RESEARCH METHODS:

MODULE I
INTRODUCTION:
 A big part of growing up in any society, in fact, is the process of learning to accept what
everybody around us “knows” is so. If you don’t know those same things, you can’t really be
a part of the group.
 The basis of knowledge is agreement. Because you can’t learn all you need to know by means
of personal experience and discovery alone, things are set up so you can simply believe what
others tell you.
 When our experience conflicts with what everyone else knows, though, there’s a good chance
we’ll surrender our experience in favour of the agreement {worm example}.

LOOKING FOR REALITY:

Reality is a tricky business. You probably already suspect that some of the things you “know” may not
be true, but how can you really know what’s real? People have grappled with this question for
thousands of years.
 science, which offers an approach to both agreement reality and experiential reality. Scientists
have certain criteria that must be met before they will accept the reality of something they
have not personally experienced. In general, a scientific assertion must have both logical and
empirical support: It must make sense, and it must not contradict actual observation {eg:
knowing the dark side of the moon is cold without personal experience}
 science offers a special approach to the discovery of reality through personal experience. In
other words, it offers a special approach to the business of inquiry.
 Epistemology is the science of knowing systems of knowledge; methodology (a subfield of
epistemology) might be called the science of finding out, procedures for scientific
investigation.
 Our attempts to learn about the world are only partly linked to direct personal inquiry or
experience. Another, much larger, part comes from the agreed-on knowledge that others give
us, those things “everyone knows.” This agreement reality both assists and hinders our
attempts to find out for ourselves. {Those things we “know” as part and parcel of the culture
we share with those around us}

FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH:

 As we noted earlier, the two pillars of science are logic and observation. That is, a scientific
understanding of the world must both make sense and correspond to what we observe. Both
elements are essential to science and relate to the three major aspects of the enterprise of
social science: theory, data collection, and data analysis.
 Scientific theory deals with the logical aspect of science—providing systematic explanations
—whereas data collection deals with the observational aspect. Data analysis looks for patterns
in observations and, where appropriate, compares what is logically expected with what is
actually observed.
 theory A systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of life:
juvenile delinquency, for example, or perhaps social stratification or political revolution.
THEORY, NOT A PHILOSOPHY OR A BELIEF:
 Modern social theory focuses on understanding what is rather than what should be, marking
a shift from earlier approaches that combined observations, speculations, and moral ideas.
Today, researchers aim to explain reality and its causes without making value judgments
 However, science has clear limits when addressing debates about values. For example, it
cannot determine whether capitalism is better than socialism or which religion is superior, as
these judgments depend on agreed-upon criteria. To make such comparisons, clear definitions
of terms like "freedom" or "human dignity" are necessary. Without consensus on these
definitions, conclusions remain limited and lack broader meaning. Similarly, evaluating
religions based on measures like suicide rates or charitable giving depends entirely on
agreement about what metrics define a "better" religion. Since people rarely agree on such
criteria, science is seldom useful in settling value-based debates.
 This issue also arises when studying social programs like welfare reform or affirmative
action, which often reflect ideological perspectives. Researchers face significant challenges in
agreeing on criteria for success or failure. For example, a stopwatch can only determine the
"better" sprinter if speed is the agreed measure. Similarly, social science can only provide
useful insights if clear evaluation criteria are established.
 Ultimately, social science is best at helping us understand what exists and why it exists.
While it can inform decisions about what "ought to be," this requires agreement on desired
outcomes—an agreement that is rare. Even understanding the basic realities of social life is
complex, underscoring the fundamental task of social science in describing and explaining the
world around us.

