I would reorganize chapter 12 and 15. Focus group research could fit with applied or evaluation research - so these chapters could be combined. I also think the title of Chapter 12 could be more concrete than just "other methods." Experiments could be discussed earlier in the ethics chapter to offer more balance with ethically questionable experiments with experimental research done for social good/advancing equality. Add more examples of experiment research in sociology (e.g. Pager, 2003).

Reviewed by Rae Taylor, Associate Professor, Loyola University New Orleans on 4/24/19

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way. read more

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way.

While there are some quirky examples and passages throughout that undergraduates will probably roll their eyes at, the book reads free of bias and certainly accurate.

The content is indeed up-to-date, and will be easy to update as examples become obsolete.

The book does a great job of covering the material in a straightforward, non-intimidating kind of way. In my experience, students are nervous about taking Research Methods (though, not as nervous as Data Analysis), and this text should put them at ease. It is written in a very undergraduate-friendly way (indeed, probably too rudimentary for graduate students), explaining the more complicated concepts in a clear manner.

The book's writing style and layout are very consistent, which should help students navigate what may otherwise be considered dry material. This is a real plus.

This is a major strength of the book. I teach methods in a variety of formats (i.e. full semester, face-to-face, online, 8-weeks) and need a text that is modular. Not only are the chapters organized in a logical order, the individual chapters are modular, allowing a professor to assign sections of a chapter. This is particularly useful for some of the more complex areas, and areas where the professor would have supplemental materials.

The order of the chapters is logical and the individual chapters are also organized in a logical, useful way.

The text appears to be free of any of these problems. I am not sure how different computers or different software may affect this, but I had no interface issues while reading the text at home or at the office.

I did not detect grammatical errors.

I did not find anything to be culturally insensitive or offensive.

I appreciate very much that there is an open textbook option for research methods. There are many of these texts available, many very good, but they are always quite expensive, and often students will not buy them. As this is one text I believe is critical for a class, having the open text option is a wonderful alternative. I reviewed this book looking for things that were important but omitted, but it was comprehensive and current. I was also particularly concerned about the order of topics, but it has a great layout and order to the chapters. Finally, as stated above, I find the modularity to be a major strength.

Reviewed by DeAnn Kalich, Professor and Head, University of Louisiana at Lafayette on 3/31/19

I like the approach used here because I agree qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. Many methods books divide these out rather than synthesizing; I find that Blackstone has done an excellent job of weaving... read more

I like the approach used here because I agree qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. Many methods books divide these out rather than synthesizing; I find that Blackstone has done an excellent job of weaving these complementary methodologies together in her use of real research examples throughout the text. Chapter 3 is excellent not only as an introduction to ethics in research on human subjects, but on the history and purpose of IRB as well. There is no glossary as other reviewers have noted, but I honestly don't mind that. I have seen students rely on such items exclusively and therefore to not read the context or elaboration in the text and to subsequently understand the definition poorly. An index would be nice, but possibly difficult to tie to pages since the formats shift in differing versions (pdf v. online, for example).

The content is accurate and unbiased as it pertains to research methods per se. The presentation of the content, on the other hand, is not error free, and could use some finer editing. For example, there are missing words throughout the first chapter – this should be caught and fixed; it will undermine a student’s value placed upon the book assigned by their instructor. There are also broken links throughout the book but especially heavy in the first two chapters: 1.2 Exercise 3 video link doesn’t work; 1.3 Exercise 2 link is bad for ASA jobs; video clip links don't work in chapters 1, 2, 3.

The book uses both classic and contemporary research studies as excellent examples to further understanding of content. It will be relevant for the future with very little need to update due to obsolescence. I like the arrangement of the content and think it will flow naturally for a research methods class.

This text is one of the most lucid for students I have ever read. Many methods books are written with so much jargon that they hinder rather than help, especially undergraduate students. This text, on the other hand, provides easy to understand examples that are of interest to today's students, especially in North American undergraduate sociology programs.

The text is internally consistent and is well organized. The PDF version, however, is difficult to follow because the page breaks occur at inconvenient places (in the middle of a table or graph, or citation information).

In particular, the subsections in each chapter are divided into small reading sections that can easily be assigned at different points in the course. It is easily realigned to match the subunits of a course you may already teach without being difficult to do.

As stated above, the text is very well organized. It is logically ordered, and topics align closely to those found in most methods texts, but without unnecessary detail or extraneous fluff. Only one non-logical portion exists: Chapter 4 starts with a reference to preceding questions and BethAll and neither are in my version of the book. Not sure what is missing.

Again, the PDF format of the text has more interface issues due to the page-break locations that could be confusing to a student reader especially. Other features such as links to external cites like the ASA can confuse or distract a reader when the promised link is no longer a working link. A regular (twice yearly?) check of all such links is highly recommended.

Grammar is error free but copy editing is not. It is clear that the author is capable of executing complex sentences without grammar errors, but, there are words that are completely absent throughout the text that are obviously proof-reading related. It is highly recommended that there be a copy editor for this text.

The text is inclusive and not offensive or culturally insensitive. It makes use of examples that include a variety of backgrounds and characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, SES).

Chapter 15 is excellent for undergraduate sociology programs that require a research methods sequence for majors. Some of these students will go on to graduate work, but many will not, and this chapter provides real world information on careers using sociology and research methods that is useful and accurate.

Reviewed by Sarah Quick, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, Cottey College on 8/2/18

This book, in general, is comprehensive in that it covers research questions, the research process and design types, major methods or data collection strategies, and ethics from a sociological perspective. It is very accessible for undergraduate... read more

This book, in general, is comprehensive in that it covers research questions, the research process and design types, major methods or data collection strategies, and ethics from a sociological perspective. It is very accessible for undergraduate readers, but also assumes they are sociology students (as the title would suggest). Nevertheless, as one of the few open access methods books available, I have opted to use this book in a more interdisciplinary research methods course; and I am a cultural anthropologist—so I don’t see it as comprehensive if you include a wider disciplinary breadth. Even when other disciplines are included to locate their differences in framing research questions (chapter 4), anthropology is missing. Nevertheless, anthropology is definitely covered in the field research chapter (chapter 10), and I found this chapter to have a lot of depth in considering field notes and the next steps towards analysis. However, this chapter did not include anything on the more quantitative forms of observation used by some social scientists (even anthropologists). Finally, there could be at least a list or a list of resources for those other missing methods that the author implies exist in the Other Methods chapter (Ch 12).

As previous reviews have noted, there is no index. So, for example, a reader would not necessarily know that there’s a section on content analysis in the Unobtrusive Research chapter (chapter 11) unless reading that section directly. However, if you use the pdf. version instead of the online version, you may search it easily enough with key words/control f.

Part of the comprehensiveness or uniqueness of the text is the inclusion of the three final chapters on broader questions related to research (or why an informed research perspective may help you more broadly). One covers writing/publishing issues, another on how to read research papers critically as well as interpret others’ critiques/interpretations; and the final chapter really addresses the undergraduate audience by highlighting how research appears in jobs that may not be so obviously related to sociology. I imagine these chapters would be really helpful for a specifically-sociology methods course, but I’m not sure I will use all of them for the course I will be teaching.

Overall, a previous reviewer caught many more problems (although some of them were semantic rather than accuracy issues). But, I would agree with this reviewer on the paradigm vs. theory sections. I think these distinctions could be posed with more nuance, within a more interdisciplinary understanding/approach to paradigms and theory. I would agree with this reviewer that the paradigms and the theoretical umbrellas proposed are more overlapping than the author indicated. Also inaccurate is to not mention animal research in the non-human section and to not link this with ethical questions in the social sciences. Although perhaps uncommon in sociology, human-animal interaction studies are a growing area of interest that should not be excluded and require a nod to ethical concerns

The text does use relatively recent examples alongside classic studies, which I think is a good strategy. Nevertheless, some things (like the current president, the reliance/influence of social media) could be updated further.

Overall, the text is written very accessibly, and one of the reasons I plan to use it.

I did not notice any consistency issues although other reviewers did.

The book does reference previous sections/chapters quite a bit, but each section generally stands on its own well enough so that it could be sectioned out in different ways.

Overall the book flows well, and I especially appreciate the resource links and discussion questions at the end of each section.

Depending on whether you use the pdf vs. the online link, you will have a different experience. The online version, at first, seems easier to read until you get to a reference, then your reading is interrupted by the citation/citations, which can make the reading quite disjointed. In the pdf version these citations are in numbered notes that do not link, and the endnotes appear at the end of these sections. Neither interface is completely ideal.

Also, I appreciated the links to additional resources, but at least one link didn’t work (http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_jun_04/).

I did not find any grammatical errors.

Overall, the cultural relevance seems fine for a sociology course, although I would like more examples of cultures/studies outside the U.S., since that’s what I’m more used to as an anthropologist.

As noted above, I plan to use this book supplemented by many other chapters/articles for a Qualitative Methods course I will be teaching, one that is not housed in any one discipline. Because of the book’s accessibility (writing and price), even with the problems noted above, I will use it.

Reviewed by Bernadine Brady, Lecturer, National University of Ireland, Galway on 2/1/18

This text provides a very comprehensive introduction to Research Methods. In my opinion, it covers much of the content required on an undergraduate social science methods course, and is of particular value for sociology students. The value of... read more

This text provides a very comprehensive introduction to Research Methods. In my opinion, it covers much of the content required on an undergraduate social science methods course, and is of particular value for sociology students. The value of the book is in providing a comprehensive primer to help students to understand why and how research is undertaken. The reader can then supplement this knowledge with more in-depth texts as required. For example, the text is a little light on the philosophical foundations of qualitative and quantitative research (which may be seen as a strength or a weakness depending on your perspective!). No index or glossary are provided.

The book content was accurate and no errors were noted. The language and content was unbiased.

This book feels like it was written by a young person and draws on a range of examples and case studies that have contemporary relevance, which will have appeal for a lot of students. There are some specific content that will date - for example, in Chapter Four it is stated that Barack Obama is president. However, this content can be easily updated meaning that the book will remain relevant for a long period of time.

The main strength of the book, in my opinion, is its clarity. It is written in a very accessible style and the author does a really good job of explaining difficult concepts and research jargon in a very clear way. Practical examples are used throughout to demonstrate key concepts.

The text appears to be consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

This book can be easily divided into sections. Each chapter has a number of sub-sections, with clear learning objectives and takeaway messages included. I plan to use specific chapters of the book as recommended reading in a number of sessions of my research methods course. It should be noted that qualitative and quantitative methods are considered in tandem which may not lend itself to the teaching of modules dedicated to one approach only.

The structure of the book makes sense, with the topics organised in a logical, clear fashion.

The book is available in both Pdf and online format. The interface is clear and easy to navigate but there are some aberrations with regard to the formatting of in-text references in the online version. This is not a deal breaker - the Pdf version can be used if this is off-putting.

I did not have any issues with regard to grammar.

The content is probably quite North American in focus but has broader cultural applicability. A variety of examples are used that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicity and backgrounds.

In her preface, the author says that she was inspired to write this book from her experience as a student and having ideas about how she would like to be taught. The book is approached in this spirit and is written with the student in mind. There is a strong emphasis on making sociology and social research relevant to the students everyday life and interests. The author does a good job of de-mystifying complex concepts. As a result, it is a very accessible text that will appeal to students both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. I will be recommending this text for my courses.

Reviewed by Joanna Hunter, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 2/1/18

There isn't a glossary at the end of the book, or a list of bolded terms with definitions at the end of each chapter, which would greatly improve its navigability. My experience is that when students see a bolded term, they expect a list of them... read more

There isn't a glossary at the end of the book, or a list of bolded terms with definitions at the end of each chapter, which would greatly improve its navigability. My experience is that when students see a bolded term, they expect a list of them somewhere with definitions included. There is no index available. That said, the book is a comprehensive introductory textbook about research methods in sociology. The choice to tease out the differences between qualitative and quantitative interviewing is an interesting one, and one that is different from the approach in almost all other methods textbooks I am familiar with. I worry this would confuse students as they tend to want to draw clear lines between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, particularly at the introductory level.

There are a few small inconsistencies as noted in prior reviews, but the book is generally accurate. I will focus the bulk of my comments here on the chapter/section on public sociology. This text focuses very specifically on public sociology, but gives short shrift to policy sociology, with only a short paragraph on page 176 covering it. Particularly as we move into a paradigm where students expect that the skills they learn from our courses and programs will lead them directly to employment opportunities, this is a problematic omission.

Methodology changes comparatively slowly than other subject areas within sociology. That said, several of the examples given should be updated to reflect current realities.

Writing is generally clear, concise, and straightforward. That said, some of the terms used different than the terms I'm familiar with from other textbooks on the subject, which would require a bit of a shift in teaching style. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but could be a barrier to adopting the textbook.

The book is relatively consistent, but there are some editorial errors wherein certain tables/typologies use one set of terms and then other set uses a slightly different set of terms, which could be confusing for students.

The book is organized into modules that could be separated, but not without some work on the part of the instructor. At several points, there are calls back to previous chapters/modules that would need to be edited or addressed by an instructor if they were attempting to only use one (or several) modules.

Topics are organized well, but I found the insistence of including a learning objective for each and every small section to be a bit overbearing.

There are some issues with tables/charts not paginating correctly in the PDF format, and the HTML version sometimes returned a 404 error when using the 'back' button on my browser (Safari). There is no TOC in the PDF version.

No major grammatical errors.

No issues with cultural relevance.

Overall, a useful resource that could be modified to fit a variety of different courses.

Reviewed by Jessica Ganao, Associate Professor, North Carolina Central University on 2/1/18

The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. I especially like Chapter 14, as this something that I often assume students understand but they really do struggle with it. read more

The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. I especially like Chapter 14, as this something that I often assume students understand but they really do struggle with it.

Content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement. I like the fact that is a generic social science methods book because I can then add examples relevant to my field (criminal justice), but at the same time I adjunct at other universities in different disciplines so it will allow me to offer examples in those areas as well.

