examples of quantitative research methods in sociology

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Recall the 6 Steps of the Scientific Method
• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
• Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to received demographical data pertaining to residents. The questions pertain to the demographics of the residents who live in the United States. Currently, the Census is received by residents in the United Stated and five territories and consists of 12 questions.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample , a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal thought processes are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and lady gaga as sociological subjects.

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and fingers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.

This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study . To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male- dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Sociological Research

The making of middletown: a study in modern u.s. culture.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000) as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minorities or outsiders—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds objectively described what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. As a result, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six chapters: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg. 2000).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times. Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

A real-life example will help illustrate the process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory, she conducted research. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: Black, White, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who had had perfect driving records for longer than a year.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support for the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The research was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm, 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization (WHO), publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of a recession. A racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Quantitative Methods in Sociological Research

Introduction, professional associations.

• Data Sources
• Data Archives
• Statistical Software Packages
• Research Design
• Survey Research
• Categorical Data Analysis
• Longitudinal Data Analysis
• Structural Equation Modeling
• Multilevel Modeling
• Causal Inference
• Critical Reflections
• Mixed Methods
• Network Analysis
• Training and Other Resources

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Agent-Based Modeling
• Cohort Analysis
• Mathematical Sociology
• Multilevel Models
• Panel Studies
• Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
• Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research
• Social Indicators
• Social Networks
• Survey Methods

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Consumer Credit and Debt
• Global Inequalities
• LGBTQ+ Spaces
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Quantitative Methods in Sociological Research by Erin Leahey LAST REVIEWED: 13 November 2018 LAST MODIFIED: 27 July 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0044

Sociology develops, adopts, and adapts a wide variety of methods for understanding the social world. Realizing that this embarrassment of riches can bewilder the newcomer, this entry is intended to guide scholars through some of the main methods used by quantitative social scientists and some of the key resources for learning such methods. Because many sociologists in the United States receive foundational training in multivariate linear regression, this entry focuses on developments that go beyond this topic, including categorical data analysis, structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, longitudinal data analysis, causal inference, and even network analysis. The recent wave of interest in mixed methods also merits inclusion. A section on critical reflections aims to encourage researchers to be reflective and thoughtful about the approach(es) they choose.

A number of professional associations are open to quantitative methodologists and researchers, including the two ASAs ( American Sociological Association and American Statistical Association ), the Population Association of American (PAA) , for demographers broadly defined, and the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for survey researchers and methodologists.

American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) .

Founded in 1947, AAPOR is an association of individuals who share an interest in survey research, qualitative and quantitative research methods, and public opinion data. Members come from academia, media, government, the nonprofit sector, and private industry. Meetings are held in even-numbered years.

American Sociological Association (ASA) .

The national professional association for sociologists, ASA serves as a reference for professional, ethical, and pedagogical topics; sponsors nine journals; and hosts an annual meeting.

American Statistical Association (ASA) .

ASA is the world’s largest community of statisticians and the second-oldest professional society in the United States. For 170 years, ASA has supported excellence in the development and dissemination of statistical science. Its members serve in industry, government, and academia, advancing research and promoting sound statistical practice to inform public policy and improve human welfare.

Population Association of America (PAA) .

PAA is a nonprofit organization that promotes research on population issues such as fertility, migration, health, and mortality. PAA sponsors the journal Demography .

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Sociology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Actor-Network Theory
• Adolescence
• African Americans
• African Societies
• Analysis, Spatial
• Analysis, World-Systems
• Anomie and Strain Theory
• Arab Spring, Mobilization, and Contentious Politics in the...
• Asian Americans
• Assimilation
• Authority and Work
• Bell, Daniel
• Biosociology
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Catholicism
• Chicago School of Sociology
• Chinese Cultural Revolution
• Chinese Society
• Citizenship
• Civil Rights
• Civil Society
• Cognitive Sociology
• Collective Efficacy
• Collective Memory
• Comparative Historical Sociology
• Comte, Auguste
• Conflict Theory
• Conservatism
• Consumer Culture
• Consumption
• Contemporary Family Issues
• Contingent Work
• Conversation Analysis
• Corrections
• Cosmopolitanism
• Crime, Cities and
• Cultural Capital
• Cultural Classification and Codes
• Cultural Economy
• Cultural Omnivorousness
• Cultural Production and Circulation
• Culture and Networks
• Culture, Sociology of
• Development
• Discrimination
• Doing Gender
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Durkheim, Émile
• Economic Institutions and Institutional Change
• Economic Sociology
• Education and Health
• Education Policy in the United States
• Educational Policy and Race
• Empires and Colonialism
• Entrepreneurship
• Environmental Sociology
• Epistemology
• Ethnic Enclaves
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
• Exchange Theory
• Families, Postmodern
• Family Policies
• Feminist Theory
• Field, Bourdieu's Concept of
• Forced Migration
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Gender and Bodies
• Gender and Crime
• Gender and Education
• Gender and Health
• Gender and Incarceration
• Gender and Professions
• Gender and Social Movements
• Gender and Work
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender, Sexuality, and Migration
• Gender Stratification
• Gender, Welfare Policy and
• Gendered Sexuality
• Gentrification
• Gerontology
• Globalization and Labor
• Goffman, Erving
• Historic Preservation
• Human Trafficking
• Immigration
• Indian Society, Contemporary
• Institutions
• Intellectuals
• Intersectionalities
• Interview Methodology
• Job Quality
• Knowledge, Critical Sociology of
• Labor Markets
• Latino/Latina Studies
• Law and Society
• Law, Sociology of
• LGBT Parenting and Family Formation
• LGBT Social Movements
• Life Course
• Lipset, S.M.
• Markets, Conventions and Categories in
• Marriage and Divorce
• Marxist Sociology
• Masculinity
• Mass Incarceration in the United States and its Collateral...
• Material Culture
• Medical Sociology
• Mental Illness
• Methodological Individualism
• Middle Classes
• Military Sociology
• Money and Credit
• Multiculturalism
• Multiracial, Mixed-Race, and Biracial Identities
• Nationalism
• Non-normative Sexuality Studies
• Occupations and Professions
• Organizations
• Parsons, Talcott
• Political Culture
• Political Economy
• Political Sociology
• Popular Culture
• Proletariat (Working Class)
• Protestantism
• Public Opinion
• Public Space
• Race and Sexuality
• Race and Violence
• Race and Youth
• Race in Global Perspective
• Race, Organizations, and Movements
• Rational Choice
• Relationships
• Religion and the Public Sphere
• Residential Segregation
• Revolutions
• Role Theory
• Rural Sociology
• Scientific Networks
• Secularization
• Sequence Analysis
• Sex versus Gender
• Sexual Identity
• Sexualities
• Sexuality Across the Life Course
• Simmel, Georg
• Single Parents in Context
• Small Cities
• Social Capital
• Social Change
• Social Closure
• Social Construction of Crime
• Social Control
• Social Darwinism
• Social Disorganization Theory
• Social Epidemiology
• Social History
• Social Mobility
• Social Movements
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Policy
• Social Problems
• Social Psychology
• Social Stratification
• Social Theory
• Socialization, Sociological Perspectives on
• Sociolinguistics
• Sociological Approaches to Character
• Sociological Research on the Chinese Society
• Sociological Research, Qualitative Methods in
• Sociological Research, Quantitative Methods in
• Sociology, History of
• Sociology of Manners
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of War, The
• Suburbanism
• Symbolic Boundaries
• Symbolic Interactionism
• The Division of Labor after Durkheim
• Tilly, Charles
• Time Use and Childcare
• Time Use and Time Diary Research
• Tourism, Sociology of
• Transnational Adoption
• Unions and Inequality
• Urban Ethnography
• Urban Growth Machine
• Urban Inequality in the United States
• Veblen, Thorstein
• Visual Arts, Music, and Aesthetic Experience
• Wallerstein, Immanuel
• Welfare, Race, and the American Imagination
• Welfare States
• Women’s Employment and Economic Inequality Between Househo...
• Work and Employment, Sociology of
• Work/Life Balance
• Workplace Flexibility
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Principles of Sociological Inquiry – Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

(28 reviews)

Amy Blackstone, University of Maine

Copyright Year: 2012

ISBN 13: 9781453328897

Publisher: Saylor Foundation

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Sosanya Jones, Associate Professor, Howard University on 1/31/22

The book does a fairly good job of covering a lot of topics in the research design process for both qualitative and quantitative research. I think it could have been more expansive in the coverage and discussion about the role of paradigm,... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book does a fairly good job of covering a lot of topics in the research design process for both qualitative and quantitative research. I think it could have been more expansive in the coverage and discussion about the role of paradigm, reflexivity, and positionality for qualitative research. I also think that its division between qualitative and quantitative research was a bit antiquated with little nuance and complexity for those who want to conduct mixed methods research.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I think the coverage of paradigms was limited and there was a lack of complexity when it discussed some topics such as approaches. But overall, most of it was fairly accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

I think that it needs to be updated to be more relevant, but overall there are still concepts of importance that are well covered in this text.

Clarity rating: 4

It's fairly simple and easy to read for the most part.

Consistency rating: 4

Some topics are covered more in-depth than others.

Modularity rating: 3

It's a bit dense and strangely formatted. In terms of presentation, I don't think it's very appealing for students, but instructors may enjoy the exercises offered.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I think the order and organization could have been more cohesive.

Interface rating: 5

Good interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Good grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I think it could have featured more diverse examples.

Overall, this is a good textbook for beginning researchers, but it may need some supplemental articles for areas that are not covered.

Reviewed by Christina Pratt, Professor, Pace University on 7/25/21

Good basic coverage of interpretive and qualitative methods; explanatory and quantitative methods; mixed methods; scant content on innovative approacheds to online surveys, big data; understanding behavior through smartphones; technology and... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Good basic coverage of interpretive and qualitative methods; explanatory and quantitative methods; mixed methods; scant content on innovative approacheds to online surveys, big data; understanding behavior through smartphones; technology and visual analysis; historical data.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Methods content is accurate.

The heteronormativity of examples render the text unfriendly.

The text is written in clear accessible language. The examples neglect attention to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Consistency rating: 3

The text is consistently biased toward examples representing dominant cultural heteronormativity.

Modularity rating: 4

The modules proceed in a logical progression. Good content on research ethics.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Fine level of organization and navigation.

Interface rating: 3

The pdf is easily navigated; the hyperlinks to New Yorker cartoons do not visualize the cartoon captioned in the text. All research questions, case examples, illustrations of concepts carry a dominant cultural heteronormative bias.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

No errors detected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Heteronormativity in case examples, illustrations, questions, inquiry dominate the text. As such, it is outdated as relevant to structural sources of intersectionality in investigator positionality.

Reviewed by Florencia Gabriele, Adjunct Professor, Massachusetts Bay Community College on 6/29/21

The book would benefit from an index and glossary. The material is easy to find despite lacking an index and the book follows a logical order and the material becomes more complex as the book progress. read more

The book would benefit from an index and glossary. The material is easy to find despite lacking an index and the book follows a logical order and the material becomes more complex as the book progress.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found no errors in the book

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The book can be used in any humanities/social science class, not only in sociology

Clarity rating: 5

The book is an excellent source for any principles of research class for high school, community college, or college classes. the book si clear to understand and follow

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent and provides a complete overview of what it takes to do research and write a research project/paper for students.

Modularity rating: 5

the book is divided into chapters that are easy to follow and understand and could be divided into smaller sections if needed.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The book is organized in a logical manner.

I had not issues using the interface and neither did my students.

I found no grammatical errors

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The book is inclusive and provides excellent examples

I used the textbook to introduce college methods to a pre-college class of outstanding students who wanted to write a good sample paper to be used in their application essays for college. The book was clear, well organized, and provided great examples. also, it did not overwhelm my students. while it might not be appropriate for a college-upper level class, it is a great introduction on how to do research, how to ask a proper question, how to organize the work and the data, what type of study to do, and how to write a paper.

Reviewed by Kay Flewelling, Adjunct Faculty, University of San Diego on 5/3/21

This is an easy-to-read description and introduction to principles of sociological inquiry. Blackstone is adept at explaining critical social science research terminology as she places these in context with other disciplines. The introduction to... read more

This is an easy-to-read description and introduction to principles of sociological inquiry. Blackstone is adept at explaining critical social science research terminology as she places these in context with other disciplines. The introduction to concepts is comprehensive, though not overwhelming with details. There is no glossary provided, though the Table of Contents provides some help with navigating through the different chapters.

I found the overall tone to be well managed, and found no errors in her descriptions of sociological concepts and research terminology.

The content was relevant, and timely. As the focus is on research principles, these topics were well-placed within context of seminal theories. If topics become outdated, these could be easily updated.

The strength of this text is the clarity of the prose. The author speaks directly to the reader, and makes research and methodology seem accessible and relevant. Terms are carefully defined and placed in easy-to-access contexts.

The text has a direct tone throughout. Each aspect of the research process is described in a similar, conversational tone.

This text is somewhat modular, but there are numerous points of self-reference that might make it less able to be easily assigned as distinct chapters.

The structure and flow was strong, especially in the early chapters. I found some of the later chapters to be a bit tacked on. For example, there is a chapter on how to consume research that I personally would assign with the chapter on reading literature.

I had no issues with navigation.

The book is clearly written. There were no grammatical errors that I noticed.

The text felt clear and culturally sensitive. If anything, it could have been more explicit to address cultural issues.

Reviewed by Yang Cheng, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University on 4/2/21

I reviewed the topics such as quantitative methods and qualitative methods, Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory, research ethics... The author did contain different topics in this book. If the author could provide more examples of quantitative... read more

I reviewed the topics such as quantitative methods and qualitative methods, Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory, research ethics... The author did contain different topics in this book. If the author could provide more examples of quantitative methods in social science, public relations, and communication, it would become more comprehensive.

Yes, it did accurately described each type of method and its applications in the real world.

It is relevant to the book introduction and title.

It accurately described qualitative and quantitative methods in sociology and provide concrete examples as well. The book could elaborate more on each type of research method. For example, when they introduce the survey method, more content could be illustrated such as how to design a research question for what type of survey method...

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology such as quantitative methods, measurement, and research design, etc.

The text is easily divisible into smaller reading sections.

The book follows a logical way to present different topics: It introduces why we need research methods, research methods, and then illustrates each type of method, and finally discusses the application in real practice.

The text is free of significant interface issues and I did not observe one.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

Yes, the book is inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Reviewed by Antwan Jones, Associate Professor, The George Washington University on 12/16/20

The textbook covers a large amount of material that introduces the reader to research methods. One of the weak points of the book is a lack of discussion on how to conduct a literature review. This information can obviously be supplemented, but it... read more

The textbook covers a large amount of material that introduces the reader to research methods. One of the weak points of the book is a lack of discussion on how to conduct a literature review. This information can obviously be supplemented, but it is odd that a research textbook glosses over this essential part of doing research.

The material is accurate with no presence of bias – which is great because you can normally tell whether the author of a methods textbook has a partiality for quantitative or qualitative methods. In this book, the author presents the material for all types of methods objectively.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Some of the examples provided are dated, but that is simply an artifact of when the book was written. Professors who decide to use this text should supplement examples included in the book with more contemporary examples that could be used to reinforce the material.

The language is very clear and user-friendly for an undergraduate student with limited exposure to research.

The book is well-structured with similar headings across all chapters.

If an instructor wanted to shuffle some of the content around, the structure of the book would allow for that to occur with ease.

This textbook is organized like other textbooks that I have used for Methods courses. One of the issues that I find with this “standard” organization is that that the reading and understanding research is one of the final chapters, when it really should be one of the first chapters of the book.

Interface rating: 4

I usually do not rely on external content from textbooks in my courses, but I decided to click on a random selection of external links within some of the chapters. Overwhelmingly, the links work and some of the content was highly relevant, but there were links that were broken as well. I mentioned in another section of my review that instructors should supplement this textbook with newer examples. By doing so, it would also remedy this potential textbook flaw.

Very few, minor grammatical errors are present in the book, but none are so egregious that it takes away from the quality (or the readability) of the work.

The examples and content are relevant to national (i.e., American) and international audiences, but more global examples would make the textbook even more culturally sensitive to a demographically changing world.

Research methods is a “bread-and-butter” course for the social sciences, so the context rarely changes. If you are looking for a quality textbook that gives students a solid foundation of the basic tenets of social research, this book will meet your needs.

Reviewed by Linda McCarthy, Professor, Greenfield Community College on 6/29/20

I have not reviewed or used other methods books, but this book includes what I would expect. I imagine most students would need more guidance on how to analyze data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. I appreciate that Blackstone includes... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

I have not reviewed or used other methods books, but this book includes what I would expect. I imagine most students would need more guidance on how to analyze data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. I appreciate that Blackstone includes the reasoning or the whys and whens of each method, as most students I encounter all are drawn to surveys, even when their research question would not warrant a survey. I liked the inclusion of how to review existing sociological research. I wonder if that would be interesting as part of the opening of the book? At least, the media module? Great to end the book with where we see sociological research being used in the "real world". And, excellent idea- to include a list of "transferable skills"! Students will feel that reading this book is time well spent! I did not see a glossary or an index.

Each chapter provides examples from research and gives citations for all these cited. I did not detect bias.

Research studies referred to are relevant, though some are highlighted more than others, and I was curious about some of those choices. I believe it will not be difficult to update the examples. Some of the examples (such as videos to check out) are pretty dated. For example, a clip from The View from 2011 will seem like ancient history to these students. I wonder if there are ways to better incorporate examples from social media (e.g Tic Tok instead of email)? That may be challenging as it changes so quickly. I like that students are introduced to a variety of sociological resources throughout this book.

I like the tone of the writing; it's easy to follow and friendly. The "technical" terms are explained well and contextualized as to why they are important. Blackstone's tone is personable; I like that she refers to her own experiences in a variety of ways.

Each module has the same Learning Objectives, Key Takeaways, and Exercises. Some of the Exercises are not as strong as others. The author wraps up the book by referring back to the beginning Intro chapter.

I like the modules format. Works for the short attention we all have these days. I would assign a chapter or two from this book to my Intro course.

I liked the order of topics very much. Starting with an intro, then theory, and ethics, before moving into how to start a research project makes sense. I liked how the student is encouraged to "start where they are". Being led through the possibilities of qualitative vs. quantitative, including the different types of field research was helpful and interesting. The order of the chapters made sense to me.

Interface rating: 2

On the PDF version, some tables carried over between pages, as did some of the Key Takeaways sections. Some of the visuals were not visible. Also, I got some 404 messages (the "hilarious video" on page 5, for example), which was disappointing. Also, every time I opened a link, it brought me back to the first page again, and that was frustrating. In fact, it taught me not to open any more links. The New Yorker cartoon links just takes you to a whole lot of them, not the one listed. Why list the Endnotes BIG (2) if they aren't hyperlinked? I don't like the different fonts. I checked out the online version and it is much easier to look at. Can the hyperlinks be set into the text, rather than the whole addresses listed out?

A couple minor grammar issues here and there, including no space between sentences.

In the research ethics section, I would suggest addressing the idea that vulnerable populations have included GLBTQ populations and therefore, sexuality research has been hindered to a certain extent (See Janice Irvine's work). A good variety/diversity of studies is referenced, allowing everyone to "see" themselves" in the book. I love the variety of examples in the "starting where you are" section.

I enjoyed it! I would feel comfortable assigning this book to second year community college students.

Reviewed by Walter Carroll, Professor of Sociology, Bridgewater State University on 6/10/20

This book appears reasonably comprehensive although the absence of coverage on network analysis is a weakness. Some recent textbooks have begun to cover this important approach. I would also have liked to see more coverage on data archives. For... read more

This book appears reasonably comprehensive although the absence of coverage on network analysis is a weakness. Some recent textbooks have begun to cover this important approach. I would also have liked to see more coverage on data archives. For example, although the texts refers to materials like Addhealth and the GSS, I did not see mention of the Inter-university Consortium on Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Although I emphasize both quantitative and qualitative aspects in teaching research methods there are topics covered that I would leave out, such as ethnomethodology. I would also liked to have seen information on carrying out Literature Reviews. I may have missed some of these things because of the lack of an index and a glossary. Other reviewers have pointed this out. For me this is a serious problem. As others have also pointed out, the 2012 publication date leads to some dated examples and no opportunity to include more recent examples. I used the pdf version for this review. I would like to see a deailed Table of Contents and an overall Chapter Outline at the beginning of each chapter.

The book seems to be accurate in discussing the material. The author presents the material accurately and in an unbiased way.

The contents were up-up-to date as of 2011-2012, but it needs revision to include more recent research examples and techniques. Although network analysis is not new, it is receiving renewed attention in methods texts. This book does not consider that approach. Although there are many basic underlying principles in research, there are also advances and many new examples of research that ought to be incorporated. Other reviewers have pointed out that instructors could add newer materials and resarch examples. This is true, but given the uneasiness with which undergraduate students approach research methods they often cling to the text as a life-saver and I'd prefer a more recent text.

The writing is accessible and clear. Occasionally there are grammatical errors and odd sentences, but overall Blackstone's writing is approachable.

Yes, the book is internally consistent in terminology and framework.

I differ somewhat from other reviewers on this. Yes, text is modular and sections and chapters can be moved around and reshuffled. However, I think that there is an order to thinking about research so a lot of modularity is not necessarily a big advantage to me. This is especially true in early sections fo the book when the author discusses general issues in methods, such as ethics, sampling, and research design. Actually, I prefer integrating discussions of some of those topics, such as ehtics, into coverage of each type of data gathering.

It is a well-organized text although a detailed table of comments, as I mentioned above, would make the organization more apparent to students early on in the class.

In the pdf version there are interface issues, but this may not be true of the online version.

There are a few, but not many.

The text is culturally senstivie and inclusive. A newer edition with more recent examples of studies in inequality, racial and ethnic issues, and gender would strengthen it.

This is a praiseworthy effort that arose from the author's own experiences and frustrations taking and -- presumably -- teaching research methods. It is accessible and has no major flaws, other than being a little old and lacking a few topics that I emphasize. I, and I think most faculty members, consider cost in adopting texts so it is appealing in that sense. However, there are other reasonably-priced methods texts. If it were updated to say 2017 or so, included more recent examples, and covered a few areas that I emphasize, such as network analysis, I would consider using it. As it stands however, although I like it, I would not use it.

Reviewed by Colleen Wynn, Assistant Professor, University of Indianapolis on 5/27/20

This text is quite comprehensive for an introductory methods course. It nicely covers both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. I appreciate the use of sociological examples both historical and contemporary. Of course, since this edition is... read more

This text is quite comprehensive for an introductory methods course. It nicely covers both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. I appreciate the use of sociological examples both historical and contemporary. Of course, since this edition is from 2012, the current examples are becoming a little outdated in 2020, but still serve as quality examples for students. As other reviewers have pointed out, there is not an index or glossary, though in the online version one can hover over key terms for definitions.

The content appears to be accurate and free from bias. There are some links that are broken, so instructors would need to check these and perhaps provide the current link or a substitute, but as the reference information is provided, this seems possible to do. There are also some editing errors, but the content itself is accurate.

This text uses both more classic examples and ones current to the 2012 publication date. Instructors could easily layer on additional examples in lecture or supplemental reading. The core concepts of research methods do not change very often, and most instructors use a combination of classic and contemporary examples, as this text does. The discussion of experiments in Chapter 12 could use more sociological examples of audit-studies, etc. This would be something instructors would probably want to add and discuss since these studies are used quite frequently in sociological research and their omission is disappointing.

The book is written very clearly and would work well in an undergraduate class. Key terms are bolded and explained, and in the online version, you can hover over them for a brief definition. Each section begins with learning objectives and ends with key takeaways and exercises. This presentation allows students to understand what they should be getting from the section (learning objectives), review that information (key takeaways), and apply their new knowledge (exercises). Instructors can use these to guide their classes, student reading, activities, etc.

The book is very consistent, using the same format for each chapter and subsection. This allows students to reorient before each new topic by reviewing the learning objectives and summarize each section in the key takeaways. This consistency is key as students often perceive methods to be a dry, boring subject.

Individual chapters or even subsections could easily be pulled out and used for other courses. Additionally, it seems possible to reorder some of the chapters, if an instructor would prefer, or to skip one here or there if time or course design warranted. This modular ability is a real strength of the text.

