The Differences between a Empirical Epistemology and a Post-modern Epistemology - Essay Example

Explain the differences between a positivist, empirical epistemology and a post-modern epistemology and describe the methodological implications of each approach. Does the endeavor of sociology require an adherence to a positive approach to the study of society? There are a number of different approaches to investigating sociological phenomenon that have evolved over the years. The positivist approach to sociological investigation relies on the use of scientific methods in order to investigate social issues. On the other hand, the empirical epistemological approach deals with sociology through qualitative investigation. A combination of these two approaches is known as the post modern epistemological approach that relies on the use of qualitative investigation as well as quantitative investigation in order to discover more about social phenomenon. Based on the difference in approaches, all these methods of investigation have direct implications on the methodology of investigation itself. When the positivist approach to sociological investigation is considered, it refers to obtaining quantitative data in order to establish sociological facts. This approach can be used to investigate sociological phenomenon in small groups as well as large samples of the population. The basic contention lies on gathering the data, analyzing it and then presenting it in a manner that can be interpreted. A hypothesis must be available which would either be proved or disproved based on the presented data. In contrast to other modes of sociological investigation, the positivist approach places an overwhelming stress on using quantitative information in order to garner investigation and research. In contrast to the positivist approach there is the empirical epistemological approach to sociological investigation. Epistemology refers to gathering knowledge as well as ascertaining its validity. The empirical approach to epistemology is based on investigation as well but such investigation does not require quantitative data to support it. Instead empirical epistemological approaches require that the investigator rely on his experiences and observations in order to support his ideas. Consequently the empirical epistemological approach relies in large part on qualitative observations rather than quantitative data in order to investigate social phenomenon. The earliest method of investigating social phenomenon has been empirical investigation but its validity remained poor because the researcher’s own biases play a large part in determining the results of the investigation. Thus, the empirical epistemological approach to sociology is little in use today. A combination of the empirical epistemological and the positivist approach is the post modern epistemological approach. The basic contention is that the mere positivist method of looking at things is not sufficient and that many possible ways of looking at the world exist. This approach relies on qualitative investigation and observations as well as gathering, analyzing and interpreting quantitative data to find out more about sociological phenomenon. The post modern epistemological approach emphasizes the use of investigation on local phenomenon rather than broad generalizations as the rapid transformation of social structures makes meaning unstable. Of the methods outlined above, the positivist approach is in dominant use. The reason for its pervasive use is its grounding in methods and principles that can be reaffirmed and provide repeatability through similar methods of investigation. Moreover the bias of the researcher is also eliminated in determining sociological phenomenon as actual ground data is used without any qualitative taints. Sociological investigation must be grounded in quantitative data for it to be more reliable and more reflective of the actual situation so that fitting solutions can be arrived at. 2. It is commonly argued that a problem is sociology is that the discipline lacks a common paradigm that natural sciences have. Do you agree that the discipline lacks a common paradigm? Is this lack of a paradigm a crisis for sociology? Explain either how sociology should proceed without a paradigm or how a paradigm can be developed. Paradigm refers to a model used to delineate the principles of a subject. No subject can be fully explained used merely one paradigm over time as paradigms are under constant evolution as new discoveries are made. Sociology does not possess a singular paradigm as well. As new ways to look at sociological phenomenon emerge, new paradigms evolve with them. The lack of a common paradigm cannot be termed as a crisis for sociology because sociological phenomenons evolve at a very rapid rate and so do sociological paradigms. One of the largest differences between sociological sciences and natural sciences is the fact that the phenomenon of natural sciences tend to display similar behavior all across the planet while sociological phenomenon do not. For example, gravity serves similarly across the Earth. No one can claim that gravity stops functioning in Africa but keeps functioning across other parts of the globe. On the other hand, when sociological issues are considered, there are large variations from one place to another. For example, religion displays a different domination in the lives of people in the industrialized world in comparison to people in the Third World. Sociological phenomenon across the globe is shaped by similar elements acting in differing degrees and extents. There may be a possibility that continuous sociological research would reveal a singular paradigm to fit all sociological situations but as things stand now, there is no such possibility in sight in the near future. Moreover it must be noticed that the early natural sciences had multiple paradigms that eventually evolved into singular paradigms, much like contemporary sociology. For example, various paradigms tried to explain the configuration of the planets. A dominant paradigm explained that the Earth was the centre of the Universe while another paradigm placed the Earth stationary while the planets and stars revolved about it. It was not until solid research and evidence proved things to the contrary and the current paradigm of astronomy was reached. This clearly indicates that the lack of a common paradigm is hardly worth considering as a crisis but should be considered as a step in evolution. Even though such evolution may occur in sociology but it seems hard as human beings cannot all be expected to adopt a common culture based on historical and geographical peculiarities. So as long as cultural variations (of a considerable degree) exist, there would be need for multiple paradigms in sociology to explain the differing sociological phenomenon. Sociology ought to proceed as it is currently – using research and investigation in order to improve upon existing paradigms and to create new paradigms as required. As mentioned before, the pervasiveness of research and investigation in sociology may be able to aid arrival at a common paradigm at some point in the future. Currently this is not possible as sociological investigation is limited to certain cultural areas where academic facilities exist to support such investigation. For example, sociological investigation in Chechnya would be limited in comparison to the United States but both would be required to arrive at a singular paradigm for sociology. Hence, sociology lacks a common paradigm but this cannot be considered as a crisis for sociology as greater investigation and research would eventually lead to a singular paradigm if possible. Otherwise sociology would have to operate with multiple paradigms in order to support cultural differences. 