Cocial Sciences By Bridget Somekh And Cathy Lewin Essay

essay B
  • Words: 3411
  • Category: Database

  • Pages: 13

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Describe the methods by Putnam. This paper would be based on the inquiries and replies in relation to the research methods in the societal scientific disciplines by Bridget Somekh & A ; Cathy Lewin and the literatures assigned to be read during the procedure of the Theoretical of Science and Research Methodology class. In order to be able to depict, analyze and reflect on the methods used in the Putnam ‘s article ( E Pluribus Unum: Diverseness and Community in the Twenty – first Century. The 2006 Johan Skkytte Prize Lecture ) , there is need to understand and briefly explicate what the article is about and what it illustrated. The above named article is an “ empirical societal scientific discipline research… ” ( Somekh et al 2009, p.1 ) based on the survey of societal capital to foretell and explicate trust in a vicinity and the categorization or classification in an cultural group “ Latino, non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black and Asiatic ” ( Putnam 2007, p.145 ) . It besides focus on comparing state of affairss in America to other states for the analysis of passage, Immigration, Community, trust that could be seen as what gave birth to the autumn and rise of cultural diverseness.

In order to be able to depict the method used in Putnam ‘s article, there is demand to advert the methods used. In the article, it can be identified that the research worker used the method of quantitative with the usage of study, numerical and statistical informations and prepared questionnaires distributed to surveyed members of the community and categorizations as listed in the article. The findings in the article was based on several distributed questionnaires which brought about the informations aggregation used in analyzing the classification of the Americans and how they trust each other statistically. It can besides be seen on the degree of qualitative research due to the usage of questioning and as illustration by Crook and Garratt that “ qualitative characteristics, such as interviewing and observation, with quantitative statistical analysis ” ( Crook and Garratt 2009, p.209 ) and besides that “ Questionnaires are non entirely quantitative and have a topographic point in many qualitative and assorted method attacks ” ( Somekh and Lewin 2009, p.197 ) . In other words, as quoted above, we can state that the methods used by Putnam are assorted method of both Quantitative and Qualitative. Nevertheless, we should non bury the glaring fact that, since the usage of Interview by Putnam is non to the full in inside informations in the article but more of study, so we can state that Putnam ‘s findings are ‘Qualitative Method ‘ developed or derived based on ‘Quantitative Method ‘ or with the usage of grounded theory through assemblage of information. In the article, we can calculate it through the methods, account of the methods, the constructs and the manner the ensuing statistics was achieved that the research inquiry is ‘How can Social Capital Explain or Measure Trust in a Diverse Community ‘ .

However, Quantitative Method is the usage of statistics to analyze informations aggregation of groups of people, community, geographical country and many more to be able to construe the informations in combination with numerical in a exemplifying information. In the article, informations aggregation was used to analyze graph and to mensurate the degree of trust in a comparative analysis. In relation to the above, the statistical analysis in the article would be seen as “ Inferential statistics ” ( Lewin 2009, p.215 ) which involves methods of acknowledging ad distinguishing between groups of people and to be able to do anticipations. The graph in the article is co-efficient determiners of the degree of trust those who lived in the community, those with same cultural background and those with different cultural background with the usage of different co-efficient determiner such as “ R Sq Linear = 0.515 ” ( Putnam 2007, p.147 ) in figure 3. These degree of trust was made through the procedure of study of “ 41 community ” ( ibid 2007, p.146 ) . The graph in figure 3 explains that as trust addition, racial homogeneousness lessenings. Therefore, it can be seen that the more the trust for other race, the less cultural homogeneousness. Throughout the used graphs, we can see that Putnam is mensurating the degree of trust and thereby, “ predicting ” ( ibid 2007, p.152 ) the same degree of trust in neighbors from single and contextual variables. ‘Figure 4, ‘ shows that there is less trust among the people populating in the same community because there is addition or high rate of diverseness in that community. Hence, the statistical information in trust is low in ‘figure 4 ‘ which could or possibly seen that likely because the people are of different background such as civilization and many more which in most instances could ensue in deficiency of trust. The statistical analyses used in the article can be described therefore as explain by Lewin that “ Statistical methods are a broad scope of tools and techniques that can be used to depict and construe informations that are quantitative or can be measured numerically ” ( Lewin, 2009: p. 215 ) . Numeric information was analysed through the usage of statistic which was achieved by the distribution of questionnaires/survey to the members of the community in combination with some interviews.