The book is well-organized and follows the same convention of many methods texts. However, if instructors would like to reorganize, the modularity would allow for the reorganization of this content to fit their course. Personally, I would probably move Chapter 14 on reading research earlier in the semester (maybe after Chapter 2) as I like to have students read examples of research alongside the text, and having a foundation of how to read and understand these articles and reports would be useful. But, overall, I think the text is well organized.

The online interface is easy to use. However, the PDF version has tables breaking across pages, figures missing, and the text sometimes changes size and font, which is quite distracting. Additionally, in the PDF there is no table of contents or way to easily navigate within the document. For this reason, I would encourage students to use the online version but download the PDF as a backup.

There are several grammatical errors throughout, but these are relatively minor.

The text uses a variety of diverse examples. The author could include more global examples in future editions if they wanted to add a more global component.

I appreciate there is an open-access methods book for sociology and I look forward to using this book in my future courses. Methods books tend to be quite expensive and it is a class where having the book is crucial for success so I think this is a great option to ensure students have access!

Reviewed by Yvonne Braun, Professor, University of Oregon on 11/27/19

I generally really liked this methods book and can imagine using it in an undergraduate methods course. It covers the main sections that most of us would expect to see in a methods text. The text needs a table of contents with breakdowns by... read more

I generally really liked this methods book and can imagine using it in an undergraduate methods course. It covers the main sections that most of us would expect to see in a methods text. The text needs a table of contents with breakdowns by sections within chapters, and would benefit from a glossary, index, and table of figures.

The book generally seems accurate. I think some of the discussion at times could have more nuance, but I understand and appreciate that the author has kept this methods book concise and focused which may have come at the cost of nuance in some areas.

This is a very relevant text with updated materials and I can imagine using it for a methods course. I really appreciate the focus on mixed methods which tries to move beyond the quantitative and qualitative divide that too often is the focus. It seems it would be relatively easy to update in the future due to the way it is organized.

The author writes very clearly and directly which I imagine would work well for undergraduate students at the introductory level. At times, I can imagine definitions being made more distinct could be useful for students.

The author keeps the book very consistent throughout, and successfully builds on examples and references made in multiple chapters.

The book has multiple levels of modularity. I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class. Each chapter has multiple modules that seem to keep each section reasonably focused on a particular set of ideas and concepts. A table of contents would really help.

I generally like the organization of the book. It seems organized similarly to other methods books in the field. As noted above, I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class.

I reviewed the PDF version. In general, I found it easy to navigate. My biggest complaint is the font and spacing issues that I find very distracting and even overwhelming at times. Some of the text, like chapter titles when referenced in text, are larger and in a different font and the spacing feels crowded.

There are a few grammatical errors that another round of edits would easily fix. A few sentences end strangely, and take a second read to understand.

The author does a nice job of aiming to be inclusive in the text with diverse examples.

I look forward to using this book in a future course.

Reviewed by Fatima Sattar, Assistant Professor of Sociology , Augustana College on 7/30/19

The text does a great job covering a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. I did not see an index or glossary. The text would benefit from adding both and/or a list of terms students should be familiar with at the end of each chapter. It... read more

The text does a great job covering a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. I did not see an index or glossary. The text would benefit from adding both and/or a list of terms students should be familiar with at the end of each chapter. It is very helpful that key terms are in bold in the text. In a future edition, more recent sociological scholarship on experimental methods and comparative and historical methods would be helpful.

The text appears to be accurate and unbiased as the author discusses strengths and weaknesses of the methods. The only error I noticed was that there were a few links to sources that did not work. The full reference is given so this can be easily found.

There are many relevant and classic examples that undergraduate students will be able to relate to. The narrative/personal style makes the text very accessible.

The author's writing is very clear, making it easy for undergraduates to comprehend. For example, students struggle with abstract concepts, e.g. theory vs. paradigm. The examples given provide clarity for students. There could be some clarification in Chapter 2. In Figure 2.2 the three main sociological theories are mentioned but also listed as paradigms. An explanation of interchangeable terms/complexity could be discussed more. The examples are excellent for giving students a better understanding of theory. The discussion of methods and theory could be elaborated as well (e.g. more examples of macro-micro links, macro forces impinging on the micro-local, research not being about just one of these, micro, meso, or macro).

The book is very consistent. Each section begins with "Learning Objectives" and ends with "Key Takeaways" and "Exercises". Very easy to follow!

I think the sections can be read on their own and assigned when needed.

I would probably reorganize some of the sections in teaching the course, because, for example, I would teach qualitative methods before quantitative methods. Also, the chapter on "Reading and Understanding Social Research" could be linked with "Research Design" to offer students examples earlier in the term to help inspire a project or begin a literature review for a research methods proposal assignment.

Interface is clear.

I did not notice any significant grammar issues.

The text has diverse examples but could expand to include more global research examples.

I would reorganize chapter 12 and 15. Focus group research could fit with applied or evaluation research - so these chapters could be combined. I also think the title of Chapter 12 could be more concrete than just "other methods." Experiments could be discussed earlier in the ethics chapter to offer more balance with ethically questionable experiments with experimental research done for social good/advancing equality. Add more examples of experiment research in sociology (e.g. Pager, 2003).

Reviewed by Rae Taylor, Associate Professor, Loyola University New Orleans on 4/24/19

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way. read more

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way.

While there are some quirky examples and passages throughout that undergraduates will probably roll their eyes at, the book reads free of bias and certainly accurate.

The content is indeed up-to-date, and will be easy to update as examples become obsolete.

The book does a great job of covering the material in a straightforward, non-intimidating kind of way. In my experience, students are nervous about taking Research Methods (though, not as nervous as Data Analysis), and this text should put them at ease. It is written in a very undergraduate-friendly way (indeed, probably too rudimentary for graduate students), explaining the more complicated concepts in a clear manner.

The book's writing style and layout are very consistent, which should help students navigate what may otherwise be considered dry material. This is a real plus.

This is a major strength of the book. I teach methods in a variety of formats (i.e. full semester, face-to-face, online, 8-weeks) and need a text that is modular. Not only are the chapters organized in a logical order, the individual chapters are modular, allowing a professor to assign sections of a chapter. This is particularly useful for some of the more complex areas, and areas where the professor would have supplemental materials.

The order of the chapters is logical and the individual chapters are also organized in a logical, useful way.

The text appears to be free of any of these problems. I am not sure how different computers or different software may affect this, but I had no interface issues while reading the text at home or at the office.

I did not detect grammatical errors.

I did not find anything to be culturally insensitive or offensive.

I appreciate very much that there is an open textbook option for research methods. There are many of these texts available, many very good, but they are always quite expensive, and often students will not buy them. As this is one text I believe is critical for a class, having the open text option is a wonderful alternative. I reviewed this book looking for things that were important but omitted, but it was comprehensive and current. I was also particularly concerned about the order of topics, but it has a great layout and order to the chapters. Finally, as stated above, I find the modularity to be a major strength.

Reviewed by DeAnn Kalich, Professor and Head, University of Louisiana at Lafayette on 3/31/19

I like the approach used here because I agree qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. Many methods books divide these out rather than synthesizing; I find that Blackstone has done an excellent job of weaving... read more

I like the approach used here because I agree qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. Many methods books divide these out rather than synthesizing; I find that Blackstone has done an excellent job of weaving these complementary methodologies together in her use of real research examples throughout the text. Chapter 3 is excellent not only as an introduction to ethics in research on human subjects, but on the history and purpose of IRB as well. There is no glossary as other reviewers have noted, but I honestly don't mind that. I have seen students rely on such items exclusively and therefore to not read the context or elaboration in the text and to subsequently understand the definition poorly. An index would be nice, but possibly difficult to tie to pages since the formats shift in differing versions (pdf v. online, for example).

The content is accurate and unbiased as it pertains to research methods per se. The presentation of the content, on the other hand, is not error free, and could use some finer editing. For example, there are missing words throughout the first chapter – this should be caught and fixed; it will undermine a student’s value placed upon the book assigned by their instructor. There are also broken links throughout the book but especially heavy in the first two chapters: 1.2 Exercise 3 video link doesn’t work; 1.3 Exercise 2 link is bad for ASA jobs; video clip links don't work in chapters 1, 2, 3.

The book uses both classic and contemporary research studies as excellent examples to further understanding of content. It will be relevant for the future with very little need to update due to obsolescence. I like the arrangement of the content and think it will flow naturally for a research methods class.

This text is one of the most lucid for students I have ever read. Many methods books are written with so much jargon that they hinder rather than help, especially undergraduate students. This text, on the other hand, provides easy to understand examples that are of interest to today's students, especially in North American undergraduate sociology programs.

The text is internally consistent and is well organized. The PDF version, however, is difficult to follow because the page breaks occur at inconvenient places (in the middle of a table or graph, or citation information).

In particular, the subsections in each chapter are divided into small reading sections that can easily be assigned at different points in the course. It is easily realigned to match the subunits of a course you may already teach without being difficult to do.

As stated above, the text is very well organized. It is logically ordered, and topics align closely to those found in most methods texts, but without unnecessary detail or extraneous fluff. Only one non-logical portion exists: Chapter 4 starts with a reference to preceding questions and BethAll and neither are in my version of the book. Not sure what is missing.

Again, the PDF format of the text has more interface issues due to the page-break locations that could be confusing to a student reader especially. Other features such as links to external cites like the ASA can confuse or distract a reader when the promised link is no longer a working link. A regular (twice yearly?) check of all such links is highly recommended.

Grammar is error free but copy editing is not. It is clear that the author is capable of executing complex sentences without grammar errors, but, there are words that are completely absent throughout the text that are obviously proof-reading related. It is highly recommended that there be a copy editor for this text.

The text is inclusive and not offensive or culturally insensitive. It makes use of examples that include a variety of backgrounds and characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, SES).

Chapter 15 is excellent for undergraduate sociology programs that require a research methods sequence for majors. Some of these students will go on to graduate work, but many will not, and this chapter provides real world information on careers using sociology and research methods that is useful and accurate.

Reviewed by Sarah Quick, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, Cottey College on 8/2/18

This book, in general, is comprehensive in that it covers research questions, the research process and design types, major methods or data collection strategies, and ethics from a sociological perspective. It is very accessible for undergraduate... read more

This book, in general, is comprehensive in that it covers research questions, the research process and design types, major methods or data collection strategies, and ethics from a sociological perspective. It is very accessible for undergraduate readers, but also assumes they are sociology students (as the title would suggest). Nevertheless, as one of the few open access methods books available, I have opted to use this book in a more interdisciplinary research methods course; and I am a cultural anthropologist—so I don’t see it as comprehensive if you include a wider disciplinary breadth. Even when other disciplines are included to locate their differences in framing research questions (chapter 4), anthropology is missing. Nevertheless, anthropology is definitely covered in the field research chapter (chapter 10), and I found this chapter to have a lot of depth in considering field notes and the next steps towards analysis. However, this chapter did not include anything on the more quantitative forms of observation used by some social scientists (even anthropologists). Finally, there could be at least a list or a list of resources for those other missing methods that the author implies exist in the Other Methods chapter (Ch 12).

As previous reviews have noted, there is no index. So, for example, a reader would not necessarily know that there’s a section on content analysis in the Unobtrusive Research chapter (chapter 11) unless reading that section directly. However, if you use the pdf. version instead of the online version, you may search it easily enough with key words/control f.

Part of the comprehensiveness or uniqueness of the text is the inclusion of the three final chapters on broader questions related to research (or why an informed research perspective may help you more broadly). One covers writing/publishing issues, another on how to read research papers critically as well as interpret others’ critiques/interpretations; and the final chapter really addresses the undergraduate audience by highlighting how research appears in jobs that may not be so obviously related to sociology. I imagine these chapters would be really helpful for a specifically-sociology methods course, but I’m not sure I will use all of them for the course I will be teaching.

Overall, a previous reviewer caught many more problems (although some of them were semantic rather than accuracy issues). But, I would agree with this reviewer on the paradigm vs. theory sections. I think these distinctions could be posed with more nuance, within a more interdisciplinary understanding/approach to paradigms and theory. I would agree with this reviewer that the paradigms and the theoretical umbrellas proposed are more overlapping than the author indicated. Also inaccurate is to not mention animal research in the non-human section and to not link this with ethical questions in the social sciences. Although perhaps uncommon in sociology, human-animal interaction studies are a growing area of interest that should not be excluded and require a nod to ethical concerns

The text does use relatively recent examples alongside classic studies, which I think is a good strategy. Nevertheless, some things (like the current president, the reliance/influence of social media) could be updated further.

Overall, the text is written very accessibly, and one of the reasons I plan to use it.

I did not notice any consistency issues although other reviewers did.

The book does reference previous sections/chapters quite a bit, but each section generally stands on its own well enough so that it could be sectioned out in different ways.

Overall the book flows well, and I especially appreciate the resource links and discussion questions at the end of each section.

Depending on whether you use the pdf vs. the online link, you will have a different experience. The online version, at first, seems easier to read until you get to a reference, then your reading is interrupted by the citation/citations, which can make the reading quite disjointed. In the pdf version these citations are in numbered notes that do not link, and the endnotes appear at the end of these sections. Neither interface is completely ideal.

Also, I appreciated the links to additional resources, but at least one link didn’t work (http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_jun_04/).

I did not find any grammatical errors.

Overall, the cultural relevance seems fine for a sociology course, although I would like more examples of cultures/studies outside the U.S., since that’s what I’m more used to as an anthropologist.

As noted above, I plan to use this book supplemented by many other chapters/articles for a Qualitative Methods course I will be teaching, one that is not housed in any one discipline. Because of the book’s accessibility (writing and price), even with the problems noted above, I will use it.

Reviewed by Bernadine Brady, Lecturer, National University of Ireland, Galway on 2/1/18

This text provides a very comprehensive introduction to Research Methods. In my opinion, it covers much of the content required on an undergraduate social science methods course, and is of particular value for sociology students. The value of... read more

This text provides a very comprehensive introduction to Research Methods. In my opinion, it covers much of the content required on an undergraduate social science methods course, and is of particular value for sociology students. The value of the book is in providing a comprehensive primer to help students to understand why and how research is undertaken. The reader can then supplement this knowledge with more in-depth texts as required. For example, the text is a little light on the philosophical foundations of qualitative and quantitative research (which may be seen as a strength or a weakness depending on your perspective!). No index or glossary are provided.

The book content was accurate and no errors were noted. The language and content was unbiased.

This book feels like it was written by a young person and draws on a range of examples and case studies that have contemporary relevance, which will have appeal for a lot of students. There are some specific content that will date - for example, in Chapter Four it is stated that Barack Obama is president. However, this content can be easily updated meaning that the book will remain relevant for a long period of time.

The main strength of the book, in my opinion, is its clarity. It is written in a very accessible style and the author does a really good job of explaining difficult concepts and research jargon in a very clear way. Practical examples are used throughout to demonstrate key concepts.

The text appears to be consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

This book can be easily divided into sections. Each chapter has a number of sub-sections, with clear learning objectives and takeaway messages included. I plan to use specific chapters of the book as recommended reading in a number of sessions of my research methods course. It should be noted that qualitative and quantitative methods are considered in tandem which may not lend itself to the teaching of modules dedicated to one approach only.

The structure of the book makes sense, with the topics organised in a logical, clear fashion.

The book is available in both Pdf and online format. The interface is clear and easy to navigate but there are some aberrations with regard to the formatting of in-text references in the online version. This is not a deal breaker - the Pdf version can be used if this is off-putting.

I did not have any issues with regard to grammar.

The content is probably quite North American in focus but has broader cultural applicability. A variety of examples are used that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicity and backgrounds.

In her preface, the author says that she was inspired to write this book from her experience as a student and having ideas about how she would like to be taught. The book is approached in this spirit and is written with the student in mind. There is a strong emphasis on making sociology and social research relevant to the students everyday life and interests. The author does a good job of de-mystifying complex concepts. As a result, it is a very accessible text that will appeal to students both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. I will be recommending this text for my courses.

Reviewed by Joanna Hunter, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 2/1/18

There isn't a glossary at the end of the book, or a list of bolded terms with definitions at the end of each chapter, which would greatly improve its navigability. My experience is that when students see a bolded term, they expect a list of them... read more

There isn't a glossary at the end of the book, or a list of bolded terms with definitions at the end of each chapter, which would greatly improve its navigability. My experience is that when students see a bolded term, they expect a list of them somewhere with definitions included. There is no index available. That said, the book is a comprehensive introductory textbook about research methods in sociology. The choice to tease out the differences between qualitative and quantitative interviewing is an interesting one, and one that is different from the approach in almost all other methods textbooks I am familiar with. I worry this would confuse students as they tend to want to draw clear lines between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, particularly at the introductory level.

There are a few small inconsistencies as noted in prior reviews, but the book is generally accurate. I will focus the bulk of my comments here on the chapter/section on public sociology. This text focuses very specifically on public sociology, but gives short shrift to policy sociology, with only a short paragraph on page 176 covering it. Particularly as we move into a paradigm where students expect that the skills they learn from our courses and programs will lead them directly to employment opportunities, this is a problematic omission.

Methodology changes comparatively slowly than other subject areas within sociology. That said, several of the examples given should be updated to reflect current realities.

Writing is generally clear, concise, and straightforward. That said, some of the terms used different than the terms I'm familiar with from other textbooks on the subject, which would require a bit of a shift in teaching style. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but could be a barrier to adopting the textbook.

The book is relatively consistent, but there are some editorial errors wherein certain tables/typologies use one set of terms and then other set uses a slightly different set of terms, which could be confusing for students.

The book is organized into modules that could be separated, but not without some work on the part of the instructor. At several points, there are calls back to previous chapters/modules that would need to be edited or addressed by an instructor if they were attempting to only use one (or several) modules.

Topics are organized well, but I found the insistence of including a learning objective for each and every small section to be a bit overbearing.

There are some issues with tables/charts not paginating correctly in the PDF format, and the HTML version sometimes returned a 404 error when using the 'back' button on my browser (Safari). There is no TOC in the PDF version.

No major grammatical errors.

No issues with cultural relevance.

Overall, a useful resource that could be modified to fit a variety of different courses.

Reviewed by Jessica Ganao, Associate Professor, North Carolina Central University on 2/1/18

The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. I especially like Chapter 14, as this something that I often assume students understand but they really do struggle with it. read more

The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. I especially like Chapter 14, as this something that I often assume students understand but they really do struggle with it.

Content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement. I like the fact that is a generic social science methods book because I can then add examples relevant to my field (criminal justice), but at the same time I adjunct at other universities in different disciplines so it will allow me to offer examples in those areas as well.

The text is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used. Indeed, this is very important as to make the content accessible to all students.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The text is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided). I agree, the text reads like a real book, which makes it easy to divide the content into sections for students and to assign sections for different class activities.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical, clear fashion. The book flows like all the other research texts I have used. It is very consistent with the leading research texts.

The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

I really am excited about this option for my students! I cannot believe a book of this quality is free!

Reviewed by Molly Dondero, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

Overall, I found the book to be fairly comprehensive. It touches on the main topics covered in an undergraduate sociological methods course, as well as some additional topics such as the chapter on “Research Methods in the Real World.” In general,... read more

Overall, I found the book to be fairly comprehensive. It touches on the main topics covered in an undergraduate sociological methods course, as well as some additional topics such as the chapter on “Research Methods in the Real World.” In general, I found the later chapters to be more comprehensive than the earlier ones. Some of concepts presented in the early chapters would benefit from additional depth. For example, I think the text would benefit from a stronger focus on how theory guides research and particularly, the link between theory, research questions, and hypotheses. The section on research questions could also be expanded. For these reasons, I would likely supplement the text with additional readings and/or lecture to expound on some of these key concepts.

The book lacks a glossary or index, which would be quite helpful.

I found the book to be generally accurate. As explained in my comment above, the explanations of some concepts could be improved by going into more depth, but they are not inaccurate as is.

The content is up-to-date. As is common, many of the examples provided will likely benefit from updating in the next several years, but the core material has longevity.

The writing is one of the main strengths of the text. The writing is clear and engaging. Blackstone defines key terms and concepts in a largely jargon-free fashion. This makes the text well-suited to an undergraduate audience of Sociology majors and non-majors alike.

The text is consistent in terminology and framework. Throughout the book, Blackstone makes references to concepts and examples discussed in previous sections. This adds to the overall consistency of the text and helps students to see how concepts connect.

Chapters are divided into short sections that can be easily assigned to and digested by students. The “Key Takeaways” sections at the end of each chapter are particularly helpful.

The organization of the book, particularly in the first four chapters, was not intuitive to me. If I adopt the text, I will likely teach the chapters out of order. For example, I would likely reverse the order of Chapters 2 and 3 (“Linking Theory and Methods” and “Research Ethics”).

There are no figures in the PDF version. I did not note any other significant interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

There are no significance grammar issues. However, there are sentences that are cut-off throughout the text (e.g. pp.52, 56, 62, 64 in the PDF version). These sentences all seem to be missing references to other sections of the book. The text would benefit from an additional round of editing to correct these issues.

The language is culturally relevant and inclusive. The author (understandably) draws most heavily on examples from her own research, but overall the examples provided throughout the text are inclusive of a range of diverse backgrounds.

Reviewed by Susan Calhoun-Stuber, Chair, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Colorado State University Pueblo on 2/1/18

The book is a comprehensive social science research methods text. It includes expected topics and some additional attention to some subjects. There is not index or glossary but the chapter titles would guide readers to appropriate topic areas. read more

The book is a comprehensive social science research methods text. It includes expected topics and some additional attention to some subjects. There is not index or glossary but the chapter titles would guide readers to appropriate topic areas.

The author presents a balanced view of different methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives in the social sciences.

There's little problem with current content as the information that needs to be kept current, examples from published research, could easily be updated.

One of the author's stated objectives in writing the text was accessibilty and she has accomplished this goal. Overall, the presentation, including examples, explanations, and definition, is straightforward and clear. The author's style will facilitate student understanding.

The text is internally consistent, within and across chapters.

The text's modularity is a strength. The sub-sections or units within each chapter could easily be reorganized within a different overarching course structure without detracting from the readers' learning or comprehension. Similarly, units within chapters could be re-aligned and chapters could be combined or rearranged with relative ease.

There is a clear logic to the book's organization. The key points (to be covered) and key takeaways at the opening and closing of sections, respectively aid the reader in focusing on core concepts. Resources and exercises function similarly.

There are some tables split across pages, which is distracting. Although many of the links, including re-directs work, several do not. Anyone using the text would need to update or replace - because this is a large number this would be a time-consuming task.

No problem with the writing, technically - at least not anything of a nature to raise this issue to a level of concern.

The heavy use of examples from published research provides a varied range of subject areas for readers, however not always in terms of cultural diversity specifically. While reading the text I was struck more by the diverse presentation than by a need for more inclusiveness. However, there was no offensive content. This part of the text's format however could be a way that users could augment the material by bringing in a more diverse array of examples.

Reviewed by Helen McManus, Adjunct Professor, Librarian, George Mason University on 6/20/17

This review considers this book's usefulness for a political science qualitative methods course. Political science programs typically require only quantitative methods training, therefore I am approaching this text with a distinct student... read more

This review considers this book's usefulness for a political science qualitative methods course. Political science programs typically require only quantitative methods training, therefore I am approaching this text with a distinct student population in mind--one that is not the original intended audience.

The book is most comprehensive on questions of data gathering and research ethics. Blackstone quickly runs through research design and philosophy of social science questions. Chapters 6 and 7, on measurement and sampling, respectively, are useful reference points. Chapters 8 through 12 introduce approaches to gathering data--surveys, interviews, field research, content analysis, and, briefly, focus groups and experiments. These chapters explain the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, tips for using each approach, and a very brief note on analysis. Students would need additional readings, exercises, and exposure to software before analyzing any data they collect.

As a text covering both qualitative and quantitative methods, the book is a useful primer with a pragmatic approach to choice of methods (what does your question require?). Blackstone treats quantitative and qualitative methods in parallel, and convincingly construes them as complementary approaches. Chapters on sampling, interviews, and content analysis (under "unobtrusive methods"), for example, consider qualitative and quantitative methods in turn. Students with quantitative methods training may find this reassuring, as the book draws connections between the familiar and the unfamiliar.

