Sociology. Anthony Giddens

      Researchers may want to know why some young Muslims in the UK wear headscarves while others do not. However, it can be difficult to establish a causal relationship between the various factors involved.

However much correlational work is done on any issue, there always remains some doubt about the possible causal relationship. Other interpretations of the correlation are at least theoretically possible. It has been proposed, for instance, that people who are predisposed to lung cancer are also predisposed to smoke. On this view, what causes lung cancer is not smoking per se but, rather, some in-built biological disposition to both smoking and cancer. Identifying causal relationships is normally guided by previous research into the subject at hand. If we do not have some reasonable idea beforehand of the causal mechanisms involved in a correlation, we would probably find it very difficult to discover what the real causal connections are. In short, we would not know what to test for.

Sociological research methods

      A common distinction is often made in sociology between quantitative and qualitative research methods and traditions. The former are associated with functionalism and positivism, the latter with interactionism and the search for meanings and understanding. As the term suggests, quantitative methods try to measure social phenomena and will use mathematical models and, often, statistical analysis to explain them. Qualitative methods attempt to gather detailed, rich data, allowing for an in-depth understanding of individual actions within the context of social life. As a rough-and-ready guide to a diverse range of sociological research methods, this distinction is a useful starting point. Many sociologists do tend to specialize or even favour one tradition over the other. However, there is a danger that the two traditions will be seen as opposing ‘camps’ with entirely different approaches to research. This would not be very productive, nor does it adequately describe the situation that exists.

      In fact, many research projects use mixed methods – both quantitative and qualitative – in order to gain a more comprehensive and rounded understanding of the subject being studied. The findings from separate quantitative and qualitative studies can also be combined. For example, some feminist sociologists favour qualitative methods, which, they argue, allow the authentic voices of women to be heard in ways that quantitative studies just cannot match. This latter point is undoubtedly correct. But without quantitative studies it would not have been possible to measure the full extent of gender inequality in society or to set those individual women’s voices into a wider societal context. Sociologists have to be prepared to use the most appropriate methods for the specific questions they want to answer.

      Next, we look at some of the various research methods sociologists commonly employ in their work (see table 2.2).

Ethnography

      The approaches of both Laud Humphreys and Li and his colleagues in China were forms of ethnography, a type of fieldwork, or first-hand study of people, using participant observation and/or interviews as the main research methods. Here, the investigator hangs out, works or lives with a group, organization or community and sometimes plays a direct part in their activities.

      Where it is successful, ethnography provides information on the behaviour of people in groups, organizations and communities as well as on how those people understand their own behaviour. Once we see how things look from inside a given group, we can gain a better understanding, not only of that group but also of social processes that transcend the situation under study. Ethnography is one of a number of qualitative research methods used in sociology that aim to gain an in-depth knowledge and understanding of relatively small-scale social phenomena.

      In the traditional works of ethnography, accounts were presented without much information about the researchers themselves being included, as it was thought that an ethnographer could present objective accounts of the societies they studied. In more recent years, ethnographers have increasingly discussed themselves and the nature of their connection to the people under study. Sometimes this reflexivity might be a matter of trying to consider how one’s own ethnicity, class or gender has influenced or affected the work, or how the power differences between observer and observed have impacted on the dialogue between them.

Table 2.2 Four widely used methods in sociological research