Conceptual Foundations of Social Research Methods This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Foundations of Social Research Methods Second Edition David Baronov First published 2012 by Paradigm Publishers Published 2016 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2012 , Taylor & Francis All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Baronov, David Conceptual foundations of social research methods / David Baronov. — 2nd ed p cm Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-59451-737-2 (hardcover : alk paper) — ISBN 978-1-59451-738-9 (pbk : alk paper) 1. Social sciences—Research — Methodology. 2. Social sciences — Research — Philosophy. I. Title H62.B337 2012 300.72 — dc23 2012010971 Designed and Typeset by Straight Creek Bookmakers ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-737-2 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-738-9 (pbk) Contents New to This Edition vii Acknowledgments viii Introduction and Fair Warning Chapter Embryonic Positivism 11 Chapter Logical Positivism 35 Chapter Postpositivism 57 Chapter Structuralism 85 Chapter Hermeneutics 111 Chapter Pragmatism 137 Chapter Antifoundationalism 165 Chapter Yes, But Now What? 191 Index 207 About the Author 215 v This page intentionally left blank New to This Edition The reviews and feedback from colleagues and students regarding the content and style of presentation in the first edition of this text have been highly favorable For this reason, I have opted to retain my basic approach and to use this revision primarily to further supplement the existing material The major revision for this text is the addition of a chapter on pragmatism Pragmatic social research remains an influential current within the social sciences and education Introductory-level texts that treat the genre as a whole, rather than introductions limited to considerations of Peirce, James, or Dewey, are scant My effort here is to introduce the reader to pragmatism (and its variants) within the context of competing research methods across the social sciences and education more generally Furthermore, in the first edition in 2004, each chapter ended with a short list of recommended further reading These readings were selected not because they necessarily represented the latest, cutting-edge interpretations Rather, these selections offered compelling overviews of varying approaches to social research in greater depth and detail than it was possible to provide in this text For example, while this text introduces and contextualizes key debates, many of the recommended readings allow students to more narrowly focus on core aspects of these debates The essays, therefore, spanned from the early 1960s through 2001 For this second edition, with this same purpose in mind, I have revisited and expanded the recommended readings for each chapter to include materials published since the first edition came out These are the major revisions to the first edition vii Acknowledgments I owe a great debt to many students, friends, and colleagues whose insights and inspiration have shaped my understanding of the core issues explored in this book Terence Hopkins, Dale Tomich, and Kelvin Santiago Valles were among those who first encouraged me to pursue the disturbing entanglements beneath the surface of methodological issues in the social sciences Their advice, suggestions, and criticisms continue to prod my interest in the field Good fortune has allowed me to further consider the implications of these issues through conversations and exchanges with a number of talented colleagues, including Erik Pérez Velasco, Gladys Jiménez Muñoz, Ruth L Harris, Robert Brimlow, José Toro Alfonso, Khaldoun Samman, Barbara Lowe, and Mark Gaskill I am especially grateful for the contributions of Timothy Madigan and Daniel R Shaffer, whose reviews and comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript were critical for the development of this work I have also greatly benefited from the skillful assistance of my publisher, Dean Birkenkamp His encouragement was essential for seeing this project through to its completion and guiding me along the path In 2002, I was the recipient of a St John Fisher College Faculty Development Grant This award provided me with critical resources and financial assistance for the completion of this project Lastly, I wish to acknowledge the essential contribution of Mrs Druian, without whom this book would never have been possible viii Introduction and Fair Warning By now the routine is a familiar one Each fall, anxious throngs of high school graduates—and a growing number of adult returning students—make their way onto college