The utilizations of interview lead us to why the article is besides partly a ‘Qualitative research ‘ , because the all elaborate analyses described in the article was centred on numerical informations that reflect on the community on how trust was measured. “ Another of import methodological characteristic of this study is that it was conducted at the same time with the national nose count of 2000, and virtually every interview in our study was ‘geo-coded ‘ … ” ( Putnam 2007, p. 144 – 145 ) . Therefore, it can be presumed that the interviews were few, with short clip, when we compare it to the study used in the article and most of those interviewed. This was because verbal words or interview largely offer { s } “ insight into respondents ‘ memories and accounts of why things have come to be what they are, every bit good as descriptions of current jobs and aspirations ” ( Stark and Torrance, 2009: p.35 ) . We can besides state that there is a sense of community pattern non in a scientific mode as used by Somekh ( Benzie et al. 2009, p. 180 – 185 ) , but aim that when immigrants are of bulk in a peculiar community, there is less trust.

Grounded theory was besides used in the article to help in garnering information through qualitative analysis by agencies of inductive. For illustration, Putnam uses some of the informations consequence to do general statement such as “ inter-racial trust is comparatively high in homogenous South Dakota and comparatively low in heterogenous San Francisco or Los Angeles ” ( Putnam 2007, p.147 ) . Towards this way, the grounded theory method of research was every bit used in Putman ‘s research article. The writer usage Inductive to precepts/tenets to direct the aggregation of informations based on the occurrence of the American society. These vividly inspired the writer to give a conceptual apprehension of the research paper.

Question 2: Analyse the method used by Putnam and knock the method:

As mentioned above that the methods used in Putnam ‘s research is assorted method which is of Quantitative ( Questioners/survey, statistic/numerical information ) and Qualitative ( Interview ) . Since it is a assorted method and it is more of quantitative instead than qualitative methods, the review would be based more on quantitative method. Through the usage of structured questioner/survey in the article, the replies are already provided in numerical or alphabetical order and it is thereby possible for people to generalize in such state of affairs where the questioner/survey is based on. The usage of survey/questioner by researches to bring forth informations normally seems that the inquiries of the study are suited for all and in this instance, for all the members of the community. Forgeting the fact that bring forthing statistical informations with structured questioner/survey might non be suiting for all or to many but due to the structured inquiry which in most instances will go forth those replying the questioner/survey with no option with merely with the thought of either ‘yes or no ‘ , ‘true or false ‘ or with numerical replies between 1 and 5 and many more. In other words, to uncover the truth on the questioner/survey will non be straightforward because they are left with the impression of options and non the manner they really feel about the inquiries. Still, we can state that the community already assimilated to the diverseness job of trust within those populating in the same community through the usage of the constructions questioner/survey which is seen as a review for Putnam. This is because the inquiry will alter the thought of those replying the inquiries to the inquirer ‘s inquiries and hence act upon them.

It is possible that there is deficiency of trust ab initio, but they have non really seen it as a job thereby in a manner coercing nature out of people to get down thought in the manner of the study inquiries. Kuhn explicate this farther with the usage of paradigm that the community acquired with a paradigm standard will insulate and do the community to accept to the jobs in which he pointed out that such “ job can be a distraction ” ( Kuhn 1996, p.37 ) which in the article are the structured inquiries distributed to members of the community. Therefore, it could be possible that the statistical informations in a sense may non be accurate but possibly was/is generated with the involvement of some peculiar group or authorities funding the undertaking merely to acquire some fact. Feyerabend explained, that research is ever funded and at the advantage of the individual funding it such as the authorities ( Feyerabend 1988, p.163 ) . This could be a research on immigrants in order to cognize how good the people live together for the American authorities.

