Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology
Table of Contents
Research methodology is a wider term given to the entire process of research which includes specific approach and ideology, research methods, research design, data, assumptions and logics used in that process.
Sociologists approach the study of human society in different ways. They can look at the “big picture” of society to see how it operates. This is a macro view focusing on the large social phenomena of society such as social institutions and inequality.
Sociologists can also take a micro view, zeroing in on the immediate social situations in which people interact with one another.
From these two views, sociologists have developed various theoretical perspectives, each a set of general assumptions about the nature of society.
Macropositivist
Positivism – Many of the founding fathers of sociology believed that it would be possible to create a science of society such as chemistry and biology. This approach is known as positivism.
Functionalism - The Consensus Approach
Functional analysis also known as functionalism and structural functionalism is rooted in the origin of Sociology. It is prominent in the work of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, two of the founding fathers of the discipline. It was developed by Emile Durkheim and refined by Talcott Parsons.
Functionalism begins with the observation of the structural behavior of the society. This means that relationships between members of the society are organized in terms of rules.
Social relationships are therefore patterned and recurrent. Values provide general guidelines for behaviour and they are translated into more specific directives in terms of roles and norms.
The structure of the society can be seen as the sum total of normative behaviour – the sum total of social relationships which are governed by norms.
In determining the function of various parts of the social structure, functionalists are guided by some ideas. Societies have certain basic needs or requirements which must be met if they have to survive.
These requirements are sometimes known as functional prerequisites.
- Society, from a functionalist perspective, is a system made up of interrelated parts.
- Since society is a system, there must be some degree of integration between its parts.
- A minimal degree of integration is therefore a functional prerequisite of society.
- Many functionalists believe that the order and stability they see as essential for the maintenance of the social system are largely provided by value consensus.
- An investigation of the source of value consensus is therefore a major concern of functionalist analysis.
Criticisms of Functionalism
Conflict theorists critique functionalism for presenting an overly idealistic and harmonious view of society, often perceived as “utopian.” Functionalists argue that social institutions serve functions to maintain stability, but conflict theorists emphasize that societies are characterized by inherent conflicts and power imbalances that shape these institutions. Conflict theorists believe that systems of stratification are not naturally harmonious; instead, they are often maintained through constraints, control, and coercion, which functionalists may overlook or underemphasize.
While functionalists view social consensus as foundational, conflict theorists argue that it is often temporary and maintained through negotiation of power and resources. They assert that conflict is not only unavoidable but can lead to social stability by creating necessary adjustments and reforms. To gain a complete understanding of society, conflict theorists advocate for examining both conflict and the dynamics of consensus within social structures. This dual focus helps highlight how equilibrium is achieved not merely through shared values but often through managed or resolved conflicts.
However, with their concern for investigating how functional prerequisites are met, functionalists have concentrated on functions rather than dysfunctions. This emphasis has resulted in many institutions being seen as beneficial and useful to society. Indeed, some institutions, such as the family, religion, and social stratification, have been seen as not only beneficial but indispensable.
This view has led critics to argue that functionalism has a built in conservative bias which supports the status-quo. The argument that certain social arrangements are beneficial or indispensable provides support for their retention and rejects proposals for radical change.
The Conflict Approach
The conflict perspective views society as a complex network of diverse groups with competing values and interests, primarily differentiated by access to wealth, power, and prestige. This perspective is grounded in the belief that societal structures favour certain groups at the expense of others. Within this broad framework, two key approaches help explain how conflicts manifest: the Marxian approach, with its emphasis on economic determinism and social class, and the neo-conflict approach, which examines power differentials and authority.
- Proponents of the conflict perspective are inclined to concentrate on social conflict, to see social change as beneficial, and to assume that the social order is forcibly imposed by the powerful on the weak. They criticize the status quo.
- The conflict theorists stress inequalities and regard society as a system made of individuals and groups which are competing for scarce resources.
- In modern society, Karl Marx focused on struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of production) and proletariat (those who worked for the owners), but today’s conflict theorists have expanded this perspective to include smaller groups and even basic relationships.