campuses The new arrivals face the formidable tasks of working toward graduation and preparing for a career This requires, early on, selecting a major The major will clarify graduation requirements and provide a sense of career options Ominously, the selection of a major will also lock unsuspecting students into a mind-set and a framework of analysis that will tell them, quite literally, what and how to think, the nature of truth, and which questions are permitted and which are not Traditionally, college subjects are grouped into three branches— humanities, physical sciences, and social sciences Each encompasses a distinct subject matter and each explores this subject matter through a unique battery of methods The humanities study forms of creative human expression (art, literature, music, etc.) and deploy various interpretive methods The physical sciences study the natural world and rely upon the so-called scientific method The social sciences study the social world (forms of human interaction and individual behavior) and turn to variations of the scientific method Curiously, in the course of one’s undergraduate education, while there is a good deal of recognition and discussion about the distinct subject matters that separate the three branches, little is said of the differences between the branches’ methods The consequences of this oversight can be insidious Consider the experiences of Fawziyya, Lisa, and Manuel—three seventeenyear-olds who were among those arriving on campus last fall As it happened, all had suffered the painful loss of their mother to cancer in the past year All three were, of course, deeply affected by their mothers’ deaths and these personal tragedies dramatically shaped how they chose a college major Fawziyya wanted to understand the nature of her mother’s illness so she could help others She chose to study biology Lisa was curious why, despite Yes, But Now What? greatly shapes the study’s final outcome By comparing and contrasting the implications of competing methodological approaches for such a study, it is hoped that the role of the undergraduate student researcher will be further clarified In particular, we will focus on the implications of the researcher’s choices in two areas: (a) framing the research question and (b) selecting techniques of investigation Framing the Research Question By now it should be clear that each methodological orientation approaches the same subject matter from a unique vantage point Differences in this regard are reflected in how a research question is framed Having selected a topic—racial tension on campus—our student must decide upon a method of investigation Based on our review of social research methods, we can present her with five options: postpositivism, structuralism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and antifoundationalism For each, a distinct set of research questions follows (Note that the sample questions not by any means exhaust the range of possible questions from each perspective.) From the perspective of postpositivism, the research question might be: To what extent students on campus view racial tension as a problem? The basic assumption here is that racial tension is a real social phenomenon that can be observed and measured The question further assumes that student attitudes are a good indicator of racial tension on campus Student views regarding race relations are taken to be strong evidence of the state of racial tension The primary challenge is to develop an investigative tool that will reveal racial attitudes among students on campus From the perspective of structuralism, the research question might be: What are the primary factors shaping racial tension on campus? The focus of research here shifts from student attitudes to a broader range of factors contributing to race relations on campus It is assumed that to know whether racial tension is or is not an issue requires an understanding of the forces on campus that shape race relations A structural approach attempts to analyze the forces that give rise to racial tension (such as a school’s enrollment policy) rather than the manifestations of racial tension itself (a student protest) 201 Chapter From the perspective of hermeneutics, the research question might be: What are the meanings that members of the campus community attach to “race” and what are the consequences of these interpretations for racial tension? The assumption here is that racial tension, to the extent it exists on campus, is only understandable in the context of the meanings that people attribute to the concept of race By understanding how different members of the campus community view race (divisive, harmonious, unimportant, etc.), the researcher will be able to patch together a variety of perspectives on race relations that constitute the context for racial tension These perspectives may contribute to (or temper) racial tension on campus From the perspective of pragmatic social research, the research question might be: How can a better understanding of race relations lead to greater harmony among diverse populations on this particular campus? Notice that this question does not presume that there is (or is not) currently a problem with racial tension on campus At the same time, built into the research question is an assumption that the purpose of investigating the matter is to contribute to greater harmony via concrete actions that impact a social condition Note also that a key element of the research question, the notion of greater harmony, is purposely left vague and open to interpretation Clarification of the meanings that community members attribute to this notion is thus an essential pragmatic component of the research process The research question thus sets up a mode of investigation that will result in certain consequences (in the form of concrete actions) that reflect the values of the researcher At the same time, the scope of the investigation is limited to racial tensions on a particular campus The findings are not intended to be generalized to other places or times From the perspective of antifoundationalism, the research question might be: What forms of social power are legitimizing our understanding of racial tension on campus and how these reflect and reinforce the dominant racial order? In this case, racial tension is inseparable from an underlying labyrinth of power relations that define a college campus Racial tension, as such, has many narratives The narrative of racial tension among members of the Black Students Union, for instance, is likely to differ from that among the clerical support staff The researcher wants to know how d ifferent 202 Yes, But Now What? campus constituencies frame the concept of racial tension in a manner that (a) reflects their own power position and (b) reinforces the norms of the dominant racial order on campus Selecting Techniques of Investigation Once a research question is settled on, the actual research project can involve a number of investigative techniques For example, our student might conduct interviews, develop a survey, review campus documents and records (e.g., college handbooks, campus security records), or opt for direct observation of campus life In each instance, as in the case of framing the research question, the way each technique is used and the type of data collected will vary according to the student’s methodological orientation Let’s suppose that our student has opted to carry out a content analysis of the college newspaper to investigate racial tension on campus In the case of postpositivist research, the purpose of analyzing the newspaper will be to find evidence of racial tension as captured in its news coverage Content analysis will focus on those articles that provide a direct measure of racial tension on campus, such as a story on a racial incident and related editorials and letters to the editor The researcher will use these items as a measure of racial tension on campus Both the facts of the cases and the attitudes expressed by the campus community about the facts will be of interest The selection of articles will be determined by their relevance to an actual case of racial conflict on campus On the basis of these articles, the researcher will be able to make certain judgments regarding the severity of racial tension on campus In the case of structuralism, the purpose of analyzing the newspaper will be to detail how the newspaper, through its news coverage, contributes to racial tension on campus Content analysis will focus on how articles are written in a manner that downplays, inflames, or ignores racial tension The details of the specific cases of racial conflict covered by the newspaper are not of primary interest The focus is on the role of the newspaper’s coverage as a factor in racial tension Does the newspaper’s coverage lead to further conflict, to pacification and neglect, or to an open campus debate? The selection of articles will focus primarily on those that depict instances of overt racial conflict and their aftermath (For 203 Chapter this reason, for a structuralist to choose the strategy of analyzing the newspaper presumes knowledge on the part of the researcher that there has been prior racial tension on campus This is true for the postpositivist researcher as well.) Campus events following the newspaper’s