Much of the book is applicable across the social sciences, though the discussion of levels of analysis, prominent theories, and library research tools are specific to sociology, as are example research questions. Instructors might supply, or ask students to come up with, examples suitable to political science. Sociology does not typically refer to "puzzles", so political science instructors would need to introduce that in other course materials.

There is no index or glossary.

Like other reviewers, I have some concerns about terminology, such as in the discussion of paradigms and theories in the earlier chapters.

I was struck that gender remains male/masculine, female/feminine, or "other, though. This is an outdated approach, both within and beyond the academy.

Blackstone uses some contemporary (ish) examples, such as the Brangelina phenomenon, but she explains them well enough to keep readers on board. Links out to videos and cartoons are an excellent idea, but some links are already dead (for example, in section 10.1 there is a dead link to a cartoon: Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 )

This book is concise and easy to read. Blackstone uses clear, unpretentious language. In the online interface, readers can hover over bolded technical terms to see a quick definition.

I have no concerns here.

The chapters and sections lend themselves to easy rearrangement. For example, I plan to use chapter 15 (Research Methods in the Real World) belongs at the beginning of a course.

I am also incorporating sections of chapters into my online course. I find it helpful that each section of a chapter comes with its own learning objectives, key take aways, and exercises. Sections are clearly labeled, and the linked table of contents makes it easy to send students straight to a section of interest.

The chapters lead students from basic terminology to research design, on to data gathering, and then to possible uses of both research and newly acquired skills. I appreciate the early chapter on research ethics, prior to questions of research design.

Within each chapter, there are several sections of a manageable length. Each section opens with learning objectives, and closes with "key take aways" in a green box and "exercises" in a blue box.

The online interface is extremely simple. The most consistent navigation tool is a link to the Table of Contents, top and center of the interface. The additional navigation tools, though, vary somewhat. In some chapters, a reader can navigate to the next section (of that chapter); in other chapters, a similarly placed link allows the reader to navigate to the next chapter only. I found this inconsistency mildly troublesome, and quickly decided to rely on the ToC for moving between chapters and sections.

I notice that the PDF has unfortunately placed page breaks--some tables sit across two pages. The PDF also lacks a table of contents.

Blackstone writes in a casual tone, often using informal constructions and technically incorrect but ordinary usages. I find this inoffensive, and suspect that students will too. I noticed just one typographical error substantial enough to confuse a reader.

The text includes examples referring to gender roles, people of color, urban and rural contexts. As mentioned above, the use of male/female/other categories for gender is problematic, and hopefully would be addressed in any updates.

Citations are oddly inserted into sentences. Immediately following each regular in-text parenthetical citation, there is also a full (works cited list) citation, right there in the text. This is distracting.

Reviewed by Matthew DeCarlo, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 4/11/17

This book covers all of the important concepts in an introductory research methods text. Some of the more advanced concepts (e.g. types of validity and reliability) are cut out of this textbook, which is a choice I understand. Students are often... read more

This book covers all of the important concepts in an introductory research methods text. Some of the more advanced concepts (e.g. types of validity and reliability) are cut out of this textbook, which is a choice I understand. Students are often overwhelmed by the more advanced concepts within a chapter. This book does a great job of focusing on the important parts of each concept.

The content inside the book is accurate. Definitions of key research concepts are explained correctly and clearly.

This book is relevant well outside of its own discipline of sociology. Additionally, the research used for examples is generally from the last few years. While those examples would need to be updated as time moves forward, the core content will remain relevant for decades.

The language used to write this research textbook is the best I have seen so far in my career as a research methods instructor. Students are often put off by research language, and the author does an excellent job of avoiding jargon and making her language plain.

The framework of the book is perhaps its greatest strength. The author has framed research concepts within the proper epistemological and ontological frameworks, which allows her even-handed treatment of qualitative and quantitative methods to cohere well within each section.

This is a highly modular book. Chapters are subdivided into smaller subsections, so they can be easily assigned and rearranged by professors teaching from the text. Because the pages are hosted in HTML format, students can follow links to each chapter and subsection, rather than scrolling through a long PDF.

Organization is remarkably clear throughout. Each chapter flows conceptually into the next.

I had problems with almost all of the graphics used in this textbook. They are referenced in the text and are often integral to understanding concepts as presented. This happened in both the HTML and PDF versions of the text. In spite of those issues, the overall ease of navigation was strong.

No grammar errors noted .

Culturally inclusive language is used throughout the text.

What is perhaps most promising about this text is that it is hosted on GitHub. Any professor who wanted to adapt this text for their discipline or make changes can easily do so using an HTML editor and GitHub.

Additionally, the author does a fantastic job of putting qualitative and quantitative research on equal footing, rather than relegating qualitative research to one or two chapters.

Reviewed by Mikaila Arthur, Associate Professor, Rhode Island College on 4/11/17

There is no index or glossary. The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in... read more

The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in discussing the issue of confidentiality it is important to mention that not all researchers promise confidentiality (see Mitch Duneier's "Sidewalk", for example) and that this is a controversial issue in research given the fact that some research participants would prefer their identities to be known. It would also be helpful to explain more about the IRB process and to talk about recent examples of research fraud and the replicability crisis.

The discussion of sociological questions uses language different from what most sociologists use, contrasting empirical questions to ethical--rather than normative--ones. Ethics, to me, are a subset of normative issues, not synonymous with them. However, the section on what makes a good question is very strong, though it never points out the importance of having a NEW question. In discussing the literature review process, the book focuses insufficient attention on the parts of the article important to reviewing literature--students following the author's advice are likely to turn in literature reviews focused on methods and limitations rather than findings.

The section on conceptualization is very good, and more thorough than in many texts. However, the discussion of operationalization is weaker, not giving students the foundation they need to really struggle through what many believe is the hardest part of the research methods curriculum. It would be useful to mention binary variables.

The discussion of sampling does not address appropriate sample size, margins of error, etc. The discussion of study design (cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc.) appears inside the survey research chapter, making it appear as if study design is not an important criterion in other sorts of research. But the discussion of survey question design is great.

The chapters on individual methods of data collection are generally stronger, though the chapter on unobtrusive measures would benefit from more attention to archival research. Also, the discussion of experiments would benefit from more attention both to the benefits of experiments for studying causality and the ethical issues that experiments raise. The chapter on sharing work should say more about the structure and format of articles and should contain a section on writing research proposals, as that is a key element of many research methods courses.

If this text were used in a one-semester research methods course, it probably has too little on data analysis; if it is used in the first semester of a two-semester course where analysis is covered separately, then the coverage of many topics seems a bit superficial.

In general, the content is accurate and unbiased, but there are a few exceptions. Many research methods instructors and textbooks would take issue with the way reliability and validity are defined here and the examples provided. The author also ought to present MUCH more in the way of cautions around convenience samples. The text also does not seem to understand the difference between a phone survey and an interview--but given the closed-ended (and machine-administered) nature of many contemporary phone surveys, there is a big difference. It also seems odd that focus groups are shunted off to a different chapter rather than treated as a kind of interview.

The discussion of measurement of gender, on page 71, seems to be a bit out-of-date--most scholars of gender now would suggest that just adding "other" to male and female is insufficient.

The most recent examples seem to come from about 2011, with more clustered between 2008 and 2010. While I absolutely agree that we should not have new editions just to have new editions, there does come a time when books begin to seem out of date. A couple of years from now, these examples will be from when our students were in middle school--so I hope there is a plan to update the book by then.

Examples, though, would generally seem relevant to students, and I like the examples from student work throughout the book (I do hope the author had permission to use them).

There are several instances in which the author uses terminology different from that typically used in research methods texts and courses. I wouldn't say the terminology is inaccurate, exactly, but it would require a major adjustment among instructors to adapt to using language consistent with the text. Otherwise, the writing is generally clear and terms are defined as needed.

There are some issues with internal consistency. For example, Table 2.1 on page 17 lays out four theoretical paradigms; table 2.2 on page 18 applies these paradigms to the sociology of sport, but it leaves one of them out with no explanation--these seem like editing problems more than authorial ones, though.

Many sections of the book are self-referential, which would make it hard to fully reorganize the text. This is especially notable in the section on reading research articles in chapter 15, which many instructors would want to use along with material from early in the text about the literature review process. Subsections are clearly marked with subheadings, but the format of the book would make it more difficult to locate, find, and separately assign these subsections.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

The text does seem to jump around quite a bit--the section on how to read research results occurs long after students are introduced to reading articles, for instance. In the chapters on different research methods, the discussion of strengths and weaknesses comes before students are fully introduced to those methods. And the lack of detailed table of contents or chapter summaries at the beginning of chapters makes it harder to follow the flow of the book.

Interface rating: 1

The text does not have a cover page or a table of contents.

The pagination is not very well done--tables break across pages in the middle of rows, for example. Similarly, headings sometimes occur at the end of pages, with the text on a subsequent page. Fonts sometimes seem to change sizes, particularly for endnote references and and table titles referred to in the text (and endnote numbers are not clickable, which seems unfortunate in an electronic text). A number of links referred to in the text are broken. It would be helpful to have a detailed table of contents laying out chapter subsections. Some keywords appear in bold and others do not. There are editing errors, typos, spaces missing after periods, etc. Many figures are indicated but are missing (for example, diagrams of inductive and deductive research processes are mentioned, but they do not appear in the text--this is a really bad omission). Generally, this text does not make use of any of the features which would be beneficial in an online text, but yet is not set up to be a well-designed print text.

Other than typos, as referenced in the interface section, I noted no issue with grammar or writing.

I did not notice anything which was culturally insensitive of offensive. Examples were generally appropriate, though primarily focused on American sociology. Given the author's scholarly focus as a sociologist of gender, work, and family, it should not be suprising that examples are more likely to relate to these areas, leaving issues of race, sexuality, ethnicity, immigration, language, religion, disability, etc. to have much lesser coverage. Given that this is a research methods course, this may not be a primary concern for many instructors, but those teaching in very diverse institutions may want to think about whether the text has sufficient relevance to their students' backgrounds, concerns, and experiences. I would also point out here that the text does seem to assume a traditionally-aged residential classroom composition, not the norm for many of us.

The text includes suggested exercises, but these are not really exercises. Some are discussion questions, others suggest students "check out" links or view images which are not contained within the text (no link given). I do not recommend instructors use this text unless they really have no other adequate alternatives--the lack of appropriate visuals, editing errors, etc. make it easy for students accustomed to higher-quality resources to dismiss it, and you'd be just as well off using a collection of websites as this.

Reviewed by Alexa Smith-Osborne, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/11/17

This text's comprehensiveness, in combination with simple language suited to first exposure to the topic, is one of the chief strengths of the book. However, community-based participatory action research methods were not included in this text,... read more

This text's comprehensiveness, in combination with simple language suited to first exposure to the topic, is one of the chief strengths of the book. However, community-based participatory action research methods were not included in this text, thus reducing its utility for the social work discipline. I especially liked the linked in-text definitions, which provide an easy-to-use glossary to enhance reading comprehension for undergraduates.

The text is accurate and unbiased for its discipline. For optimal utility in social work teaching, the text would need to be used with a companion file using social work examples, including social justice-focused research using community-based participatory action methods. These methods were not included in this text.

Relevance/longevity of content is one of the main objectives of this textbook. For social work, chapters 14 “Reading and Understanding Social Research” and 15 “Research Methods in the Real World”, are the most directly relevant since, as a profession, we do applied research.

Its simple language makes it accessible to most undergraduates, and the in-text "drop-down" definitions provide adequate support to allow comprehension of technical terminology.

The content was internally consistent, and sufficient aids were provided in tables and headings/subheadings to promote consistency.

Tie-ins to earlier material, tables, and headings/subheadings made the text easily divisible into smaller reading sections and discrete modules for instructor use.

Accessibility is one off the main objectives of this text. It succeeded in reaching this objective, through logical and clear organization, structure, and flow, including many connectors to earlier concepts.

The online version had greater interface than the pdf version, but both were useable.

I did not see any grammatical errors.

Cultural diversity is discussed within the context of the social constructivist theoretical perspective. Measurement and study examples which focus on cultural differences are presented throughout, making this text particularly syntonic with social work values. The text makes use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

With a companion portfolio of materials on community-based participatory action methods and social justice-focused research examples, this text would be suitable to use in an undergraduate social work research course.

Reviewed by Robert Liebman, Professor, Portland State University on 2/8/17

Text is comprehensive in two senses: it covers what is standard in Research Methods texts and it serves the author’s focus on teaching research design/methods to prepare students for undertaking a research project (or doing a research proposal). ... read more

Text is comprehensive in two senses: it covers what is standard in Research Methods texts and it serves the author’s focus on teaching research design/methods to prepare students for undertaking a research project (or doing a research proposal). Late in the book (159) is review of 6 key “diagnostic” questions on a research project: Why? How? For whom? What conclusions can I draw? Knowing what I know now, what would I do differently? How could the research be improved? These are diagnostic questions, to ask at the end of a project (and could be used as guidelines that reflect a grading rubric). Missing for me at the start are: a) flow-chart that would list of the steps in doing a project, roughly: 1. Turning an interest into a research question, 2. Design the research, 3. Choosing appropriate methods, 4. Collecting Data, 5. Summarizing/Synthesizing, 6. Write up a report & b) a look-forward to the last chapters including the 6 key “diagnostic” questions that says what you will learn from the book I like that the text conveys to students a sense of agency – if you learn methods, you can design/do research. I like section 13.3 which suggests that sociologists write for both academic or public audiences. The author comes to the writing having done both academic and public sociology – that adds a engaging perspective lacking from mainstream texts (Babbie, Schutt) Great ! On that point, a special feature of the text is the final chapter (Research Methods in the Real World) that gives a rationale for the benefits/payoffs of studying sociology: getting a job/building a career, being a judge of research reported in the media. One regret is that too little is said of the payoff having sociological research skills (surveys, statistical training) for doing environmental stewardship and public citizenship I used the pdf and think most students will not be logged on while reading the text. It does not provide a Table of Contents, glossary, or an index. Adding them would make much easier to use the book. BTW Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text" could be redone as a TofContents.

There are many strong chapters (measurement, survey methods, fieldwork plus other qualitative methods that are sometimes left out) and well-written sections (conceptualization, operationalization) But I found Ch 2 Linking Theory with Methods confusing. The setup says it will cover “connections between paradigms, social theories, and social scientific research methods. We’ll also consider how one’s analytic, paradigmatic, and theoretical perspective might shape or be shaped by her or his methodological choices” Then: “While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.” We go from 4 paradigms to 3 theoretical perspectives in a chart of examples on sport – these are illustrated but not well-explained. I like the treatment of styles of doing research in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research

I found discussion of micro-, meso-, and macro confusing. One study question asks: “Identify and distinguish between micro-, meso-, and macrolevel considerations with respect to the ethical conduct of social scientific research” Hard to answer based on text

I think that the terms “nomothetic” and “ideographic” are not well-defined nor is the link btw causality and tests of hypotheses well-explained. The matter of “falsifiability” is not discussed In my view, most confusing chapter.

Text lacks a discussion of control in the section on experimental design Might ask students what prior knowledge of experiments they got before coming into the course

I believe there is confusion about the roles of quantitative/qualitative in confirmation vs contextualization (p56) Multi-methods folks sometimes use “theoretical” sampling to assemble focus groups to clarify (more than contextualize) survey responses from subgroups

One small error: Rik Scarce studied radical environmental movement, not animal rights

Up-to-date and easily updated

Here the book shines. Major strengths: clear writing, engaging research examples, easy-to-understand tables, plus provides Learning objectives/Takeaways that encourage preview and review by students Re use of jargon/technical terminology – Add glossary

Internally consistent – enhanced by “look-back” devices such as Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text"

High modularity both of chapters: Easy to re-arrange the order to fit different instructor’s styles and of entries: Short and crisp – can be read in a short sitting. As written, allows instructors to insert other examples/illustrations or remove sections that are less central (eg Conversation Analysis)

The inclusion of links to YouTube and other media (Colbert interview with Sudhir Venketash) is a very important feature that allows instructors to have students preview at home & review in class for discussion .... The book opens way to using resources outside of it

I might introduce What is Sociology? ahead of Ethics – but that option is open to an adopter of the book

Online and pdf versions differ – While most links work in pdf, it does not include some Figures, Table of Contents

No objections to author’s usage. Some sentences are truncated. (p55)

In my view, not culturally insensitive or offensive. However, the book has a bias in that it reflects Armstrong’s research on women’s movements & sexual harassment. Few examples address race, ethnicity, class – These could be added for balance and reaching instructors who cover fields different from author.

I love how the book invites students to engage the topic by sharing examples of the topics offered by students in her course.

A strong text that matches the organization of standard texts which replicate themselves from generation to generation. Hoping to go beyond them, I wish the text had more full-blown discussions of how sociologists write for different audiences as in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research and of how sociologists make inferences from data (which comes into some of the examples eg The Second Shift). Give a bit more on how to write up results

Reviewed by Anna Berardi, Professor, George Fox University on 2/8/17

This text is comprehensive in scope and depth of content. The HTML version is extremely effective in helping the reader identify material as listed in the ToC. The PDF and DOCx versions are difficult to manage and do not have an attached ToC. read more

This text is comprehensive in scope and depth of content. The HTML version is extremely effective in helping the reader identify material as listed in the ToC. The PDF and DOCx versions are difficult to manage and do not have an attached ToC.

This text was written by a professor who teaches this material in the higher ed setting. His expertise and familiarity with how to make this subject matter accessible is evident.

This text is covering both timeless, mainstream research methods relevant to all social and behavioral science professions, as well as newer methods common in post-modern research.

The layout makes the information very easy to access. The outline / section formatting "chunks" (breaks down into manageable form) information that is otherwise dry when assembled in the traditional narrative format.

Concepts build on each other, and consistent language is used throughout.

As I was reviewing clarity, its strength is its use of divided sections - very nicely done making the text easy to use.

Research methods has a natural flow to the way information builds on each other, and that is evident in this text.

Loved manuevering in HTML, but had preferred PDF so I could annotate. Wished that the ToC was in all formats.

Well edited; no issues with grammatical errors.

Sociology is by nature aware of contextual identities, and this is evident in the types of examples given.

Two main recommendations: 1. Please make the author's name visible 2. Please include the Table of Contents attached to all versions of the text.

Thank you for a great resource!

Reviewed by Noelle Chesley, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on 1/7/16

I find the text to be very comprehensive. I think it covers most of the topics and subtopics one would expect to see in an undergraduate sociology research methods text. However, within topics, this text may not cover details as comprehensively as... read more

I find the text to be very comprehensive. I think it covers most of the topics and subtopics one would expect to see in an undergraduate sociology research methods text. However, within topics, this text may not cover details as comprehensively as some other texts out there (I describe the texts I am familiar with at the end of this review). Just as one example, in the survey research chapter (ch. 8), the author(s) point out that different methods of survey delivery (in person, online, etc.) have pros and cons, but these are not contrasted in any detail, particularly in terms of how they might influence response rates or allow (or not) for sufficient coverage of the sampling frame. However, for those instructors that incorporate a research project (such as developing a research proposal), the text covers elements of research planning, design, and development that are not necessarily well-covered in some other texts, an addition which I believe adds to the texts’ comprehensiveness. The final chapter (Research methods in the Real World) that connects research skills to possible career tracks and one’s role as an engaged citizen is excellent and is material that is often not present in these sorts of books, but should be.

My read suggests that this text is generally accurate. I was not aware of any instances of bias in the presentation of material (although as a white, women academic, I may be subject to the same biases as the author of the book!).

In thinking about the relevance/longevity of a research methods text, I would focus on: 1) examples used to illustrate key concepts; and 2) how up-to-date more rapidly changing topics are in terms of addressing areas of development (survey methods, sampling). This text utilizes examples (like illustrations from President Obama’s election), that may seem dated at some point. On the other hand, the topic on survey research accurately (see point 2, above) reflects the current state of knowledge about the relationship between survey response rates and the potential for bias. This is an area that has been changing rapidly, so keeping up with current state of knowledge will be important. In general, though the examples and cultural references are those most likely to date a text. There are such references in this text that may make students say “huh?” in just a few years.

Clarity rating: 3

In general, writing clarity is a strength of this text. Overall, the ideas are delivered in a very clear, understandable way. However, one element that detracted from clarity for me were embedded, full citations in the text. Throughout the book, when a particular research study is mentioned, the entire citation is embedded in the sentence, which was cumbersome to encounter as a reader. In addition, there are places where the clarity of the text falls apart (see point 10 in this rating for more). The embedded citations are cumbersome enough, that I think they detract substantially from clarity, which is reflected in my rating.

I found the text to be generally consistent in terms of use of terminology and framework.

There is an inherent tradeoff in writing a text that utilizes hyperlinks and makes references to earlier sections or discussions and modularity, or the ability to use portions of the text in a stand-alone fashion. I do think it would be possible to use sections of the text, rather than the whole text, to support teaching in particular areas. There will be some references to material in previous chapters or sections that the student has not read, but many of the chapters could also stand on their own to support teaching of a particular topic in research methods.

The organization of ideas and subtopics adds to the overall clarity. Similar ideas are grouped together and hyperlinks back to earlier ideas in later sections reinforce the organization, which enhances the overall clarity of the text (see clarity, above).

The .pdf of the text does not contain a table of contents, which I found limiting in using the text. There is also no information about the author in the beginning of the document. The only way to get either of these pieces of information is in the open text web entry for this book. The text does contain a number of hyperlinks. While I did not try every link (not even close), my own attempt to use some of these found just a few that don’t work (e.g., the link at the bottom of p. 9). Most links, however, did connect as expected. There are also places within the text where the font changes—this is distracting.

There are regular writing errors in the text. For instance, in section 9.1, it looks like a sentence referencing Regis Filban (will anyone know who this is in a few years?) was cut off and lives as a fragment in the current version. In fact, this whole opening paragraph is not well-written. Similar problems are apparent in the opening paragraph of chapter 10.

In thinking about cultural relevance in a research methods text, I tried to think about the descriptions of research—what sorts of examples get used to illustrate particular techniques or problems, as well as depictions of what a methods student might look like. In terms of research examples, I think the text utilizes a fairly wide variety of examples, although studies focused on gender seemed more common than those investigating race/ethnicity or class, for example. I also noted one instance of depictions of methods students (p. 152, focus group chapter) that provided illustrations of research participants using names like “Sally,” “Joe” and “Ashley.” A more diverse set of names (Jose, Darnisha, etc.) in an instance like this might add to cultural relevance of the text.

? I have been regularly teaching undergraduate research methods since 2005, and I teach in both in-person and fully online formats. I have been using Schutt’s Investigating the Social World as my primary teaching text in these courses, and this is the book that was my implicit comparison as I read the Blackstone text. However, I am also familiar with Neuman’s text and had parts of that book in mind, as well, as I read this text. The strengths of the text include its coverage of how to construct research questions and research documents as well as how the skills developed in an undergraduate course might translate to life outside of higher education. Weaknesses include a still “rough” look to the final document and some topic areas where coverage might not be as detailed as one would like. Overall, a solid text that has the potential to make teaching research methods more affordable for students.

Reviewed by Alison Bianchi, Associate Professor, University of Iowa on 1/7/16

This textbook covers all of the research methods needed for an undergraduate level research methods course. I have specific concerns that I will address in the "accuracy" section, but overall I am pleased with this book. I have used it in one... read more

This textbook covers all of the research methods needed for an undergraduate level research methods course. I have specific concerns that I will address in the "accuracy" section, but overall I am pleased with this book. I have used it in one undergraduate methods course, so I have the benefit of reporting both my and my students concerns.

However, as far as I could tell (and just in case I missed an update, I just downloaded the PDF from Saylor's Website just now), there is no glossary or index for this book. It would be great to have at least a glossary of terms, as there are quite a few! Given that this is one of the criteria for comprehensiveness, I do have to grade accordingly.

The author works very hard to diminish biases that are often found in Research Methods texts, and are taught in classes. Dr. Blackstone is no "Methods snob" -- she does the correct thing by telling students that it is the nature of research question that should drive one to use the method. This means that no method should be privileged just because the researcher(s) prefers it.

