BASIC

SOCIOLOGICAL
PRINCIPLES

A Textbook for the First Course in Sociology

By
MARSHALL E. JONES, PH.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
The University of Wyoming

fost (caraauate Liorarr

C*Li<?e *f Arts & Commtrc*. O. M.

GINN AND COMPANY

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO ATLANTA DALLAS
COLUMBUS SAN FRANCISCO TORONTO LONDON
 CHAPTER II
THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY

GRANTING that the primary purpose of sociology is to understand

society as accurately and as completely as possible, and granting
that such an understanding depends on the gathering of facts about
rf
society, our next problem is, By what method shall we gather our
facts?" Sociology shares with other sciences the belief that the
scientific method js the only adequate device by which we can get
the kind of facts we want to get about the areas of life we want to
study. Other methods may be used in other situations, and the
resultsmay be satisfactory in those situations. But in the case of a
science we can be content with nothing less than the scientific
method.

ESSENTIALS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Not only does sociology share with other sciences the belief in
the validity of the scientific method; it also shares with them the
belief that there are certain essential procedures which characterize
that method and whose use is a primary requisite of the scientific

approach. A discussion of those procedures follows.

OBSERVATION
Our first point is that observation is the basis of all scientific in-

vestigation. In summary form, we may say that the sociologist

holds that

The observed facts of human experience constitute the only reliable basis

for scientific knowledge.

What we are saying here is, in effect, that if you want to learn
about any aspect of life, the first thing you have to do is to look at it.
That is what observation is: looking at the things you want to
23
24 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

study. All of us, of course, look at things. The point about scientific
observation is that it must be done in a special way if its results are
to be valid. We therefore refer to it as controlled observation.
There are several ways of controlling our observations. For
example, physical sciences such as chemistry and physics can sub-
ject observation to a very rigid control by using the experimental
method and procedures. An experiment is, in fact, only observation
under conditions which the experimenter can set for himself. In
physics he can set the temperature, the air pressure, and other cir-
cumstances related to his experiment at any point, within wide
limits, at which he wishes them to be. In chemistry the concen-
tration of solutions, the amounts of chemicals used, and other fac-
tors can be varied to suit the experimenter. Obviously, by thus
setting the conditionsunder which experiments take place we not
only control our own observation but make it possible for others to
repeat our experiments under precisely the same conditions, and
thereby check our results. Experiment is one effective way of con-
trolling observation.
But experiment is not the only type of controlled observation.
In sociology, for example, we find it very difficult to set or fix a
framework of conditions that we want to study and then make
people live within that framework while we observe them. This is
what the physicist and the chemist do with their materials, but we
can follow such a procedure in only a very few cases. For one thing,
sociologists have some compunctions about the way they handle
human material, and hesitate to experiment with people. For
another thing, people, knowing that they are under observation and
living under special conditions, may be so affected by that knowl-
edge that they will not react as they would under ordinary condi-
tions of living. Even in our everyday affairs the knowledge that
someone is watching us tends to make us react in special ways.
We describe this whole situation by saying that human beings
"react to the fact that they are made the subject of experiment"
in away that physical and chemical materials do not. salt used A
in a laboratory experiment is not conscious of the fact that it is

being observed, and hence does not alter its conduct when it is
observed. Human beings, on the other hand, may be conscious of
the fact and may alter their conduct because of it.

The control of observation in sociology, then, is usually in some

 THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY 25

other way than by experiment. There are several things we can

do to secure control.
1. We may,one thing, observe people as they live under
for

ordinary conditions and note their behavior under those conditions,

at thesame time very carefully describing the conditions themselves.
In other words, we do not set or fix the conditions, but we can say
with a great degree of accuracy just what the conditions are and
what the behavior patterns under those conditions are. This be-
comes a situation of controlled observation, because other investi-
gators can observe people under the same conditions and thus check
our results. Or they may note any differences between their condi-
tions and ours, thus further controlling observation.
After making a sufficient number of such observations, carefully
checked, we reach the point of suggesting that under a particular
set of conditions people tend to react in a particular way. We have,
between certain aspects of
in other words, established a relationship
human behavior and certain conditions of living. But that is exactly
what the experimenter in the physical sciences can say about his
material as the result of his experiments. Our different processes
have led to the same general scientific result.
One danger in sociological procedure is that it may not be as
precise and as accurate as that of the physical sciences, because we
do not have instruments of observation comparable to the apparatus
of the physicist and the chemist. That is a condition against which
we must be on our guard. We offset it to the best of our ability by
carefully checking our own results with those of other investigators
and by demanding of ourselves the most scrupulous accuracy.
In some restricted areas of investigation we may approach
2.