coverage of an incident of racial conflict will be a major focus Editorials and letters to the editor will also be of strong interest In the case of hermeneutics, the purpose of analyzing the newspaper will be to interpret the meaning that its writers attach to racial tension and to trace how this is reflected in news coverage Content analysis will focus on how articles interpret the concept of racial tension and to what extent this reflects an underlying belief system about racial tension among the writers The selection of articles will include all those articles that, in the judgment of the researcher, have implications for understanding race Some articles may be of direct, overt interest, such as an article on a racial conflict The relevance of others may be less obvious, such as an article on changes in the dining halls in which the reporter neglects to provide comments from representatives of multicultural student groups In the case of pragmatism, the purpose of analyzing the newspaper will be to monitor what actions result when depictions of racial tension on campus become better publicized across the community In particular, does greater awareness of racial tension contribute to positive social change through actions that promote greater harmony? Assuming there are no other campus-wide initiatives to address the racial tension, it will be possible to assess how well consciousness raising alone through newspaper accounts can lead to a reduction in such tension A pragmatic researcher might first consider the newspaper content for a period of six months prior to a brief episode of heightened reporting on racial conflict Within this content, specific incidents (actions) reflecting explicit racial conflict or explicit racial harmony could be identified The researcher would then consider the newspaper content for a period of six months after this episode of heightened reporting on racial conflict The purpose would again be to identify incidents (actions) reflecting explicit racial conflict or explicit racial harmony In this example, the pragmatic researcher is merely taking advantage of a convenient vehicle (the newspaper) for communicating information 204 Yes, But Now What? about racial tension to gauge what types of actions result when a community gains a better understanding of race relations If the actions that result not reflect greater harmony among diverse campus populations (or the results are ambiguous), then the pragmatic researcher might conclude that interventions based on knowledge alone may be insufficient to positively affect social attitudes on race that lead to social actions contributing to racial harmony In the case of antifoundationalism, the purpose of analyzing the newspaper will be to identify certain elements of a narrative that point to how its news coverage reinforces and legitimizes the newspaper’s role as an arbitrator of (and authority on) racial tension on campus Content analysis will focus on how articles adopt a tone and style suggesting objectivity and neutrality and how this both distorts the actual news items in question and conceals the role of the newspaper as an active, engaged agent regarding racial tension on campus The selection of articles will focus on those that explicitly address racial issues Of interest will be how the writers position themselves vis-à-vis the subject (as disinterested third parties) through the use of neutral language and an authoritative tone Loose Ends In the end, our review of social research methods has not resulted in any grand synthesis While some of the methodological orientations discussed here share certain characteristics, these approaches are primarily defined by their fundamental differences For this reason, the world of social research can appear quite messy and unkempt There seem to be many loose ends without a tidy resolution As a result, all that lies before us is a clutter of choices This book has attempted to clarify the consequences of those choices Ultimately, it is the subjective judgment of the researcher (his or her choices)—and not a set of truth tables or decision trees—that drives the social research process Consequently, it is sometimes necessary to simply leave loose ends loose 205 This page intentionally left blank Index Absence (Derrida’s referent), 178 Achinstein, Peter, 69 Action (versus behavior), 71–72, 119–120 Action, knowledge and See Knowledge and action Addams, Jane, 139, 147–148 Africa, 8, 107–108 African Americans, 150 Agency (versus determinism), 90–92, 93, 105–106, 176, 186, 195 Aggregates (versus wholes), 91–92, 94, 195 Ahistoricism, 108–109, 195 Ali, Muhammad, 128 Angola, 107–108 Anthropology, 