CHAPTER 5 : Basic Elements of the Scientific Method : Concepts

1. Every science attempts to investigate only particular sections or aspects of reality. It carried out this
investigation with an abstract system of thought to interpret those segments of reality.
i. This abstract system of thought ( abstractions) developed by the sciences to communicate
their findings refers to concepts.
2. When we formulate a proposition, we use concepts as symbols of the phenomena we are studying. In
our research, it is really these underlying phenomena which we are relating to one another and not
their symbolic representations.
3. Because we deal directly with only the concepts, however, it is obvious that we may at times confuse
the concept with the phenomenon it is supposed to symbolize. This is a common error, to be discussed
in a moment under the term "reification."
4. Since all these concepts are abstractions and represent only certain aspects of reality, it becomes
important to know (1) which aspects we should study, and (2) how to develop concepts for them. This
chapter deals with only (2) i,e the process of conceptualisation.

 The Concept as Abstraction

1. Concepts are logical constructs created from sense impressions or sensory impressions. They are
abstracted and generalised sense impressions.
2. The process of conceptualization is one of abstracting and generalizing sense impressions
3. The concept is not the phenomenon itself. These logical constructs do not exist outside the stated
frame of reference
4. The failure to recognize this is termed the fallacy of reification , that is, treating abstractions as it they
were actual phenomena.
5. Concepts are often confused with facts. They do have similarities.
i. Both facts and concepts are abstractions.
ii. They have meaning only within some frame of reference, some theoretical system.
iii. A concept, like a fact, is an abstraction, not a phenomenon. It takes its meaning from the
theoretical framework within which it is placed.
6. The distinction between fact and concept is that concepts symbolize the empirical relationships and
phenomena which are stated by the fact.
i. A fact is stated as a relationship between concepts.
ii. A fact is "a logical construct of concepts."
7. Concepts are the foundation of all human communication and thought. Since, however, science
requires a greater precision in communication, the process of conceptualization must be much more
consciously a part of science than is the case for most common-sense and everyday contexts.

 Concepts And Communication

1. Concepts in science must be communicable in a very special sense. They must not merely arouse a
vague "feeling" but must be so constructed that all their components are known. The concepts must
be very precisely defined.
2. Because of the differences between the common-sense framework and the scientific way of looking at
the world, precise definition has a paradoxical quality.
 i. It facilitates communication within the sciences, but it also raises barriers to the lay
understanding of scientific concepts.
ii. This is voiced in the common complaint that science uses "big words.
3. For example, an article chosen randomly from this journal contains in its first paragraph the following
terms: "specific adsorption," "antibody molecules," "angstrom units," "diluted antiserum," and
"heterologous serum." Could .this paragraph have been written so that even a "welleducated" but lay
public could understand it? The answer is "yes," but it would no longer be a paragraph. It would be a
series of volumes. Each phenomenon that each of these concepts represent would have to be
elaborated in detail instead . ‘Diluted antiserum’ would have to be elaborated upon instead of just
writing ‘diluted antiserum’. Sure, a layman would understand it but it would be hella inefficient for the
scientific community who has to work with this information. It’s like if in the kinship paper the word
‘nuclear family’ did not exist and everytime we had use the concept we had to explain what a
nuclear family is instead of just writing ‘nuclear family.
4. These necessary terms are not merely big words chosen to impress the uninitiated, nor are they "just
the difficult way of stating common sense."They are rather the vital "shorthand" of science, the
precise terms which are basic to easy communication between scientists.