The writer every bit obtained his information from past survey/data ( both documented and un-documented ) . The writer framed his inquiries based on the cognition of the past information, these inquiries where subsequently distributed to the respondents and these respondents were replying the questionnaires based on the assimilation of the inquiries in forepart of them. Therefore I can state that informations aggregations can do research worker non to clearly see the difference or the chief issue of the community ; “ an initial analysis of the informations, together with the study findings, led us [ me ] to believe that there was no important regional difference in the respondents ‘ responses “ ( Stark and Torrance 2009, p.37 ) . In this visible radiation, the respondents will be believing in one manner of the inquiries and because of this ground, they are now seeing the difference they have non seen before in the community. As a consequence, replies will be in the line with the inquiries and non the truth.

The usage of the graph can be seen as a review due to how Putman put the graphs to readers in the article. Looking at the graph, it was non good explanatory in the article. Putnam, made the graph I will utilize ‘as a decision that the general as a whole will understand ‘ without seting the options at which people will be able to understand the graph. That is, the graph was without a concrete account of the analysis of what he was portraying in the article these include the coefficient finding used in the graph such as “ R Sq Linear = 0.644 ” ( Putnam 2007, p.148 ) . For illustration, the graph for figure 3, 4 and 5 expression similar but to what extent are the accounts rendered for these graphs similar? It is pertinent that this inquiry comes up because we can merely read the graph on the degree of an abstract graph alternatively of the graphs speech production for themselves. Therefore, I as a reader or another reader whose survey has non being in relation to statistic or economic would be unable to understand the graph.

The benefits of utilizing interviews in the research were non clearly stated because it is rather difficult to place the sort of interview attack that was used in the research. Though it was really stated that interview was geo-coded, but there is the demand for readers to place the sort of interview that took topographic point which is either a telephone or face to face. It can merely be identified that the interview was conducted on a group degree and used to foretell and generalised both groups and single. The research interview was done largely on group degree ( group interview ) as read in the article, but it was non indicated whether or non an single research was done to accomplish their numerical informations. Thereby the research worker utilizing the informations collected on group degree to judge or foretell on both the person and group go forthing in the community. Interviews are supposed to be done on each cultural group listed in the article as cultural classification and above along with trying the person every bit good to be able to bring forth dependable informations instead than a general based information. Barbour and Schostak states that “ It is hard, and likely misguided, to try to deduce an attitudinal consensus from focal point group informations. An evident conformance of position is an emergent belongings of the group interaction, non a contemplation of single participants ‘ sentiments ( Sim 1998, 350 ) ” ( Barbour and Schostak 2009, p.43 ) . On this quotation mark I draw my inspiration of review for interview that if one can non reflect on person ‘s sentiment to judge a whole so there is demand to see that fact the community or group interview as done by Putman should non be used to reflect on single sentiments.

Question 3: Reflect on the methodological analysis of Putnam ‘s research:

This portion of the inquiry would be based on the synthesis of inquiry 1 and 2 which describe and analyze assorted method of both qualitative and quantitative methods. By reflecting on the methods by Putnam, the ways at which he made analyses of the methods used was non to the full explained and did non travel in manus with what a societal scientific discipline research worker should make when they are executing a research. Somekh et Al. States that “ Empirical societal scientific discipline research – that is research which involves the aggregation of informations about people and their societal contexts by a scope of methods – draws to a great extent upon the traditions and patterns of subjects such as anthropology, sociology, psychological science, history and originative humanistic disciplines ” ( Somekh et al 2009, p.1 ) . In Putnam ‘s research, he did non adequately reference or his research did non give information which can be related to other subject or field of research but alternatively he used ‘SOCIAL CAPITAL ‘ to explicate trust go forthing behind or untasted society and civilization which I can infer that because Putnam is a political scientist, he made his analysis in the line of a political scientists. As the cognition from a societal political scientist ( Putnam ) , it can besides be construe that societal capital as used by Putnam is to analyze the trust of 41 communities in the American society through the consequence of the study to convey to illume his consequence on societal capital from the result acquired on persons to an property of groups. If we look at the article in the line with Bourdieu ‘s thought on societal capital that “ societal capital is the amount of the resources, existent or practical, that accrue to an person or group by virtuousness of possessing a lasting web of more or less institutionalised relationships of common familiarity and acknowledgment ” ( Bourdieu 2007, p.119 ) . I can realized from his definition that he did non see his ain societal capital in the norms of trust and reciprocality as Putnam did in his research but alternatively, includes lasting web or less institutionalised relationship that is of common familiarity and recognised.