86–87, 101–103 Antifoundationalism, 191; deconstruction and logocentrism, 177–180; discontinuities and ruptures, 182–184, 189; dynamic tensions raised by, 199– 200; elements of, 175–184; framing the research question, 202; French influence on, 173–174; implications of, 184–190; investigation technique, 205; knowledge as narrative, 180–182, 185; modernity and rationalization, 172–173; Nietzsche’s influence on, 168–172; origins and elements of, 165–168; origins of, 168–174; poststructuralism and structural linguistics, 175–177; role of open explanations, 185–186 Antiquity (Greek and Roman), 16, 23, 113, 114–116 Apodictic knowledge See Certainty Apperceptive masses, 39–40, 69 Aristotle, 13–15, 16, 20, 30, 42, 43 Arson, 160–161 Astronomy, 3, 23, 26 Autonomous individual, 153; structuralist view of, 195 Avenarius, Richard, 35, 36, 37–41, 45, 46, 69, 92 Ayer, Alfred, 46 Bacon, Francis, 9, 32; and British empiricism, 13–16; and induction, 27, 31; influence on early positivists, 21, 22; and knowledge, 53; and prediction, 134; role of inferential statements, 16 Behaviorism (school of), 52; descriptive behaviorism, 63 Belief, 139–144 Bergson, Henri, 8990 Betti, Emilio, 131132 Bichat, Marie-Franỗois-Xavier, 24 Binary oppositions (deconstructionist), 179–180 Biology, 1, 23, 24, 26, 88, 98, 171; and entelechy, 89; and genetics, 89; and organic structures, 88–90 Biomedical (versus spiritual) explanations, 73, 75 Bismarck, Otto von, 114 Boas, Franz, 99 Brahe, Tycho, 19 Braithwaite, Richard, 58, 59 British colonial rule, 107–108 Capitalism, 189 Carnap, Rudolf, 45, 46, 58, 62–63 Case studies (role of within explanation), 168, 196, 200 207 Index Catholic Church See Church Causation, 111, 134, 184; and empiricism, 27–28, 64–65; and general laws, 59, 101, 196; and metaphysics, 25, 31 Certainty, 165–167; apodictic knowledge, 6, 30–31, 74–75, 78–79; and move to physicalism, 50–51, 55–56; versus probability, 57, 61, 133–134; and provisional nature of truth, 38, 79–80, 135, 185–186, 193 Chemistry, 23–24, 26 Childbirth (and culture), 95 Children: parental involvement and student success, 151–152 Chomsky, Noam, 100–101 Church, 3, 18, 29, 30, 114–116 Citizenship, 149 Civil rights movement, 181 Civil War, U.S., 155 Clarity of beliefs, 140 Cognitive structures, 38–40, 41, 92–93, 97–101, 108 Cold war, 160 Colonial rule, 107–108 Complexity, 146 Comte, Auguste, 9, 57, 74, 91; and adoption of biological model, 88, 186–187; influence on positivist tradition, 11–12, 21–27, 173; and metaphysics, 75 Conflict, 147 Context of social research, 161–162 Council of Trent, 114 Counterfactuals, 61–62, 107–108 Covering laws See General laws Critique, antifoundationalism as, 167–168 Cultural conditions and contexts, 155–156 Cuvier, Georges, 24, 26 Darwin, Charles, 89 Davis, Kingsley, 95 Death penalty, 155–156, 179 Deconstruction: antifoundationalist strategy, 177–180; binary oppositions, 179–180 Deduction (versus induction), 4–5, 6, 13, 15–17, 28, 63–65 Deductive-nomological model, 59–60, 64, 87, 101 Defects, 192–193 Democratic society: Addams’s pragmatism, 148; narratives of, 181; pragmatic social research, 156–158 Derrida, Jacques, 177–180 Descartes, René, 22, 74, 123, 139 Determinism See Agency Development, social, 158–159 Dewey, John, 138, 144–146 Dickens, Charles, 113, 118, 129–130 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 128, 131, 132; categories of life, 118; and human nature, 123–124, 129, 135; influences on hermeneutics, 117– 118; and objectivity of researcher, 125, 126–127, 130, 131 Discontinuity (and rupture), 165–167, 182–184, 189, 190, 197 Discourse (totalizing or closed), 174 Domestic violence, 155 Doubt, 139–140, 144 Driesch, Hans, 89–90 Droysen, Johann Gustav, 116 Duhem, Pierre, 69 Durkheim, Émile, 12, 91–92, 94, 173 Dynamic change, 167 Dynamic tensions within methodologies: antifoundationalism, 199–200; hermeneutics, 195–197; postpositivism, 193–194; pragmatism, 197–199; structuralism, 194–195 Early childhood, 151–152 Einstein, Albert, 38 Embodiment, consequences of, 152–153 Empiricism (versus rationalism), 106–108, 133–134, 138, 142–144; Bacon on true science, 15; Hume and the inductive method, 16–17; 208 Index hypothetical-deductive model, 64–65; logical positivism, 51–52; physical sciences and social sciences, 3–5; pragmatic maxim, 150; pragmatism, 144–145, 162– 163; premises of pragmatic social research, 158–160; structuralist view of parts and wholes, 195 Empiriocriticism, 36, 38 England, 113 Enlightenment, the, 3, 7, 113, 165–167, 169, 172–174, 178; and antifoundationalism, 165; Peirce’s pragmatism, 139 Eurocentrism, Evidentialism, 141–142, 143 Evolution, 89, 98 Evolutionary model of social development, 189–190 