Sociological

Research Method
Human behaviour in groups has remained the
central them in Sociological Research. However,
it is highly complex and difficult subject to deal

Human Behaviour changes too much from one

period to next to permit scientific, exact
prediction.
Human behaviour is too
elusive, subjective and complex
to yield to rigid categorization
and artificial instruments of
science
Human behaviour can be studied only
by other human observers , and these
always distort fundamentally the facts
being observed, so that there can be
no objective procedure for achieving
the truth
Human beings are the subject of such
predictions and have the ability
deliberately to upset any prediction we
make
Sociologists are engaged constantly
in predicting social behaviour.

Indeed if sociologists could not do

so, the society could not exist at all.

Sociologists abstract various factors

from the behaviour of other people,
and thus find their behaviour
understandable.
All sciences simplify their subject
matter and sociologists are also
struggling in the same direction—
simplifying the understanding of
behaviour in groups by reducing
variability and complexity
Techniques and Method

Technique is skill or tools which

help a researcher to collect and
process the data for analysis and
explanation (gathering and ordering
of data).
Method is application of fundamentals
of science to the field of Sociology

Science is popularly defined as an

accumulation of systemic knowledge.

It is also explained merely as mode of

analysis that permits the scientists to
state propositions in the form of IFS,-
THEN-,
Theory and Fact
Popular opinion generally conceives of
these as direct opposition.

Theory is confused with speculation, and

thus a theory remains speculation until it
is proved.

When this proof is made, theory becomes

fact.
In this popular misconception science
is thought to be concerned with facts
alone.
Theory (speculation) is supposed to be
the realm of philosophers.

But in scientific research it becomes

clear that theory and Facts are not
diametrically opposed, but intertwined;
that theory is not speculation; and that
scientists are very much concerned
with both theory and fact
Fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable
observation.

Fact could have never produced modern science

if they have been gathered at random.

Without some system, some ordering principles,

in short, without theory, science could yield any

predictions. Without prediction there could be no
control over the material world.
It can be said the fact of science are the
product of observations that are not random
but meaningful—theoretically relevant.

Thus, we can’t think of theory and fact as

being opposed. The development of science
can be considered as a constant interplay
between theory and fact
Theory as a tool of science is important for various
reasons:

1.It defines the major orientation of a

science, by defining a kinds of data
which are to be abstracted.
2. It offers a conceptual scheme
by which the relevant phenomena
are systematized, classified and
interrelated
3. It summarizes facts into empirical
generalization, and system of
generalization
4. It predicts facts
5. It points to gaps in our knowledge
A major function of the theoretical system is
that it narrows the range of facts to be
studied.

Any phemenon or object may be studied in

many different ways.

Theory and facts are, then in constant

interaction. Development in one may lead to
development in other
CONCEPT

Concepts are logical construct created from the

sense impressions, percept, or even complex
experiences.

A concept is like a fact, is an abstraction, not a

phenomenon. It takes its meaning from the
thought framework within which it is placed.

It symbolise the empirical relationships and

phenomena which are stated by the facts. But it
should be communicable in very special sense
Hypothesis

It is a proposition which can be put to a test to

determine its validity. It may be proved to be
correct or incorrect.

Formulation of deduction can be called

Hypothesis when verified become part of
theoretical construction.
Hypothesis should be conceptually
clear.

It should have empirical

referents( no moral judgment).

It must be specific.
STAGES OF RESEARCH

Formulation of Research Topic

Literature Review

Consulting Researcher/ Professionals

Theoretical and Conceptual
clarification

Identification of Data sources

Identify Techniques of Data collection

Data Collection (Both Primary and
Secondary)

Data Processing and data

analysis by using statistical tools

Reporting
 SURVEY: How to Begin

A survey usually originates when an

individual or institution is confronted with
an information need and the existing data
are insufficient.

At this point, it is important to consider if

the required information can even be
collected by a survey.
If a survey is decided upon, the first step
is to lay out the objectives of the
investigation.

The objectives of a survey should be as

specific, clear-cut, and unambiguous as
possible.

Tradeoffs typically exist and sometimes

this only becomes apparent as the
planning process proceeds.
How to Plan a Survey Questionnaire?

First, the mode of data collection must be

decided upon (e.g., mail, telephone, or in
person).

Once this has been determined a questionnaire

can then be developed and pretested.

Planning the questionnaire is one of the most

critical stages in the survey development
process.
Questionnaire construction has elements that
often appear to be just plain common sense,
but, when they are implemented, may involve
some subtlety.

It is common sense to require that the concepts

be clearly defined and questions
unambiguously phrased; otherwise, the
resulting data are apt to be seriously
misleading.

.
Sampling--The quality of the sampling
frame—whether it is up-to-date and
complete — is probably the dominant
feature for ensuring adequate coverage
of the desired population to be surveyed.

Some types of samples are

straightforward , requiring little in the
way of experience or training; others are
highly complex and may require many
stages of selection.
Whether simple or complex, the goal of a
properly designed sample is that all of the
units in the population have a known, positive
chance of being selected.

