In “How Do We Know What We Know?” we considered a variety of ways of knowing and the philosophy of knowing. But this is not a philosophy text. In this section, we’ll take a closer look at the science of social science and some specific considerations of which social scientists must be aware.

The Science of Social Sciences

The sources of knowledge we discussed in Section 1.1 “How Do We Know What We Know?” could have been labeled sources of belief. In the social sciences, however, our aim is to discover knowledge. Although we may examine beliefs in order to understand what they are and where they come from, ultimately we aim to contribute to and enhance knowledge. Science is a particular way of knowing that attempts to systematically collect and categorize facts or truths. A key word here is systematically; conducting science is a deliberate process. Unlike the ways of knowing described earlier, scientists gather information about facts in a way that is organized and intentional and usually follows a set of predetermined steps.

More specifically, researchers in social science disciplines use organized and intentional procedures to uncover facts or truths about people and society. The focus of social scientific research may be as small as individuals, couples or families, or as large as whole nations. The main point, however, is that social scientists study human beings in relation to one another and to their environments. In our next chapter, we’ll explore how variations within the social sciences, such as one’s theoretical perspective, may shape a researcher’s approach. For now the important thing to remember is out focus on human social behavior and the scientific approach toward understanding that behavior.

Specific Considerations for the Social Sciences

One of the first and most important things to keep in mind is that social scientists aim to explain patterns in society. Most of the time, a pattern will not explain every single person’s experience, a fact that is both fascinating and frustrating. It is fascinating because, even though the individuals who create a pattern may not be the same over time and may not even know one another, collectively they create a pattern. Those new to the study of social behaviour may find these patterns frustrating because they may believe that the patterns that describe their gender, their age, or some other facet of their lives don’t really represent their experience. Make no mistake: a pattern can exist among your cohort without your individual participation in it.

Let’s consider some specific examples. One area commonly investigated, especially among social scientists and social-psychologists, is the impact of a person’s social class background on his or her experiences in life. You probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a person’s social class background has an impact on his or her educational attainment and achievement. In fact, one group of researchers (Ellwood & Kane, 2000) in the early 1990s found that the percentage of children who did not receive any postsecondary schooling was four times greater among those in the lowest quartile income bracket than those in the upper quartile of income earners (i.e., children from high-income families were far more likely than low-income children to go on to university). Another recent study found that having more liquid wealth that can be easily converted into cash actually seems to predict children’s math and reading achievement (Elliott, Jung, Kim, & Chowa, 2010).

These findings, that wealth and income shape a child’s educational experiences, are probably not that shocking to any of us, even if we know someone who may be an exception to the rule. Sometimes the patterns that social scientists observe fit our commonly held beliefs about the way the world works. When this happens, we don’t tend to take issue with the fact that patterns don’t necessarily represent all people’s experiences. But what happens when the patterns disrupt our assumptions?

For example, did you know that some research has shown that teachers are far more likely to encourage boys to think critically in school by asking them to expand on answers they give in class and by commenting on boys’ remarks and observations? When girls speak up in class, teachers are more likely to simply nod and move on. The pattern of teachers engaging in more complex interactions with boys means that boys and girls do not receive the same educational experience in school (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). You and your classmates, both men and women, may find this news upsetting.

Objectors to these findings tend to cite evidence from their own personal experience, refuting that the pattern actually exists. The problem with this response, however, is that objecting to a social pattern on the grounds that it doesn’t match one’s individual experience misses the point about patterns. The point isn’t that there are exceptions; the point is that there is a general rule that seems operative in different contexts and with different people.

Another matter that social scientists must consider is where they stand on the value of basic as opposed to applied research. In essence, this has to do with questions of for whom and for what purpose research is conducted. We can think of basic and applied research as resting on either end of a continuum. Basic research is research for the sake of the discipline. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes researchers are motivated to conduct research simply because they happen to be interested in a topic and feel that they may contribute to its understanding, without any particular concern for whether there will be immediate, practical outcomes of the research findings. In this case, the goal of the research may be to learn more about a topic; for instance, what variables might be important to understand the experience of intramural sports. Applied research lies at the other end of the continuum. In the social sciences, applied research typically refers to research that is conducted for some purpose beyond or in addition to a researcher’s interest in contributing to understanding a topic.

Applied research is often client focused, meaning that the researcher is investigating a question posed by or of specific relevance to someone other than her or himself. As I describe later this chapter, in my first job after earning an undergraduate degree, the applied nature of the research I was hired to conduct lay in its solution- orientation. It wasn’t simply to satisfy the curiosity of my employer, but was intended to be immediately applied to address certain, identifiable problems. What do you think the purpose of social scientific inquiry should be? Should social scientists conduct research for its own sake; only if it has some identifiable application; or, perhaps, for something in between?

One final consideration that social scientists must be aware of is the difference between qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods are ways of collecting data that yield results such as words or pictures. Some of the most common qualitative methods in the social sciences include field research, intensive interviews, and focus groups. Quantitative methods, on the other hand, result in data that can be represented by and condensed into numbers. Survey research is probably the most common quantitative method in the applied human sciences, but methods such as content analysis and interviewing can also be conducted in a way that yields quantitative data. While qualitative methods aim to gain an in-depth understanding of a relatively small number of cases, quantitative methods offer less depth but more breadth because they typically focus on a much larger number of cases.

Sometimes these two methods are presented or discussed in a way that suggests they are somehow in opposition to one another. The qualitative/quantitative debate is fueled by researchers who may prefer one approach over another, either because their own research questions are better suited to one particular approach or because they happened to have been trained in one specific method. In this text, we’ll operate from the perspective that qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. While these two methodological approaches certainly differ, the main point is that they simply have different goals, strengths, and weaknesses. That said, the focus of this text is quantitative research methods.

In sum, social scientists should be aware of the following considerations:

• There are several different ways that we know what we know, including informal observation, selective observation, overgeneralization, authority, and research methods.
• Research methods are a much more reliable source of knowledge than most of our other ways of knowing.
• A person’s ontological perspective shapes her or his beliefs about the nature of reality, or what “is.”
• A person’s epistemological perspective shapes her or his beliefs about how we know what we know, and the best way(s) to uncover knowledge.