Experience: pragmatic maxim, 149; principle of, 142–144 Explanation (versus understanding), 195–196 Facts (versus values), 3, 4, 118–120 Fallibilism, 76–77 Falsifiability (principle of), 64, 154 Feigl, Herbert, 45 Female circumcision, 73 Feminism (and pragmatism), 152–154 Feyerabend, Paul, 71 Flacius, Matthias, 115 Foucault, Michel, 182–184 Fourier, Joseph, 26 France, 169; French social theory influencing antifoundationalism, 173–174 Frank, Phillip, 45 Frege, Gottlob, 42 Freud, Sigmund, 130–131 Functionalism, 100, 101, 103; deductive-nomological model, 60; differentiation and interdependence, 93–94, 97; manifest (versus latent) functions, 96; structural, 95–96, 189; structural analysis, 86 Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 124–127, 128–132, 133, 135; mediation of horizons, 125–126, 130; plurality of meanings, 126–127; role of language, 127 Galileo Galilei, 18–19, 20–21, 22 Geisteswissenschaften (versus naturwissenshaften), 131–132 Gelling, Kurt, 46 Genealogical history, 183 General laws, 87, 134, 188; characteristics of, 59, 60–63; confirmation of, 59, 63–64; covering laws, 59–60, 70–71; and distortion, 139, 162; within the physical sciences, 18, 40; practical laws (or empirical generalizations), 62–63; and the social order, 11, 22, 25–27, 54; universal (versus accidental) laws, 62–63 Generalizations and laws, 200 Generalized research, 198 Geometry, 28, 38, 45; non-Euclidean, 37–38, 45, 80 Germany, 114 Gödel, Kurt, 46 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 114 Habermas, Jürgen, 128–131, 135; depth hermeneutics, 130–131; distortions of subjectivity, 128–130 Hahn, Hans, 46 Hanson, Norwood, 71 Heidegger, Martin, 122, 123–124, 125, 129, 135 Hempel, Carl, 46, 58, 59–60 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 114 Hermeneutics, 142, 191; dynamic tensions raised by, 195–197; framing the research question, 202; investigation technique, 203 Hesse, Mary, 69 History, traditional, 183–184, 195; meaning versus historical interpretation, 197 Holism, 85 209 Index Hull House, 148 Human condition: pragmatic view of social research, 145 Human nature, 147 Humanities, Hume, David, 16–17, 21, 28, 38, 64 Husserl, Edmund, 120–122; free imaginative variation, 120–121; intentional analysis, 121; structures of consciousness, 120 Hypothetical-deductive model, 18, 29–30, 64, 68 Idiographic (versus nomothetic) explanation, 116–117, 134, 168, 196, 198 Incognizability, 139 Induction See Deduction Instrumental knowledge, 160–161 Intersubjective agreement, 47, 50–51, 55–56, 193–194 Jakobson, Roman, 100–101, 102–103 James, William, 138, 141–144 Japanese culture, 119 Jarvie, I C., 73 Kant, Immanuel, 116, 118 Kepler, John, 18, 19 Knowledge: antifoundationalist approach to, 185; antifoundationalist approach to society, 166–167; as narrative, 180–182; Nietzsche’s willto-power concept, 169; and power, 8, 166, 168, 171–172, 182, 185, 199; and social progress, 13, 15, 22, 25, 32–34, 53, 74–75; universal findings versus narratives, 199–200 Knowledge and action, 148, 198– 199; pluralistic and provisional knowledge, 154–156; pragmatic social research, 160–161; teleology and melioration in pragmatic approach, 151–152 Kuhn, Thomas, 77–78 Lakatos, Imre, 74 Language: antifoundationalist role of, 186–187; Nietzsche’s treatment of language as metaphor, 168–169; structural linguistics, 175–177 Language games, 75, 80, 181, 194, 200; application to social interaction, 71– 73; influence on postpositivism, 66– 68; and nonlinear progress, 77, 82 Latin America, 8, 183 Laudan, Larry, 74 Lazersfeld, Paul, 52 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 92, 102–103 Libertarianism, 153 Linear (versus nonlinear) progress, 66, 77–78, 81–82, 166–168, 189, 199 Linguistics, 68, 73, 86, 88, 92, 93, 97– 101, 108, 182–184; diachronic versus synchronic, 98; innate grammar, 100–101, 103; La langue versus parole, 99; Prague School, 99–100; signifiers versus signified, 98, 102, 176–177; structural, 175–177 Literacy rates, 156–159 Lobachevsky, Nikolai, 37 Logic, 35, 37, 42; mathematics as a subfield, 43, 44–45; relational, 42, 43–44; soundness (versus validity) of arguments, 42–43, 60 Logical positivism, 139 Logocentrism, 178180 Luther, Martin, 114 Lyotard, Jean-Franỗois, 152154, 180, 181182 Mach, Ernst, 8, 35, 36, 37–41, 45, 92; Ernst Mach Society, 45 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 94–96, 100, 101 Marxism (and post-structural critique), 168, 169, 174 Materialism, 142 Mathematics, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 42, 44–45 Mathesius, Vilem, 99 Mead, George Herbert, 138, 146–147 Meaning versus historical interpretation, 197 210 Index Means versus ends, 197–198 Meliorism, 150–152 