Fact and value

1
Fact and value

• Policy issues (cont.)
• Value neutrality
• Data in sociology.

2
What is the relation of fact to value?

• Social science theories can never determine what
  our response to social problems should be
• but they are relevant
• they have policy implications
• and this raises special problems of objectivity.
• There are often conservative, liberal and radical
  sociological analyses
• Conservative there has been too much change in
  the direction of equality we need to hold the
  line or go back.
• Liberal minor reforms can produce equality of
  opportunity.
• Radical Inherited privilege is built into the
  social structure a progressive and free society
  requires structural change.

3
e.g. 1 The Cherokee Reservation

• The Indians are very poor there is no wealth, no
  jobs, no land high anomie high suicide high
  homicide high drop-out.
• Conservatives (Murray) believe we have been too
  generous and need to get tough.
• Liberals We need more support and understanding
  Vista built church row.
• Radicals (Feagin) We need to give back some of
  what we have stolen from them.
• Compare issues in The Rabbit-Proof Fence there
  are policy dilemmas even the goal of genetic and
  cultural extermination was pursued for good
  motives.

4
e.g. 2 Organic v. Forced division
solidarity of labor

• Murrays main arguments are that social policies
  (welfare, food stamps headstart affirmative
  action minimum wage child labor laws) are
  ineffective.
• Conservatives (Murray) believe that there is
  equal opportunity today the inequality that
  results is fair.
• Liberals (Reskin) believe that modest reforms of
  schools, mentoring, affirmative action, etc.
  would produce equal opportunity most inequality
  is fair.
• Radicals (Feagin, Massey) believe that immense
  inherited property and wealth produces unequal
  education, unequal treatment by the law, unequal
  political influence, segregation, structural
  strain, etc.

5
e.g. 3 Myrdal and Race relations today

1. Conservatives (Murray, Thernstrom) believe that
   equal opportunity is violated by affirmative
   action and welfare.
2. Liberals believe that social supports for the
   poor, especially poor children, (e.g. ed.,
   health, food) have to be improved.
3. Radicals (Feagin) believe that so long as there
   are immense inherited group inequality, it is a
   racist society.

6
Data, Empirical methods, and Statistics

• A basic element of any science is its empirical
  access to the world.
• In sociology, that often means statistics.
• You can prove anything you want with
  statistics. 63
• but You can prove anything you want without
  statistics, too! At least with data what is
  proved is more than just your opinion or mine.
  63

7
What you need from ch. 3

• The growth of empirical data and methods of
  statistical analysis has been one of the central
  progressive developments in soc.
• Therefore most later chapters and weeks will
  require that you can look at a multivariate
  crosstabulation
• i.e. difference as a measure of association
• Between the independent and the dependent
  variables
• At fixed levels of the control variables.
• Learn to look through the interpretation at the
  data

8
The empirical data of the early sociologists

• To the extent that the world is complex, ones
  methods of collecting and analyzing data must be
  sophisticated.
• Durkheim and the Chicago sociologists
  concentrated on the data already collected by
  government agencies things like suicide rates or
  rates of juvenile delinquency.
• Some sociologists use such data, but it is
  limited because it was not collected to help
  understand social causality.

9
The main sources of data in sociology today

• 1. Experimentation.
• 2. Participant Observation.
• 3. Survey Research.
• Each has some strengths and some weaknesses for
  the investigation of causality in social
  structure where there are multiple causes and
  reciprocal effects.

10
Objectivity, Reliability, Validity,
Generalizability

• Virtues of good measures, theories and analyses
  in the social sciences include
• Objectivity that the measure reflects the real
  qualities of the thing, outside of the mind of
  the person observing it.
• Reliability that the measurement yields the
  consistent results over observers and over time.
• Validity that the measurement procedure
  measures what it is supposed to measure.
• Generalizability that the degree to which the
  conclusion of the study can be applied outside of
  the study participants.

11
Experiments

• For establishing causality, a controlled
  experiment has great advantages.
• Specifically, it allows one to randomly assign
  cases to the control group
• And to manipulate the independent variable.
• However, generalization of experimental findings
  to the real world is problematic.
• For example, replication and applicability of the
  Zimbardo experiment have been debated.

