This is a five page APA citation style position paper with two references cited. The subject of improving data collection and data analysis methods in sociological research will be explored. The implications of the implementation of improved data collection and data analysis methods will be discussed.
Introduction
Sociological researchers and other social empiricists are usually disturbed by the negation of many of the empiricists whom practice the physical sciences to recognize the scientific aspect of the study of sociological theory. At times, this has been considered to be a form of class distinction or a strategy directed at diminishing the number of available competitors who are vying for academic resources. This perception can be perceived as a category of the deficient perception of the discipline of sociology. It has been debated that science is perceived as a fundamental form of investigation. Social empiricists who engage in the application of the scientific process should receive the same quality of prestige and support as those whom endeavor in the physical sciences (Lenski, 1988).
This perspective of the distinction between the quantitative measurement of the natural sciences and the physical sciences is not without basis; however, it fails to take into account one important assumption. Science is greater than the methodology which is part of the data collection and theoretical formulation segment. The goal of science is the production of a category of confirmable and reproducible hypothesis. As a result, for many of the individuals who possess training in the study of the physical sciences, the criteria of the empirical nature of a discipline is the nature of the hypotheses which are formed around it as a science. Lamentably, the majority of the sociological and macro- sociological hypothesis, do not comply with the requisites of this criteria. This holds true for the majority of the hypothesis which the sociological scientists adhere to the most (Lenski, 1988).
The hypotheses which underlie macro-sociological study are deficient when they are evaluated with regards to their ability to fulfill two distinct standards. Primarily, the majority of these hypothesis cannot be concocted in the identical non-descript manner as can be done in the physical sciences. Secondly, the macro sociological hypotheses are deficient in their association to the substantial theoretical connections to other fields of study. These are important shortcomings which can be perceived from the perspective of those who are adept in the formulations of hypotheses in the scientific process. This deficiency in the data collection methods and the application of replicable theories raises doubts with regards to the comprehensive endeavor to which the social scientists are dedicated (Lenski, 1988).
In the perspective of the social scientists, the inquiry which must be made is that whether the conventional data collection and assessment methods are requisites in the production of hypotheses in the field of sociology or whether they are defects which have been permitted to thrive by means of the lack of diligent inquiry. This failure to thrive of the data collection and analysis paradigms of the physical sciences has had an adverse effect on the disciplines of sociological theory (Lenski, 1988).
The arguments have attempted to justify the denial of the application of data collection and data analysis theories in the sociological fields which are prevalent in the physical sciences. There has been demonstrated a need for the open debate of the incorporation to the application of the scientific method to the identical extent to which it is applied in the physical sciences. This acknowledgement of the requirement of the data collection and data analysis processes which are applied in the scientific method in the physical sciences has not been entirely accepted by the community of sociological researchers. This has been a principal challenge in the discipline of sociology (Lenski, 1988).
The most prominent objection of these recommendations is founded upon the assumption that individuals are distinct from the subjects who are reviewed in the physical sciences. Individuals are composed of free will and awareness. The subjects which are explored and quantified in the physical sciences do not possess these characteristics. In addition, the social sciences are deeply affected by a number of diverse cultural belief systems. Furthermore, the aspects of large scale motivations of groups of individuals are not given to the identical conditions which can be formulated in laboratory environments. As a result, the assumption is that the social sciences cannot abide by the same scientific methods which are applied in physical and biological sciences (Lenski, 1988).
The science of sociology has not been subjected to the identical rapid advancements as the physical sciences have been subjected to. One of the most significant aspects of the hypotheses of natural sciences is that they are constant evolving, the hypotheses which are formulated derive significant hypothetical advances. There has been specific hypothetical progress in the discipline of sociology. Notwithstanding, this progress is not parallel to the rate of progress in the formulation of evidence based hypotheses as in the physical sciences (Lenski, 1988).