Mendel, Gregor Johann, 89 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 122 Merton, Robert, 95, 96–97; actual social role (versus intended purpose), 96; understanding versus explaining a social practice, 97 Metaphor (role within explanations), 168–169, 170–172, 186–187, 199 Metaphysics, 3, 12, 51, 64, 181; and logical positivism, 46–47, 53; and social explanations, 24–25, 27, 29 Methodological approaches See Antifoundationalism; Hermeneutics; Positivism; Pragmatism; Structuralism Mill, John Stuart, 21, 27–28, 57, 63 Model-building in the social sciences, 166, 186, 198 Modernization (and modernity), 108–109, 168, 169, 172–173, 181 Modus ponens (versus tollens), 44 Molière, 25 Mormons, 52 Musgrave, Alan, 74 Nagel, Ernest, 58, 59 Narrative (also metanarrative), 199– 200; antifoundationalism, 166–167, 175, 186; knowledge as, 180–182; open and closed, 186 Naturwissenschaften, 131–132 Neurath, Otto, 46, 52 Neutrality of knowledge, 199 Newton, Isaac, 11, 18–21, 26 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 177; and nihilism, 168–172; use of metaphor, 168, 170–171, 177, 180; will-to-power, 169, 171–172, 185 Nigeria, 107–108 Nihilism, 168–171 Nomothetic explanation See Idiographic explanation Objectivity, 3, 194; and ethical indifference, 21, 32; within hermeneutics, 120, 124, 133, 196; postpositivism, 193–194; teleology of pragmatism, 151 Observations, 193; versus interpretation, 196 Open explanations, 185–186 Oppenheim, Paul, 59–60 Organicism, 89–90 Paradigm, 77–78 Parsons, Talcott, 95 Particularized research, 198 Parts (versus wholes), 85–87, 89–90, 104–105, 106, 194–195 Peirce, Charles, 138–141, 143 Phenomenalism, 26, 47, 50–51, 55–56 Phenomenology, 50, 114, 120–122, 136; existential (versus rationalist), 122 Philanthropy, 148 Phonocentrism, 178 Physical sciences, 1, 78; and hermeneutics, 7, 111–113, 114, 118–120, 132–134; influence on early positivists, 6, 11, 18–21, 57; influence on logical positivism, 36, 53–54; influence on structuralism, 88; origins of pragmatism, 138; versus social sciences, 3–4, 46–47, 101, 116 Physicalism, 47, 50–51, 55–56 Physics, 3, 23, 26, 37, 45, 47, 53 Piaget, Jean, 92 Pluralistic knowledge, 154–156 Polanyi, Michael, 71 Popper, Karl, 58, 63–64, 70, 76–77, 78 Portuguese colonial rule, 107–108 Positivism, 137, 139; knowledge as narrative, 181–182 Postmodernism, 140 Postpositivism, 191, 196; dynamic tensions raised by, 193–194; framing the research question, 203; investigation technique, 203 Post-structuralism, 147–149, 175–177 Practicalism (versus pragmatism), 141–142 211 Index Pragmatic maxim, 140, 144, 149–150 Pragmatism, 191; Addams, Jane, 147–148; defining, 137–138; Dewey, John, 144–146; dynamic tensions, 197–199; elements of, 148–156; feminist influences on, 152–154; implications of, 156–164; James, William, 141–144; Mead, George Herbert, 146–147; origins of, 138–148; Peirce, Charles, 138–141; pluralistic and provisional knowledge, 154–156; pragmatic maxim, 149–150; purpose of social research, 162–164; teleology and meliorism, 150–152 Prague School, 99–100 Prediction (as a goal of scientific inquiry), 29, 30, 60, 134; and antifoundationalism, 138–140, 162; and British empiricists, 15, 16, 17; and counterfactuals, 62; and the hypothetic-deductive model, 64; and logical positivism, 49; and the scientific revolution, 19, 20 See also Verification Presence (Derrida’s referent), 178 Principle of economy, 40–41 Principle of experience, 142–144 Probability See Certainty Problem solving, 146–147 Process of discovery (versus process of justification), 75–76 Protestant Reformation, 113, 114 Protocol sentences, 48–50, 52, 66 Provisional knowledge, 154–156 Psychoanalysis, 130–131 Public education, 188 Purpose of research, 162–164 Quantum mechanics, 20, 38 Quine, Willard, 69 Race relations, 200–205 Racism, 54, 70, 102, 128, 200–205; lynchings, 104–105; U.S Civil Rights Movement, 181 Radcliffe-Brown, A R., 95–96, 101 Radnitzky, Gerard, 74, 76–77 Rationalism, 137, 142 Rationality, 76 Rationalization (and the social order), 168, 172–173; origins of antifoundationalism, 169 See also Empiricism Reason: Nietzsche targeting, 170 Reason (multiple patterns of), 66, 75–77, 194, 196 Reichenbach, Hans, 20, 45, 46, 58, 76 Relativism, 66, 71–74, 78–79, 134– 135; dynamic tensions raised by postpositivism, 193; and pragmatism, 154 Rheme (versus theme), 99–100 Rickert, Heinrich, 116–117, 118 Ricoeur, Paul, 132 Rorty, Richard, 153–154 Rupture See Discontinuity (and rupture) Russell, Bertrand, 8, 35, 36–37, 42–45, 47, 60, 149 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 122 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 68, 92, 98–99, 100, 101, 102, 176 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 