 Problems In Definition And Communication

1. Definitions of concepts are not always clear and they can lack clarity.
2. There can be many reasons for this lack of clarity.
i. Terms used to denote scientific concepts may also be used in other frames of references and
have different meanings in other frames of reference.
- Many scientific words are "contrived" by scientists in such a way that they will have no
referent outside the specific scientific frame of reference. This is done in several ways.
Frequently the terms are constructed from Greek or Latin roots, or they may be given the
name of the man who first elaborated the concept
- These concepts are relatively easy to keep clear linguistically, since the terms are not used
in lay vocabularies, but many of the other words of science are also used in other contexts.
- For example : culture has a specific meaning in anthropology and in lay language. the
student of anthropology and sociology must learn that "culture" does not refer to an
acquaintanceship with opera, painting, literature, or "good" manners, but rather to the
totality of the social heritage of any society.
- Such similarity can lead to lack of conceptual clarity
ii. Even within the same theoretical system, a term denoting a concept may refer to different
phenomenon
- To illustrate this common experience in science, Robert K. Merton cites the complex usage
of the term "function." Leave alone its lay understanding, even within the field of
sociology it has diverse meanings.
- Especially in socioeconomic analysis it may refer to occupational phenomena. Sometimes,
on the other hand, it is used in a mathematical sense: phenomenon X (divorce rates,
fertility, social acceptability) is a function of phenomenon Y (economic position). Again, and
more commonly in social anthropology, its meaning has been taken from biology to denote
the contribution which a given practice or belief makes toward the continued existence of
the society.
iii. Different terms may refer to the same phenomenon
- Different scientists with different experiences and researches may work on the same
phenomenon.
 - In such a case, each of these scientists might use a different term to denote the same
concept and phenomenon.
- This can be hella confusing.
iv. A term may have no immediate empirical referent at all.
- Scientific theory often deals with things that have not been directly observed. Concepts of
this kind have as referents the ldgical relationships between other concepts.
- For example : Social structure . The structure of a group cannot be weighed and will
respond to none of the common physical measurements. The only data are the
observations of the activities of people. The only data are the observations of the activities
of people.
- Such a concept, then, has a very complex series of referents, through other concepts,
before the empirical reference is clear. There is ultimately an empirical referent, but the
basic concept properly refers to logical relationships between other concepts.
- It is of the greatest importance for conceptual clarity that the ultimate empirical
referents of a concept be determinable, even though they may be several logical
operations removed.
v. The meaning of concepts may change
- Every science sees its terms continuously being modified as its knowledge accumulates.
- The more is known about the referent a concept, the more specifically that concept can be
defined.
- Another source of such changes in meaning is the changing focus of a science as it grows.
Attention may be centered upon different aspects of the same concept in such a way as to
change its meaning, although the same term is kept.
- Thus, instead of "status" alone, we may come to use ··'status," "rank," "role," "position,"
"situs," and so on.