The Marxian Approach to Conflict
Karl Marx laid the theoretical foundation for the conflict perspective, emphasizing class conflict as a primary driver of social change. According to Marx, society is divided into the bourgeoisie (the ruling capitalist class) and the proletariat (the working class). The interests of these classes are inherently opposed: the bourgeoisie seeks to maintain control over resources and production, while the proletariat struggles for fair compensation and living conditions. This class struggle, in Marx’s view, is a fundamental, inevitable conflict rooted in economic inequalities. The bourgeoisie uses its power to enforce its ideology and maintain its dominance, leading to exploitation and the subjugation of the working class. For Marx, these economic and social class conflicts are essential for understanding how societies evolve and how social change occurs.
The Neo-conflict Approach
The neo-conflict approach acknowledges that conflict, rather than being purely destructive, can have a functional role in promoting social stability and order. This approach diverges from Marx’s focus on economic determinism and instead highlights that conflict often arises from differences in power and authority, rather than solely from issues related to property and production.
Neo-conflict theorists argue that in diverse societies like the United States, conflicts are bound to arise among groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and political interests. Such conflicts can lead to compromise and adaptation, contributing to the ongoing stability of social structures. For example, disagreements over budget priorities in the U.S. often force competing groups to negotiate, preventing any single group from fully imposing its agenda. This dynamic of compromise allows for social cohesion, as it upholds the structure of society without overwhelming its core values.
A key concept within neo-conflict theory is the idea that external threats can unify groups with conflicting interests, as a shared enemy or challenge often diminishes internal disputes. Conflict becomes dysfunctional only when it directly challenges or undermines society’s foundational values.
C. Wright Mills and the “Power Elite”
Sociologist C. Wright Mills expanded the conflict perspective by examining the distribution of power and authority in American society. In his influential work, The Power Elite (1956), Mills argued that post-World War II U.S. society was governed by a coalition of elites from the military, industrial, and political sectors. This “power elite” shaped domestic and foreign policy to serve its interests, often to the detriment of the general public. Mills emphasized that this elite group used its considerable influence and resources to maintain control, advancing an ideology that justified its power and status. His work underscored that power imbalances and elite dominance were central to understanding societal organization and the perpetuation of inequality.
While both Marxian and neo-conflict perspectives within the conflict theory framework acknowledge inherent societal conflicts, they differ in their emphasis: the Marxian approach highlights economic class struggles, whereas the neo-conflict approach focuses on power dynamics and authority as sources of tension.
Wright Mills’ contribution emphasizes the role of elite groups in perpetuating inequality through ideological and structural control, further deepening the conflict perspective’s analysis of power and dominance in society.
Micro Interpretive (Social Action Approach)
Social action approach (also called as the phenomenological, interpretive, anti/non-positive or micro sociology) in Sociology rejects many of the assumptions of positivism.
Social action theorists argue that the subject matter of the social and natural sciences is fundamentally different. As a result, the methods and assumptions of the natural sciences are inappropriate to the study of man. The natural sciences deal with matter.
Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to outline this perspective in detail. He argued that sociological explanations of actions should begin with ‘the observation and theoretical interpretation of the subjective “states of minds” of actors.
Interactionism adopts a similar approach with particular emphasis on the process of interaction. Where positivists emphasize facts and cause and effect relationships, integrationists emphasize insights and understanding. Since it is not possible to get inside the heads of actors, the discovery of meaning must be based on interpretation and intuition.
Therefore, Sociology is limited to an interpretation of social action and hence the social action approaches are also sometimes referred to as ‘interpretive sociology’.
Symbolic Interactionism
We can trace the origins of symbolic interactionism to Max Weber’s argument that people act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their social world. But it was George Herbert Mead, an American philosopher, who introduced Symbolic interactionism to sociology.
- According to symbolic interactionism, people assign meanings to each other’s words and actions.
- Our response to a person’s action is therefore determined not by that person’s action in itself but by our subjective interpretation of the action.
- It is an interaction between individuals that is governed by their interpretation of the meaning of symbols. In this case, the symbols are primarily spoken words.
- The symbolic interactionism perspective suggests two things.
- People do not respond directly to physical things. Rather, they respond to their own interpretations of them.
- As people constantly impose interpretations – on the world in general, on other people, themselves, and even their own interpretations – and then act accordingly, human behaviour is fluid, always changing.
- How we act is constantly being altered by how we interpret other people’s actions and their reactions to our own behaviour.