As far as accurate and error free, this is where I have concerns. I'll address them one by one:

(1) When discussing the micro-meso-macro level definitions and examples on page 13, the author muddles the concepts by suggesting that the meso-level is about studying groups, and the micro-level is more about individuals. Actually, micro-level scholars study groups, too. Accordingly, the author should use some definitions from the sociology of organizations literature, and define the meso-level as that which describes ORGANIZATIONS and the micro-level as potentially for SMALL GROUPS, such as dyads and triads. This issue is also found on page 14, first two full paragraphs.

(2) In the "Sociological Theories" section starting on page 17, the author has some problems discussing what is and isn't theory. The problem, of course, is not the author's, but rather the fact that sociologists cannot agree on what is theory! Accordingly, there's a way to deal with this issue -- I recommend using Abend's (2008) typology for the 7 ways that sociologists discuss theory. For example, some would say that "symbolic interactionism" is NOT a theory, but rather a paradigm. So, the discussion of what a theory is and what a paradigm is gets muddled and confusing for students. Using the aforementioned typology will help sort this out.

(3) In the section on IRB, page 25, the authors states that there are "human" and "non-human" sources of information, and that the "human" one refers to human subjects and the "non-human" one refers to data derived from humans, such as content analyses. However, there is a third possibility, and that is that "non-human" subjects are animals that are not homo sapiens. The IRB protocols for these subjects is a whole different ball of wax!! So, I would just use the terms "human" and "non-living" throughout.

(4) On page 52, the terms "idiographic" and "nomothetic" are poorly defined, as well as throughout the text, and not well linked to the concepts of qualitative and quantitative research throughout the text, or to the concepts of deductive or inductive ways of knowing. I recommend a brief history of the concepts and a better way to connect all of these notions of the theory-data linkage.

(5) In the section on causality, around page 54, I had many red flags. First, you simply cannot say that any qualitative method reveals causal relationships. This method is not designed for that! Qualitative research can suggest hypotheses, but it cannot reveal relationships. And, quite frankly, for other reasons, neither can quantitative methods! The author really must discuss the difference between causal theory and hypothesized relationships -- any test of a hypothesis can never be a perfect test of causation. Nomothetic theory can conceptualize it, but quantitative tests can never, ever completely capture causation.

(6) When discussing hypotheses on page 59, hypotheses have two other qualities that are of utmost importance: (1) falsifiability and (2) repeatability.

(7) On page 61, the use of the term "triangulation" is interesting. I realize that in the feminist literature that this is a way to describe multi-method studies, but it's confusing for students because triangulation is also a technique for qualitative studies to collect many points of view. I realize that this is problem with so many concepts in research methods -- take the term "control", for example. We have control variables, control conditions, experimental control -- just too many concepts that are different, but use the same word. Can we avoid this for yet another concept?

(8) The section on Experiments is not great. First, "true experiments" are not ones with experiment and control conditions -- they are those that use random assignment. "Quasi-experiments", including those with just post-tests, are those without this technique. And yes, experimentalists have to deal with external validity, but the author writes the text as if they have never considered that or found ways to deal with it. That's simply not true. In general, I just don't use this section when I teach experiments.

(9) I found the chapters on measurement and operationalization, survey methods, and qualitative methods to be first rate!

The content is up-to-date, and can be easily updated. However, I would like to see more examples of data collection using the Internet, social media, and other digital media.

I found the prose to be very accessible, and so did my students. The author does have a much more casual tone than other Research Methods books (for example, she uses "OK" a lot), but I like that, and so do my students. Methods is dry enough -- why not make the text more accessible and readable?

The text is very internally consistent. Dr. Blackstone correctly refers back to examples and concepts throughout the book.

I do think that the modularity is well done. In fact, I could easily assign chapters out of order. For instance, I always start my methods courses with ethics before we do anything else. That chapter stands alone very well, and can be assigned right away. Also, the chapter referring to "what is sociology" is somewhere around Chapter 4, but I just assign that next.

I would change the order of the topics, but this is just my style. Most Research Methods books follow the format of the author's, so that OK. However, Chapter 2's content on theory meanders a bit. I would reorganize it to start with paradigms, then theories, then the micro-meso-macro discussion.

We need a Table of Contents!!! And, throughout the text there are references to figures ... I looked in the back of the book, I downloaded it a couple of times to see if my computer was the problem, etc. No -- there are no figures!

I caught many mistakes. While Dr. Blackstone likes to split infinitives and use "in order to", a phrase that should be struck from the English language, I'm willing to forgive! However, there were typos that were problematic -- I'm not going to list all of them, but see page 55, paragraphs 5 and 6, for example. Both paragraphs have sentences that end with "in ." Weird.

I would do another thorough edit.

Dr. Blackstone goes out of her way to make sure that she is inclusive, especially with her research examples.

I really liked how Dr. Blackstone discusses what it's like to be a professional sociologist. Many of my students wonder: (1) what do I do and (2) what kind of jobs that they can get with a degree in Sociology? It's nice that Dr. Blackstone includes examples from her own life, and explains to the students that being a strong methodologist could one day land them a job!

Reviewed by Susan Burke, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma on 1/12/15

I used two online textbooks for my Fall 2014 course and this Blackstone text was far more comprehensive than the other one. It contained either chapters or short sections on nearly everything that I wanted to cover with the course, although for... read more

I used two online textbooks for my Fall 2014 course and this Blackstone text was far more comprehensive than the other one. It contained either chapters or short sections on nearly everything that I wanted to cover with the course, although for several of the shorter sections I assigned additional readings for more thorough treatments of the topics.

To the best of my knowledge the text was accurate. One student commented in the course evaluation that he found several typos in the text and that undermined his faith in the content, so possibly the book could use a check up by a copy editor.

This is a research methods book written specifically for undergraduate sociology students and it does a very good job of molding the information to fit that audience. I happened to be using the text for an introductory master's course in a different subject field, so the very purposeful focus on sociology made the book somewhat less translatable. In order to help my students make the cognitive leap to apply the concepts to their interests, I supplemented the text with articles and other readings from my discipline.

The book is well-written in a manner that makes the concepts clear and easy to understand for students who are beginners to research methods.

The book's structure and style was consistent across chapters and sections.

This book was available in two versions, a web version where you would click on a chapter from the index and it would take you to a separate page for that chapter, and a full length PDF. I strongly preferred the clickable web version as it was easier to jump right to the needed section, and I would use that to give the specific web site address for the chapter to students weekly. Many chapters were further divided into sections which were also linked so one could jump directly to that section of the chapter. This was a very useful feature.

The book was not arranged in the order in which I present the topcis in the course that I teach. However, the order that the author used is logical.

This was excellent. It was easy to access and easy to navigate. Several students reported being delighted with their ability to access and use the text easily from anywhere that was internet-enabled. One student suggested that the interface could be enhanced with a navigation bar on the side of the page that would facilitate jumping to other chapters.

I have no opinion on this - while I didn't notice grammatical errors, it's possible that they may exist in the text.

The author has given examples from sociological studies that have examined controversial topics, but she has done so with care and in a non-offensive manner.

There are some features of published works that were not available with this textbook. One is a date. I was unable to find any indication of when the book was written. Another is that it has no index. That is one function for which the PDF was a better option as one can use the "find" feature for keywords throughout the text.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory
• Chapter 3: Research Ethics
• Chapter 4: Beginning a Research Project
• Chapter 5: Research Design
• Chapter 6: Defining and Measuring Concepts
• Chapter 7: Sampling
• Chapter 8: Survey Research: A Quantitative Technique
• Chapter 9: Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
• Chapter 10: Field Research: A Qualitative Technique
• Chapter 11: Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
• Chapter 12: Other Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
• Chapter 13: Sharing Your Work
• Chapter 14: Reading and Understanding Social Research
• Chapter 15: Research Methods in the Real World

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The author of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , Amy Blackstone, started envisioning this textbook while sitting in her own undergraduate sociology research methods class. She enjoyed the material but wondered about its relevance to her everyday life and future plans (the idea that one day she would be teaching such a class hadn't yet occurred to her).

Now that she teaches the research methods course, she realizes that students today wonder the very same thing. While the importance of understanding research methods is usually clear to those students who intend to pursue an advanced degree, Amy wanted to write a text that would assist research methods teachers in demonstrating to all types of students the relevance of this course.

In addition, Amy Blackstone's experience as an active researcher who uses both qualitative and quantitative methods made her acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach in teaching methods of sociological inquiry.

Together, Amy Blackstone's experiences as a student, researcher, and teacher shape the three overriding objectives of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Relevance, Balance, and Accessibility.

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods emphasizes the relevance of research methods for the everyday lives of its readers, undergraduate students.Each chapter describes how research methodology is useful for students in the multiple roles they fill:

• As consumers of popular and public information
• As citizens
• As current and future employees. Connections to these roles are made throughout and directly within the main text of the book

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods also provides balanced coverage of qualitative and quantitative approaches by integrating a variety of examples from recent and classic sociological research. The text challenges students to debate and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.

Finally, one of the most important goals Amy had for Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods was to introduce students to the core principles of social research in a way that is straightforward and engaging. As such, the text reflects public sociology's emphasis on making sociology accessible and readable. No one can validate that claim more than a teacher or student. So, take a look for yourself today and review Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods by Amy Blackstone to see if its approach toward relevance, balance, and accessibility are right for your course and students.

About the Contributors

Amy Blackstone is Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of Maine. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, her research includes studies of workplace harassment, childfree adults, and activism in the breast cancer and anti-rape movements. Her work has appeared in a variety of journals and edited volumes including Gender & Society, Law & Society Review, American Sociological Review, and Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Blackstone has served as a Consulting Editor for Contexts, the American Sociological Association’s public-interest magazine. She is currently a member of the Social Science Research Group on the University of Maine’s National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant, for which she examines faculty satisfaction and the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women faculty in particular. Blackstone enjoys her work with numerous undergraduate research assistants and student clubs. In 2011 she received the University of Maine’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Outstanding Faculty Award in Teaching/Advising. Blackstone received her Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Minnesota and her B.A. in Sociology at Luther College.

Contribute to this Page

• Utility Menu

Alexandra Killewald

Professor of sociology.

Soc 156: Quantitative Methods in Sociology

Semester: , offered: , related materials.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3 Sociological Research Methods

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will:

• Compare and contrast social science research methods.
• Evaluate strengths and weaknesses in research design.

Research methods are the techniques and tools used to collect data and systematically study the social world (Conley 2019). Sociological research methods are typically grouped into two categories:

• Quantitative methods  involve a large number of research participants and produce numeric data that are analyzed statistically to test hypotheses.
• Qualitative methods involve small samples of research participants and produce textual or visual data that are thematically analyzed to uncover deeper meanings.

Let’s look at some examples of each.

Quantitative Research Methods

First, survey research is a common example of quantitative methods used in social science research. Surveys contain fixed-answer questions that can be converted to a numeric value for statistical analysis (Bhattacherjee 2012). Some researchers use existing data from nationally representative surveys, like the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Other researchers create their own surveys to collect data on locally relevant issues. For example, in the Social Science Lab we recently asked residents in the City of Muskegon, Michigan about their impressions of the Muskegon Lake restoration, including current water quality in the lake.

One strength of quantitative methods is that research results can be generalized to a larger group of people beyond the study sample, giving us information about a broad cross-section of a population of interest. However, because quantitative data must be expressed in numbers, they can often tell us what people think or do but not why. To get at the “why” that underlies human beliefs and behaviors, we need qualitative research.

Qualitative Research Methods

There are a variety of qualitative methods that help uncover the meanings behind people’s actions.

In observation research , researchers spend time observing a group of people to learn about the cultural norms and motives that drive particular actions. They may participate in that culture, or they may observe without participating. One example is Matthew Desmond’s (2016) work, Evicted. In this book, Desmond describes his participant observation of individuals experiencing eviction to uncover barriers to housing security faced by low-income families.

In-depth interviewing , where researchers ask participants a series of questions intended to encourage lengthy discussion of the research topic, is also a commonly used qualitative research method. Interview research has been used to get at the heart of complex problems. In the example “Why Detroit Residents Pushed Back Against Tree-Planting,” (below) interview research helped city planners understand why Detroit residents rejected free tree plantings in their neighborhood (Mock 2019).

Why Detroit Residents Pushed Back Against Tree-Planting (Bloomberg)

Content analysis of texts or written communication is used to identify patterns in how people talk about or make sense of pressing social issues. For example, check out the analysis linked below, which discusses what memes tell us about how people in work-from-home, professional occupations experienced the coronavirus pandemic.

What do memes tell us about self and time during the pandemic? (contexts)

Although this is hardly an exhaustive list of research methods, visual methods also deserve a mention. Visual methods consist of a variety of research methods that systematically analyze art, drawings, photography, videos, or maps created by a population of interest to the research questions. For example, follow the link below to listen to Jill Weinberg describe her use of post-it notes to generate data and dialogue.

Jill Weinberg on Post-It Notes as a Visual Method (The Society Pages)

Quality Control

When you are evaluating research reported in the news or on social media, it’s important to think critically about the research methodology used to collect the data being reported. This is particularly important when reading reports of quantitative studies, such as surveys, because numbers are powerful. As a result, the results of survey research and public opinion polling are commonly cited in popular press. As a general rule, the more outlandish the findings, the closer you ought to scrutinize the research methods. This may require some digging! Here are a few things to keep in mind.

The goal of quantitative research is often to test the relationship between two or more variables , which are characteristics – like an attitude, trait, or behavior – that have two or more potential values. For example, the variable “education level” has several categories: less than high school, high school graduate, some college, two-year technical degree, bachelor’s degree, or graduate degree. Assigning measurements to concepts relevant to a particular study is known as the process of operationalization . The way that a concept is operationalized has important bearings on the validity of the measure. Valid measures operationalize variables such that the variable measures what is intended to be measured.

Bear with me. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication is a group of social scientists studying public opinions and behaviors related to climate change. Their goal is to inform communication strategies used by public and private organizations engaging in climate education (YPCCC 2022). The program developed a four-question “SASSY” survey to classify people into one of six groups, from “alarmed” to “dismissive,” according to their level of concern about climate change. Use the link at right to access the survey and click through the questions (you don’t have to answer honestly, just screen the survey questions).

It therefore might be totally rational for a SASSY respondent from Duluth, Minnesota to say they expect climate change to harm them personally “not at all,” even as they hold a great deal of concern about how climate change will impact the ocean environment, or people living in remote corners of the Andes Mountains. How valid, then, is the third question as a measure of climate concern? Measuring complex concepts is difficult and information consumers should be on the look-out for measurements that poorly represent the concept they were intended to operationalize.

Reliability

Additionally, consider whether or not the research methods used are likely to be reliable , meaning that a systematic, replicable process was used to collect and analyze data. Reliability is particularly important in quantitative research, and difficult to achieve in qualitative research. That’s because the interviewer themselves – their ability to read non-verbal cues or be quick on their feet with follow-up questions – has a large influence on the quality and quantity of data collected from the interview participant. In contrast, the researcher may not interact very much at all with survey participants. In survey research, it is important that each potential participant receives the seem solicitation, the same instructions, the same questions, follows the same procedure to complete their questionnaire, and that all data are analyzed in the same way using a procedure that can be described to and repeated by anyone else.

Generalizability

Finally, carefully consider whether the research has been designed so that it is generalizable to the broader groups the study claims to represent. For example, most surveys include a sample of the population subset of interest to the researcher. In the example shown earlier of the Muskegon Lake residential survey, the research population we were interested in was all residents who live in the City of Muskegon, who are a specific subset of the larger population of Michigan residents. Rather than mailing a survey to all 30,000 residents in Muskegon, which would be very expensive, we obtained a list of all property owners in the city and used a random number generator in Excel to draw a random sample of 1,200 residents, who were mailed a copy of the survey. This is known as probability sampling, and is often simply called random sampling.

Hear it from the experts:

In order for survey researchers to make claims about the broader population from which the sample of people who completed the survey was drawn – otherwise known as generalizing their results –all members of a research population must have had an equal chance of being selected to complete the survey. So, if I stood outside of the Walmart in Norton Shores and asked the first 1,200 people I saw to complete the survey, that wouldn’t be a random sample because only people who shop at Walmart on the particular day and time I conducted my survey had a chance of being selected for participation.

Likewise, if I posted a link to the survey on social media sites of various community organizations – a REALLY POPULAR way of soliciting survey participants – the study results would only apply to people connected to those particular social media networks, who likely differ from the average Muskegon resident in some way. They may be more civically engaged, more interested in lake recreation, wealthier and more influential, or otherwise distinctive from the vast majority of Muskegon residents who are not following the social media accounts of the groups I’ve asked to share my survey link. In either case, my research results could not be accurately generalized to the broader population of Muskegon residents. This is a common flaw of research design that you should be on the lookout for as you interpret research reported in popular and news media.

Generalizability is typically not a goal in qualitative research, which usually relies on a variety of non-probability sampling techniques to solicit participants. However, the best qualitative research (IMHO) strategically recruits participants who represent diverse viewpoints on the topic of the study, to ensure that a broad range of perspectives and truths are included in their data. Reader beware of studies that represent dynamic issues through the eyes and voices of a single stakeholder group. It’s nearly always more complicated than that!

Sociological research helps us understand why people believe or act in particular ways. This information is critical for developing programs, policies, and plans members of the public will support, creating solutions that effectively deal with societal problems, and analyzing where processes intended to meet public needs fall short or break down. Not all research is created equal, and it’s important to be able to identify faulty elements of research design – such as errors in validity, reliability, and generalizability – that compromise the conclusions drawn by the researcher. When done well, sociological research can reveal the complexity of social phenomena, highlighting divergent viewpoints on a given issue and developing a nuanced understanding of the social world.

Berg, Bruce L. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th edition . Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2012. “Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.” Textbook Collections. 3 (http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3).

Conley, Dalton. 2019. You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist, 6th edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

Desmond, Matthew. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York: Broadway Books.

Flaherty, Michael G. and Cosima Rughinis. 2021. “What Do Memes Tell Us about Self and Time During the Pandemic?” Contexts. Accessed 21 July, 2022. (https://contexts.org/articles/what-do-memes-tell-us-about-self-and-time-during-the-pandemic/).

Green, Kyle. 2017. “Jill Weinberg on Post-It Notes as a Visual Method. Give Methods a Chance. Accessed 21, July 2022. (https://thesocietypages.org/methods/2017/03/18/jill-weinberg-on-post-it-notes-as-a-visual-method/).

Mock, Brentin. 2019. “Why Detroit Residents Pushed Back Against Tree-Planting.” Bloomberg. Accessed 21, July 2022. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/why-detroiters-didn-t-trust-city-tree-planting-efforts).

US EPA. 2020. “Development of a Cumulative Resilience Screening Index (CRSI) for Natural Hazards: An Assessment of Resilience to Acute Meteorological Events and Selected Natural Hazards.” Accessed 21 July, 2022. (https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=350154&Lab=CEMM).

“Why Social Science?” Consortium of Social Science Associations. Accessed 21 July, 2022 ( https://www.whysocialscience.com/ ).

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2022. “About the Program.” Accessed 21 July, 2022. ( https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/the-program/ ).

Research techniques involving a large number of research participants and producing numeric data that are analyzed statistically to test hypotheses (Conley 2019).

Research techniques involving small samples of research participants and producing textual or visual data that are thematically analyzed to uncover deeper meanings (Conley 2019).

A quantitative research method using fixed-answer questions that can be converted to a numeric value for statistical analysis (Bhattacherjee 2012).

A qualitative research method involving prolonged observation of and interaction with a group of people (Berg 2007).

A qualitative research method in which a researcher asks participants a series of questions to inspire lengthy discussion and dialogue about the research topic (Berg 2007).

A qualitative research method involving identification of thematic patterns in written communication or texts (Berg 2007).

A qualitative research method in which research participants create visual artifacts (i.e., art, drawings, photography, videos, or maps) that are analyzed by the researcher (Green 2017).

Measurable characteristics that have two or more potential values (Conley 2019).

The process of assigning measurements to concepts (Conley 2019).

Degree to which variables accurately measure the concept they were intended to measure (Conley 2019).

The degree to which the process used to collect and analyze data can be replicated (Conley 2019).

The degree to which data from a research sample can be used to infer conclusions about the broader population from which the sample was drawn (Conley 2019).

Social Progress and Social Problems Copyright © by A. Buday is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Sociological Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Research methods and analysis of sociology dealt with techniques to obtain information in a vivid form.

Research is carefully observing patterns for searching for new facts or terms in any kind of subject. For example, there are several research centers for obtaining new results for better performance, say Bhabha Atomic Research center which specializes in nuclear fission and fusion reactions.

Sociologists Redman and Mory explained research work as a systematic way to earn new knowledge or say angle towards anything. For example, after a research work, various developments can be seen.

Research methods are categorized into Qualitative and Quantitative methods .

Quantitative methods included data structures, mathematical formulas, postulates, analysis by pie charts, graphical representations, Co-relation, Regression, etc. The methods used in Quantitative research will be studied in detail below.

• Statistical data

Positivists majorly depend upon this method because they think it is the most convenient and efficient way to see society and its problems.  For example, the rate of sex ratio or the number of rape happening in a particular area makes sociologists see the present scenario of the society.

• Comparative Method

It can be easily guessed from the name itself that the method includes comparing different values. For example, in the science laboratory, there are comparators which compare different values of resistance and thus a mean value is written. Same is the case with sociology, different societies are compared by sociologist and after observing each and every factor they develop some theories under their research work. Marx, Durkheim , and Weber are said to be the inventor of this method which profoundly deals with the logic. The three of them compared many societies with each other to give some of the wonderful research work. Marx studied the phenomenon of difference and thus agreed that societies transform via many changes.

Durkheim observed the basis of division of labour and Weber tried to link the relation between capitalist and exploited countries. This method is still used by many sociologists for letting the world know about differences. For example, Michael Mann compared how every country differs when it comes to power and dominance. Devine showed the condition of workers in different time periods.

• Field Methods

Science experiments are generally done in respective laboratories. But sociology experiments are performed in a natural arrangement outside the labs. For example, sociologists can carry out experiments in which they can observe people interaction ability thus categorizing them into introverts, ambivert, and extroverts. The advantage of this method is that it allows the expansion of areas where the experiment can be performed and better results are obtained as compared to other methods. But likewise, its biggest disadvantage is the variance can cause experiment results to differ unlike experiments performed in a science laboratory. This error is also termed as a Hawthorne effect. The experiments do not account for generalizing any theory as a particular amount of people can be tested.

Qualitative Methods are those methods which depend on the theories of Interactionism Theories. For example people way of talking under different circumstances studied by a researcher. The result will be completely based on the way the researcher perceives everything. The various methods of a Qualitative method are studied below.

• Participant Observation

It can be seen as a modification of Field methods as this method involves the researcher too. The researcher has to keep a mindset as an observant which will decrease the chances of a biased opinion as the perception will not be compressed. The field researchers, data or any theory is studied comprehensively as a researcher and participant point of view.

• Direct Observation

This method was one step up-gradation to field methods and Participant Observation. This observation also included a third party involvement whose perception cannot fall into the claws of a biased nature. For example, even if a researcher tries to complete experiment, he will not totally drench himself into the perception of the participant, thus a third person who will see the whole activity without any judgment will yield better results. For example in cricket matches, apart from umpires, a proper video is taken to see whether the player is out or not. This makes the judgment fair enough for everybody. In simple words, participant and researchers are not aware of the fact that they are being observed which accounts for natural reactions.

• Unstructured Interviewing
• These interviews are completely in contrast to conventionally structured interviews. They differ in various aspects. In unstructured interviewing, there are no set of standardized questions. The discussion can travel in any direction depending on the interviewer. Due to lack of patter, these interviews are hard to crack.
• Case Studies

Case studies do not go along with a single method. There are various methods which are being used for observing even the minute details. It can be called as the summation of the direct method, unstructured interviews etc. The quantitative and qualitative approaches a given situation in an entirely different way. For example, quantitative methods are based on mathematical numbers, graphs, and statistics. But because of this method, much information is lost accounting for little information as compared to the qualitative method. Quantitative analysis is fact-driven but the facts can change anytime but they are mostly copied from earlier records, whereas qualitative analysis is observation-driven, its data can be changed accordingly which is its biggest advantage over the other.

TECHNIQUES OF DATA COLLECTION

Data collection is mainly stored in two ways, primary resources , and secondary resources .

