oleo

The Losic of Social Research

\J

Ru/irzg )ut Riual I{ypotlaeded

SCIENCE AS SYSTEMATIC DOUBTING

Skepticismand Intcgrity
How Do We Cometo Know?
Can We DiscoverCausalLaws?
The Strategyof Research

USES OF SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RIVAL EXPLANATIONS

PersonalUse of Research
ProfessionalUse of Research
PoliticalUse of Research

SUMMARY
EXERCISES
KEY TERMS
 The Logic of Social Rcscarch

S C I E N C E A S S Y S T E M A T I CD O U B T I N G

Skepticism and Integrity

Lead and Intelligence, Healthalertsabout lead in drinking water and its threat
to childrenhave appearedwith rising urgency.In 199l, rhe U.S. Centersfor Disease
Control (CDC) reducedthe in(ervcntionlevel for lead cxposureto 25 microgramsper
deciliterof blood (Fgldl), the third suchreductionsince 1970.This action resultedfrom
researchconnectingblood levels of as little as l0 pgldl to intelligencedeficits in chil-
dren. Basedin part on the same research,the EnvironmentalProteclionAgency (EPA)
in 199I adoptednew n:les for lead levels in community water sys(ems.Dr. Herben
Needleman,one of the leadingscholarsin rhis field, has receivedmuch of the credit
for raisingconcernaboutleadin the environment("ls therelead in your warcr?",1993).
For example,he found lower IQ scoresin children wirh higher levels of lead as mea-
sured from their baby teeth (Needleman,Gunnoe, Leviton, Reed, Peresie,Maher, &
Barrctr, I979).
In the sameyear that the CDC and EPA were basingpolicy in pan on Needle-
man's work, a third federalagency,the National Institutesof Health (NIH). received
complaintsabout his work. By April 1992, Needlemanfaced an open hearing on
chargesthat he had engagedin scicntificmisconductin the 1979 study. Dr. Clsc Ern-
hart and Dr. SandraScarrhad raiseddoubtsabout his conductand reportof that earlier
r e s e a r c hT. h e y t e s t i f i e da g a i n s th i m a s p a n o f h i s u n i v e r s i t y ' si n q u i r y , a n i n q u i r y
Promptedby the Office of Scientific Inregriry of NIH (Ernhart, Scan, & Ceneson,
1993).This episodeteachessome importantlessonsaboutsocial research.

The Needlem,anCase, The story beginsin 1975when Needleman'steam began

colleclingbaby teethfrom 3329 flrst-and second-grade childrenand lhen measuringthe
l e a dc o n ( e not f t h e s et e e ü . W h i l e t n ' i n s t o i d e n t i f vc h i l d r e nw i t h h i e h a n d l o w l e a dl e v -
els. the teaä collecredinrelligencer.Jrur., *oÄ ZtO of rhe subjeJtsmosr likely to be
h i g h o r l o w i n l e a dc o n t e n tH . o w e v e rt,h e r e s e a r c h e er sx c l u d e ds o m eo f t h o s et e s t e da n d
c o m p a r e jdu s t 5 8 c h i l d r e nw i t h h i g h - l e a dl e v e l sw i t h I 0 0 c h i l d r e nw i t h l o w l e v e l si n t h c
p a p e rp u b l i s h e di n 1 9 7 9 .N e e d l e m a nw e n t o n r o c o n d u c to t h e r s t u d i e st h a r p o i n t e dr o
l e a d ' sa d v e r s ee f f e c t so n h u m a n i n t e l l i g e n c eR. e c o g n i z e a ds a n e x p e n a n d c o n c e r n e d
a b o u tp r o t e c t i n g
c h i l d r e na g a i n s t h e d a n g e r so f l e a d ,h e h a d a m a j o r i m p a c to n p u b l i c
policy.
I n 1 9 9 0 .t h e D e p a r t m e not f J u s t i c ea s k e dN e e d l e m a nt o a s s i s ti n a s u i t b r o u g h t
u n d e rt h e S u p e r f u n dA c t . S u p e r f u n db i l l s r h e c o s r o f c l e a n i n gu p t o x i c w a s r et o r h o s e
w h o c a u s e dt h e p o l l u t i o n ,a n d i t o f r c nh a s t o w a g e l e g a lb a t t l e st o e x t r a c tt h e s ep a y -
m e n t s .I n t h i s c a s e ,t h e J u s t i c eD c p a n m e nw t a n t e dt o f o r c et h e c l e a n u po f l e a dt a i l i n g s
from a mine in M_idvale, Utah.The defensehired Ernhanand Scarr as witnesses. Know-
i n g t h a t N e e d l e m a n ' tse s t i m o n yf o r t h e g o v e r n m e n w r ould rely in part or his 1979
study,Ernhanand Scan soughtacccssto his original data.To preparefor the trial, they
s P e n t w o d a y s i n h i s l a b c h e c k i n eh i s w o r k . B e f o r et h e t r i a l c o u l d b e g i n ,t h e l i t i g a n t s
s e t t l e dt h e c a s ew i r h 5 6 3 m i l l i o n o b r a i n e df o r c l e a n i r gu p r h e m i n e s i r e .
 The Logic of Social Rcscarch

Ernhart and Scarr's brief view of Needleman'sdata raised guestionsabout his

1979 repon. They wrote a complaint to the NiH Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI,
sincerenamedthe Office of ResearchIntegrityor ORI and moved to the Public Health
Service).Of their severalconcerns,one had to do with the way Needlemanchoseonly
someof the testedchildrenfor analysis.They suspectedthat he pickedjust the subjects
whosepattcrnof lead levels and IQ scoresfit his belief. The OSI instructedthe Uni-
versityof Pittsburgh,Needleman'shome institution,to explorethe chargesin October
tool

Thc resultinghearingstook on thc bitternessof a legal trial complete*'ith pub-

lished rebuttalsand chargesabout selfish motives.Needlemanlikened the hearingto
witch trials (1992).He cast Ernhartand Scarr as paid defendersof a lead industrythat
wantedto protectits profitsby castingdoubt on his work (1993a,1993b).For their part,
his criticsdeniedservingthe lead industryand told of the humanand professional costs
of servingas honestwhistle-blowers(Ernhartet al., 1993; Scarr& Ernhart, 1993).
This Pittsburghinquiry resultedin a final repon in May 1992 (NeedlemanHear-
i n g B o a r d ,1 9 9 2 ) T . h i s r e p o r ta b s o l v e dN e e d l e m a n o f s c i e n t i f i cm i s c o n d u c tf,i n d i n gn o
evidencethat he intentlonall;'biasedhis data or methods.However,the hearingboard
d i d f i n d t h a t" N e e d l e m a d n e l i b e r a t e lm
y i s r e p r e s c n t ehdi s p r o c e d u r e si n
" the I979 study
(Taylor, 1992,p.44). The repon said that "misrepresentations may have been done to
male. . .thc proceduresappearmore rigorousthan they were, perhapsto ensurepubli-
ca(ion" (Taylor,_1992, p. 44).The hearingboardjudged that this behaviordid not fit
t h e d e f r n i t i o nos f m i s c o n d u ctth a tf o c u so n f a k i n gd a t aa n d p l a g i a r i s mB. u t o t h e r sw o n -
d e r e dw h y s u c hm i s r e p o n i n gd i d n o t f a l l w i t h i n a n o t h e r u l e t h a t f o r b i d ss e r i o u sä e v i -
ationsfrom commonlyacceptedresearchpractices.