the method of experiment somewhat more closely. Thus in observ-

ing the reactions of children, we may let them play together in a
nursery which is equipped with a type of screen permitting an in-
dividual outside the room to see into it, but not permitting the
occupants of the room to see out. They therefore do not know
that they are under observation and so do not react to that fact.
Using that or a similar method we can learn a great deal about the
development of children and about the relationships of domination,
antagonism, co-operation, conflict, and so on, which arise in group
contacts. A very significant beginning has been made in this kind
of child study.
26 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

But our observation both of people living under ordinary con-

ditions and of children under the specialized conditions just de-
scribed may suffer from a serious defect which arises, again, from
the fact that we are observing human beings instead of inert physical
materials. Our observations of human beings may tell us with a
great deal of accuracy what they are doing and what relationships
develop in human groupings. But how shall we discover why they
do what they do, and why the various kinds of relationships arise?
It is a matter of common knowledge that we often conceal our real

motives; we are not perfectly frank about ourselves. In addition,

sometimes we do not know what our real motives are, and so are
not able to analyze the reasons for our behavior, even if we want
to be frank about them.
We should, then, be very naive if we simply asked people why
they behave as they do. In some cases they will not tell us, in other
cases they are willing to tell us but they do not know themselves,
and in other cases they give us false motives by telling untruths,
still

either consciously or unconsciously. Of course the physical scientist

is this problem. He holds no communication with
not faced with
his materials, and they are not interested in concealment.
3. In order to overcome this difficulty, some very interesting

procedures have been developed to reach the deeper layers of per-

sonality and to discover the motivations concealed there. Those
methods consist, in general, of devices through which we project
our feelings onto some object and a skilled person interprets the
meaning of our projections. For example, we may be shown pic-
tures and asked to tell what they mean. The pictures selected are
neutral, in the sense that they do not have any obvious meaning:
we read meanings into them, and thereby give some indication of the
meanings life has for us. Thus, in the case of a young man pictured

standing before a table at which an older man is sitting, with a third

person standing behind the young man, one individual will tell us
that the picture "means" that the young man has been arrested
and being brought before a judge. Another will tell us that the
is
95
picture "means that the young man is entering college, his father
standing behind him and a college official interviewing both. A
third person will us that the situation represents the young man
tell

being admitted to an insane asylum; a fourth, that it represents a

young man applying for a job of some kind.
 THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY 27

What particular scene the picture represents is not as significant

as the general kind of scene it represents. Obviously, two of the in-

terpretations above connect the neutral picture with some un-

fortunate happening; two others connect it with pleasant happen-
ings. If, many different pictures, we get consistently unhappy
using
interpretations, we are justified, or a skilled interpreter would be
justified, in saying that the individual so interpreting neutral pic-
tures is fearful or anxious about life in general. This kind of fear
or anxiety may be the dominating cause of that individual's be-
havior patterns. We
might never reach that conclusion simply by
observing the behavior of the individual concerned. are en- We
lightened as to the reason for his behavior when we use a projection
test, one type of which we have just described. Obviously, then, a

projection test becomes an instrument of observation analogous to

a microscope or an electrical device in a physical-science laboratory.
Recent investigations at the University of Iowa made use of the
projection device with a somewhat different technique. Dolls were
1

used instead of pictures, in the following way. Twelve delinquent

children were each given a family of dolls representing father,
f

mother, and two children. They were allowed to make the 'people"
represented by the dolls do anything and everything that came to
their minds. It was expected that the children would project ag-

gressive feelings against the father-doll, in accordance with a widely

accepted theory that delinquent behavior often springs from a deep
resentment against the father of the family who symbolizes the de-
mands of authority. What actually happened, to the surprise of the
investigators, was that the delinquent children were apparently less
than nondelinquent children, since there was
fearful of their fathers

considerably less of the running-away-from-the-father theme in the

manipulations of the delinquents than of the nondelinquents. In
fact, the treatment accorded the father dolls indicated very little

feeling of any kind toward him.