The text is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used. Indeed, this is very important as to make the content accessible to all students.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The text is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided). I agree, the text reads like a real book, which makes it easy to divide the content into sections for students and to assign sections for different class activities.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical, clear fashion. The book flows like all the other research texts I have used. It is very consistent with the leading research texts.

The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

I really am excited about this option for my students! I cannot believe a book of this quality is free!

Reviewed by Molly Dondero, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

Overall, I found the book to be fairly comprehensive. It touches on the main topics covered in an undergraduate sociological methods course, as well as some additional topics such as the chapter on “Research Methods in the Real World.” In general,... read more

Overall, I found the book to be fairly comprehensive. It touches on the main topics covered in an undergraduate sociological methods course, as well as some additional topics such as the chapter on “Research Methods in the Real World.” In general, I found the later chapters to be more comprehensive than the earlier ones. Some of concepts presented in the early chapters would benefit from additional depth. For example, I think the text would benefit from a stronger focus on how theory guides research and particularly, the link between theory, research questions, and hypotheses. The section on research questions could also be expanded. For these reasons, I would likely supplement the text with additional readings and/or lecture to expound on some of these key concepts.

The book lacks a glossary or index, which would be quite helpful.

I found the book to be generally accurate. As explained in my comment above, the explanations of some concepts could be improved by going into more depth, but they are not inaccurate as is.

The content is up-to-date. As is common, many of the examples provided will likely benefit from updating in the next several years, but the core material has longevity.

The writing is one of the main strengths of the text. The writing is clear and engaging. Blackstone defines key terms and concepts in a largely jargon-free fashion. This makes the text well-suited to an undergraduate audience of Sociology majors and non-majors alike.

The text is consistent in terminology and framework. Throughout the book, Blackstone makes references to concepts and examples discussed in previous sections. This adds to the overall consistency of the text and helps students to see how concepts connect.

Chapters are divided into short sections that can be easily assigned to and digested by students. The “Key Takeaways” sections at the end of each chapter are particularly helpful.

The organization of the book, particularly in the first four chapters, was not intuitive to me. If I adopt the text, I will likely teach the chapters out of order. For example, I would likely reverse the order of Chapters 2 and 3 (“Linking Theory and Methods” and “Research Ethics”).

There are no figures in the PDF version. I did not note any other significant interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

There are no significance grammar issues. However, there are sentences that are cut-off throughout the text (e.g. pp.52, 56, 62, 64 in the PDF version). These sentences all seem to be missing references to other sections of the book. The text would benefit from an additional round of editing to correct these issues.

The language is culturally relevant and inclusive. The author (understandably) draws most heavily on examples from her own research, but overall the examples provided throughout the text are inclusive of a range of diverse backgrounds.

Reviewed by Susan Calhoun-Stuber, Chair, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Colorado State University Pueblo on 2/1/18

The book is a comprehensive social science research methods text. It includes expected topics and some additional attention to some subjects. There is not index or glossary but the chapter titles would guide readers to appropriate topic areas. read more

The book is a comprehensive social science research methods text. It includes expected topics and some additional attention to some subjects. There is not index or glossary but the chapter titles would guide readers to appropriate topic areas.

The author presents a balanced view of different methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives in the social sciences.

There's little problem with current content as the information that needs to be kept current, examples from published research, could easily be updated.

One of the author's stated objectives in writing the text was accessibilty and she has accomplished this goal. Overall, the presentation, including examples, explanations, and definition, is straightforward and clear. The author's style will facilitate student understanding.

The text is internally consistent, within and across chapters.

The text's modularity is a strength. The sub-sections or units within each chapter could easily be reorganized within a different overarching course structure without detracting from the readers' learning or comprehension. Similarly, units within chapters could be re-aligned and chapters could be combined or rearranged with relative ease.

There is a clear logic to the book's organization. The key points (to be covered) and key takeaways at the opening and closing of sections, respectively aid the reader in focusing on core concepts. Resources and exercises function similarly.

There are some tables split across pages, which is distracting. Although many of the links, including re-directs work, several do not. Anyone using the text would need to update or replace - because this is a large number this would be a time-consuming task.

No problem with the writing, technically - at least not anything of a nature to raise this issue to a level of concern.

The heavy use of examples from published research provides a varied range of subject areas for readers, however not always in terms of cultural diversity specifically. While reading the text I was struck more by the diverse presentation than by a need for more inclusiveness. However, there was no offensive content. This part of the text's format however could be a way that users could augment the material by bringing in a more diverse array of examples.

Reviewed by Helen McManus, Adjunct Professor, Librarian, George Mason University on 6/20/17

This review considers this book's usefulness for a political science qualitative methods course. Political science programs typically require only quantitative methods training, therefore I am approaching this text with a distinct student... read more

This review considers this book's usefulness for a political science qualitative methods course. Political science programs typically require only quantitative methods training, therefore I am approaching this text with a distinct student population in mind--one that is not the original intended audience.

The book is most comprehensive on questions of data gathering and research ethics. Blackstone quickly runs through research design and philosophy of social science questions. Chapters 6 and 7, on measurement and sampling, respectively, are useful reference points. Chapters 8 through 12 introduce approaches to gathering data--surveys, interviews, field research, content analysis, and, briefly, focus groups and experiments. These chapters explain the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, tips for using each approach, and a very brief note on analysis. Students would need additional readings, exercises, and exposure to software before analyzing any data they collect.

As a text covering both qualitative and quantitative methods, the book is a useful primer with a pragmatic approach to choice of methods (what does your question require?). Blackstone treats quantitative and qualitative methods in parallel, and convincingly construes them as complementary approaches. Chapters on sampling, interviews, and content analysis (under "unobtrusive methods"), for example, consider qualitative and quantitative methods in turn. Students with quantitative methods training may find this reassuring, as the book draws connections between the familiar and the unfamiliar.

Much of the book is applicable across the social sciences, though the discussion of levels of analysis, prominent theories, and library research tools are specific to sociology, as are example research questions. Instructors might supply, or ask students to come up with, examples suitable to political science. Sociology does not typically refer to "puzzles", so political science instructors would need to introduce that in other course materials.

There is no index or glossary.

Like other reviewers, I have some concerns about terminology, such as in the discussion of paradigms and theories in the earlier chapters.

I was struck that gender remains male/masculine, female/feminine, or "other, though. This is an outdated approach, both within and beyond the academy.

Blackstone uses some contemporary (ish) examples, such as the Brangelina phenomenon, but she explains them well enough to keep readers on board. Links out to videos and cartoons are an excellent idea, but some links are already dead (for example, in section 10.1 there is a dead link to a cartoon: Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 )

This book is concise and easy to read. Blackstone uses clear, unpretentious language. In the online interface, readers can hover over bolded technical terms to see a quick definition.

I have no concerns here.

The chapters and sections lend themselves to easy rearrangement. For example, I plan to use chapter 15 (Research Methods in the Real World) belongs at the beginning of a course.

I am also incorporating sections of chapters into my online course. I find it helpful that each section of a chapter comes with its own learning objectives, key take aways, and exercises. Sections are clearly labeled, and the linked table of contents makes it easy to send students straight to a section of interest.

The chapters lead students from basic terminology to research design, on to data gathering, and then to possible uses of both research and newly acquired skills. I appreciate the early chapter on research ethics, prior to questions of research design.

Within each chapter, there are several sections of a manageable length. Each section opens with learning objectives, and closes with "key take aways" in a green box and "exercises" in a blue box.

The online interface is extremely simple. The most consistent navigation tool is a link to the Table of Contents, top and center of the interface. The additional navigation tools, though, vary somewhat. In some chapters, a reader can navigate to the next section (of that chapter); in other chapters, a similarly placed link allows the reader to navigate to the next chapter only. I found this inconsistency mildly troublesome, and quickly decided to rely on the ToC for moving between chapters and sections.

I notice that the PDF has unfortunately placed page breaks--some tables sit across two pages. The PDF also lacks a table of contents.

Blackstone writes in a casual tone, often using informal constructions and technically incorrect but ordinary usages. I find this inoffensive, and suspect that students will too. I noticed just one typographical error substantial enough to confuse a reader.

The text includes examples referring to gender roles, people of color, urban and rural contexts. As mentioned above, the use of male/female/other categories for gender is problematic, and hopefully would be addressed in any updates.

Citations are oddly inserted into sentences. Immediately following each regular in-text parenthetical citation, there is also a full (works cited list) citation, right there in the text. This is distracting.

Reviewed by Matthew DeCarlo, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 4/11/17

This book covers all of the important concepts in an introductory research methods text. Some of the more advanced concepts (e.g. types of validity and reliability) are cut out of this textbook, which is a choice I understand. Students are often... read more

This book covers all of the important concepts in an introductory research methods text. Some of the more advanced concepts (e.g. types of validity and reliability) are cut out of this textbook, which is a choice I understand. Students are often overwhelmed by the more advanced concepts within a chapter. This book does a great job of focusing on the important parts of each concept.

The content inside the book is accurate. Definitions of key research concepts are explained correctly and clearly.

This book is relevant well outside of its own discipline of sociology. Additionally, the research used for examples is generally from the last few years. While those examples would need to be updated as time moves forward, the core content will remain relevant for decades.

The language used to write this research textbook is the best I have seen so far in my career as a research methods instructor. Students are often put off by research language, and the author does an excellent job of avoiding jargon and making her language plain.

The framework of the book is perhaps its greatest strength. The author has framed research concepts within the proper epistemological and ontological frameworks, which allows her even-handed treatment of qualitative and quantitative methods to cohere well within each section.

This is a highly modular book. Chapters are subdivided into smaller subsections, so they can be easily assigned and rearranged by professors teaching from the text. Because the pages are hosted in HTML format, students can follow links to each chapter and subsection, rather than scrolling through a long PDF.

Organization is remarkably clear throughout. Each chapter flows conceptually into the next.

I had problems with almost all of the graphics used in this textbook. They are referenced in the text and are often integral to understanding concepts as presented. This happened in both the HTML and PDF versions of the text. In spite of those issues, the overall ease of navigation was strong.

No grammar errors noted .

Culturally inclusive language is used throughout the text.

What is perhaps most promising about this text is that it is hosted on GitHub. Any professor who wanted to adapt this text for their discipline or make changes can easily do so using an HTML editor and GitHub.

Additionally, the author does a fantastic job of putting qualitative and quantitative research on equal footing, rather than relegating qualitative research to one or two chapters.

Reviewed by Mikaila Arthur, Associate Professor, Rhode Island College on 4/11/17

There is no index or glossary. The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in... read more

The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in discussing the issue of confidentiality it is important to mention that not all researchers promise confidentiality (see Mitch Duneier's "Sidewalk", for example) and that this is a controversial issue in research given the fact that some research participants would prefer their identities to be known. It would also be helpful to explain more about the IRB process and to talk about recent examples of research fraud and the replicability crisis.

The discussion of sociological questions uses language different from what most sociologists use, contrasting empirical questions to ethical--rather than normative--ones. Ethics, to me, are a subset of normative issues, not synonymous with them. However, the section on what makes a good question is very strong, though it never points out the importance of having a NEW question. In discussing the literature review process, the book focuses insufficient attention on the parts of the article important to reviewing literature--students following the author's advice are likely to turn in literature reviews focused on methods and limitations rather than findings.

The section on conceptualization is very good, and more thorough than in many texts. However, the discussion of operationalization is weaker, not giving students the foundation they need to really struggle through what many believe is the hardest part of the research methods curriculum. It would be useful to mention binary variables.

The discussion of sampling does not address appropriate sample size, margins of error, etc. The discussion of study design (cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc.) appears inside the survey research chapter, making it appear as if study design is not an important criterion in other sorts of research. But the discussion of survey question design is great.

The chapters on individual methods of data collection are generally stronger, though the chapter on unobtrusive measures would benefit from more attention to archival research. Also, the discussion of experiments would benefit from more attention both to the benefits of experiments for studying causality and the ethical issues that experiments raise. The chapter on sharing work should say more about the structure and format of articles and should contain a section on writing research proposals, as that is a key element of many research methods courses.

If this text were used in a one-semester research methods course, it probably has too little on data analysis; if it is used in the first semester of a two-semester course where analysis is covered separately, then the coverage of many topics seems a bit superficial.

In general, the content is accurate and unbiased, but there are a few exceptions. Many research methods instructors and textbooks would take issue with the way reliability and validity are defined here and the examples provided. The author also ought to present MUCH more in the way of cautions around convenience samples. The text also does not seem to understand the difference between a phone survey and an interview--but given the closed-ended (and machine-administered) nature of many contemporary phone surveys, there is a big difference. It also seems odd that focus groups are shunted off to a different chapter rather than treated as a kind of interview.

The discussion of measurement of gender, on page 71, seems to be a bit out-of-date--most scholars of gender now would suggest that just adding "other" to male and female is insufficient.

The most recent examples seem to come from about 2011, with more clustered between 2008 and 2010. While I absolutely agree that we should not have new editions just to have new editions, there does come a time when books begin to seem out of date. A couple of years from now, these examples will be from when our students were in middle school--so I hope there is a plan to update the book by then.

Examples, though, would generally seem relevant to students, and I like the examples from student work throughout the book (I do hope the author had permission to use them).

There are several instances in which the author uses terminology different from that typically used in research methods texts and courses. I wouldn't say the terminology is inaccurate, exactly, but it would require a major adjustment among instructors to adapt to using language consistent with the text. Otherwise, the writing is generally clear and terms are defined as needed.

There are some issues with internal consistency. For example, Table 2.1 on page 17 lays out four theoretical paradigms; table 2.2 on page 18 applies these paradigms to the sociology of sport, but it leaves one of them out with no explanation--these seem like editing problems more than authorial ones, though.