The Moral of the Story. Researchers oftgn disagreeabout results,but they'sel-

dom talie such differencesbeforehearingboards.More often, the scientistsarguewith
eacho(herin publishedaniclesand let other researchers decidefor thcmselves.Some-
times,a schola-r will sharethe challengeddata with critics for additionalanalysis,per-
hapseven working with th-emto producea joint findin!. In Needleman'scase,the sci-
e n t i s t sh a d a h i s t o r yo f d i s t r u s bt a s e do n t h e i r c o n l l i c ta s e x p e nw i t n e s s eisn c i v i l t r i a l s
a b o u tl e a d e x p o s u r ea n d t o x i c w a s t ec l e a n u p B . e c a u s et h e 1 9 7 9s t u d y h a d b e c o m ea
weaponin thesedisputes,theresearchers chosenot to work togetherto resolvethcir dif-
ferences.Insteadone side turned to the researchintegrity office of the government,
which in turn handedthe problemto a university.Chargedwith fighting researchfraud,
theseofficeshad little experience with a caseborderingon methoddifferences.The pro-
ceduresof this casepleasedneithersidc. Needlemansued the federalgovernmcntand
tlre Universityof Pittsburgh.chargingthat they had deniedhim due process.Scarrand
Ernhanhopedadditionalinformationwould lead to a more severejudgment on laterre-
v i e w . W h a t e v etrh e f i n a l o u t c o m eo f t h i s d i s p u t e w , e c a n d r a w s o m ei m p o n a n tc o n c l u -
s i o n sf r o m i t .
First,socialresearchers can addressvery imponanrmatters.In this casethe stales
i n v o l v e dt h e m e n t a lh e a l t ho f t h e n a t i o n ' sc h i l d r e n t, h e e c o n o m i cw e l l - b e i n go f a m a j o r
industry,crucial federalpolicieson the environmen(,lawsuitsfor mone(arydamages,
a n d t h e r e p u t a t i o nosf p r o m i n e nst c h o l a r s .
 The Logic of SocialRcscarch

Second,this caseshows how scienccworks throughthe adversarialproccss.Re-

searchers shoulddoubt their own findingsand thoseof o]f,erscholars.As consumersof
research,we shouldnot believeeverythingwe rcad.Instead,we shouldassumea doubt-
ful posturein the face of rescarchclaims. Wc call this postureskepticism.This term
docs not meanunyieldingdisbeliefbut ratherthe habit of checkingthe evidence.Skep-
ticism reguircsus lo distinguishpoor research,unworthy of our belief, from good re-
search,which deservesat lcast provisionalacceptance. Thc disputeabout Needleman's
findings, althoughunusualin its form, represcntsa norrnäland acceptedapproachto
getting at lhe truth.This episodehighlightsthc importanceof researchmcthodsas the
focus for scientificdebateand as the contentof this text.
Third, this disputeforcesus to view our researchpracticcas an ethicaldury. Sci-
entific integrity consistsof

a kind of uttcrhoncsty-akind of lcaningovcrbackwards. For cxamplc,if you'redoing

an cxpcrimcnt,you shouldrcponcverything thatyou thinkmighrmakcir invalid-notonly
whatyouthinkis rightaboutit. . . . You m.ustdo thebcstyou can-if you knowanything
at all wrong,or possiblywrong-to cxplainit. If you malc a thcory,for examplc.
andad-
vcniscit, or put it ou!. thenyou musralsoput downall thefactsthatdisagree wirh it. as
well aslhoscthatagreewith it. (Feynman, 1985.p.34l, adaptcd fromhis commcnccmcnt
address at thcCaliforniaInstitutcof Tcchnology in l9?4).

This view of integritychallengesus to help our worst critics attackour most cherished
conclusions,We will need a delachmen(from our theoriesif we arc to valuc the cred-
i b i l i t y o f o u r r e s u l t sm o r e t h a n v i c t o r yi n o u r d i s p u r e s .
Finally, does lead affect IQ? Improved analysesof Needleman'soriginal data
gave evidencein supportof his lead-IQ link that was even strongerthan that_reponed
in his 1979article(Taylor, 1992,citing the-Needleman HearingBoard's Finat Report,
1992). Howevcr,thcseresultscome from only one small sample,and other research
hndings have given mixed results.The current EPA and CDC positionsasrec with
N e e d l e m a n 'cso n c l u s i o nb, u t t h e y c o u l d c h a n g es h o u l d _ n e w d a r aa p p e a r .

How Do We Come to Know?

Assertion,Authority, and Evidence. Socialresearchproducesclaimsaboutcau-

s a t i o nf o r c x a m p l et,h a t Ä c a u s e sB . H o w e v e r ,s o m ec a u s a cl l a i m sa p p e a rw i t h o u te v i -
dence.Anyone can assena causalrelation,but we need not acceptit without support.
If the causalclaim has no evidence,why shouldanyonebelieveit or preferit to a rival
view that has supporr?
S o m e t i m ecsl a i m sd r a w t h e i r s u p p o nn o ( f r o m e v i d e n c eb u t r a t h e rf r o m t h e a u -
thority, expenise,or rank of the source.If rhe aurhorityrefers to evidence,we expect
t o s e et h e d a t ai n o r d e rt o m a k eo u r o w n j u d g m e n t W . e o f t e nh e a ra s s e n i o n s t h a ts o m e
n e w t r e a l m e ncl a n c u r e a t e r r i b l ed i s o r d e rs u c ha s s c h i z o p h r e n i caa, n c e r ,o r h e r o i na d -
d i c t i o n .P e r h a p a
s f e w p a t i e n t st e s t i f yt o t h e s u c c e s so f t h e n e w c u r e . R e c r u i t i n gd e s -
p e r a t e ,p a y i n gc l i e n t sr v i t h t h e p r o m i s eo f a m i r a c l ed r u g m a y m o r i v a t es u c h c l a i m s .
H o w e v er , n e i t h e tr h e f a m e n o r t h e a c a d e m i cd e g r e eo f t h e s o u r c ew i l l s u b s t i r u tfeo r e v -
idcnce.
 The Logic of Social Research

S o m ea u t h o r i t i ebsa s et h e i ra s s e n i o nes n t i r e l yo n f a i r hu , i r hn o c l a i m sr o s c i e n t i f ' i c

foundation.Clashesbetu,eenclaims basedon faith and thosebasedon evidencehave
madefor somedramaticmoments.One of the most famouscame to a headin Galileo's
heresl'trial.The Copemicanmodcl of the solar s),stemheld that thc eanh moved around
t h e s u n r a t h e rt h a n t h e s u n a r o u n dt h e e a n h . I n 1 6 1 6a c h u r c hc o u r t c o n d e m n e dt h i s
view as beingcontraryto thc Bible. In 1632Galileo publishedhis Diologueon llte Tv'o
Principal World SS'stenrs, which seemedto favor the Copemicanvierv.The Inquisition
summonedhim to Romefor trial in 1633,forced him to recant.and prohibitedhis book.
Hc remaincdundcrhouscarresrfor rhc last eighr yearsof his life (Hummel, 1986).
Contraryto the popular view, rhis trial did not derive from a simple conflict of
sciencevcrsus religion.The ma(ter involved complex personaljcalousiesand power
s t r u g g l e sR. e d o n d (i 1 9 8 3 / 1 9 8 7e) v e n s u g g e s t st h a t G a l i l e o ' st r i a l s t e m m e df r o m t h e o -
logicaldisputesorherrhan his supporrof Copernicanism.
A l t h o u g hw e m a y n e v c rk n o w t h e f u l l s t o r y o f t h e r r i a l ,G a l i l e og a v ea n e l o q u e n t
defenseof science "l do not fccl obliged to believe that the samc God who has en-
dowed us with sense,reason.and intellecthas intendedus to for-qotheir usc" (guoted
b y D u r a n t& D u r a n t ,1 9 6 1 ,p . 6 0 7 ) . T h e c e n t u r i e sh a v ev i n d i c a r e d G a l i l e o .I n 1 7 5 7r h c
Churchtook booksteachingthe mobiliry of rhe eanh off rhe Index of ProhibiredBooks.
In 1979,PopeJohnPaulII called for a reexamination of the Galileocase.Thineen years
l a t e r ,t h e C h u r c hb u n d h i m n o r g u i h y ( M o n r a l b a n o , 1 9 9 2T) .h e V a r i c a nh a s p u b l i s h e d
i t s s c c r c t a r c h i v e so n t h e G a l i l e o c a s e a n d a d m i r r e dt h a r t h e j u d g e s w e r e w r o n g
( P o u p a r dI,9 8 3 ) .
O n e i r o n y o f t h i se p i s o d ei s t h a t C a l i l e o - h a dm a n y f r i e n d si n r h e C h u r c h( i n c l u d -
ing the Popc).They advisedhim not to claim proof for his rheoryin order to avoid con-
f r o n t i n gt h e C h u r c h .A s i t t u m e d o u t , G a l i l e os h o u l dn o t h a v ec l a i m e dt h a t h i s t h e o r l '
was provedsincehc had made some mistakes(for example,in his theoryof tides).This
episodeshowsthat asserlionsbasedon good evidenceprevail over thosc basedon au-
thority and, in thei+tum, yield to betterones basedon betterevidence.In the long run.
the more truthfuland usefulexolanationshould emerpefrom this comDetitionbetween
rival ideas.

