Standardizing Social Research Methods

Standardizing Social Research MethodsAuthor(s): M. C. ElmerSource: Social Forces, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Dec., 1925), pp. 302-304Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3004579 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:04:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3004579?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


TEACHING AND RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Contributions to this Department will include material of three kinds: (1) original discussion, suggestion, plans, programs, and theories; (2) reports of special projects, working programs, conferences and meetings, and prog- ress in any distinctive aspect of the field; (3) special results of study and research.

: ~ ~ - - . . .. _- ... r~~~~E

STANDARDIZING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS M. C. ELMER

ACH generation of social scientists is aroused to concerted action by coinditions and interests of that

particular time' and each phase of research opens up niew vistas, new situa- tions, and series of interrelated phenomena which will engage the energies of new generations of scientists.

Because there is still so much unex- plored territory, and so many social phenomena whose very nature is unknown, not to mention our entire lack of understanding of their part in resulting social activities, we are eager to receive any new information which may throw light upon our understanding of the social. processes. We hear of an investigation being undertaken by someone in a field of inquiry concerning which we realize our lack of knowledge. When the summary and findings are announced we eagerly accept the results, especially if they fit into a structure of social philosophy we are attempting to erect. We are prone to overlook the fact that the conclusions may be based upon insufficient, inaccurate, or unscientifically analyzed data.

While it is true that the wide variety of problems which confront the sociologist involves the necessity for several different methods, nevertheless social research methods should be so standardiZed that when conclu-

sions of any social investigation are announced other scientists may carry on similar studies and compare results. As a matter of fact, most efforts of sociologists have been largely empirical, each individual floundering along independently and expect- antly hoping to stumble upon something worth while. Many individuals have succeeded. Many others have failed. Because of the great body of experience resulting from the successes and failures we are now in a position to begin to standardize some of our methods and cease floundering, at least, along certain lines.

The outstanding fields of research have been discussed and summarized again and again. The different types brought forth at the Institute for Social Research held at the University of Chicago, I92.3,

were summarized by Dr. E. W. Burgess, as (a) Community Studies, (b) Personality Studies, (c) Studies of Groups, (d) Studies of Public Opinion.2 Ellwood classifies the scientific methods of studying society3 as (a) Anthropological or Comparative Method, (b) The Historical Method, (c) The Survey Method, (d) Deduction from Biological and Psychological data, and (e) Philosophical assumption and a priori methods, stating further: "To make use of metaphysical assumption in our social study is to reverse the method of science

302.

I See Albion W. Small, "Some Researches into Research," Journal of Applied Sociology, Vol. IX, No. i alid 2.

2Joarnal of Applied Sociology, January, 1924.

3Journal of Social Forces, March, I92.4.



TEACHING AND RESEARCH 303

and will probably obscure to our minds some of the facts that should be taken into account." Chapin4 summarizes the methods of social research as (a) Histori- cal Methods, (b) Field work observation, and (c) Statistical Methods of Interpre- tation. In short, there is a general recognition of the need for standardizing of social research methods. The general subdivision of the field are quite uni- formly agreed upon. The method of pro- cedure, judging from studies, announce- ments and reports one sees on every hand, are as yet generally unknown.

The scope of this paper will permit me to mention only one rather common method by which individuals secure data to bolster up an opinion, or to prepare some 'astounding" revelation of social activities or social processes. The high sounding travesty of scientific research,- the questionnaire.

The questionnaire has certain real uses for which it is occasionally employed. There are however many uses for which it is of no value, but for which it is very frequently used. The proverbial "bailed hay wire and shingle nail" equipment for the mechanical needs of the farmer have likewise somewhat limited value, but are of a comparable importance. The questionnaire may have some value as a "'straw ballot," for showing a possible tendency, but is of practically no value for a scientific study. Even with regard to "straw ballots," and obtaining inter- views from individuals, Professor Gid- dings says, "no attempt is made to get reactions from each distinctive compo- nent group of the entire heterogeneous field of makers of opinion, and to see that each is represented in the proportion to its relative quantitative importance.5

We may with a reasonable degree of success find out the general tendency of attitude regarding a coming election, if the questionnaire reaches a random sample, since nearly everyone has a definite opinion on the point in question, but an elaborate questionnaire filled with questions such as "For whom did you vote during the past three presidential elec- tions. Give specific reasons in each case.," will hardly give material which can be scientifically analyzed.