Primary Resources are the data which are obtained by researchers, for example through personal or telephonic interviews, participant behaviour by keenly observing them or asking them a set of questions.

Secondary resources are the data which are mainly records in any form. For example, any old book can provide much information about the time period comes under secondary resources. There is no direct information but mainly statistics, graphs, old research works, or historical books.

MORE METHODS OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS:-

• Participant and Quasi-Participant Observation

It has been proved for a long time that observation helps in collecting data as well as result in accurate analysis. Observation contains two major functions viz. causes and effects. The observation is categorized in two ways viz. controlled and uncontrolled, active and passive.

Inactive observation, the researcher is also a part of an analysis. For example, he will take part in a game and will play fairly at his part.

In passive observation, the researcher observes everything from a distant place without getting noticed. For example mother-son duo small gestures can be easily noticed by him/her.

Controlled observations are those matter of solicitation in which things can be brought under control anytime. For example, knowing that someone is observing me I can easily change my reactions.

Uncontrolled observations are those observations in which neither researcher nor the people under observation stop the process of analysis. They are being adaptive to any situation no matter what results can be obtained.

There is another type called a Mixed Observation type. In these methods, extremities are found. Either the researcher is totally drenching in the activity or will be observing every bit in solitude. It is also known as Quasi Participant Observation.

This method involves a panel of interviewers and applicants. For example, in any placement drive, a panel is set up and they took a massive amount of information about the applicants by asking them many questions. Much information about their personality, IQ, confidence, abilities is judged in a matter of some minutes. The interviews can be of many types viz. formal, informal, solo or group.

Informal interviews are not much in trend but the other three are practised at a rapid rate.

• Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a set of questions designed in a format which can be solved by only those who can read and write. Thus the biggest disadvantage of this method is that it cannot be fulfilled by everybody. The sole purpose of this method is storing answers and due to same questions, best answers manage to secure the position.

The schedule is entirely based on the way an interviewer seek things. The questionnaire set is solved by a person in front of the researchers. Thus the question does not affect much, but the perspective of the researcher does. There are many types of schedule:-

• Rating Schedules – This kind of schedules generally come under the HR department. The opinions, ways of accepting or rejecting things, or habits are observed keenly.
• Document Schedules – As the name suggests, it generally involves the paperwork. For example in criminology, criminal’s history is studied. Case studies are also popular, for example how to transform a city into the smart city.
• Evaluation Schedules – Quantitative analysis for example data collection is a primary objective of this schedule. For example, if a company arrives at placement, the students collect every data, for example, the company position, job profile, CTC etc.
• Observation Schedules – The researcher will observe everybody’s intention, either by involving in any activity or by being aloof.
• Interview Schedules – The researcher freely asks respondents any question and after deciding their confidence, time to think, IQ etc is judged.

Continue Reading → Variable,Sampling,Hypothesis,Reliability & Validity

Sociology Group

The Sociology Group is an organization dedicated to creating social awareness through thoughtful initiatives like "social stories" and the "Meet the Professor" insightful interview series. Recognized for our book reviews, author interviews, and social sciences articles, we also host annual social sciences writing competition. Interested in joining us? Email [email protected] . We are a dedicated team of social scientists on a mission to simplify complex theories, conduct enlightening interviews, and offer academic assistance, making Social Science accessible and practical for all curious minds.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Published on April 12, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.

Quantitative research is at risk for research biases including information bias , omitted variable bias , sampling bias , or selection bias . Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

Common qualitative methods include interviews with open-ended questions, observations described in words, and literature reviews that explore concepts and theories.

Table of contents

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs. quantitative research, how to analyze qualitative and quantitative data, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyze data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observational studies or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g., using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g., with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

• Surveys :  List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
• Experiments : Situation in which different types of variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Observations : Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

• Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
• Focus groups : Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
• Ethnography : Participating in a community or organization for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
• Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

• Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis )
• Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs. deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: “on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?”

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: “on average students rated their professors 4.4”.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: “How satisfied are you with your studies?”, “What is the most positive aspect of your study program?” and “What can be done to improve the study program?”

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

You conduct interviews to find out how satisfied students are with their studies. Through open-ended questions you learn things you never thought about before and gain new insights. Later, you use a survey to test these insights on a larger scale.

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analyzed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analyzing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple math or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

• Average scores ( means )
• The number of times a particular answer was given
• The correlation or causation between two or more variables
• The reliability and validity of the results

Analyzing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyze than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analyzing qualitative data include:

• Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
• Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, mixed methods research | definition, guide & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Trending Categories

• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in sociology

Quantitative and qualitative methods are two primary research approaches used in sociology. The purpose of quantitative research is to understand patterns, correlations, and causality in social phenomena by gathering and analysing numerical data using statistical methods. Statistical analysis of large datasets and surveys are some examples of quantitative methods used in sociology.

The goal of qualitative research, however, is to gain an understanding of social phenomena through the collection and analysis of nonnumerical data, such as interview transcripts, observations, and texts. Examples of qualitative methods used in sociology include ethnography, content analysis, and grounded theory. In order to choose a research method, it is important to consider the research question, the type of data required, and the approach to the research. Some researchers also use mixed methods to get the data according to the requirements.

Primary research methods

Quantitative methods.

Surveys − This method involves the use of questionnaires to gather data from a large group of people. The surveys can be administered face-to-face, through email or online platforms.

Experiments − Researchers manipulate the independent variable in controlled laboratory settings to observe the effect on the dependent variable.

Observational Studies − This method involves observing and recording the behaviour of people in their natural environment. The researcher can use either structured or unstructured observations.

Content Analysis − This method involves the analysis of text, audio, or visual media to identify themes, patterns, or trends in the data.

Qualitative Methods

Interviews − This method involves face-to-face conversations between the researcher and participants to gather data on their experiences, perceptions, and attitudes.

Focus Groups − This method involves a group discussion with a moderator to gather data on a specific topic or issue.

Ethnography − This method involves the immersion of the researcher in the culture or group being studied to understand their experiences, values, and beliefs.

Case Studies − This method involves an in-depth analysis of a single individual, group, or event to understand their experiences, motivations, and behaviours.

Ethnography

Ethnography is a qualitative research method used to understand social phenomena within a particular culture or community. The method involves the observation of people's behaviour in their natural environment and the recording of their experiences. Clifford Geertz is known for his contribution to the development of ethnography as a research method in sociology. In his book, "The Interpretation of Cultures," Geertz emphasised the importance of understanding the symbolic meaning of social behaviour within a cultural context.

Survey Method

Data is collected from a large number of people using surveys in quantitative research methods. A questionnaire or interview is used to gather information about people's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. Surveys are often used in sociology to measure social phenomena such as social inequality, prejudice, and discrimination. Surveys can provide a representative sample of the population being studied and can be used to generalise findings to the larger population.

Historical Method

The historical method is a qualitative research method used to understand social phenomena within a historical context. The method involves the analysis of historical documents and other artefacts to reconstruct the social, political, and economic conditions of a particular time period. The historical method is often used in sociology to study social movements, political revolutions, and other significant events that have shaped society.

Comparative Method

The comparative method is a quantitative research method used to compare social phenomena across different societies or cultures. The method involves the collection of data from multiple sources and the analysis of similarities and differences between the data. Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim are known for their contributions to the development of the comparative method in sociology. Spencer believed that social phenomena could be explained by the evolution of societies, while Durkheim emphasised the importance of studying social facts and their relationships to one another.

In conclusion, quantitative and qualitative research methods are both essential to the study of social phenomena in sociology. Ethnography, surveys, the historical method, and the comparative method are just a few examples of research methods used in sociology. The method that is the most appropriate for the researchers' research question will vary based on the strengths and limitations of each method. By combining quantitative and qualitative methods, sociologists can develop theory and practice and gain a comprehensive understanding of social phenomena.

Q1. How do qualitative and quantitative research methods differ in sociology?

Ans. A qualitative research method focuses on interpreting human behaviour and interpreting non-numerical data, whereas a quantitative method focuses on collecting numerical data.

Q2. What are some of the limitations of the survey method in sociology?

Ans. The survey method may suffer from response bias, where respondents may provide socially desirable responses or may not be truthful. Additionally, the survey method may not be suitable for exploring complex social phenomena that require in-depth analysis.

Q3. What are the methods researchers can use to ensure that their research findings are valid and reliable?

Ans. Researchers can ensure the validity and reliability of their research findings by using a systematic and rigorous research design, selecting appropriate data collection methods, and analysing the data using reliable statistical and qualitative analysis techniques. Additionally, researchers should be transparent in their reporting and acknowledge the limitations of their research

Related Articles

• Gene Mapping for Qualitative and Quantitative Traits
• Difference between Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Analysis
• Applied and Clinical Sociology
• Fashion Sociology: Definition and Meaning
• Techniques sociology
• Sociology of Law: Definition and Meaning
• Qualitative Factors in Capital Budgeting Decisions
• Advanced Backcross Quantitative Trait Locus (Ab-Qtl) Analysis
• According to which Law, the qualitative definition of force is given by?
• Do we need to be certified in order to teach quantitative aptitude for SAT (in India)?
• Private and final methods in C#
• Accessing Attributes and Methods in C#
• Accessing Attributes and Methods in Python
• Accessor and Mutator Methods in Python
• Psychology and Scientific Methods

Kickstart Your Career

Get certified by completing the course

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Concepts in Quantitative Sociological Research

Concepts are the building blocks of theory, and are the points around which social research is conducted.

Concepts are closely related to the main sociological perspectives , and some of the main concepts developed by different perspectives include:

• Functionalism – social integration and anomie
• Marxism – social class and alienation.
• Feminism – gender and patriarchy
• Interactionism – labelling and discrimination
• Postmodernism – identity.

Within sociology, one might even say that there’s a more ‘fundamental’ layer of concepts that lie behind the above – such as ‘ society’, ‘culture’ and ‘socialization ‘, even ‘sociology’ itself is a concept, as are ‘research’ and ‘knowledge’.

Concepts also include some really ‘obvious’ aspects of social life such as ‘family’, ‘childhood’, ‘religious belief’, ‘educational achievement’ and ‘crime’. Basically, anything that can be said to be ‘socially constructed’ is a concept.

Each concept basically represents a label that researchers give to elements of the social world that strikes them as significant. Bulmer (1984) suggests that concepts are ‘categories for the organisation of ideas and observations’.

Concepts and their measurement in quantitative research 

If a concept is to be employed in quantitative research, a measure will have to be developed for it so it can be quantified.

Once they have been converted into measures, concepts can then take the form of independent or dependent variables. In other words, concepts may provide an explanation of a certain aspect of the social world, or they may stand for things we want to explain. A concept such as educational achievement may be used in either capacity – we may explore it as a dependent variable (why some achieve fewer GCSE results than others?) Or: as an independent variable (how do GCSE results affect future earnings?).

Measures also make it easier to compare educational achievement over time and across countries.

As we start to investigate such issues we are likely to formulate theories to help us understand why, for example, educational achievement varies between countries or over time.

This will in turn generate new concepts, as we try to refine our understanding of variations in poverty rates.

Why Measure Concepts?

• It allows us to find small differences between individuals – it is usually obvious to spot large differences, for example between the richest 0.1% and the poorest 10%, but smaller once can often only be seen by measuring more precisely – so if we want to see the differences within the poorest 10%, we need precise measurements of income (for example).
• Measurement gives us a consistent device, or yardstick for making such distinctions – a measurement device allows us to achieve consistency over time, and thus make historical comparisons, and with other researchers, who can replicate our research using the same measures. This relates to reliability.
• Measurement allows for more precise estimates to be made about the correlation between independent and dependent variables.

Indicators in Quantitative Social Research 

Because most concepts are not directly observable in quantitative form (i.e. they do not already appear in society in numerical form),  sociologists need to devise ‘indicators’ to measure most sociological concepts. An indicator is something that stands for a concept and enables (in quantitative research at least) a sociologist to measure that concept.

For example….

• We might use  ‘Average GCSE score’ as an indicator to measure ‘educational achievement’.
• We might use the number of social connections an individual has to society to measure ‘social integration’, much like Hirschi did in his ‘ bonds of attachment theory ‘.
• We might use the number of barriers women face compared to men in politics and education to measure ‘Patriarchy’ in society.

NB – there is often disagreement within sociology as to the correct indicators to use to measure concepts – before doing research you should be clear about which indicators you are using to measure your concepts, why you are choosing these particular indicators , and be prepared for others to criticize your choice of indicators. 

Direct and Indirect indicators 

Direct indicators are ones which are closely related to the concept being measured. In the example above, it’s probably fair to say that average GCSE score is more directly related to ‘educational achievement’ than ‘bonds of attachment’ are to ‘social integration’, mainly because the later is more abstract.

How sociologists devise indicators:

There are a number of ways indicators can be devised:

• through a questionnaire
• through recording behaviour
• through official statistics
• through content analysis of documents.

Using multiple-indicator measures

It is often useful to use multiple indicators to measure concepts. The advantages of doing so are three fold:

• there are often many dimensions to a concept – for example to accurately tap ‘religious belief’ questionnaires often include questions on attitudes and beliefs about ‘God’, ‘the afterlife’, ‘the spirit’, ‘as well as practices – such as church attendance. Generally speaking, the more complex the concept, the more indicators are required to measure it accurately.
• Some people may not understand some of the questions in a questionnaire, so using multiple questions makes misunderstanding less likely.
• It enables us to make more nuanced distinctions between respondents.

Measuring the effectiveness of measures in quantitative social research

It is crucial that indicators provide both a valid and reliable measurement of the concepts under investigation.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

2 thoughts on “Concepts in Quantitative Sociological Research”

Hi and thanks, this site is about 3 years in the making.

Wow, fantastic weblog format! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The full look of your site is great, let alone the content!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

The Phases of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Italian Sociology: Institutionalisation, Social Engagement, and Emerging Problems

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Giuseppe Masullo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0818-6981 1  

This article reflects on the qualitative and quantitative methods developed and adopted by Italian sociology and the historical circumstances that have led researchers to focus on some fields rather than others. It will highlight how different research groups have articulated, over time, their reflection on the methods and techniques of social research, which can be said to be characterized by four phases. The first phase is formation, in which the methodological debate takes place against the epistemological contrast between positivist positions and anti-positivist traditions. The second phase is commitment, marked by the consolidation of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches and the dissemination of medium-range research focused on specific issues in certain areas of the country. The third is the stabilization phase, in which the choice of one field over the other is linked to a process of institutionalization of the discipline within academia, now mature. Finally, the contemporary phase highlights the need to combine approaches with the characteristics of a society in constant evolution, particularly after the advent of the digital age.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The Methodological Debate in the Emerging Italian Sociology: Between Absences and Ideological Clashes

A reflection on the history of methods and techniques of social research is a necessary step to reconstruct the history of Italian sociology. The choice among numerous approaches and tools available to scholars is not only tied to the research questions, but also reflects theoretical positions, epistemological frameworks, and value orientations regarding the role of sociology as a social science dedicated to studying socio-cultural phenomena (Merton, 1966 ). It also involves considerations about the role assigned to the researcher and the objects/subjects studied.

While it is true that the history of Italian sociology has been extensively addressed through essays, articles, and dedicated volumes (such as Barbano, 1989 ; Cavalli, 2021 , Cossu and Bortolini, 2017 ; Ferrarotti, 1957 , 1985 , 1994 ), less attention has been given in Italy to the evolution of the methodology of social research. The weak link between ‘theoretical’ reflections and ‘methodological’ issues has long been a distinctive feature of Italian sociology. Especially in its early days, as will be seen in the following pages, Italian sociology was more focused on theoretical speculation - attempting to establish itself as an independent field in academia—rather than reflecting on research methods and techniques. Early Italian sociology was characterized by a “weakness of method and substance” as Ferrarotti ( 1994 , pp. 484–485) points out. It derived its approaches and techniques for studying social phenomena from other disciplines, particularly statistics and demography.

This disconnection between theory and empiricism, a distinctive feature of early Italian sociology, also stemmed from the historical premises within which the discipline was being institutionalized. Between the end of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century, it was indeed characterized by a major clash between those taking the first timid steps within a positivist horizon and the scholars skeptical about the possibility of producing knowledge independent of the subject. This conflict primarily touched upon considerations on the nature of social facts (objectivism vs subjectivism) and the concrete possibility of studying them in scientific terms like more mature sciences, such as the natural sciences (physics and biology, for example).

Among the leading figures of Italian sociological positivism, the philosopher Roberto Ardigò ( 1886 ) stands out as the author of the volume Sociologia Footnote 1 [Sociology]. He was an attentive reader of the works of Comte and Herbert Spencer (with whom he maintained a long correspondence) and Enrico Ferri ( 2010 ), his pupil, among the first to develop criminal legal sociology.

A prominent role in the affirmation of positivist sociology in Italy was played by the “Rivista Italiana di Sociologia” [Italian Journal of Sociology]. Since its establishment in 1879, the journal directed the Italian sociological debate and provided a point of connection for all those scholars interested in sociology, even if trained in other disciplines. The journal was strongly influenced by French positivist sociology, particularly the ideas of Emile Durkheim, many of whose works were reviewed. It also contributed to introducing other foreign scholars, including Lester Ward, Guillaume De Greef, Eugène De Roberty, and notably Georg Simmel and the British economist John Stuart Mill.

Among the Italian scholars who actively contributed to the journal was Vilfredo Pareto. Despite his background in economics, in 1983 he was offered a chair in sociology. He showed great interest in the discipline, pursuing the goal of achieving a scientific theory of society.

In July 1897 , Pareto published the essay titled “Il compito della sociologia fra le scienze sociali” [The Task of Sociology among the Social Sciences], in which he revisited the classic division between nomothetic and ideographic sciences by Windelband. He was undoubtedly among the main precursors of scientific positivism. The essence of science for Pareto lay in its logical-experimental character, characterized by two parts: logical reasoning and observation of facts. Ontologically, Pareto believed that the social world was governed by indispensable objective laws (equilibrium) and that social events could be explained through the collection of empirical data and the search for causal relationships among them. This led him to consider society as a complex system in which the actions of individuals (which he distinguished into logical and non-logical) could be the subject of scientific study (Pareto, 1935 ).

Italian ‘proto-sociology, Footnote 2 soon clashed with the views of Benedetto Croce ( 1950 ) Footnote 3 , who argued that man is not subject to natural laws and that social science could never be anything other than history. Particularly during the fascist ventennio , it faced opposition from Giovanni Gentile ( 1917 ), who had become one of the regime’s official philosophers. Gentile aimed at renewing Italian culture under the anti-positivist renewal of Italian culture in an anti-positivist key.

For both these leaders of Italian philosophical idealism, reality is spirit: it exists insofar as it manifests itself to human consciousness or engages with it. Spirit cannot be known according to the forms of mathematics or the natural sciences, since these would fail to grasp its inexhaustible productivity that cannot be expressed in their static forms. Benedetto Croce “denied that the social sciences could produce knowledge because they were made up of schemes elaborated by the human mind only for practical purposes, and therefore contingent [….] only philosophy (not the social sciences) and the natural and physical sciences could produce knowledge. Consequently, he distinguished between pure concepts, discovered by philosophy, and pseudo-concepts produced by the social sciences” (Gobo, 2008 , p.1).

This ideological clash between positivist sociological currents and those of philosophical idealism had several consequences for the institutionalization of the discipline in academia and did not allow for a systematic reflection on the methods of social research. This is both because the discussion was entirely focused on theoretical aspects and because positivist thought faced a setback with the rise of fascism.

As Minister of Education in Mussolini’s first governments, Giovanni Gentile implemented Croce’s philosophical principles against sociology through legislation that controlled academic life in Italy, particularly through the structure of the university system. Specifically, he enforced academic ostracism that stifled the institution of courses and the creation of chairs in the field of sociology. Similarly, the teaching of sociology, along with psychology, was removed from the curricula of secondary schools and high schools (Cosentino, 2003 ) Footnote 4 . In 1921, the Italian Journal of Sociology was suppressed. Gentile’s rise as an intellectual of the regime led to an openly hostile attitude towards Sociology and its empiricist currents from Europe and overseas (such as that promoted by the Chicago School).

As Ferrarotti ( 1957 ) argued, the sociology of the first phase failed to break through the political ostracism of the intellectuals under the regime. The few Italian sociologists who managed to survive intellectually, particularly classic figures such as Pareto, Mosca, and Michels, did so because their sociological concerns and presentations were compatible with the philosophy of idealism and, therefore, with the goals of fascism. Indeed, they had significant propagandistic value (in areas such as demography, corporatism, charismatic leadership, and racism) in providing fascism with political and ideological justification, giving the regime considerable support. It is important to note that the fascist intellectual ostracism towards the social sciences, particularly sociology, was also because social surveys would inevitably highlight the huge territorial differences between the North and South of the country in terms of poverty and development existing at the time. This would provide arguments in support of those who opposed and attempted to delegitimize the fascist government (Seppilli, 2008 ).

Alongside these scholars, one cannot fail to mention the work of those early Italian sociologists who opposed the fascist regime, with major personal and intellectual costs. Gino Germani, persecuted in Italy for his anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian ideas (Mangone, 2018 ) is one of them. Exiled in Argentina, Germani was the driving force behind a genuine social reform movement in Latin America (Mangone, 2017 ) based, on a methodological level, on the application of an empirical method inspired by positivism, which he applied in several of his studies (Germani, 1955 ), thus connecting with the aforementioned Italian scholars who sought to affirm an idea of science free from philosophical and ideological interpretations.

The Centrality of ‘Committed’ Social Research to the Post-war Challenges of Italian Society

The first reflection on social research methods coincided with the end of World War II and was linked to the concurrent action of two factors. First, the formation and subsequent diffusion of the first sociology chairs in Italian universities – hence the need to build, also from a methodological point of view, a set of tools specifically designed to address purely sociological. Second, the reconstruction of the country implied the need for deeper documentation on its social condition, which presented both structural and emergency problems, and greatly boosted social research. These factors led to a rebirth of sociology after the gagging experience undergone during the fascist regime: “Sociology emerges as the fundamental instrument of self-awareness and for the construction of the self-image of society” (Ferrarotti, 2011 p.63). But sociology was primarily, in this phase, an empirical sociology, an aspect that prompted many scholars to strengthen and modernize the methodological research tools to make them capable of meeting these new challenges.

This phase saw the consolidation of those positivist research traditions that had managed to survive fascism under the disguise of disciplines less hostile to the regime such as criminology and demography. This was thanks to the work of scholars like Corrado Gini (Mangone & Picarella, 2023 ), and especially in later years his successor Vittorio Castellano. It will not, therefore, seem strange that the appearance of the first Sociology chairs in Italy also stemmed from the need to ensure scientific legitimacy by asserting a preference for quantitative research approaches. In contrast, qualitative research traditions did not generate much interest, lagging considerably behind developments elsewhere.

“After the Second World War, philosophical idealism collapsed in Italy, and positivism, already well established in the nineteenth century (for instance, through the studies of the criminologist Cesare Lombroso), once again predominated. Survey methodology acquired authority in sociology and its methods and techniques slowly colonized empirical research. Qualitative research was thus marginalized for a second time” (Bruni & Gobo, 2005 , p. 3).

The prevalence of quantitative research in early sociology also resulted from the fact that, since the first Department of Sociology, inaugurated in 1962 in Trento, many of those holding chairs in the discipline had trained in other fields such as philosophy, law, economics, and statistics. While this trend confirmed a quantitative methodological framework, it also raised the need for scholars to better train in the discipline. This, in turn, determined the possibility of understanding and introducing methods and techniques viewed with extreme suspicion in academia until then, such as some qualitative approaches.