Philosophyof Science. Our skcpticismabout social researchgoes beyond rare

casesof datafraudor commondisputesaboutmethods.Philosophers of knou,ledgehave
long wonderedhow and even whetherwe can know abourour world. The phrasc"Lnou,
about our world" implies that cenain "facts" exist that we can learn. Sciencepursues
thesefacts by empirical methods,that is, methodsbasedoh experienccof thc world.
But philosophers disagreeabout how far we can trustour observations (for morc on this
d e b a t es, e eG u b a ,1 9 9 0 ;H u g h e s ,1 9 9 0 :L i r r l e , l 9 9 l : R o r h , 1 9 8 7 ) .
I n t h e s o c i a ls c i e n c e sc,m p i r i c i s ms o m e t i m e sg o e sb y t h e n a m ep o s i t i v i s m .P o s i -
tivism rejectsspeculationand insteademphasizespositive facts. ln this regard.social
s c i e n c es h a r e sa u n i t yo f m e t h o dw i t h t h e n a t u r a ls c i e n c e sT. h a t i s . w e c a n t e s tt h e o r i e s
b y s e e i n gh o w w e l l t h e y f i t t h e f a c t s t h a t w e o b s e r v e A . l r h o u g hn o c o n s e n s u sh a s
f o r m e da r o u n da n a l r e m a t ev i e w , t r a d i r i o n apl o s i r i v i s mh a s m a n y c r i t i c s .
W h a t w e u s u a l l ym e a n b y t h e n o r i o n o f o b s e n , a r i o ins t h a t w e f e e l s e n s a t i o n s
w i t h i n u s t h a t w e a t t r i b u t et o e x t e m a lc a u s e sW
. h e n I s a v " l s e e - at r e e . "] r e a l l v m e a n
 The Logic of SocialRcsearch

that I havean innervisualsensationconsistentwith what I have learnedis calleda trec.

But how can you or I be sure tha( a tree really exis(s?PerhapsI am hallucinatingand
my inner sensations come not from a ree at all but rathersome malfunctionof my ner-
vous system.We "know" the world only indirectly:"We do not acruallysce physical
objects,any more lhan wc hear electromagnetic waveswhen wc listen to the wirelcss"
(Russell,1948,p. 3l l). In short, the positivedatathat wc had hoped to anchorour the-
oriesseemlike constructions. Our scientiFrcfactsresemblecollectivejudgmentssubject
to disagreemcnt and revision.
To speak of facts suggeststhat we can say what does or does not exist in thc
world. The branchof philosophycalled ontology deals with this problem of the ulti-
mate nalureof things.Do externalthingsreally cxist out there to serye as sourcesof
our sensations? Belief that there are such real sourcesis called realism. We canno(
demonstrate realism.We can never prove the reality of an externalsourccwith suspect
perceptions.Mosr scientisuand laypeopleact and talk most of the time as thoughthey
believedin realism.Nevenheless, somephilospheghave arguedfor anotherview called
fctionalism or inslrumentalrsrn,
This latterview rcgardsthe supposcdexternalsources
of our perceptions as fictionsdependenton our observinginstruments.
Supposingthat real facts exist. we still have the problem of showing how we
know them. Thc term epistemologyappliesto this concernwith the relationbetw.ccn
knowerand known. Claiming that you know somcrhingimplies that you can defendthe
methodsby which you got your knowledge.The ever presentrival to your claim is that
you have misperccived

SelectivePerceptions. Much evidencesuggeststhat our observationsare selec-

tive and subjectto error.Accordingto ThomasKuhn (1970),normal scienceconsis(sin
s o l v i n gp u z z l e sw i t h i na f r a m e w o r ko f w i d e l ya c c e p t e bd e l i e f sv, a l u e s a
, s s u m p ( i o nasn, d
techniques.Scientistsworking on a problemshare certain basic assumptionsand re-
searchtools that shapetheir observationof realitS Kuhn called this sharedframework
a paradigm and considcredit a lens throughwhich we see the world.
Whole gencrationsof researchers may cngagein normal sciencewithin a para-
digm beforeenoughconflictingdata force a paradigm shift. Such paradigmshifts or
r e v o l u t i o nos c c u rw h e ne x i s r i n gt h e o r i e cs a n n o l o n g e ra d j u s tt o h a n d l ed i s c r e p a nf ti n d -
ings. Paradigmshifts resemblegestaltperceptualshifts. Kuhn illustratesthis by a psy-
chologyexperimentin which subjectsviewed cardsfrom a deck. This deck had some
peculiarcards,suchas black heartsand red spades,but the subjectswere not told about
them in advance.Most subjectsneededrepeatcdviewings before noticing theseodd
cards.Seemingly,the subjectslookedar black heansand "saw" red heartsbecausethey
believedthat only rcd heansexisted.When they graspedthe idea that black heanscould
e x i s t ,i t w a s a s r h o u g hs o m e o n et h r e w a s w i t c h i n t h e i r m i n d s . S u d d e n l yt h e y c o u l d
"see" (hecardsas they e.ristedra(herthanas imagined.We needto reflecton the frame-
work in which we think and do research.Would we notice the black heartsand red
s p a d e si f r h e ya p p e a r e idn o u r d a t a ?
Another major critiqueof scientificobservationcame from Karl Marx who chal-
l e n g e di t s n e u t r a l i t ya n d c o m p l e t e n e sFs o. r M a r x , s e n s a ( i o inm p l i e d a n a c r i v en o t i c i n g
b a s e do n m o t i v a t i o nf o r s o m ea c t i o n( R u s s e l l1, 9 4 5 ) W . e o n l y p e r c e i v ea f e w o u r o f r h e
 The Logic of Social Rcsearch

u n i v e r s eo f p o s s i b l es r i m u l i .W e s e l e c rf o r a t t e n t i o nt h o s et h a t a f f e c to u r i n t e r e s t sa n d
disregard t h o s et h a td o n o r .M a r x r h u sl o c a t e ss c i e n c ei n t h e c o n t e x to f p o l i t i c sa n d e c o -
nomics,driven b;, the self-inrerestof the researchers who themselvesbelon_g to eco-
nomic classes.

Can We Discover Causal Laws?