In the same class are such questions as "What in your opinion is the reason boys and girls leave the farm," or "To what do you attribute the success of the Jew," "What per cent of American adults who, because of low mentality should not be permitted to vote,'" or, I quote from a questionnaire before me, "Did you have spinach during the past twenty-four hours,'" in an effort to find out if kinder- gartners were being properly nourished.

I have before me 17 questionnaires received during the past year. One deals with social service activities of business enterprises. It has on the whole, questions which may be answered objectively. However, there are a total of 304 questions, on the four closely printed pages, most of which would require considerable time to answer accurately, and would be of no value if not answered accurately. One questionnaire is interested in community organizations and has a total of 263 questions. Another dealing with social activities of religious organizations has a total of 347 questions. A race rela- tions inquiry has only 92 questions but most of these are of a nature which calls for the personal opinion of the individual answering. Along with the above group of questionnaires are several shorter ones requiring subjective answers, and a number which are well prepared, short and to the point, but which deal with matter

4 Scientific Monthly, October, 192X4. 6 Giddings, F. H., Journal of Social Forces, Vol.

II, No. 4, p. 483.



304 SOCIAL FORCES

which is of very incidental interest to me. This group is typical of the steady flow of questionnaires which come to all of us continually. This would cause no con- cern if there were not so many persons who take the results obtained seriously, and attempt to use them as a basis for scientific conclusion.

I have made a brief analysis of the last 17 questionnaires received, attempting to group the questions asked under seven genleral classifications. (i) Questions based entirely upon personal opinion, (z) data from official records, (3) requiring computation, (4) objective facts not assembled, and hence requiring considerable time for collection, (5) simple personal data, (6) objective facts probably known, and (7) objective facts, to answer which the aid of others must be secured (see Table I).

TABLE I.

a 0 ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ., _ .2

.

0 ; C *

_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~. H 34 4 0 7I

u~0 u

0 UA 'O. H- P4 0 O 0 u2 0 MN

I 304 35 2.5 I 0 32.I5 2.5

2. 347 4136 7 a5 I 63 II

3 I51 2.0 2.8 7 96 4 86 i9 33 17 13 4 5 2.9 9 I I 4 2-

6 2.72 I5 0 2I

7 52. 47 5 8 39 3 30 4 9 2.2. I 7 5 9

10 96 2.2. 16 38 2.0

II I0 65 19 II 10

12. 45 2.8 17

13 34 2.3 I I I 3 5 14 2.63 40 6 43 2. 72.

:15 2.1 3 1

i6 98 33 8 32. 15

17 2.9 9 1. 8

Totals.. I7481 42.1 169 2.1 439 I35 698 46

The above 17 questionnaires are not a selected sample, but are instead the entire list of all that have been received within the past few months in the order in which

they were received. It is readily seen that personal opinion plays a very promi- nent part in most cases, and that most of them require a great amount of work in securing the data necessary for answering. Several require rather extensive compu- tations, objective facts not assembled, and aid of other persons. With the ex- ception of two or three they are all too long to expect very reliable response. The fact that a considerable number were answered, does sot justify the conclusion that a representative sample was secured.

When do you answer a questionnaire? What questionnaires have you answered during the past year? First those which involved a study of a problem on which you had very definite ideas, either favora- ble or unfavorable. Second, those which you answer because of a personal knowledge of the sender, and third, a few others which are short and well prepared.

The use of the questionnaire for studying social processes and attitudes is very inadequate because it is almost impossi- ble to get a true random sample. Without a personal interview the person answering will most probably represent those who have definitely affirmative or negative views. Each person would also interpret the questionnaire and hence it is answered from a variety of viewpoints. It is at best a makeshift where absentee voting on a proposition is necessary. Where it is necessary to use the questionnaire, it should be very concise and specific. It must not be depended upon for any extensive data in our efforts to under- stand social phenomena. The distinctive fields of research are now generally recog- nized. We must now standardize the specific technique within these fields. The social surveyor has gone far toward standardizing the use of the questionnaire by ceasing to use it except under very special conditions and by learning to evaluate studies based upon such unscien- tific methods.



Documents

Standardizing Social Research Methods