Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Facts

• Facts do not explain themselves on their own. 
•  To understand life, we rely on our common sense. 
•  We interpret our experiences, referred to as our "facts", by organizing them into a set of related ideas. 
• Sociologists also follow this process, but they use a specific framework called a theory. 
•  A theory is a broad statement that describes how different parts of the world are connected and how they function. 
•  It provides an explanation of how two or more facts are linked to each other. 

Functionalism

• Functional analysis, also known as functionalism or structural functionalism, is a foundational concept in sociology that views society as a cohesive unit made up of interconnected parts, much like the organs of a living organism. Just as these organs must work together for the body to function properly, the various components of society must collaborate to maintain social order and stability.
• Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, early thinkers in sociology, likened society to a living organism. They believed that, just as the organs of a body need to function harmoniously for the individual to be healthy, the different parts of society must work together for it to be healthy and functional. This perspective emphasizes the importance of each part of society in contributing to the overall well-being and stability of the community.

The Role of Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim, a key figure in functionalism, expanded on this idea by suggesting that society is made up of various parts, each with its own specific role or function. When all these parts perform their functions effectively, society is in a state of balance or "normalcy." However, if any part fails to do its job, society falls into an "abnormal" or "pathological" state. Durkheim's approach highlights the need to examine both the structure of society (how its parts fit together) and the function of each part (what it does and how it contributes to the whole).

The Perspective of Robert Merton

• Robert Merton, another important figure in functionalism, offered a different take on the concept of society as a functioning unit. While he moved away from the idea of society as an organism, he kept the core idea that society is made up of parts that work together. Merton introduced the concept of functions, which refer to the positive consequences of people's actions that help maintain the balance of society. In contrast, dysfunctions are harmful consequences that disrupt this balance.
• Merton also distinguished between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are intended and recognized consequences of an action, while latent functions are unintended and often unrecognized consequences that still contribute to the system's adjustment. For example, if the government encourages higher birth rates through financial incentives, the increase in sales of baby products resulting from higher birth rates would be a latent function.

Similarly, latent dysfunctions are unintended consequences that harm the social system. For instance, if a government policy leads to unintended increases in poverty and social unrest, these outcomes would be considered latent dysfunctions.

Applying Functional Analysis

• Functional analysis can be applied to any social group, whether it is a large society, a college, or even a small family. By examining the functions and dysfunctions of each part, we can better understand how it contributes to or detracts from the larger unit. 
• This approach helps us see the interconnections and interdependencies within a social system, emphasizing the importance of each part in maintaining the overall stability and functioning of society.

Understanding Conflict Theory and Marxism in Sociology

Conflict Theory Overview:

• Conflict theorists view society through a lens of constant struggle and competition. They argue that every society is marked by some level of disagreement, control, and coercion, which are integral to its functioning.
• Unlike functionalists who see conflict as a threat, conflict theorists believe that conflict can actually lead to stability and agreement within society.
• This perspective pushes for a deeper examination of how consensus and balance are achieved amidst ongoing conflict.

Marxism and Conflict Perspectives:

• At the heart of the conflict perspective is the idea that society is made up of various groups with clashing values and interests. These groups have unequal access to resources like wealth, power, and prestige.
• The Marxian approach, a key part of conflict theory, emphasizes the role of economic factors and social class in shaping these conflicts. It focuses on the struggle between the bourgeoisie (the wealthy class) and the proletariat (the working class).
• The neoconflict approach expands on this by examining how conflicts over power and authority can be functional and necessary for social order.

The Marxian Approach Explained:

• Karl Marx’s ideas form the basis of the conflict perspective. He believed that society is divided into different groups whose interests often clash, primarily due to economic factors.
• Marx highlighted the conflict between the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and the proletariat, who sell their labor. This struggle is central to societal dynamics.
• When conflicts arise, the dominant group (bourgeoisie) tries to impose its values and beliefs on the weaker groups (proletariat). This leads to the exploitation of the working class.
• While the conflict perspective is rooted in Marx’s ideas, modern theorists also incorporate other elements into their analyses.

