HUMAN INQUIRY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Lecture of Dr. Racidon P. Bernarte

SOME TRUISMS
1. Inquiry is a natural human activity; that is, people seek a general understanding about the
world around them. We recognize that present circumstances affect future circumstances.
We learn that getting an education will determine the amount of money we earn later in
life.
2. Much of what we know we know by agreement--rather than by experience. That is, we
inherit a culture made up, in part, of accepted knowledge about the way the world works.
(Our culture tells us who we are, so that we know where to go.) We learn from others that
eating too much candy ruins our teeth. We learn from others that, by studying hard,
people do well in their exams. We test some of the "truths," but accept the majority as
things "everybody knows."
3. By accepting what everybody knows, we save ourselves the task of starting from scratch.
Tradition and authority are important sources of understanding. But tradition can be
detrimental to human inquiry. If we seek a fresh understanding of something everybody
already understands, we may be called fools. By the same token, authority can hinder
human inquiry. We do well to trust the judgment of people who have special training and
expertise in particular matters, especially in the face of contradictory positions, but
sometimes experts err.
4. The key to inquiry is observation. We can never understand the way things work without
first having something to understand. Understanding through experience means making
observations and seeking patterns or regularities in what we observe. For the most part,
we move through life at an intuitive level, unconscious of particularities.
5. In day-to-day inquiry, we often make mistakes. We "misread" signs, as it were. Science
(our "model" for making these observations) offers some protection against such
mistakes. Scientists try to avoid mistakes by making careful and deliberate observations,
e.g., experiment, questionnaire, interview survey, and content analysis. Thus, making our
observations more deliberate will reduce the number of errors we make.
6. When we look for patterns among the things we observe around us, we often jump to
conclusions on the basis of only a few observations. Scientists avoid overgeneralization
via replication, the repeating of studies to determine their strengths and weaknesses. This
means repeating a study, checking to see if we reach the same conclusions.
7. Sometimes, after we've reached a conclusion, we ignore evidence that contradicts that
conclusion, only paying attention to evidence that confirms it. That is, one danger of
overgeneralization is that we engage in selective observation. As Babbie puts it, racial
and ethnic prejudices grow out of selective observation. By contrast, scientists commit
themselves in advance to a set of observations to be made, regardless of whether a pattern
seems to be emerging early. They specify in their research designs the kind and the
number of observations to be made.
 8. When confronted with contradictory evidence, we usually make up explanations to
explain away the contradictions. Often, this involves making assumptions about facts not
actually observed. As Babbie puts it, people often doubt the femininity of the woman who
is tough-minded, logical, and unemotional in getting the job done. Concluding that she is
not a "real" woman reaffirms the general conclusion that women are irrational and flighty.
Scientists make further observations to test those assumptions.
9. Sometimes, people simply reason illogically. One of the most remarkable creations of the
human mind (Babbie) is the notion that "the exception proves the rule," an idea that
makes no sense. An exception can draw attention to a rule, but in no system of logic can
it "prove" the rule it contradicts. People often use this pithy saying to brush away
contradictions--with a simple stroke of faulty logic. Scientists avoid this problem by
being as careful and deliberate in their reasoning as in their observations. The public
nature of science means that as a community scientists act as watchdogs, testing the work
of other scientists.
10. People often decide they understand some phenomenon and stop looking for
explanations. The search for patterns and regularities is not a trivial intellectual exercise.
It is tough. Our understanding of events often has psychological significance for us. That
is, we want to be perceived as competent--socially and professionally. By contrast,
scientists individually and as a community regard all issues as open. Science has been
characterized as logico-empirical. That is, two pillars have defined science: (a) logic or
rationality and (b) observation. Scientific theory deals with the logical aspect and
research deals with theobservational aspect of science.
11. Traditionally, (social) scientific research has addressed what is, not what should be. These
scientists have said that theory should not be confused with philosophy or belief. Taking
their cue from eighteenth-century social philosophers, who mixed their observations of
what happened around them with their ideas about how things ought to be, researchers
working in the Critical Theory and the Cultural Studies traditions have challenged these
notions.