Foith of Science. We face orher problemsbeyondperceivingthc world accu-

rately.Positivismholds rharrhe missionof scienceis to discoverthe timelesslarr'sgov-
e m i n g t h e w o r l d .T h i s n o t i o ni m p l i e su , h a tB e n r a n dR u s s e l (l 1 9 4 8 )c a l l e dl h e " f a i t h o f
s c i e n c e (" p . 3 1 4 ) . B y t h i s p h r a s eh c m e a n tt h a t w e a s s u m et h a t r e g u l a r i t i eesx i s ti n t h e
connection o f e v e n t sa n d t h a t t h e s er e g u l a r i t i eosr " l a w s " h a v ea c o n t i n u i t yo v e r t i m e
and space.We cannotprove this coveringlaw. but we must believeit if we cxpect lo
find stableregularitieswith our scicncc.The great successof the physicalsciencesin
the past two centurieslends credcnceto this faith. For example,our lunar astroLauts
confirmedthat physicalrelationshipsdiscoveredon earth hold on the moon as rvell.
H o w c v e r ,t h e o v e n h r o wo f N c w t o n i a np h y s i c sb y E i n s t e i ne a r l y i n t h i s c e n t u r y
s h o o kt h e c o n f i d e n c e i n o u r c a p a c i l yt o d i s c o v e rt i m e l e s sp h y s i c a l a w s ( S t o v c .1 9 8 2 ) .
S o c i a ls c i e n t i s thsa v c l o n g d o u b t e dt h e i rc h a n c c so f m a t c h i n gt h c s u c c e s o s f t h en a t u r a l
sciences-In the social domain, some scientistsreject the existcnceof objectivc laws
knowableby observation.Rather,thesecritics hold, our understanding of the rvorld is
a s o c i a lc o n s t r u c t i odne p e n d e not n t h e " h i s t o r i c a l l ys i t u a t e di n t e r c h a n g easm o n gp e o -
_ p l e " ( G e r g e n 1, 9 8 5 ,p . 2 6 1 ) .

Fallibilism. Supposephysicalor socialeven(sdo follow laws independent of the

s o c i a l l yc o n s t r u c t e d . p e r c c p r ioofn t h e m . P h i l o s o p h e i so f s c i e n c ew a r n u s t h a t s u c h
c a u s a cl o n n e c t i o nw s i l l r e s i s td i s c o v e D 'O
. n e p r o b l e mh a s t o d o w i t h i n d u c t i o n ,f i n d -
ing an idea among observcdevcnts that might explain other,not yet observedeve_nls.
H u m e ,w r i t i n gi n t h e 1 7 0 0 sm , a d ea s r r o n gc a s ea g a i n s st u c ha n i n d u c t i v el e a p( S t o v e ,
1982)R . e p e a t e idn s t a n c eosf a n o b s e r v a t i o nn.o m a t t e rh o w m a n y ,c a n n o tg u a r a n t e iet s
futurerepetition.However,most peoplewould say that suchrepetitiondoes increasethc
chancesof its occurringagain.Nevenheless, we musl remind ourselvesthat we run the
r i s k o f m a k i n gi n d u c t i v em i s t a k e s - t h a ri s , w c a r e f a l l i b l e i n t h i s r e g a r d .F a l l i b i l i s m
refersto the postureof suspectingour o\\'n inductions.
In sum.the tools of our knowing,both the proceduresof measurement and the in-
ductionof lawful patterns.come from humanexperienceand risk humanerror. We can
asscra t c a u s acl o n n e c t i o nB. u t w c d o s o o n l y u n d e rw a r r a n to f ( t h a ti s , l i m i t e db y a n d
n o m o r e v a l i d t h a n ) o u r m e r h o d sf o r p e r c e i v i n gs u c h r e l a t i o n sT. h i s l i m i t c d a n d c a u -
t i o u sa p p r o a c ht o r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e sa c o n t i n u i n gt o p i c o f d e b a t ca b o u tt h e p h i l o s o p h i -
c a l f o u n d a t i o nosf s o c i a ls c i e n c e( C h o l s o n& B a r k e r ,I 9 8 5 ; M a n i c a s& S e c o r d .I 9 8 3 ) .

The Strategy of Besearch

Theory as TeslableExplanation. Social researchtries to explain humanevents.

W h a t c a u s e sp e o p l et o a b u s et h e i r c h i l d r e n t, o b e c o m ed e p r e s s e dt o, r e m a i nh o m e l e s s ,
 The Logicof SocialResearch

to fail to learn to readand write, to commit crimes?Besidesour naturalcuriosityabout

how things work, we have a strongpracticalmotive to e,rplain.predict,and shapecer-
t a i n h u m a nc o n d i t i o n s .
S o c i a lr e s e a r c ihn c l u d e sa g r e a tm a n y a c t i v i t i e se, a c hf a l l i n g i n o n e o f t h r e cm a i n
clusters:tentativeexplaining.observin-g, and testingrival views againstdata.We need
all three tb do social research.If all we did was imagine different cxplanations,we
would never havea basisfor choosingamong them.On the other hand.proposingten-
lative explanationshelpsmake senseout of diverseobservations and guidesus in mak-
i n g s t i l l b e t t e ro b s e r v a t i o n S
s .u c ht e n r a t i v e x p l a n a t i o ncso n s t i t u t et h e o r y .
W e c a n u s u a l l yt h i n k o f t w o o r m o r e d i f f e r e n t h e o r i e st o e x p l a i nm a n y e v e n t s .
Collectingdata helps us decidc which theory best fits reality. In order to hclp us un-
d e r s t a n dc a u s a t i o no,u r d a t am u s tc o m e i n t o c o n t a c w t i t h t h e o r y .F o r e x a m p l e w , e may
o b s e r v ea n d d e s c r i b et h e i n c i d c n c eo f d e a t hb y c h o l e r ao r s u i c i d e .B u t m e r e l yc o u n t i n g
a n d s o n i n g d e a t h sw , h a t w e c a l l d e s c r i p t i v er e s e a r c hd,o e sn o t e x p l a i nt h e m .
However, observingwith a theory in mind becomescausal researchby joining a
causeto an effect.For example,John Snow suspcctedthat fouled watercausedcholera.
In the period from 1848 ro 1854,hc linl<edthe differentratesof choleradeathsto the
d i f f e r e n tc o m p a n i essu p p l y i n gL o n d o nh o u s e sw i t h w a t e r( L i l i e n t e l d .1 9 7 6 .p p . 2 4 - 2 5 ) .
I n t h e s a m ew a y , E m i l e D u r k h e i ml i n k e dc h c n g e so v e r t i m e i n t h e r a t eo f s u i c i d ew i t h
c h a n - e i negc o n o m i cc o n d i t i o n s( D u r k h e i m ,1 8 9 7 / 1 9l5) . T h e s em e n c o u l d h a v c l o o k e d
a t a n e n o r r n o uns u m b e ro f s o c i a l - a n p d h y s i c a fl a c t o r sa s p o s s i b l ec a u s e so f d e a t hT . heir
t h e o r i e sh e l p e dt h e mt o n a r r o wt h e i r f o c u st o w a t e rs u p p l ya n d e c o n o m i cc o n d i t i o n s .
I n t h e l a s ts t e po f t h e r e s e a r c ch; - c l ew e c o m p a r eo u r c a u s a li d e aw i t h o u r o b s e r -
- v a t i o n s .D o e so u r t h e o r yf i t ? D o e sa n o r h e tr h e o r yf i t b e t t e r ?S c i e n c ec o n s i s t so f s e e i n g -
-whether
d a t a c o n f l r m o r d i s c o n f i r mo u r e x p l a n a t i o n sP,o p p e r( 1 9 8 7 ) a r - q u e d that we
s h o u l dn o t s i m p l y l o o k f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n sR. a t h e r h . e s a i d ,a n y " _ e e n u i ntee s to f a t h e -
. o r y i s a n a t t e m p t o f a l s i f y i t , o r r e f u r ci t . T e s r a b i l i r yi s f a l s i f i a b i l i t y "( p . 1 4 l ) . A s a n
: e x a m p l eo f p s e u d o s c i e n chee, o f f e r e da s t r o l o g y" w i t h i t s s t u p e n d o um s a s so f e m p i r i c a l
evidencebasedon observation---on horoscopes and on biographies"(p. 139) but with-
o u t I h e q u a l i t yo f r e f u t a b i l i t y .