SOCIAL REGULARITIES:
 Social research largely aims to uncover patterns and regularities in social life. While the
physical sciences appear to operate under more consistent rules—such as a heavy object
always falling when dropped or ice always melting when heated—social behaviour is less
predictable. For instance, a person may vote for a candidate in one election but against them
in another, and habitually honest individuals may still engage in theft. Despite these
variations, social life does display significant regularities, which can be revealed through
research and explained by theory.
 One source of regularity in social behaviour comes from formal societal norms. Laws and
regulations create predictable patterns. For example, U.S. traffic laws ensure most people
drive on the right side of the road, voter registration rules influence who participates in
elections, and labour laws establish uniform standards for the minimum age and wages of
workers. These formal rules regularize social behaviour, creating patterns researchers can
study.
 In addition to formal rules, informal social norms also lead to consistent patterns. For
example, registered Republicans are more likely to vote for Republican candidates, university
professors generally earn more than unskilled labourers, and men tend to earn more than
women. Such norms and patterns can be observed repeatedly across societies, providing rich
data for social research.
 However, three common objections are raised about social regularities. First, some may seem
trivial, such as the observation that Republicans tend to vote for Republican candidates—
something that "everyone knows." Second, there are exceptions to these patterns, such as
labourers who earn more than professors. Third, it is argued that individuals could disrupt
these regularities if they chose to act differently. These objections highlight the complexity of
 social patterns, but they do not negate the presence of regularity in social life, which remains
a key focus of social research.
SOCIAL AGGREGATES
 Social scientists focus on studying the collective behaviour of groups rather than individuals.
While psychologists examine what happens within individuals, social scientists study
interactions between people—ranging from couples and small groups to organizations, entire
societies, and even interactions between societies. Their goal is to uncover patterns and
regularities in group behaviour, often referred to as aggregates, which include groups,
organizations, and collectives. Although motivations affecting individuals may be studied,
the individual is not the primary subject of social science; instead, theories are created to
explain group dynamics.
 One fascinating example of collective regularity is the birthrate. People decide to have
children for a wide range of personal reasons. Some want to full fill their parents’ desire for
grandchildren, others feel it completes their sense of manhood or womanhood, some seek to
strengthen their marriages, while others enjoy the experience of raising children or wish to
carry on the family name. Some even have children unintentionally. If you’ve had a child,
you likely have a unique story behind your decision—why it happened at a specific time and
not earlier or later. For instance, financial constraints, personal experiences, or social
influences could have played a role.
 This phenomenon highlights one of the key focuses of social science: understanding how
collective patterns emerge naturally from the seemingly random and diverse behaviors of
many individuals. These consistent regularities in social life form a foundational part of what
social scientists aim to study and explain.

PARADIGMS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH:

 Social research operates within various paradigms—perspectives or frameworks used to view
and understand the social world. A paradigm consists of concepts, assumptions, and biases
that shape how researchers interpret social phenomena. Introduced widely by Thomas Kuhn
in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), paradigms gained prominence in analysing
social science. According to Kuhn, paradigms are mental windows through which researchers
view the world, leading to different interpretations of the same phenomenon. For instance,
two researchers may describe a house on a hill differently depending on whether they are
viewing it from the top or the bottom of the hill. Both perspectives are valid, but they arise
from different vantage points, or paradigms.
 An example of competing paradigms is the Malthusian and Marxian approaches to the issue
of overpopulation. The Malthusian paradigm argues that population growth follows a
geometric pattern (e.g., 1, 2, 4, 8) while food production grows arithmetically (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4).
This mismatch, Malthus asserted, inevitably leads to starvation unless moral restraint, such as
delayed marriage and abstinence, is exercised. He opposed birth control as immoral and
argued that welfare and socialism would harm individual initiative. In contrast, the Marxist
paradigm sees overpopulation as a product of capitalism, which requires a surplus labour
force for exploitation. Marxists argue that overpopulation would cease to exist in a socialist
system where production is controlled collectively.
 These two paradigms approach the same issue—population growth—but from fundamentally
different perspectives, resulting in different conclusions. Malthus emphasized population
control as the solution to poverty, while Marxists believed poverty and overpopulation were
symptoms of capitalism and would disappear with its replacement by socialism. Each
paradigm also uses unique concepts and jargon, such as "arithmetic rate" and "geometric rate"
 in Malthusian thought versus "class consciousness" and "means of production" in Marxian
theory.
 Paradigms also influence the research problems deemed important. For Malthusians,
overpopulation is the world’s central issue, while Marxists view it as a secondary problem
caused by class struggle and exploitation under capitalism. These differing focuses highlight
how paradigms shape not only interpretations but also priorities in research.
 Within social sciences, many paradigms coexist, particularly in sociology. This diversity is
viewed as a strength, as no single paradigm can address all social science problems. However,
competition between paradigms can lead to challenges, such as difficulties in communication
and the lack of a common language for discussing research findings. For instance, researchers
from differing paradigms may talk past each other, failing to realize they are addressing the
same phenomenon from different perspectives.
 Kuhn explained that paradigms dominate until anomalies—unexplainable findings—emerge,
pointing the need for a new paradigm. While younger scientists may adopt the newer
paradigm, older ones often remain loyal to the previous framework, leading to the coexistence
of multiple paradigms. Although this competition can stimulate research, it can also hinder the
accumulation of knowledge when researchers working within different paradigms struggle to
communicate or collaborate effectively.
 A paradigm shift refers to a fundamental change in the underlying assumptions, concepts,
and frameworks (i.e., paradigms) that guide scientific inquiry or understanding within a field.
In the context of social research, a paradigm shift occurs when a dominant framework for
interpreting social phenomena is replaced by an alternative paradigm that better explains
observed anomalies, addresses unanswered questions, or provides new insights. This concept,
introduced by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), highlights how
scientific progress is not always gradual but can involve radical transformations in thought.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARADIGMS:
 Macro theory A theory aimed at understanding the “big picture” of institutions, whole
societies, and the interactions among societies. Karl Marx’s examination of the class struggle
is an example of macro theory.
 Micro theory A theory aimed at understanding social life at the intimate level of individuals
and their interactions. Examining how the play behaviour of girls differs from that of boys
would be an example of micro theory.
 conflict paradigm A paradigm that views human behaviour as attempts to dominate others or
avoid being dominated by others.
 symbolic interactionism A paradigm that views human behaviour as the creation of meaning
through social interactions, with those meanings conditioning subsequent interactions.
 structural functionalism A paradigm that divides social phenomena into parts, each of which
serves a function for the operation of the whole.
 feminist paradigms paradigms that (1) view and understand society through the experiences
of women and/or (2) examine the generally deprived status of women in society.
 critical race theory A paradigm grounded in race awareness and an intention to achieve racial
justice.
 interest convergence The thesis that majority group members will only support the interests of
minorities when those actions also support the interests of the majority group.
 postmodernism A paradigm that questions the assumptions of positivism and theories
describing an “objective” reality.
 critical realism A paradigm that holds things are real insofar as they produce effects.
POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH:
 Ethics and politics in social research are deeply tied to ideological perspectives, as what is
deemed acceptable varies depending on the viewpoint. However, ethics and politics differ in
two key ways. First, ethics focuses on the methods used in research, while politics deals with
the subject matter and application of research findings. For instance, ethical critiques of the
Milgram experiments argue that the methods harmed participants, whereas political critiques
might question whether obedience should be studied at all, fearing the results could either
undermine or reinforce authority structures.
 Second, while formal ethical guidelines exist, such as those protecting participants from harm,
there are no universally agreed-upon political norms in social research. The only broadly
accepted political principle is that researchers should not let personal political biases
compromise the integrity of their work. For example, it is considered unethical to use flawed
methods or falsify findings to advance a political agenda. Despite this principle, accusations
of political bias in research remain common.