 Reconceptualisation
1. These types of confusion ( as mentioned in the previous section) are faced by the community of
scientists in a given field and are gradually solved by joint research and discussion.
2. These difficulties should not make us pessimistic . Lack of conceptual clarity is normal and solvable.
i. Mostly , the terms are clear and cause little difficulty
ii. Since scientists are working on much the same group of problems with similar techniques and
vocabulary, an occasional confused or obscure conceptual usage may cause little difficulty. The
context of the exposition generally, points- to the intended meaning of the concept.
iii. From time to time, conceptual analyses are made which point to confused or overlapping
usage and suggest a solution. ·Thus, difficulties in communication do not proceed far without
correction.
iv. As the science develops, many conceptual problems are by-passed when the concepts
themselves become irrelevant to the newer theoretical tasks
3. However just because we have basic clarity does not mean we should be content. Some procedures
can be employed for further clarifying our thinking about concepts we use in our research problems.
This process of clarification is called reconceptualisation or respecification of the concept as given by
Robert Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld.
4. Reconceptualisation concepts in a research project has the following steps
i. After writing out the preliminary statement of the project, the student should carefully select
from the statement a list of all the major concepts: "marital adjustment," "family ritual etc.
ii. An analysis of the apparent meaning elements of the concepts should be made.
 - For example, we may find that in our concept of marital adjustment there are elements
such as these: (a) personal happiness; (b) conformity with the rules of the society; (c)
acceptance of fate; (d) being in love with one's spouse etc.
- In this case, we would have to decide how many of these meaning elements we would be
able to accept as part of our concept and what to do about contradicting meaning
elements.
iii. Then, the student must return to the published literature in which the concept has been used,
in order to discover the various usages of the term.
- We may find specific aids to clear thinking.
- Sometimes these further definitions will change our approach to the problem. "Juvenile
delinquency," for example, may be defined in terms of commitment to a reform school, in
one investigation. In another, it may be defined by conviction alone. Each of these
definitions changes the research project considerably, since the phenomenon being
studied is different in each case. We may then have to reanalyze the usual practice of
equating adult crime with juvenile crime.
- The more we connect with other literature the more different kinds of meanings we will
find for our phenomenon and the more we will have to explain why these phenomenon
are different or same to the ones we are studying. Such increased explanation will lead to
increased clarity and precision.
iv. A further step should also be taken ie. that of relating the phenomenon to similar phenomena
which have been described by other terms, and often in other fields.
- This step should be taken separately from the previous one of bringing together the
various phenomena that have been described by the same term.
- These steps might seem tedious but they are useful for providing clarity. They allow us to
codify similar elements of the concepts from many fields.
- They expand the scope of our concept by relating it to other sharper concepts
- It makes it easier to develop specific hypotheses for immediate research
- It ensures that we are not analyzing concepts in pure abstraction but are redefining them
in direct relationship to the social behavior being reported in these other studies. Thus
they have a basis in fact, at the same time that they are being integrated with further
theoretical development.
v. A final operation of reconceptualisation is ascertaining the next higher (or lower) level of
generalization of the concept
- science must integrate both levels – general as well as specific
- Its specific research activities must always be concerned with the concrete, while its aim is
to produce the general.
- Similarly, in sociology we may study the apparently trivial, but our work remains trivial
unless we can generalize from it.
- Therefore, one aim in reconceptualisation is to integrate carefully these different levels of
observation. The result is a greater clarity in the concepts we use.
- Prooceeding from the highly general concept to the more concrete simply challenges the
student to translate his broad notions into concepts that are concrete enough to be
observable.
- From either direction, this operation forces the student to attempt to locate concrete
behavior for possible observation, to identify which conceptual elements are of primary
concern, and thereby to have a much clearer notion of how general his concept is.
 The Operational Definition
1. There is a debate in the sciences whether a concept is most usefully and precisely defined by describing
the operations which observe, measure, and record a given phenomenon.
2. The "fact-minded" group has leaned toward the opinion that a concept like "mass" or "length" or
"social cohesion" means a set at operations. Thus, the mass of an object is the number obtained when
we go through the operation of weighing the object on a balance.
3. The opposition group has contended that when we think of such a concept, we do not "mean" merely
these operations. Rather, they are simply the techniques we have to use in order to get at, or measure,
something behind those operations-the phenomenon itself.
4. At the present stage of sociology, we may find a compromise between these positions.
- In sociology many contend that a concept is a set of directions, in one major sense: it
directs the reader to a particular kind of experience, one which has to some extent been
shared. If it does not do so, communication is difficult.
- Most concepts refer to phenomena that are not measurable or visible to the naked eye. By
defining these phenomena through a set of directions, there is greater assurance that
scientists from other nations. thinking in other languages, will "mean" the same thing.
- It seems likely that as sociology develops a more precise and more corrtmonly shared set
of research operations, there will be an increasing development of operational definitions.
- At the same , others believe that using directions as concepts creates a gateway for
confusion. Take the example of the who sociologist decides to define "status" by means of
a set of directions which tell the researcher to mark on a standardized list of items such as
whether the family possesses certain objects such as rugs, living-room lamps, or a radio or
television set etc.
- If he now attempts to analyze "status" on the basis of this research, however, he won’t find
that his facts will be easily comparable to older analyses of status
- The source of the confusion is that he is using the same term to refer to different
phenomena: (1) the data from his newly defined operations; and (2) the data traditionally
associated with "status.
vi. An operational definition, therefore, may define, a phenomenon with greater definiteness in
that it outlines the directions for having the same experience as other researchers.
vii. On the other hand, the redefinition that is the/result of such a definition may leave out
important elements of an older concept
viii. Furthermore, in order to develop an operational definition, considerable research must he
done upon the phenomenon to be defined.
ix. Consequently, we should not attempt an operational definition merely to be in fashion. We
must do so in full consciousness of its problems.
CHAPTER 6: Basic Elements of the Scientific Method : Hypothesis