115–116, 125 Schlick, Moritz, 45, 46 Scholasticism, 15 Schutz, Alfred, 121–122 Scientific method, 1, 13, 144; pragmatism, 151 Scientific revolution, 18–21 Sense data, 45, 68; and empiricism, 4, 12–13; and logical positivism, 39, 47, 48, 50, 51 Shapere, Dudley, 74 Signs and symbols, 140–142; poststructuralism, 177 Skepticism: Nietzsche and antifoundationalism, 168–169 Skinner, B F., 63 Smith, Adam, 153, 170 212 Index Social development, 158–159 Social facts, Social investigation, 142; consequences of decisions while conducting, 200– 205; framing the research question, 201–202; pragmatism, 137–138, 144, 145, 150–151, 155, 156–164; purpose of research, 162–164; technique selection, 203–205; teleology of pragmatism, 151 Social phenomena in flux, 188 Social problems, 148 Social relationships, 153 Social sciences, 1, 2, 9, 65, 78; and hermeneutics, 11, 196; and language games, 67; and logical positivism, 36, 47, 53; and physicalism, 51 See also Physical sciences Social structures, 7, 88, 90–92; and levels of analysis, 87, 91–93, 104–105 Social wholes, 51 Sociology, 2, 52, 53–54, 88; influence of Comte, 22, 23, 24, 26; influence of linguistics, 97–98 Somalia, 73 Soviet Union, 160 Speculative forms of social research, 158–159 Speculative knowledge, 160–161 Spencer, Herbert, 12, 170–171 Structural anthropology, 86–87, 101– 103; semiology (or semiotics), 102 Structural determinacy, 195 Structural linguistics, 175–177 Structural psychology, 92, 93 Structuralism, 169, 191; dynamic tensions raised by, 194–195; framing the research question, 201; French social thought, 174; grand explanatory schemas, 183; investigation technique, 203; post-structuralism as response to, 175–176 Subjectivity, 14, 117, 129, 130, 136; and hermeneutics, 7, 111–113, 124– 127, 132–134, 196; and physicalism, 50–51; pragmatic maxim, 150; and researcher bias, 3, 37–40, 196; structuralism and post-structuralism, 176 Supreme Court, U.S., 132 Syllogism, 13–14, 16, 43 Symbols See Signs and symbols Systems, 85–87, 90, 93–94, 104, 106, 108 Tautology, 107 Teleological explanations, 18, 20–21, 143; pragmatism, 150–152 Theory-laden observations, 6–7, 66, 68, 69–71, 81, 87, 187, 193 Tonnies, Ferdinand, 12 Toulmin, Steven, 74, 78 Trubetzkoy, Nicolay, 101–102 Truth: determinants of, 181–182; and postpositivism, 193 Tubman, Harriet, 187 Tuskegee syphilis experiment, 32 Uncertainty (Nietzsche’s notion of), 170–171 Underground Railroad, 187, 189 Understanding (versus explanation), 195–196 Unit of analysis (versus of observation), 105, 195 Universal claims, 193 Universal conditional, 61–62 Universal findings, 199–200 Universal laws of social development, 190 Values: pragmatic view of social research, 137–138, 145, 146, 163–164; tensions raised by postpositivism, 193 See also Facts Verification, 19, 48, 181; verification principle, 47, 48–50, 54–55, 63–64 Verstehen (interpretation), 114, 116, 118–120, 196 Vienna Circle, 9, 45–51, 52, 55, 58, 68 Vietnam War, 128 213 Index Waisman, Friedrich, 46 Weber, Max, 118–119 Western civilization, 113, 115–116, 165–167; versus nonwestern civilizations, 8, 33–34 Whitehead, Alfred, 42 Wholes See Parts Whorf, Benjamin, 71, 73 “Will-to-power” concept (Nietzsche), 141, 143–144, 157, 169, 171–172 Winch, Peter, 71 Windelband, Wilhelm, 116–117, 118 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 51, 66–68, 71, 73, 74, 133, 154, 181, 200; and Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 47–48, 66 Women (and society), 106; civil rights movement, 181; feminist influences on pragmatism, 152–154; pragmatism, 139, 147–148; suffrage movement (U.S.), 126 214 About the Author David Baronov is a professor of sociology at St John Fisher College in Rochester, New York Previous publications include The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil (Greenwood, 2000) and The African Transformation of Western Medicine and the Dynamics of Global Cultural Exchange His current research examines AIDS in Mozambique, while developing an analysis of the dialectics of inquiry across the historical social sciences 215 .. .Conceptual Foundations of Social Research Methods This page intentionally left blank Conceptual Foundations of ? ?Social Research Methods Second Edition David Baronov First published 2012. .. to infringe Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Baronov, David Conceptual foundations of social research methods / David Baronov. — 2nd ed p cm Includes bibliographical references... 978-1-59451-738-9 (pbk : alk paper) 1. Social sciences? ?Research? ??— Methodology. 2. Social sciences —? ?Research? ??— Philosophy. I. Title H62.B337? ?2012 300.72 — dc23 20120 10971 Designed and Typeset by