Source: Babbie, 1986, pp. 5-25

THE CONDUCT OF INQUIRY

As we have seen, the term "inquiry" means the systematic, disciplined ordering of experience
that leads to the development of knowledge. The word "know" in knowledge includes knowing
that something is the case (philosophers distinguish between knowledge and belief); knowing
some person or feeling; and knowing to how do something. What interests us is the first usage.
The conduct of inquiry involves a planned method. We should note that inquiry has an expected
outcome. It has been argued (Miller and Nicholson, 1976) that most scholars move through the
following stages when they engage in inquiry:

 During the first stage, scholars ask significant questions and then suggest answers, i.e.,
they suggest hypotheses.
  During the second stage, scholars observe the object. Methods of observation vary from
tradition to tradition. Some scholars observe by examining records, including audio and
visual tapes; others get involved in their topic, as participants; still others use instruments
and set up controlled experiments.
 During the third stage, the scholar formulates answers. This stage can be defined as
theory building.

Experience shows that this process is interactive, that is, inquiry does not move from one stage to
another in a linear fashion (p. 9).

TYPES OF SCHOLARSHIP

Of course, different methods of observation lead to different kinds of theories or explanations of

phenomena. For convenience, we can group these approaches into the following forms of
scholarship: scientific, humanistic, and social scientific.

Scientific Scholarship

Scientific scholarship is associated with objectivity, by which we mean standardization. The

scientist tries to look at the world in such a way that other observers, using the same methods,
see the same thing in a given situation. The replication of a study is supposed to yield identical
results. Typically, science sees the world as having structure apart from differences between
individual observers. As well, scientists assume that the world sits in wait of discovery. If all
trained observers report the same results, we can conclude that the phenomenon has been
accurately observed.

Humanistic Scholarship

By contrast, humanistic scholarship is associated with subjectivity. Science aim to standardize

observation; the humanities seek creative individuality. Typically, humanists are more interested
in individual cases than in generalized theory. Science focuses on the discovered worlds; the
humanities focus on the discovering person. The humanities scholar tends not to separate the
knower from the known; thus, she believes that who one is determines what one sees. It should
be pointed out that the differences mentioned here relate to the primary thrust of the two groups
of scholarship; we can always find points of crossover.

Social Scientific Scholarship

Social Scientific scholarship includes elements of science and the humanities, yet it differs from
both. Social scientists study human behavior, that is, they try to interpret patterns of human
behavior. To understand human behavior, the scholar must observe it. If behavioral patterns do
exist, then observation must be as objective as possible. Once the behavioral phenomena are
accurately observed, they must be explained. Controversy about the nature of inquiry into human
life is common in social science. Can scientific explanation of human behavior take place
without a consideration of the humanistic knowledge of the observed person?
In the following sections, we develop the distinctions between "quantitative" research and
"qualitative" research, as it has been practised by researchers working in the Critical Theory and
the Cultural Studies traditions. Scholars working in these traditions borrow the research methods
or analytical techniques employed by social science scholars primarily.

Source: Littlejohn, 1992, pp. 9-11

FEATURES OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS

hard / soft
fixed / flexible
objective / subjective
value-free / political
survey / case study
hypothesis testing / speculative
abstract / grounded

Source: Silverman, 2001, p. 26

One might well get the impression that quantitative research was superior, because it is value-
free, but clearly these terms signify different things to different people.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Most researchers in the social sciences, i.e., anthropology, communications studies, economics,
geography, political sciences, psychology, and sociology, employ a line of inquiry that is (a)
public, (b) objective, (c) empirical, (d) systematic and cumulative, and (e) predictive in nature.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, John Dewey (1859-1952), the philosopher of
pragmatism, devised six steps for developing (in a logical way) sound solutions to problems.

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

1. recognize the problem

2. formulate the research question and deduce a possible explanation or hypothesis
3. select the appropriate approach or plan of action for measuring the data
4. implement the plan of action
6. readjust the planned solution in light of the feedback accumulated in step 5.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

method / features / advantages

1. Social survey / random samples; measured variables / representative; tests hypothesis
2. Experiment / experimental stimulus; control group not exposed to stimulus / precise
measurement
3. Official Statistics / analysis of previously collected data / large datasets
 4. Structured Observation / observations recorded on predetermined schedule / reliability
of observation
5. Content Analysis / predetermined categories used to count the content of media products
/ reliability of measures

Source: Silverman, 2001, p. 27

SOME CRITICISMS OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

1. Quantitative research can amount to a "quick fix," involving little or no contact with
people or the "field."
2. Statistical correlations may be based on "variables" that, in the context of naturally
occurring interaction, are arbitrarily defined.
3. After-the-fact speculation about the meaning of correlations can involve the very
common-sense process of reasoning that science tries to avoid.
4. The pursuit of "measurable" phenomena can mean that unperceived values creep into
research by simply taking on board highly problematic and unreliable concepts such as
"delinquency" or "intelligence."
5. While it is important to test hypotheses, a purely statistical logic can make the
development of hypotheses a trivial matter and fail to help in generating hypotheses from
data.

