Samenvatting Social Research Methods - Methodologie van sociaal wetenschappelijk onderzoek (S_MTSWO)
Introduction to Social Science Methods: Uitwerkingen Learning Objectives gebaseerd op de Lectures
Samenvatting Hc's Om2
All for this textbook (67)
Written for
Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)
Communicatiewetenschap
Introduction to Research Methodology
All documents for this subject (6)
1
review
By: tatianamous22 • 3 year ago
Seller
Follow
kimvanloon
Reviews received
Content preview
Alan Bryman’s Social Research Methods
Chapter 2. Social research strategies: quantitative and qualitative research
Aim of this chapter is to show that a variety of considerations enter into the social research
process. The distinction that is commonly drawn in social research between quantitative and
qualitative research is explored in relation to these considerations. This chapter explores:
The relationship between theory and research (deductive and inductive approach)
Epistemological issues (positivism and interpretivism)
Ontological issues (objectivism and constructionism)
The ways in which these issues relate to the two types of research strategy
The ways in which values and practical issues impinge on the research process
The practice of social research does not exist in a bubble, sealed off from the social sciences
and the various intellectual positions of their practitioners. Two points are relevant here. First,
methods of social research are tied to different visions of how social reality should be studies.
Methods are not simply neutral tools. Secondly, there is the question of how research methods
and practice connect with the wider social scientific enterprise. Research data are invariably
collected in relation to a social problem or a theory. Research data achieve significance when
viewed in relation to theoretical concerns.
Theory and research
Characterizing the link between theory and research is not straightforward. There are several
issues at stake here, two stand out. First, there is the question of what form of theory one is
talking about. Secondly, there is the matter of whether data are collected to test or to build
theories. Theory is important because it provides a backcloth and justification for the research
and provides a framework within which social phenomena can be understood and interpreted.
What type of theory?
The term ‘theory’ is used as an explanation of observed regularities. There is a distinction
between theories of the middle range and grand theories. Examples of grand theories, which
operate at a more abstract level, include structural-functionalism, symbolic interactionism,
critical theory, post-structuralism, structuration theory etc.
According to Merton, grand theories offer few indications to researchers as to how
they might guide/influence the collection of empirical evidence. He argues that grand theories
are of limited use in connection with social research.
> Research in focus 2.1 – Grand theory and social research
This study is an example of the way in which a high-level theoretical notion (social capital
and its kindred concept of economic capital) associated with a social theorist can be employed
to illuminate research questions concerning the dynamics of modern urban living.
Middle-range theories are much more likely to be the focus of empirical enquiry. These
theories, unlike grand ones, operate in a limited domain. They vary in their range of
application. Middle-range theories represent attempts to understand and explain a limited
aspect of social life.
> Research in focus 2.2 – Conflict and contact theory: two middle-range theories
In the study of ethnic relations, there are two theories of relationships between ethnic groups
that have very different implications for inter-ethnic harmony. Each theory is about the effects
,of ethnic diversity on the quality of inter-group relations. Students of ethnic relations try to
establish the strengths and limitations of each theory.
Even the grand/middle-range distinction does not entirely clarify the issue of what a theory is.
This is because the term ‘theory’ is frequently used in a manner that means the background
literature in an area of social enquiry. In many cases, the relevant background literature
relating to a topic fuels the focus of an article and acts as the equivalent of a theory.
> Research in focus 2.3 – Background literature as theory: emotional labour and hairstylists
The goal of the research was to examine how far the giving of emotional favours was affected
by the nature of the relationship with the client in terms of whether the worker was an owner
or an employee. The literature on emotional labour forms the background to the study and the
main impetus for the interpretation of the findings.
Social scientists are sometimes prone to being dismissive of research that has no obvious
connections with theory, in either the grand or middle-range senses of the term. Such research
is often dismissed as naive empiricism
Key concept 2.1 – What is empiricism?
First, it is used to denote a general approach to the study of reality that suggests that only
knowledge gained through experience and the senses is acceptable. Ideas must be tested
before they can be considered knowledge. The second meaning of the term is related to this
and refers to a belief that the accumulation of ‘facts’ is a legitimate goal in its own right. It is
this second meaning that is sometimes referred to as ‘naive empiricism’.
It would be inaccurate to brand as naive empiricism the numerous studies in which the
publications-as-theory strategy is employed. Such research is conditioned by and directed
towards research questions that arise out of an examination of the literature. The literature acts
as a proxy for theory. Research that appears to have the characteristics of a fact-finding
exercise should not be dismissed as naive empiricism either.
In so far as any piece of research is linked to theory, what was the role of that theory? I have
written as though theory guides and influences the collection and analysis of data. In other
words, research is done in order to answer questions posed by theoretical considerations. But
an alternative position is to view theory as something that emerges after the collection and
analysis of data. The second factor in considering the relationship between theory and
research is the distinction between deductive and inductive theory.
Deductive and inductive theory
Deductive theory represents the commonest view of the nature of the relationship between
theory and social research, whereby the researcher draws on what is known about in a domain
and on relevant theoretical ideas in order to deduce a hypothesis that must then be subjected
to empirical scrutiny. Embedded within the hypothesis will be concepts that will need to be
translated into researchable entities. The researcher must both deduce a hypothesis and then
translate it into operational terms. This means that the researcher needs to specify how data
can be collected in relation to the concepts that make up the hypothesis.