The sample plan also must be described in

sufficient detail to allow a reasonably accurate
calculation of sampling errors.

These two features make it scientifically valid

to draw inferences from the sample results
about the entire population that the sample
represents
 How to Choose a Random Sample
Virtually all surveys taken seriously by social
scientists and policymakers use some form of
random sampling.

Methods of random sampling are well grounded

in statistical theory and in the theory of
probability.

Reliable and efficient estimates of needed

statistics can be made by surveying a carefully
constructed sample of a population. This is
provided, of course, that a large proportion of
the sample members give the requested
information.
The particular type of sample used depends
upon the objectives and scope of the survey.

Factors include the nature of potentially

available frames, the overall survey budget, the
method of data collection, the subject matter,
and the kind of respondent needed.

Deciding on the right respondent in a

household sample is a key element in
“assuring” quality.
Stages of survey

Data are not inherently quantitative, and can be

bits and pieces of almost anything.

They do not necessarily have to be expressed

in numbers.

Data can come in the form of words, images,

impressions, gestures, or tones which
represent real events or reality as it is seen
symbolically or sociologically
Qualitative research uses
unreconstructed logic to get at what is
really real -- the quality, meaning,
context, or image of reality in what
people actually do, not what they say
they do.
Unreconstructed logic means that there are
no step-by-step rules, that researchers ought
not to use prefabricated methods or
reconstructed rules, terms, and procedures
that try to make their research look clean and
neat.

It is therefore difficult to define qualitative

research since it doesn't involve the same
terminology as ordinary science. The
simplest definition is to say it involves
methods of data collection and analysis that
are nonquantitative.
PARTICIPANT-OBSERVATION

It is the process of involving yourself in the

study of people you're not too different from.

It is almost always done covertly, with the

researcher never revealing their true purpose or
identity. If it's a group you already know a lot
about, you need to step back and take the
perspective of a "martian", as if you were from
a different planet and seeing things in a fresh
light.
If it's a group you know nothing about, you need
to become a "convert" and really get committed
and involved.

The more secretive and amorphous the group,

the more you need participation. The more
localized and turf-conscious the group, the
more you need observation
It's customary in the literature to describe four roles:

•Complete participation -- the researcher

participates in activities and goes on to
actively influence the direction of the group

•Participant as observer -- the researcher

participates in activities but does not try to
influence the direction of the group
•Observer as participant -- the
researcher participates in a one-time
activity but then takes a back seat to
any further activities

•Complete observation -- the

researcher is a member of the group
but does not participate in any
activities
It's difficult to say which of these four roles are the most common,
probably the middle two.

The key point behind all of them is that the researcher must operate
on two levels: becoming an insider while remaining an outsider.

They must avoid becoming oversocialized, or "going native", as well

as being personally revolted or repulsed by the group conduct.

Going native is sometimes described as giving up research and

joining the group for life, but in most sociological circles, it means
losing your objectivity and glorifying activities.

Generally, it takes time to carry out participant-observation, several

weeks or months to 2-4 years. In criminology, Gangs, hate groups,
prostitutes, and drug dealers have all been studied by this method
The following are some standard rules for taking field
notes (adapted from Neuman & Wiegand 2000):
•Take notes as soon as possible, and do not talk to
anyone before note taking
•Count the number of times key words or phrases are
used by members of the folk group
•Carefully record the order or sequence of events, and
how long each sequence lasts
•Do not worry that anything is too insignificant; record
even the smallest things
•Draw maps or diagrams of the location, including your
movements and any reaction by others
•
Write quickly and don't worry about spelling; devise
your own system of punctuation

•Avoid evaluative judgments or summarizing; don't call

something "dirty" for example, describe it

•Include your own thoughts and feelings in a separate

section; your later thoughts in another section

•Always make backup copies of your notes and keep

them in a separate location
CASE STUDYAS METHOD
Occurs when all you have is information about one
unique example, and you want to generalize about all
cases of that type.

Almost all case studies involve unstructured interview

and ethnographic methodology (meaning the subject was
allowed to express themselves in their own words).

It's difficult to describe the variety of techniques used to

arrive at useful generalizations in a case study.

The idea is to find a subject so average, so typical, so

much like everyone else, that he/she seems to reflect the
whole universe of other subjects around him/her.
 CONTENT ANALYSIS
It is a technique for gathering and analyzing the content of
text. The content can be words, phrases, sentences,
paragraphs, pictures, symbols, or ideas.

It can be done quantitatively as well as qualitatively, and

computer programs can be used to assist the researcher.

The initial step involves sorting the content into themes,

which depends on the content. If you were studying white
collar crime, for example, you might have themes like
planning, action, and cover up.
Then, a coding scheme is devised, usually in basic
terms like frequency (amount of content), direction
(who the content is directed to), intensity (power of
content), and space (size of content).

The coding system is used to reorganize the themed

content in what is called manifest coding. Manifest
coding is highly reliable because you can train
assistants to do it, ensuring intercoder reliability, and
all you're doing is using an objective method to count
the number of times a theme occurs in your coding
scheme.
HISTORIOGRAPHY is the method of doing historical
research or gathering and analyzing historical
evidence. There are four types of historical evidence:
primary sources, secondary sources, running records,
and recollections.