Source: Silverman, 2001, p. 31

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Many scholars use the terms quantitative research and qualitative research as if they were
positive and negative labels, the one suggesting that the researcher uses statistical techniques and
the other suggesting that the researcher uses interpretive techniques.

As David Silverman (2001) puts it, these terms are misleading, and choosing between these
research methods should depend upon what the research is trying to discover. That is,

 if you want to determine how people intend to vote in an election, you should choose a
quantitative method like a social survey, and
 if like Janice Radway (1984) you are interested in how a particular audience responds to
a particular cultural artifact, you would probably choose a qualitative method like
ethnography, perhaps in conjunction with a qualitative method like a questionnaire.

What the researcher has to bear in mind is the fact that, ultimately, scholars evaluate quantitative
and qualitative research methods differently.

Qualitative researchers remind us that we should not assume that the techniques used by
quantitative research are the only ways of establishing the validity of findings from qualitative or
field research (p. 32). That is, a number of practices which originate from quantitative studies
may be inappropriate to qualitative research. These include the assumptions that social science
research can be valid only if based on experimental data, official statistics, or the random
sampling of a population.

THE PREFERENCES OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHERS

the main features of qualitative research
1. A preference for qualitative data--understood simply as the analysis of words and images
rather than numbers.
2. A preference for naturally occurring data--observation rather than experiment,
unstructured as opposed to structured interviews.
3. A preference for meaning as opposed to behavior--attempting to document the world
from the point of view of the people studied.
4. A rejection of natural science as a model.
5. A preference for inductive, hypothesis-generating research as opposed to hypothesis-
testing, research.

Source: Silverman, 2001, p. 38

UNDERTAKING A RESEARCH PROJECT

Social scientists view research problems through particular prisms or theoretical

frameworks and they employ appropriate analytical methods or techniques to uncover the data
needed to answer the research questions they have posed.

BASIC TERMS IN RESEARCH

1. Model- an overall framework for looking at reality, e.g., behaviorism, feminism
usefulness
2. Concept- an idea deriving from a given model, e.g., stimulus-response
usefulness
3. Theory- a set of concepts used to define and/or explain some phenomenon
usefulness
4. Hypothesis- a testable hypothesis validity
5. Methodology- a general approach to studying research topics usefulness
6. Method- a specific research technique good fit with model, theory, hypothesis, and
methodology
Source: Silverman, 2001, pp. 3-4

Models provide an overall framework for how we observe reality. They identify the basic
elements ("ontology") and describe the nature and the status of knowledge ("epistemology"). We
think of models as "paradigms." In some research, these can be

 functionalism, which looks at the functions of social institutions;

 behaviorism, which defines all behavior in terms of "stimulus" and "response";
 symbolic interactionism, which focuses on how we attach symbolic meanings to
interpersonal relations; and
 ethnomethodology, which encourages us to look at the ways people produce orderly
social interaction in everyday life.

Concepts are clearly defined ideas deriving from a particular model. They include

 social function, deriving from functionalism;

 stimulus-response, deriving from behaviorism;
 definition of the situation, deriving from interactionism; and
 the documentary method of interpretation, deriving from ethnomethodology.

Concepts offer researchers ways of looking at the world.

Theories arrange sets of concepts for the purpose of defining and explaining some phenomenon.
A theory consists of plausible relationships between concepts and sets of concepts. A theory
enables us to understand such phenomenon as "gender," "personality," "talk," or "space." That is,
a theory provides a framework for critically understanding phenomena and a basis for
considering how what is known might be organised.

Researchers test hypotheses, e.g., how we receive advice is linked to how advice is given. In
many qualitative studies, researchers produce hypotheses during the early stages of a project. We
assess a hypothesis by its validity or truth.

By methodology we mean the choices researchers make regarding data-gathering methods. The
term defines how we will go about studying a given phenomenon. We think of qualitative and
quantitative methodologies.

By methods, we mean specific research techniques. These include quantitative techniques, such
as statistical correlations, as well as qualitative techniques, such asparticipant observation.
Behaviorists tend to favor quantitative methods and interactionists tend to favor qualitative
methods, e.g., observation, depending upon the hypothesis being tested.