The Neoconflict Approach:

• From this viewpoint, social conflict is seen as a necessary part of society that can lead to negotiation and compromise, ultimately reinforcing social order. For instance, in a diverse society like the United States, conflicts among different groups (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) are common but can also lead to a stronger social structure.
• Conflicting interests, such as debates over budget cuts, illustrate how different groups (like those relying on Medicare vs. defense contractors) negotiate their interests without one group completely overpowering the other. These internal conflicts can diminish in the face of external threats, as a common enemy often unites diverse groups.
• Neoconflict theorists argue that, in industrial societies, class conflict is more about the unequal distribution of authority than about the ownership of production means, as Marx suggested. Conflicts, such as those between professors and students, often arise from differences in power and authority rather than economic ownership.

C. Wright Mills and the “Power Elite” Concept:

• C. Wright Mills advanced the conflict perspective by examining how power and authority are distributed in American society. In his book The Power Elite(1956), he argued that post-World War II America was dominated by a powerful elite comprising military, industrial, and political leaders.
• This elite group, according to Mills, influenced both foreign and domestic policies to benefit the wealthy and powerful, shaping society in ways that reflect their interests.
• Mills’ approach emphasized historical and structural aspects of class conflict and how ideology is used to maintain dominance over other groups.

In summary, conflict theory, particularly through the lenses of Marxism and neoconflict approaches, provides a framework for understanding the complexities of societal struggles and power dynamics.

Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

1. Human Action and Meaning: People act towards things based on the meanings they attach to them.
2. Meaning from Interaction: These meanings are derived from social interactions with others.
3. Changeable Meanings: Meanings can be changed or modified through interaction and interpretation.

The Role of Symbols in Daily Life

• Symbols play a crucial role in defining our relationships and coordinating social actions. Without symbols, our social life would be as basic as that of animals. For instance, symbols like "aunt," "uncle," or "teacher" define our relationships and guide our behavior towards others. Consider the example of falling in love and preparing for marriage. If you suddenly discover that your partner is actually your long-lost sibling, the symbol of "spouse" would instantly change to "sibling," altering your behavior and the nature of your relationship.
• Symbols are not just essential for relationships; they are fundamental for the existence of society itself. They enable us to plan, communicate, and coordinate actions with others. Without symbols, we couldn't build infrastructure, create art, or establish institutions like hospitals, governments, or religions.

Key Concepts in Symbolic Interactionism

Proponents of the interactionist perspective focus on micro-level analysis, examining the day-to-day interactions of individuals and groups. Three major concepts within this perspective are meaningful symbols, the definition of the situation, and the looking-glass self.

• Meaningful Symbols: Meaningful symbols are critical for understanding social interaction. These symbols, such as sounds, objects, colors, and events, represent something beyond themselves. Language is one of the most powerful meaningful symbols, enabling communication through shared word meanings. The ongoing process of social interaction involves creating, defining, and redefining these symbols, making society possible.
• Definition of the Situation: The definition of the situation refers to how people shape social reality through interaction. Once a definition is established, it influences all subsequent interactions. For example, when someone decides they are "in love" with another person, it alters how they interact with them. Similarly, if a married couple defines their relationship as over, it significantly impacts their interactions and the future of their marriage.
• The Looking-Glass Self: The looking-glass self concept suggests that an individual's self-concept is largely influenced by how they are perceived by others in society. Society acts as a mirror, reflecting feelings of self-pride, self-doubt, self-worth, or self-loathing. These elements play a crucial role in socialization and the formation of personal and social identities.
• Dramaturgical Analysis: Dramaturgical analysis, a framework within symbolic interactionism, compares social behavior to a theatre performance. In this view, individuals are seen as actors playing roles in the drama of life. People actively shape interactions to present themselves positively, often engaging in impression management to create favorable impressions.
• The Labeling Approach: The labeling approach within symbolic interactionism posits that people assign labels to behaviors, individuals, and groups, influencing social identity and shaping others' attitudes and responses. For example, in Howard Becker's "Outsiders," jazz musicians were labeled as "deviant" due to their unconventional music and lifestyle choices.

Evolution of Symbolic Interactionism

• In the late 1950s, some sociologists criticized symbolic interactionism for its reliance on ethnographic studies and subjective interpretations. 
• They advocated for a more scientific approach, emphasizing quantifiable data and statistics. This shift led to the development of the Iowa School of symbolic interaction and a revival of structural functionalism.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

Historical and Social Contexts:

• Interactionists are criticized for not adequately considering the historical events and wider social frameworks that shape specific interactions.
• These contextual factors are essential as they influence the interaction situations being studied.