An assessment of the current condition of sociological hypothesis can be examined in the curriculum which is offered to advanced sociology students. The advanced courses in sociology are usually composed of the sacred triumvirate of Durkheim, Weber and Marx, in addition to a restricted review of the work of other sociologists. The focus of the advanced sociologic courses appears to be founded on a synthesis or evaluation of the work which was conducted by the major sociologists. In reviewing this characteristic, the study of sociology has a greater alignment with theological exogenesis than advanced studies in physical sciences (Lenski, 1988).
The debate which surrounds the rationale and the aspect of the abstractions which are conducted in the discipline of sociology are as established as the study of sociology. The majority of the most recognized academics in the fields of sciences and the humanities have been engaged in a methodological discussion which has continued for almost three hundred years. As a result, an agreement is not foreseeable in the near future on the rationale and the aspect of the abstractions which are applied in formulating sociological hypotheses (Bryant, 1992).
Notwithstanding, there has been a pronounced renaissance of a supposedly assertive perspective in the theoretical discussion which have recently taken place. These discourses are promoting the argument that this aspect of a renaissance will elevate sociology to a status which is regarded with more prestige by the empiricists in peripheral s and physical sciences (Bryant, 1992).
Lenski’s advocacy for the promotion of the positivist perspective imitates with the assumption that the principal challenge which must be addressed by social science is the intellectual satisfaction of the empiricists in the sociological and macro sociological fields. Lenski continues to defend the current school of thought which perceives that sociological data cannot be assessed by the identical paradigms which are applied in the physical sciences. Weber demonstrates that the assumptions which govern the tenets which govern human behavior are founded upon historical and cultural antecedents in lieu of having the characteristic of being generally confirmed by a unified theory. The perspectives which have been held as being widely accepted in the discipline of sociology have not been amended. Those who have proposed changes have been excluded (Bryant, 1992).
Many of the social scientists which include: Blalock, Duncan, Lieberson and Lenski have continued to demonstrate interest in the dysfunctions which are manifest in the discipline of sociology. Notwithstanding the quest must be amplified for remedies to the acceptance of the scientific method in the discipline of sociology (Bryant, 1992)
Conclusion
It may be an overstatement to declare the discipline of macro sociology is in a critical state which is the outcome of the deficiencies its underlying hypotheses. The discipline of sociology has progressed slowly over the last few decades and can most likely be anticipated to continue a slow progression with regards to the acceptance of the scientific method. In Lenski’s treatise, it is proposed that the field of sociology cannot be assessed by the same paradigms which are applicable to the physical sciences. Bryant provides a thorough criticism of Lenski’s perspective. If the slow progress which has been manifest in the discipline of sociology is facilitated by the non- acceptance of the scientific methods which are applied in other fields, it may be anticipated that there will be many sociological empiricists who possess differing hypotheses and perspectives (Lenski, 1988; Bryant, 1992).
It is fortunate that the modifications which are required in order to avoid the widespread discrepancy of the sociologists are not as severe as they are projected to become. The main requirement is that more thought and dedicated empirically based research is dedicated to the field of sociology in order to promote its progression as a science. This reflection must be directed toward more diligent investigation than has previously been conducted. The investigation which would be required in order to enable the field of sociology to be regarded as a science by empiricists in other fields would be evidence based hypotheses which are derived from research which has adequate data collection and data analysis methods.
The advancement of the data collection methods in the discipline of sociology could have the outcome of amazing advances in the area of macrosociology. This is the challenge which faces the field of sociology, the improved application of data collection methods and data analysis tools. The unification of the members of the academic community and their consensus on this requisite is required in order to promote the recognition of macrosociology as a science and not simply a compilation of exogenesis from the foremost sociologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Bibliography
Bryant, J.M. (1992). Positivism redivivus?A critique of recent uncritical proposals for reforming sociological theory (and related foibles)*. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 17(1): 29- 53.
Lenski, G. (1988). Rethinking macrosociological theory*.American Sociological Review, 5 53: 163- 171.