Naturally, this one investigation does not prove anything about
the real motivations behind delinquent behavior. Much more use
of this technique must be made before we are in a position to say
positively that the older theory is incorrect. Our point in mention-
ing the incident here is to indicate that projection, used as an in-

Wewsweek, January 6, 1946, p. 49.

28 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

strument of controlled observation, has enabled investigators to go

below the surface behavior of individuals and to get some idea of
the motivations behind the behavior. The fact that the results were
not what the investigators expected is all to the good, since what we
are looking for in science is not confirmation of our own theories
but the discovery of facts, regardless of whether the facts confirm
our previous ideas.
In all these cases there very possibly some reaction to the fact
is

that we
are being tested. But since most people do not know the
details of the tests and are also unacquainted with the processes of
projection, it is difficult to falsify the total result of a comprehensive
series of tests. Many of the projection procedures are in a formative
stage. They have
not been used long enough to have full validity
as observational instruments to reveal deeper motivations. But
when they are standardized and further developed they will un-
doubtedly prove of great value.

The sociologist, then, is committed to the belief that observation

is the basis of the scientific method. He cannot use

the experimental
method widely, but he has worked out substitute procedures by
which he can control his observation. And he is developing tech-
niques of specialized observation which approach the experimental
method and which are useful in some situations. He is increasingly
using projection devices and other instruments which will free
him
from the necessity of mere surface observation and which will per-
mit him to reach a fuller understanding of human motivation as
well as of human behavior patterns.

CLASSIFICATION

The second step in the scientific method is the whole group of

procedures involved in classifying the facts that we gain through ob-

servation. In formal terms,
The observed facts of experience must be classified

according to their interrelationships.

We must classify our facts for two reasons. 1. Classification

brings order into a collection of facts in the sense that it enables us

to say what facts we have and gives us some quantitative informa-
tion about our facts. Without this kind of order we have only a col-
lection of haphazard information.
 THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY 29

2. Much more important than that is the point that classification

begins to suggest the meaning of our facts. Thus when we classify we

group our facts according to certain characteristics which they
possess. For example, suppose we choose two characteristics, say
hair color and intelligence. We segregate blondes, brunettes, and
redheads into three groupings, thereby beginning our process of
classification.Then we choose some measure of intelligence and
note the intelligence of each individual in those three classes. IF
we discovered in this process of classification that all blondes were
highly intelligent, all brunettes stupid, and all redheads of medium
intelligence, we should be justified in suspecting that there was some
relationship between hair color and intelligence. IF we found that
there were all grades of intelligence in all our classes, we should be
justified in suspecting that intelligence and hair color were not re-
lated characteristics. Of
course classification in one instance only
would not be sufficient; we should have to compare the results of
many investigations before we could make any positive statement.
Our point here is that, in the process of classification according
to the characteristics chosen, we have begun to bring to the surface
the relationships that exist among our facts. It is only as we per-
ceive those relationships that we can grasp the meaning of any col-
lection of facts. Classification is not a minor phase of the scientific

method; it is very important because it assists us in discovering

relationships.

HYPOTHESIS
We noted above that, as a result of observation and classification,
we may suggest or suspect that certain relationships exist among the
data we have collected. This kind of tentative theory, or proposi-
tion, temporarily accepted as a possible explanation of what we ob-
serve, is called a hypothesis. The mark of a hypothesis is that it is
tentative: it is a possible explanation. And yet it is something more

than a mere guess or an unfounded opinion, because it springs from

the observation and classification of material. We have some reason
to believe that it may be a correct explanation, but we cannot
demonstrate that it is correct without further observation and
checking.
That, in fact, is one of the very useful aspects of a hypothesis. It
gives us a basis on which we can organize our future investigations,
a point about which further observations can be made. It directs
30 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

the future course of our work. Obviously, there is a certain amount

of danger involved in all this: the danger that we may become so
attached to a particular hypothesis that we shall lose our scientific

objectivity and try to prove that hypothesis, instead

of honestly try-

ing to discover whether or not it is true. That is

a danger against
which we must be on our guard. We do not, in science, start out
with the assumption that a given idea must be true, and then try to
demonstrate its truth. We start with observation and classification.
From our work in those areas we may be able to form a hypothesis.
If we do form a hypothesis, we proceed to check with further obser-
vation and classification to discover whether we can continue to
accept it, whether we must modify it in some ways, or whether
we
must reject it entirely and set up a new hypothesis.
For example, a popular opinion about the causes of delinquency
c
at the present time is that 'delinquency is the fault of the parents
53
of the delinquent children. In the minds of most people, this is
merely an opinion, not a hypothesis; but some observation has per-
haps been involved, so we may be generous and raise it from the
status of unfounded opinion to that of hypothesis. A sociologist, as-