 The Function of the Hypothesis

1. When facts are assembled, ordered, and seen in a relationship, they constitute a theory.
2. Now, the various facts in a theory may be logically analyzed, and relationships other than those stated
in the theory can be deduced.
3. The formulation of the deduction, however, constitutes a hypothesis. If verified it becomes part of a
future theoretical construction
4. A hypothesis looks forward. It is a proposition which can be put to a test to determine its validity. It
may seem contrary to, or in accord with, common sense. In any event, however, it leads to an empirical
test.
5. It is an example of the organized skepticism of science, the refusal to accept any statement without
empirical verification.

 Types of Hypothesis

There are many ways of classifying hypotheses. For the purpose of this book, however, it seems
adequate to separate them on the basis of the level of abstraction. Three broad levels may be
distinguished. These will be discussed in the order of increasing abstractness.

1. Some hypotheses state the existence of empirical uniformities

i. These hypotheses frequently, though not always, represent the scientific examination of
common-sense propositions.
ii. For example : These studies may show regularities in the distribution of business
establishments in a city, the ethnic backgrounds of workers in an industry, the size of
families on relief, or the distribution of Negroes in the nation.
iii. From research of this type the tabulations will give results in the form of the degree of
uniformity in social behavior. They may be symbolized by graphs, figures, or maps.
iv. In any event, the end product of such studies is a simple description of group activities.
v. It may be protested, of course, that these investigations do not involve the testing of a
hypothesis at all, but are merely adding up the facts. It may be further objected that these
are not useful hypotheses, on the grounds that they merely represent what everyone
already knows.
vi. Despite these objections, such hypotheses are still valid because ‘what every one knows ‘or
what is commonly assumed to be correct may not actually be correct. For the longest time
‘everyone knew’ that the sun revolved around the earth.
vii. Additionally, even when we know in general that a given relationship exists, we do not
know to what degree or in what proportions it exists. Science demands a higher precision
than "in genera “ and such hypotheses allow that.

2. Some hypotheses are concerned with complex ideal types.

i. These hypotheses aim at testing the existence of logically derived relationships
between empirical uniformities.
ii. For example : Human ecology early described a large number of empirical
uniformities. Land values, industrial concentrations, types of businesses etc. Further
 study and logical analysis of these and other related findings led to the formulation of
various hypotheses concerning the way in which these were related.
iii. This level of hypothesizing moves beyond the expectations of simple empirical
uniformity, by creating a complex referent in society.
iv. Such hypotheses are purposeful distortions of empiric exactness. Because of their
removal from empirical reality these constructs are termed "ideal types."
v. The function of such hypotheses is to create tools and problems for further research
in otherwise very complex areas of investigation.
vi. Example : One such hypothesis was Ernest W. Burgess's statement of the concentric
growth circles that characterize the city. This hypothesis was then tested against a
variety of variables in a number of cities. That this ideal type does represent the
actual pattern of city growth is not accepted by all ecologists, however, and so this
formulation remains a hypothesis until a more crucial test of it is made.

3. Some hypotheses are concerned with the relation of analytic variables.

i. These hypotheses occur. at a level of abstraction beyond that of ideal types.
ii. The study of analytic variables requires the formulation of a relationship between changes
in one property and changes in another.
iii. To take an example from sociology, the study of human fertility might show empirical
regularities by wealth, region, size of community, and religion. If this were then raised to
the level of ideal type formulation, one result might be the hypothesis that there are two
high-fertility population segments in the United States. One would be the low-income,
Southern, rural Protestant, and the other the low-income, Northern, urban Catholic. At a
still higher level of abstraction the qualities of region, size of community, and religion might
be abstracted and controlled; that is, their effects on fertility held constant. This would
allow a better measurement of the relation between the variables of wealth and fertility.
iv. This level of hypothesizing is not only more abstract than the others; it is also the most
sophisticated and the most' flexible-mode of formulation. At this level, the number of
variables which can be abstracted and studied is limited only by theory.