3. Explain the difference between studies of the ‘causes of effects’ vs. studies of ‘the effects of causes.’ Select a social science issues and describe in detail how you would design a study to investigate the “effects of causes”. Next, explain generally how you would study the “causes of effects.” Sociological investigation may be directed at finding the causes behind a sociological phenomenon or the effects of certain causes. In the former case, the reasons that cause a change to occur which produces effects are looked at in detail. On the other hand, in the latter case, the effects that are produced due to changes are looked at in detail in terms of their effects on sociological structures. Simply put, “causes of effects” can be seen as RCA (root cause analysis) which is carried out to discern why certain changes have occurred while the “effects of causes” can be seen as direct implications of a change and their impact on society. For obvious reasons, both kinds of investigations are carried out in different ways from each other and are delineated below. In order to investigate the “effects of causes”, it is necessary to have a baseline that can be used for comparison of changes. Once a baseline of existing conditions has been established, the change and its effects can be studied. Once this is complete, the results after the change can be compared to the baseline in order to discern the effects of the cause that produced the change. For example, if a proposal was developed to increase the income support of Aboriginal Australians in order to raise their health levels, it would take an “effects of causes” study to discover if such a proposal would work. In order to study the effects it would be necessary to know about the current state of health of Aboriginal Australians first as it would serve as a baseline for future comparisons. The state of health could be determined by using survey based methods that document the incidence of major health problems such as renal failure, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory issues etc. A group of Aboriginal Australians would have to be chosen to represent the entire population and the composition of the group should be such that it matches the demographics as closely as possible. Based on the survey answers from this group, a baseline could easily be established that would reveal the rates of incidence of these diseases in age groups and genders. Consequently, this group would be provided with greater income support for a long enough period of time to observe its effects fully. For this particular study, the income support would have to span more than 24 months in order to discover how increased income leads to a better quality of life and hence lower disease. At the conclusion of the demarcated period, similar surveys would be carried out again from the chosen group. The results of this new survey would then be compared to the previous survey and significant changes would be noted. It is essential that throughout the course of this study all other factors that may affect health such as smoking policies, access to health care and the like be kept constant so that the effect can be clearly traced out. In contrast, if a study for “causes of effects” was being carried out then there would be a need to investigate the causes behind some social phenomenon. In this case considering the previous example, the causes behind improvements in health would need investigation. To carry such a study out the lifestyles of the experimental group would be monitored and changes suggested. Based on these changes such as decrease in tobacco and alcohol consumption, regular visits to the doctor, application of remote medicine programs etc. the results would be used to demarcate which causes had the greatest effects. This would aid in identifying the causes behind the effects. 4. What is measurement and why is measurement an important concept in social research? What is the relationship of measurement to theory? Be sure to explain reliability and validity, also mention the post-modern critique of measurement strategies in the social science. Measurement refers to the process of observing and recording the various kinds of observations that are collected in the research process. As far as social theory is concerned, if measurements are not relied upon there is little method of determining if a social phenomenon is being interpreted correctly as mere qualitative research introduces inherent bias on the part of the investigators. However in order to ensure that measurement is trustworthy enough, its reliability and validity must be meticulously looked into. In the current age, measurement in the social sciences also faces criticism from the post modern school that holds that measurement techniques are often lope sided and fail to represent the various aspects of the picture. These issues are looked at in detail below. Measurement holds a strong supporting role for theory given the positivist attitude that is identified with the social sciences. If measurements are not available, then theory is mere hypothesis to a large extent. Empirical investigations can only support large generalizations in sociological theory. When more specific issues are put to investigation, the need for data and measurement is obvious and compulsory to support argumentation. For example, if the role of drugs and violence in the breakdown of the family structure in the Mexican American ethnic group is to be determined, measurements would be needed such as divorce rates and juvenile delinquency in order to assess the impact. Without measurement it cannot be reliably stated if there is a relationship between drugs and violence and the breakdown of the family structure. Moreover the data and measurements need to be valid as well at the same time. Measurements are considered to be reliable if the measurement procedure produces consistent scores when the same phenomenon is being measured. The reliability of a measurement expresses the amount to which the data is free from error during measurement. Therefore reliability of measurements guarantees that no errors were committed during measurement that would impact the results. On the other hand, validity refers to the extent to which measures indicate what was intended to be measured. Validity also provides the match between the conceptual definition and the operational definition of measurement. Both reliability and validity are interconnected too and mere reliability is not sufficient on its own. Moreover reliability is prerequisite to ensuring that measurement validity is available. Even though measurements may contain both reliability and validity but they have come under scrutiny from post modern sociologists. The post modern school of thought contends that there are multiple ways to look at phenomenon and hence there are multiple kinds of measurements and measurement procedures that could be used to investigate social phenomenon. The determination of which kinds of measurements and measurement procedures should be used for sociological investigation is subject to qualitative reasoning as per the post modern school of thought. Hence measurement is essential to sociological theory in order to provide hard evidence. The measurements should be reliable and valid at the same time. Moreover the derivation of required measurements and measurement procedures is subject to qualitative reasoning more than anything else. Bibliography Babbie, Earl R. Adventures in Social Research. New York: Sage , 2011. —. The Basics of Social Research. London: Wadsworth Publishing, 2007. —. The Practice of Social Research. London: Wadsworth Publishing, 2003. —. What is Society? New York: Sage, 1993. Read More