Structural Norms:

• While interactionists acknowledge the presence of structural norms, they often treat these norms as given without explaining their origins.
• This approach raises questions about why individuals consistently choose to act in certain ways in specific situations.

Flexibility vs. Constraints:

• Critics argue that interactionists emphasize the flexibility and freedom of human action while downplaying the constraints on such actions.
• This oversight leads to a lack of explanation regarding standardized normative behavior and the motivations behind social norms.

Source of Meanings:

• Interactionists are also criticized for not adequately explaining the source of meanings they emphasize in interactions.
• Critics argue that these meanings are not spontaneously created but are systematically generated by the social structure, particularly influenced by class relationships.

American Cultural Influence:

• Some critics, like Leon Shaskolsky, argue that interactionism reflects American cultural ideals, emphasizing liberty, freedom, and individuality.
• This perspective suggests that interactionism is shaped by the cultural environment of American society, influencing its interpretation of social interactions.

In summary, while interactionism offers valuable insights into human interaction, critics highlight its limitations in addressing historical context, structural norms, and the sources of meanings, suggesting a need for a more comprehensive understanding of social behavior.

Phenomenology

Differences Between Natural Sciences and Sociology

• The natural sciences focus on matter, which can be understood and explained through external observation. Atoms and molecules do not possess consciousness, meanings, or purposes that guide their behavior. Matter reacts "unconsciously" to external stimuli, and natural scientists can observe, measure, and impose an external logic on this behavior without needing to explore any internal logic. This is because matter lacks consciousness.
• In contrast, humans have consciousness, which includes thoughts, feelings, meanings, intentions, and self-awareness. This consciousness makes human actions meaningful. People define situations and attribute meanings to their actions and those of others. Unlike matter, humans do not merely react to external stimuli; they act based on the meanings they assign to those stimuli.
• For example, early humans did not simply react uniformly to the heat of fire caused by volcanic eruptions or spontaneous combustion. They attached various meanings to fire, which guided their actions. They defined fire as a source of warmth for heating their dwellings, a means of defense against wild animals, and a tool for transforming substances through cooking and hardening wooden spear tips. Humans do not just react to fire; they act upon it based on the meanings they ascribe to it.

The Role of Subjective Meanings in Action

Since human action is rooted in subjective meanings, sociologists must uncover these meanings to comprehend actions. They cannot merely observe actions from the outside and impose an external logic; instead, they must interpret the internal logic that guides the actions of individuals.

Max Weber's Contribution

Max Weber was among the first sociologists to elaborate on this perspective. He argued that sociological explanations of action should begin with the observation and theoretical interpretation of the subjective "states of mind" of actors.

Analysis of Phenomenology

• Interactionism, similar to phenomenology, emphasizes the process of interaction. While positivists focus on facts and cause-and-effect relationships, interactionists prioritize insight and understanding. Since it is impossible to delve into the minds of actors directly, discovering meaning relies on interpretation and intuition. Consequently, objective measurement is unfeasible, and the precision of the natural sciences cannot be replicated in sociology.
• Meanings are continually negotiated through ongoing interactions, making it impossible to establish straightforward cause-and-effect relationships. Some sociologists argue that sociology is limited to interpreting social action, leading to phenomenological approaches being referred to as "interpretive sociology."
• Critics of the positivist approach contend that it distorts the portrayal of social life by depicting individuals as passive responders to external stimuli rather than active creators of their own society. Positivism often presents people as reacting to various forces, pressures, economic infrastructures, and social system requirements.
• Peter Berger, for instance, argues that society has been likened to a puppet theatre, where individuals are seen as "little puppets" acting out assigned roles. However, from a phenomenological standpoint, individuals are not merely reactive; they actively construct their own meanings and realities through interactions with others, thereby directing their own actions.

Understanding Ethnomethodology: A Study of Social Methods and Order

• Ethnomethodology, when translated, refers to the examination of the methods people use in their daily lives. It focuses on how individuals within society construct, explain, and derive meaning from their social environment through various methods and procedures.
• Drawing inspiration from the European tradition of phenomenological philosophy, ethnomethodologists particularly acknowledge the influence of Alfred Schutz, a philosopher-sociologist.
• Many ethnomethodologists start with the idea that society exists only to the extent that its members perceive and acknowledge its existence. This focus on individual perceptions of social reality aligns ethnomethodology with a phenomenological approach. It is essential to note that ethnomethodology is an evolving perspective encompassing diverse viewpoints.