A significant impetus for methodological training came from non-academic contexts, namely, from research promoted to address practical problems in industry and respond to issues of inequality between the Northern and Southern regions of Italy. These two situations led to a much stronger and fruitful connection between theory and empirical research, given that sociology had been primarily concerned with theoretical and often philosophical issues (Direnzo, 1972 ). The role played by the American allies in the Italian reconstruction is well known. Their contribution touched all areas of society, including research. This strengthened the ties and exchanges between Italian scholars and their foreign counterparts, especially those who found the country a fertile ground to apply their theoretical and research insights. Ultimately, this established an unprecedented circulation and exchange of sociological and methodological knowledge (Treves, 1959 ). The research interests of these scholars, both Italian and foreign, were characterized by reflecting some typical features of the political, economic, social, and cultural conditions of Italy at the end of World War II. These were influenced by several concerns, including a) social change; b) modernity and modernization processes; and c) issues of national identity. The traditional rural society was giving way to a rapidly growing industrialized society. Factory work, work conditions, and the modernization of production techniques created an essential background and a fertile ground for the development of sociological questions – those same questions that elsewhere, like in France and England, were notoriously central to the birth of the discipline. On the second point, although modernization processes characterized all the country, they became more glaring in Southern Italy. It was an area primarily based on agricultural work, characterized by high rates of illiteracy, a strong push for emigration, and a condition historically compromised by the existence of organized crime. These situations made it necessary for sociologists to understand the challenges of adaptation (social, economic, and cultural) that the revival of these somewhat ‘abandoned’ realities required. Finally, it was necessary to build a national identity after the fascist period. Though united on paper, Italy was still culturally divided and needed to be reconstructed.

The intersection of these three concerns was also evident in the work of a scholar who, in the post-war period, was one of the main protagonists of the revival of Italian sociology: Franco Ferrarotti (Acquaviva, 1966 ), who was awarded the first chair of Sociology in the country. His research is important not only for contributing to shed light on core issues in the post-war period but also for his methodological insights, focused on highlighting the limitations of the quantitative, positivist-inspired approach (without denying the need for empirical sociology in contrast with Croce’s theses) and the necessity of integrating this type of knowledge with qualitative approaches and tools. Ferrarotti’s research received a significant boost thanks to his connection with Adriano Olivetti, an industrialist whose sensitivity to social issues, attention to humanism, and commitment to corporate democracy were legendary. This allowed Ferrarotti to find in the context of relations ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the factory a privileged field for sociological reflection and the development of his analytical and methodological tools (Ferrarotti, 2001 ).

Ferrarotti, who co-founded the journal “Quaderni di sociologia” [Sociology Notebooks] with Nicola Abbagnano in 1951, obtained most of his methodological training in the United States. Despite this, he held a rather selective attitude towards American knowledge: not everything had the same value to him. On the contrary, driven by a critical sociological approach, he did not embrace the interest his contemporaries had shown in the functionalist thought promoted by Talcott Parsons, nor did he see American empiricism as a way out, given its weak theoretical orientation and descriptive reductionism. Ferrarotti ( 2001 ) was guided by the idea that sociology should be grounded and embedded in history, based on empirical observation but conceptually oriented, attentive to the analysis of real problems that plagued everyday life.

In the sociology of that time, including Marxist sociology, Ferrarotti saw no sign of momentum, “as it was marked by the influence of the idealistic philosophy of Croce and Gentile, and was therefore characterized by being essentially theoretical, anti-empiricist, that is, incapable of coming to terms with reality” (Ferrarotti, 2001 , p. 63). Ferrarotti ( 1985 ) reproached Italian sociologists who professed love and enthusiasm for structural-functionalism, given its tendency to produce abstract theories, detached from the reality of social facts, and asked them to “wake up, look at what was going on around, describe, question, understand” (Ferrarotti, 1985 , p. 90). In light of these premises, the scholar sympathized with qualitative methods and non-directive social research techniques such as biographical interviews and participant observation, which he applied in his studies on both the industrial world and the city of Rome.

It is within this focus that his interest in the biographical approach solidifies, which he sees in contrast with the discipline that, by definition, deals with the passage of time and memory: history. For Ferrarrotti, however, the historians of his time deal with history that is “already consolidated, marbled, catalogued, i.e. , with historical history” (Ferrarrotti, 1985 , p. 90) and not with social history. This attention to ‘individual histories’ is central to Ferrarotti’s work and is evident in his research in the city of Rome.

In the eyes of the scholar, the Italian capital was an interesting sociological ‘laboratory’, a context in which to engage with his ‘critical’ sociology and refine his biographical approach. His research in Rome, partly reflected in Roma da capitale a periferia ( 1970 ) [Rome from capital to periphery], partly in the subsequent Vite di baraccati ( 1974b ) [Life of the shack-Dwellers], and Vite di periferia ( 1981 ) [Lives in the Outskirts], focuses on poverty and marginalization. Ferrarotti examines how the objective conditions are perceived and analyzed as experienced by the inhabitants of the shantytowns and slums. He highlights the human interchange between the center and the outskirts of Rome, emphasizing how urban marginality, as experienced by the slum dwellers, was essential to urban centrality itself. Many of the most humble and fundamental jobs in the city were carried out by the women and men of the suburbs. These studies, besides confirming the importance that Ferrarotti attributes to qualitative approaches to research, also confirm his proximity (in terms of themes and methods employed) to the research traditions promoted by the Chicago School between the 1920s and 1930s, first and foremost through the works of Robert E. Park and Burgess ( 1967 ) on the theme of the ‘City’, which requires the use of tools that go beyond a purely external and statistical analysis of the phenomenon, as Ferrarotti notes:

“To understand it properly, one has to ask the inhabitants of the suburbs: “But how do you live, where do you work? And it turned out, then, that they often worked in the big bourgeois and petit-bourgeois buildings that had sprung up right next to the suburbs, next to the shacks. They answered: ‘We work in the city, in Rome’. And they talked about Rome as if it was far away, as if it wasn’t really there. Another planet. A different world” (Ferrarotti, 2001 , p. 80).

Central to his biographical approach was the idea of the interview as co-research Footnote 5 , touching on key epistemological issues such as the relationship between observer and observed, subject and object in scientific social research. The term ‘co-research’ refers to the fact that research takes root already in the initial knowledge phase, when the researcher explains their motives to the interviewee and follows in the autobiographical narration, which involves both, in a relationship that goes from the researcher to the researched and vice versa: the interviewee can question the researcher, assess their degree of involvement and participation. This framework means that the researcher, rather than supporting the existing power, gives power to the subjects, reducing the gap between interviewer and interviewee that is almost always present in traditional methodology (Gianturco, 2007 ). The centrality of life stories— Vite da baraccati ( 1974b ) is based on a single interview—is grounded in two epistemological and methodological convictions. The first is the rejection of sociological determinism: “We must abandon the determinist model, which directed the attempts to interpret the individual through sociological frameworks, borrowed from bad textbooks of naturalistic science, which the most alert scientists themselves had already abandoned. The individual is not an epiphenomenon of society. In relation to the structures and history of a society, he is an active pole, and he impresses himself on it as a synthetic practice” (Ferrarotti, 2022 , p. 24). The second conviction is that “Techniques are not theoretically indifferent. They are not neutral, they do not constitute a free zone, nor can they be considered interchangeable, that is, applicable with indifference to any problem” (Ferrarotti, 1986 , p. 155). Therefore, his sociology is a “critical” sociology that adopts a perspective looking at society “from below”.

Even before Ferrarotti, some Italian scholars looked favorably upon qualitative methods, particularly life stories. An example is Danilo Montaldi ( 1961 , 1970 ), an intellectual and Marxist militant, along with scholars from the fields of anthropology and the history of popular traditions, such as Rocco Scotellaro ( 1954 ), Danilo Dolci ( 1956 ), and the ethnographer ErnestoDe Martino ( 1959 ) Footnote 6 . All these scholars followed the fate of the poorer regions of Southern Italy with apprehension Footnote 7 . Some of these focused on the conditions of peasants and laborers in the South, while others, especially De Martino, concentrated on religious phenomena and beliefs in certain areas of Southern Italy. Montaldi was a forerunner of the biographical method in analyzing class relations in the Po Valley. In his works Autobiografie delle leggera [Autobiographies of petty criminals] ( 1961 ) and Militanti politici di base [Grassroots political militants] ( 1970 ), he used biographical interviews, inviting participants to tell their stories without intervening, faithfully reporting inconsistencies and redundancies in their language. He then reworked them during the analysis to arrive at sociological reflections.

These studies also had the merit of inaugurating an Italian research trend known as ‘community studies’, which in the United States had begun with the famous research conducted by Mr. and Mrs. Lynd in Middletown ( 1970 ). Some examples include Banfield’s research ( 1958 ) on Chiaromonte in Basilicata and Pizzorno’s studies ( 2010 ) on the industrial development of Rescaldina in the province of Milan. These studies were significant not only for shedding light on many aspects central to the debate on the economic, political, and cultural revival of the nascent Italian Republic but also for their research settings that extensively used ethnographic techniques such as participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis.

Epistemological and Methodological Issues in the Context of the Institutionalization Process of Sociology in Italy

The attention to a reflection on the methods of social research in Italy became inextricably linked to the process of institutionalization of sociology in academia, which took place between the late 1950s and the early 1970s.

It is interesting in this context to report the perspective of a privileged observer, the scholar Gordon J. Direnzo ( 1972 ), who arrived in Italy from the United States with a Fulbright program. In his article “Sociology in Italy Today”, Direnzo gathers numerous data and details regarding the institutionalization of sociology in the country between the 1960s and 1970s. For Direnzo, this decade saw the creation of the first chairs in the discipline; sociology became a fundamental subject in the degree courses in statistics and demography, and complementary in ten different degree courses in seven different faculties: Letters and Philosophy, Law, Political Science, Economics, Pedagogy, Agriculture, and Architecture. As he noted, the existence of legislation prescribing or allowing sociological teaching in specific academic programs did not mean that courses were offered in all programs of the Italian university system; there was a lack of teaching staff, and much of it consisted of professors holding multiple positions, giving lectures in different faculties of the same university, moving between different university locations in the country. Furthermore, the programs were greatly influenced by the subjective interests of the researchers, with a marked inclination towards rural, economic, and industrial sociology, but with very little attention to research methodology, considered as “an occasionally esoteric area” (Direnzo, 1972 , p. 40).

The singular advancement of sociological teaching in Italy occurred with the establishment of the first sociology faculty in Trento in 1962. This faculty offered the only available degree course in Italy aimed at providing a systematic and concentrated education in the field of sociology, comparable to what was happening in America. This was followed by the inauguration of two additional sociology degree courses at the University of Rome La Sapienza (under the direction of Professor Ferrarotti) and the private University of Urbino.

Regarding social research, Direnzo ( 1972 ) noted that the deficiencies in specific training in social research methods were partially addressed, towards the end of the 1970s, by doctoral programs and specialization courses aimed at new sociology graduates Footnote 8 .

What emerges from Direnzo’s analysis ( 1972 ) are two aspects: first, these specialization courses, unlike basic university courses, were more empirically oriented, with interests ranging from traditional methods of quantitative research to relatively new ones introduced by qualitative research—not in terms of complementarity, but competition. Second, theoretical speculation was still the focus during the years of discipline stabilization in academia, at the expense of more specific knowledge of social research methods and techniques; much of this postgraduate specialization “grant a certificate or diploma upon completion of prescribed curricula, but these awards carry no official recognition or accreditation” (Direnzo, 1972 , p.42). Moreover, as the institutionalization and stabilization of the discipline progressed, a gap became more evident between how it was practiced in academia and those areas where it was concretely applied to address social problems. This highlights a distinctive feature of Italian sociology, namely:

“pluralism with regard to styles of enquiry, but also opposition between an idealized value-free sociology and the engagement of social scientists, a distinction which has re-emerged periodically in the trajectory of Italian sociology, sometimes as a way of denouncing its increasingly academic character […], they were signs of increasing tension between an effort to achieve disciplinary legitimacy, which came from other sectors of intellectual production, and a desire to forge close links between sociological practice and aspirations to grassroots social reform” (Cossu & Bortolini, 2017 , p. 18).

This opposition between research styles was also evident concerning the chosen methods. Sociologists who were gradually settling into academia seemed more inclined to use quantitative research methods, an aspect that also emerges in the analysis of the textbooks and manuals of the time. As Gobo ( 2008 ) recalls, English was not a widely known language among students, so the only books used were those translated into Italian, including “Goode & Hatt, 1952 , translated in 1962; Hyman, 1955 , translated in 1967; Kahn and Cannell, 1957 translated in 1968; Blalock 1960 and 1970 translated in 1969 and 1976” (Gobo, 2008 , p. 5). These were mostly texts of Anglo-Saxon origin with a statistical and behaviorist approach, which were absorbed in our country also thanks to the reception of Parsons’ functionalistic sociology, contributing to “the establishment of an increasingly rooted prejudice against qualitative research: its (presumed) non-scientific approach” (Gobo, 2008 , p. 4).

Starting from the 1950s, some publishing houses (including Il Mulino, Edizioni di Comunità, and Einaudi) actively promoted the translation of many classics of American sociological literature. In this period of maximum diffusion of structural-functionalistic thought, powerful translations of the works of Talcott Parsons were born, such as The Structure of Social Action , published in 1962 with an introduction by Poggi, Social Theory and Social Structure , by Parsons’ student Robert K. Merton ( 1966 ), a proponent of middle-range theories, and a collection of the works of Paul Lazarsfeld ( 1967 ) edited by Capecchi. Italy also showed maximum attention to the procedures and techniques of quantitative research, now partly purged of the main criticisms levelled at them, such as that of naive realism, which had characterized research methodology during the early positivism of the nineteenth century (Corbetta, 1995 ).

The affirmation of Lazarsfeld’s thought ( 1955 ) and his rigorous attention to empirical procedures, brought quantitative methodology from a macro-sociological orientation inclined to work on global units – analysis of cultural products or administrative statistics – to standardized observations of social reality made directly by the sociologist on the individual. The tool used was the survey: research on samples with standardized tools administered to population samples for the study of values, attitudes, and behaviors. It is also thanks to the dissemination of his theses that the distinction between sociology and a specialized discipline for the study of methods and techniques of social research, known as ‘methodology,’ is defined (in terms of imagination). According to Lazarsfeld ( 1955 ), methodology is the discipline that consists of the analytical examination of surveys conducted by sociologists on various topics to define procedures and explanatory models and suggest organizational principles through which to integrate and codify knowledge. While sociologists study man in society, methodologists study the sociologist at work.

The years that followed, especially starting from the student movements of ‘68 and the women’s rights movements, directed scholars once again towards the need for empirical, engaged, and committed sociology. This aspect also reverberated in the most popular trends in terms of research methods. Thanks to the translation of some foreign works – among which we find Thomas Luckmann and Peter Berger’s The Social Construction of Reality ( 1969 ) and Erving Goffman’s Asylums ( 1972 ) – there was an unprecedented interest by Italian sociologists for micro-sociology.

“This marked the beginning of a felicitous opening for micro-sociology in Italy, a tradition neglected by the first generation of post-war sociologists. As a matter of fact, the latter regarded the triad represented by Parsons, Merton, and Lazarsfeld as sacred and had little to do with other styles of theory, from exchange theory to symbolic interactionism—only in the writings of Pellizzi and Braga did some intellectual acquaintance with American pragmatism appear. In just a few years, nearly all Goffman’s books had been translated, mostly by Il Mulino. A young sociologist and former student of Sartori’s, Pier Paolo Giglioli, who had won a Fulbright Fellowship to pursue graduate studies at the University of California, Berkeley, literally imported the micro-sociological tradition” (Cossu & Bortolini, 2017 , p. 56).

This interest in micro-sociology, as mentioned above, was also linked to the flourishing season of movements that culminated in the youth uprisings of 68’,

“Which brought the attention of sociologists back to everyday life and to the ‘qualitative’ dimension of social relations. The students’ movement—and even more so the women’s movement – affirmed the public dimension of the private sphere and refocused the (critical) debate on issues concerning identity building and the boundaries between public and private life, the subjectivity of experience and its social organization” (Bruni & Gobo, 2005 , p. 4).

The ‘70 s and much of the ‘80 s, following a mature process of sociology institutionalization with numerous tenured professors in various university locations both in the North and South of Italy, witnessed the acceleration of the process of sub-specialization within sociology. This process, still consequential today, inevitably affected the methodological field. In addition to the multiplication of chairs in the social sciences methodology and research methodology and technique (considered fundamental teachings in the curricula for obtaining a sociology degree in the ‘80 s), sociologists’ interests diversified into specific subfields. Some were traditionally connected to the discipline’s institutionalization process, such as industrial sociology, urban and rural sociology, economic sociology, and labor sociology (Pinto, 1980 ). Others were emerging, like early research in the fields of health and illness (Ardigò, 1980 ), everyday life and youth (Cavalli, 1981 ), religion (Cipriani, 1975 ), and especially communication (Statera, 1983 ), facilitated by the widespread use of television as a medium replacing print media in shaping public opinion. These emerging fields promoted a broader diversification of research approaches, both quantitative and qualitative, aiming to adapt techniques to their specific study objects. This trend increasingly emphasized the need to overcome the quantitative/qualitative debate. Advocates of each approach were no longer driven by the assumption that one was more scientific and valid than the other or tied to specific Italian sociological schools Footnote 9 . Instead, they were motivated by the practical need to choose research tools based on the questions guiding their research. The ‘80 s marked the end of grand narratives, as reality appeared much more complex than it had been interpreted from the prevailing perspectives of structural-functionalism and Marxist-influenced sociology until that moment. The heuristic challenges posed by post-modern society, to the classical concepts of sociology (identity, community, social class, status, etc.) confronted the researcher with the need to use all the tools of the sociological armory (Barbano, 1989 ) Footnote 10 . Consequently, from this moment onward and in the years that followed, the debate became increasingly focused on the affirmation of qualitative approaches and the necessity of overcoming the qualitative/quantitative quarrel. Indeed, qualitative methods still faced criticism from proponents of quantitative methods who still perceived them as unscientific Footnote 11 . As Bruni and Gobo note, “Despite this attention to qualitative sociology, qualitative research was not immune to heavy criticism. Between the 1980s influential Italian methodologists such as Statera and Leonardi “attacked” from time to time the ‘myth of qualitative research’. This can be regarded as a symptom of the fact that the spreading of qualitative research was an undermining event for Italian methodology” ( 2005 , p. 5).

From the Qualitative-quantitative Debate to the Digital Turn: Between Potential and New Limits

Among the most significant events that marked the qualitative-quantitative debate in Italian sociology was the conference held in Parma on December 2–3, 1993. During those days, the leading figures in Italian methodology gathered to discuss qualitative methods.

At that time, Italian sociology had already assumed its current configuration, consisting of three main orientations: the Catholic one (identified in the project of Sociology for the Person Spe project, with Vincenzo Cesareo as a reference), the Roman area (close to the figure of Gianni Statera), and the Milan-Turin axis (represented by figures like Alessandro Cavalli and Luciano Gallino) (Scaglia, 2007 ). Alongside these, the Italian Association of Sociology played a significant role, intending to reflect a certain balance among these components, especially in the formation of its leadership Footnote 12 . The conferences proposed by the association were also the moments when these different orientations came together and confronted each other within the various thematic sections that had been created, with the Methodology section being particularly lively, then coordinated by Antonio De Lillo. The result of this confrontation, besides inaugurating an event then repeated some years later, gave rise to an initial publication edited by Antonio De Lillo and Costantino Cipolla titled Il Sociologo e Le Sirene: La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods] ( 1996 ). The choice of this title was indicative of the state of the debate on qualitative methods in Italy during those years, still considered by many as a non-homogeneous set of ‘exotic’ approaches and techniques that produced knowledge with little connection to the neutrality and objectivity that only formal logic and numbers could guarantee:

“The sirens represent a mythological image that evokes the idea of a fascinating danger, an ambiguous seduction against which resistance is appropriate. […] Yielding to this solution entails a mortal danger, but resisting it implies a loss, a renunciation, an abandoned possibility, destined to denote unexplored paths and regrets” (Campelli, 1996 , p. 17).

However, the need to engage with qualitative methods was evident among these scholars in giving dignity and recognizing a set of research traditions that the spread of “Parson-inspired functionalism combined with Lazarsfeld-inspired quantitative focus had, more or less unconsciously, attempted to annul” (Cipolla & De Lillo, 1996 , p. 12). This meeting, however, went well beyond the need to provide further legitimacy to research practices and techniques which, as seen in the previous pages, were already widely spread in the Italian academic reality. Its objective was to respond to a major challenge for sociology: to address, for the first time and collectively on Italian soil, the subjectivity/objectivity and qualitative-quantitative debates Footnote 13 . The attempt to overcome these oppositions arose precisely from the need for the scientific community to arrive at a vision where the choice of research methods and techniques was no longer based on ideological conceptions, often identifying with certain schools of thought, but on the idea that approaches could coexist for the more effective achievement of the explanation/understanding of social phenomena.

Regarding this possibility—a relationship between qualitative and quantitative analysis—an article that sparked much discussion was Franco Leonardi’s ( 1991 ) titled “Contro l’analisi qualitativa” Footnote 14 [Against Qualitative Analysis]. From this essay, two theses emerged. The first, ‘strong’ or ‘epistemological’, emphasized the absolute difference between the two methods in their research procedures, based on assumptions that made them incommunicable and opposed. Alongside this ‘ultra-quantitative’ thesis, on the opposite front were scholars who claimed the equally absolute preference for qualitative methods over “the alleged senselessness of numbers, the ideological nature of quantitative analysis, its superficiality, its constitutive inability to grasp the meaning of action and the intentionality of the actor, the epistemologically disruptive and subversive nature of qualitative sociology, which would constitute point by point the alternative to ‘conventional’ sociology” (Campelli, 1996 , p. 21). A second, ‘weak’ thesis sought forms of collaboration based on the division of phases in scientific work: qualitative methods could be useful, when necessary, for the setup of quantitative research in the initial exploratory phases to define concepts, refine analysis categories, suggest hypotheses, etc. Alongside this ‘technical’ solution—in which the subordinate and ancillary nature of qualitative techniques to quantitative ones is highlighted—there was recognition of the possibility of another version of the qualitative-quantitative relationship, the ‘residual’ one, where qualitative methods practically filled in everything that quantitative methods were unable to achieve or take on.

However, several hypotheses were advanced on that occasion discussing the possibility of a meeting point between qualitative and quantitative methods. These ranged between the two poles of the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ theses. According to the criteria traditionally used to distinguish qualitative from quantitative (uniqueness/representativeness, measurement/non-measurement, context of discovery vs justification, involvement vs neutrality), these were considered as criteria of “approximation, prevalence, and mix, and in no case sufficient to constitute a clear or even approximately precise demarcation (…) there is not a single act, a single research decision that is not an inextricable mix of quality and quantity, and therefore characterizable exclusively in terms, far from strong, of the relative prevalence of one or the other” (Campelli, 1996 , p. 30). Cavalli, on the other hand, insisted on the need to be guided in resolving the qualitative/quantitative debate by the level of practices “the operations that each of us performs when facing new research, guided by a cognitive intent” (Cavalli, 1996 , p. 102). Therefore, qualitative methods primarily concern a preliminary phase of constructing a research object or an initial phase of research that operates with an already consolidated theoretical framework.

Agodi ( 1996 ), on the other hand, highlighted how research traditions, different schools, and various research designs are not assigned to a ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ side. This perspective did not disavow some characterizations circulating in sociological circles:

“On the other hand, the polarization between qualitative and quantitative approaches does not account for the fact that internal diversification within both approaches also constitutes a set of convergences that make it almost impossible to attribute many research strands exclusively to either one: content analysis originated within mainstream sociology, even though it later tended to be opposed to it as ‘qualitative’ (…) Discourse analysis (…) the study of social representations, on the contrary, originated in opposition to mainstream sociology but now uses absolutely quantitative analysis techniques” (Agodi, 1996 , p. 108).

Among the solutions proposed on that occasion, undoubtedly one that perhaps had the greatest impact in structuring the Italian debate on qualitative-quantitative methods was that put forward by Alberto Marradi ( 1996 ) in his essay “Due Famiglie e un insieme” [Two Families and a Set]. The scholar, highlighting how the use of the qualitative/quantitative pair constituted an abuse in the Italian methodological debate of the time, serving to differentiate approaches to research within the human sciences, proposed to distinguish these sciences (and the related conceptual and operational tools derived from them) into three broad sets: the first two constituted a ‘family’ (that of experimentation and that of co-variation), the third a ‘non-integrated set’ whose common denominator was the fact of refusing to adopt the assumptions that were fundamental to the family. The central assumptions for both the family of experiments and the family of co-variation, according to Marradi, were: 1) to produce statements (or connections between statements) that are impersonal about reality; 2) that these statements (or connections between statements) should concern relationships between the properties of objects. He proposed to define as ‘non-standard’ those sets of research activities “that produce statements lacking reasonable claims of impersonality” (Marradi, 1996 , p. 172). From this, the scholar derived other characteristics typical of this set (which are not present in all research strands), such as a) the minimal gap between scientific knowledge and common-sense knowledge; b) strong dependence on context and a preference for micro problems; c) distrust of generalizations; d) a strongly inductive orientation; and e) an understanding of specific situations rather than the establishment of linear causal relationships between variables. Marradi’s conception, based on the rejection of adhering to labels such as qualitative and quantitative, preferring instead the terms ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ generated quite a few criticisms from his contemporaries. The primary criticism was his definition of ‘non-standard’ as the negation of the standard Footnote 15 , rather than as something with its specific nature that required distinct treatment.