However, Putnam uses some construct in the article and some classifications and did non specify the concepts/terms but alternatively seek to warrant himself by generalizing how people have used them in academic for illustration, the term diverseness was used in the article in generalized mode with the illustration of what people have said or written about diverseness but non really giving us the definition of diverseness which made him non to hold any signifier of reflexiveness in his research. Bourdieu explain further in his book that “ quickly defined as the inclusion of a theory of rational pattern as an built-in constituent… it must be a corporate endeavor instead than the load of the lone academic… ” ( Bourdieu 2007, p.36 ) which means that used theories or constructs in a research should non merely be derived from different faculty members but besides with full apprehension of the research worker to understand the theory/concept used and with more account and non justification of the used theories. That is one demand to be automatic in research by besides confer withing other ‘disciplines ‘ to hold better account of some of the term one will be utilizing in research and besides to hold concrete thought of how to set through the thought for readers understanding. Meanwhile, term/concept/theory used in an academic authorship should be clearly stated and understood in a manner that when 1 who is non in the line of migration and cultural relation read the work it will be clearly and good understood. It was/is merely as if Putnam, borrowed theory/concept in which he tries to suit them in into his research without better account.

Putnam in his research uses the initiation and tax write-off analysis ( Charmers 1999, p.54 ) to synthesized in order to acquire fact “ We have seen that the thought that the aggregation of facts can and should take topographic point prior to the acquisition and credence of any cognition does non bear analysis ” ( 1bid 1999, p.54 ) , that become theory for him such as ‘conflict theory ‘ utilizing what he feels is fact on the graph and utilizing his ain experience to do generalization and anticipations of both the group and the person. Chalmers farther explicate that “ one time such general cognition is available, it can be drawn on to do anticipations and offer account ” ( ibid 1999, p.54 ) . But despite the general cognition by Putnam, his anticipations were non explanatory and hence, Putnam does non follow the regulation of anticipation harmonizing to Chalmers that any cognition drawn on anticipations should offer an explanatory backup for more inside informations for the readers. This anticipation can take us to how Putnam made his analysis on the statistical informations on the graph through which the anticipation was drawn. As the graph was drawn or seen in my position, the bound of the graphs competence is rather deducible and non lucid plenty for the reader to easy hold on the import ad significance of Putnam ‘s averments. Besides, the figures in the graph are non in conformity to what Putnam was seeking to explicate. In other words, we can state that Putnam ‘s account and analyses are rather contradictory to the graphs that he portrayed in the article because the account to the graph did non explicate how the per centums are when it comes to the reading of the graph. For case, if one who is in the field of Economics wants to do such graph in relation to Diversity, the graph entirely will talk for itself even without traveling deep into the reading that will follow the graph to give account to the graph in item.

Looking at Putnam ‘s in relation to Mills thought of seeking to explicate that if person is composing about a peculiar topographic point, there is need to cognize the historical background of that topographic point, which includes everything behind what the research worker is composing approximately. That is he is excluding history in his article to really cognize how the history of the Americans are alternatively it seems as if he merely knows the Americans/America on the surface footing alternatively of historically as Mills explains that “ the sociological imaginativeness enables its owner to understand the larger historical scene in footings of it intending for the interior life and the external calling of a assortment of persons ” ( Mills 2000, p.5 ) . Hence, I can recognised that account is that the cognition of a society can assist to give a cogent and concise apprehension in a manner doing the research worker to recognize the factors and how the factors interact to hold impact on the person. But in Putnam ‘s research, the cognition of historical apprehension is non present in his research.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member