Many sections of the book are self-referential, which would make it hard to fully reorganize the text. This is especially notable in the section on reading research articles in chapter 15, which many instructors would want to use along with material from early in the text about the literature review process. Subsections are clearly marked with subheadings, but the format of the book would make it more difficult to locate, find, and separately assign these subsections.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

The text does seem to jump around quite a bit--the section on how to read research results occurs long after students are introduced to reading articles, for instance. In the chapters on different research methods, the discussion of strengths and weaknesses comes before students are fully introduced to those methods. And the lack of detailed table of contents or chapter summaries at the beginning of chapters makes it harder to follow the flow of the book.

Interface rating: 1

The text does not have a cover page or a table of contents.

The pagination is not very well done--tables break across pages in the middle of rows, for example. Similarly, headings sometimes occur at the end of pages, with the text on a subsequent page. Fonts sometimes seem to change sizes, particularly for endnote references and and table titles referred to in the text (and endnote numbers are not clickable, which seems unfortunate in an electronic text). A number of links referred to in the text are broken. It would be helpful to have a detailed table of contents laying out chapter subsections. Some keywords appear in bold and others do not. There are editing errors, typos, spaces missing after periods, etc. Many figures are indicated but are missing (for example, diagrams of inductive and deductive research processes are mentioned, but they do not appear in the text--this is a really bad omission). Generally, this text does not make use of any of the features which would be beneficial in an online text, but yet is not set up to be a well-designed print text.

Other than typos, as referenced in the interface section, I noted no issue with grammar or writing.

I did not notice anything which was culturally insensitive of offensive. Examples were generally appropriate, though primarily focused on American sociology. Given the author's scholarly focus as a sociologist of gender, work, and family, it should not be suprising that examples are more likely to relate to these areas, leaving issues of race, sexuality, ethnicity, immigration, language, religion, disability, etc. to have much lesser coverage. Given that this is a research methods course, this may not be a primary concern for many instructors, but those teaching in very diverse institutions may want to think about whether the text has sufficient relevance to their students' backgrounds, concerns, and experiences. I would also point out here that the text does seem to assume a traditionally-aged residential classroom composition, not the norm for many of us.

The text includes suggested exercises, but these are not really exercises. Some are discussion questions, others suggest students "check out" links or view images which are not contained within the text (no link given). I do not recommend instructors use this text unless they really have no other adequate alternatives--the lack of appropriate visuals, editing errors, etc. make it easy for students accustomed to higher-quality resources to dismiss it, and you'd be just as well off using a collection of websites as this.

Reviewed by Alexa Smith-Osborne, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/11/17

This text's comprehensiveness, in combination with simple language suited to first exposure to the topic, is one of the chief strengths of the book. However, community-based participatory action research methods were not included in this text,... read more

This text's comprehensiveness, in combination with simple language suited to first exposure to the topic, is one of the chief strengths of the book. However, community-based participatory action research methods were not included in this text, thus reducing its utility for the social work discipline. I especially liked the linked in-text definitions, which provide an easy-to-use glossary to enhance reading comprehension for undergraduates.

The text is accurate and unbiased for its discipline. For optimal utility in social work teaching, the text would need to be used with a companion file using social work examples, including social justice-focused research using community-based participatory action methods. These methods were not included in this text.

Relevance/longevity of content is one of the main objectives of this textbook. For social work, chapters 14 “Reading and Understanding Social Research” and 15 “Research Methods in the Real World”, are the most directly relevant since, as a profession, we do applied research.

Its simple language makes it accessible to most undergraduates, and the in-text "drop-down" definitions provide adequate support to allow comprehension of technical terminology.

The content was internally consistent, and sufficient aids were provided in tables and headings/subheadings to promote consistency.

Tie-ins to earlier material, tables, and headings/subheadings made the text easily divisible into smaller reading sections and discrete modules for instructor use.

Accessibility is one off the main objectives of this text. It succeeded in reaching this objective, through logical and clear organization, structure, and flow, including many connectors to earlier concepts.

The online version had greater interface than the pdf version, but both were useable.

I did not see any grammatical errors.

Cultural diversity is discussed within the context of the social constructivist theoretical perspective. Measurement and study examples which focus on cultural differences are presented throughout, making this text particularly syntonic with social work values. The text makes use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

With a companion portfolio of materials on community-based participatory action methods and social justice-focused research examples, this text would be suitable to use in an undergraduate social work research course.

Reviewed by Robert Liebman, Professor, Portland State University on 2/8/17

Text is comprehensive in two senses: it covers what is standard in Research Methods texts and it serves the author’s focus on teaching research design/methods to prepare students for undertaking a research project (or doing a research proposal). ... read more

Text is comprehensive in two senses: it covers what is standard in Research Methods texts and it serves the author’s focus on teaching research design/methods to prepare students for undertaking a research project (or doing a research proposal). Late in the book (159) is review of 6 key “diagnostic” questions on a research project: Why? How? For whom? What conclusions can I draw? Knowing what I know now, what would I do differently? How could the research be improved? These are diagnostic questions, to ask at the end of a project (and could be used as guidelines that reflect a grading rubric). Missing for me at the start are: a) flow-chart that would list of the steps in doing a project, roughly: 1. Turning an interest into a research question, 2. Design the research, 3. Choosing appropriate methods, 4. Collecting Data, 5. Summarizing/Synthesizing, 6. Write up a report & b) a look-forward to the last chapters including the 6 key “diagnostic” questions that says what you will learn from the book I like that the text conveys to students a sense of agency – if you learn methods, you can design/do research. I like section 13.3 which suggests that sociologists write for both academic or public audiences. The author comes to the writing having done both academic and public sociology – that adds a engaging perspective lacking from mainstream texts (Babbie, Schutt) Great ! On that point, a special feature of the text is the final chapter (Research Methods in the Real World) that gives a rationale for the benefits/payoffs of studying sociology: getting a job/building a career, being a judge of research reported in the media. One regret is that too little is said of the payoff having sociological research skills (surveys, statistical training) for doing environmental stewardship and public citizenship I used the pdf and think most students will not be logged on while reading the text. It does not provide a Table of Contents, glossary, or an index. Adding them would make much easier to use the book. BTW Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text" could be redone as a TofContents.

There are many strong chapters (measurement, survey methods, fieldwork plus other qualitative methods that are sometimes left out) and well-written sections (conceptualization, operationalization) But I found Ch 2 Linking Theory with Methods confusing. The setup says it will cover “connections between paradigms, social theories, and social scientific research methods. We’ll also consider how one’s analytic, paradigmatic, and theoretical perspective might shape or be shaped by her or his methodological choices” Then: “While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.” We go from 4 paradigms to 3 theoretical perspectives in a chart of examples on sport – these are illustrated but not well-explained. I like the treatment of styles of doing research in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research

I found discussion of micro-, meso-, and macro confusing. One study question asks: “Identify and distinguish between micro-, meso-, and macrolevel considerations with respect to the ethical conduct of social scientific research” Hard to answer based on text

I think that the terms “nomothetic” and “ideographic” are not well-defined nor is the link btw causality and tests of hypotheses well-explained. The matter of “falsifiability” is not discussed In my view, most confusing chapter.

Text lacks a discussion of control in the section on experimental design Might ask students what prior knowledge of experiments they got before coming into the course

I believe there is confusion about the roles of quantitative/qualitative in confirmation vs contextualization (p56) Multi-methods folks sometimes use “theoretical” sampling to assemble focus groups to clarify (more than contextualize) survey responses from subgroups

One small error: Rik Scarce studied radical environmental movement, not animal rights

Up-to-date and easily updated

Here the book shines. Major strengths: clear writing, engaging research examples, easy-to-understand tables, plus provides Learning objectives/Takeaways that encourage preview and review by students Re use of jargon/technical terminology – Add glossary

Internally consistent – enhanced by “look-back” devices such as Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text"

High modularity both of chapters: Easy to re-arrange the order to fit different instructor’s styles and of entries: Short and crisp – can be read in a short sitting. As written, allows instructors to insert other examples/illustrations or remove sections that are less central (eg Conversation Analysis)

The inclusion of links to YouTube and other media (Colbert interview with Sudhir Venketash) is a very important feature that allows instructors to have students preview at home & review in class for discussion .... The book opens way to using resources outside of it

I might introduce What is Sociology? ahead of Ethics – but that option is open to an adopter of the book

Online and pdf versions differ – While most links work in pdf, it does not include some Figures, Table of Contents

No objections to author’s usage. Some sentences are truncated. (p55)

In my view, not culturally insensitive or offensive. However, the book has a bias in that it reflects Armstrong’s research on women’s movements & sexual harassment. Few examples address race, ethnicity, class – These could be added for balance and reaching instructors who cover fields different from author.

I love how the book invites students to engage the topic by sharing examples of the topics offered by students in her course.

A strong text that matches the organization of standard texts which replicate themselves from generation to generation. Hoping to go beyond them, I wish the text had more full-blown discussions of how sociologists write for different audiences as in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research and of how sociologists make inferences from data (which comes into some of the examples eg The Second Shift). Give a bit more on how to write up results

Reviewed by Anna Berardi, Professor, George Fox University on 2/8/17

This text is comprehensive in scope and depth of content. The HTML version is extremely effective in helping the reader identify material as listed in the ToC. The PDF and DOCx versions are difficult to manage and do not have an attached ToC. read more

This text is comprehensive in scope and depth of content. The HTML version is extremely effective in helping the reader identify material as listed in the ToC. The PDF and DOCx versions are difficult to manage and do not have an attached ToC.

This text was written by a professor who teaches this material in the higher ed setting. His expertise and familiarity with how to make this subject matter accessible is evident.

This text is covering both timeless, mainstream research methods relevant to all social and behavioral science professions, as well as newer methods common in post-modern research.

The layout makes the information very easy to access. The outline / section formatting "chunks" (breaks down into manageable form) information that is otherwise dry when assembled in the traditional narrative format.

Concepts build on each other, and consistent language is used throughout.

As I was reviewing clarity, its strength is its use of divided sections - very nicely done making the text easy to use.

Research methods has a natural flow to the way information builds on each other, and that is evident in this text.

Loved manuevering in HTML, but had preferred PDF so I could annotate. Wished that the ToC was in all formats.

Well edited; no issues with grammatical errors.

Sociology is by nature aware of contextual identities, and this is evident in the types of examples given.

Two main recommendations: 1. Please make the author's name visible 2. Please include the Table of Contents attached to all versions of the text.

Thank you for a great resource!

Reviewed by Noelle Chesley, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on 1/7/16

I find the text to be very comprehensive. I think it covers most of the topics and subtopics one would expect to see in an undergraduate sociology research methods text. However, within topics, this text may not cover details as comprehensively as... read more

I find the text to be very comprehensive. I think it covers most of the topics and subtopics one would expect to see in an undergraduate sociology research methods text. However, within topics, this text may not cover details as comprehensively as some other texts out there (I describe the texts I am familiar with at the end of this review). Just as one example, in the survey research chapter (ch. 8), the author(s) point out that different methods of survey delivery (in person, online, etc.) have pros and cons, but these are not contrasted in any detail, particularly in terms of how they might influence response rates or allow (or not) for sufficient coverage of the sampling frame. However, for those instructors that incorporate a research project (such as developing a research proposal), the text covers elements of research planning, design, and development that are not necessarily well-covered in some other texts, an addition which I believe adds to the texts’ comprehensiveness. The final chapter (Research methods in the Real World) that connects research skills to possible career tracks and one’s role as an engaged citizen is excellent and is material that is often not present in these sorts of books, but should be.

My read suggests that this text is generally accurate. I was not aware of any instances of bias in the presentation of material (although as a white, women academic, I may be subject to the same biases as the author of the book!).

In thinking about the relevance/longevity of a research methods text, I would focus on: 1) examples used to illustrate key concepts; and 2) how up-to-date more rapidly changing topics are in terms of addressing areas of development (survey methods, sampling). This text utilizes examples (like illustrations from President Obama’s election), that may seem dated at some point. On the other hand, the topic on survey research accurately (see point 2, above) reflects the current state of knowledge about the relationship between survey response rates and the potential for bias. This is an area that has been changing rapidly, so keeping up with current state of knowledge will be important. In general, though the examples and cultural references are those most likely to date a text. There are such references in this text that may make students say “huh?” in just a few years.

Clarity rating: 3

In general, writing clarity is a strength of this text. Overall, the ideas are delivered in a very clear, understandable way. However, one element that detracted from clarity for me were embedded, full citations in the text. Throughout the book, when a particular research study is mentioned, the entire citation is embedded in the sentence, which was cumbersome to encounter as a reader. In addition, there are places where the clarity of the text falls apart (see point 10 in this rating for more). The embedded citations are cumbersome enough, that I think they detract substantially from clarity, which is reflected in my rating.

I found the text to be generally consistent in terms of use of terminology and framework.

There is an inherent tradeoff in writing a text that utilizes hyperlinks and makes references to earlier sections or discussions and modularity, or the ability to use portions of the text in a stand-alone fashion. I do think it would be possible to use sections of the text, rather than the whole text, to support teaching in particular areas. There will be some references to material in previous chapters or sections that the student has not read, but many of the chapters could also stand on their own to support teaching of a particular topic in research methods.

The organization of ideas and subtopics adds to the overall clarity. Similar ideas are grouped together and hyperlinks back to earlier ideas in later sections reinforce the organization, which enhances the overall clarity of the text (see clarity, above).

The .pdf of the text does not contain a table of contents, which I found limiting in using the text. There is also no information about the author in the beginning of the document. The only way to get either of these pieces of information is in the open text web entry for this book. The text does contain a number of hyperlinks. While I did not try every link (not even close), my own attempt to use some of these found just a few that don’t work (e.g., the link at the bottom of p. 9). Most links, however, did connect as expected. There are also places within the text where the font changes—this is distracting.