Historians rely mostly on primary sources which are

also called archival data because they are kept in
museums, archives, libraries, or private collections.

Emphasis is given to the written word on paper,

although modern historiography can involve any
medium.
Secondary sources are the work of other historians
writing history. Running records are documentaries
maintained by private or nonprofit organizations.

Recollections are autobiographies, memoirs, or oral

histories.

Archival research, which is the most common, involves

long hours of sifting through dusty old papers, yet
inspection of untouched documents can yield
surprising new facts, connections, or ideas.
FOCUS GROUPS

According to the late political consultant Lee

Atwater, the conversations in focus groups
“give you a sense of what makes people tick and
a sense of what is going on with people’s minds
and lives that you simply can’t get with survey
data.”

Focus groups are not polls but in-depth,

qualitative interviews with a small number of
carefully selected people brought together to
discuss a host of topics.
Unlike the one-way flow of information in a
one-on-one interview, focus groups generate
data through the give and take of group
discussion.

Listening as people share and compare their

different points of view provides a wealth of
information—not just about what they think,
but why they think the way they do.

Focus groups are an increasingly popular way

to learn about opinions and attitudes.
The composition of a focus group is usually based on
the homogeneity or similarity of the group members.
Bringing people with common interests or experiences
together makes it easier for them to carry on a
productive discussion.

Often a research project will use different groups to get

differing views. For example, an organization is planning
a major restructuring . It would be desirable to have
three separate focus groups—union members, nonunion
employees, and managers. Each of these groups would
represent a potentially different interest
The composition of a focus group is usually
based on the homogeneity or similarity of the
group members.

Demographic characteristics are another way to

determine focus group composition.

One caution—remember that with a focus group,

it is not possible to compare the results from
different groups in a strict quantitative sense,
because they lack representativeness
Generally, focus groups are conducted by
trained “moderators,” who are skilled in
maintaining good group dynamics. Depending
on the purpose of the focus group, the
moderator may also be an expert in a given topic
area.

The moderator’s basic job is to keep the group

“focused.” He or she has the goal of helping the
group generate a lively and productive
discussion of the topic at hand.
It is imperative that a moderator understand the
underlying objectives of the study. Much of the data
quality in focus groups depends on how effectively the
moderator asks the questions and how well this person
keeps the discussion targeted on the research
objectives. Making this work requires the ability to
tailor one’s moderating style to different types of
groups.

Questions should be open-ended so that t here are

many possible replies. Short – answer questions, such
as those that can be answered “ Yes” or “No” should
be avoided. It is also important to avoid leading
questions that suggest the moderator’s opinion or the
answer that he or she hopes to receive.
Size
The ideal size for a focus group is generally between six
and twelve people. This size group encourages
participants to contribute their ideas.

Too-small groups are easily dominated by one or two

members, or they may fall flat if too few people have
anything to contribute. (Another problem is that the
session may lapse into serial interviewing and lack
energy. )

Too large a group lacks cohesion and may break up into

side conversations, or people may become frustrated if
they have to wait their turn to respond or to get involved.
At the focus group itself, the moderator begins with
an introduction that should include the following:

Explaining the purposes of the focus group n laying

down some basic ground rules to encourage
everyone to participate in the discussion

Reassuring the participants about the voluntary and

confidential nature of their Participation introducing
the moderator and any co moderators and explaining
how and why these group members were invited to
participate
Advantages of Focus Groups

Among the advantages of focus groups are the following:

A wide range of information can be gathered in a

relatively short time span.

The moderator can explore related but unanticipated

topics as they arise in the discussion .

Focus groups do not require complex sampling

techniques.
Disadvantages of Focus Groups
There is also a set of accompanying disadvantages :

The sample is neither randomly selected nor

representative of a target population, so the results
cannot be generalized or treated statistically.

The quality of the data is influenced by the skills and

motivation of the moderator.

Focus groups lend themselves to a different kind of

analysis than would be carried out with survey
results. In surveys, The emphasis is on counting and
measuring versus coding/classifying/ sorting in a
focus group.
pretesting
The systematic checking or pretesting of a questionnaire is central to
planning a good survey. Much of the accuracy and interpretability of
the survey re s u l t s hinge on this pretesting step—which should
never be omitted.

Pretesting is critical for identifying questionnaire problems. These can

occur for both respondents and interviewers regarding question
content, “skip patterns,” or formatting.

Problems with question content include confusion with the overall

meaning of the question, as well as misinterpretation of individual
terms or concepts.

Problems with how to skip or navigate from question to question may

result in missing data and frustration for both interviewers and
respondents.

Questionnaire formatting concerns are particularly relevant to self-

administer questionnaire.
Types of Pretesting

Pretesting techniques are divided into two major

categories—pre - field and field.

Pre - field techniques are generally used during

the preliminary stages of questionnaire
development.

They include respondent focus groups and

cognitive laboratory interviews .