Two major tendencies make life difficult for would-be social scientists: (1) failing to distinguish
research problems and the social problems that are discussed in the media and (2) taking on
impossibly large research problems.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
1. The term validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects
the real meaning of the concept under consideration.

In the experimental examination of attitudes such as prejudice, e.g., an audience is shown

a film and asked to respond to a questionnaire--we face a special practical problem
relating to validity. It is possible that the subjects in this experiment would respond to our
questionnaire differently the second time, even if their attitudes remained unchanged.
That is, the subjects may have been unaware of the purpose of the study the first time. By
the time of the second measurement, the respondents may have figured out that the
researchers were interested in measuring their prejudice. Since no one wishes to be
perceived as prejudiced, the subjects may well "clean up" their answers.

2. In the abstract, reliability is a measure is a matter of whether a particular techniques,

applied repeatedly to the same object, yields the same result each time. Estimating a
person's age by asking his or her friends would be less reliable than (a) asking the person
or (b) checking his or her birth certificate.

Reliability problems crop up in many forms in social research. Survey researchers have
known for a long time that different interviewers get different answers from different
respondents as a result of their own attitudes and demeanor. If we were to conduct a study
of editorial positions on some public issue, we might create a team of coders to take on
the job of reading hundreds of editorials and classifying them in terms of their position on
the issue. Different coders would code the same editorial differently (pp. 109-11).

3. Researchers should not ignore the ethics of research.

The German sociologist Max Weber (1946) pointed out that all research is contaminated
to some extent by the values of the researcher. From an ethical perspective, Weber was
fortunate in that much of his empirical research was based on documents and texts
already in the public sphere (p. 54).

In many other kinds of research, researchers confront difficult ethical issues. Both
quantitative and qualitative researchers studying human subjects ponder the dilemma of
wanting to give full information to the people they study while trying not to
"contaminate" their research by telling subjects too much about the research. The
researcher's responsibility is to protect the human subject, physically and psychologically.

ETHICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RESEARCHER

1. Decide the purpose(s) of your research, e.g., self-advancement, political advocacy, and so
on.
2. Determine which individuals or group might be interested or affected by your research
topic.
3. Determine what the implications are for these parties of framing your research topic in
the way you have.
Source: Silverman, 2001, p. 55

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As Silverman puts it, dichotomies or polarities in the social sciences can be highly dangerous. At
best, they are pedagogic devices for introducing a difficult field; at worst they serve as excuses
for not thinking.

Works Cited

Babbie, Earl. 1986. The Practice of Social Research. 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.

Miller, Gerald E., and Henry Nicholson. 1976. Communication Inquiry. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Silverman, David. 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and
Interaction. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why is it important to reflect on what one knows and how one knows it?
2. Discuss the ways--positive and negative--tradition and authority impact our
understanding. Give examples.
3. What meanings does the term "inquiry" convey to you?
4. Why can one say that "observation" is the key to any inquiry?
5. What has "the search for patterns" got to do with inquiry?
6. Distinguish scientific scholarship from humanistic scholarship. Give some examples.
7. Identify some of the features that distinguish quantitative methods of research
from qualitative methods of research.
8. Define the following terms: concept, theory, hypothesis, theoretical framework, and
analytical method. Give some examples.
9. Why should we as researchers think about "validity" and "reliability" when designing and
undertaking research projects?
10. Why should we as researchers think about "ethics" when designing and undertaking
research projects? Give some examples.
Concepts, Constructs, Variables, and Measurement

Concepts and Constructs

 Concepts are mental representations and are typically based on experience

o concepts can be of real phenomena (dogs, clouds, pain)

o concepts can be of agree-upon phenomena (truth, beauty, justice, prejudice, value,

etc.)
 Three classes of things can be measured
o direct observables (height, weight, color, etc.)

o indirect observables (questionnaires provide information on gender, age, income,

etc.)
o constructs (theoretical creations that are based on observations but which cannot
be seen either directly or indirectly; things such as IQ, Leisure Satisfaction,
Environmental Values, etc., are constructs

Variables and Measurement

 Measurement is the assignment of symbols to observable phenomena.