suming this to be a hypothesis, would engage in studies of delinquent

children in an effort to discover whether or not it is true. Quite dif-
ferent is police officials who find that
the behavior of some court and
"blaming the parents" relieves courts and police of responsibility
for delinquency, and who therefore are determined to prove the truth
of the hypothesis. They take no account of facts which contradict
it, they have lost their objectivity, and thus they become an example
of unscientific conduct which we should do well to avoid.
Thetesting of a hypothesis may be a difficult and time-consuming
process. We
may, as we have already suggested, have to modify our
original hypothesis in a number
ways during the course of our
of

testing. We may havedropto and formulate an entirely new

it

hypothesis. But if we are thoroughgoing and accurate in our con-

tinuing investigations, we have, at the end of our work, the basis
for a definite statement of the relationships that exist among the
factors of the social life we have been studying.

GENERALIZATION
Such a definite statement of relationships among facts is known
by several different names. One name often used for it is generaliza-
 THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY 31

tion. This name arises from the fact that we generalize or make
general the conclusions we draw from our observations by making
those conclusions apply not only to cases within the scope of our
limited observations but to all cases involving similar conditions. Our
own observations are necessarily limited, since we cannot investigate
every possible concrete situation in the realm of human relation-
ships. Obviously, we cannot investigate future situations for the
simple reason that they have not happened yet. But we can make
our conclusions apply to future situations, and to all situations in
general which involve our specific conditions.
Thus there is a very simple generalization in physics known as
Ohm's law, which is a definite statement of the relationships existing
between the amount of an electric current, the resistance present in
the circuit, and the voltage applied to the circuit. In making use
of that generalization, physicists say that whenever conditions of re-
sistence and of voltage are of a particular pattern, then the amount
of current flowing will be of a particular volume. Ohm's law is the
product of many observations and many testings of observations in
the past and present. Because it has been found accurate in all past
instances, physicists generalize the law and say that it will also
operate in the future under given conditions.

We do the same thing in sociology when, for example, we use so-

f
called "tests" which analyze the 'fitness" of a particular individual
for marriage and "predict" whether or not that individual will be
successful in marriage. The same may be said of tests of vocational

aptitude, vocational interests, and similar inventories. All these are

made up on the basis of studies of groups of individuals of certain
types in the past. Classification of material gathered in the studies
indicates what types of individual have been successful in certain
social situations and what types have been unsuccessful. This ex-
perience is generalized and the statement is made that similar types
will or will not be successful in those situations. This kind of general-
ization, then, is a statement of relationships between jjiven social
facts.

Another, and more familiar, name for the kind of definite state-
ment we are discussing is scientific law. A scientific law is only a
statement of the relationships we have observed to be consistently
present in our data. We do not, however, stop at saying that that
statement applies to relationships which we have already observed.
32 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

We say that it also applies to all data existing under the same conditions
as the datawe have observed. But that is exactly what we have been
saying that a generalization is. Recall the fact that Ohm's law is
simply a statement of relationships between voltage, resistance,
and
current. The law of gravity is a similar statement of relationships.
It would be very difficult to prove that the law of gravity will operate
a year from now. We assume, however, that it will because we
believe that, given certain conditions, certain things will happen;
and the law of gravity tells us what those things will be.
A third term which means exactly the same thing as generaliza-
tion or scientific law is the term used in the title of this book, that is,

principle. The principles of sociology

are statements of what we may
in
expect to happen under certain given conditions. Naturally,
stating principles of sociology we do not discuss voltage, current,
and resistance; we discuss the three factors mentioned in Chapter I

as components of our basic interaction pattern man, the environ-

ment, and culture. When we have studied certain aspects of those
factors sufficiently to go beyond hypothesis and to make a definite
statement of relationships, we have established principles of soci-
ology, or sociological laws, or sociological generalizations.
In formal terms we may put what we have been saying as follows:

Those interrelationships between facts which we find

consistently present under given conditions

we formulate into sociological principles.