' Rttleso! Et'idence. In order to judge our theory'sfit. we rely on standarddeci-

s i o n n r l e s .O u r r e s e a r c rhe p o n sm a k e p u b l i cb o t h t h e o r i e sa n d d a t a .s o t h a t a n y o n ec a n
l o o k o v e r o u r s h o u l d ea r n d s e c o n d - _ g u eusssu s i n gt h e s es a m eg u i d e l i n e sR . esearchers
u.sualld y e m a n dt h a t w e m e e t t h r e ec r i r e r i ab e f o r ec l a i m i n ga c a u s a l i n k : ( l ) c o v a r i a -
t i o n : ( 2 ) c a u s ep r i o r t o e f f e c t :a n d ( 3 ) a b s c n c eo f p l a u s i b l er i v a l h . v p o t h e s iosr e x p l a -
nation.
T h e f i r s t c r i t e r i o ns e e m ss i m p l ee n o u g h I. f Ä c a u s e s8 . t h e y s h o u l dm o v e t o s e t h e r
o r c o : v a r y .I f p o l l u t e dw i l t e r c a u s e sc h o l e r a .w e e , \ p e c t o t l n d m o r e c h o l e r ac a s e si n
h o u s e ss u p p l i e dw i t h b a d w a t e r a n d f e r v e rc a s e si n o n e s r v i t t rp- u r e w a t e r . l f r a p i d l y
c h : r n g i n ge c o n o n r i c o n d i t i o n sc a u s es u i c i d e u
. , e s h o u l dc o u n t m o r e s u i c i d e si n c h a n g -
i n g e c o n o m i ct i m e sa n d t e w er i n s t a b l eo n e s .K n o r v i n gt h a t t w o t h i n g sd o n o t c o - v a r y .
o n t h e o t h e rh a n d .c a s t sd o u b ro n t h e r h e ö r yt h a tt h e y h a v ea c a u s a l i n k . H o w e v e r a . s-
s o c i a l i o na l o n ed o e sn o t t e l l u s t h e t v p e o f c a u s a l i n k b e r w e e nA a n dB .
 Thc Logic of Social Rcscarch

The philosopherHume warnedus of our habitof mind that tendsto seecausarion

in the association of events.When two cventscoincideagainand again,we come to cx-
Pcctone when we noticethe other.We ofrenu,ronglytreatthis "prediction"as "causa-
tion." Howevcr,we musaseparatethesetrvo notionsin our minds. Russell(1948) itlus.
tratesthis problemwith the story of "Geulinex'stwo clocks."Theseperfecttimcpieces
always move-togethersuch that when one points to the hour, the other chimes.They
co'vary and allow us to makc good predictionsfrom the handsof one to the chimcs of
the other. But wc would not make a causalclaim. No one supposesthat one clock
causesthe other to chime. In fact, a prior evenr causesboth, namely the work of the
clock maker.Thus we needmore crireriabcyondsimpleassociationto judge causation.
The secondrequirementdealsonly in parr wirh this problemof telling covariarion
from causation.A causeshould precedcis effect.Economicchangecannotcausesui-
cide if the uptum in suicideratescomcs beforethe changein the cconomy. Knowing
the scquenceof cventscan help us rulc out onc causaldirection.But knowing that rwo
cventsare correlatedand that one comesbeforethe other still doesnot settlethc qucs-
tion. RecallGeulincx'stwo clocks,and supposethat one clock is set onc secondbefore
the otherso that its chimesalwayssoundbeforethc othcr.Would we arguethat the for-
mcr clock causesthc la(ter'schimesjusr becauseit occursfirsr? Of course,we would
Dot.
T h c t h i r d r u l ef o r c a u s a t i o n
a l s od c a l sw i t h t h e p r o b l e mo f C e u l i n e x ' st w o c l o c k s .
I t s a y st h a t w e m u s lb e a b l e t o r u l e o u t u l y r i v a l e x p l a n a t i oans n ö i p l a u s i b l eB . y plau-
sible we mean reasonable or believablc.This test of causationcan prove hard to pass.
A rival cxplanationthat seemsunlikely to one rcscarchermay later appearquirc likcly
- to o(hcrs.Anythingthat can causEtwo cven(sto appearlinked servesas a plausiblcrival
explanation.
Much of what social researchers do helps guardagainslsuch rival cxplanations.
We gradc socialresearchlargelaon i(s successin ruling out rival cxplanations.Some-
one may üinli of a ncw and plausiblc-rivalyearsafter a study is published.Thus, thc
socialrcsearchcrmust dcsignsrudicsin ways rharminimize,as much as possiblc,prc-
senl and futurecompetingcxplanations. To the cxtenl that a researcher shows covaria-
tion and temporalprccedence and.castsdoubton opposingrationales,we will accepthis
or her causalclaim.
The threatof competinginferenccsshapesalmostcvery aspectof data collection
and researchdesign.Whethcr as a consumeror producerof social rcsearch,you musr
lcarn to judge rcsearchon the basis of how well it limits and rejectsrival interpreta-
tions.This lexl coversthe major types of researchthrcats.One threatariseswhen we
collectmeasures. Wc cannotclaim thar,4 causesI if our measuresfail to reflect both
A andB (a problcmexplorcdin Chaprcr5). Another threathas to do with the fact that
much of social researchcomes from iarnple5.We must take care not to claim that a
finding holds true for a whole popularionwhen it occursonly in a small group drawn
from that population(a ropic dealr wirh in Chaprer8). A rhird problem concems the
m a n y d i f f e r e n lw a y sw e c a n d e s i g no u r s t u d i e sD . e s i g n sd i f f e r i n t h e i r c o n t r o lo f t h i r d
variablesthat might causeÄ and I ro appearlinkcd (rhe rhemeof Chaprer9). Finally,
w e m u s t g u a r da g a i n st h e t e m p t a t i o nr o g e n e r a l i z fei n d i n g st o p e o p l e ,p l a c e s o, r t i m e s
t0 The Lo-Eicof SocialResearch