- Human behaviour is thus not real in it but becomes real only after it has been subjected to reality construction.
- The process by which we interpret depends on what a given action means, and respond to it in accordance with the interpretation.
The symbolic interactionism perspective has been criticized, for ignoring the larger issues of national and international orders and changes. It has also been faulted for ignoring the influence of larger social forces, such as social institutions, groups, cultures, and societies on individual interactions.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism
- Limited Consideration of Social and Historical Context (Marxist Critique): Interactionists are often criticized for overlooking the historical and social backgrounds of interactions. By focusing mainly on immediate interactions, they may ignore the broader societal structures and events that have contributed to these interactions. This absence of historical context is seen as a major flaw, as social encounters do not happen in isolation but are influenced by societal patterns and class relations, which interactionism underemphasizes.
- Neglect of Social Structure and Norms: Symbolic interactionism places a strong emphasis on individual agency, arguing that people have considerable flexibility and freedom in their actions. Critics, however, argue that this perspective underestimates the influence of social structures and norms that restrict and guide individual behaviour. While interactionists acknowledge the existence of norms, they often take them for granted rather than exploring how and why these norms originated and became standardized within society. William Skidmore argues that this lack of attention to social structure leads to a failure to explain why people tend to behave consistently within certain societal expectations.
- Failure to Address the Origins of Meaning: Interactionists prioritize the meanings that emerge in interactions but often fail to examine where these meanings come from. Critics argue that meanings are not created solely within immediate interactions but are influenced by larger social structures and power relations. From a Marxist perspective, meanings are often shaped by class relationships and economic forces. Therefore, critics contend that interactionists overlook how social structures systematically generate shared meanings and, in doing so, miss a crucial aspect of understanding why certain meanings prevail.
- American Cultural Bias: Symbolic interactionism developed primarily in the United States, and some critics, like Leon Shaskolsky, argue that it reflects distinctly American cultural ideals such as individualism, freedom, and personal agency. This cultural bias, they suggest, may lead interactionism to emphasize liberty and personal interpretation while downplaying the structural constraints that shape human behaviour. The theory’s focus on personal agency and individual meaning-making can be seen as an ideological “mirror” of American values, potentially limiting its applicability to societies where individualism is less prominent.
While symbolic interactionism provides valuable insights into the nuances of human interactions, it has been criticized for its limited focus on the influence of historical, social, and economic structures. Critics argue that by neglecting these broader contexts, interactionism falls short in explaining the origins of shared meanings and the structural constraints that guide human behaviour. This critique suggests that while interactionism brings balance to deterministic views, it may sometimes overemphasize individual freedom and downplay the social forces that influence interaction.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology in sociology emphasizes that human behaviour and social actions are fundamentally different from the subjects of natural sciences due to the presence of human consciousness, subjective meaning, and purposeful action.
This perspective argues that the methods and assumptions used to study matter in natural sciences are inappropriate for studying human beings because people do not merely react to external stimuli like molecules or atoms; they actively interpret, assign meaning to, and act upon their experiences and surroundings.
Key Ideas of Phenomenology
- Consciousness and Meaning: Unlike matter, humans have consciousness: thoughts, feelings, intentions, and an awareness of self. This subjective experience means that people interpret situations and assign meanings to actions and objects, guiding their responses based on these meanings. For example, early humans didn’t simply react to fire’s heat as a stimulus; they gave fire various meanings and purposes, using it for warmth, cooking, protection, and tool-making.
- Understanding Subjective Meanings: Because human actions are directed by subjective meanings, sociologists must uncover and interpret these meanings to understand behaviour fully. Observing actions from an outsider’s perspective alone is insufficient. Instead, sociologists need to understand the internal logic or subjective “states of mind” that drive actions. Max Weber, a foundational thinker in this perspective, argued that sociological explanations must begin by interpreting the subjective intentions of actors.
- Interpretive Sociology: Phenomenological approaches are often called interpretive sociology because they emphasize understanding the internal, subjective meanings and intentions of individuals rather than relying on objective measurement or establishing rigid cause-and-effect relationships. This method contrasts with positivism, which emphasizes observable facts and seeks to identify general laws governing behaviour. For phenomenologists, social reality is constantly negotiated and redefined through interactions, making it impossible to apply the exact methods of natural sciences to human society.