We prefer to use the word principle instead of the word law be-
cause it is misunderstand the meaning of law.
easy for people to
Sometimes it is confused with statute law, that is, the laws which are

passed by legislatures. Because of that confusion

our outlook on
the world may be quite mistaken. Scientific laws have not been

"passed" by a superior authority and explicitly stated

for us. We
have to discover for ourselves what the laws are in science. We
have gradually, very gradually in some instances, come to perceive
that things happen in an orderly way in nature, and we have tried
to express that order in statements we call scientific laws. Very
often our statements have been wrong; we have not actually under-
stood the order of nature. But because we called our statement
laws, people came to think of them as necessarily correct and neces-
sarily unchangeable, Forgetting that the primary purpose of
 THE METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY 33

science is to understand nature, they fought for the preservation of

some mistaken statement of a scientific law, with unfortunate re-
sults. Since law carries the connotation of rigidity and unchange-
ability to so many people, it is better to avoid the term.
We prefer the word principle to the word generalization because the
latter may also be
misunderstood. In ordinary speech, generalization
often implies a loose sort of statement which may be true only in a
very general way, and is inaccurate in detail. This is, of course,
almost the opposite of the scientific meaning of the term.

PREDICTION
The last aspect of the scientific method that we shall discuss here
is prediction. not a matter of guesswork
Prediction, in science, is

or of using crystal balls or some other means of prophecy. It is a

matter of establishing definite and accurate principles so that we
can say what will happen under the conditions specified in our principles.
In scientific prediction we are not foretelling the future in the sense
what will undoubtedly happen a year from now or fifty
of telling
years from now. We are limiting ourselves to the statement that,
given certain conditions, we may expect certain relationships to exist.
But we do not know whether those conditions will actually be pres-
ent or not. If they are not, then our predictions will not come true.
We have to limit ourselves in this way because our principles
result from observations made under given conditions. Thus to
return to our former illustration, IF we discover a relationship be-
tween hair color and intelligence, it is admitted that that relation-
ship holds good only in certain circumstances. One of those cir-
cumstances, for example, is that we continue to use the same
definition of intelligence. If we find that blondes are all of "high

intelligence" in the areas we investigate, we are assuming that we

mean a certain thing by intelligence: school grades, I.Q., the
ability to adjust, or some other concept agreed on. Assuming that
definition,and assuming the relationship to exist, we may walk into
a classroom and, finding the students mostly light-haired, we can
say, "This will be an intelligent class." When we say "this will be"
an intelligent class, we are predicting the future performance of that
class.

But if we are suddenly transported to another society in which

intelligence is differently defined, we cannot predict anything about
34 BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

the class, because our principle was founded on our own definition
of intelligence. Suppose, for example, this imaginary society makes
intelligence dependent on the ability
to play basketball. have We
not established any relationship between hair color and that ability;
hence we cannot predict anything about the performance of the
class under those changed conditions.
Forecasters, fortunetellers, and similar "experts" do not limit
themselves in this way. try to tell us the details of the future
They
regardless of changed conditions. It is well to take note of that fact,
since not all forecasters operate with crystal balls, which we might
distrust. Some of them pass as business, religious, educational, or
other specialists. If we take their kind of prediction seriously, we

may do some very foolish things, as we discovered during the long

5

depression of the 1930 s and during many other painful periods of

our history.
Scientific prediction (again as contrasted with forecasting) is a
very useful device. Recall our use of Ohm's law in physics. It not

only tells us what the relationships are between current, voltage,

and resistance, but it also tells us how to get more current if we want
it by varying the resistance or the voltage. If we want a subway
train to move faster, we supplywith more current by decreasing
it

the amount of resistance through the motorman's variable con-

troller. That is one aspect of prediction, because what we are actu-
cr
ally doing is to say, lf you vary resistance in a given way, then
current will flow in this amount." We make use of this kind of

prediction in operating and controlling

all kinds of electrical devices.

So of our sociological principles: they are useful not only from

the viewpoint of understanding society, but also in the formulation
of plans for societal self-control. If we know that delinquency, or
business depressions, or any other social phenomenon is related in a
definite way to given social factors, then we can control our phe-
nomena by variation of the factors involved. We cannot control
until we know; when we do know, we can predict scientifically;
and when we can predict scientifically, we are well on the way
toward control-

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY
In general terms, then, we have outlined the scientific method
as it is used in the development of principles, and we have indicated