“Any representation of the relationship between qualitative and quantitative analysis in which one stands to the other in a relationship of exception and rule, discipline and undiscipline, seems unsustainable at this point. The usefulness and intrinsic clarity of a model of this kind, which tends to define one of the two elements as ‘standard’ and the other as ‘deviation’ are not apparent when both elements normally and with a simple prevalence flow into the normal research activity. This is not to mention the normative implications that this lexicon seems to implicitly carry with it (standard = right?)” (Campelli, 1996 , p. 32).

In 2011, almost two decades after the conference in Parma, Costantino Cipolla, Antonio De Lillo, and Elisabetta Ruspini ( 2011 ) met again in Milan to further explore social research methods. This time, the discussions were more mature, focusing on overcoming the qualitative-quantitative debate and introducing some methodological innovations that emerged due to the explosion of what Costantino Cipolla would later refer to as the ‘web society’ ( 2015 ). Two volumes were published because of this meeting (Cipolla, De Lillo & Ruspini, 2011 , 2012 ). In comparison to the first volume, one notable aspect is the involvement of many young researchers in the debate. Unlike the previous generation, these researchers demonstrated greater flexibility and versatility in proposing forms of integration between qualitative and quantitative methods. This was due to their diverse training in research methods and techniques, acquired through university courses and attendance at dedicated summer schools Footnote 16 . It was also a result of their increased familiarity with the technological advancements of the time. The use of software, both for quantitative analysis (most commonly SPSS) and qualitative analysis (ATLAS.ti, NVivo, T-Lab, etc.), was a necessary step for those intending to specialize in this field Footnote 17 . This was in addition to the epistemological and theoretical knowledge that had significantly characterized the training of their mentors. As Ruspini ( 2011 ) emphasized in the preface to the first volume, although the debate on the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods had taken different terms in Italy (methodological triangulation, combined research, hybrid methods, etc.), the use of the term ‘mixed methods research’ was becoming more widespread, reflecting a trend that had already emerged internationally (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003 ). Mixed methods were conceived in two senses: for some, the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was almost a research style, a technique for data collection and analysis; for others, it was a methodological approach reflecting independent and specific epistemological assumptions. Regarding this latter option, Gabriella Punziano ( 2011 ), proposing the mixed approach, argued that mixed methods “encompass and overcome the blurred boundaries of qualitative and quantitative research, reflecting a unitary reflection. They allow, through the development of an integrated structure, albeit complex, to proceed simultaneously between quantity and quality, between micro and macro approaches” (Punziano, 2011 , p. 239). Therefore, according to this proposal, the relationship between qualitative and quantitative was imagined as dynamic, a continuum within which different and possible forms of integration were observed. The integration between qualitative and quantitative was not episodic but systematic, starting from the research design that was intended to be as harmonious as possible. The proposal of mixed methods, as a distinct research method, did not limit itself to the technical dimension but also sought to address the inevitable doubts that arose at the ontological and epistemological levels. The goal was to allow the ‘mixed methods’ to contribute to an equal status with what was proposed by the positivist and interpretative paradigms. This was pursued through a pragmatic orientation to social research:

“The pragmatist paradigm allows and justifies the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods by setting aside the theoretical level to seek explanations in concrete research practice. This position has been adopted, in the debate described, by realists who advocate the need for methodological pluralism, allowing researchers to use different techniques to access different aspects of the same social phenomenon” (Punziano, 2011 , p. 143).

This proposal, furthermore, went far beyond the solution indicated, for example, in the choice of methods and techniques based on the research questions (Corbetta, 1995 ). It started from the belief that research hardly begins based on a single question and most likely includes a complex set of questions that justify a mixed approach.

The second volume, I sociologi, le sirene e gli avatar [The Sociologists, the Sirens, and Avatars] of Cipolla, De Lillo, and Ruspini ( 2012 ), anticipates the central themes of the current Italian methodological debate. Recent technological developments have increased the scope and range of online social spaces and the forms and timing of participation: “The digital […] It also introduces digitally native objects of research, such as cyber-bullying and digital identities, which have a direct impact on mainstream sociological problems” (Delli Paoli & Masullo, 2022 , p. 618). The discussion, only outlined in the Milan conference, will be more solidly addressed in a subsequent publication (Cipolla, 2015 ), clarifying that the possibilities inaugurated by new means of communication have implications that go beyond a specific field of study, that of communication, touching on foundational issues of the discipline. In particular, these allow for a redefinition of:

The considerations expressed on communication within the broader context of globalization processes, through the selection of theoretical frameworks more suitable for understanding the relationship between individuals and the media.

The labels and definitions used to define the current historical and social phase—the web society—linking it to the broader debate on postmodernity.

The issue of the most suitable methodological and technical tools to describe and explain reality, as it is increasingly asserting itself in its communicational dimension.

From a methodological perspective, the ‘digital turn’ provides both new objects of study (born in the web) and digitized data, in addition to being an innovative source of new ‘digitally native’ methods (Caliandro & Gandini, 2019 ). According to Amaturo and Aragona ( 2019b ), digitized and digital data, also known as big data, are linked to digital traces and routine interactions of people (such as search engine queries, phone calls, purchases, banking interactions, social media posts, narratives, etc.). The impact of this shift on the epistemological and methodological framework of social research is undeniable due to the specificity of such digital data (Agodi, 2010 ) and the opportunities for creative and innovative research practices (Giuffrida, Mazzeo Rinaldi & Zarba, 2016 ). Therefore, some, like Stefanizzi ( 2016 , 2021 ), hypothesize a shift toward a fourth paradigm in the social sciences based on the power of algorithms and computers.

Although the discussion on the digital turn is still in an embryonic stage, it is undeniable that pervasive digitization requires interpretative frameworks and methodological options better suited to capture the current complexity. These challenges call for a rethink of the epistemological and methodological positions of social research from a dual perspective: firstly, by adapting the established methods of social research to the practices and interactions people engage in when acting online (digitized methods), or by creating new methods and techniques to analyze online experiences that cannot be framed using the tools of traditional social research methodology (digital methods). These issues remain open in the Italian methodological debate, to which are added specific aspects that have not yet been sufficiently explored, such as the nature of data collected online, which is drastically different from those collected through questionnaires, surveys, or interviews (epistemological question), and the fact that they are collected without the actor being aware of it (ethical question) (Corposanto & Valastro, 2014 ). Ethical issues also arise concerning algorithms, a ‘moral agency’ in the sense that choices and decisions that sometimes have ethical implications are delegated to machines. For example, when the algorithm reflects the characteristics of those who produce it or is built on data that carry biases, as feminist theory has recently emphasized regarding the discriminations produced by algorithms against women or LGBTQ + individuals (Farci & Scarcelli, 2022 ).

Furthermore, big data, together with the development of computational sciences, has allowed the dissemination of innovative explanatory models and simulations (topic modelling, machine learning), although their nature of being ‘searched’ and ‘found’ online can push social research toward a data-driven approach and a new naive empiricism, as recently highlighted (Amaturo & Aragona, 2019a ). If, on the one hand, this field has innovatively expanded the toolbox of the social researcher, on the other hand, it has highlighted a dangerous trend toward a return to pure empiricism, proposing studies and research that, despite their “sophistication,” show little reflexivity and weaknesses in the theoretical approach Footnote 18 .

Conclusions

The analysis of the historical interweaving between the institutionalization process of sociology and the emergence of major approaches to social research in Italy is no easy task. The feeling experienced by the scholar in writing it—and especially in concluding it—is that of having forgotten along the way historical events, occurrences, and protagonists who contributed to the development of Italian sociology or, in this case, the establishment of a specific research tradition. Space constraints are only part of the problem, as the difficulty of undertaking such work also lies in the need to define a priori valid criteria around which to construct a homogeneous and coherent view of what happened in a process that was characterized by contradictions and discontinuities. Therefore, it was almost natural, as well as necessary, to prioritize certain interpretations (and some protagonists who animated them) at the expense of others a factor alone indicating the need for reflection on the history of Italian research and how it might be revisited and explored in the future.

Aware of these limitations, the general starting assumption was that the analysis of this debate could contribute to shedding light and shadows on the institutionalization process of the discipline itself, thus defining some of its peculiar characteristics. This includes, foremost, the prevailing normative and ideological horizons, as well as the public function that the discipline and research have played and continue to play for political action and social reform.

In summary, from the previous pages, four phases have emerged. The first phase, which we could label as the ‘formation phase’ (coinciding roughly with the years before and after the fascist period), concerned the way sociology began to appear on the ‘stage’ of Italian social sciences. It was characterized by a relative lack of reflection on research methods. The initial insights were formed within positivism but did not have the opportunity to solidify within a specific sociological disciplinary framework, as the discipline lacked a robust scientific status in this phase, along with real social, political, and consequently academic legitimacy.

The second phase corresponds to the years following the Second World War, during which there was a strong interest among scholars in empirical research; research that was ‘committed’ to addressing some challenges arising from the internal contradictions of the country, dealing with the aftermath of the global conflict. This phase coincided with the beginning of the institutionalization of sociology in academia, which, on the one hand, favored the need to acquire new skills related to social research tools. On the other hand, this process mainly unfolded in the direction of quantitative methods, already cultivated by scholars sympathetic to sociology who had been trained in other disciplines. Some scholars, such as Ferrarotti, are exceptions. Actively engaged in social research, they began to express dissatisfaction with quantitative methods and to prioritize theoretical and methodological approaches that were more attentive to historical, as well as subjective and hermeneutic dimensions. These traditions had developed in Italy in fields outside academia (such as industry or investigations into the condition of Southern Italy regions) but were starting to be introduced, albeit with varying degrees of success. It’s worth noting that qualitative research still faced the prejudice of being considered less scientific, and incapable of producing results extendable to the rest of the population.

The third phase coincided with the process of stabilization of sociology in Italian universities, which could be considered concluded in the late 1970s. This led to the establishment of numerous sociology courses and faculties staffed by scholars from the first generation. This phase certainly contributed to the development and consolidation of the methodology and techniques of social research. On the one hand, there was a greater emphasis on quantitative research traditions; on the other hand, the rise of qualitative traditions was influenced by the historical events of that period, especially the youth movements of ‘68 and the battles fought by feminism. Sociology was deeply involved in these movements. The discipline, becoming more open to micro-sociological perspectives, also specialized in numerous sub-disciplines, contributing to the complexity of the methodological debate. This complexity included the need to overcome the qualitative-quantitative quarrel, a challenge that engaged Italian methodologists for much of the subsequent years, up to the mid-2000s.

The last phase under examination, extending up to the present, highlights a mature atmosphere in the Italian methodological qualitative-quantitative debate. Certain issues have been sufficiently overcome, such as the idea that qualitative approaches are less reliable or less scientific than quantitative ones. There seems to be a prevailing tendency toward integration rather than opposition. The qualitative-quantitative quarrel has transformed into an opportunity for sociologists to rethink classical paradigms of social research or propose new ones with their specific characteristics, as seen in the discussion regarding mixed methods.

Even considering the cultural and social changes that have affected Italy because of the spread of new information and communication technologies, Italian methodologists seem today focused on redefining classical approaches and tools of social research or devising new ones (digital methods) in response to the knowledge challenges posed by the digital society.

In this latter field, it is perhaps more possible than in others to trace trends in the future of sociology as an empirical science, a future marked by several critical issues. These become evident when examining certain trends in social research, whether quantitative, qualitative, or quali-quantitative.

Another aspect to consider is the public function of social research, namely the need for researchers to address the concrete problems of citizens and disseminate their results to reform society. This relationship between sociology, social research, and society has always been ambivalent. In the first phase, it was sacrificed at the altar of science, only to be taken up again in the second phase in an almost ‘militant’ form. It then became progressively more marginal in subsequent phases, to the point of nullification. This has also been influenced by reforms in the university system that have pushed sociologists, especially the younger generation, towards an intellectual drift founded on the mistaken idea “that ‘qualitative’ research is easier and faster, (…) combined with the old wisdom of publish or perish, now elevated to a system and a bureaucratic criterion, self-sufficient and universal, in urging the production of small, limited, and fast products to be counted according to the rules” (Campelli, 2018 , p. 6).

Thus, the qualitative-quantitative debate seems to take on another meaning: this time, the factors influencing the choice to lean towards quantitative (or qualitative) methods are no longer scientific interests or ideological oppositions but the system that regulates access to an academic career in Italy, primarily the National Scientific Qualification (ASN). While the ASN was established to ensure transparency and meritocracy in a system historically characterized by co-optation, it has often highlighted ‘perverse effects’ that can be summarized in the ‘race for publication’, meaning the need to surpass increasingly high ‘thresholds’ set by the Ministry of Universities and members of national scientific committees responsible for evaluating individual candidates. For these reasons, there is a suspicion that sociology, in its frantic quest to secure a place in academia—which continues due to competition with other disciplines for space and resources—has diverted attention and connection (which it had in the past, albeit with ups and downs) from actions and movements for social and political reform, thus losing much of its critical dimension.

In addition, there is a risk that many research endeavors carried out ‘to publish at any cost’ lack sufficient theoretical rigour, but more importantly, they may lack the vitality, passion, and sense of social justice that had animated many of the masters of Italian sociological thought.

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Roberto Ardigò contributes decisively to the spread of sociological discipline in Italy and pays close attention to the international scene. In 1904, just two years after its initial English edition, he translated into Italian the seminal book in the history of social sciences: The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature by William James ( 1902 ).

Regarding criminology, see also Morselli ( 1879 ), as highlighted by Mangone & Picarella ( 2023 ).

The Italian philosopher argues that sociology can only offer a pseudo-conceptual knowledge and, in terms of competence, tends to identify itself with the science of politics. Later in the years, in the article “L’utopia della forma sociale perfetta” [The Utopia of the Perfect Social Form] in 1950 , his definition of sociology as a “sick science” became famous.

Croce’s anti-positivism was particularly active in the field of education. He is credited with the ‘Gentile reform’ of 1923, which was inspired, among other things, by the pedagogical principle that there is no method in teaching; each subject is a method in itself, it is not an abstract notion to memorize but an act of active and creative research. The teacher can use methodological indications to prepare the stages preceding teaching. Natural sciences and mathematics were downplayed because, according to Gentile, they were subjects without universal value, having their importance only at a professional level.

As well as the many difficulties and numerous theoretical implications of this approach. It will be in 1974, in an advanced sociology course at Boston University, that he will reflect on the qualitative approach, on the contribution it could make to sociology, to the social sciences (Ferrarotti, 1974a ). Among his students is the Frenchman Daniel Bertaux, who would later be one of the founders, along with him, of the Biography and Society committee of the ISA (International Sociological Association).

For example, Ernesto De Martino, in documenting the phenomenon of ‘taranta’ – a popular dance in Salento that was believed to have the goal of healing the bite of a spider, which seemed to affect women particularly – used a variety of techniques, such as ethnographic notes, audio recordings, and video footage.

“The South, still under the influence of a ‘south-focused’ tradition (meridionalismo) that emphasizes the exceptional character of this part of Italy, remains a privileged field for anthropological and psychological analysis of the peasant world. These analytical currents do not intersect. A nationally oriented trend will only take shape in the 1970s with the consolidation of the discipline” (Pinto, 1980 , p. 286).

The scholar identified six: the one at the Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali “Pro Deo” under the direction of Professor Franco Crespi. The one at the School of Advanced Studies in Sociology and Social Research, established in 1966 in Rome under the direction of Professor Vittorio Castellano. The one at the Istituto Superiore di Sociologia at the University of Milan in 1968, under the direction of Professor Angelo Pagani. The one at the Istituto Don Luigi Sturzo to continue the work and tradition of this Catholic priest who was one of the founders of the former Italian People’s Party. The one at the Istituto Superiore di Sociologia in Castellamare di Stabia with a program mainly modelled on that of Trento, including a school of social work. The one at the Center for Specialization and Economic-Agricultural Research for Southern Italy (also called the Mezzogiorno), located in Portici (Naples), included a sociological section for a training program in rural sociology.

Regarding the hypotheses about Italian sociological schools, some scholars are particularly skeptical. Cesareo ( 2001 ), drawing on writings by Gianni Statera, notes the absence of a dominant sociological “paradigm” in Italy. “The ‘schools’ in Italy, consequently, take on the aspect of occasional aggregations of interests that are not sub-communities defined by common theoretical and methodological premises, as well as by convergent scientific interests (...) These interests are much more frequently linked to the narrow dynamics of academic power and its external projection in terms of resources (...) than to large theoretical or methodological options” (2001, p. 110).

From a theoretical perspective, Italian sociologists responded to these challenges by inaugurating a very promising “meso” theoretical strand, which continues to this day and aims to find a solution to the individual-society debate that characterized modern sociologies. Meso-sociology in Italy has taken on two perspectives: the first finds its greatest expression in the relational sociology promoted by Pierpaolo Donati ( 1986 ), and the second in the theoretical and methodological perspectives promoted by the analysis of social networks. While relational sociology presents itself as an independent and entirely original perspective compared to the international debate on the subject, the second perspective is undoubtedly linked to the spread in Italy around the 1990s of works produced elsewhere, which inquire into the concept of “network” (Piselli, 2001 ), considering the latter as a useful metaphor with which to interpret contemporary social phenomena (Di Nicola, 1998 ; Tronca & Forsé, 2022 ), and the acquisitions around the technique of network analysis (Chiesi, 1999 ) and the need to provide it with a precise and well-defined theoretical status (Amaturo, 2002 ).

Essentially, qualitative sociology was criticized for its lack of rigor, its recursive nature, and the fact that the results did not lead to a representative understanding of phenomena because they were based on a small number of cases: “The subtext of these criticisms was still the assumption that the standards of social research were set by quantitative criteria of validity and that qualitative ones should be compared against them using the same criteria” (Bruni & Gobo, 2005 , p. 6).

See Mangone & Picarella ( 2023 ).

On the qualitative-quantitative debate, see also Ricolfi ( 1995 ) and Bichi ( 2002 ).

After Leonardi ( 1991 ), Gianni Statera ( 1992 , 1994 ) addressed the issue with two critical essays on qualitative methods.

There was no shortage of voices of scholars, such as Ruspini ( 2011 ), who saw qualitative methods as the negation of quantitative ones, where the former were everything that the latter were not. This point of view proposed anew a sexist view of scientific activity. The idea was therefore widespread even in the scientific environment that the qualitative was more feminine (softer, more reflective, more subjective, less rigorous, and scientific) and the quantitative more masculine (harder, more rigorous, more objective and scientific). Moreover, the suspicion that qualitative methods were associated with stereotyped characteristics of the feminine world was already evident from the title of the conferences in Parma and Milan, with the choice of the Greek myth of the Siren: “If in the field of the so-called ‘human’ sciences, which do not, however, have a dominant position in the complex of knowledge, procedures socially recognized as more feminine than masculine are admitted, the more one enters the field of the exact sciences, the more the masculine is associated with rigor, logic and scientific objectivity” (Ruspini, 2011 , p. 14).

These include the summer schools promoted by the Paidea association in the village of Terravecchia and the ‘non-standard’ ones at the University of Brescia. For further details, please refer to the official website https://www.paideiascuoleestive.it .

It is the opinion of the author that this push toward the technical dimension is not without problems, as mastering these skills requires a significant investment of time and resources. This aspect has somewhat played to the detriment of the epistemological and theoretical dimension, which still seems to have a residual role in the training of young researchers today.

As evidence of the centrality of this theme in the contemporary Italian sociological debate, see the recent Conference of the Italian Sociological Association held in Milan from December 13-15, 2023, titled “I Dilemmi della società digitale: Riflessioni epistemologiche e metodologiche sull’uso e sulle conseguenze sociali delle tecnologie digitali” [The Dilemmas of the Digital Society: Epistemological and Methodological Reflections on the Social Consequences of Digital Transformation].

Acquaviva, S. S. (1966). Franco Ferrarotti and Italian Sociology. Social Research, 33 (2), 332–353.

Google Scholar  

Agodi, M. C. (1996). Qualità e quantità: un falso dilemma e tanti equivoci [Quality and quantity: a false dilemma and many misunderstandings]. In C. Cipolla & A. De Lillo (Eds.), Il sociologo e le sirene. La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods] (pp. 106–133). FrancoAngeli.

Agodi, M. C. (2010). L’estrazione di dati dalla rete: Una nota introduttiva [For an epistemology of the digital: Notes on the use of big data and computation in social research]. Quaderni Di Sociologia, LIV, 3 , 11–21.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amaturo, E. (2002). Introduction to the Italian edition. In E. Amaturo (Ed.), Scott John. L’analisi delle reti sociali [Social network analysis] (pp. 9–21). Carocci.

Amaturo, E., & Aragona, B. (2019a). Per un’epistemologia del digitale: note sull’uso di big data e computazione nella ricerca sociale [For an epistemology of the digital: notes on the use of big data and computation in social research]. Quaderni di Sociologia, 81 (LXIII) (pp. 71–90)

Amaturo, E., & Aragona, B. (2019b). Methods for big data in social sciences. Mathematical Population Studies, 26 (2), 65–68.

Ardigò, A. (1980). Introduzione alla sociologia della salute [Introduction to the sociology of health]. La Ricerca Sociale, 22 , 8–32.

Ardigò, R. (1886). Sociologia [Sociology]. In A. Draghi (Ed.), Opere Filosofiche.

Banfield, E. C. (1958). The Moral basis of a backward society [with the assistance of L.Fasano Banfield]. The Free Press.

Barbano, F. (1989). La sociologia in Italia negli anni Ottanta [Sociology in Italy in the 1980s]. Studi Di Sociologia, 27 (4), 435–449.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1969). La realtà come costruzione sociale [The Social construction of reality]. Il Mulino.

Blalock, H. M. (1960). Social statistics. McGraw-Hill.

Bichi, R. (2002). L’intervista biografica. Una proposta metodologica [The biographical interview. A methodological proposal]. Vita e Pensiero.

Blalock, H. M. (1970). An introduction to social research. Prentice Hall.

Bruni, A., & Gobo, G. (2005). Qualitative research in italy, forum:qualitative social research, 6, 3 (art.41).

Caliandro, A., & Gandini, A. (2019). I metodi digitali nella ricerca sociale [Digital methods in social research]. Carocci.

Cavalli, A. (1981). Storia, vita e quotidianità nell’esperienza giovanile [History, life and everyday life in the youth experience (pp. 12–19). Inchiesta, XI.

Cavalli, A. (1996). Per una ricomposizione tra qualità e quantità [For a recomposition between quality and quantity]. In C. Cipolla & A. De Lillo (Eds.), Il sociologo e le sirene. La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods (pp. 100–105). FrancoAngeli.

Cavalli, A. (2021). Passaggi generazionali: la sociologia in italia nella seconda metà del Novecento [Generational shifts: sociology in Italy in the second half of the twentieth century]. Quaderni di Sociologia, LXV (pp. 27–34)

Campelli, E. (1996). Metodi qualitativi e teoria sociale [Qualitative methods and social theory]. In C. Cipolla & A. De Lillo (Eds.), Il sociologo e le sirene. La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods] (pp. 17–34). FrancoAngeli.

Campelli, E. (2018). Il sociologo, le sirene, un po’ rilassate [The sociologist, the sirens, a little relaxed]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 116 , 5–7.

Cesareo, V. (2001). L’istituzionalizzazione degli studi sociologici in Italia [The institutionalization of sociological studies in Italy]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 66 , 107–114.

Chiesi, A. M. (1999). L’analisi delle reticoli [The analysis of networks]. FrancoAngeli.

