3 Module 3: Research Design: Investigating the Social Construction of Everyday L
3 Module 3: Research Design: Investigating the Social Construction of Everyday Life
Learning Objectives
- Distinguish between scientific and non-scientific reasoning
- Elaborate the meaning of Merton’s acronym, CUDOS
- Define the social scientific method and distinguish between positivist and interpretive approaches to research design
- Describe the relationship between research question and research design
- List and describe the common errors that students make when conducting a literature review
- Describe the kind of evidence required for an interpretive approach to research design
- Define what reliability and validity mean in a research study.
- Describe the various elements of the research onion process that inform research design within an interpretive framework
- Discuss the various ethical issues and decisions that arise as part of the development of research design.
3.1 Introduction to Sociological Research
In an unfortunate comment following the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013, the then Prime Minister Stephen Harper said “this is not a time to commit sociology.” He implied that the “utter condemnation of this kind of violence” precluded drawing on sociological research into the causes of political violence (Cohen, 2013). In his [Harper’s] position, there is a disjunction between taking a strong political and moral stance on violence on one hand and working towards a deeper, evidence-based understanding of the social causes of acts of violence on the other. Behind the political and moral rhetoric of Stephen Harper’s statement are a number of densely solidified beliefs about the nature of a “terrorist” individual — “people who have agendas of violence that are deep and abiding, [who] are a threat to all the values that our society stands for” (Cohen, 2013). In this framework, the terrorist is a kind of person who is beyond reason and morality. Therefore, sociological analysis is not only futile in the former Prime Minister’s opinion but also, for the same reasons, contrary to the “utter determination through our laws and through our activities to do everything we can to prevent and counter [terrorist violence]” (Cohen, 2013).
However, in the research of Robert Pape (2005) a different picture of the terrorist emerges. In the case of the 462 suicide bombers Pape studied, not only were the suicide bombers relatively well educated and affluent, but as other studies of suicide bombers in general confirm, they were not mentally imbalanced per se, not blindly motivated by religious zeal, and not unaffected by the moral ambivalence of their proposed acts. They were ordinary individuals caught up in extraordinary circumstances. How would this understanding of the terrorist individual affect the drafting of public policy and public responses to terrorism?
Sociological research is especially important with respect to public policy debates. The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to terrorism and violent