Soc 2206B FW24 - First Midterm (Jan 21)

First midterm will be in two weeks: February 4 --In this classroom --Two hours --Multiple choice and short answer --Class is responsible for --All materials presented in class up to and including January 28 --Readings: Chapters 1, 9, 10  Up to this point we’ve been...

First midterm will be in two weeks: February 4 --In this classroom --Two hours --Multiple choice and short answer --Class is responsible for --All materials presented in class up to and including January 28 --Readings: Chapters 1, 9, 10  Up to this point we’ve been talking about science as a way of knowing We saw that to qualify as science, certain criteria have to be satisfied One was that our propositions and explanations have to be falsifiable What does that mean?  Norms or rules that are followed by scientists Based mainly on the work of Robert K. Merton (1910-2003), key founder of the sociology of science 1) Universalism Research should be judged on the basis of its scientific merit, not on who did it or where it was done Science should be universal in the sense that any person, anywhere can contribute to knowledge, so long as their procedure is sound  In everyday life we may think: I can’t stand that person  I don’t accept anything she says OR: I like that person  I tend to believe what she says  In science, we can’t rule out a statement because there is something we don’t like about the researcher Similarly, we can’t accept a statement just because we like the person This means that we can't reject a piece of research because the researcher is obnoxious the researcher is the “wrong” gender or ethnicity, etc. Can you see how this may be different from the way we think in everyday life? 2) Organized skepticism In science, it's considered to be a good thing to challenge or criticize ideas Scientists are constantly challenging people's findings and methods: it’s their “job” I found this out at a conference years ago in Seoul, Korea Feel free to challenge any idea you encounter in this course  Things are very different in everyday life If we learn through authority or tradition, we generally do not challenge what we're taught E.g., we rarely challenge what our dentist or car mechanic tells us If we do challenge these people, it's often not considered to be legitimate  Whether you challenge people’s ideas in everyday life is up to you But I would encourage you to be skeptical of any ideas you come across in the social sciences One thing you can do is take the opposite of whatever you hear, and ask yourself if it makes any sense  Instead of: poverty-->crime Try: wealth--->crime How could wealth cause crime? This technique doesn't always work, but it illustrates how skepticism can be useful 3) Disinterestedness The ultimate goal of science should be the pursuit of truth, NOT wealth or other forms of personal aggrandizement If the main goal is fame or money, the truth will suffer, the truth will not come out Example: It’s problematic if a person who has a financial interest in an anti-depression drug also conducts and publishes research on the effectiveness of the drug That would be a conflict of interest At the very least, the researcher should declare the conflict of interest Authors are required to do this when submitting papers to academic journals  Disinterestedness also means that scientists should not become emotionally attached to an idea If properly collected evidence indicates that a particular idea is wrong, it must be abandoned Following this rule is harder than you might think: “The truth hurts”  Some people's careers or reputations are based on certain ideas Sometimes ideas make the believer feel good If so, it may be hard to abandon the idea or theory  For example, until about 40 years ago, behaviourist psychology was all the rage This is the idea that behaviour is 100% learned through rewards and punishments More recently behaviourism has been legitimately challenged, and many of its assumptions have been rejected or modified  It was probably very hard for behaviourists to let go of their ideas If we were all pure scientists, this wouldn't happen, but it's a very human thing to do Let’s pause and think for a moment: Everyone has to think of at least one idea to which they have an emotional attachment What ideas are you emotionally attached to? Would you find it difficult to give up the idea? Scientists often find themselves in this situation 4) Communalism To be accepted as science, all methods, data and findings must be open to public scrutiny You have to spell out your methods and findings for all to see, and share your data You have to be communal with that information, you have to share it This is sometimes called OPEN SCIENCE Many academic journals now require authors to provide access to their data as a condition of publication  If a person comes up with a particular finding and is asked, "How did you arrive at that conclusion?“ The person must describe the methods and findings in detail, and show their data. If the person doesn’t do that, the explanation is not scientific One can't say, "I'm not telling you!" or "You'd never understand"  Why would we be interested in asking questions about data, methods, and findings? To see that proper procedures were followed Possibly to replicate: What does that mean?  Norms or rules that are followed by scientists 5) Honesty The quickest way to destroy a scientific reputation is by being dishonest If you cheat by reporting findings that don't exist, everything you did in the past or will do in the future will be doubted or rejected Of course, honesty is important in life in general, but scientists are especially sensitive to dishonesty  According to Merton, by and large there isn't a lot of fraud or gross dishonesty in science Why would that be? Are social scientists morally superior to other people? Scientists know that their work will be checked by other scientists They know they have to be careful: communalism and organized skepticism  One way in which scientists may be less than perfectly honest is by discussing only the findings that support their theories Often some findings do not support the theory, yet these are not reported, or are mentioned only in footnotes or obscure appendixes Watch for this in any study you read  A good account of how social scientists sometimes do not live up to Merton’s norms of science: Stuart Ritchie, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth (2020)  Some Challenges in Social Science 1) The role of values in social research --Most people aren’t aware of how values can affect research --Every social scientist has a set of personal and political values, which influences their research  One way in which values can come into play is by influencing the researcher's interpretation of the data E.g., someone is doing a study on university tuition fees in Ontario They find that tuition fees are currently frozen How do researchers interpret this state of affairs? It may depend on their values  Some researchers may see this as good. How could it be good? It means that tuition fees are more affordable. Makes it easier for low-income people to attend university.  Other researchers may see tuition freezes as bad How could they be bad? Universities may become underfunded, and not able to offer all the programs they would like to Maybe they have to increase class sizes Same data, but very different conclusions, because of different value positions How one interprets the findings of a study depends to some degree on one's values  When you read any social scientific research, you should always ask yourself, What are the author's values? In particular, what are their political values? How have the researcher's values influenced his/her conclusions and interpretations? We'll talk more about values later  Second challenge in social science 2) The presence of the observer “Reactivity” or “reactive effect” --In the social sciences, the things being studied (usually people) may react to the presence of an observer --People act differently when they know others are watching them  Let's say that I'm a researcher interested in the recreational habits of UWO students I knock on your door on a Friday afternoon and say to you: "I'd like to follow you around for the entire weekend and watch what you do. Just pretend I'm not there" Would you behave as you normally do?  Say you are doing a study on racism You ask people, “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 = not racist at all, and 10 = extremely racist, how racist are you?” Any problems with that?  You'll soon learn that social scientists are very ingenious in getting around the problem of reactivity Questions or comments about these ideas?