There are regular writing errors in the text. For instance, in section 9.1, it looks like a sentence referencing Regis Filban (will anyone know who this is in a few years?) was cut off and lives as a fragment in the current version. In fact, this whole opening paragraph is not well-written. Similar problems are apparent in the opening paragraph of chapter 10.

In thinking about cultural relevance in a research methods text, I tried to think about the descriptions of research—what sorts of examples get used to illustrate particular techniques or problems, as well as depictions of what a methods student might look like. In terms of research examples, I think the text utilizes a fairly wide variety of examples, although studies focused on gender seemed more common than those investigating race/ethnicity or class, for example. I also noted one instance of depictions of methods students (p. 152, focus group chapter) that provided illustrations of research participants using names like “Sally,” “Joe” and “Ashley.” A more diverse set of names (Jose, Darnisha, etc.) in an instance like this might add to cultural relevance of the text.

? I have been regularly teaching undergraduate research methods since 2005, and I teach in both in-person and fully online formats. I have been using Schutt’s Investigating the Social World as my primary teaching text in these courses, and this is the book that was my implicit comparison as I read the Blackstone text. However, I am also familiar with Neuman’s text and had parts of that book in mind, as well, as I read this text. The strengths of the text include its coverage of how to construct research questions and research documents as well as how the skills developed in an undergraduate course might translate to life outside of higher education. Weaknesses include a still “rough” look to the final document and some topic areas where coverage might not be as detailed as one would like. Overall, a solid text that has the potential to make teaching research methods more affordable for students.

Reviewed by Alison Bianchi, Associate Professor, University of Iowa on 1/7/16

This textbook covers all of the research methods needed for an undergraduate level research methods course. I have specific concerns that I will address in the "accuracy" section, but overall I am pleased with this book. I have used it in one... read more

This textbook covers all of the research methods needed for an undergraduate level research methods course. I have specific concerns that I will address in the "accuracy" section, but overall I am pleased with this book. I have used it in one undergraduate methods course, so I have the benefit of reporting both my and my students concerns.

However, as far as I could tell (and just in case I missed an update, I just downloaded the PDF from Saylor's Website just now), there is no glossary or index for this book. It would be great to have at least a glossary of terms, as there are quite a few! Given that this is one of the criteria for comprehensiveness, I do have to grade accordingly.

The author works very hard to diminish biases that are often found in Research Methods texts, and are taught in classes. Dr. Blackstone is no "Methods snob" -- she does the correct thing by telling students that it is the nature of research question that should drive one to use the method. This means that no method should be privileged just because the researcher(s) prefers it.

As far as accurate and error free, this is where I have concerns. I'll address them one by one:

(1) When discussing the micro-meso-macro level definitions and examples on page 13, the author muddles the concepts by suggesting that the meso-level is about studying groups, and the micro-level is more about individuals. Actually, micro-level scholars study groups, too. Accordingly, the author should use some definitions from the sociology of organizations literature, and define the meso-level as that which describes ORGANIZATIONS and the micro-level as potentially for SMALL GROUPS, such as dyads and triads. This issue is also found on page 14, first two full paragraphs.

(2) In the "Sociological Theories" section starting on page 17, the author has some problems discussing what is and isn't theory. The problem, of course, is not the author's, but rather the fact that sociologists cannot agree on what is theory! Accordingly, there's a way to deal with this issue -- I recommend using Abend's (2008) typology for the 7 ways that sociologists discuss theory. For example, some would say that "symbolic interactionism" is NOT a theory, but rather a paradigm. So, the discussion of what a theory is and what a paradigm is gets muddled and confusing for students. Using the aforementioned typology will help sort this out.

(3) In the section on IRB, page 25, the authors states that there are "human" and "non-human" sources of information, and that the "human" one refers to human subjects and the "non-human" one refers to data derived from humans, such as content analyses. However, there is a third possibility, and that is that "non-human" subjects are animals that are not homo sapiens. The IRB protocols for these subjects is a whole different ball of wax!! So, I would just use the terms "human" and "non-living" throughout.

(4) On page 52, the terms "idiographic" and "nomothetic" are poorly defined, as well as throughout the text, and not well linked to the concepts of qualitative and quantitative research throughout the text, or to the concepts of deductive or inductive ways of knowing. I recommend a brief history of the concepts and a better way to connect all of these notions of the theory-data linkage.

(5) In the section on causality, around page 54, I had many red flags. First, you simply cannot say that any qualitative method reveals causal relationships. This method is not designed for that! Qualitative research can suggest hypotheses, but it cannot reveal relationships. And, quite frankly, for other reasons, neither can quantitative methods! The author really must discuss the difference between causal theory and hypothesized relationships -- any test of a hypothesis can never be a perfect test of causation. Nomothetic theory can conceptualize it, but quantitative tests can never, ever completely capture causation.

(6) When discussing hypotheses on page 59, hypotheses have two other qualities that are of utmost importance: (1) falsifiability and (2) repeatability.

(7) On page 61, the use of the term "triangulation" is interesting. I realize that in the feminist literature that this is a way to describe multi-method studies, but it's confusing for students because triangulation is also a technique for qualitative studies to collect many points of view. I realize that this is problem with so many concepts in research methods -- take the term "control", for example. We have control variables, control conditions, experimental control -- just too many concepts that are different, but use the same word. Can we avoid this for yet another concept?

(8) The section on Experiments is not great. First, "true experiments" are not ones with experiment and control conditions -- they are those that use random assignment. "Quasi-experiments", including those with just post-tests, are those without this technique. And yes, experimentalists have to deal with external validity, but the author writes the text as if they have never considered that or found ways to deal with it. That's simply not true. In general, I just don't use this section when I teach experiments.

(9) I found the chapters on measurement and operationalization, survey methods, and qualitative methods to be first rate!

The content is up-to-date, and can be easily updated. However, I would like to see more examples of data collection using the Internet, social media, and other digital media.

I found the prose to be very accessible, and so did my students. The author does have a much more casual tone than other Research Methods books (for example, she uses "OK" a lot), but I like that, and so do my students. Methods is dry enough -- why not make the text more accessible and readable?

The text is very internally consistent. Dr. Blackstone correctly refers back to examples and concepts throughout the book.

I do think that the modularity is well done. In fact, I could easily assign chapters out of order. For instance, I always start my methods courses with ethics before we do anything else. That chapter stands alone very well, and can be assigned right away. Also, the chapter referring to "what is sociology" is somewhere around Chapter 4, but I just assign that next.

I would change the order of the topics, but this is just my style. Most Research Methods books follow the format of the author's, so that OK. However, Chapter 2's content on theory meanders a bit. I would reorganize it to start with paradigms, then theories, then the micro-meso-macro discussion.

We need a Table of Contents!!! And, throughout the text there are references to figures ... I looked in the back of the book, I downloaded it a couple of times to see if my computer was the problem, etc. No -- there are no figures!

I caught many mistakes. While Dr. Blackstone likes to split infinitives and use "in order to", a phrase that should be struck from the English language, I'm willing to forgive! However, there were typos that were problematic -- I'm not going to list all of them, but see page 55, paragraphs 5 and 6, for example. Both paragraphs have sentences that end with "in ." Weird.

I would do another thorough edit.

Dr. Blackstone goes out of her way to make sure that she is inclusive, especially with her research examples.

I really liked how Dr. Blackstone discusses what it's like to be a professional sociologist. Many of my students wonder: (1) what do I do and (2) what kind of jobs that they can get with a degree in Sociology? It's nice that Dr. Blackstone includes examples from her own life, and explains to the students that being a strong methodologist could one day land them a job!

Reviewed by Susan Burke, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma on 1/12/15

I used two online textbooks for my Fall 2014 course and this Blackstone text was far more comprehensive than the other one. It contained either chapters or short sections on nearly everything that I wanted to cover with the course, although for... read more

I used two online textbooks for my Fall 2014 course and this Blackstone text was far more comprehensive than the other one. It contained either chapters or short sections on nearly everything that I wanted to cover with the course, although for several of the shorter sections I assigned additional readings for more thorough treatments of the topics.

To the best of my knowledge the text was accurate. One student commented in the course evaluation that he found several typos in the text and that undermined his faith in the content, so possibly the book could use a check up by a copy editor.

This is a research methods book written specifically for undergraduate sociology students and it does a very good job of molding the information to fit that audience. I happened to be using the text for an introductory master's course in a different subject field, so the very purposeful focus on sociology made the book somewhat less translatable. In order to help my students make the cognitive leap to apply the concepts to their interests, I supplemented the text with articles and other readings from my discipline.

The book is well-written in a manner that makes the concepts clear and easy to understand for students who are beginners to research methods.

The book's structure and style was consistent across chapters and sections.

This book was available in two versions, a web version where you would click on a chapter from the index and it would take you to a separate page for that chapter, and a full length PDF. I strongly preferred the clickable web version as it was easier to jump right to the needed section, and I would use that to give the specific web site address for the chapter to students weekly. Many chapters were further divided into sections which were also linked so one could jump directly to that section of the chapter. This was a very useful feature.

The book was not arranged in the order in which I present the topcis in the course that I teach. However, the order that the author used is logical.

This was excellent. It was easy to access and easy to navigate. Several students reported being delighted with their ability to access and use the text easily from anywhere that was internet-enabled. One student suggested that the interface could be enhanced with a navigation bar on the side of the page that would facilitate jumping to other chapters.

I have no opinion on this - while I didn't notice grammatical errors, it's possible that they may exist in the text.

The author has given examples from sociological studies that have examined controversial topics, but she has done so with care and in a non-offensive manner.

There are some features of published works that were not available with this textbook. One is a date. I was unable to find any indication of when the book was written. Another is that it has no index. That is one function for which the PDF was a better option as one can use the "find" feature for keywords throughout the text.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory
• Chapter 3: Research Ethics
• Chapter 4: Beginning a Research Project
• Chapter 5: Research Design
• Chapter 6: Defining and Measuring Concepts
• Chapter 7: Sampling
• Chapter 8: Survey Research: A Quantitative Technique
• Chapter 9: Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
• Chapter 10: Field Research: A Qualitative Technique
• Chapter 11: Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
• Chapter 12: Other Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
• Chapter 13: Sharing Your Work
• Chapter 14: Reading and Understanding Social Research
• Chapter 15: Research Methods in the Real World

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The author of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , Amy Blackstone, started envisioning this textbook while sitting in her own undergraduate sociology research methods class. She enjoyed the material but wondered about its relevance to her everyday life and future plans (the idea that one day she would be teaching such a class hadn't yet occurred to her).

Now that she teaches the research methods course, she realizes that students today wonder the very same thing. While the importance of understanding research methods is usually clear to those students who intend to pursue an advanced degree, Amy wanted to write a text that would assist research methods teachers in demonstrating to all types of students the relevance of this course.

In addition, Amy Blackstone's experience as an active researcher who uses both qualitative and quantitative methods made her acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach in teaching methods of sociological inquiry.

Together, Amy Blackstone's experiences as a student, researcher, and teacher shape the three overriding objectives of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Relevance, Balance, and Accessibility.

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods emphasizes the relevance of research methods for the everyday lives of its readers, undergraduate students.Each chapter describes how research methodology is useful for students in the multiple roles they fill:

• As consumers of popular and public information
• As citizens
• As current and future employees. Connections to these roles are made throughout and directly within the main text of the book

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods also provides balanced coverage of qualitative and quantitative approaches by integrating a variety of examples from recent and classic sociological research. The text challenges students to debate and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.

Finally, one of the most important goals Amy had for Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods was to introduce students to the core principles of social research in a way that is straightforward and engaging. As such, the text reflects public sociology's emphasis on making sociology accessible and readable. No one can validate that claim more than a teacher or student. So, take a look for yourself today and review Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods by Amy Blackstone to see if its approach toward relevance, balance, and accessibility are right for your course and students.

About the Contributors

Amy Blackstone is Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of Maine. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, her research includes studies of workplace harassment, childfree adults, and activism in the breast cancer and anti-rape movements. Her work has appeared in a variety of journals and edited volumes including Gender & Society, Law & Society Review, American Sociological Review, and Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Blackstone has served as a Consulting Editor for Contexts, the American Sociological Association’s public-interest magazine. She is currently a member of the Social Science Research Group on the University of Maine’s National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant, for which she examines faculty satisfaction and the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women faculty in particular. Blackstone enjoys her work with numerous undergraduate research assistants and student clubs. In 2011 she received the University of Maine’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Outstanding Faculty Award in Teaching/Advising. Blackstone received her Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Minnesota and her B.A. in Sociology at Luther College.

Contribute to this Page

Research Methods

Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 13, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Sociologists use a range of quantitative and qualitative, primary and secondary social research methods to collect data about society.

The main types of research method are:

Research Methods at a Glance – Key Concepts  

Research Methods Top Ten Key Concepts – start here if you’re all at sea – includes simple explanations of terms such as validity, reliability, representativeness, Positivism and Interpretivism .

Research Methods A-Z Glossary – a more comprehensive index of the key terms you need to know for AS and A Level Sociology .

An Introduction to Research Methods

Without research methods there is no sociology!

Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction  – d etailed class notes covering the basic types of research method available to sociologists such as social surveys, interviews, experiments, and observations

Positivism and Interpretivism – Positivists generally prefer quantitative methods, Interpretivists prefer qualitative methods – this post consists of brief summary revision notes and revision diagrams outlining the difference between positivist and interpretivist approaches to social research. 

Outline and explain two practical problems which might affect social research (10) –  A model answer to this exam question, which could appear on either paper 7191 (1) or 7191 (3). 

Good Resources for Teaching and Learning Research Method s –  simply links (with brief descriptions) which take you to a range of text books and web sites which focus on various aspects of quantitative and qualitative research methods. NB this post is very much a work in progress, being updated constantly. 

Primary Quantitative Research Methods

  social surveys.

The advantages and disadvantages of social surveys in social research  –  detailed class notes covering the theoretical, practical and ethical strengths and limitations of social surveys. Generally, surveys are preferred by positivists and good for simple topics, but not so good for more complex topics which require a ‘human touch’ .

