[Post for July 5] Sociological Research Methodology Versus the World

Research is utilized in all fields of study in order to gain a further understanding of phenomena that occur in the world. Just as scientists research and record data, sociologists do as well, but rather in a different means that still employs the use of the scientific method. Traditional research in the hard sciences entails a heavy reliance on quantitative research, recording and analyzing data that will be interpreted using statistics (Ritzer 83). Sociological researchers use both methods of quantitative research and qualitative research to interpret these phenomena. This differs from hard sciences because there is data that is open to vastly differing types of interpretation. Qualitative research for sociologists includes observation and open-ended interviews (Ritzer 81) which do not necessarily provide data that points to a clear explanation.

An example of qualitative research includes Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day. Venkatesh used a more involved form of observational research called participant observation, in which he played a minor role in the gang he was researching for the bulk of the time and then untraditionally, lead the gang for a day (Ritzer 85). Another participant observer is Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs, although he is not claim to be a researcher, he is performing a type of research used by many professionals. I work in a biomedical research lab and our data consists of hemodynamic values (heart rate, systolic/diastolic/mean arterial blood pressures, etc.), electrolyte values (pH, Na, K, hemoglobin levels, etc.), and other variables of how well the equipment that we are experimenting with is performing. Although I work with hard numbers and perform a more quantitative approach, it is not much different from the research that sociologists do.

Many believe that sociological research is equivalent to the application of common sense, but as an article I found on Cliffs Notes highlights, "Common sense is not always 'common,' nor 'sensible.' Statements like 'Birds of a feather flock together' and 'Opposites attract,' while supposedly based on common knowledge, contradict each other" (Sociology and Common Sense*). Common sense is not a reliable means to foretell outcomes in the future. People are a complicated subject to unravel and that is where the scientific method comes into play. By following the steps of the scientific method--hypothesis, background research, doing experiments, analyzing data, rinse and repeat--one should be able to accurately draw conclusions.

I know what you are thinking, sociology is such a broad subject, it is doubtful researchers will provide a correct explanation of their phenomena. That is the beauty of it, it is REsearch and nobody gets the answer on the first try. Unbelievable published results and fraudulence happen in every field, not just sociology. Take for example the Ohio State University study discussed on the Colbert Report; they drew the conclusion that watching late night TV plays a major role in causing depression in humans from experiments that exposed hamsters to dim light at night. It is apparent that this is quite a conclusion to draw from monitoring hamster brains that were in dim lights at night and comparing them to brains belonging to the depressed populous. These results were a type I error in research leading to a false positive correlation between two variables, not just OSU's inferiority to UM. Bottom line: everybody messes up research, not just sociologists, and yes, sociologists do real research.

*http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/sociology-and-common-sense