not actuallyrepresented in our study (a dangerraisedin Chapter lO). You must con-
sider not just one of thesethreatsin readingresearch,but ratherremain alen to all of
them. For a previewof all of theseresearchhazards,you should scan the first part of
C h a p t e r1 4 .
Becauseof theselhreats,socialresearchdoesnot alwaysreachconclusionsagreed
upon by all. Ratherthan providing laws of social behavior,it givcs cvidencefor and
against preliminary, would-bc laws. This evidencc requires intcrpretation.Almost
weekly, we hear of resultsthat, if believed,qould changeour behavior (for example,
rhat lead causesintelligenceloss in children)or raisefcarsin some of us ([or examplc,
rhat left-handers have a shorterlife expectancy,Coren & Halpcrn, l99l). In the same
announcements we may also hear lhat the conclusionscould changcpcnding funher re-
search,leavingus to decidehow much faith to placein the claims.
Constantlywcighing the conflicting findings of scientistscan prove frustrating.
Why is it tha( researchers cannotdecidewhich scientistshavethe right answersand set-
rle suchdebatesonce and for all? This conflict betwecnopposingresearchers becomes
most urgcnt in coun casesthat rely on the expen testimonyof scientists.When such
expertsgive conflictingviews, the couns must seck ways to choosethe more credible
scientist.Stateand federalcouns havc sometimesrclied on the I923 Frye rule, which
allows"expertsinto coun only if their testimonywas foundcdon lheories,methods,and
p r o c e d u r e s' g e n e r a l l ya c c e p t e da' s v a l i d a m o n g o t h e r s c i e n t i s t si n t h e s a m e f i e l d "
( H u b e r .1 9 9I , p .l a ) . f l 6 w e v e r ,t h i s p r i n c i p l eo f i g n o r i n g" j u n k s c i e n c e "h a sc o m eu n d e r
fire by those plaintiffs whose casesdependon the challengedexpens. The Supreme
Coun took up this qucstionin the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, which involved
claims rhat the drug Bendectincausedbinh defects.Lower courts,following the Frye
r u l e ,s a i d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' sc x p e r t sc o u l d n o t g i v e t h e i r v i e w s b e c a u s et h e i r e v i d e n c e
was not acceptea d s r e l i a b l eb y - m o s ts c i e n t i s t sT.h e S u p r e m eC q g n , i n i t s d e c i s i o no f
June 28, 1993, reversedthe lower couns and relaxedthis nrle. The courts can still
s c r e e no u t u n r e l i a b l e" e x p c r t s . "H o w e v e r j,u d g e sm u s t n o w d o s o n o t o n l h e b a s i so f
t h e w i t n e s s e sa'c c e p t a n cbey o t h e rs c i e n t i s t bs u t r a t h e ro n t h e q u d i t y o f t h e i rm e ( h o d s .
JusticeHarry Blackmunwrole that "Proposedtestimonymust be suppofledby appro-
'good
p r i a t ev a l i d a t i o n - i . e . g r o u n d s '. . . " ( q u o t e db y H o u s t o n ,1 9 9 3 ,p . A l a ) .
This decisioncomfons thosescientistswho distrusta rule that imposescenainty
or publicly gradesresearchers. By freezingthe researchproccssa( some fixed "truth"
or annointinggood and bad researchers, we might hinder future Calileos who point to
new way_s of seeingthings.Later researchmay displacethe currentlymost favoledthe-
o r y . a n d i t w i l l d o s o m o r e q u i c k l y i n a c l i m a t et h a t t o l e r a t e cs o n f l i c t i n gi d e a s S . cien-
t i s t s d r a w t h e l i n e a t f r a u d a n d h a v e s e t u p e t h i c a lg u i d e l i n e sa g a i n s tm a k i n g u p o r
falselyreponingdara (seeChapter2). However,they worry about sciencecourts that
p u n i s hr e s e a r c h e fr os r u s i n g i m p r o p c rr e s e a r c h m e t h o d s( a s i l l u s t r a t e di n t h e l e a d a n d
I Q c a s ec i t e da t t h e b e g i n n i n go f t h i s c h a p t e r )I.n s t e a dr.e s e a r c h e cr so m p e ( ei n t h e m a r -
k e t p l a c eo f i d e a sh, o p i n gt o e a m r e s e a r c shu p p o r tp, u b l i c a t i o n sa.n d p r o m o r i o n sb y c o n -
v i n c i n gt h e i rp e e r so f t h ee x c e l l e n coef r h e i rm e t h o d sI.n t h i ss p i r i t .r h e S u p r e m eC o u n ' s
d e c i s i o ni n D a u b e r rv . M e r r e l l t r u s t sj u d g e sa n d j u r i e s t o s i f t g o o d f r o m b a d s c i e n c e .
T h i s t e x t a i m s t o g i v c y o u t h e p o w e r t o j u d g e f o r y o u r s c l ft h e q u a l i t y o f r e s e r r c ht h a t
w i l l a f f e c ty o u r l i f e .
 Thc Logic of Social Rcscarch lI

USES OF SOCIAL FESEARCHAND RIVAL EXPLANATIONS

Personal Use of Besearch

Causalassenionssurroundus. We hear advice on horv to spend money on cars,

toothpaste,cigarettes,political candidares,healrhhabits,and a thousandother things
basedon brief references to data.For example,you may have heard a radio news brief
reportinga studyof runningand hean artacks.Perhapsit claimedthat runninghglpsprc-
vent hcartattacksbecauseof evidencethat marathonrunnershave a lower thanexpected
iate of hean attacks.Alrhough running may help prevenlheart attacks,this evidencc
doesnot provc it. Following our rulesof evidence,can we think of a plausiblerival ex-
planationof thcseobservations?
Assumethat marathonrunnersdo have a betterrecordof heart attacksthan non-
_runners.Maybe marathonrunnersdiffer in some other respectsfrom most pcople.A
lhoto of a group of Olympic mara(honrunnerslined up for the stan of their event
shows us a relativelyyoun,s,lean, small-bonedgroup of people.Cenainly, we *'ould
not mistakea marathonninner for a sumo wrestler.Maybe marathonrunnershave dif-
ferentbody typesfrom binh. Maybe they have strongerhearrsor more efficientcircu-
latorysystemsthannonrunnersdo. Suchphysicaladvantagcs would help beginningrun-
-ners
s u c c e e di n i t i a l l y ,t h u se n c o u r a g i ntgh e m t o b e c o m ed e v o t e dl o n g - d i s t a n creu n n e r s .
In shon, the successfulrunnersmay have beenselectedfor their healthy heartsand re-
J i s t a n c et o h e a na t t a c k( n o t _ t om e n t i o nt h e i r l o n g s t r i d ea n d s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e ) .
T h c s a m ce v i d e n c ec a n s u p p o nt w o q u i t e d i f f e r e n ta s s e r t i o n s( :l ) R u n n i n gp r e -
ventsheartattacks;(2) peopleresistantto heartattacksbecomenrnners.Such dilemmas
o c c u ro f t e n i n s o n i n go u t r e s e a r c hc l a i m s .F r e q u e n t l yt,h e a v a i l a b l ee v i d e n c es u g g e s t s
o n e c a u s aal s s e n i o n b u ! c a n n o tr u l e o u t a p l a u s i b l er i v a l .T h i n k i n go f r i v a l e x p l a n a t i o n s
gan prove very usefulin a personalway becausewe must malieso many choicesbased
o n e v i d e n c eG . e t i n t h e h a b i t o f c h c c k i n gt h c e v i d e n c et o s e e i f i t p e r m i t sa p l a u s i b l e
rival explanation.If it does,we regardthe evidenceas wea-k.For importanl decisions,
you may waD(to look for more convincingevidence,basedon betterresearchmethods.
M o s t o f u s d o n o t h a v e t h e t i m e o r d e s i r et o c h e c ka l l c a u s a lc l a i m s .P e r h a p sa
'
wrong decisioninvolving choices about goods, sen'ices,or personal behaviorhas a
small cost.For other kinds of choices,the evidencemay prove too complicatedfor us
to assess. In thesecases,we pay expensto check the researchand think aboutrival ex-
planationsfor us. We may ask a physicianaboutthe safetyof a new jogging regimebe-
fore trying j(. We trust that this doctor has bcen skepticalfor us. In the same \l'ay, we
trustclinicalpsychologists, cducators,criminaljustice workers,and other humansen'ice
professionals to gaugethe evidenccin their areasof expenise.One characteristicthat
identifiesprofessionals is their ability to malie independent judgmen(sof researchre-
ports.if you plan a professionalsocialsen'iceor academiccareer,y'ou will needto learn
how to make the sort of evaluationsof researchevidencetreatedin this text.

Professional Use of Flesearch

J u s (a s a l a y p e r s o n
c h e c k sa c a u s a cl l a i i n b y l o o k i n gf o r p l a u s i b l er i v a l e x p l a n a -
tions,in the sameu'ay professionals challengepublishedresearchin their 3rs35.Writ-
LZ Thc Logic of SocialRescarch

ing to a critical and expen readership, professionalresearchers dcsign their rescarchto