Experiments

Laboratory Experiments in Sociology   – detailed class notes on the strengths and limitations of laboratory experiments. Sociologists don’t generally use lab experiments, but examiners seem to ask questions about them more than other methods – one hypothesis for why is that sociology examiners have a burning hatred of teenagers. 

Longitudinal Studies

Longitudinal Studies – These are interval studies designed to explore changes over a long period of time. Researchers start with a sample and keep going back to that same sample periodically – say every year, or every two years, to explore how and why changes occur.

What Makes a Good Life ? – Lessons from a Longitudinal Study – This is one of the longest running Longitudinal studies in the world – the respondents were in their 20s when it started, now those who are still alive are in their 80s.

Primary Qualitative Research Methods

Primary qualitative research methods tend to be favoured by Interpretivists as they allow respondents to speak for themselves, and should thus yield valid data. However, because qualitative methods tend to involve the researcher getting more involved with the respondents, there is a risk that the subjective views of the researcher could interfere with the results, which could compromise both the validity and reliability of such methods.

Participant Observation

The strengths and limitations of covert participant observation – sociologists don’t generally use covert participant observation because of the ethical problem of deception means they can’t get funding. This methods is more commonly used by journalists doing investigative reporting, or you could even say undercover police officers use it, and you can use these examples to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of this method.

Interviews in Social Research  –  This post consists of detailed class notes focusing strengths and limitations of mainly unstructured interviews, which are like a guided conversation that allow respondents the freedom to speak for themselves.

Secondary Research Methods

Official statistics.

Cross National Comparisons – Comparing data across countries using official statistics can provide insight into the causes of social problems such as poverty, and war and conflict. This post looks at how you might go about doing this and the strengths and limitations of this kind of research.

Secondary Qualitative Data

Content Analysis of the Media in Social Research  –  class notes covering formal content (quantitative) analysis and semiology .

Autobiographies in social research – Autobiographies are popular with the British public, but how useful are they as sources of data for the social researcher?

Sociology, Science and Value Freedom (Part of A2 Theory and Methods)

Sociology and Value Freedom  – Detailed class notes .

Methods in Context – Research Methods Applied to Education

Non-Participant Observation in Education  –  focusing on OFSTED inspections, as these are probably the most commonly used of all methods in education .

Focus on the AS and A Level Exams

Research Methods Practice Questions for A-level Sociology – you will get a 10 mark question on both papers SCLY1 and SCLY3 most likely asking you to ‘outline and explain’ the strengths and limitations of any of the main research methods. This post outlines some of the many variations.

Methods in Context Essay Template  – a suggested gap fill essay plan on how to answer these challenging ‘applied research methods’ questions.

Using Participant Observation to research pupils with behavourial difficulties (20) – a model answer for this methods in context style of essay.

Other Relevant Posts

How old are twitter users? – applied sociology – illustrates some of the problems us using social media to uncover social trends.

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle 

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of  A level sociology papers 1 and 3.

For better value I’ve bundled all of the above topics into six revision bundles , containing revision notes, mind maps, and exam question and answers, available for between £4.99 and £5.99 on Sellfy .

Share this:

Learning Materials

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Sociological Research Methods

Have you ever wondered how sociologists collect their data?  How do they find out what the latest trends, patterns and issues are?  If you read a statistic (for example, that 70% of students claim they enjoy doing homework) you would (understandably) want to know how the researcher got to this conclusion. How many students did they ask? Did they interpret students' answers correctly?

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

• Cell Biology

Do researchers need to use existing literature?

Are researchers subject to any research quality standards?

You can measure the socioeconomic status of a school student by asking how much their parents earn, which provides qualitative data. Is this true or false?

Which of these describes the reasoning behind quantitative methods?

Primary research involves:

Qualitative   methods produce information that isn't numerical and is much more in-depth. If a sociologist wants to describe and/or analyse various facets of social life in-depth, they might use qualitative research methods.

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Vaia Editorial Team

Team Sociological Research Methods Teachers

• 9 minutes reading time
• Checked by Vaia Editorial Team
• American Identity
• Beliefs in Society
• Crime and Deviance
• Cultural Identity
• Education With Methods in Context
• Families and Households
• Famous Sociologists
• Global Development
• Research Methods in Sociology
• Social Institutions
• Social Relationships
• Social Stratification
• Sociological Approach
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Stratification and Differentiation
• Theories and Methods
• American Sociological Association
• Case Studies
• Ethnography
• Experiments
• Field Research
• Founders of Sociology
• Functionalism
• Interpretivism
• Longitudinal Studies
• Observation
• Official Statistics
• Postmodernism
• Questionnaire
• Research Considerations
• Research Design
• Social Action Theory
• Social Policy
• Sociological Imagination
• Sociological Theories
• Sociology as a Science
• Sources of Data
• Types of Data
• Value Neutrality
• Values in Research
• What is the Study of Sociology?
• Work Poverty And Welfare

Jump to a key chapter

Sociological research methods are integral to sociological research. This explanation introduces how sociologists use these methods to carry out sociological research.

• We will learn the definition of sociological research methods and discover its context and process.
• We will also discuss the reasons for carrying out sociological research.
• Finally, we will study the advantages and disadvantages of different research methods in sociology .

What are sociological research methods?

First of all, let's clarify what we mean by sociological research methods.

Sociological research methods can be defined as a step-by-step process involving collecting, analysing, and interpreting data to gain knowledge or a better understanding of the world we live in.

Sociological research focuses on various issues, including social groups, institutions, systems, developments, and changes in society. Sociologists draw upon the principles of social science and use a range of research methods in pursuit of patterns that would explain how society works. The choice of methods depends upon practical, philosophical, and ethical considerations and the nature of the topic.

In 1925, the famous researcher Margaret Mead went to the South Pacific territory of American Samoa to live with the local communities and study them. She observed their lives and conducted interviews and psychological tests to learn whether their experience of adolescence depended on their cultural upbringing. She then published a book interpreting her findings.

Modern-day research methods can be a lot more sophisticated than the above study, but they are based on the same principles.

Society is in a process of constant evolution leaving gaps or inconsistencies in the existing literature. That provides fertile ground for asking more questions and searching for more answers.

What are the 4 types of research methods in sociology?

The two main forms of research in sociology are primary research and secondary research . Let's look at some definitions:

Primary research entails collecting new, original data in the process of conducting the research. Primary data can be collected through interviews , questionnaires, and observations.

Secondary research involves gathering and examining data that has already been collected. Secondary data sources include official statistics , documents , media texts, etc.

Choosing one method or the other affects both the process of the research study and the sources the researcher can use, not to mention their findings.

The other two types of research methods that people refer to are qualitative and quantitative methods. We will explore what these means below.

Types of research in sociology: quantitative and qualitative methods

Depending on their topic, research goals, and the type of data they want, sociological researchers employ a variety of research methodologies: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches.

Quantitative research methods in sociology

Quantitative research techniques produce numerical data that covers a broad range. If a sociologist wants to look at social trends or study the relationship between two or more components, they may choose approaches that provide quantitative data.

Qualitative research methods in sociology

On the other side, qualitative methods produce information that isn't numerical and is much more in-depth. If a sociologist wants to describe and/or analyse various facets of social life in-depth, they might use qualitative research methods.

Mixed-method research in sociology

Mixed-methods research or triangulation uses a combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques, either to support or refute their findings or simply because both research methods are equally legitimate.

Examples of research methods in sociology

There are several approaches sociologists may use to gather and analyse data. Examples of some include:

social surveys (often employing questionnaires),

interviews,

content analysis,

discourse analysis,

experiments ,

and observations.

Advantages and disadvantages of sociological research methods

Let's briefly go over the positive and negative aspects of the types of research and methodologies we have covered above.

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

Primary research is directly collected, so it is also more likely to be relevant, up-to-date, and can come up with unexpected results. However, it can be expensive, impractical, biased, potentially unethical, or inaccessible.

Secondary data can be easily accessible, time and cost-effective, and more likely to be unbiased and ethical. It can also be irrelevant, difficult to access, and still be biased, though.

Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative methods

Quantitative research can study large samples, can usually be generalised, be time and cost-effective, be more objective, and avoid bias. However, the data can be surface-level, can be impersonal and/or irrelevant, and can be inflexible.

Qualitative research provides data that is rich in detail, particularly relevant, and unique; and can be flexible. However, qualitative data can be difficult to generalise, have smaller samples, be less objective, and be more time-consuming and costly.

How do sociologists choose research methods?

There are a number of factors that form part of the context for sociological research and its methods.

Sociologists may have a specific view of the nature of social phenomena , which influences whether they adopt quantitative , qualitative or mixed methods of research.

Some sociologists believe that society should be studied scientifically as a collection of objectively measurable 'social facts'. Thus, quantitative methods broadly define a range of research instruments that aim to measure social phenomena in numerical terms.

Others believe that such a view is too restrictive and adopt a more profound, detail-oriented practice. Therefore, qualitative methods focus on categorical terms or ' thick descriptions' . These are insights about research subjects focusing in-depth on details and particularities. Hence, they are typically presented in a narrative format.

You can measure the socioeconomic status of a school student by asking how much their parents earn, which provides quantitative data. On the other hand, you could ask them to describe their lifestyle, which provides qualitative data.

Existing literature forms a key part of the research background. Sociologists must familiarise themselves with existing research in order to build upon it instead of repeating it.

Suppose a researcher wants to investigate the association between gender and academic achievement. They would need to study the existing body of literature to see what other researchers have already found and use their research to fill in the gaps.

Researchers should consider whether they will adopt inductive or deductive reasoning in their investigations. The inductive approach seeks to develop new theories, whilst the deductive approach aims to test existing ones. Researchers adopting inductive methods tend to collect data first to see where it will lead them. While those using deductive methods test whether the data collected fits or reinforces an already existing theory.

Researchers must obey the rules of research quality and adopt appropriate values, including an excellent grasp of research integrity and ethics . There is a lot of debate about the extent to which research can and should be value-free .

The table below presents an example of a step-by-step research scenario outlining the research process and a general overview of the sociological method.

Table 1 - Step by step explanation of the Research Process.

Sociological Research Methods - Key takeaways

• Sociologists study the world using sociological research methods. The research consists of steps involving data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
• The two main forms of research in sociology are primary research and secondary research.
• Researchers can choose between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
• The choice of methods depends upon a range of factors. These include the nature of the topic and practical, philosophical, and ethical issues. Additionally, the advantages and disadvantages of the research methods in sociology should be considered.

The sociologist's opinion on the objective or subjective nature of social phenomena also influences the choice of methods. Researchers must obey the rules of research quality and adopt appropriate values, including integrity and ethical standards.

Flashcards in Sociological Research Methods 6

Yes, they do. They need to familiarise themselves with what other researchers have already said and done to build upon it.

Yes, they should ensure the utmost research integrity and obey ethical standards.

Some sociologists believe that society should be studied scientifically as a collection of objectively measurable  'social facts'. 

Collecting new, original data in the process of conducting the research.

Learn with 6 Sociological Research Methods flashcards in the free Vaia app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Sociological Research Methods

What are the 6 research methods in sociology?

social surveys (often employing questionnaires), 

interviews , 

experiments , 

How is social research used in sociology? 

Social research in sociology focuses on various issues, including social groups, institutions, systems, developments, and changes in society. Sociologists draw upon the principles of social science and use a range of research methods in pursuit of patterns that would explain how society works. The choice of methods depends upon practical, philosophical, and ethical considerations and the nature of the topic. 

What is a research method in sociology? 

What makes sociological research different from other kinds of research? 

Sociological research is different because it studies aspects of society - social institutions, culture, norms, human behaviour, etc. 

What are the basic steps of a sociological research method? 

These include picking a topic or issue, researching the existing theory, developing a hypothesis, selecting a research method, gathering data, analysing the findings, and reporting the results.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Join the Vaia App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free Vaia app

Vaia is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Team Sociology Teachers

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of Vaia.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our Vaia App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Privacy Overview

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 2. Sociological Research

2.1. Approaches to Sociological Research

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behaviour is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behaviour as people move through the world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method, sociologists have discovered workplace patterns that have transformed industries, family patterns that have enlightened parents, and education patterns that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Depending on the focus and the type of research conducted, sociological findings could be useful in addressing any of the three basic interests or purposes of sociological knowledge discussed in the last chapter: the positivist interest in quantitative evidence to determine effective social policy decisions, the interpretive interest in understanding the meanings of human behaviour to foster mutual understanding and consensus, and the critical interest in knowledge useful for dismantling power relations and building alternatives to conditions of servitude. It might seem strange to use scientific practices to study social phenomena — a bit like the contents of a petri dish examining themselves — but, as argued above, if the goal of sociology is to improve the operation of society, it is extremely helpful to rely on systematic approaches that research methods provide.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once a question is formed, a sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. Depending on the nature of the topic and the goals of the research, sociologists have a variety of methodologies to choose from. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a positivist methodology or an interpretive methodology . Both types of methodology can be useful for critical research strategies . The following sections describe these approaches to acquiring knowledge.

Science vs. Non-Science

Contemporary society is going through an interesting time in which the certitudes and authority of science are frequently challenged. In the context of the natural sciences, people doubt scientific claims about climate change and the safety of vaccines. In the context of the social sciences, people doubt scientific claims about the declining rate of violent crime or the effectiveness of needle exchange programs.  Sometimes there is a good reason to be skeptical about science, when scientific technologies prove to have adverse effects on the environment, for example. Sometimes skepticism has dangerous outcomes, when people act on conspiracy theories and misinformation or epidemics of diseases like measles suddenly break-out in schools due to low vaccination rates. In fact, skepticism is central to both natural and social sciences; but from a scientific point of view, the skeptical attitude needs to be combined with systematic research in order for knowledge to move forward.