 Sources of Hypotheses ( Subheading not from the text)

1. The general culture in which a science develops furnishes many of its basic hypotheses.
i. he fact that sociology is so new and that its growth has taken place very largely in the United
States, England, Germany, and France means that the hypotheses which have been put forth
and tested have been related to a particular cultural complex i.e that of the western core.
ii. To say that these hypotheses are the product of the cultural values does not make them
scientifically less important than others, but it does at least 'indicate that attention has been
called to them by the culture itself.
iii. For example : American emphasis upon personal happiness has had considerable effect upon
sbcial science in this country. Not only is there an excellent market for 900ks explaining "how
to be happy," but the phenomenon itself has been studied in great detail.
iv. Not only do the major cultural values serve to direct research interests, but folk wisdom serves
as another source of hypotheses. In Western society, in varying degrees; race is thought to be
an important determinant of human behavior. This is perhaps most widely and extremely held
 in the United States and in South Africa. The sociologist in this cultural setting cannot accept
such a folk belief as fact but must test it scientifically.
v. Social change increases the value of the culture as a source of scientific questions. Common-
sense propositions are usually unquestioned. Social change, however, may call these into
question by providing a hypothesis for study.
vi. For example, the folk notions about race were called into question first on moral grounds.
Social change i.e change in the way certain Americans understood race and equality brought
about this questioning. This moral questioning was then supported with scientific questioning.
The progressive and liberal ideology held the old notion of the racial determination of behavior
to be false. Careful analysis of the Army Alpha tests of World War I, studies of the IQs of
Negroes and whites, anthropological evidence about the learning ability of "primitive'" and
many other studies piled up scientific evidence opposed to the older folk beliefs.
2. Hypotheses originate in the science itself
i. Theory gives direction to research by stating what is known. Logical deduction from this leads
to new problems.
ii. The "socialization" process in learning a science also affects the hypotheses which will be
developed by the scientist. First of all the student learns from his teachers which are the
promising areas, which methods are adequate, which scholars are superior, and, of course,
which are "inferior." Thus, the range of hypotheses open to him is limited by the direction of
his learning experience.
iii. n this way consensus is reached as to which areas and problems are thought to be important.
Through this constant interaction in the area, "fashionable" modes of thought, terminology,
concepts, and problems develop.

3. Analqgies are often a source of useful hypotheses.

i. Julian Huxley has pointed out that casual observations in nature or in the framework of
another science may be a fertile source of hypotheses.
ii. The hypotheses that resulted in the development of human ecology, for example, were an
application of established theory in the fields of plant and animal ecology.
iii. Similarly, the observation that the behavior of human groups seems to exhibit some of the
same' patterns as found in gravitational and electric fields led to the basic hypothesis of what is
called social physics.
iv. The use of analogy as a source of hypotheses is not without its dangers. There is reason to
suspect any analogy from another science, since the models to be applied are clearly
understood in their own theoretical framework but are not related to the new frame of
reference. Thus, it is dangerous to assume that natural areas in human society are a product of
symbiosis as is true in biology.

4. Hypotheses are also the consequence of personal, idiosyncratic experience

i. Not only do culture, science, and analogy affect the formulation of hypotheses. The way in
which an individual reacts to each of these is also a factor in the statement of hypotheses.
ii. Therefore, the individual experience of the scientist contributes to the type and the form
of the questions he asks.
iii. The history of science is full of instances of discoveries made because the "right" individual
happened to make the "right" observation because of his particular life history.
iv. For example he product of an isolated Norwegian community in Minnesota, Veblen lived at
a time when the capitalistic system was not usually called into question except by
"radicals." His own community background, however, was replete with negative
 experiences concerning the working of the economic system, and he was himself a kind of
outsider or "marginal man," able to look at the capitalist system objectively. He was thus in
an excellent/position to attack the fundamental concepts and postulates of classical
economics. In a very real sense he was an alien who could bring a different experience to
bear upon the economic world. As a result he made penetrating analyses of our society
which have profoundly influenced social science since his time.