12
Participant observation

• The method analogous to anthropology is direct
  observation
• Anthropology mainly uses interpretation of
  observation
• Urban ethnographies are similar.
• There have been many ethnographies analogous to
  the movie, 187,
• And we shall examine some of them.
• But in direct observation of a concrete situation
  there are problems both of interpretation and of
  generalizability.

13
Survey research

• Therefore, the most commonly used method in
  sociology is survey research.
• Asking questions of a large sample.
• Virtually every chapter of Sociology, Micro,
  Macro and Mega will illustrate points with survey
  findings.
• Usually these are taken from the General Social
  Survey,
• Often analyzed in cross-tabulations.
• The raise problems of measurement, interpretation
  and spurious association (indefinitely many)
  controls.

14
An example WLTH POV

• The question AGREE or DISAGREE In a free
  society it is all right if a few people
  accumulate a lot of wealth and property while
  many others live in poverty.
• Validity What does it measure?
• What fraction of the population agrees? Why?
• Association What makes one more likely to agree
  or to disagree?
• The most usual measures of association will be
  percent differences in Crosstabulations
• e.g. How do you think income, race and gender
  affect ones attitude on WLTH POV?

15
Crosstabulation showing the effect of income on
agreement w. WLTH POV
DEPENDENT VAR INDEPENDENT VAR INCOME AGREE WLTH POV NEITHER DISAGREE T
HIGH 189 (48) 82 (21) 127 (32) 398 100
MIDDLE 168 (37) 85 (19) 199 (44) 452 100
LOW 103 (30) 54 (16) 184 (54) 341 100
16
Interpretation

• The main point of this table
• There is a moderately strong positive association
  between income and agreement that In a free
  society it is alright if a few people accumulate
  a lot of wealth and property while many others
  live in poverty.
• Upper income respondents are 18 more likely to
  agree.
• Note look at percent differences calculated on
  the independent variable.
• But this answer to the question, How does social
  position affect this attitude? raises further
  questions about Why? When? How is it changing?

17
Spurious association why empirical association
does not prove causality

• Finding that there is a general empirical
  association between two variables is usually a
  necessary but not a sufficient demonstration of
  the effect of the independent variable (cause) on
  the dependent variable (effect.)
• Whenever multiple causes are operating, one must
  separate them analytically.
• In social structure, multiple causes operate

18
e.g. falling bodies

• Newtons laws imply that everything will tend to
  fall toward the center of the earth at 32 per
  second per second.
• However Newtons laws are not contradicted by the
  fact that virtually nothing falls at that rate,
  and many things do not fall at all.
• Because there are other forces, particularly
  frictions, at work.
• However, Newtons laws do require that when those
  frictions are less, then falling bodies do
  approach the predicted rate of descent.

19
A bad test observe the association of fire
engines and damage
Much Damage Little Damage
Many Engines 45 (90) 5 (10)
Few Engines 5 (10) 45 (90)
20
e.g. fire engines and fire damage

• If fire engines reduce fire damage, then one
  would expect a negative association
• when there are more engines there should be less
  damage
• and when there are fewer engines, there should be
  more damage.
• However, one would almost certainly observe a
  positive association
• More engines, more damage
• because fire no. of engines
• As well as no. of engines fire damage

21
A better test the controlled association of fire
engines and damage
Big Fires
Small Fires
Much damage Little damage
Many engines 40 (98) 1 (2)
Few engines 2 (40) 3 (60)
Much damage Little damage
Many engines 5 (56) 4 (44)
Few engines 3 (7) 42 (93)
22
A possible libertarian theory of government
inefficiency

• When we had little government fire companies,
  individuals took more responsibility for
  prevention and extinction,
• and fire damage was less.
• Therefore, we would be better off without fire
  departments.
• Comment though the empirical facts that the
  theory appeals to are correct, the theory is
  almost certainly wrong, as shown by the Great San
  Francisco fire.