In sociology, science provides the basis for being able to distinguish between everyday opinions or beliefs and propositions that can be sustained by evidence. In his paper, The Normative Structure of Science (1942/1973), the sociologist Robert Merton argued that science is a type of empirical knowledge organized around four key principles, often referred to by the acronym CUDOS :

• Communalism: The results of science must be made available to the public; science is freely available, shared knowledge, open to public discussion and debate.
• Universalism: The results of science must be evaluated based on universal criteria, not parochial criteria specific to the researchers themselves.
• Disinterestedness: Science must not be pursued for private interests or personal reward.
• Organized Skepticism: The scientist must abandon all prior intellectual commitments, critically evaluate claims, and postpone conclusions until sufficient evidence has been presented; scientific knowledge is provisional.

For Merton, therefore, non-scientific knowledge is knowledge that fails in various respects to meet these criteria. Types of esoteric or mystical knowledge, for example, might be valid for someone on a spiritual path, but because this knowledge is passed from teacher to student through direct transmission and it is not available to the public for open debate, or because the validity of this knowledge might be specific to the individual’s unique spiritual configuration, esoteric or mystical knowledge is not scientific per se . Claims that are presented to persuade (rhetoric), to achieve political goals (propaganda, of various sorts), or to make profits (advertising) are not scientific because these claims are structured to satisfy private interests. Propositions which fail to stand up to rigorous and systematic standards of evaluation are not scientific because they can not withstand the criteria of organized skepticism and scientific method.

The basic distinction between scientific and common, non-scientific claims about the world is that in science “seeing is believing” whereas in everyday life “believing is seeing” (Brym, Roberts, Lie, & Rytina, 2013). Science is, in crucial respects, based on systematic observation following the principles of CUDOS. Only on the basis of observation (or “seeing”) can a scientist believe that a proposition about the nature of the world is correct. Research methodologies are designed to reduce the chance that conclusions will be based on error. In everyday life, the order is typically reversed. People “see” what they already expect to see or what they already believe to be true. They do not systematically test what they believe to be true. Prior intellectual commitments or biases predetermine what people observe and the conclusions they draw.

Many people know things about the social world without having a background in sociology. Sometimes their knowledge is valid; sometimes it is not. It is important, therefore, to think about how people know what they know, and compare it to the scientific way of knowing. Four types of non-scientific reasoning are common in everyday life: knowledge based on casual observation, knowledge based on selective evidence, knowledge based on overgeneralization, and knowledge based on authority or tradition.

Many people know things simply because they have experienced them directly. Someone who has grown up in Manitoba has probably observed what plenty of kids learn each winter, that it really is true that one’s tongue will stick to metal when it is very cold outside. Direct experience may provide accurate information, but only if the observer is lucky. Unlike the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, in general, people are not very careful observers. In this example of the “winged ship” in Figure 2.4, the observation process is not deliberate or systematic. Instead, the observers come to know what they believe to be true through casual observation . The problem with casual observation is that sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Without any systematic process for observing or assessing the accuracy of  observations, a person can never really be sure if their informal observations are accurate.

Many people know things because they overlook disconfirming evidence. Suppose a friend declared that all men are liars shortly after she had learned that her boyfriend had deceived her. The fact that one man happened to lie to her in one instance came to represent a quality inherent in all men. But do all men really lie all the time? Probably not. If the friend is prompted to think more broadly about her experiences with men, she would probably acknowledge that she knew many men who, to her knowledge, had never lied to her and that maybe even her boyfriend did not generally make a habit of lying. This friend committed what social scientists refer to as selective observation by noticing only the pattern that she wanted to find at the time. She ignored disconfirming evidence. If, on the other hand, the friend’s experience with her boyfriend had been her only experience with a man, then she would have been committing what social scientists refer to as overgeneralization , assuming that broad patterns exist based on very limited observations.

Another way that people claim to know what they know is by looking to what they have always known to be true. There is an urban legend about a woman who for years used to cut both ends off of a ham before putting it in the oven (Mikkelson, 2005). She baked ham that way because that is the way her mother did it, so clearly that was the way it was supposed to be done. Her knowledge was based on a family tradition or traditional knowledge . After years of tossing cuts of perfectly good ham into the trash, however, she finally asked her mother why she did it and learned that the only reason her mother cut the ends off ham before cooking it was that she did not have a pan large enough to accommodate the ham without trimming it.

Without questioning what one thinks one knows is true, one may wind up believing things that are actually false. This is most likely to occur when an authority tells us that something is true, a case of authoritative knowledge . Mothers are not the only possible authorities people might rely on as sources of knowledge. Other common authorities people might rely on are political figures, churches and ministers, media influencers and social media networks. Although it is understandable that someone might believe something to be true if they look up to, or respect the person who has said it is so, this way of knowing differs from the sociological way of knowing. Whether quantitative, qualitative, or critical in orientation, sociological research is based on the scientific method.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried-and-true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, field research, and textual analysis. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that they can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions, or about proving hypotheses about elementary particles right or wrong, rather than about exploring the nuances of human behaviour. However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behaviour. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results. This is the case for both positivist quantitative methodologies, which seek to translate observable phenomena into unambiguous numerical data, and interpretive qualitative methodologies, which seek to translate observable phenomena into definable units of meaning. The social scientific method in both cases involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical (i.e., observable) evidence. The social scientific method is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the social world, and it strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of established steps known as the research cycle .

No matter what research approach is used, researchers want to maximize the study’s reliability and validity . Reliability refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what is true of one person will be true of all people in a group. Validity refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. If  the researcher wishes to examine people’s depth of religiosity — i.e., how strong is someone’s religious belief? How central is religious belief to their life? — does a measure like “frequency of church attendance” accurately measure that? Maybe not. People attend church for a variety of reasons and some religions are not organized on the basis of churches and congregations.

A subtopic in the field of political violence would be to examine the sources of homegrown radicalization: What are the conditions under which individuals in Canada move from a state of indifference or moderate concern with political issues to a state in which they are prepared to use violence to pursue political goals? The reliability of a study of radicalization reflects how well the social factors unearthed by the research apply to similar individuals who were not directly part of the research. Would another sociologist come up with the same results if they replicated the study? How well can the researcher extrapolate from the research subjects studied to individuals in the broader society? Does research on violent jihadi radicalization apply to violent neo-Nazi radicalization?

Validity ensures that the study’s design accurately examined what it was designed to study. Do the concepts and measures of radicalization accurately represent the actual experience of political radicals? An exploration of an individual’s propensity to plan or engage in violent acts or to go abroad to join a terrorist organization should address those specific issues and not confuse them with other topics such as why an individual adopts a particular faith or espouses radical political views. There is a key difference between religiosity, radicalization, and violent radicalization. As research from the UK and United States on jihadism has in fact shown, while jihadi terrorists typically identify with an Islamic world view, a well-developed Islamic identity counteracts jihadism . Similarly, research has shown that while it intuitively makes sense that people with radical views would adopt radical means like violence to achieve them, there is in fact no consistent homegrown terrorist profile, meaning that it is not possible to predict whether someone who espouses radical views will move on to committing violent acts without taking into account the specific stages in the process (Patel, 2011).

To ensure validity, research on political violence should focus on individuals who engage in political violence and be able to distinguish between simply holding radical political beliefs and acting violently on radical political beliefs. Dalgaard-Nielsen (2010) distinguishes between radical, radicalization, and violent radicalization as follows:

a radical is understood as a person harboring a deep-felt desire for fundamental sociopolitical changes and radicalization is understood as a growing readiness to pursue and support far reaching changes in society that conflict with, or pose a direct threat to, the existing order. [V]iolent radicalization [is]a process in which radical ideas are accompanied by the development of a willingness to directly support or engage in violent acts.

The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. These steps provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps, which are described below: 1) ask a question; 2) research existing sources; and 3) formulate a hypothesis.

Ask a Question

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a specific geographical location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. That said, happiness and hygiene are worthy topics to study.

Sociologists do not rule out any topic, but would strive to frame these questions in better research terms. That is why sociologists are careful to define their terms. Karl Popper (1902–1994) described the formulation of scientific propositions in terms of the concept of falsifiability (1963). He argued that the key demarcation between scientific and non-scientific propositions was not ultimately their factual truth, nor their verification, but simply whether or not they were stated in such a way as to be falsifiable; that is, whether a possible empirical observation could prove them wrong. If one claimed that evil spirits were the source of criminal behaviour, this would not be a scientific proposition because there is no possible way to definitively disprove it. Evil spirits cannot be observed. However, if one claimed that higher unemployment rates are the source of higher crime rates, this would be a scientific proposition because it is theoretically possible to find an instance where unemployment rates were not correlated to higher crime rates. As Popper said, “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations” (Popper, 1963).

Once a proposition is formulated in a way that would permit it to be falsified, the variables to be observed need to be operationalized. In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?” When forming these basic research questions, sociologists develop an operational definition ; that is, they define the concept in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The concept is translated into an observable variable , a measure that has different values. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept.

By operationalizing a variable of the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. The operational definition must be valid in the sense that it is an appropriate and meaningful measure of the concept being studied. It must also be reliable , meaning that results will be close to uniform when tested on more than one person. For example, good drivers might be defined in many ways: Those who use their turn signals; those who do not speed; or those who courteously allow others to merge. But these driving behaviours could be interpreted differently by different researchers, so they could be difficult to measure. Alternatively, “a driver who has never received a traffic violation” is a specific description that will lead researchers to obtain the same information, so it is an effective operational definition. Asking the question, “how many traffic violations has a driver received?” turns the concepts of “good drivers” and “bad drivers” into variables which might be measured by the number of traffic violations a driver has received. Of course the sociologist has to be wary of the way the variables are operationalized. In this example we know that black drivers are subject to much higher levels of police scrutiny than white drivers, so the number of traffic violations a driver has received might reflect less on their driving ability and more on the crime of “driving while black.”

Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to a university library and a thorough online search will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to position their own research to build on prior knowledge. It allows them to sharpen the focus of their research question and avoid duplicating previous research. Researchers — including student researchers — are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or sources that inform their work. While it is fine to build on previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized. To study hygiene and its value in a particular society, a researcher might sort through existing research and unearth studies about childrearing, vanity, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, and cultural attitudes toward beauty. At the literature review stage it is important to sift through this information and determine what is relevant. Using existing sources educates a researcher by showing what others have found relevant about a topic, and helps refine and improve a study’s design.

Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship between those variables. It is an educated guess because it is not random but based on theory, observations, patterns of experience, or the existing literature. The hypothesis formulates this guess in the form of a testable or falsifiable proposition. However, how the hypothesis is handled differs between the positivist and interpretive approaches in sociology.

Hypothesis Formation in Positivist Research

Positivist methodologies are often referred to as hypothetico-deductive methodologies . A hypothesis is derived from a theoretical proposition. On the basis of the hypothesis, a prediction or generalization is logically deduced. If the prediction is confirmed by observation, the theoretical proposition is regarded as valid (at least provisionally). In positivist sociology, the hypothesis predicts how one form of human behaviour influences another. How does being a black driver affect the number of times the police will pull the driver over?

Successful prediction will determine the adequacy of the hypothesis and thereby test the theoretical proposition. Typically positivist approaches operationalize variables as quantitative data ; that is, by translating a social phenomenon like health into a quantifiable or numerically measurable variable like “number of visits to the hospital.” This permits sociologists to formulate their predictions using mathematical language, like regression formulas, to present research findings in graphs and tables, and to perform mathematical or statistical techniques to demonstrate the validity of relationships.

Variables are examined to see if there is a correlation between them. When a change in one variable coincides with a change in another variable there is a correlation. This does not necessarily indicate that changes in one variable causes a change in another variable, however — just that they are associated. A key distinction here is between independent and dependent variables. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect, or thing that is changed. For example, in a basic study, the researcher would establish one form of human behaviour as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

For it to become possible to speak about causation , three criteria must be satisfied:

• There must be a relationship or correlation between the independent and dependent variables.
• The independent variable must be prior to the dependent variable.
• There must be no other intervening variable responsible for the causal relationship.

It is important to note that while there has to be a correlation between variables for there to be a causal relationship, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The relationship between variables can be the product of a third intervening variable that is independently related to both. For example, there might be a positive relationship between wearing bikinis and eating ice cream, but wearing bikinis does not cause eating ice cream. It is more likely that the heat of summertime causes both an increase in bikini wearing and an increase in the consumption of ice cream.

The distinction between causation and correlation can have significant consequences. For example, Indigenous Canadians are overrepresented in prisons and arrest statistics. As noted in Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology , in 2020 Indigenous people accounted for about 5% of the Canadian population, but they made up 30% of the federal penitentiary population (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2020). There is a positive correlation between being an Indigenous person in Canada and being in jail. Is this because Indigenous people are racially or biologically predisposed to crime? No. In fact there are at least four intervening variables that explain the higher incarceration of Indigenous people (Hartnagel, 2004): Indigenous people are disproportionately poor and poverty is associated with higher arrest and incarceration rates; Indigenous lawbreakers tend to commit more detectable “street” crimes than the less detectable and actionable “white collar” crimes of other segments of the population; the criminal justice system disproportionately profiles and discriminates against Indigenous people; and the legacy of colonization has disrupted and weakened traditional sources of social control in Indigenous communities.

At this point, a researcher’s operational definitions help measure the variables. In a study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, one researcher might define “good” grades as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for good. Another operational definition might describe “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” Those definitions set limits and establish cut-off points, ensuring consistency and replicability in a study. As the chart shows, an independent variable is the one that causes a dependent variable to change. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Or rephrased, a child’s sense of self-esteem depends, in part, on the quality and availability of hygienic resources.

Of course, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. Perhaps a sociologist believes that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will automatically increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying two topics, or variables, is not enough: Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis. Just because a sociologist forms an educated prediction of a study’s outcome does not mean data contradicting the hypothesis are not welcome. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns.

In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding a rewarding career. While it has become at least a cultural assumption that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results will vary.

