Experiments in sociological research Flashcards
Karl Popper (1959)
The logic of scientific discovery
The positivist methodology seeks to uncover social facts. It aims to find the laws that govern social behaviour and then explain them in precise, measurable ways.
The inductive approach- a range of data is collected, before being analysed by a researcher, explaining what the data shows.
> Karl Popper rejected this method since it assumes that, once a theory emerges from the data that has been analysed, ‘facts’ are established.
> Karl popper states that there will always be a possibility that ‘facts’ are later disproven, so he instead asks social scientists to follow a deductive approach.
> The deductible approach begins with a sociologist creating a testable hypothesis in wanting to make sense of human behaviour. The hypothesis can then be continually tested as data is collected and analysed.
> Popper claimed that one of the best ways to put the deductive approach into practice is by using labatory experiments.
Laboratory experiments.
Laboratories are closed settings. They allow scientists to manage and control the exact steps taken within research. Precise predictions can be tested, based on a hypothesis that has been identified beforehand.
> Sociologists who use this method begin by identifying precisely what they want to explain and make sense of. This is referred to as a dependent variable.
> Independent variable can also be used which may affect the dependent variable.
> A control group is also introduced, where no independent variable is used to manipulate the dependent variable in any way. This allows the scientist to begin isolating different, independent variables to see which have the most significant effect.
> This helps to support the process of falsification since the continual testing of the hypothesis can take place. ‘knowledge’ is never considered absolute in this way, but the more a hypothesis stands its ground, the more convincing the sociologist’s conclusion will appear to be.
Albert Bandura (1965)
imitative aggression: The Bo-Bo Doll
Bandura and his colleagues wanted to explore the effects on children of viewing media images of violence.
> One group of children was shown a video of an adult behaving aggressively toward an inflatable bo-bo doll. They saw another adult come into the room and criticize the adult for their behavior.
> Another group of children also saw the film, however, they saw another adult enter the room and praise the first adult for acting violently towards the doll.
> A third group of children also watched the film, but no additional adult entered the room at all. All children were then allowed to play in a room full of toys, including the bo-bo doll.
> Bandura and his colleagues found out that the children who watched the adult be criticized for her behavior acted less aggressively towards the toys.
Positives of Banduras study
Positive:
- Bandura’s study provides a good example of what popper meant by the deductive method. The hypothesis the research team sought to test, after all, was related to whether a child’s exposure to violence increases violent tendencies as they get older.
- Laboratory experiments are considered to have good reliability. It is possible to repeatedly test, testing the impacts that different independent variables might have on the dependent variable.
- Laboratory experiments also have the benefit of people often being very willing and forthcoming in wanting to take part in a study. This is not only time efficient but also helps to ensure that research can be replicated easily.
Negatives of the Banduras study
> The Hawthorne effect- people inevitably change their behavior when they know that they are being studied. This will therefore will affect the validity/reliability of the research findings.
> There is a risk that laboratory experiments are too quick to identify ‘cause and effect’. Despite links to Bandura’s study, critics argue that the effects are more short-term and temporary rather than long-term and permanent.
> A lack of informed consent is a major challenge barrier to the credibility of laboratory experiments. At times research has failed to obtain consent, contrary to British Sociological Association requirements.
Stanley Milgram (1974)
This experiment involves Milgram lying to his subjects about the purpose of his research, telling them they were participating in an experiment on learning, in which they were told by the researcher to administer electric shocks when the learner failed to answer a question correctly.
> However, the purpose of the experiment was to test people’s willingness to obey authority in inflicting pain.
> Milgram found that 65% of people who took part, were prepared to follow orders in administering electric shocks of 450 volts. No shocks were administered, his participants had therefore been deceived.
EVALUATION:
> Experimental research like this can cause harm. In Milgram experiment, for example, some participants were seen to have ‘sweated, stuttered, trembled and groaned’ while taking part. People felt stupid to follow the instruction and fell into depression.
> Milgras critics point out that to lie and deceive participants in the name of research can never be right, something Milgram disputed.
Field experiments
Field experiments take place in the natural surroundings of society, rather than in artificial laboratory settings. Participants are generally not aware that they are taking part in the research.
The pseudo-patient Experiment
In 1973 a group of 8 sociologists presented themselves at different mental health hospitals in the USA, complaining that they had been hearing voices.
> Once in the hospital they no longer complained about hearing voices, but instead behaved entirely normally.
> Each staff continued to treat each sociologist as if they were mentally ill. The researchers claimed that this study allowed the testing of the hypothesis that being negatively labeled defines a person in such a way that they can never escape it.
> Participants were unaware that they were taking part, so their behavior was completely genuine and authentic. This helps to increase the likelihood that true cause and effect can be established.
EVALUATION:
> Field experiments make it very difficult to control different variables that might best identify cause-and-effect relationships. This is something laboratory experiments can do more easily.
> Field experiments can further highlight ethical problems. Pretending to be mentally unwell when you are not is highly unethical. Securing a place in a mental hospital under false pretenses denies somebody who is genuinely unwell the treatment that they desperately need.
> The pseudo-patients found difficulty trying to exit the mental hospital as many checks and regulations were needed, showing how the experiments can be unpredictable.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
In order to investigate the power labeling can have on academic performance, sociologists Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted a field experiment at her school in the USA.
> Teachers were tricked into thinking that their classes had been given an IQ test and that the results could be provided to them in helping to identify who would most likely make the most progress in a year.
> In reality, scores were randomly assigned to pupils (who knew nothing about the experiment). A year later, evidence showed that pupils who teachers were told would make the most academic progress, generally did. The researchers claimed that this could only be explained by the power of positive explanations.
Positives:
> Positivist sociologists claim that Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study provides a great example of how cause and effect can be established once independent variables are tested against a dependent variable.
> There is good reliability within this study.
EVALUATION:
> Critics argue that the research is ethically flawed. Experimenting on children is always controversial, and the study may have caused long-term damage to these children’s education and life chances.
> This research was rather time-consuming, especially since it involved over a year in between first testing the children and the follow-up assessments to see who made the most progress. This is a problem for sociologists who are under pressure to provide faster, high-impact data and results.
The Comparative Method
The comparative method does not take place in a laboratory or in a field. Instead, it looks at situations that have happened or are still happening in society, without requiring artificiality. Variables are identified and are then used to measure relationships of cause and effect.
Emile Durkheim (1897)
Le Suicide
In attempting to understand how suicide could be linked to society, Durkheim looked carefully at how different variables based on different groups of people, different societies and different periods of time had an influence on suicide rates.
> Looking at the extent to which a person is socially integrated within society, compared to how morally regulated they are by society, he claimed to have established cause-and-effect relationships.
> Durkheim believed that his comparative approach proved that suicide, in being influenced by society, is a social fact.
positives:
> The comparative method avoids the artificiality that we find in laboratory settings. It can aso be used to study past events.
> Does not provide any ethical concerns since people are not deceived or harmed.
> Allows the sociologist to study the causes of large-scale social change over long periods of time
EVALUATION:
The comparative method is arguably untrustworthy. The researcher has very little control over variables, so we cannot be entirely sure whether a cause-and-effect relationship has been discovered. Durkheim for example, may have mistaken causation for correlation.