Explaining Social Order

• One of the primary concerns of sociology is to explain social order. Through various investigations, it has been observed that social life exhibits a degree of order, regularity, and systematic, patterned behavior. Traditionally, sociologists have assumed that social order has an objective reality.
• In contrast, ethnomethodologists either set aside or reject the belief in an actual, objective social order. They operate from the premise that social life appears orderly to its members. To the individuals within society, their everyday activities seem organized and systematic, but this perception of order does not necessarily stem from the intrinsic nature or inherent qualities of the social world. Instead, it may simply be a construct of how members perceive and interpret social reality.
• In this light, social order becomes a convenient fiction—an appearance of order created by the members of society. This constructed order allows the social world to be described, explained, and made knowable, reasonable, understandable, and ‘accountable’ to its members.

Subject Matter of Ethnomethodological Inquiry

The methods and accounting procedures that members use to create a sense of order in their social world are the focal points of ethnomethodological inquiry. According to Zimmerman and Wieder, ethnomethodologists are interested in how members of society perceive, describe, and explain the order in their everyday lives.

Critique of Conventional Sociology

• Ethnomethodologists are critical of other branches of sociology, particularly the conventional approach. They argue that traditional sociologists have misunderstood the nature of social reality by treating it as something with an objective existence independent of members’ accounts and interpretations. For instance, phenomena like suicide and crime are seen by conventional sociologists as facts with their own existence, leading them to provide explanations for these ‘facts.’
• In contrast, ethnomethodologists contend that the social world is composed solely of the constructs, interpretations, and accounts of its members. They believe that the role of the sociologist is to explain the methods and accounting procedures that members use to create their social reality. Ethnomethodologists argue that mainstream sociology has failed to do this effectively.

Research Methods: Ethnomethodologists vs. Conventional Sociologists

• Ethnomethodologists see little distinction between conventional sociologists and the average person in society. They argue that the research methods employed by sociologists are fundamentally similar to those used by individuals in their everyday lives. Members of society, using the documentary method, constantly theorize, draw connections between activities, and create an orderly and systematic view of the social world, treating it as if it had an objective reality separate from themselves.
• Similarly, ethnomethodologists claim that conventional sociologists use the documentary method, theorize, and draw relationships to construct a picture of an orderly and systematic social system. Sociologists operate reflexively, just like any other member of society. For example, when a functionalist interprets behavior as reflecting an underlying pattern of shared values, they also use instances of that behavior as evidence for the existence of that pattern.
• Through their accounting procedures, both members of society and sociologists construct a representation of society. In this sense, the average person is their own sociologist, and ethnomethodologists see little difference between the societal pictures created by individuals and those provided by conventional sociologists.

Critique of Ethnomethodology

• Ethnomethodology has been criticized for its conventional or 'folk' sociology approach. Critics argue that the members depicted in ethnomethodological studies seem to lack motives and goals. Anthony Giddens points out that there is minimal reference to the pursuit of practical goals or interests in ethnomethodology. The writings of ethnomethodologists do not adequately explain why people behave in certain ways or consider the impact of power dynamics on behavior.
• As noted by Gouldner, Garfinkel does not view the definition and establishment of social reality as a struggle among competing group definitions. The common-sense conception of the world is not seen as shaped by power differences. Critics argue that ethnomethodologists overlook the fact that members' accounting procedures occur within a system of social relationships with power disparities.
• Ethnomethodologists tend to dismiss anything not recognized and accounted for by society members. They imply that if members do not acknowledge the existence of objects and events, they are unaffected by them. However, as John H. Goldthorpe criticizes, members can be impacted by factors like bombs and napalm without having to be oriented toward them. Death, for instance, limits interaction regardless of members' recognition of certain constraints.
• Furthermore, Giddens points out that ethnomethodologists' accounting procedures should be studied just like those of conventional sociologists or any other society member. The process of accounting for accounts is never-ending, leading to the implication that nothing is ever knowable. Despite its shortcomings, ethnomethodology raises intriguing questions.