Hypothesis Formation in Qualitative Research

While many sociologists rely on the positivist hypothetico-deductive method in their research, others operate from an interpretive approach . While still systematic, this approach typically does not follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to make generalizable predictions from quantitative variables. Instead, an interpretive framework seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, leading to in-depth knowledge. It focuses on qualitative data, or the meanings that guide people’s behaviour. Rather than relying on quantitative instruments, like fixed questionnaires or experiments, which can be artificial, the interpretive approach attempts to find ways to get closer to the informants’ lived experience and perceptions.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings than positivist research. It can begin from a deductive approach by deriving a hypothesis from theory and then seeking to confirm it through methodologies like in-depth interviews. However, it is ideally suited to an inductive approach in which the hypothesis emerges only after a substantial period of direct observation or interaction with subjects. This type of approach is exploratory in that the researcher also learns as they proceed, sometimes adjusting the research methods or processes midway to respond to new insights and findings as they evolve.

For example, Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) classic elaboration of grounded theory proposed that qualitative researchers working with rich sources of qualitative data from interviews or ethnographic observations need to go through several stages of coding the data before a strong theory of the social phenomenon under investigation can emerge. In the initial stage, the researcher is simply trying to listen carefully and to tentatively categorize and sort the data. The researchers do not predetermine what the relevant categories of the social experience are, but analyze carefully what their subjects actually say. For example, what are the working definitions of health and illness that hospital patients use to describe their situation? In the first stage, the researcher tries to distinguish and succinctly code or label the numerous themes emerging from the data: different ways of describing the experience of health and illness. In the second stage, the researcher takes a more analytical approach by organizing the initial interview data into a few key reoccurring themes: Perhaps these are key assumptions that lay people make about the physiological mechanisms of the body, or the metaphors they use to describe their relationship to illness (e.g., a random occurrence, a battle, a punishment, a message, etc.). In the third stage, the researcher returns to the interview subjects with a new set of questions that would seek to either affirm, modify, or discard the analytical themes derived from the initial categorization of the interview material. This process can then be repeated back and forth until a thoroughly grounded theory is ready to be proposed. At every stage of the research, the researchers are obliged to follow the emerging data by revising their conceptions as new material is gathered, contradictions accounted for, commonalities categorized, and themes re-examined with further interviews.

Once the preliminary work is done and the hypothesis defined, it is time for the next research steps: choosing a research methodology, conducting a study, and drawing conclusions. These research steps are discussed below.

Making Connections: Classic Sociologists

Harriet martineau: the first woman sociologist.

As was noted in Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology , Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) was one of the first women sociologists in the 19th century. She was a British sociologist known at the time especially for her translation of August Comte’s sociological works. Particularly innovative was her early work on sociological methodology, How to Observe Manners and Morals (1838) . In this volume she developed the ground work for a systematic social-scientific approach to studying human behaviour. She recognized that the issues of the researcher-subject relationship would have to be addressed differently in a social science   as opposed to a natural science.

The observer, or “traveler,” as she put it, needed to respect three criteria to obtain valid research: impartiality, critique, and sympathy. The impartial observer could not allow herself to be “perplexed or disgusted” by foreign practices that she could not personally reconcile herself with. Yet at the same time she saw the goal of sociology to be the fair but critical assessment of the moral status of a culture. In particular, the goal of sociology was to challenge forms of racial, sexual, or class domination in the name of autonomy: the right of every person to be a “self-directing moral being.” Finally, what distinguished the science of social observation from the natural sciences was that the researcher had to have unqualified sympathy for the subjects being studied (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007). This later became a central principle of Max Weber’s interpretive sociology, although it is not clear whether Weber read Martineau’s work.

A large part of her research in the United States analyzed the situations of contradiction between stated public morality and actual moral practices. For example, she was fascinated with the way that the formal democratic right to free speech enabled slavery abolitionists to hold public meetings, but when the meetings were violently attacked by mobs, the abolitionists and not the mobs were accused of inciting the violence (Zeitlin, 1997). This emphasis on studying contradictions followed from the distinction she drew between morals — society’s collective ideas of permitted and forbidden behaviour — and manners — the actual patterns of social action and association in society. As she realized the difficulty in getting an accurate representation of an entire society based on a limited number of interviews, she developed the idea that one could identify key “Things” experienced by all people — age, gender, illness, death, etc. — and examine how they were experienced differently by a sample of people from different walks of life (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007). Martineau’s pioneering sociology, therefore, focused on surveying different attitudes toward “Things,” and studying the anomalies that emerged when manners toward them contradicted a society’s formal morals.

Critical Research Strategies

As Karl Marx (1977 /1845) said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” Critical research strategies build on positivist and interpretive methodologies but bring the focus of research to the problems of social transformation and emancipation. Critical sociologists emphasize that the social world is not simply given or natural. It is the ongoing product of human actions and is therefore transformable. Domination and injustice are not inevitable. In this context, critical sociologists note that in a world characterized by extreme inequities and injustices, knowledge and ways of knowing can be caught up and implicated in power relations. “In a socially unjust world, knowledge of the social that does not challenge injustice is likely to play a role in reproducing it” (Carroll, 2004). Critical research strategies are therefore approaches that utilize positivist, interpretive, and critical methods to produce knowledge that maximizes the human potential for freedom and equality.

Paulo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed  is a key reference point for critical research. Working with the illiterate poor in North-Eastern Brazil in the 1940s and 1950s, Freire recognized that effective education and knowledge were not simply about things, but were emancipatory practices themselves. Through the development of critical consciousness, people could understand the circumstances in which they were living and act effectively to change the conditions of oppression they experienced. This was the basis of critical pedagogy , an approach to teaching and learning based on fostering the agency of marginalized communities, and empowering learners to emancipate themselves from oppressive social structures.

Carroll (2004) describes three types of critical research strategy: Oppositional or activist strategies investigate and oppose visible structures and practices of domination by taking up the standpoint of the oppressed; Radical strategies focus on analyzing deeper systematic bases of domination at the roots of societal structures; Subversive strategies subvert or deconstruct received notions of reality/identity and everyday, common sense binary oppositions (man/woman, culture/nature, self/other, reason/emotion, Black/white, etc.), which opens the door to alternatives and new political spaces of contestation.

One contemporary application of critical research strategies is in the critique of colonial structures. Decolonization , or the process of dismantling colonial power structures, also involves a process of decolonizing knowledge and research methods. Eurocentric patterns of thinking are often embedded in the concepts and methods used in sociology and other disciplines. In the 19th century, for example, social hierarchies and evolutionary schemes were central to the understanding of Indigenous people in Canada as alternately “savage” and “childlike,” in need of suppressing, civilizing and assimilating. Decolonizing research “means centering concerns and world views of non-Western individuals, and respectfully knowing and understanding theory and research from previously ‘Other(ed)’ perspectives” (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). Thambinathan & Kinsella (2021) outline four practices of decolonization:

• Exercising Critical Reflexivity: Critical reflexivity in research is about the researcher’s awareness of their own methodological assumptions — what they consider valid knowledge and proper ways of knowing — as well as of their social position (often as privileged outsiders) with respect to the research and the research subjects.
• Reciprocity and Respect for Self-Determination: Research should be practiced as an ongoing collaboration with research subjects to establish collective ownership over the entire research process, and to make accountable the researchers to the research subjects.
• Embracing Other(ed) Ways of Knowing:   Research methods should be expanded to integrate traditional knowledge, theories and frameworks used by the research subjects.

Embodying a Transformative Praxis: Along the lines of Freire’s critical pedagogy, the goal of the research is to enable research subjects to transform the colonial conditions of their existence, to bring to light historically silenced voices, and to build capacities and agency in colonized peoples.

Image Descriptions

Figure 2.5 Long Description: The Scientific Method has a series of steps which can form a repeating cycle.

• Ask a question.
• Research existing sources
• Formulate a hypothesis.
• Design and conduct a study
• Draw conclusions.
• Report results. [Return to Figure 2.5]

Media Attributions

• Figure 2.3   Cover of The Strand Magazine featuring the publication of the last Sherlock Holmes story written by Arthur Conan Doyle from The Strand Magazine , vol. 73, April 1927, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.
• Figure 2.4   “Mystery Airship” – Headline  by The San Francisco Call, via Wikimedia Commons, is in the public domain .
• Figure 2.5 The Scientific Method , by Heather Griffiths and Nathan Keirns, via OpenStax, is used under a CC BY 4.0 licence.
• Figure 2.6   Karl Popper in the 1980’s  by LSE Library, via Wikimedia Commons, has no known copyright restrictions .
• Figure 2.7 Mistaking Correlation for Causation  by Altimeter, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0  licence .
• Figure 2.8   Harriet Martineau by Richard Evans, via Wikimedia Commons, is in the public domain .
• Figure 2.9   Photo of Paulo Freire (1977)  by Slobodan Dimitrov, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence.

Introduction to Sociology – 3rd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2023 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Types of Research in Sociology

In this section, you will find an overview of different research methods in sociology. You will find links to tools and resources in the library related to the different types of research and writing.

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

• What's the Difference?
• Qualitative Research
• Quantitative Research

Research in Psychology is categorized into two general methods:

Non-numerical evidence, usually examined in its raw form

Used when a researcher wants to understand people's  opinions, idiosyncratic responses to an event, motivations, or underlying reasons for actions or decisions.

Learn about the Types of Qualitative Research Methods. link will open in a new window

Example: Interviewing the victims of a natural disaster to gather a range of emotional responses.

Numbers!  Collected as numerical data or converted into numerical data and examined using statistical methods of analysis.

Used to examine trends and compare populations.

Learn about the Types of Quantitative Research Methods. link will open in a new window

Example: Asking victims of a natural disaster to rank their feelings of anxiety using a pre-determined scale.

When to use them

Psychological research is best when it uses complementary quantitative and qualitative approaches together in the same study, a method called  triangulation.

Example:  Observing parent-child interactions while watching tv then comparing those observations to measured rates of social and cognitive development in the children who participated in the study.

The Research Continuum

The researchers record data by studying participants at a distance.   Researchers try not to influence the participants or their actions.

Types of observational studies include:  Naturalistic Observation link will open in a new window , Participant Observation link will open in a new window ,  or Ethnography. link will open in a new window

The researcher will collect and write detailed accounts of individual lives. A case study can combine a few research approaches, including interviews, observational data, and archival data.

Examples of Case Studies include Freud's history of Anna O link will open in a new window ., and the stories related in Oliver Sacks's best selling book  The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat .

A researcher applies their own analytical model to data that has already been collected.  They attempt to answer a new question or discover a new trend by looking at old data.

Typical sources of archival data include:  census data link will open in a new window , court records will open in a new window , medical records,  and even  case files  from other researchers.

Participants are asked a standard set of questions.  These questions may be delivered in writing or through an interview format.

There are three main types of questionnaire methods:   Random Sampling link will open in a new window , Stratified Sampling link will open in a new window , and Convenience Sampling link will open in a new window .

Researchers are trying to find a solution to an immediate, practical problem.  Examples include reducing drug use or improving worker happiness. 

Field research is a type of applied research that is undertaken in a non-laboratory setting. These settings may include a hospital or workplace.

Research conducted in a controlled environment.  The results help scholars in the field to learn more about psychological processes such as cognition or emotional development.

Common Research Methods

Types of observational studies include:  Non-Participant Observation   window or   Participant Observation .

A classic example of Case Studies in sociology is Erving Goffman's classic  Asylums. link will open in a new window

Information is gathered one-on-one by asking questions orally.   Structured Interviews can sometimes be used to gather quantitative data, because the structure allows the interview to function like a questionnaire.  

More qualitative types of interviewing range from the  Unstructured Interview  which functions like a conversation based around a set list of topics, to the  In-Depth Interview  which may range widely with only a loose guide to direct it.  

In-depth studies of groups in their natural setting.  These studies utilize multiple type of research to create a multi-layered report.  In addition to Participant Observation, a researcher may use interviews, questionnaires, or analysis of secondary research related to the group.

Some good examples of ethnographies available through the Library's online resources include:  Recovery's Edge : An Ethnography of Mental Health Care and Moral Agency Link will open in a new window by Neely Laurenzo Meyers, Sex Work and the City Link will open in a new window by Ysmina Katsulis, and The breakup 2.0 : disconnecting over new media Link will open in a new window by Ilana Gershon.

Experimental Research Methods

What is Experimental Research?

Experimental Research is a sub-type of research in sociology.  It may utilize the same methods as other research, but it differs in that it attempts measure variables as precisely as possible.

Experimental Research starts with a hypothesis  and uses a variety of research methods to  test  that hypothesis.  Ususally involves testing  causal relationships.

Researchers study the cause and effect of variables in a natural setting , such as a classroom or workplace.

This allows the researcher to study participants or phenomena in their natural setting, so results might be more accurate . But they have less control over the variables, so results might not be as precise .

Research conducted in a controlled environment.  

