La Hainzelin

2011/11/16

Methodology of social sciences Generalization

We can use the term generalization in every field as the act or the instance of generalizing . Take a proposition which has already ability, function on some cases and extend it to every cases as a law. By this action, we make our proposition an axiom, an universal truth. In the field of social sciences, generalization is more specific : To extend the results of an observation on some cases (representative sample) to all possible cases. For example, we want to know if french people like the newspaper Le Monde , we will make a representative sample (for a good fiability, about 1000 persons) with the same characteristic of the mother population which is the french population . Then, we will ask to this representative sample if they like Le Monde and extend the result to all the french population. In social sciences, in philosophy, there are two kinds of generalization : Existential generalization : to one or more members of it Universal generalization : any statement ascribing a property to every member of a class; But, for me and as we can see by universal, the term universal generalization and the action of generalizing is, however, not specific so can we really talk about universal generalization in social sciences ?

Bernard Dantier in his introduction of Textes de mthodologie en sciences sociales choisis et prsents par Bernard Dantier (Texts of methodology of social sciences choosen and presentated by Bernard Dantier) explore the same issue. After an investigation in sociology as social sciences, after the comparison between the facts from the data collected experience and the facts considered in the hypothesis, there is the issue of generalization of the instructions produced by this audit. The researcher can claim, to promote,

justify or complete its process, what he found in the circumstances particular his research is or would be observable in all other circumstances, in other places and other times. (Rough translation from french). I bolded the reason why a researcher would say that but how can the researcher prove it ? And, at least, is it possible to prove it ? We can't take an affirmation that works on some cases and extend it to every circumstances, places, times... only to promote, justify or complete its process in social sciences because they are always moving, evolving, changing from a circumstance to another, from a place to another, from a time to another. To prove something like that, the study must be done on each people in each circumstances, places or times so it will be no longer a generalization (take the result on some people and generalize it to everyone). Just as the public opinion and the representative sample. This kind of way to generalize ideas takes the main opinion and applies it to everybody, it then postulates that everybody has the same opinion. Let's see Bourdieu's three postulates about the public opinion : Tout le monde a une opinion sur tout. (Everybody has an opinion on everything) Toutes les opinions se valent. (All opinions are equal) On doit avoir un consensus sur les questions poses. (We must have a consensus on the issues) We believe that each person has an opinion on everything, but Bourdieu shows that it is not, there are many issues on which we are ignorant. Also when we do surveys, every expressed opinion are added to others, so we consider that they are identical, so this is the postulate that all opinions are equal so not only one public and universal opinion. Some people who have no real opinion will emit fanciful, irrational "opinions" which are inconsistent with other informed opinions. (Ethos) For Bourdieu, and as we can see in the title of his book, there is no public opinion so no generalization of opinion, idea in social sciences.

Let's take as an example an election. During a campaign, there are opinion polls done on people. Some people answer without knowing anything, some answer something they would not answer later after the campaign, some answer what their close friends or family answer, some does not even answer... That's why there is what we call rate uncertainty which is about 5% of the result and confidence interval (about 3%) so even after a huge survey done on people's answer, people's behaviour (are they really going to vote ? Are they really going to vote for this party?)... The result of a poll is not sure and not definitive. For the french election in 2002, we did not except at all that Jean-Marie Le Pen was going to be in the second tour because his party was far far away in every polls. Indeed, people's support on a candidate can change according to his/her campaign, discurse or according to the time, if social benefits or economy are not good at this time, they will vote for someone able to fix that up. Or according to the place, in the country side, they are afraid of

security, in city afraid of homeless... Again, for the french election in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected because his campaign was mainly about security and at this time security rate was not good according to the mass medias.

By this example and these cases that support my main idea, we can see that universal generalization does not exist in social sciences. Indeed, mass media, polling institute, institutional organization and so on... try to generalize an idea, make everybody think and behave the same way they except them to. But in social sciences, it can't be applied, even if 99.9% of the population act the same, there is still that 0,01% of the population that act in another way, we can't prevent and change it. Moreover, there are so many factors, as we could see in each of my essays, that influence people's toughts, behaviours, which we can't control or even know.

References : Extract of Textes de mthodologie en sciences sociales choisis et prsents par Bernard Dantier on Jean-Claude Passeron : Les limites de la gnralisation sociologique ou la sociologie entre histoire et exprimentation. L'opinion publique n'existe pas , Pierre Bourdieu 1982 , George Orwell Encyclopedia L'internaute Wikipedia