Cipolla, C. (2015). Dalla relazione alla connessione nella web society [From relationship to connection in the web society] . FrancoAngeli. 

Cipolla, C., & De Lillo, A. (1996) (Eds.). Il sociologo e le sirene. La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods]. FrancoAngeli.

Cipolla, C., De Lillo, A., & Ruspini, E. (2011) (Eds.).  Il sociologo, le sirene e le pratiche di integrazione [The sociologist, sirens and integration practices]. FrancoAngeli.

Cipolla, C., De Lillo, A., & Ruspini, E. (2012) (Eds.).  Il sociologo, le sirene e gli Avatar [The Sociologists, the Sirens, and Avatars]. FrancoAngeli.

Cipriani, R. (1975). Riflessioni critiche sullo sviluppo delle ricerche italiane in sociologia della religione [Critical reflections on the development of Italian research in the sociology of religion]. Sociologia, 2 , 49–73.

 Corbetta, P. (1995). Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale [Method and techniques of social research] . Il Mulino.

Cosentino, M. (2003). Dalla Pedagogia come scienza filosofica di Giovanni Gentile l’esempio della Pedagogia del Dialogo: Scienza dell’insegnamento e funzione dei valori [From Giovanni Gentile’s Pedagogy as a philosophical science, the example of Dialogue Pedagogy: the science of teaching and the function of values]. Bimestrale Scientifico-Professionale Della Scuola Italiana, 1 , 31–41.

Cossu, A., & Bortolini, M. (2017). Italian sociology, 1945–2010. Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Corposanto, C., & Valastro, A. (2014) (Eds.).  Blog, Fb & Tw. Fare ricerca quali-quantitativa online [Blog, Facebook & Twitter. Do qualitative-quantitative research online]. Giuffrè.

Croce, B. (1950). L’utopia della forma sociale perfetta [The utopia of the perfect social form] . Il Mondo, 28 gennaio .

Delli Paoli, A., & Masullo, G. (2022). Digital social research: topics and methods. Italian Sociological Review, 12 (7S), 617–634.

De Martino, E. (1959). Sud e magia [Sud and Magic]. Feltrinelli.

Di Nicola, P. (1998). La Rete. Metafora dell’appartenenza. Analisi strutturale e Paradigma di rete [The Network. Metaphor of belonging. Structural analysis and network paradigm]. FrancoAngeli.

Direnzo, G. J. (1972). Sociology in Italy Today. International Review of Modern Sociology, 2 (1), 33–58.

Dolci, D. (1956). Inchiesta a Palermo [Investigation in Palermo]. Einaudi.

Donati, P. (1986). Introduzione alla sociologia relazionale [Introduction to relational sociology]. FrancoAngeli.

Farci, M., & Scarcelli, M. (2022) (Eds.). Media digitali, genere e sessualità [Digital media, gender and sexuality]. Mondadori.

Ferrarotti, F. (1957). Sociology in Italy: problems and perspectives. In H. Becker & A. Boskoff (Eds.), Modern Sociological Theory in Continuity and Change, Dryden.

Ferrarotti, F. (1970). Roma da capitale a periferia [Rome from capital to periphery]. Laterza.

Ferrarotti, F. (1974a). Il pensiero sociologico da Auguste Comte a Max Horkheimer [Sociological thought from Auguste Comte to Max Horkheimer]. Mondadori.

Ferrarotti, F. (1974b). Vite di baraccati [Life of the shack-Dwellers]. Liguori.

Ferrarotti, F. (1981). Vite di periferia [Lives in the Outskirts]. Mondadori.

Ferrarotti, F. (1985). La sociologie en Italie [Sociology in Italy]. Cahiers Internationaux De Sociologie, 1 , 87–90.

Ferrarotti, F. (1986). La storia e il quotidiano [History and everyday life]. Laterza.

Ferrarotti, F. (1994). Sociology in italy. Problems and perspectives. In R. Mohan & A. Wilke (Eds.), International handbook of contemporary developments in sociology (pp. 483–504). Greenwood Press.

Ferrarotti, F. (2001). La società e l’Utopia [Society and Utopia]. Interventi Donzelli.

Ferrarotti, F., & Gemelli, G. (2011). Un imprenditore delle idee [An entrepreneur of ideas]. Edizioni di Comunità.

Ferrarotti, F. (2022). Biography and Social Research. Academicus, 26 , 9–26.

Gianturco, G. (2007). Una vita per le storie di vita: l’approccio qualitativo nell’opera di Franco Ferrarotti [A life for the story of life: the qualitative approach to the opera of Franco Ferrarotti]. M@gm@, 5 (1).

Ferri, E. (2010). Criminal Sociology. (Original work published 1892). Nabu Press.

Gentile, G. (1917). Sistema di logica come teoria del conoscere [System of logic as a theory of knowledge]. Laterza e Figli.

Germani, G. (1955). Estructura social de la Argentina [Social structure of Argentina]. Raigal.

Gobo, G. (2008). Con giustificato ritardo. La nascita della ricerca qualitativa in Italia. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Manuale di ricerca sociale qualitativa [Handbook of qualitative social research] (p. I–VII). Carocci.

Goffman, E. (1972). Asylums: le istituzioni totali. La condizione sociale dei malati di mente e di altri internati [Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates]. Einaudi.

Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods in Social Research . McGraw-Hill.

Giuffrida, G., Mazzeo Rinaldi, F., & Zarba, C. (2016). Big data e news online Possibilità e limiti per la ricerca sociale [Big data and online news Possibilities and limits for social research]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 109 , 159–173.

Herbert, H. (1955). Survey design and analysis. The Free Press

Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1967). Metodologia e ricerca sociologica [Methodology and sociological research]. Il Mulino.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Rosenberg, M. (1955). The language of social research: a reader in the methodology of social research. The Free Press.

Leonardi, F. (1991). Contro l’analisi qualitativa [Against qualitative analysis]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, XII, 35 , 3–29.

Lynd, R. S. (1970). Middletown. Edizioni di comunità.

Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. John Wiley.

Merton, R. K. (1966). Teoria e struttura sociale [Social Theory and Social Structure]. Il Mulino.

Mangone, E. (2017). Gino Germani and Sociology in Latin America. The American Sociologist, 50 (4), 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-019-09423-2

Mangone, E. (2018). De la idea de modernización de Gino Germani a las ambigüedades y paradojas de los populismos latinoamericanos de la sociedad posmoderna [From Gino Germani’s idea of modernization to the ambiguities and paradoxes of Latin American populisms of postmodern society]. In M. Colucciello, G. D’Angelo, & R. Minervini (Eds.), Ensayos americanos [American essays ] Penguin Random House (pp. 93–118)

Mangone, E., & Picarella, L. (2023). Sociocultural context, reference scholars and contradictions in the origin and development of sociology in italy. The American Sociologist (pp. 1–29). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-023-09604-0

Marradi, A. (1996). Due famiglie e un insieme [Two families and one together]. In C. Cipolla & A. De Lillo (Eds.), Il sociologo e le sirene. La sfida dei metodi qualitativi [The Sociologist and the Sirens: The Challenge of Qualitative Methods] (pp. 167–176)

Montaldi, D. (1961). Autobiografie della leggera [Autobiographies of petty criminals]. Einaudi.

Montaldi, D. (1970). Militanti politici di base [Grassroots political activists]. Einaudi.

Morselli, E. (1879). Il Suicidio. Saggio di statistica morale comparata [Suicide. An Essay in Comparative Moral Statistics]. Fratelli Dumolard.

Pareto, V. (1897). Il compito della sociologia fra le scienze sociali [The task of sociology among the social sciences]. Rivista Italiana Di Sociologia, 1 (1), 45–54.

Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. (A. Bongiorno, A. Livingstone & J.A. Rogers, Trans.). (Vol. 4). Harcourt, Brace and Company: Original work published 1916.

Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1967). The city. The University of Chicago. Original work published 1925.

Parsons, T. (1962). La struttura dell’azione sociale [The structure of social action]. Il Mulino.

Pinto, D. (1980). La sociologie dans l’Italie de l’après-guerre, 1950–1980 [Sociology in post-war Italy, 1950–1980]. Revue Française De Sociologie, 21 (2), 233–250.

Piselli, F. (2001). Reti L’analisi di network nelle scienze sociali [Reti Network analysis in social sciences]. Donzelli.

Pizzorno, A. (2010). Comunità e razionalizzazione. Ricerca sociologica su un caso di sviluppo industriale [Community and rationalization. Sociological research on a case of industrial development]. Marsilio editore.

Punziano, G. (2011). Mixed methods as mirror of social research. In C. Cipolla, A. De Lillo, & E. Ruspini (Eds.), Il sociologo, le sirene e le pratiche di integrazione [The sociologist, mermaids and integration practices] (pp. 239–254). FrancoAngeli.

Ricolfi, L. (1995). La ricerca empirica nelle scienze sociali: Una tassonomia [Empirical research in the social sciences: a taxonomy ]. Rassegna Italiana Di Sociologia, 36 (3), 389–418.

Ruspini, E. (2011). Introduzione: dalla “guerra dei mondi” ai “mondi a confronto” [Introduction: from the “war of the worlds” to “comparing worlds”]. In C. Cipolla, A. De Lillo, & E. Ruspini (Eds.), Il sociologo, le sirene e le pratiche di integrazione [The sociologist, mermaids and integration practices] (pp. 9–20). FrancoAngeli.

Scaglia, A. (2007). 25 anni dell’Associazione italiana di Sociologia. Materiali per riscriverne una storia [25 years of the Italian Sociology Association. Materials to rewrite a story]. Università degli studi di Trento.

Seppilli, T. (2008). Scritti di antropologia culturale [Writings on cultural anthropology]. vol 1., Leo S. Olschiki.

Scotellaro, R. (1954). Contadini del Sud [Southern farmers]. Laterza.

Statera, G. (1983). Società e comunicazione di massa [Society and mass communication]. Palumbo editore.

Statera, G. (1992). Il mito della ricerca qualitativa [The myth of qualitative research]. Sociologia e ricerca sociale, (XIII), (39) (pp. 5–26)

Statera, G. (1994). Individualismo metodologico, ermeneutica. Ricerca sociale. Della (scarsa) rilevanza del postulato individualistico per l’indagine [Methodological individualism, hermeneutics. Social research. Of the (little) relevance of the individualistic postulate for the investigation]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, XV, 43 , 53–65.

Stefanizzi, S. (2016). Small, open, big i dati e la conoscenza scientifica [Small, open, big data and scientific knowledge]. Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, 109 , 117–126.

Stefanizzi, S. (2021). The use of big data: some epistemological and methodological considerations. Italian Sociological Review, 4S , 193–205.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, sage.

Treves, R. (1959). Sociological study and research in Italy. Transactions of the fourth world congress of sociology (pp. 73–94). International Sociological Association.

Tronca, L., & Forsé, M. (2022). Towards a sociology of reasonableness: structure and action in the structural interactionist approach. Italian Sociological Review, 12 (3), 1035–1063.

William, J. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: a study in human nature. Longmans, Green, and Co.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Salerno within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Human Sciences, Philosophy and Education, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 84084, Fisciano, Italy

Giuseppe Masullo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Giuseppe Masullo .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication.

The author consents to the publication of the manuscript in The American Sociologist, should the article be accepted by the Editor-in-Chief upon completion of the refereeing process.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Masullo, G. The Phases of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Italian Sociology: Institutionalisation, Social Engagement, and Emerging Problems. Am Soc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-024-09615-5

Download citation

Accepted : 07 March 2024

Published : 04 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-024-09615-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research methods and techniques
• Qualitative research
• Quantitative research
• Institutionalization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Model Answers

Q: How do qualitative and quantitative methods supplement each other in sociological enquiry?

Question asked in UPSC Sociology 2021 Paper 1. Download our app for last 20 year question with model answers.

Model Answer:

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Sociology

Qualitative and quantitative methods are two distinct approaches to sociological enquiry, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. By combining these methods, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the social phenomena they are studying. Qualitative methods focus on exploring the meanings, interpretations, and experiences of individuals and groups, while quantitative methods emphasize the measurement and analysis of numerical data.

Together qualitative and quantitative methods, they can provide a more complete picture of social reality.

1. Triangulation: Using both qualitative and quantitative methods can help researchers triangulate their findings, meaning they can cross-check and validate their results. This can increase the credibility and reliability of the research. For example, a researcher studying the impact of social media on political engagement might use quantitative methods to analyze large-scale survey data on social media usage and voting patterns, while also conducting qualitative interviews with individuals to explore their personal experiences and motivations for engaging with political content online.

2. Exploratory and confirmatory research: Qualitative methods are often used in the exploratory phase of a research project, helping researchers identify key themes, patterns, and relationships that can be further investigated using quantitative methods. For instance, a researcher interested in understanding the factors that contribute to high school dropout rates might begin by conducting focus groups with students, teachers, and parents to identify potential factors. Based on these findings, the researcher could then design a quantitative survey to test the relationships between these factors and dropout rates in a larger sample.

3. Contextualization: Qualitative methods can provide rich contextual information that helps researchers interpret quantitative findings. For example, a researcher analyzing crime rates in different neighborhoods might find that areas with higher levels of poverty have higher crime rates. By conducting qualitative interviews with residents in these neighborhoods, the researcher can gain insights into the lived experiences of poverty and how it might contribute to crime, such as lack of access to education, employment opportunities, and social support networks.

4. Hypothesis generation: Qualitative research can help generate hypotheses that can then be tested using quantitative methods. For instance, a researcher conducting in-depth interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness might find that many participants mention a lack of affordable housing as a significant barrier to finding stable housing. This finding could lead the researcher to develop a hypothesis that increasing the availability of affordable housing would reduce homelessness rates, which could then be tested using quantitative methods, such as analyzing housing market data and homelessness rates over time.

5. Understanding complexity and nuance: Social phenomena are often complex and multifaceted, and using both qualitative and quantitative methods can help researchers capture this complexity. For example, a researcher studying the impact of gender on career advancement might use quantitative methods to analyze salary data and promotion rates by gender, while also conducting qualitative interviews with employees to explore their experiences of gender discrimination, work-life balance, and career aspirations. By combining these methods, the researcher can gain a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which gender shapes career outcomes.

In summary, qualitative and quantitative methods can supplement each other in sociological enquiry by providing different types of data and insights, allowing researchers to triangulate their findings, explore and confirm relationships, contextualize results, generate hypotheses, and capture the complexity and nuance of social phenomena.

More Questions:

What, according to robert michels, is the iron law of oligarchy do lions and foxes in vilfredo pareto’s theory, essentially differ from each other substantiate., in the context of changing indian society, how do you view andre beteille’s conceptions of harmonic and disharmonic social structures , explain the emerging challenges in establishing gender equality in the informal sector..

Download our app for UPSC Sociology Optional - Syllabus, NCERT Books, IGNOU Books, Past Paper with Model Answers, Topper Notes & Answer Sheet.

9 methodologies for a successful qualitative research assignment

Qualitative research is important in the educational and scientific domains. It enables a deeper understanding of phenomena, experiences, and context. Many researchers employ such research activities in the fields of history, sociology, and anthropology. For such researchers, learning quality analysis insights is crucial. This way, they can perform well throughout their research journey. Writing a qualitative research assignment is one such way to practice qualitative interpretations. When students address various qualitative questions in these projects, they become efficient in conducting these activities at a higher level, such as for a master’s or Ph.D. thesis.

The FormPlus highlights why researchers prefer qualitative research over quantitative research. It is faster, scientific, objective, focused, and acceptable. Researchers who don’t know what to expect from the research outcomes usually choose qualitative research. In this guide, we will discuss the top methodologies that students can employ while writing their qualitative research assignments. This way, you can write an appealing document that perfectly demonstrates your qualitative research skills.

However, being stressed with academic and daily life commitments, if you find it challenging to manage time exclusively for such projects, availing of assignment writing services can make it manageable. Instead of doing anything wrong in the hustle, get it done by the professionals specifically working to handle these academic write-ups. Now, let’s define quality research before we discuss the actual topic.

What is meant by qualitative research?

Quality research is a market research method that gathers data from conversational and open-ended communication. In simple words, it is about what people think and why they think so. It relates to the nature or standard of something rather than dealing with its quantity. Such researchers collect nonnumerical data to understand opinions, concepts, and ideas.

How do you write a qualitative research assignment? Top 9 methodologies

Writing an assignment requires your command of various tasks. Qualitative research assignment design involves research, writing, structuring, and providing citations of the resources used. Assignment writing plays a crucial role in upgrading your grades.

So, you must make it accurate and authentic. Write it with the utmost care without skipping any important aspects. Sometimes, it can be hard, but it becomes easy if you correctly use effective methodologies. This is why we have brought together some of the common methodologies you can use to write your qualitative research assignments.

1. Interviews

A qualitative interview is mostly used in projects that involve market research. In this study personal interaction is required to collect in-depth information of the participants. In qualitative research for assignment, consider the interview as a personal form of research agenda rather than a focused group study. A qualitative interview requires careful planning so that you can gather meaningful data.

Here are the simple steps to consider for its implementation in a qualitative research assignment:

• Define research objectives.
• Identify the target population.
• Obtain informed consent of participants.
• Make an interview guideline.
• Select a suitable location.
• Conduct the interview.
• Show respect for participant’s perspectives.
• Analyse the data.

2. Observation

In qualitative observation, the researcher gathers data from five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. It is a subject approach that depends on the sensory organ of the researcher. This method allows you to better understand the culture, process, and people under study. Some of its characteristics to consider for writing a qualitative research assignment include,

• It is a naturalistic inquiry of the participants in a natural environment.
• This approach is subjective and depends on the researcher’s observation.
• It does not seek a definite answer to a query.
• The researcher can recognise their own biases when compiling findings.

3. Questionnaires

In this type of survey, the researcher asks open-ended questions to participants. This way, they price the long written or typed document. In writing qualitative research assignments, these questions aim to reveal the participants’ narratives and experiences. Once you know what type of information you need, you can start curating your questionnaire form. The questions must be specific and clear enough that the participants can comprehend them.

Below are the main points that must be considered when creating qualitative research questionnaires.

• Avoid jargon and ambiguity in the questions.
• Each question should contribute to the research objectives.
• Use simple language.
• The questions should be neutral and unbiased.
• Be precise, as the complex questions can overwhelm the respondents.
• Always conduct a pilot test.
• Put yourself in the respondent’s shoes while asking questions.

4. Case Study

A case study is a detailed analysis of a person, place, thing, organisation, or phenomenon. This method is appropriate when you want to gain a contextual, concrete, and in-depth understanding of the real-world problem for writing your qualitative research assignment. This method is especially helpful when you need more time to conduct large-scale research activities.

The four crucial steps below can be followed up with this methodology.

• Select a case that has the potential to provide new and unexpected insights into the subject.
• Make a theoretical framework.
• Collect your data from various primary and secondary resources.
• Describe and analyse the case to provide a clear picture of the subject.

5. Focus Groups

Focused group research has some interesting properties. In this method, a planned interview is conducted within a small group. For this purpose, some of the participants are sampled from the study population to record data for writing a qualitative research assignment. Typically, a focused group has features like,

• At least four to ten participants must meet for up to two hours.
• There must be a facilitator who can guide the discussion by asking open-ended questions.
• The emphasis must be put on the group discussion rather than the discussion of the group members with the facilitator.
• The discussion should be recorded and transcribed by the researchers.

6. Ethnographic Research

It is the most in-depth research method that involves studying people in their natural environment. It requires the researcher to adopt the target audience environment. The environment can be anything from an organisation to a city or any remote location.

However, the geographical constraints can be a problem in this study. For students who are writing their qualitative research assignment, some of the features of ethnographic research to write in their document include,

• The researcher can get a more realistic picture of the study.
• It uncovers extremely valuable insights.
• Provides accurate predictions.
• You can extend the observation to create more in-depth data.
• You can interact with people within a particular context.

7. Record Keeping

This method is similar to going to the library to collect data from books. You consult various relayed books, note the important points, and take note of the referencing. So, the researcher uses already existing data rather than introducing new things in the field.

Later on, this data can be used to conduct new research. Yet, when faced with the vast resources available in your institution’s library, seeking assistance from UK-based assignment writing services is an excellent solution if you need help pinpointing the most relevant information for your topic. Proficient in data gathering and adept at structuring qualitative research assignments, these professionals can significantly elevate your academic results.

This method is mostly used by companies to understand a group of customers’ behaviour, characteristics, and motivation. It allows respondents to ask in-depth questions about their experience. In a business market, it helps you understand how your customers make decisions. The intent is to understand them at their level and make related changes in your setup. The researcher must ask generic and precise questions that have a clear purpose.

Consider the below examples of qualitative survey questions. It can be useful in recording data and writing qualitative research assignments.

• Why did you buy this skin care product?
• What is the overall narrative of this brand?
• How do you feel after buying this product?
• What sets this brand apart from others?
• How will this product fulfil your needs?
• What are the things that you expect from this brand to grant you?

9. Action Research

This method involves collaboration and empowerment of the participants. It is mostly appropriate for marginalised groups where there is no flexibility.

The primary characteristics of the action research that can be quoted in your qualitative research assignment include,

• It is action-oriented, and participants are actively involved in the research.
• There is a collaborative process between participants and researchers.
• The nature of action research is flexible to the changing situation.

However, the survey also accompanies some of the limitations, including,

• The researcher can misinterpret the open-ended questions.
• The data ownership between the researcher and participants needs to be negotiated.
• The ethical considerations must be kept.
• It is not considered a scientific method as it is fluid in data collection. Consequently, it may not attract the finding.

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative research?

Both research types share the common aim of knowledge acquisition. In quantitative research, the use of numbers and objective measures is used. It seeks answers to questions like when and where.

On the other hand, in qualitative research, the researcher is concerned with subjective phenomena. Such data can’t be numerically measured. For example, you might conduct a survey to analyse how different people experience grief.

What are the 4 types of qualitative research?

There are various types of qualitative research. It may include,

● Phenomenological studies:

It examines the human experience via description provided by the people involved. These are the lived experiences of the people. It is usually used in research areas where little knowledge is known.

● Ethnographic studies:

It involves the analysis of data about cultural groups. In such analysis, the researcher mostly lives with different communities and becomes part of their culture to provide solid interpretations.

● Grounded theory studies:

In this qualitative approach, the researcher collects and analyses the data. Later on, a theory is developed that is grounded in the data. It used both inductive and deductive approaches for theory development.

● Historical studies:

It is concerned with the location, identification, evaluation, and synthesis of data from the past. These researchers are not concerned with discovering past events but with relating these events to the present happenings.

The Research Gate provides a flow chart illustrating various qualitative research methods.

What are The 7 characteristics of qualitative research?

The following are some of the distinct features of qualitative research. You can write about them in your qualitative research assignment, as they are collected from reliable sources.

• It can even capture the changing attitude within the target group.
• It is beyond the limitations associated with quantitative research
• It explains something that numbers alone can’t describe.
• It is a flexible approach to improve the outcomes.
• A researcher is not supposed to become more speculative about the results.
• This approach is more targeted.
• It keeps the cost of data collection down.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research?

The pros of qualitative research can’t be denied. However, some cons are also associated with this research.

• Explore attitudes and behaviours in depth.
• It encourages discussions for better results.
• Generate descriptive data that can formulate new theories.
• The small sample size can be a problem.
• Bias in the sample collection.
• Lack of privacy if you are covering a sensitive topic.

Qualitative research assignment examples

The Afe Babalola University ePortal provides an example of a qualitative assignment. Here is the description of quality questions and related answers. You can get an idea about how to handle your quality research assignment project with this sample.

The questions asked in the paper are displayed below.

The Slide Team presents a template for further compressing other details, such as the qualitative research assignment template. You can use it to make your presentation look professional.

Writing a qualitative research assignment is crucial, especially if you want to engage in research activities for your master’s thesis. Most researchers choose this method because of the associated credibility and reliability of the results. In the above guide, we have discussed some of the prominent features of this method. All of the given data can help you in writing your assignments. We have discussed the benefits of each methodology and a brief account of how you can carry it.

However, even after going through this whole guideline, if the concepts of the Qualitative Research methods assignment seem ambiguous and you think you can’t write a good project, then ask professional to “ write my assignment .” These experts can consult the best sources for the data collection of your project. Consequently, they will deliver you the winning document that can stand out among other write-ups.