 Social research cannot be entirely objective because researchers are inherently subjective,
being human. However, science achieves a form of objectivity through intersubjectivity,
where different scientists, despite their personal biases, should reach the same conclusions if
they follow accepted research methods. This can happen if researchers set aside their personal
values during the research process.
 Max Weber’s concept of value-free sociology in his lecture "Science as a Vocation" (1925) is
a key stance on objectivity. Weber argued that sociology, like other sciences, must be free
from personal values to contribute meaningfully to society. This would allow both liberals
and conservatives to recognize the "facts" of social science, regardless of their political
beliefs. While many social researchers support this ideal, Marxist and neo-Marxist scholars
believe that social science and social action should not be separate. They argue that
explanations of societal issues, like discrimination, can inadvertently defend the status quo.
Additionally, they contend that studying society’s problems without a commitment to
improving it is irresponsible.
 Participatory action research (discussed in Chapter 10) is one approach that challenges the
value-free ideal. It involves researchers working with the subjects of the research—such as
factory workers—to define the desired outcomes and involve them in conducting the research
to achieve those outcomes. The researcher’s role is to provide professional research methods
to support the workers’ goals.
 Beyond theoretical debates, many researchers face challenges in ensuring their work is free
from personal political values. While most researchers deny such biases, their claims are often
questioned, leading to controversies in the field.
 Social research is often influenced by political ideologies and interests, which can complicate
the notion of objective research. The politics of social research become especially evident in
situations where research is used in disputes between conflicting parties. For instance, when
social researchers serve as expert witnesses in court, their testimony often aligns with the
interests of the party that hires them, even if they strive to maintain objectivity. This can
create ethical dilemmas, as the research is shaped by the need to support a specific side in a
legal dispute, rather than a purely objective search for truth. Similarly, research funded by
interest groups—such as pharmaceutical companies or fossil fuel industries—can raise
concerns about bias, even if the research itself is methodologically sound. In response to such
concerns, organizations like the American Association for Public Opinion Research
(AAPOR) have implemented transparency initiatives, urging researchers to fully disclose
their methods and sources of funding. These examples highlight how social research is never
free from political influences and how these factors must be carefully considered when
interpreting findings.
 The intersection of ethics and politics in social research is complex, as political ideologies
often influence how research is perceived and conducted. While ethics primarily concerns the
methods used in research, politics often concerns the subject matter or the use of research
findings. Legislators, for example, may impose restrictive regulations on research, especially
involving children, based on moral concerns. The politicization of science has become a
contentious issue, with scientists often accused of promoting an anti-religious agenda,
particularly when research contradicts religious beliefs, such as in debates over evolution.
Conversely, political leaders may manipulate scientific findings to align with predetermined
policies, undermining the independence of research. Despite these challenges, scientific
inquiry continues, driven by the principle of intersubjectivity, which allows for the pooling of
different subjective views to reach objective conclusions. While social scientists must strive
for objectivity, their personal values and expertise can still play an important role in public
debates. The rise of "public sociology" reflects this idea, where researchers use their expertise
to influence social issues intentionally, showing that science is not only a method of inquiry
but also a tool for social change.