rule out rival explanations. But the best efforts of seriousresearchers may not prcven!
alternativeways of explainingrheir f rndings.A caseof such conflicting interpretations
comes flromthe mentaIhealrhfield.
Of thc variousmcntaldisorders,schizophrenia posesthe gravestchallenge.It rep-
resentsa major drain on the nation'shealthresourcesand wrecks havoc in the lives of
both patientsand their families.Every few yearsa news releaseraisesour hopesthat a
researcher has found thc chemicalkey to this disease.Sadly, such claims have always
proved premature.
The tale of one of these"breakthroughs"shows how data from professionalre-
searchcan be explainedin more than one way. SolomonSnyder(1974) relatesrhe sroly
that beganwith a theoryby two psychiarists.Osmondand Smythies(1952) arguedthat
some loxic substance producedschizophrenicbehavior.They supposedthat this chem-
ical occuned naturallyin the bodtssof schizophrenics but not in the bodiesof normal
p e o p l e .T h e y a s s u m e dr h a t t h i s u n k n o w nt o x i c s u b s t a n c ew o u l d r e s e m b l ec h e m i c a l s
( s u c ha s m e s c a l i n ck)n o w nt o p r o d u c eh a l l u c i n a t i o ni ns n o r m a l sT . h e y n o t e da c h c m i s t ' s
f i n d i n g st h a ta d r e n a l i n ew. h i c h n a t u r a l l yo c c u r si n h u m a nb o d i e s w , a s s t r u c t u r a l l sy i m -
i l a r t o m e s c a l i n eP. e r h a psso m eb o d i l ym a l f u n c t i o n p r o d u c e sa v a r i a n to f a d r e n a l i nteh a t
could, in turn, producerhe symptomsof schizophrenia.
This theorygainedsupportfrom the researchof Hoffer. Osmond,and Smythies
( 1 9 5 4 ) ,w h o r e p o n e dt w o n e w p i e c e so f e v i d e n c eF. i r s t , t h e y f o u n d a d r e n o c h r o m(ea
breakdownproductof adrenaline)in the blood and urine of sthizophrenicsbut not in
most normal people.Second,when adrcnochrome was given to normal people,thcy re-
p o r r e dp s y c h e d e l iec x p e r i e n c eIsi k e t h o s eo f p e o p l eu n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c eo f L S D . A s
S n y d e r s a y s",l t w o u l ds e e mt h a rt h e m i l l e n i u mo f p s y c h i a t r yh a d a n i v e d " ( 1 9 7 a ,p . 5 6 ) .
Adrenochromeappeared(o causeschizophrenia. It remainedonly to find a control for
t h i s c h e m i c ab l e f o r eh u n d r e d so f t h o u s a n dosf s c h i z o p h r e n i ccso u l d l e a d n o r m a ll i v e s .
As with prior breakthroughs, Hoffer's (rvo gru.h1 findings did not reproducein
o t h e rr e s e a r c h e rlsa' b s .A f t e r m a n y f a i l u r e so f r e p l i c a t i o n( t h a ti s , a n a t t e m p t o r e p r o -
d u c e t h e s t u d i e sw i t h t h e s a m er e s u l t s )t,h e s e a r c hb e g a nt o f i n d o t h e r w a y s t o e x p l a i n
this evidence.Why did Hoffer find more adrenochrome in schizophrenics than in nor-
m a l p e o p l e ?A d r e n a l i n ew, h e ne x p o s c dt o a i r , b r e a k sd o w n i n t o a d r e n o c h r o m e S.y n d e r
( 1 9 7 4 )a s s u m etsh a tH o f f e r ' ss a m p l e sf r o m s c h i z o p h r e n i casn d n o r m a l ss t a n e do u t w i t h
t h e s a m e l o w l e v e l so f a d r e n o c h r o m eH.e b e l i e v e st h a t t h e s c h i z o p h r e n i c s ' s a m p l e s
were left exposedto air longerbeforetcsringbccausethey had to come to rhe lab from
t h e m e n t a lh o s p i t a lA. s a r e s u l t ,t h e y b r o k e - d o w n Io a greatee r x t e n ti n t o a d r e n o c h r o m e .
W h y d i d H o f f e r f i n d t h a t n o r m a lp e o p l eg i v e n a d r e n o c h r o mree p o r t e dh a l l u c i n a -
t i o n s ?S n y d e re x p l a i n st h i s o b s e r v a t i o b n y s u g g e s t i o nT. h e n o r m a ls u b j e c t sk n e r vt h a t
t h e y w e r e r e c e i v i n ga c h e m i c a rl h o u g h r o c a u s eh a l l u c i n a t i o nasn d , i n e f f e c t ,o b e y e d
t h i s" s u g g e s t i o n T . "h e e f f e c to f s u b j e c tb e l i e fo n b e h a v i o ri s w e l l k n o w n i n p s y c h o l o g y
a n d r e q u i r e s p e c i acl o n r r o l (sd i s c u s s ei n d C h a p r e lr0 ) . F i g u r el - l c o m p a r e s r h er w o
c a u s a l i n k s o f t h e O s m o n d - S m y t h i et hsc o r yw i r h S n y d e r ' sr i v a l e x p l a n a t i o nosf H o f -
fer's findinss.
T o c h o o s eb e n v e e nt h c s et w o r i v a l t h e o r i e sw, e n e e d e dm o r e r e s e a r c hL. a t e is t u d -
i e s t h a t e x p o s e db l o o d s a m p l e sf r o m s c h i z o p h r e n i casn d n o r m a l st o a i r f o r t h e s a m e
 Thc Logic of Social Rcscarch l3

Osmond. Biolooical l n c r c a s e dl e v e l s Schirophrenic-likc

..# hallucinations
Smphias ao n o r m a l r l Y of adrenochromc
lneory

SnydcrFival Diflcrent Suggastion

erplanations exposurc of
s a m p l c st o a i r

Figure1 Theoryand SynderR i v a lE x p l a n a t i o n s .

Osmond-Smythies

lengrhof rime foundno adrenochrome differences. When subjectsdid not know whethcr
lhey were rcceivingadrenochrome or some neutralsubstance,adrenochromeproduced
no hallucinations.
Alrhoughmisleadingar llrsr, Hoffer's researchhad the usefulEffectof advancing
the search for the cause of schizophrenia.As Snyder summarizes,"After the
a d r e n o c h r o mf iea s c o p, s y c h i a r r i s tbse c a m ed i s i l l u s i o n e ad n d i m m e n s e l ys k c p t i c aal b o u t
the drug-induced m o d e l p s y c h o s i sa p p r o a c ht o s c h i z o p h r e n i a("1 9 1 4 , p . 5 7 ) . R e -
searchers recheckedthe natureof schizophrenic symptomsand concludedthat the psy-
c h e d e l i cd r u g sd i d n o t a c r u a l l yp r o d u c et h o s es y m p t o m sT . h e s ef i n d i n g sr e v c a l e dt h e
psychedelicdmg approachto schizophreniaas a dead end, and researchresources
moved to more promisingmethods.The searchgoes on for a nerrrtoxic substanceor
n e u r a ld e f e c (r h a ( m i g h t c a u s es c h i z o p h r e n iscy m p t o m s .I m p r o v e dt h e o r i e sr e s u l t c d
f r o m t h i s e p i s o d ea n d a r e ,i r o n i c a l l y ,o u r l e g a c yf r o m H o f f e r ,O s m o n d ,a n d S m y t h i e s .

PoliticalUse of Research

One rewardfor studyingsocial reseaJch will come as greaterp-owerto analyzethe

claims that affecr your personal decisions. Moreover, you mus( learn about researchin
order to entercenain professions. Besides personal and careerreasons,you needto un-
dersrand s o c i a lr e s e a r c ihn o r d e r r o j o i n fully i n t h e c i v i c p r o c e s sI.n c r e a s i n g l ys,i g n i f -
i c a n t s o c i a lp o l i c y d e c i s i o n sd e r i v e f r o m c a u s a lc l a i m s t h a t d e p e n do n r e s e a r c he v i -
d e n c eJ. u d g e sm , embero s f Congress, a n d h e a d so f h e a l t he , d u c a t i o na, n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l
agenciesare all makingdecisionsbasedin pan on thc data suppliedby researchers. As
a v o t i n gc i t i z e n y, o u w i l l c a s ty o u r b a l l o tb e s to n l y i f y o u c a n m a k e y o u r o w n j u d g m ent
of the social researchthat informs policy debatcs.
A dramaricexampleof social researchaffectingpolicy comesfrom the Coleman
r e p o n( C o l e m a ne r a l . , 1 9 6 6 ) .C o l e m a na n d h i s c o l i e a g u essu n ' e y e dt h e e d u c a t i o n aolp -
p o n u n i t i e sa n d a c h i e v e m e n tosf a g r e a t m a n y A m e r i c a ns t u d e n ( sT. h e y c o n c l u d c d ,
a m o n go r h e rt h i n g s r, h a tb l a c k s t u d e n t sd i d b e t t e ri n i n t e g r a t e d t h a ni n r a c i a l l yi s o l a t e d
s c h o o l sT . h e C o l e m a nr e p o n s e e m e dt o s u p p o n t h e c a u s a l a i m t h a t d c s e g r e g a t i o n
c l
w o u l d h e l p e q u a l i z ea c h i e v e m e nTt .h i s e v i d e n c eb e c a m et h e m o s ( f r e q u e n t l yc i t e d s c i .
entific suppon for schoolintegrationby forcedbusing.
Jencksand his colleagues(1912) reanalyzedthe same data but arrived at a rival
e x p l a n a t i o fno r t h e c o n n e c t i o no f i n t e g r a t i o na n d a c h i e v e m e nC ( .g l e m a n ' ss t u d y c o m -
14 Thc Logicof SocialRcsearch