This view on the role of theory in relation to research is the one that Merton had in
mind in connection with middle-range theory, which is ‘principally used in sociology to guide
empirical inquiry’. Theory and the hypothesis deduced from it come first and drive to process
of gathering data. The steps are outlined in figure 2.1.
,- Figure 2.1 – The process of deduction 1. Theory
2. Hypothesis
3. Data collection
4. Findings
5. Hypothesis confirmed or rejected
6. Revision of theory
The last step, revision of theory, involves induction, as the researcher infers the implications
of the findings for the theory that prompted the whole exercise. The findings are fed back into
the stock of theory and research findings associated with a certain domain of enquiry.
However, while the element of induction exists in the process, this approach is
typically depicted as predominantly deductive. When this deductive approach, which is
usually associated with quantitative research, is put into operation, it often does not follow the
sequence outlined in its pure form. As noted, ‘theory’ may refer to the literature on a certain
topic in the form of accumulated knowledge gleaned from books.
> Research in focus 2.4 – A deductive study
Röder and Mühlau note that egalitarian attitudes with respect to gender vary between nations.
They focus on migrants who move from a country in which egalitarian attitudes are weak to
one where they are strong. One of their hypotheses is: (a) Second-generation migrants have a
more egalitarian-gender ideology than the first generation; (b) the gender relations of the
origin country exert less influence on the gender attitudes for second-generation immigrants
than for first-generation immigrants.
This comprises three central concepts: second-generation immigrants (1), gender-
egalitarian attitudes (2) and gender relations of the origin country (3). In order to test the
hypothesis they used data from the European Social Survey. The authors had to be clear about
what they meant by second-generation immigrant (1). The measurement of gender-egalitarian
attitudes (2) was based on questions. These questions take the form of statements on which
respondents give their level of agreement on a five-point scale, with ‘strongly agree’ at one
end and ‘strongly disagree’ at the other. This style of questioning is known as a Likert scale.
For the measurement of gender relations of the origin country, they compiled an index that
was based on relevant information for each country.
The hypotheses were confirmed and the authors conclude that the ‘gender ideology is
affected by an intergenerational acculturation process’. This study demonstrates the process
whereby hypotheses are deduced from existing theory and then tested.
The deductive process appears very linear, however, there are many instances where this is
not the case. There is a certain logic to the idea of developing theories and then testing them.
We commonly think of theories is things that are quite revealing but that need to be tested
before they can be considered valid or useful. However, while the process of deduction (see
figure 2.1) does undoubtedly occur, it is better considered as a general orientation to the link
between theory and research.
Some researchers prefer an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and
research. Then, theory is the outcome of research which involves drawing generalizable
inferences out of observations. Figure 2.2 attempts to capture the essence of the difference
between inductivism and deductivism.
- Figure 2.2 – Deductive & inductive approach to the relationship between theory & research
Deductive approach Theory Observations/Findings
Inductive approach Observations/Findings Theory
, The inductive process is likely to entail a degree of deduction. Once the phase of theoretical
reflection on a set of data has been carried out, the researcher may want to collect further data
in order to establish the conditions in which a theory will and will not hold. Such a general
strategy is often called iterative: it involves weaving back and forth between data and theory.
The basic point is that induction represents and alternative strategy for linking theory and
research, although it contains a deductive element too.
> Research in focus 2.5 – An inductive study
See page 23 for the research of O’Reilly et al. In this study, the inductive nature of the
relationship between theory and research can be seen in the way that O’Reilly’s theoretical
idea (the notion of ‘service silo’ as a purposely designed managerial control strategy) derives
from her data rather than being formed before she had collected her data.
The research by O’Reilly et al. is an illustration of an inductive approach for two reasons.
First, it uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of data and the generation theory.
This approach is regarded as strong in terms of generating theories out of data. Secondly, an
inductive strategy of linking data and theory is typically associated with qualitative research.
It is useful to think of the relationship between theory and research in terms of
deductive and inductive strategies, but the issues are not always that clear cut. Deductive and
inductive strategies are possibly better thought of as tendencies rather than as separated by a
hard-and-fast distinction. But these are not the only issues that impinge on the conduct of
social research.
Epistemological considerations
An epistemological issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as
acceptable knowledge in a discipline. In social sciences, a central issue is the question of
whether the social world can and should be studies according to the same principles,
procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences. The position that affirms the importance of
imitating natural sciences is associated with an epistemological position known as positivism.
A natural science epistemology: positivism
The doctrine of positivism is difficult to outline in a precise manner, because authors use it in
different ways. For some, it is a descriptive category, one that describes a philosophical
position that can be discerned in research. For others, it is a negative term used to describe
crude and superficial practices of data collection.
Key concept 2.2 – What is positivism?
Positivism is an epistemological position that advocates the application of the methods of the
natural sciences to the study of social reality. Positivism entails the following principles:
1. Only phenomena and hence knowledge confirmed by the senses can genuinely be
warranted as knowledge (the principle of phenomenalism).
2. The purpose of theory is to generate hypotheses that can be tested and that will thereby
allow explanations of laws to be assessed (the principle of deductivism).
3. Knowledge is arrived at through the gathering of facts that provide the basis for laws
(the principle of inductivism).
4. Science must (and can) be conducted in a way that is value free (that is, objective).
5. There is a clear distinction between scientific statements and normative statements and
a belief that the former are the true domain of the scientist. This last principle is
implied by the first because the truth or otherwise of normative statements cannot be
confirmed by the senses.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller kimvanloon. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R68,01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