- Critique of Positivism: Phenomenologists criticize positivism for reducing human beings to passive responders to external forces, similar to how matter reacts in scientific models. By treating people as if they are “puppets on strings,” controlled by social norms, economic systems, or other pressures, positivism is seen as oversimplifying social life. In contrast, phenomenology portrays people as active creators of their social reality, constructing their own meanings through interactions and thereby directing their own actions.
Strengths and Limitations of Phenomenology
- Strengths: Phenomenology offers a deep, nuanced understanding of how individuals create and interpret their social worlds. It acknowledges the complexity of human experience, highlighting the ways people actively construct and negotiate meanings rather than passively following societal dictates.
- Limitations: Critics argue that phenomenology’s emphasis on subjective interpretation can make it difficult to develop generalizable theories about society. Its focus on individual meaning-making processes may overlook broader structural forces (such as class, power, and economic constraints) that also influence behaviour. Additionally, the interpretive nature of phenomenology makes objective measurement challenging, which limits its compatibility with the quantitative rigor of traditional scientific methods.
Phenomenology challenges the positivist view by arguing that human beings are not passive responders but active creators of their social reality. This perspective highlights the importance of subjective meanings and emphasizes the need for sociologists to interpret rather than merely observe human actions. Through this lens, society is seen not as an external force but as a continuous, shared construction by individuals who assign and reinterpret meanings through their interactions. This interpretive approach provides valuable insights into the dynamic and fluid nature of social life, underscoring the role of human agency in shaping society.
Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods people use to understand and organize their social world. It explores how individuals construct and give meaning to their daily interactions, drawing inspiration from phenomenological philosophy, particularly the ideas of Alfred Schutz.
Key Ideas of Ethnomethodology
- Social Order as a Perception: Ethnomethodologists argue that society and social order are not objectively real but appear orderly because people perceive them that way. While social life seems systematic and organized to individuals, this may not be due to any inherent order; rather, it’s a result of how people interpret and understand their interactions.
- Focus on Everyday Methods: Ethnomethodology examines the everyday techniques and reasoning people use to create and explain social order. For instance, researchers like Zimmerman and Wieder note that ethnomethodologists focus on how people see, describe, and make sense of the world they live in.
- Criticism of Mainstream Sociology: Ethnomethodologists criticize traditional sociology for treating social phenomena—like crime or suicide—as objective facts. Instead, they argue that these phenomena are social constructs shaped by people’s interpretations. Sociology, in their view, should focus on understanding the methods individuals use to create their social realities rather than assuming these realities exist independently.
- Similarity to Everyday Thinking: Ethnomethodologists see little difference between the methods used by sociologists and the everyday practices of people in society. Just as people use experiences and observations to make sense of the world, so do sociologists in their studies. Ethnomethodologists argue that conventional sociology, by imposing theories and frameworks, is doing the same as everyday people who create a sense of social order through interpretation.
Criticisms of Ethnomethodology
- Lack of Focus on Goals and Power: Critics argue that ethnomethodology overlooks people’s motives, goals, and the influence of power in social interactions. There’s little mention of why people behave as they do or how power dynamics shape social life. For instance, Gouldner notes that ethnomethodology fails to recognize that social definitions are often influenced by competing groups and power differences.
- Dismissal of Unseen Influences: Ethnomethodologists sometimes dismiss external realities that people may not directly recognize but which still impact them. For example, John H. Goldthorpe points out that even if people don’t consciously consider threats like bombs, those threats still have real effects, such as limiting interaction in extreme ways, including death.
- Endless Accounting: Ethnomethodologists’ focus on “accounting for accounts” implies that every explanation could be reinterpreted indefinitely. Anthony Giddens notes this could lead to a situation where nothing can ever be fully known, as each account could always be analysed further.
Despite its limitations, ethnomethodology raises thought-provoking questions about how individuals actively construct their social realities.
Important Keywords
Research methodology, Positivism, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Order and Stability, Value consensus, Social Conflict, Neo-conflict Approach, Social action, Power Elite, Symbolic Interactionism, Phenomenology, American Cultural Bias, Everyday Methods, Social Order, Subjective Meanings and Endless Accounting.