p a r e d a l r e a d yi n t e g r a t e db l a c k s w i r h s e g r e g a t e bd l a c k s .O p p o n e n t so f b u s i n gc o u l d
"argue that the high test scoresof blacks in naturally integratedschools reflect the
greatermotivationor resourcesof black parentswho put their childrcn in desegregated
schools"(Jenckset al., 1972,p. 99). Thus the Colemanevidencemay not apply to new
d e s e g r e g a t i obny p u b l i c p o l i c y . I f l e a m i n gs l e m sm o r e f r o m p a r e n t a m l o t i v a t i o nt h a n
s c h o o li n r e g r a r i o nb.u s i n gw o u l d h a v el i r r l ee f f e c t .J e n c k sf o u n dt h a t b u s i n gc a np r o d u c e
' s m a l l a c h i e v e m e ngta i n so r l o s s e sd e p e n d i n g o n t h e s p e c i f i cc o n d i t i o n so f t h e i n t e g r a -
r i o n . H e e m p h a s i z ehso w l i u l e s c h o o lc o n d i t i o n sa f f e c ta t t a i n m e nat n d h o w l i t t l e b o t h
schoolconditionsand achievement affectlater incomelevels.Just as we are still search-
ing for the causeof schizophrenia, so rve continueto ponderthe relationshipof cduca-
t i o n t o s o c i a lj u s l i c e .
T h i s c a s es h o w sh o w b o r h s i d e so f a m a j o r p o l i t i c a lq u e s t i o nc a n c i t e h i g h - q u a l -
i r y r e s e a r c tho s u p p o nt h e i rv i e w s .Y o u m a y h a v et o d e c i d ca t t h e p o l l s w h i c h v i e w y o u
f a v o r , i f n o t o n t h e q u e s t i o no f b u s i n g ,t h e n s o m eo ( h e rd i v i s i v e i s s u e .I f y o u h a v c a
c l o s e dm i n d o n t h eq u e s t i o ny. o u m a y f i n d s o m es o c i a ls c i e n t i sw t i t h e v i d e n c et h a ts u p -
p o r t sy o u r v i e w . B u t i f y o u r v a n tt o s u p p o r t h e b e s tp o s s i b l ep o l i c y .y o u m u s td o s o m e
r v o r k .Y o u w i l l n e e dt o k n o w h o r v( o j u d g ec o m p e t i n ge x p l a n a t i o nosf t h ed a t af o r y o u r -
self'

SUMMARY

T h e b a t t l eo u e rr h ee f f e c t so f I e a do n i n r e l l i g e n cseh o w st h c n e e df o r s k e p t i c i s m in using
s o c i a lr e s e a r c hD. r a w i n gc a u s a li n f e r e n c efsr o m s o c i a lr e s e a r c h c a n p r o v ed i f F r c u lat n d
u n c e n a i nP . h i l o s o p h e rosf k n o w l e d g ee v e n d i s p u t et h e d e g r e et o w h i c h w e c a n k r o w
the realworld.
S o c i a lr e s e a r c p h r o c e e d sb y r a i s i n et e n t a t i v ee x p l a n a t i o n sm, a k i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s .
a n d t h e n s e e i n gh o w w e l l t h e p r o p o s e di d e a sf i t t h e d a t a .T h e c l a i m t h a t Ä c a u s e s8 ,
f o r e x a m p l e r, e q u i r e so b s e r v a t i o nssh o r v i n ot h a t ( l ) A a n dB c o - v a r y :( 2 ) A o c c u r sb e -
f o r e B ; a n d ( 3 ) n o r i v a l e x p l a n a t i o fno r t h eA - w i t h - 8 a s s o c i a t i orne m a i n sp l a u s i b l eT. h e
l a s tr u l e r e q u i r e st h a l w e d e s i g nr e s e a r c tho p r e v e n ta l l p o s s i b l ea l t e m a t i v ew a y so f e x -
p l a i n i n go b s e r v e dl i n k a g e sT. h i s t e x tc o v e r st h e v a r i o u st y p e so f t h r e a t st o r e s e a r ccho n -
c Iu s io n s .
W i t h t h e s er u l e s ,w e c a n a s s e s cs a u s a cl l a i m si n a p u b l i c w a y . A s s e r t i o n b sased
- o n s u c he v i d e n c eh a v ep r o v e nm o r e c o n v i n c i n -tgh a nc l a i m sb a s e do n f a i t h o r a u t h o r i t y .
S o c i a lr e s e a r c cha n p l a y a n i m p o n a n tr o l e i n m a k i n gp e r s o n a lp, r o f e s s i o n a l , - a p nudb l i c
d e c i s i o n sF. o r t h e s er e a s o n se,v e r y o n ec a nb e n e f i tb y l e a m i n gt o r e a dr e s e a r cchr i t i c a l l y .

EXERCISES

l . F i n d a n e \ \ ' s p ü poerrp o p u l a m r r s a z i n ea n i c l et h a tc l a i m sa c a u s arl e l a t i o n s h i p .

C h e c k t o s e e r v h e t h e(rh e c a u s a l i n k r e s t so n e v i d e n c eo r o n a u t h o r i t yo r t a i t h .D o e s
t h e e v i d e n c es h o w a n a s s o c i a t i oonf t h e r r v ov a r i a b l e sa n d t h a t r h e c a u s ec o m e sb e f o r e
 The Logicof SocialRcscarch 15

t h e e f f e c t ?F i n a l l y ,s c e i f y o u c a n r h i n k o f a r i v a l e x p l a n a t i o fno r t h i s a s s o c i a t i o nR. e -
p e a tt h i s e x e r c i s es e v e r arl i m e su n r i l y o u c a n d o i t r o u t i n e l yf o r a n y c a u s a lc l a i m t h a t
you hear (for example,via televisionor from professors).

2 . F o r a h a n d yc o l l e c r i o no f c a u s a lc l a i m sw i t h a l t e r n a t i ve x p l a n a t i o n ss.e e l h e
book Äiru/ Hl,potheses by Huck and Sandler(1979).Some of their 100 problemsrely
o n c o m m o ns e n s ea n d a c r e a t i v es k e p t i c i s ma, n d y o u c a n p r o b a b l ys o l v e t h e m n o w .
_Orhersassumeknowledgeof ropicsthat appearin the follo*'ing chapters.Try your hand
at some of the problemsnow and again later after you have read this text.

K E YT E R M S

Causal Paradigm
Covariation P a r a d i g ms h i f t
Descriptive P l a u s i b l er i v a l h y p o t h e s i s
Empirical Positivism
Epistemology Pseudoscience
Fallibilism Realism
Falsifiabilit.v Replication
I n du c t i o n Skepticism
Integrity Suggestion
Ontology Theory