 The Characteristics Of Usable Hypotheses

1. The hypotheses must be conceptually clear
i. The concepts should be clearly defined, operationally if possible. Moreover, they should be
definitions which are commonly accepted and communicable rather than the products of a
"private world."
ii. One simple device for clarifying concepts is to write out a list of the concepts used in the
research outline. Then try to define them (a) in words, (b) in terms of particular operations
(index calculations, types of observations, etc.), and (c) with reference to other concepts to be
found in previous research.
2. Hypotheses should have empirical referents.
i. It has also been previously pointed out that scientific concepts must have an ultimate empirical
referent. No usable hypotheses can embody moral judgments.
ii. While a hypothesis may study value judgments, such a goal must be separated from a moral
preachment or a plea for acceptance of one's values.
iii. To ensure this criteria tirst, analyze the concepts which express attitudes rather than describing
or referring to empirical phenomena. Watch for key words such as "ought," "should," "bad,"
etc.
- Then transform the notions into more useful concepts. "Bad parents" is a value term, but
the researcher may have a definite description in mind: parents who follow such practices
as whimsical and arbitrary authoritarianism, inducing psychic insecurity in the child, failure
to give love, etc.
iv. When we find that our referent is simply a vague feeling, and we cannot define the operations
needed to observe it, we should study the problem further and discover what it is that we
really wish to investigate.
3. The hypotheses must be specific
i. That is, all the operations and predictions indicated by it should be spelled out.
ii. The possibility of actually testing the hypothesis can thus be appraised. Often hypotheses are
expressed in such general terms, and with so grandiose a scope, that they are simply not
testable.
iii. The more specific the prediction, the smaller the chance that the prediction will actually be
borne out as a result of mere accident
iv. Such specific formulations have the advantage of assuring that research is practicable and
significant.
v. It furthermore increases the validity of the results, since the broader the terms the easier it is
to fall into the trap of using selective evidence.
vi. To ensure this criteria : Never be satisfied with a general prediction, if it can be broken into
more precise sub-hypotheses. The general prediction of war is not enough, for example: we
must specify time, place, and participants.
4. Hypotheses should be related to available techniques.
i. The theorist who does not know what techniques are available to test his hypotheses is in a
poor way to formulate usable questions
ii. If the problem is significant enough as a possible frame of reference it may be useful to
determine whether or not it can be tested at the time
iii. Certainly some of the impetus toward modern developments in technique has come from
criticisms against significant studies which were considered inadequate because of technical
limitations
iv. To ensure this : Look for research articles on the subject being investigated. Make a list of the
various techniques which have been used to measure the factors of importance in the study. If
you are unable to locate any discussions of technique, you may find it wiser to do a research on
thf! necessary research techniques.

5. The hypothesis should be related to a body of theory.

i. This criterion is one which is often overlooked by the beginning student. He is more likely to
select subject matter which is "interesting," without finding out whether the research will
really help to refute, qualify, or support any existing theories of social relations.
ii. A science, however, can be cumulative only by building on an existing body of fact and theory.
It cannot develop if each study is an isolated survey.
iii. When research is systematically based upon a body of existing theory, a genuine contribution
in knowledge is more likely to result. In other words, to be worth doing, a hypothesis must not I
only be carefully stated, but it should possess theoretical relevance.
iv. To ensure this First, of course, cover the literature relating to your subject. If it is impossible to
do so, then your hypothesis probably covers too much ground.
- Second, try to abstract from the literature the way in, which various propositions and sets
of propositions relate to .one another.
- Third, ascertain whether you can deduce any of the propositions, including your own
hypothesis, from one another or from a small set of major statement.
- Fourth, test it by some theoretical model, such as Merton's "Paradigm for Functional
Analysis in 'Sociology"
- Fifth, especially compare your own set of related propositions with those of some classic
author, such as Weber on bureaucracy or Durkheim on suicide.