o There are two kinds of phenomena

 Constants
 Variables
 Concepts or constructs must be free to vary if they are to be variables;
otherwise they are constants
o There are 3 ways of measuring things:
  counting
 ordering
 classifying
 Before variables can be measured they must be defined. Types of definitions:
o Theoretical: the words used in a theory; basically dictionary or common use

o Operational: a definition that explains how the variable is to be measured

 Operational definition: assigns a meaning to a concept or variable by specifying the

operations needed to measure it
 Types of operational definitions
o directly measured: IQ, weight, attitude

o experimental: the details of how subjects are treated differently, such as:
Aggressive behavior= banging toys, other children; frustration = what happens
when children are in a room with toys they cannot reach.
 Independent and Dependent variables (except purely descriptive research)
o All research (except descriptive studies) must have at least two variables

 one can be IV and the other DV

 in symmetrical relationships, the question of which is independent and
which is dependent is moot
o Having an IV allows you to assume a cause-effect relationship: changes in the IV
result in changes in the DV
o If you cannot posit a cause-effect relationship, then you essentially have two IV's
(the level/score of each is independent of the other [although both may depend on
some other variable(s)])
o Having an IV allows more control and better inference about what is going on,
especially when you have an active IV.
 Active and Attribute Independent Variables
o attribute: level or score of the variable is brought to the experiment by the subject,
usually as a natural characteristic such as sex, age, etc.
o active: the level of the IV is manipulated by the experimenter

 Intervening variables: uncontrolled or unobserved variables that may account for

variation in the DV (also known as extraneous variables)
  Control variables: any variable that may affect DV should be controlled; that is, measured
and accounted for statistically or held constant (age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.,
could be control variables)

Measurement levels of variables

 Nominal (qualitative)
o naming/classifying

o no mathematical operations possible (except counting)

 Ordinal (qualitative, but sometimes used quantitatively)

o ordered on some dimension

o Boolean operations possible

 Interval (quantitative)
o ordered with equal intervals

o addition, subtraction, and Boolean operations

 Ratio (quantitative)
o ordered, equal intervals, absolute and meaningful zero

o all mathematical operations possible

Problems with measurement of variables

 Qualitative vs. quantitative variables

o reliability and validity are essentially measurement problems

o since qualitative variables are basically classificatory, there is less concern with
reliability and validity
 Reliability
o reliability refers to the observation of variation in scores earned by an individual
on repeated trials of the same measure (variation can be systematic or random)
o so, reliability = consistency

 Validity
o validity is the degree to which the measuring instrument actually measures the
concept in question
o validity also refers to the accuracy of the measurement
 o it is possible to measure a concept more or less accurately if you are actually
measuring the right concept but it is not possible to measure it accurately if you
are not measuring it at all.
 Measurement error
o due to sampling

o due to subject or experimenter effects

o measurement error results in decreased reliability and validity

Relationship between variables

 X and Y are correlated if they vary together

 concomitant variation = correlation
 correlation can be direct or inverse

Causal relationships

 concomitant variation does not demonstrate causality

 causality is difficult (or impossible) to demonstrate logically
 However, we can make the case that X causes Y, if
o there is a relationship between X and Y(birds go south in the fall), and

o the relationship is asymmetrical so that a change in X results in a change in Y, but

not vice versa (birds migrate because of fall but fall does not come because birds
migrate), and
o a change in X results in a change in Y regardless of the actions of other variables,
and
o generally, X should precede Y but sometimes symmetrical causality and
simultaneous causality are allowed; the effect can never precede the cause
 Necessary and sufficient cause
o necessary Y never occurs unless X also occurs (or has occurred)

o sufficient Y occurs every time X occurs (but could also occur without X; e.g.,
"smoking causes cancer")
o necessary, but not sufficient (X must occur before Y but, X alone, is not enough
for Y to occur; e.g., in order for me to shoot you with this gun (Y), I must point it
at you (X), but X is not sufficient for Y)
 o sufficient, but not necessary (X is sufficient to cause Y, but Z can also cause Y;
e.g., Fred is wet (Y) but did he fall into a pond (X) or did he get caught in the rain
(Z)?
o necessary and sufficient Y will never occur without X and will always occur with
X (e.g., the hand grenade will never explode without you pulling the pin and will
always explode when you pull the pin)
 Causality in social science
o difficult to demonstrate theoretically as our theories are inadequate for the
isolation of causes
o difficult to demonstrate methodologically

 survey methods usually do not give temporal sequences

 laboratory methods help to demonstrate causality since we control and
sequence independent and dependent variables