Participants' reactions may be influenced by the unnatural setting, but researchers have more control over variables.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Next Steps >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2023 12:40 PM
• URL: https://cccc.libguides.com/sociology

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis
• Understand why different topics are better suited to different research approaches

Sociologists examine the world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study—perhaps a detailed, systematic, scientific method for conducting research and obtaining data, or perhaps an ethnographic study utilizing an interpretive framework. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?” And if a researcher walked into a coffee shop and told the employees they would be observed as part of a study on work efficiency, the self-conscious, intimidated baristas might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —where people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research. In many cases, sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors. In situations like these, other methods are needed. All studies shape the research design, while research design simultaneously shapes the study. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

In planning studies’ designs, sociologists generally choose from four widely used methods of social investigation: survey, field research, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. Often, polls on television do not reflect a general population, but are merely answers from a specific show’s audience. Polls conducted by programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance represent the opinions of fans but are not particularly scientific. A good contrast to these are the Nielsen Ratings, which determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel and think—or at least how they say they feel and think. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or factual information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample : that is, a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. According to the laws of probability, random samples represent the population as a whole. For instance, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the study up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information. A common instrument is a questionnaire, in which subjects answer a series of questions. For some topics, the researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of quantitative data —research collected in numerical form that can be counted—are easy to tabulate. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or the option next to a checkbox. In those cases, the answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do plan to use your college education? Why do you follow Jimmy Buffett around the country and attend every concert? Those types of questions require short essay responses, and participants willing to take the time to write those answers will convey personal information about religious beliefs, political views, and morals. Some topics that reflect internal thought are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of information is qualitative data —results that are subjective and often based on what is seen in a natural setting. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. Interviews are similar to the short-answer questions on surveys in that the researcher asks subjects a series of questions. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as, “How did society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. And, obviously, a sociological interview is not an interrogation. The researcher will benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Sociologists seldom study subjects in their own offices or laboratories. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey. It is a research method suited to an interpretive framework rather than to the scientific method. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes a person or people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people behave. It is less useful, however, for understanding why they behave that way. You can’t really narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment.

Much of the data gathered in field research are based not on cause and effect but on correlation . And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables.

Some sociologists study small groups of people who share an identity in one aspect of their lives. Almost everyone belongs to a group of like-minded people who share an interest or hobby. Scientologists, folk dancers, or members of Mensa (an organization for people with exceptionally high IQs) express a specific part of their identity through their affiliation with a group. Those groups are often of great interest to sociologists.

Jimmy Buffett, an American musician who built a career from his single top-10 song “Margaritaville,” has a following of devoted groupies called Parrotheads. Some of them have taken fandom to the extreme, making Parrothead culture a lifestyle. In 2005, Parrotheads and their subculture caught the attention of researchers John Mihelich and John Papineau. The two saw the way Jimmy Buffett fans collectively created an artificial reality. They wanted to know how fan groups shape culture.

What Mihelich and Papineau found was that Parrotheads, for the most part, do not seek to challenge or even change society, as many sub-groups do. In fact, most Parrotheads live successfully within society, holding upper-level jobs in the corporate world. What they seek is escape from the stress of daily life.

At Jimmy Buffett concerts, Parrotheads engage in a form of role play. They paint their faces and dress for the tropics in grass skirts, Hawaiian leis, and Parrot hats. These fans don’t generally play the part of Parrotheads outside of these concerts; you are not likely to see a lone Parrothead in a bank or library. In that sense, Parrothead culture is less about individualism and more about conformity. Being a Parrothead means sharing a specific identity. Parrotheads feel connected to each other: it’s a group identity, not an individual one.

In their study, Mihelich and Papineau quote from a recent book by sociologist Richard Butsch, who writes, “un-self-conscious acts, if done by many people together, can produce change, even though the change may be unintended” (2000). Many Parrothead fan groups have performed good works in the name of Jimmy Buffett culture, donating to charities and volunteering their services.

However, the authors suggest that what really drives Parrothead culture is commercialism. Jimmy Buffett’s popularity was dying out in the 1980s until being reinvigorated after he signed a sponsorship deal with a beer company. These days, his concert tours alone generate nearly $30 million a year. Buffett made a lucrative career for himself by partnering with product companies and marketing Margaritaville in the form of T-shirts, restaurants, casinos, and an expansive line of products. Some fans accuse Buffett of selling out, while others admire his financial success. Buffett makes no secret of his commercial exploitations; from the stage, he’s been known to tell his fans, “Just remember, I am spending your money foolishly.”

Mihelich and Papineau gathered much of their information online. Referring to their study as a “Web ethnography,” they collected extensive narrative material from fans who joined Parrothead clubs and posted their experiences on websites. “We do not claim to have conducted a complete ethnography of Parrothead fans, or even of the Parrothead Web activity,” state the authors, “but we focused on particular aspects of Parrothead practice as revealed through Web research” (2005). Fan narratives gave them insight into how individuals identify with Buffett’s world and how fans used popular music to cultivate personal and collective meaning.

In conducting studies about pockets of culture, most sociologists seek to discover a universal appeal. Mihelich and Papineau stated, “Although Parrotheads are a relative minority of the contemporary US population, an in-depth look at their practice and conditions illuminate [sic] cultural practices and conditions many of us experience and participate in” (2005).

Here, we will look at three types of field research: participant observation, ethnography, and the case study.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a sociologist will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. Researchers temporarily put themselves into roles and record their observations. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, live as a homeless person for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in shaping data into results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised their purpose. This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd and Lynd 1959).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, as the story goes, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study. To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America , the book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

• Ethnography

Ethnography is the extended observation of the social perspective and cultural values of an entire social setting. Ethnographies involve objective observation of an entire community.

The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a community. An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith, institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male-dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” (1990; cited in Fensternmaker, n.d.) and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000), as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minority or outsider—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds did not sugarcoat or idealize U.S. life (PBS). They objectively stated what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. From that discovery, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business class and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material new reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six sections: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities. Each chapter included subsections such as “The Long Arm of the Job” and “Why Do They Work So Hard?” in the “Getting a Living” chapter.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (PBS).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times . Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of, for example, a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that a developed study of a single case, while offering depth on a topic, does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can add tremendous knowledge to a certain discipline. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” child development. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be collectable by any other method.

Experiments

You’ve probably tested personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that perhaps more data can be recorded in a certain amount of time. In a natural or field-based experiment, the generation of data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens, then another particular thing will result. To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might expose the experimental group of students to tutoring but not the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record, for example.

A real-life example will help illustrate the experiment process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory she conducted an experiment. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: black, white, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who’d had perfect driving records for longer than a year. Those were her independent variables—students, good driving records, same commute route.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support of the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The experiment was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data doesn’t result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or Facebook.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization, publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of the 2008 recession; a racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not include direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data doesn’t require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

But, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not include the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But the separate figures don’t necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research for their book Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture in the 1920s. Attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal the truth about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s’ attitudes and values.

Sociological research is a fairly complex process. As you can see, a lot goes into even a simple research design. There are many steps and much to consider when collecting data on human behavior, as well as in interpreting and analyzing data in order to form conclusive results. Sociologists use scientific methods for good reason. The scientific method provides a system of organization that helps researchers plan and conduct the study while ensuring that data and results are reliable, valid, and objective.

The many methods available to researchers—including experiments, surveys, field studies, and secondary data analysis—all come with advantages and disadvantages. The strength of a study can depend on the choice and implementation of the appropriate method of gathering research. Depending on the topic, a study might use a single method or a combination of methods. It is important to plan a research design before undertaking a study. The information gathered may in itself be surprising, and the study design should provide a solid framework in which to analyze predicted and unpredicted data.

Section Quiz

Which materials are considered secondary data?

• Photos and letters given to you by another person
• Books and articles written by other authors about their studies
• Information that you have gathered and now have included in your results
• Responses from participants whom you both surveyed and interviewed

What method did researchers John Mihelich and John Papineau use to study Parrotheads?

• Web Ethnography

Why is choosing a random sample an effective way to select participants?

• Participants do not know they are part of a study
• The researcher has no control over who is in the study
• It is larger than an ordinary sample
• Everyone has the same chance of being part of the study

What research method did John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd mainly use in their Middletown study?

• Secondary data
• Participant observation

Which research approach is best suited to the scientific method?

• Questionnaire
• Secondary data analysis

The main difference between ethnography and other types of participant observation is:

• ethnography isn’t based on hypothesis testing
• ethnography subjects are unaware they’re being studied
• ethnographic studies always involve minority ethnic groups
• ethnography focuses on how subjects view themselves in relationship to the community

Which best describes the results of a case study?

• It produces more reliable results than other methods because of its depth
• Its results are not generally applicable
• It relies solely on secondary data analysis
• All of the above

Using secondary data is considered an unobtrusive or ________ research method.

• nonreactive
• nonparticipatory
• nonrestrictive
• nonconfrontive

Short Answer

What type of data do surveys gather? For what topics would surveys be the best research method? What drawbacks might you expect to encounter when using a survey? To explore further, ask a research question and write a hypothesis. Then create a survey of about six questions relevant to the topic. Provide a rationale for each question. Now define your population and create a plan for recruiting a random sample and administering the survey.

Imagine you are about to do field research in a specific place for a set time. Instead of thinking about the topic of study itself, consider how you, as the researcher, will have to prepare for the study. What personal, social, and physical sacrifices will you have to make? How will you manage your personal effects? What organizational equipment and systems will you need to collect the data?

Create a brief research design about a topic in which you are passionately interested. Now write a letter to a philanthropic or grant organization requesting funding for your study. How can you describe the project in a convincing yet realistic and objective way? Explain how the results of your study will be a relevant contribution to the body of sociological work already in existence.

Further Research

For information on current real-world sociology experiments, visit: http://openstax.org/l/Sociology-Experiments

Butsch, Richard. 2000. The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to Television, 1750–1990 . Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben Wattenberg. 2000. “The First Measured Century: Middletown.” The First Measured Century . PBS. Retrieved February 23, 2012 ( http://www.pbs.org/fmc/index.htm ).

Durkheim, Émile. 1966 [1897]. Suicide . New York: Free Press.

Fenstermaker, Sarah. n.d. “Dorothy E. Smith Award Statement” American Sociological Association . Retrieved October 19, 2014 ( http://www.asanet.org/about/awards/duboiscareer/smith.cfm ).

Franke, Richard, and James Kaul. 1978. “The Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpretation.” American Sociological Review 43(5):632–643.

Grice, Elizabeth. “Cry of an Enfant Sauvage.” The Telegraph . Retrieved July 20, 2011 ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3653890/Cry-of-an-enfant-sauvage.html ).

Heussenstamm, Frances K. 1971. “Bumper Stickers and Cops” Trans-action: Social Science and Modern Society 4:32–33.

Igo, Sarah E. 2008. The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen Merrell Lynd. 1959. Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture . San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Lynd, Staughton. 2005. “Making Middleton.” Indiana Magazine of History 101(3):226–238.

Mihelich, John, and John Papineau. Aug 2005. “Parrotheads in Margaritaville: Fan Practice, Oppositional Culture, and Embedded Cultural Resistance in Buffett Fandom.” Journal of Popular Music Studies 17(2):175–202.

Pew Research Center. 2014. “Ebola Worries Rise, But Most Are ‘Fairly’ Confident in Government, Hospitals to Deal with Disease: Broad Support for U.S. Efforts to Deal with Ebola in West Africa.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, October 21. Retrieved October 25, 2014 ( http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/21/ebola-worries-rise-but-most-are-fairly-confident-in-government-hospitals-to-deal-with-disease/ ).

Rothman, Rodney. 2000. “My Fake Job.” Pp. 120 in The New Yorker , November 27.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. n.d. “Institutional Ethnography.” Retrieved October 19, 2014 ( http://web.uvic.ca/~mariecam/kgSite/institutionalEthnography.html ).

Sonnenfeld, Jeffery A. 1985. “Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies.” Journal of Occupational Behavior 6:125.

Introduction to Sociology 2e Copyright © 2012 by OSCRiceUniversity (Download for free at https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Professional Development

Exams admin, qualifications.

Centre Services

Art and Design

Computer Science

Design and Technology

Food preparation and Nutrition

Mathematics

Media Studies

Physical Education

Religious Studies

All subjects

Biology (8461)

Chemistry (8462)

Combined Science: Trilogy (8464)

English Language (8700)

English Literature (8702)

Geography (8035)

History (8145)

Mathematics (8300)

See all GCSEs

AS and A-levels

Biology (7401)

Business (7131)

Chemistry (7404)

Geography (7037)

History (7041)

Physics (7407)

Psychology (7181)

Sociology (7191)

See all AS & A Levels

Other qualifications

Applied Generals

AQA Certificate Mathematics

Entry Level Certificates

Project Qualifications

Unit Award Scheme

All qualifications

Our training

Course finder

About our training

Online training

Face-to-face training

Inside assessment

Courses by theme

Effective exam prep

Exams officers

Getting started with AQA

Virtual communities

Courses by subject

All Professional Development

Dates and timetables

Non-exam assessment (NEA)

NEA, coursework and controlled assessment

Deadlines for non-exam assessment

Record forms

Submit marks

Exams guidance

Question papers and stationery

Access arrangements

Special consideration

Results days

Results slips

Grade boundaries

Results statistics

Post-results services

Exam certificates

All Exams Admin

Assessment Services

Associate Extranet

Become an associate

All About Maths

Stride Maths

News & Insights

AQI research & insight

Inside exams podcast

GCSE Sociology 8192

GCSE Sociology Specification Specification for first teaching in 2017

PDF | 1.97 MB

3.7 Sociological research methods

In the context of the various social structures, social processes and social issues detailed in the specification, students should be able to:

• identify, describe and explain various methods and methodological issues
• identify and explain the advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of a particular method for a specific area of research
• demonstrate an understanding of the process of research design for a specific area of research, including practical difficulties and ethical issues
• demonstrate an understanding of the relevance and usefulness of various primary and secondary sources for a specific area of research
• demonstrate the ability to interpret data presented in a variety of forms.

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Exam Support

Knowledge Organiser for AQA GCSE Sociology: Research Methods

Last updated 27 Sept 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Here is a knowledge organiser that summarises research methods for AQA GCSE Sociology - covering types of data, pilot studies, practical and ethnical considerations, sampling, questionnaires, interviews and observations.

Free to download.

Download your Knowledge Organiser for AQA GCSE Sociology 'Research Methods' here.

You might also like

Example answer for question 1 paper 1: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), example answer for question 10 paper 2: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), example answer for question 3 paper 3: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa), a level sociology exam statistics for 2018, exam paper topic tracker for aqa gcse sociology (updated june 2024), quick revise - education and attainment | aqa gcse sociology revision blast video (paper 1), gcse sociology - take 5 theory checker, stratification & differentiation checklist for aqa a level sociology, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.